V <^ /a % > ^% .>> ^V IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 ^^ I " S I ui Ui 2.5 2.2 I.I 2.0 11.25 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibiiographicaily uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly change the uauai method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I — I Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicula pn Cover title missing/ La titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartea gAographiquas 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 illu8tr«tions/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur a Bound with other material/ Rail* avec d'autrea documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II sa peut que certainea pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. maia. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas it^ filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lul a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. r~1 Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pagea damaged/ Pages endommag^s Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur Aes et/ou pelliculies Pagea discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages dicolor^es, tachaties ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inigale de i'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible r~~| Pagea damaged/ r~~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~n Pagea discoloured, stained or foxed/ rn Pages detached/ r~^ Showthrough/ r~n Quality of print varies/ r~| Includes supplementary material/ r~n Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partiellement obscurctes par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont iti filmies i nouveau da facon ^ obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ct-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« eopy film«d hmn hw b««n raproduead thank* to ttw ganarosity of: Library of Parliamwit and tha National Library of Canada. L'axomplaira film* fut raproduit grica i l« gin^roaitA da: La BibliotbiqiM du Parlamant at la BibliothAqua nationala du Canada. quality lagibility ttM Tha imagaa appaaring hara an ttw poaaibia conaJdaring tha condition of tha original copy and in Icoaping filming contract apaeiflcationa. Original copiaa in printad papar eovara ara flimad baginning with tha front eovar and anding on th* laat paga with a printad or illtiatratad impraa* aion. or tha baeic covar whan appropriato. All othar original copiaa ara flimad baginning on tha flrat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impra aa ion. Laa imagaa auivantaa ont 4tA raproduitaa avac ia plua grand aoin. compta tanu da ia condition at da ia nattatd da I'asamplaira filmA. at an oonformitA avac iaa conditiona du contrat da fHmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont ia couvartura un papiar aat imprimda aont flimte mt comman^nt par la pramiar plat at an tarminant aoit par ia da m i4ra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaalon ou dlihiatration. aoit par ia aacond plat, aalon la eaa. Toua Im autraa axamplairaa originaux aont fllmda an commandant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaalon ou dllluatration at an tarminant par la damlAra paga qui comporta una talla Tha laat racordad frama on aaeh mierofleha ahaU contain tha aymbol ^t^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha aymbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whichavar appiiaa. Un daa aymboiaa auivanta apparaftra aur ia damMra imaga da chaqua mierofleha, salon ia caa: la aymbola «»> signifla "A SUIVRE". ia aymbola ▼ aignifla "RN". IMapa, piataa, charta. ate., may bo fNmad at diffarant reduction ratioa. Thoaa too large to bo entirely ineluded in one expoeura ara flimad baginning in tha upper left hand coriNMr. left to right and top to bottom, aa many framee aa required. The following diagrama illuatrata the method: Laa cartae. planchae. tableaux, etc., pauvent itra fHmde i dee taux da reduction diff Aranta. Loraqua le document eat trop grend pour Atre reproduit en un aeui dichd. ii eet filmd i partir da I'angla aupdriaur gauche, do gauche k droite, ec do haut an bee, en prenarK ia nombra dlmagae ndeeeaaire. I.ae diagrammae suivanta iUuatrent ia mdthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 It *1 1* k.-' .-*>' -**> Vj.y<% '^v''. ,,> ^^ y"' I--; ^ <• \ «*' 1 ;', 'i^' -'^' •''^^\ ^ '< <«. » 3^ , ^■►i r-^' Nw* £ ;.^'«;>*: ■^ilti^^ m -■ v.- r-'. t '!|. ^i- , •,-; EXPLANATIONS BY ARCHDEACON MARSH. PRINTED BUT NOT PUBLISHED (PRIVATE). Trifles light as air Are to the jealous confirmations strong . As proofs of holy writ.