IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / O {./ y «<=. MP. V ^ 1.0 i.l 1.25 m 1^ '" IK " IIM ij i IM 2.0 U III 1.6 V] a .T^ ^-W ,^' '# O/^^ y!^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY 14580 (716) 872-4503 iV ^^ \ \ 4^ w.^ O^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/JCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has 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. n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ 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) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ D D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfiimd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression I — I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 fllmies d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. r~^ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 7 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du 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. Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenqant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — h»- (meaning 'CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est fiimd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 -pwfwplp ^ 'f^ s, X ^. "^ '/f_ tr-p^m'^^V^t^tTZe'^ty^tyi,^/ y^ a.^:^:^^^^ /- INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE IN THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO. HISTORICAL AND PRACTICAL. REPORT ON THE SUBJECT, PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF A COMMITTEE OF THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO ON THE INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE. .p. BY J. GEORGE HODGINS, M.A., LL.D., BARRISTER-AT-LAW, MemhHv of the Toronto Diocesan Synod, 1862- mn ; Honorary Lay Se. of the Synod, 1S70-1S76, 1878-lSm. tcretary REVISED AND ENLARGED, AS A PAPER ON THE SUBJECT. Rkprinted for tjie Author Bv ROWSELL & HUTCHISON, PRINTERS, TORONTO. 1896. X T I CONTENTS. Pa(»k Report of the Committee on the Increase of the Episcopate 5 Resolution of the Committee and Preliminary Remarks «*> First and 8iibse(iuent Movements by Bishop Strachan towards a Division of the Diocese of Toronto (Huron and OntJirio) 1851-1862 6 Proceedings and Views of Bishop Bethune on the Division of the Diocese, 187-2-1873 « Setting apart of the Diocese of Niagara, 1873, 1874 7 Standstill in the Diocese of Toronto since 1873 — Great Progress Elsewlic'-e. . . 8 Examples of the Expansion of the Church in New York and Pennsylvania .... H Effect of the Restrictive "Rule" of tlie House of Bishops in the Diocese of Toronto — its History H Further Ktl'orts of Bishop Strachan to Increase the Episcopate 9 The Colonial Minister in favour of the Freedom of the Church in Canada. ... 10 Imperial Origin of the Bishops' Restrictive "Rule" relating to $40,000 Endowment, page 10 — not now binding 12 Restrictive Rules of Toronto Dioceae and of the House of Bishops— Comment of Dr. Bovell tliereon 11 Effect of the Upper Canada Synod Act of 1856, 1857, on the Royal Prerogative 12 Does the Imperial Picclesiastical Law Govern the Church in Canada ? Iu({uiry, 13 Relaxation by the House of Bishops of their Restrictive " Rule " 14 Non-action of the Lower House of the Provincial Synod on the Bishops' Mes- sage thereon 15 The Toronto Synod Report of 1895 on the Increase of the Episcopate did not reach the House of Bishops 15 The Legality of the Restrictive " Rule" of the House of Bishops Questioned. 10 This Restrictive "Rule" not fully carried out in the Dioceses of Huron or Niagara 17 How the Episcopal Endowment Funds of the Dioceses of Huron and Niagara were Increased 17 Application of Mission Funds to the Missionaiy Bishop's Stipend 18 Unwisdom of Imposing Restrictive Rules on Diocesan Synods 18 Two Committees of the Lower House Various Plans of securing a BiHho])"s Stipend discussed 20 How the American Church secures a Bishop's Stipend 20 Striking Case of Bishop Whi|)ple, of Minnesota 21 The Desirability of having Small and Workable Dioceses 22 A Committee of the Lower House of the I'rovincial Synod on the Infrequency of Episcopal Visitations 22 ^1 4 Paqk The Churches (Omitting .Stations) to be Kpiacopally Viaited in the Dioceses of Toronto and Huron 22 Power of the House of Bishops to Impose the |40,000 "Rule" on Diocesan Synods Questioned 28 Reply of the liiahop of Montreal in regard to the $40,000 " Rule " of the House of Bishops 23 Reply of the Archbishop of Ontario on the Origin of the "Rule" of the House of Bishops 23 Resolution of the Upper House on "Securities" for the Episcopal Bishops' Fund 24 Opinion of Legal Gentlemen asked as to the Validity of the "Rule" of the House of Bisliops 24 Historical Dates of Proceedings affecting the Diocese of Toronto 25 A Bishop's Letters Patent do not confer Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 25 The Synod Act of 185(5, 1857, superseded the Royal Prerogative 26 Opinion of Bishop Strachan on the Provisions of the Synod Act of 1856, 1857. 27 Division of Dioceses under the Constitution of the Church in Ireland 28 The Provisions of Canon IX, of tlie Provincial Synod of 1871 Considered The Church Temporalities Acts of 1841 and 1866 Confer no Rights upon Bishops '.. 29 Two Special Subjects for the Consideration of the Toronto Synod 29 Church of England Population of the Province of Ontario 30 Number of Members of Various Churches in the Diocese of Toronto 31 Religious Census of the Province of Ontario, 1891 31 Religious Census of the City of Toronto, 1881-1891 31 Change in Membership of the Church of England in the Five Dioceses of the the Province of Ontario 31 Communicants in the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada 32 Opinions of Leading Churchmen on the Increase of the Episcopate 32 Example of New Sees becoming Centres of Church Life, viz., the Dioceses of Huron, Ontario and Niagara 32 Statistical Summary relating to the Four Dioceses of Toronto, Huron, Ontario and Niagara 33 General Summary derived from the Foregoing Facts 34 ^ APPENDICES. Number 1 : Abstract of the Minutes of the Committee on the Increase of the Episcopate 36 Number 2 : Replies from the Rural Deaneries in the Proposed Eastern Dio- ceses, viz. , East York, Durham, Northumberland and Haliburton 36 Number :-i : Opinions of Legal Gentlemen as to the Power of the Provincial and Diocesan Synods, and of the House of Bishops, viz. : — 1. Leo H. Davidson, Esquire, D. C. L. , Q.C. , Montreal 38 2. John A. Worrell, Esquire, B.C.L., Q.C, Toronto 40 3. Charles R. W. Biggar, Esquire, M. A., Q.C, Toronto 40 4. Frank F: Hodgins, Esquire, Toronto 42 APPENDIX P. REPORT ON THE INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE. The Committee on the Increase of the Episcopate beg to submit, for the information and perusal of the Members of the Synod, a valuable Paper on the question referred, to this Committee, prepared with great labour by Dr. Hodgins, at the request of the Committee. Synod Office, 15th of May, 1896. John Langtry, Chairman. 3(5 m REPORT, OR PAPER, ON THE INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE IN THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO. By J. George Hodgins, M.A., LL.D., a Member of the Synod Committee "On the Increase of the Episcopate." At a meeting of the Committee on the Increase of the Episcopate, lield soon after the Session of the Provincial Synod, the followinor Resolution was passed : — ' ''Ji( wired, That Dr. Hodgins be rec [nested to prepare a Full and Comprehen- sive Keport on tlie Increase of the Episcopate, embodying the opinions which have been so strongly expressed by leading Churchmen on this subject ; and also to diustrate tlie growth of Dioceses already set apart from that of Toronto."' In accordance with this request, the following Report on the Increase of the Episcopate was prepared and submitted to the Committee for revision and approval. Modifications were then made in it. But, when it came before the Executive Committee, it was discussed, and its state- ments criticised. Finally those Members of the Executive Committee, who were Members of the Committee on the Increase of the Ejjiscopate, in order to avoid any prolonged discussion on the subject in tiie Synod, agreed uj)on the Report at the head of this Paper. The Committee having thus been relieved of all responsibility for the facts and state- ments in the Paper, it has been largely restored to the form in which it was originally prepared. L i ... ^jx^s^^mimAJasmaamt T 6 The subject of the *' increase of the Episcopate " — on which I have been reciue.sted to prepare a Report, — is of such importance that it has been deemed desirable to deal with it in a two-fold form : — First, in regard to its early Provincial history, and Secondly, in its practical aspect, as it affects this Diocese. It has, therefore, been considered necessary to review the whole question, and to restate the causes which have induced Members of the 8ynod to bring the matter fully and prominently forward for reconsideration. First AND Subsequent Movements towards a Division of the Diocese OP Toronto into those of Huuon, Ontario, etc., 1851-1862. The older Members of the Synod will remember how strongly the distinguished Prelate, who was the first Bishop of Toronto, j>ressed the question of a division of his Diocese on the attention of Members of tiie Church, as long ago as 1851. It is a matter of our local Church history that Bishop Strachan's more matured scheme of 1853, of dividing his Diocese into four parts, was successfully carried out, so far as three of thesf Dioceses were con- cerned, in 1853 and 1857. The fourth Diocese of his scheme, (that of St. Mary's), was not set apart for some years later. In 186i), the question of a further division of the Diocese of Toronto, as it then stood, — after Huron and Ontario had been separatey tlie Synod (m tlie increase of the Episcopate beg to report that a meeting has been held, in pursuance of the Resolution of Hynod " After a full discussion, it was decided unanimously that the Diocese should be divided into four parts, as recommended in the Reports of the original Com- mittee " (of 1869).... The Synod then proceeded to deal with the }>oundaries of the four Dioceses, as proposed in the c 'iginil Report of 1869, and fixed those of Algonia, as they now stand. ifter considering the boundaries of the other Dioceses, as proposed, the Synod passed the following Resolution : — " That no further steps be taken in sul)-dividing the Diocese, as tliere is no immediate necessity for so doing, and also a prol)a))ility tliat, by conference with tlie Bisliop and Synod of Ontario, new data for the contemplated Diocese may be obtained."" (Synod of ]^'7o, patjes 57, 5S.) Sote. — That such co ifercnce was deemed desirable at tlie time is clear from the fact that the followinjj draft of resolui 'jii on the suhjeet was ■,>rei)ared, but was not propo-sed ; "That the ctjnsideration of the further division of the Diocese be deferred till next year, and that a small Committee be appointed to conier with the Diocese of Ontario with a view to tlie formation of an Eastern Diocese, to be coinjiosed of the western part of the Diocese of Ontario and the eastern part of Toi-onto." Setting apart of the Diocese of Niagaua, 1873, 1874. The following modification was made in the foregoing Report of 1873. on the division of the Niagara Diocese: — " That the words, ' North i},nd Soutii,' and also the words, ' With the Towns of Hamiltcm and Niagara," be struck out ami the words, 'The Counties of," be prefixed to the words, ' Haldimand, Monck,' etc. — the Western, (or Niagara), Diocese thus consisting of the Counties of Hahlimand, Monck, Wellaad, Lincoln, Wentworth and Halton." " That the income of the Bishop of the Western See, (Niagara), be not le.s.s than 1.3,000 per annum, irrespective of any sliare in the present Episcopal Endow- ment Fund," etc. 8 Other additions were made to the Report, and it was then adopted by the Synod, as amended. [Synod of 1873, page 68.) As the western and other parts of the Diocese of Ontario have now become a separate Diocese, it is not necessary to seek to incorporate any part of it into the proposed eastern division of the Diocese of Toronto. In the following year, 1874, the Diocese of Niagara was set formally apart, and, in March, 1875, its first Bishop was elected. Standstill in the Diocese of Toronto, since 1873 Pkogress Elsewhere. -Great After this, no further efforts were made by the Synod of the Diocese of Toi'onto to carry out the remainder of its scheme of 1869-1873, for the final setting apart of the Eastern Diocese, as agreed upon in 1873. The inaction of this Synod in this important matter is the more unaccountable, from the fact that, l»oth in England and in the United States, a very different, and a highly progressive policy, has prevailed. In England, there were only 26 Bishops in 1873, now there are two Archbishops, 33 Diocesan Bishops, 17 Suffragans, and 7 Coadjutors; or 59 in all. In the United States, there were only 48 Bishops in 1874, now there are 79, — a marvellous increase, showing the zeal and energy of brother Churchmen in these Countries to promote the expansion and well-being of the Church in the future. And yet, what is our record, as a Diocese, in this important matter during the same time] Positively nothing ; but rather a disinclination to do anything in the way of provid- ing for the episcopal expansion or the Church of England in this part of the Ecclesiastical Province, in the near future. Examples of the Expansion of the Church in New York AND Pennsylvania. The details of the expansion of the Church in the United States are thus given by the Reverend Doctor Hutchins, Secretary to the House of Deputies of the General Convention, in a recent Letter received from him. He states that, in 1868, "The State of New York had two Dioceses, with-r)0,0()l communicants. At present it has five Dioceses, with a sixth in immediate prospective [Rochester]. The number of communicants in these five Dioceses is now 129,176, or an increase of nearly 80,000 (71», 11.")). " l^ennsylvania, with one Diocese, liad 22,041 coimnunicants in I860. Now it has three Dioceses, with nearly (i0,000 (08,89.1) communicants." Chas. L. Hutchins. y<)te — It may be interesting,' to know that the nuniher of conuuniiioants in tlie United States reported to the last Protestant Episcopal Convention in 1895 wax {ivt'.s the following returnw of the Church of Eni^laiid in the North-VVest: in British Columbia, "i-ijOlK ; in Manitol)a, 30,852; in the organized territories, 14,100; in the unorganized territories, 1,800; total, 0!),437. Effect of the IIestkictive "Rule" op the House of Bishops on THE Diocese"'of Toronto ; ITS History. And yet, in the face of these and other facts, strongly pointing to the great desirability of an increase of the episcopate in our present extensive Diocese, notiiing has been done by our Synod in the matter for more than twenty years. No doubt the financial question involved in a division of tiie Dio- cese has had an effect in preventing practical action being taken in this matter. There being some misapprehension as to how the Church in this Diocese has become tied and bound financially, in its efforts to increase its episcopate, an historical statement of tlie case, as given by Bishop Strachan, will be appropriate in this place. In his Charge of May, 1851, the Bishop .said : — "Soon after my arrival in London [on behalf of Trinity College], the Dioceso of Quebec was divided into two Sees, — Quel)ec and Montreal. This encouraged me to submit to the proper authorities some coiisidi'rations in favour of dividing the Diocese of Toronto into two or more Bisiioprics. . . .1 contented myself with sending a brief statement of the facts to the. . . . Archbisiiops and Bishops forming the (Council appointed to arrange measures, in cotujert with Her Majesty's Govern- ment, for the erecti(m and endowment of additional Bishoprics in the C;V)lonies. . . . "I would, however, suggest the wisdom of taking steps without delay to establish an Ej)iscopal Pund witliin the I'rovinee. For it is very desirable, as a general rule, that oin- Bishops be st^lected from among our colonial clergy ; but there will be great difticulty in efl'ecting this so long as the emlowments for their suppoit are furnished by the Government, or its friends in England. .. .C^i.v/iop iStrachan'fi Charge, ISol, page 4- J Further Efforts of Bishop Strachan to Increase the Episcopate. In his Charge of October, 18.5.}, the Bishop again leferred to this matter a.s follows : — "Last spring (18.")3), I deemed it my duty to bring the necessity of the division of this Diocese a second time under the notice of the Council appointed to arraui,'!' measures, in concert with Her Majesty's (iovernment, for the erection and endowment of additional Bishoprics in the colonies. . ..A copy of this Letter was forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonics ... The Secretary ' replied in a veiy kind and t. turteous urinner, but the want of fumls for moderate endowments appeared the great impediment. ' " The Bisho]) then goes on to state that, under the auspices of the Bishop of London, a movement was being made to raise £45,000 in England to establish Bishoprics in the (Jolonies ; — that Capetown had the first claim ; but that Canada would receive a share, and It J I i I 10 ' " Kingston is named as the nex*; to be provided for.",..." I believe " (the Bishop added), "that the two great Societies have, with their accustomed lilicrality, voted a consi(leral)le sum as a beginning towards the endowment of Kingston."'. . . . I *' repeat the suggestion wliicli 1 made in my his^t oliaige ". . . . "of the wisdom of taking steps to estaldish an Episcopd Fund within the Diocese. It is desii'able that our Bishops should in future, as a general rule, be selected from among our colonial clergy. But there will )>e dithculty in t'tfecting this, so long as the endow- ments for their support are wholly furnished from Kugland."" (t'hanje of 1S53, pages IS, I4. ) The Colonial Ministeu in favour of the Freedom of the Church in Canada. Ill May, 185(5, the Bishop in his Charge, referred to what had been done in this matter since he had last addressed the Synod in 1853. Keports were also presented to the Synod and resolutions passed on the subject. In June, 1857, Bisho[) Strachan, having had j)revious eorrespondence with the Imperial Government on the sul)jeet of a division of the Dio- cese, reported the result as follows : — " On the l()th of January, IS.ll) I ])ublished a 'Pastoral Letter,' recom- mending the establishuient of an Kpiscopal Finid ...The advantage of having commenced this Fund at so early a j)eriod in facilitating our obje(;t is numifest from (Colonial Secretary) Sir \Villiam Molesworth's desi>atch to the Provincial Govermnent of tlic 4th October, IS.")