— Shakbspbare. IT is now nearly three months since false and malicious re- ports were industriously spread reflecting upon me, caused by a misunderstanding of what really took place at the Huron Col- lege Council meeting, on March 6th, and which, as explained in my letter to V. Cronyn, May 21st, led to the meeting and action of the College Council on April 26th, I felt that there was a very serious misunderstanding, and desired to settle it as Christians and gentlemen should, and, therefore, sought the in- tervention of a friend to pave the way for mutual explanations. How this was met is explained in this paper. I also sought the intervention of Dean Grasett, as an elder Christian brother and one who had known me for nearly forty years, and as one whose office as well as his professed principles, should lead him to wish to become a ** peace-maker," but the onlyanswer I could draw from him was that " it would be stepping out of his way to in- terfere in the matter," and yet he does not consider it to be "stepping out of his way" to come into this Diocese and act as described in the within paper. I also appealed to Bishop Sweat- man, and how he met my appeal, is seen by the correspondence printed herewith. I felt that we ought to shew that our reli- gion was not a mere profession, but that when the opportunity occurred, we, of all men, ought to let it be seen that religion .* '*'' ,» ' Explmiations by Archdeacon Marsh. governed our practice, and moreover, I was anxious to avoid the scandal to the Church that must necessarily, more or less, follow any public exhibition of our differences. But all my advances with a view to peace have only been met by repeated and in- creased insults. What then was to be done ? Two courses are open to me — to apply to the Civil Courts, where all stand on equal footing, and the truth of every state- ment put forth, can be investigated ; or to make known the whole case by circulating it among our own Church-people and those who take an interest in the matter. The former would be the more searching, and doubtless in the end, perhaps, more satisfactory ; but, unless driven to it, I have no desire to expose so widely, and among all sorts and con- ditions of men, our miserable misunderstanding which we ought so easily to settle among ourselves and thus prove to the world that we are Christians, not in name only, but in deed and in truth. Hence then, I have adopted the latter course, and can only regret that necessity is laid upon me ; but no one, I think, can justly charge me with rashness in rushing into print, seeing that I have remained quiet under these grievous charges for over two months, and have striven in every way to settle the matter as a Christian and a clergyman ought to do.' How I have been met, the following pages will shew. I proceed now to print the matter from the beginning to shew how it arose, and how it has grown to its present proportions — beginning with the article that appeared in the newspapers and the letters that were published criticising the same : — -101 ,;■ fJxli .1':; . .-. -,>, ■ Article and Letters^ referred to in the Within Corres- pondence. '3. {From the 'Free Press, Fehnmry Ibth, 3879.) Hellmuth Ladies' College. — Imposing Welcome to the Bishop of Huron. — A Brilliant Reception Entertainment Last Night. — A hearty reception was accorded his Lordship the Right Rev. Bishop Hellmuth last evenincr, on the occasion of his first visit to Hellmuth Ijadies' College since his return from England. On arriving his Lordship was greeted in a cordial manner by the Prin- cipal, Lady Superintendent and Assistant Lady Superintendent, and Staff of the Lastitution. - - . . - • ^1 f ^ V J }fl V h •> Explanafion» hj Archdeacon Marsh.. .1 A large number of visitors and friends of the pupils were also present, and extended to the Bishop a warm greeting. At half- past six o'clock, an entertaitiment was given to his Lordship in the spacious drawing-room of the College. When all had been com- fortably seated, the curtains were drawn aside, disclosing a tableau of exquisite beauty and brilliancy. In the foreground, an ever- green arch, dividing into three sections, and agreeably relieved with tasty devices in gilt, imparted a pleasing eflfect to the scene be- hind it. In the centre were arranged a group of handsomely attired young ladies, representing ** Canada." On the top-most tier, with a crown on her head, and smiling with evident delight, sat the Bis- hop's little grand-daughter. Immediately below her Miss Louie Gemley occupied the position of honour as * ' Canada. " At her feet, in a reclining posture, lay five young ladies in green tarlatan dresses, representing the flow of the noble " St. Lawrence." They were Misses Piatt, Richmond, Givin, Greig and Mitchell. Above these were arranged in repre<}entation of "Snow," Misses Northy, L. Hill, Stanley, M. Hill, E. & D. Wilson. On either side with snow-shoes slung on their backs, and clad in the garments of fur, were the " £s(j|uimaux," Misses Reiner & Craig ; Miss G. Ecclestone, attired in suitable accoutrements represented the " noble Red Man." To the right of this happy scene were arranged in a similar manner a cluster of young ladies representing " Industry ; " they were each dressed in long white gowns, a crown with the names of various in- dustries emblazoned thereon, resting on the head of each. The po- sition of honour was occupied by Miss V. Graeff, and round her were disposed the following young