."), which is, in a measure, jncdicated on the fact that some such endowment woulil be fortiicoming, of which he liad, j)erhaps, learned something from his correspondence with tlie Provincial Government. He says : " ' I am yself strongly of o])inion that the desire of freedom of action and self-government on behalf of the Church of England in Canada, is just and reason- able ; and as it appears to me, the division of the Diocese of Toronto is so much desired, that it may be very inconvenient to postpone it.' " ' 1 have to inform you that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take the necessary steps for this purpose, whenever desired to do so ; and that they will recommend to Her Majesty, for appointment to the new Bishoprics, such clergymen as you may designate to tiiem, after consulting the lii.«hop and such authorities of the Church of England in the colony as you may think advisable, and taking such precautions as to the sutticiency of the endowment as you may judge necessary.' " Downing Street, 4th October, IS.")'). William Moleswokth. Imperial Origin of the Bishoi'.s' Restr[otive "Bulk." The Bishop then adds : Tiiat the collection of the Episcopal Fund " Was revived with redoubled ardour, on I'eceipt of Sir William Molesworth's encouraging dispatch, and had amouinited. . . .to 1" 10,500 curreiuiy, well secured, and which the Governor-(Teneral has acce[)ted, in the meantime, as sutticient', to enable him to reconnnend a clergyman for ajjpointment to the See, but with the cljar and distinct luiderstanding that it should, .is soon as practicable, be increased to i" 12,500 currency, and, if possible, to f 12,500 sterling. " (Synod of 1S57, page 7. ) Thus we see that, up to 1857, the ap[)ointnient of our Bishops, on application V)eing made to it, was in the hands of the Tmp(!rial (lovern- ment, while the fixing of the amount of the Episcopal Endowment Fund 11 i was also entirely at the discretion of that Government. And even after we, as a Church, were freed from this two-fold contrcl over our affairs, traditional respect for the Imperial system still lingered among us. In accordance, therefore, with the Episcopal Endowment standard, as fixed by the Governor-General in 1857, the Synod, in 186u, agi-eed that the stipend of the Bishop of the Diocese should be .f 4,000 a year, indepen- dently of H See House. Restrictive Rule of our Own Diocese, and of the House of Bishops, — Comment of Dr.I?Bovell thereon. In 1867, following very strictly the English precedent in regard to Bishops, our Synod ininosed this further restriction on our freedom of action as a Synod in the choice of liishop.s, lo whom might be assigned moderate incomes. "Any clergyman elected to l)e a liisl'.op, and holding, at the time of such election, any preferment or benetice, shall resign sncli preferment or benefice prior to his consecration." (Conatitution of tht Toronto Synod, adopted in 1S70, and litill in force.) Doctor (afterwards the Reverend) James Bovfll, the first Lay Secre- tary of the Synod of the Diocese, and my immediate predecessor in that office, states, (in his cominerit:iry on the Synod, Con.stitution, Rules of Order, etc., in 18o8,) that this clause was "enacted to prevent the sin of simony." He further says : — "The law of ^^.nglaml declares that 'all the dignities and benefices, which a Bishop was possessed of before his election, become void as soon as he has been consecrated '.... According to our present arrangement, each new Diocese must make provision to the extent of t'10,0{X) before the Royal License to elect can issue, or even before the Crown will set ajjart a Diocese. IJy the operation of this [imperial] nde a really missioncary Episcopate is almost impossible." That the 7th section of our present Constitution, (which requires a Bishop-elect to resign his benefice,) was felt to be unduly onerous in the early history of our Church in Upper Canada, is evident from the remarks upon it in Dr. Bovell's commentaiy on the first Constitution of our Synod. He s;iid : — "It is but just to the Members of the Church that, in the choice f>f its Chief Pastor, the widest possible field should l)e thrown open from which the .selections may be made. The Church may, hoNvever, readju.st its patrimony, and cause its property to be redistributed ; and this has been done over and over again. ]f, from necessity, the Church should decide to make a particulai' parish the IJishop's Cathedral Ciiurch, there can be no objection to her obtaining a law to make sucli particulai- parish Church ' the Cathedral ' ; and. in the event of its being vacant, constituting it such, setting apart its revenues to the sustentation of the Bishop, who, as in the United States, is not necessarily forced to free himself from par- ochial duties. If such a course could be adopted in Canada, a very heavy outlay would be saved in this new country to tiie missionary uses of the Church. " If th'j Hectories of London, 'I'oronto ami Kingston, to wit, as they become vacant, vveie to be .selected as Cathedral Ciiurches, and the emoluments assigned to the sustentation of the liishoi)s (on certain conditions) ... .surely nnich of the burthen which now presses so heavily on our Church in this respect would be 12 lightened. It is a very different thing to compound with a Rector in possession of a Parish, and to constitute a vacant Farisli a Cathedral, or Bishop's Church. In the United States the Bishop is very frequently also in charge of a Parish." (CoU'ttitiition and Canons of the. Syuod of the Diocem of Toronto, vnth Explanatory Notes and Comments by James Bovell, Lay Secretary to the Synod, Toronto, IS-'iS, pai/es 41, 43.) As a matter of fact, this suggestion was carried into practical eflect by the Church Society of the Diocese of Huron, and Bisliop Cronyn was appointed by it Rector of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, after his conse- cration in 1858. He continued Rector until 1866, — eight years. In his remarks, at a Vestry meeting of St. Paul's Cathedral, held on the 2nd of April, 1866, Bishop Cronyn stated that, " At the first meeting of the C!hurch Society, after J came back (from Eng- land) it was pressetl upon me that I should accept the Rectory, and continue to hold it until a .See House was provided. After the Church Society was incorpor- ated, (in 1)S.")S) at a regular meeting (of the Church Society), they placed me in the position again as a Rector of St. P;ud"s, with the understanding that 1 was to con- tinue in the occnjjancy of that Rectory till a suitalile house was provided, accord- ing to the pledge given by the Diocese to His Excellency the Governor-General." It is quite within our right, therefore, that, in the future election of our Bisiiop.s, we, as a Synod, should definitely determine de novo the two- fold question of stipend and retention of benefice. Dr. Bovell was o)ie of i-he most conservative of Churchmen, but he gave utterance to views which would, l)y many in the Synod, be con- sidered as revolutionary, if not socialistic, ecclesiastically, when, in continuance of the preceding remarks, he suggests the " Propriety of putting all tlie fluids of the Cljurch in commission for equal and just distribution ; so that all may receive their dues from one common fund, Bishops as well as Priests." (Comincntary on the Constitution, etc., j)f^H^ 4'^-) The Imi'rkiai- Ri;lk as to thk §40,000 Endowment not now Binding. From the foregoing remarks of Doctor Bovell, it will be seen that the restrictive " Rule " which has been adopted by the House of Bisho])S M'as really an Imperial om^, belonging only and exclusively to a ])eriod in our Diocesan history when Her Miijesty s Government had alone the power to create Dioceses in Upper Canada and nominate Bishops to the Sees thus cieated. The power lo impose this "Hule" on Diocesan Synods vanished in 1850, 1857, when the Imperial (lovernment relin- quished its right to create Dioceses and appoint Bishops. Effect of tub Canada Synod Act of 1850-7 on the Royal • PKEItO(JATIVE. This stiiteinont is fully borne out by the Law Officers of the Crown, (in a communication i"ade by then),) to the Duke of Newcastle, the Colonial Secretary, dated the 5th of February, 1802. They quote the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in 1857, who said : — " 'I'lie recent h)cal Act of the Parliament of Canada [/.'., vSynod Act of 18.50-7] confers upon any General Assembly convened witliin the Province of Canada power 13 li to frame a new ecclesiastical local Constitution for that Province ; which power, if exercised, will thereby supersede and abrogate the prerogative and constitutional powers of Her Majesty, and may retrospectively annul any act done in the exer- cise of those powers." ( Prorincial Synod lieport of 186:^, jtaijt 8'>. ) Does Imperial Ecclesiastical Law Govern the Church in Canada — Enquiry 1 But still the impression lingered among members of the Chinch of Eng- land in Canada that we were bound to follow English Church rules, and even to be governed by her ecclesiastical laws. In order to set this matter at rest, steps were taken by the Toronto Synod to determine the question as to whether, and to what extent, was our Church in this Province subject to English Church law, either under the administration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or other Imperial ecclesiastical author- ity. The Synod, therefore, in 1856, appointed a Committee: — " To examine what part of the Ecclesiastical law of England i,ind of the Churches in Scotland and in the United States, in connection with the CUnirch of England, is applicable in this portion of the Church ; to advise such additions as may be re({uired by the circumstances of this Country, and to report to the next meeting of the Synod a body of ( anons corresponding with the residts at which they may arrive. " (Synod of IS')'!, pa(ji o'l. ) The Committee did not report in 1857, but, on motion of the Chair- man, (the Reverend Doctor Beaven), the following more comprehensive resolution was passed : — " That a Committee be appointed for examining into the existing Canons of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the laws of the United Kingdom applicable thereto ; and to report on such Canons as, with, or w ithout, change, it may be desirable that the Synod should declare to be in full force in this Diocese, and on such laws as apjiear to be in force at present, or may be desirable to be enacted as Rules of Order or Discipline in tliis Diocese." (Synod of IS57, pacjes 17a}idJ3.) In 1858, this Committee reported that they liad examined the Canteibury Canons of 1603 — " Which is the body of Canons generally accepted by the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church, and quoted as of authority in the English Ecclesiastical Courts." These Canons, the Committee reported, were divided into fourteen heads. The 10th to the 14th (relating to Judges, Probates, Registrars, Apparitors and Synods) the Committee report as "Either inapplicable in this Colony, or with which a Diocesan Synod had nothing to do ... . The Committee have examined the rest of the (Janons .... with great care.... and present them for the adoption of the Synod in the folloM'ing modified form, viz.: I. On the Queens Supremacy; II. Of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments ; HI. Ministers, their Ordination, Function and Charge; IV. Schoolmasters; V. Things appertaining to Chui'ches ; VI. Church- wardens and Inferior Officers ; VII. Marriages; VIII. Ecclesiastical Courts." The Committee then add that " They have examined into tlie state of the English Statute Law, affecting ecclesiastical affairs ; and they iind that almost the whole of the P^nglish Acts on ^ 14 this subject are so restricted in their own text, or in their very nature, as not to apply to the C iloiiies : and that when, in an early period of the history of this Colony, the English .Statutes were adopted, the ecclesiastical portion was ex- cepted " . . . . The Committee state that the Act of Uniformity of Charles II, and of Elizabeth do nor, npply to the Colonies, as the Charles' Act was local in its application, while that of Elizabeth was repealed by the more recent local Act of Charles II. The Committee add : — "The only Acts, therefore, afflicting the Colonies are those which regulate the appointment of Colonial Bishops, (13 Elizabeth, chapter 12) —for the most part set aside by subseciuent Acts) — and the Constitutional Act of Canada (li\ Cieorge III , chapter 31 " — lelating chiefly to the Clergy Reserves). Synod of i, pages l^ and kk. Note. — No copy of the Canon to whioh this Message refers is given in the Journal of the Provincial Synod ; nor is it mentioned in the brief record of the proceedings of the Upper House. i 17 In the meantime it is worth while to recall the connnentlable sj)irit of the Bishops of British North America, who met at Quebec, in 1851, and advocated the holding of Diocesan and General Synods, foi", said they : " Tlie Bishops of these Dioceses experience great difficulty in acting in accordance with their Episcopal commission and prcTogatives, and their decisions are liable to misconstruction, as if emanating from their individual will, and not from the general body of the Church." In this declaration the Bishops of Quebec, Toronto, Newfoundland, Fredericton and Montreal recognized the desirability of their decisions having the legislative authority of the Church, and not as prom[)ted by their own " individual will." The Restrictive "Rule" not fully carrikd out in the Dioceses Niagara and Huron. Even if this " Rule " were binding on the Diocesan Synods, and were not nltra vires, as it is, none of those concerned in this Province, except that of Ontario, (which received a large grant from England), appear to have been able to act fully np to it. No such sum as 8 tO,0()0 was in hand, or was actually available in money, or unquestioned securities, except nominally, when the Dioceses of Huron and Niagai-a, were set apart and their Bishops consecrated. The j)rotest against this " Rule " of the Committee of this Diocese, which was appointed to carry out the arrangements in regard to the new Diocese of Niagara, dated the 1 7th of DecemV»ei-, 1874, was as follows : — " Such a stringent regulation as that laid down by the House of Bishops, with regard to the endowment of the proposed See, was never recjuired (that your Committee ever lieard of), in regard to the working of a Church, a School-house, or a College. If it had been, there would have been far fewei' Ciiurches, School- houses and Colleges in our land.... nor is such a recjuirement found in the United States, wheie our sister Chinch is making rapicl progi-ess, through the sub-division of Dioceses, thus affording us great encouragement in our important work of extending the Kingdom of Christ to regions where it is yet unknown. T. B. Fuller, Chairman. (Special Toronto Synod of 1S74, po-O^ ''^- ) The financial " Rule " of the House of Bishops, in regard to the Diocese of Niagara must have been modified, or was not fully complied with, for in 1877, three years after the consecration of its Bishop, the capital of the Episcopal Endowment Fund did not reach the sum of $18,000. In 1878, it was under $20,000. Niagara Synod Report for 1877, 2)age 64 ; for 1878, page 5.i. How THE Episcopal Endowment Funds in the Dioceses of Huhox AND Niagara were Increased. In 1861, — three years after the consecration of the Bishop of Fiiron, — the available Episcopal Endowment Fund was, from various causes^ under the required amount, for, in that year, the available Fund, drawing 3 18 interest, was only $36,113, — for over ^8,000, in securities and notes of hand, were " written off," as "bad." In 1862, the Church Society of the Diocese devoted certain Church land endowments, amounting to 1,768 acres, — given for "General Purposes," — to the Episcopal Endow- ment Fund of the Diocese, (Huron Church Societij's Jfth Report, pages 36, 39 and 44- ) Besides this, the Church Society appointed the Bishop, (after his consecration), to be Rector of St. Paul's Cathedral, which he had resigned on becoming Bishop — thus, for practical reasons, setting aside the Toronto Synod Rule, then in force in the Diocese of Huron, which required a Bishop-elect to give up any benefice which he might hold. We, too, in this Diocese, have appropriated a ])ortion of the General Purposes Fund to the payment of the Bisliop's travelling expenses, as we did in the case of the salary of his Secretary, and the furnishing, in part, of the See House of tiie Diocese. We have also, fi-om the ca|)ital of the same fund, and with a view to extinguish a claim against our Diocese, applied the sum of $5,000 to the E|)iscopal Endowment Fuud of the Diocese of Niagara. Application of Mission Funds to the Missionary Bishop's Stipend. For some years, too, we have taken from the moneys subscribed for Diocesan Missions the sum of $1,000 a year, to pay our proportion of the stipend of the Bishop of Algoma. In 1894, we transferred this pay- ment from the Diocesan Mission Fund contributed in this Diocese to the Fund for " Domestic Missions," and in the hands of the General Mission Board of the Provincial Synod. Note. — 111 The Canadian Chvrch Magazin* for May, 1898, it is stated, on page Ho : that " Nova Scotia devotes some of tiie Aseensiontide Ai)i)eal money to the ])aymentof the stipend of the Uishop of Alj^oma. Freiocesan Synods with stringent and restrictive rules relating to the subject of their financial and other responsibilities. As a n)atter of fact, these Synods are abundantly able to manage all such matters in a judicious and practical manner, without the imposition upon them of inflexible rules, which, from their very stringency, aie, in effect, inoper- ative, and, as such, are either not obeyed, or are evaded. It is even a •question whether the Provincial Synod itself can, under