ladies : *' Petrolia," Miss Grace Gif- ford ; " Tomatoes," Miss S. Fawcett ; " Maize," Miss J. White ; " Apples," Miss Ida Arkell ; " Furs," Miss Clara Darnell : " Fish- eries," Miss R. Fairbanks ; " Maple," Miss A. Danks ; " T limber," Miss J. Jeffery ; " Grapes," Miss C. Whatley ; " The C - h," re- presented by three chorister boys — Miss B. C. Clair, Gra - Attrel, and Magy Perry — also occupied an attractive position in this por- tion of the tableau. To the left of the centre throng was arranged in a manner very similar, a group representing ** The Muses," MissM. Vail occupied the topmost position ; " Mnemosyne," and round her w«re seated Miss A. Taylor as " Clio ; " Miss M. Damarix as " Euterpe ; " Miss E. Collins as "Erato;" Miss A. Hanshaw as "Melpomene;" Miss D. Waters as " Polyhymnia; " Miss C. Knox as " Calliope ;" Miss S. Easton as "Thalia ; " Miss E. Burwell as " Urania ; " Miss A. Boomer as "Terpsichore." Immediately to the right of these were standing Miss Hattie Denby, Florence Pryor, and Pauline Kingsmill, suitably attired as " Charity." It is hardly necessary to say that these sweet girl graduates appeared exquisitely beautiful in their brilli£,nt and gaudy apparel. After the leading character in each group had recited a verse of welcome, the Principal, the I 4 JUxplanations hy Archdeacon Mar»h. Rev. J. Hill, M. A., on behalf of the pupils and teachers, extended to his Lordship a hearty and cordial welcome. His Lordship said : — "I feel heartily grateful for this kind re- ception, and must say that 1 am just as glad to be here amongst you as you are to see me. 1 might say that in Eni^land, while pursuing my business, I felt a degree of anxiety about the affairs of the college, and it is indeed a source of pleasure to be safely home again. I call this my 'college home' just as much as those who are associated with me. I am one with you, and hope we may always continue so. A charade of a very amusing character, entitled * ' Mrs. Willis' Will," was ably played by Misses May Collins, Alice Kingsmill, Florence Crooks, Annie Moore, and Bertie Gemley. A vocal quadrille, introducing the time himoured " Hurapty Dumpty." and other nursery rhymes, was rendered in a highly successful manner by Misses Cook, Smith, Kingsmill, Ecclestone, Ford, Whately, McLean and Harman. For this happy effort they were accorded a hearty encore. Following the entertainment, which concluded with the National Anthem, the visitors, the teachers and pupils of the College, were entertained at a sumptuous dinner in the large dining room. His Lordship presided, and delivered a short address to the pupils at the conclusion of the dinner. At a seasonable hour the enjoyable entertainment was brought to a close, and the visitors left with the consciousness of having spent a very pleasant evening. -:^T'Uii-^.' ii'; LETTER 1. i London Evening Herald, Feb. 17, 1879. •^i< To the Editor of the Herald : Sir, — In reading the account of the various welcomes accorded to the Bishop on his return, one cannot fail to be struck by the pleas- ing variety thereof. First we have a *' Service of Welcome " (what- ever that may be) in the Chapter House. I find in my prayer-book no provision for anything of the kind, and I did think hitherto that the object in going to church and singing *'Te Deums" was to praise God, not to welcome a Bishop " or any other man." Next we have a theatrical performance in the Ladies' College. Now to invite a Bishop to witness the acting of a party of school girls seems to me decidedly infra dig. The performance, however, had the merit of originality, especially in the tableaux, in which *' five young ladies in green dresses lying on the ground " represented the River " St. Lawrence." nies on this occasion. The frequency of these performances in the Ladies' College leads us to ask whether the young ladies are intended for actresses ? or has the histrionic art be- come as necessary a part of female education as music or drawing ? I think that most parents would be sorry to have their daughters educated in this sort of frivolity, and in a Church School under the patronage of a Bishop, and the principalship of a clergyman, we might expect that the pupils would be taught to remember their baptismal vows, to ** renounce the pomps and vanities of the world." I am, Mr. Editor, yours truly, A Chukchwoa[an. t^.<}Vi •.'"?' ''J >-'■■ ^KiT'.- ' ■ LETTER IL London Evening Herald, Feb., 21, 1879. To the Editw of the Herald : Dear Sir, — I think most Churchmen will agree with " Church- woman " in her strictures upon the late " phantom of glory," and I trust they will stop in the future any exhibition of the same nature. It is not surprising that Canadian parents should refrain from send- ing their children to the College, if their time is occupied in such superficial and vainglorious tuition. I am afraid the fulsome address signed by the clergy, although it does not say by how many, and by whom, will hardly bear investigation. Referring to the University, great credit is given to the Bishop, stating as that it was due to his own projection. There must be a mistake here, as the Bishop ex- pressed his great surprise when it was first brought before him in an official shape, and also in his charge to the Synod of 1877, he stated that this movement had been inaugurated by the Professors and Alumni. I believe Church people in general are very unconcerned about the University, and trouble little whether the honour of insti- tuting it lies with the Professors and Alumni or the Bishop, after the unfortunate failure of getting the Government to buy this "huge elephant " (in the shape of the Boys' College) for a Normal School. What concerns us more is, that our Bishop should be absent so many months getting up subscriptions in England to convert this incubus into what the future will witness as a monumental folly built upon the respected ruins of Huron College. I see by this adulatory address that much sympathy was shown in England ; very fortunate for its success that it was so ; the simple donations there I Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. »v added to the magnificent and munificent subscription of the Bishop, I think, will make up for the want of sympathy and assistance here, and accomplish the undertaking which, [ trust, will not be more in- jurious to the welfare of the Church than the Boys' College has been. These exhibitions of "vain glory" are demoralizing the whole Church, and making it a by- word among other denominations, and a source of grief and shame to its own members. I hope that such an exhibition of worldly worship may never be witnessed again as certainly it cannot be counted as one of the '' blessed privileges of being a Churchman." It would be a higher privilege if, instead of the notices so nauseous to well regulated minds, we were to hear on every side about the Christian zeal, purity, toil and labour of our Bishop in spiritual matters. We should then be spared reading about such frivolity as that of last week. Yours truly, 'Churchman. Without here making any remark as to the manner in which the information was obtained (as this may be a matter of fu- ture investigation), suffice it to say that the name of the writer of " Churchwoman's " letter became known. On the 6th March, the quarterly meeting of Huron College Council was held, as described in my letter of May 21st ; and the cause of offence practically settled by an apology being given and accepted. How the matter was revived is also described in the same let- ter, and also what took place at the " special meeting " on April 26th. For the clear understanding of the matter I now give the various documents referring to the same in regular order, from the time of the March meeting, to which reference is made in my letter to V. Crony n of May 21st, and also those which have been put forth since that letter was written. On the 16th or 17th of April, I received the following notice of a meeting of Huron College Council : — l-.t v^ -;, , "Huron College, London, Ontario. ' '' By order of th£ President. " A meeting of the Council of Huron College will be held at the " College on Saturday, the 26th day of April, at 10 o'clock a.m, " for special business. :, , ,; • ; -; " V. Cronyn, Secretary. " And immediately after the adjournment of said meeting, an- " other special meeting of the Council will be held to elect members " to fill ^/te vacancies in the Council." ' ' "•"'" ^'^^ I t Explanations by Archdeacon Maish. 7, Note.- The following, among others, are the rules regulating the meetings of the Council ; by which it will be seen that the above notice did not comply with rule 3. 1. The Council shall meet quarterly, at such time and place as the President, or, in his absence, the Principal may appoint. 2. Special meetings may be convened as the President may deem necessary, or upon the requisition of any three members of the Council. Notices for all meetings shall be sent to each member at least ten days before the time appointed. 3. Notices for special meetings shall specify the business to be brought forward. 4. No business shall bo introduced at any special meeting in addi- tion to that specified in the notice. Letter from Mr. Cronyn received hy me onthe evening of Aprilliat. "21sT April, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — Enclosed is a copy of a letter just received by me from the Bishop which I send you at his request, and say that the matter will come before the Council at their meeting on Saturday next, and any communication you may desire with the Bishop he wishes to come through me as his Chancellor. " I am yours, faithfully, | "V. Cronyn. " The Venerable Archdeacon Marsh, "City." " |U u:«iU-; Ktit- (■Y»"« " London, Ont., 21st April, 1879. " My dear Mr. Chancellor, — I am under the painful ne- cessity of inclosing for the information of the Council of Huron College a letter containing evidence that the Venerable Arch- deacon Marsh was cognizant of the letter which appeared in the Lo7idon Evening Herald on the Seventeenth of February last, bearing the signature of ' A