the Act, from 19 I which it derives its authority, impose any conditions upon Diocesan Synods, so as to control their free action, under the same Act, in setting apart Sees, or api)oiiiting Bishops. Two COMMITTKES OF THE LoWEK HoUSE OP THE PROVINCIAL SyNOD ON THE Financial "Rule" of the House of Bishops, etc. On the 1 6th of September, 1892, an elaborate tlei)ort " On the Aggressive Work of the Churcli" signed l>y the liishop of Huron as Chairman, was presented to the Lower House of the I'rovincial Synod. It covered a good deal of ground, and discussed the expediency and advantage of increasing the Episcopate. The Report was considered, and, witii some modiHcation, was ado|)ted on the 22iid of September, 1892. The following extracts i-elate to the subject of this Report: — " Youi" Cominittee are of opinion that the increase of the Kj)is(;oj)ate in this Ecclesiastical Fi'ovituie is necessary for' the effective woi'k of tiie Ciuncli, and tliat sucli increase would secure, through the blessing of (iod, a nK)st beiieticial result. Districts which to-day have necessarily Imt a limited sujrervisiou, would, if this course were ])ursued, l)econie centr'es of new life and activity, radiating liglit and heat to all about them. Experience has shown how largely the eieoticui of the Dioceses of Huron, Ontario, Algoma and Niagara, out of the Diocese of Toronto has accomplished these beneficial results to the Church in the past .... " Your Committee are stronly of opinion that, in case tlie ])resent recjuire- mcnts of the House of Bishops of a minimum funded endowment ttf .iS40,000 cannot be wholly complied with, the Church would suffer grievous injury if the increase of the Kpiscopate be therc))y deferred. ...They resjjectfully submit the following proposals on this head, which they believe will greatly facilitate the absolutely necessary extension of the Episcopate, without endanger ing the due support of the Bishops of the new Dioceses, viz. : — " That, in case any proposed Diocese, delimited by the House of Bishops under Cauon I. shauld be made to comply with the present reipiiremcats, it may suffice if the following conditions are complied with : — "A secured nicome of !$1,000 per annum, obtained for a Bishop ; a suitable residence provided ; and such arrangements agreed upon for raising the balance reipiired to make up the Bishop's stipend to $3,000 per annum, as shall satisfy the House of Bishops." (Provincial Synod Report of ISO J, pat/e.s JO, J/,, (J/-<14, 7.7, 77, andlJ7-130.) On the 17th of Se[)tember, 1893, the Lower House of the Provincial Synod, in dealiui; with the subject of " The State of the Church," prac- tically took up the same question of the increase of the Episcopate. The insuperable difficulty of carrying out the financial " Rule " of the House of Bishops was clearly in the minds of the Members of that Committee. They speak of the " Rule " as a " condition " that " might be impracticable," and suggest as follows : — " Let the new Bishop depend upon the income derived from a parish, or raise by subscription, pending an endowment, a salary of a similar anroinit. This would be precarious ; but it seems to your Committee that an endowment of §20,000 in hand, with a reasonable certainty of f 1,000 or $1,500 rnoi-e by assess- ment on parishes, might prove a practical solution of the question. A Diocese in earnest for division could surely raise the .$20,000, and thus the two methods would be combined. {Adopted by the Loiver' Houne, on the ISth of September, 1895, page 4S. ) ii\ li 20 This Committee of the Lower House having, in this Report, referred to the " Rule " of the House of Bishops, a lei ter was addressed to the Chairman, (the Very Rev. Dean Partridge,) for such information in regard to that " Rule " as he might be able to give. He replied as follows, in a letter, dated the 6th of April, 1896 : — "The ' Rule' referred to was one contained in a Message from the House of Bishops, to t}»e bt.st of my remembrance. I have l)een trying to iinearth it, and it should be somewhere in tlie Journal of the Session of 1892. It was on this condi- tion that the $40,000 was raised in the new Diocese of Ottawa. " Of course, as the Bishops hiid down this principle, they can alter it ; and, as I understand matters, they did so alter it at the last Session, (piite irrespective of Suffragans. . . .The 'Ride' was certainly made by the 'Bishops themselves,' and not passed, in any way, by the Provincial Synod. * ' I am not one of those who think it would conduce to the real benefit of the Church to have a lot of [very jioorly paid] Bishops. . . .1 think that, at least, Three Thousand Five hundred dollars, (.$.3,500,) ought to be fairly secured, not, however, necessarily from vested funpropriate one of assessment upon the parishes, are open to us in setting apart the Eastern Diocese, if we are really in earnest in carrying out the enlightened policy of our first Bishop, and also our own resolution of 1873, in regard to that Eastern Diocese. As a matter of fact, we have a precedent in our own Province for a scheme of assessing the parishes and missions of a proposed Diocese,, (that of Ottawa), for the salary of a Bishop in 1868, 1869. In the Ontai'io Diocese it was considered very desirable that there should be a resident Church of England Bishop at the Capital of the Dominion. An elaborate Report on the subject was prepared in 1869, and again in 1870. The Report of 1869 i)roposed that the salary of a resident Bishop in Ottawa should be .£500 per annum, and that this amount should be raised by assessment on 23 parishes and 10 missions, lii the then pi'oposed new " Diocese of Ottawa " — Christ's Church, Ottawa, agreeing to pay ,£200 a year towards the stipend. The other parishes and missions were assessed at sums varying from £5 to ,£2& each. SuUsequently the scheme was abandoned, as was also one for the appointment of a Coadjutor Bishop — the Bishop of Ontario agreeing to reside, as he did for a time, in Ottawa— and the plan of dividing the Diocese was again adopted, (Ontario Synod Journal, pa^es 690-693,. 770, 795-797, 837, 838.) How THE American Church Secures a Bishop's Stipend. We have also before us the example of the energetic and practical Churchmen in the United States, who, in the General Synod, or Con- 21 veution, authorize, under Article "VII. of the Constitution, the setting apart of new Dioceses, as occasion requires. The General Synod, or Convention, must have " satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision [having been made] for the support of the Episcopate." Custom sanctions a two-fold method of providing for the episcopal stii)ends — by allowing the Bishop-elect (as was done for eight years in Huron) to «nj<)y a Rectory, and then (as was proposed in Ottawa) to assess the parishes and missions concerned for the balance of the salary required, until a sufficient endowment is raised, so as to relieve the Rectory and parishes of the temporary charges. In the meantime, it would be open to any parish to connnute its assessment, by paying to the Episcopal Endowment Fund a specified sum. This mode of dealing with such cases in the United States is thus detailed by the Reverend Doctor Hutchins, Secretary to the House of Deputies of the General Convention, in a letter to the writer. He saj's : — " In some of our Dioceses the Episcopal Fund is. sufficient to meel, with its income, all requirements. In others, an Episcopal Fund gives part of the neces- sary amount, and the remainder is raised by assessment upon the parishes ; each parish having a fixed sum to contribute, l)ased upon the size of the parish, or its general income, or the salarj-^ of the clergyman, or some other basis. " If the parish desires to end this assessment, it may raise a certain amount which is passed over to the ' Pjpiscopal Fund,' and the parish is spared further assessment. " In a few Dioceses the Bishop is also Rector of a parish. This is the case in New Hampshire. It was also so, until recently, in Maine, and perhaps in a few others. This is, however, considered only a temporary expedient. " New Hampshire, though a poor Diocese, has recently been raising an ' Episcopal Fund ' amounting now (in 1893) to fully $50,000. " In Massachusetts, the liishop has now no parochial ties or duties. "The Missionary Bishops have a salary of $3,000 a year and travelling expenses. This is paid by the General Board of Missions." Chas. L. Hutchins. Striking Case of Bishop Whipple, op Minnesota. In this connection, the following remarks of the venerable Bishop Whipple, in a farewell address to the new Diocese of Northern Minne- sota, — formerly a part of his own Diocese, — speak of a noble devotion to the cause of the Master, and yet contain a touching reminiscence of his own unselfish heroism in accepting the unendowed Dioce-se of Minne- sota. He says : — " We had not one dollar of endowment ; and the support of the Bishop came wholly from assessments on the missions. We had only four self-supporting par- ishes in the whole Diocese. . . .We were young and hopeful, and believed that if •we did the work, God would take care of the harvest.". . . . The Bishop then goes on to show how his self-denial was