Churchwoman,' and that he advised and undertook its publication. " I abstain from animadverting on the frivolous and mischie- vous character of the letter, and would have much preferred to treat the communication with the indifference all anonymous communications deserve, but for the additional circumstances connected with it, which add to the gravan;:;n of the act, and _/< 8 Ex'planatioTis by Archdecvcon Marsh. render it, in my opinion, necessary that the Council should be made accquainted with it. " These are as follows : When the subject of the letter and its appearance in the newspaper were brought before the Council at which the Venerable Archdeacon Marsh was present, he not only expressed utter ignorance of its authorship, but joined in reprobating such a proceeding, and openly expressed his abhor- rence of the practice of writing anonymous letters reflecting upon individuals or institutions, and acquiesced with the Council in demanding from Dr. Schulte an ample apology for the outrage which had been perpetrated, placing the whole transaction be- fore the Council in a manner and language which made it im- possible for them to conceive that the Venerable Archdeacon was, as it appears^ not only cognizant of all the particulars con- nected with the inception and character of the letter but also of its publication. " Participation in severely censuring a brother clergyman for the commission of an act for which it appears the Venerable Archdeacon was chiefly responsible without an extenuating plea on behalf of one who acted entirely on Archdeacon Marsh's advice, or frankly admitting his share in the transaction, is a conduct which gives the whole proceeding so dark a complexion as to call, in my judgment, for an inquiry by the Council into the whole information placed before them. '' I am confident that the Council's zeal for the preservation of harmony among themselves in a Christian spirit, and the desire of faithfully guarding the important interests entrusted to them, will lead them, after having carefully weighed all the ihforma- tion and circumstances connected with the matter, to arrive at a just and satisfactory conclusion. I am, " « Notes on the Bishop's Letter, April 21st. 1 Par. — No copy of the letter enclosed in this was sent to me ; why it was kept back has not yet been explained. See my letter of May 21st, to V. Cronyn for a correct account of the matter referred to in this letter.* 3 Par. — This is not correct, I did not express my ignorance of the authorship of the letter signed '* A Churchwoman," nor did I join in reprobating and denouncing such a proceeding, for, as I have again and again stated, I did not speak of that letter at all. All mj'^ re- * See pages 18, 19, 20. t I J" i Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 9^ marks at the meeting on March 6th, referred to the letter signed *' Churchman." 1 did not express my abhorrence of the practice of writing anonymous letters, for I think that such are quite allowable and necessary under certain circumstances, but I stated that I was not in the habit of writing such letters attacking public men, and that I was indignant that any one could suppose that I had written the letter signed " Churchman." I did not acquiesce with the council in demanding an apology from Dr. Schulte, for the council never asked for it, the apology was made and accepted before the council met, and the letter of apology was read to us by the Bishop. Individual members joined in abusing Dr. Schulte, who was not even present, and, judging by the ordinary rules which govern gentlemen, having made an apology, he might, I think, have received better treatment at their hands. I did act with others in asking Dr. Schulte to change some of the expressions in his letter of apology, and did this with a view of helping to establish peace between the Bishop and Dr. Schulte. All the rest of this letter is built on a false foundation, and there- fore all its inferences and charges against me crumble into dust. After the meeting of the Council of April 26th,* I went to Toronto, and asked my friend and nephew Mr. W. H. Beatty, to act as a mediator in this matter, and endeavour to bring about mutual explanations. He kindly agreed, and accom- panied me to London, on May the 6th, and saw the Bishop as described in the written pages. - . . . -v ? i Another letter from the Bishop. . , , "7th May, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — Enclosed is a copy of a let- ter received by me from the Bishop, which explains itself and why I send it you. " Yours faithfully, "The Venerable Archdeacon Marsh, ** V. Cronyn. "City." f ;, ; "Chapter House, : "London, May 6, 1879. : " My Dear Mr. Cronyn, — I have to request you, as my Chancellor, to be again the medium of my communication to Archdeacon Marsh, and to say to him that the Council of See pa^e 2%. 10 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. Huron College, having dealt, on the 26th ult., with his conduct in connection with the letter which appeared in the London Evening ffercdd, on the 17th Feb. last, signed, ' A Churchwo- man,' and expressed in his presence their condemnation of it, by unanimously dismissing him from their Council Board, I did expect that ere this he would have seen the propriety of ten- dering his resignation of the Archdeaconry of London, and with it sent an ample apology for his unjustifiable conduct. This he has not done. It now becomes my imperative duty, as Bishop of the Diocese, to take such steps in the premises as are demanded by this public reprobation on the part of an influen- tial deliberative body of the action and character of a clergy- man who holds the position of a dignitary of the Church. *' When he accepted from my hands the appointments to the Eectory of St. John's and the Archdeaconry of London, I fully believed and expected that he would prove himself to be a loyal and faithful officer, and, as oculus episcopi, would do all in his power to assist and sustain his Bishop in the discharge of the great duties incumbent upon him. " I find, however, to my deep sorrow, not alone from these re- cent disclosures, but from many circumstances of the past, that I can no longer rely upon his fidelity or loyalty to myself, or on the faithful performance of his duties as Archdeacon. *' So long as his hostility was directed against me personally, I bore it patiently, and abstained from noticing it, but since his attacks include my loyal clergy and laity, and our educational institutions, silence and forbearance cease to be charity. " In order to be explicit as to the grounds on which I take the measures indicated in this letter, I recapitulate the circum- stances proved at the recent Council meeting and admitted by him. " These were, that he was not only cognizant of the contents of the letter in question, but counselled its publication, and with that view took possession of it, secured its insertion and pro- vided for its wide circulation. " The whole affair assumes a most grave and serious aspect fiom the fact that one occupying the high position of an Arch- deacon of my diocese should advise a brother presbyter, only recently appointed to the office of Teacher in our Divinity Col- lege, and not even yet licensed by me, to be a party to an an- onymous letter in a newspaper, reflecting not only upon the I Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 11 Bishop of the Diocese, but also upon other prominent digni- taries, clergy and laity, who are publicly libelled and held up to ridicule for having arranged a service of thanksgiving to God for the safe return of their Diocesan from the mother country. 'vi'^'-r^i m. " He must have known — as I have since learned — that the originators and promoters of this service, which the letter in question attempts to burlesque, are men of high standing and acknowledged piety in the Church, and certainly no less zeal- ous than himself for the glory of that God whose honour they are accused of infringing upon by this simple act of " general thanksgiving " in the house of prayer. My Commissary, now the Bishop of Toronto, the Dean, Canon Innes, yourselif, the Chancellor of the Diocese, and a goodly number of the clergy and laity participated in the movement, whilst the large atten- dance gathered in the Chapter House on the occasion mani- fested the general appreciation of the act. " That in the face of all this he should, by becoming the me- dium of the publication of such a letter, take upon himself to sit in judgment upon his Bishop and brethren, and seek by such means to hold them up to public contempt, must neces- sarily bring upon him the reprobation of all Church members and lovers of peace and charity. " The facts that Dr. Schulte submitted the lettc r to the Arch- deacon's approval, that the Archdeacon took charge of it, dis- suading Dr. Schulte from entrusting it to the columns of the Free Press, as a paper friendly to the Bishop, and assuming the responsibility of securing its publication in a paper, to say the least, not interested in the welfare of our Church, all tend to shew the deliberate purpose by which the Archdeacon was ac- tuated. However natural it might seem for Dr. Schulte to consult in such a matter a close neighbour, an old friend, and one holding the position of Archdeacon in the Diocese, it ap- pears doubly reprehensible that he should have been led by him to perpetrate an offence which would, if discovered, not only render him obnoxious to his brethren, but actually en- danger his position in connection with the College. It must be apparent to all acquainted with the particulars of the case, that but for his advice, as Dr. Schulte distinctly stated, and his having taken the entire charge of the letter and personally se- cured its publication, it would never have made its appearance. 12 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. Dr. Schulte writes thus : — * when the letter was composed I < took it to the archdeacon, asking his opinion about its pub- ' lication. He thought it would serve a good purpose to have ' it published, and undertook to find a publisher. From that ' time I know nothing further about it, nor did I take any ' further interest in it in any shape or form.