not unre- warded, for, as he says, it : — "Resulted in three strongly established, well o([uipped Dioceses. And Minnesota does not stand alone among the ' ventures of faith ' that have accom- plished great things for God in the Unitetl States. " 4 22 Tfie Desirability of Having Small and Workable Dioceses. With a view to obtain some iiifonnatioii from American Cimrchmen on the subject of small Dioceses, a letter was addressed to the Reverend Doctor Hiitcliins, of the (ieneial Convention, on :his and other matters. In his reply, dated the 27th of Februaiy, 189G, he said : — "A good deal has lieen written in regard to small Dioceses. On this subject the late Reverend Doctor Jolin Henry Hojjkins was u proliHc writer, mostly in the Chuich jjupers, notably in the Church Journdl, wliicli, some years ago, was merged into Tlic Chtirrhinan of New York. Perhaps by writing to that paper you can get the information. " Chas. L. Hutchins. A lettei- was, therefore, addressed to the Editor of J^hc, Chicrchinnn, with the following result. The Editor's letter is dated tlie 11th of March, 1896 :— " We have only a few bound volumes of the Church Jourunl here, and cannot, therefore, send you Doctor John Heniy Hopkins' masterly arguments, publishecl from time to time, in favour of small Dioceses, in which he was a lirm believer. " As to the success attending the division of large and unwieldy dioceses, and the formation of new Episcopal centres, this will be best shown by the statistics for 1895 of the newer Dioceses of the American Church, as compared with the statistics at the time they were erected. . . .The first Diocesan division took place in 1838." EniTOK OK The Churchman. A Committee of the Lower House of the Provincial Synod on the Infrec^uency on Episcopal Visitations, The remarks of a Committee of the Lower House of the Provincial Synod on this sulyect are approjniate here. That Connnittee, in its Report "on the State of the Church," as adopted by the Lower House in September, 1895, says: — " Tlie Connnittee deem the subject of more episcopal supervision to be the most imj)ortant practical matter now engaging the attention of the Church. That the need of moie frequent episcopal visitation in our j)arishes is pressing, seems abimdantly evident. There are still m.iny parishes and nnssions in this Ecclesias- tical Province which do not receive more than a tri-annual visit from tlie Bishop ; many more which are not so favoured oftener than once in two years ; while few, except the most important centres, have the privilege of seeing their Bishop ofHcially every year. Nor can tliis under our present arrangements be other- wise." (Provii)ci(il Sjinod Report, JS'JS, paije SI.) Note.— Canon XIX., Seetion 10(1), of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States enacts that : — " Every Hisliop in this Church shall visit the Churches within his Diocese at least once in three years, for the jmrposc of exaniininj; the state of his Charch, inspectinjf the hehaviour of his ClerL'y, adniinisterin}; the Apostolic rite of Contlrniatioii, niinisterin}^ the Word, and, if he think fit, administering' the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the jieople connnitted to his charfje." The Churches, (Omitting " Stations,") to be Visited Episcopally IN THE Dioceses of Toronto and Huron. By way of illustration of tliese statements, and of their practical application to the Dioceses in the Civil Province of Ontario, it is found that, omitting stations, there were : 23 In the Diocese of Huron, in 1895, 269 Churches. In the Diocese of Toronto, in 1894, 250 Churches (iiiul 43 stations). In the Diocese of Ontario, in 180r>, 234 Chuiches. In the Diocese of Niagara, in 1895, 108 Churches. "• It will be seen, therefore, that, with the exceptions of the Diocesn of Niagara, and the now reduced Diocese of Ontario, liovv inipossihle it- is for either the Bishop of Wiiron, or of Toronto, to visit the Churches in their respective Dioceses as often as would V)e desirable. 1*0WKR OF THE HoUSE OF BlSIIOl'S TO ImPOSR THE !^40.000 ElM^COPAL Endowment Fund "Rule" on Diocesan Synods Questionkd. The Committee now propose to deal with the (juestion as to the ri2;ht of the House of Bishops, or even the Provincial Synod, to enforce on Diocesan Synods a " Rule " requiring !t>40,000 to be raised as an Episco- pal Endowment Fund, before a new Diocese can be formed out of exist- ing ones, and before a Diocese can [roceed to elect its Bishop. Tlie Bishop of Montreal, on behalf of the " House of i^ishops," not sitting as the " Ui)per House " of the Provincial Synod, sent a Message to the Lower House of tliat Synod on the 18th September, 1895, stating that the House of Bishops had expressed " their readiness to waive the " Rule " " requiring that a capital sum of $40,000 shall be raised before a new Diocese can be created," etc. Reply of the Bishop of Montreal in Regard to the 840,000 "Rule" of the House op Bishops. Such a Message naturally raised the c' ;estion as to the right of the House of Bishu[)s, (even as a constituent part of the Provincial Synod,) to make such a " Rule," "requiring that a capital sum of $40,000 shall be raised before a new Diocese can be created," and by what Statute, Canon, or Regulation, were they invested with that power, or right. In order to obtain an answer to this question, a Letter was addressed to the Bishop of Montreal, who had signed the Message on behalf of the "House of Bishops." He replied, under date of the 2Gth of March, as follows : — " In reply to your Letter of the '24th of Marcli, just received, I have to say : — " 1. That the ' Rule ' exists. ' ' 2. Tliat it has been acted upon in the case of the new Ottawa Diocese. " 3. That it applies to all new JJioceses. "4. That the Minutes of the 'House of Bishops' are in the hands of the Archbishop at Kingston. I cannot, therefore, examine them to verify tlie above. " 5. My statement is from memory ; but T have no reason to (question the statement.'' W. B. Montreal. Reply of the Archbishop of Ontario on the Origin of this " Rule." On receipt of this note, a Letter was written to the Archbishop of Ontario, asking for a copy of the " Rule," as it had been originally 24 adopted by the House of Bishops. The reply of the Archbishop was sent through the Reverend Canon Spencer, dated the 2nd of April, 1S96, itnd is as follows : — " The ArcLbishop desires me to say, (in reply to your Letter of tlie 27tli of March), that, to the best of his recollection, the ' Rule ' as to $40,000 being reciuired as the luinimuui endowment of a new See, was first made by Bishop Strachan, in connection witli the estabbshment of the Sees of l^ron and Ontario, and that the House of Bishops have ever since made it a ' Rule* for the guidance of its own action in the estalilishing cf new Sees. " Thus, in the case of Niagara, part of the resolution reads : ' That tho sum of $40,000 of invested capital be secured, from the interest of which the Bishop shall be supported.' " ( Minutes of the House, of liUhops, par/e 10 ; date, l-'>th Sept- ember, 1S74- J yofc. — From the jiroceediiigs of the Toronto Synod in this matter, it will be seen that "invested capital" was ohjected to, as'the securities were in the shape cf "cash, notes of hand, and other written enj^agemenLS to pay, collectable in one of our courts of law." (Special of the Toronto Sinwd of JS7/,, pagex 7S, 7'.).) "In tlie case of the Diocese of Ottawa, it was ^Resolved: That this House deems it indispensable that a capital sum of i»4:0,000 shall be raised as an endow- ment for the said See, and as a provision for tho income of the proposed Bishop.' " ( Minutes of the^House of Bishops, patjes IS, 19 ; date, November the 8th, 1870.) The " more recent " action of the House of Bishops, " Begun at Kingston, on the 26th of April, 1895, ami adopted as amended, at Montreal, on the 18th of September, lS9o, appears in the last Provincial Synod Journal in the form of a message sent for the information of the Lower House.' (J our mil of the Provincial Synod, lS!)o, paije J^7.) " So far as I can find, no ' Rule ' on the subject appears in the Minutes" [of the House of BishopsJ. A. Spknckr. Hotv, — In reply to a subsei|ucnt eonununication. Mr. Spencer writes:—"! was hojiin}? that some opportunity niifflit come in my way of clearins; up tlie (picstion of the "Rule" as to the Forty Thousand Dollars (840,(1(10). Hut none has i)reHented itself. Tlie Hook of MiniUes which I examined liejjran in 1873, and tlie Archbishop seemed not to be aware if there was any older Hook. I think there uuist be one somewhere, but not, possibly, in His Grace's jiossession." A. Spkncrh. The IJppEk House o.v "Securities" for the Efishopal Fund. On the 20th of September, 1892, the Upper House of the Provincial Synod transmitted to the Lower House, by Message Number 12, the following Resolution : — " l}e.solred. That, in the opinion of this House, no division of existing dioceses ought to be sanctioned unless the income for the See pio|)o.sed to be erected is pro- vided l)y the interest on funds invested in securities of such a character as are eli- gible for trust funds, in accordance with Canon XV., Section 2, as amended by the Provincial Synod"" [in 1889, and confirmed in 1892]. ( R( port of the Prorinrlaf Synod, tS!),.', po(/rs /S, .1.