* " The letter thus became his absolute property, to do with it what he liked. Whom then but the Archdeacon are we to hold chiefly responsible for Uiis unprovoked and unjustifiable assault upon his Bishop and his brethren, the clergy and laity, and upon our educational institutions ? " But the offence assumes a deeper and more culpable aspect when it is borne in mind that on the matter being brought be- fore the College Council, on the 6th of March last, at which the Archdeacon was present, he actually joined in reprobating such conduct, and openly expressed before the council his utter ab- horrence of the practice of writing anonymous letters reflecting upon individuals and institutions, saying * he would sooner * cut off his right hand than be guilty of such an act.' "He acquiesced with the Council in demanding from Dr. Schulte an ample apology for the outrage perpetrated. " Was it possible to conceive that all this time he was not only cognizant of the whole matter, but the chief actor therein 1 Was it possible to conceive that he could thus participate in censuring a brother — even by silence — for the commission of an act which he alone was responsible for consummating, with- out having the manliness to advance one extenuating plea on his behalf, who acted entirely upon his counsel or frankly con- fessing his share in the matter 1 " It is this duplicity and deception on the part of the Arch- deacon, the pains he took to dissuade and deter Dr. Schulte from disclosing his participation in the offence ; his gratuitous efforts to misconstrue and misrepresent the acts and motives of his Bishop and his brethren, which gives the whole question so dark a complexion and make it impossible for me to have him any longer associated with me as my Archdeacon. " Connecting these painful disclosures with the whole course of his conduct in the past, I feel it a duty in the interests of the Church, however painful, to request Archdeacon Marsh — (1) That he immediately resign the office and title of Arch- deacon of London. •^ Explanations hf Archdeacon Marsh. 13 (2) That) in accordance with Canon VIL, he take up his ^^i residence in his parish, i.6. in the Village of St. John or its immediate neighbourhood, within six months from this date. (3) That he write an ample apology for his past conduct, with a promise for the future to act more loyally. " He has my sanction, if he so choose, to effect an exchange with a clergyman of good standing in any other diocese. ** It is most trying and grievous to me to be obliged to write this of one who has experienced nothing but forbearance and kindness at my hands, and from whom I had a right to expect better things. " I am, my dear Chancellor, " V. Cronyn, Esq., " Yours faithfully, Barrister, &c., and " (Signed) I. HuRON. Chancellor of the Diocese of Huron." Notes on the Bishop's Letter, May 6th. The Bishop charges me with hostility to himself. I utterly deny the charge of hostility to the Bishop, either past or present, and I challenge any one of those who have thus set themselves against me to prove that I have ever in any way opposed the Bishop, save arid except in difference of opinion which may and often does exist when matters are under discussion ; but this is not usually taken as per- sonal opposition, and yet this is the only ground for this charge brought against me. I am quite aware that the Bishop has for years been nursing the feeling in his own mind that 1 am opposed to him, until I suppose he now believes it, and whether his express- ions about me have always been characterised by " forbearance and kindness," many others know even better than I, for th* -ugh I have been repeatedly urged to take notice of the matter, I have always declined, being unwilling to run the risk of injuring our diocesan work by breaking that harmony which ought to prevail among those who are co-labourers. I am also charged of joining in ''holding up the Bishop to ridicule and public rebuke, and with burlesqueing a service." i, I have already explained that I had no such intention even when I expressed approval of " Churchwoman's " letter."* But let us see what grounds for this charge are found in "Churchwoman's" letter. What is said of this " service of welcome " (there is no reference in that letter to any "address "). The letter reads thus : " First we ** have a 'service of welcome,' whatever that maybe, in the Chapter * See page 18. u Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. " House. 