}, 71 and SO. J A'()/<'.- Tlie chanjfcs made in (janon XV. in 1880 consisted iu the addition of forms of Certifi- cates from .Auditors, iscoj)al Endow- ment Fund. These chan^fes were confirmed in 1892. Opinion of Le(!Ai. Gentlemen asked, as to the Validity of the " Rule" of the House of Bishops, and on Other Matters. In order to ascei'tain whether there was in any Statute, t'anoii, Regu- lation, or other document which gave the " House of Bishops," as such, •or even the Provincial Synod, authority to adopt the restrictive 25 financial *' Rule '' in question, letters were addressed to certain legal Oentlemen asking them to inform the writer, whether, in their opin- ion, the House of Bishops— as part of the Provincial Synod, or as a separate Body — had power '' of their own mere motion," to adopt, or act upon, a " Rule," declaring that the formation of no new Diocese would be sanctioned by them, as Bishops, unless the sum of $40,000 had been raised by it as an Episcopal Endowment Fund. Incidentally, the further question was to be considered, whether the Synod Act of 1856-7 gave the Provincial Synod any power to impose upon Diocesan Synods conditions in regard to the formation of Sees, or the election of Bishops. These Gentlemen were referred to the Synod Act of 1856-7; the "Declarations" of the Diocesan and Provincial Synods of 1854 and 1861 ; Canon IX., adopted by the Provincial Synod in 1871 ; as well as Canons XI. and XV. of the same Synod ; and the Church Temporalities Acts of 1841 and 1866. The opinions of the Gentlemen on these subjects are given in Appendix Number 3 to this Report, Historical Dates op Proceedings Affecti'^ig the Toronto Diocese. It may be well to recall the dates of the past proceedings of our Church, before referring further to this two-fold question : as to the right of the Provincial Synod itself to impose conditions of any, (and what,) kind upon Diocesan Synods ; and further, can it legally delegate, (as it has done, in Canon IX.,) to the House of Bishops, either as a constituent part of the Provincial Synod, or as a separate and independent Body, legislative powers to sub-divide or form Dioceses at its pleasure, " with the concurrence," or " upon the application '' of Diocesan Synods. In 1839, Letters Patent were issued constituting the Rev. John Strachan, D.D., liL.D., Archdeacon of York, the first Bishop of Toronto. A Bishop's Letters Patent do not Grant Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Note. — In reyard to tlie value of Letters Patent in conferring local jurisdiction on a Bishop, the Law Otticers of tlie Crown, in a connnunieation to the l)iilaper, luiil tliat the Bishou could only proceed ajj^ainst a clergyman under the local law, which lie did with success." ( I'rovincial Synod Reports, 1HI}S, page 8(1.) In 1841, Biahoj) Strachan delivered his [)rimary charge to the clergy of his Diocese. In 1851, Bishop Strachan h«!ld the .second Visitation of his Clergy, and requested them to bring "one or two" of their communicant Mem- bers with them. It was then decided to apply for permission from the Crown, to hold Diocesan Synods, or Convocations. \\\ 1853, the first regular and official meeting of the Toronto Dio- cesan Synod, as so declared by it, was held. 26 iHi •if lilt I I In 1854, a "Declaration " was adopted by the Toronto Synod and sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury to be laid before the Queen, in which it was stated that one of the subjects for Synodical action was — 8. " To provide, with the consent of the Crown, for the division of the Dio- cese into new Dioceses, either forthwith, or at any future period." {Synod of 1S54, pagea lS-:il.) JVote.— This "Declaration "'has never been mortified, or reeallert ; but the Provincial Synod, in 1871, seventeen years after it was nir He, conferred practically similar co-ordinate powers upon the House of Bishoi)S, without the otticiai assent of the Toronto Synod. In 185<), the Act, authorizing Members of the Church of England in Canada to meet in Diocesan and " General," or Provincial, Synod, was passed by the Provincial Legislature. In May, 1857, this Act was assented to by the Queen in Council. In July, 1857, by consent of the Governor-General, the first Bishop of Huron was elected. In October, 1857, the Diocese of Toronto was, by Letters Patent, divided into tlie Dioceses of Toronto and Huron. In 18G1, the Provincial Synod, in its " Declaration," stated that one of the objects of its Synodical action was — 4. "To ])rovide, with the consent of the Crown, for the division of the [EcclesiasticalJ Province into new Dioceses, as occasion may reqiii -e." > Note. — This " Declaration " is possibly tlie foundation of the authority, greatly extended in fact, luider which the Provincial ^ynod passed (.'anon IX. Powers under the Canada Synod Act of 1856-7, Supersede the Royal 1'rero(;ative. In 1862, the Law Officers of the Crown reported to the Duke of Newcastle, Colonial Secretary, that, in the opinion of their predecessors in 1857 it was held by them, (in addition to their opinion quoted in a former part of this P^eport,) that, under the Synod Act of 1856-7, the "Power is given to a General Assembly, and also to Diocesan Synods in Canada, to make ordinances which may l)e inconsistent with, or defeat that which is done in, the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. "" (Provinchd Synod Report of 186^, page S'>. ) It will be observed that the Synod Act of 1856, 1857, consists of two parts, — separate and distinct from each other, — which, (except the preamble,) have no nece.ssary connection. The tirst part, or Section, of the Act lefers exclusively to Diocesan Synods,- -their ))owers and functi»»ns. The second part, or Section^ refers as exclusively to the powers and functions of the "General," or Provinciiil, Synod. The powers of the Diocesan Synods are specifically defined in the first Section of the Act. Among them is the power, (until then pos- sessed and exercised V>y the Imperial (xovernment but), which, by this Act, was conferred exclusively upon Diocesan Synods, namely ;— ' ' The appointment ... .of any persttn bearing office therein, {i.e. , in the Church, ) of whatsoever order, or degree, any right of the Crown to the contrary notwith- standing." Note. — This reservation was strictly and <"hronoloKically correct. The Act was assented to by the Queen in Coiuicil in Mnv, IS.^T ; while four months later, in October of the same year, the Crown issued Letters Patent, dividinn: the Diocese of Toronto into the Dioceses of Toronto and Huron. 27 As a matter of fact, the only person whom the Crown had, up to this date, tlie right to appoint was the Diocesan Bishoj) ; and that right was, by ))ermission of the Governor-Geueral, exercised hy the Huron Diocesan Synod in July, 1858. Opinion of Bishop Strachan on the Provisions of the Canada Synod Act of 1856, 1857. The commentary of Bisho}> Strachan on the Synod Act of 1856, 1857, — iii his Charge of June, 1857J-is of value here. In referring to the tirst part of that Act, relating exclusively to Diocesan Synods, he said : — " 1st. The power of choosing our Bishops is substantially, but not directly, conferred ; the sanction of Her Majesty, through Her Secretary of State, to the person chosen is recjuired, and, in an extreme case, may be withheld ; but, if ever withheld, it will be salutary and for the good of the Church. " 2nd. In the second place, the Queen preserves her territorial sovereignty in settling the limits of new Bishoprics, when re([uired to be established." (Synod of ISod, patjex 7, V.) Niite. — The Hishoi) then proceeds to refer to the second i)art of the Act whicli, as he states, "conteniphites I'roviiicial Synods, in which all the Dioceses may he reiresented, etc." He then thus pointed out the object of the Provincial Synod, which he said : " Will answer the same purpose as the General Convention of the Church of the United States, which has been emphatically called its safety-valve against doubtful and unsafe innovations of the Diocesan Conventions, and an effective centre of permanent unity.'" (Synod of 1S57, pagen 10, 11.) The writer has advisedly dwelt at some length on the " Rule " of the House of JUsliops, as a separate and indei)en(lent Body from the Up])er House of the Provincial Synod, because it lias ap[)arently been the basis of the proceedings of that House in regard to the setting a])a»t of new Sees. This is shown in the record of the "Minutes" of that House, as given in a former part of this Report ; also fron* the Message of the House of Bishops to the Lower House on the 18th of September, last, and from the Letter of the Bishop of Quebec, as Secretary of the House of Bishops, both given on a former page. In none of these cases do the Bishoj^s invoke the authority of Canon IX. or refer to it, but, a])parently, base their proceedings on the exist- ence of their own $40,000 " Rule," and either assert it, or modify it. When the Diocese of Niagara was set apait by the Toronto Synod in 1873, it was done without any reference to Canon IX., passed in 1871. To this fact liishop Bethune called the attention of the Synod, in his Address of 1874, as follows : — "The Synod (last year) decided that a Western Diocese should be formed, and arr'-.ngements were made for carrying out the project ; but somehow there was a strange forgetfnlness of a Canon, (IX. ), passei the House of Bishops to control the independent action of Diocesan Synods, in regard to the " Kule" as to $40,000 endowment as a condition of setting apart of new Dioceses and the election of Bishops thereto. 1. Leo H. Davidson, Esq., D.C.L., Q.C., Montreal. In his reply, dated tlie 26th of March, 1896, Doctor Davidson said : I know of no rule adopted by the Provincial Synod — that is, by both Upper and Lower Houses — fixing a sum of !?40,000 as requisite for the formation of a new Diocese. If 1 mistake not, the Resolution, (i.e., " llule,") was one adopted by the House of Bishops alone, and, 1 think, not sitting as part of the Provincial Synod, but as an independent Body — namely, the House of Bishops I know that there has been a feeling in the Lower House against the provision reipiiring $40,000 ; and the matter lias come up on several occasions (In a subse([uent Letter, dated tlie 81st of March, 1896, Doctor Davidson continued) : 1 have always felt myself that the action of the House of Jiishops in respect to the .$-40, 000 condition was ultra rirc-i ; and I very much (juestion whether the Provincial Synod, itself could make such a provision, and so interfere with the free action of individual Dioceses L. H. DAVIDSON. [The peculiar wor(Hng of Canon IX. of the Provincial Synod seemed to give the House of Bishops, eitlier as the Upper House, or as a separate iiody, certain powers, if, in the latter case, apart from the Provincial Synod itself. Having asked Doctor Davidson for his opinion in regartl to this point, he gave the following explanation, in regard to it, in his Letter of the 81st of March : — ] Canon IX., on the sub-division of Dioceses* (he s;U(l) was adopted by \xith Houses ia 1871 and duly pronmlgated '"This Canon is as follows: "Tlu' House of Itishoiis shall have the power of sul)-rlivi(linn existing' Dioceses, or of formiiif; u new Diocese out of jiortions of existinf;- Dioi^eses which may he contif^uous, with the coiicmTctice, or upon the aiii))ilication, of tlie .Synod or Synods of the Dioceses affected: and it sliall he the dntv of snch '^ynod or Synods to consider without delay any jiroposal for the suh-division of a Pioi'cse which may emanate from the House of Jtishops." (1871). .\iite. — Canon IX was sent down from the Upjier to the Lower Honse, with eijfht other liroi>osed ('annus on the 14th of September, IStiS. They were referred to the Committee on Canons — (J'rorincial Si/innl .) In 1871 they were reported by that tTommittee, as amended, and passed, — (Prorincial Si/t)<>d ({f 1S7I, lutgcH /»0, //i, .'lA-.'iD, ')T,'iiU-H..', H/t-liU, .'ll;".!.) I find, on turning to the Journal of the Provincial Synod for 1871, (l)age 71,) that when the Canon was under consideration, an amenihnent was moveil that the words, " Provincial Synod," be suhstituted for. House of liishops, in the first and last lines ; but tlie amendment was lost. It appears to me that, by tiie rejection of theamendment by the Lower House, it has authorized action l)y the House of Hishops, independently of the Provin'*'-'. Synod for the sub-division of Dioceses, but subject to the terms of tiie Canon, ar.d, as I read it, there is really no independent, separate power lodged in the House of Bishops as to sub-division, nor are they, by it, given any power of fixing the terms, or conditiy competent authority, (and where does such authority rest,) this is now the Law of the Church in Canada. It clearly delegates, (if delegation be necessary, — as to which, qiuvre '.') to the Bishops of this Ecclesiastical Province full discretion as to the division of existing Dioceses, or the forniatic.i of new DioL'cses out of contiguous portions of one <»r more existing Dioceses following what, (if tlie Crown has surrendered its prerogative right toestablisii ecclesiastical corporations in this (Jt)lony, which 1 tiiink is so determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy (\)uncil, in lie. the Bishop of Natal. 1 1 Juris. (N.S.,) 352, 357,) would seem to be the natural way of (lealing with tlie question in an lOpiscopal Clmrch, where the Laity, and even the ordinary parochial Clergy, have no voice in tiie election of a Bishop, excejit so far as the Crown represents them therein. (1 ! 42 (4) Then Canon XV., seems to me to give the Bishops full discretion in the premises. It does not limit their right of objection to cases of "canonical disability " ; but, if they think it advisable, it seems to me that they can adopt the " Rule " above stated, or any other rule, which maj', in their judgment, be necessary in the interest of the Church ; although, perhaps, they cannot, under such guise, prohibit the creation of new Dioceses. [See Cartwright's Cases on the British North America Act, (Section 92,) Volume II., 329.] 1 therefore think, (with great deference to those who have expressed a contrary opinion,) that whether the House of Bishops has, or has not, adopted the " Ride " in question, they may adopt this or any other reasonable rule as to the creation of new Dioceses, by virtue either of, (a) Tlieir original jurisdiction as Bishops of a Church episcopallj' governed ; or, (h) By virtue of the discretionary authority delegated t' them by both Houses of the Provincial Synod in 1871 ; and, ((•), I think Can< IX. of the Piovincial Synod would not now be set aside by any Court, except upon clear proof that it had resulted in injustice .and sub- stantial damage to the applicant. April ISth, 1896. C. R. W. BIGGAR. 4. Frank E. Hodgins, Esq. You ask me whether the House of Bishops have the power to pass a resolu- tion that no Dioceye will be sub-divided, nor its Bishop consecrated, unless §40,000 Endowment is provided. The object of the question is, no doulit, to ascertain if such action can pre- vent the Synod of Toronto subdividing this Diocese, until it has provided this amount. There is another and obvious question to be answered before considering the •legal power of the House of Bishops, and it is this : — Does Canon IX. of the Provincial Synod profess to interfere with the action of individual Dioceses V As I read the Canon, it simply means that the Provincial Synod hav(! provided means whereby they may either initiate a division, or make the same, if invited to do so by any Diocese. This is a reasonal)le act, because it might happen that the House of Bishops might consider that a sub-division was of some consequence to the life of a Diocese ; or a Diocesan Synod might, from feel- ings of delicacy, or embarrassment, prefer to leave the delimitation to some inde- pendent Body. In the first case, the Bishops could initiate, and, with the concurrence of the Diocese affected, carry out a division ; and, in the second case, they have power, upon an invitation from a Diocesan Synod, to perform a similar act. But tliei-e is nothing in what is thus conferred to make the House of Bishops a legislating Body, whose concurrence in tlie acts of the Toronto Diocese is neces- sary, or which empowers them to nullify the action of that Synod. Canon IX. can, I think, be read as enabling only to the extent I have pointed out; and, if so, the resohitions of the House of Bishops only affect and restrict their own power of action. If the (juestion you ask has, notw ithstanding the above, to be answered, it is necessary to consider : — (1) What power has the Provincial Synod to interfere at all in Ihe'sub-division of any one Diocese '! (2) If it has any power, can it delegate it to the House of Bishops ? (3) If it can delegate, has Canon IX. conferred the power to pass tlie Resolu- tion, [i.e., the .f40,00O Rule,] in question ? As to «iuestion (1), I think it cannot be doubted that Itoth Houses of the Pro- vincial Synod, ami not the Hcmse of Bishops alone, must exercise whatever powers the Synod jjossesses. The passing of Canon IX. by l)oth Houses confesses this, and, indeed, the constituting of a House of Bishops at all rests on the action of both Houses. 43 The power of that House coines entirely from the Constitution and Canons framed under the Act, [enabling tlie Church of England in Canada to meet in Synod,] 19 and 20 Victoria, chapter 141, section 2, [1856-7]. The Church Tempor- alities Act of 1841 excludes, by section 18, the idea that it vas intended to confer any spiritual jurisdiction, or ecclesiastical rights, on a Bishop, or Bishops, and power to vary, alter, or repeal that section, by any action of the Provincial Synod is expressly reserved by the Church Temporalities Amendment Act of 1866 (29 and 30 Victoria, chapter 15, section 1 ). 1 refer to this as showing that there is no Act that gives tlie House of Bishops, or the Bishops, singly, or as a whole, any other rights save what arise from the action of the Provincial Synod under the provision, "for the general management and good government " of the Church of England in the Province. (Synod Act, 1856-7, section 2.) The "Declaration of the Provincial Syno - \ \ 1 / / -> f ^