1 find in my prayer-book no provision for anything of " the kind." This is a statement to which all intelligent Church people will assent. Next we read, " I did hitherto think that the " object in going to church and singing Te Deums was to praise God, ** and not welcome a Bishop ' or any other man.' " Surely all will agree that this is a true view of the matter. What then becomes of the charge of holding up any one to ridicule, and public contempt ? The mode of returning thanks to Almighty God, in the public con- gregation, for mercies received is plainly laid down by the Church, and this applies to all, from the highest to the lowest. All the other grave charges in this letter are eqjially groundless, as they are all founded on the assumption that I was speaking of the letter signed " Church woman," when 1 solemnly declare that I was speaking of the letter signed " Churchman," and of no other. The Bishop charges me with gross crimes, which, were I really guilty, would render me unfit to continue in the discharge of min- isterial duty, and yet, after enumerating what punishment he thinks should be laid upon me for these unclerical doings, he writes thus " he has my sanction, if he so choose, to effect an exchange with a ** clergyman of good standing in any other diocese." The Bishop knows that in order to enable a clergyman ' * to effect an exchange "with a clergyman of good standing in any other diocese" he must be furnished with the following bene decessit which is the law of our Synod, *' whereas the Reverend being about to leave this " Diocese has requested of us letters testimonial of his good life and ' ' conversation, we Bishop of Huron, do hereby testify that "the said during the time that he served as in this ** Diocese, which was from to the present date, did behave " himself piously, soberly and honestly, nor do we know that he " believed or maintained any opinion contrary to the doctrine or "discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland. In " witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our hand and affixed " our seal. " Dated at Ontario, this day of in the year of our " Lord one thousand eight hundred and in the year of (( our consecration. Much might be said here, but I refrain, for in this case " silence is eloquence." On receipt of the above letter from the Bishop, I wrote to Mr. Cronyn as follows : : ' i,M ■> ^r. - "719 Waterloo Street, "London, May 7, 1879. . " My Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of to- day, with a copy oif a letter from the Bishop of the 6th. I am f Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh, 15 most anxious to have, what I feel to be, the unfortunate mis- undertanding in many points in this sad business explained to the Bishop, and for this purpose have placed myself in the hands of my friend Mr. W. H. Beatty, who has already seen the Bishop, as my friend, as my medical adviser has directed me to, as far as possible, abstain from all excitement, otherwise he will not answer for the consequences, and he has ordered me, for the present, to give up all duty. The Bishop informed Mr. Beatty that he had written to me, and that he could not talk with him about the matter until I had received his letter. Will you kindly let me know when the Bishop will be back from New York, as I hear that he leaves for that city to-day. , *• I remain, yours faithfully, "V. Cronyn, Esq." , ^^ j,, ^ , ,,, "J. Walker Marsh." . From Toronto 1 wrote to Dr. Brown, asking him to write to Mr. Cronyn, for the Bishop's information, his opinion of my state of health as expressed to me, and received from him the following reply : " 133 Kent Street, May 12, 1879. " My Dear Archdeacon, — I received your letter on Satur- day, and at once forwarded to Mr. V. Cronyn the certificate as expressed, so that I trust that everything will yet be so satis- factorily arranged that the disquietude you are suffering from at present may soon be removed, and your usual mental equi- librium fully restored. " I have not heard yet of the Bishop's return, nor have 1 re- ceived any answer from Mr. Cronyn. I kept a copy of the cer- tificate I sent him. " Yours truly, " Ven Archdeacon Marsh." . " V. A. Brown. Two days after, I received the following : " London, Ont., May 14, 1879. ** My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — The Bishop returned home last evening. I informed him of what you had written me. This morning I received the following from him : " * My Dear Mr. Cronyn, — After mature reflection and sound counsel, I have come to the conclusion of not seeing Mr. Beatty in the matter of Archdeacon Marsh. Mr. Marsh is in 10 Explanatiovs hy Archdeacon Marsh. possession of the letter I wrote you for his perusal on the 6th inst. Anything he has to say must be in writing, and through you, my Chancellor. . > .. - . . . ' "* Believe me, &c.' > )> Thus my offer to have this business settled by mutual ex- planations was deliberately rejected, and I was forced, although the Bishop knew the then state of my health, to write a full state lUent to Mr. Cronyn. ' '^'- ^ Mr. Beatty had already seen the Bishop, and what passed between them I know not, except that the Bishop told Mr. Beatty that " were he a clergyman he would not allow him to say a word." Comment on such a sentiment, coming from the lips of a Christian Bishop under the circumstances, is unneces- sary. "Toronto, May 21, 1879. " V. Cronyn, Esq., * " Chancellor of the Diocese of Huron : "My Dear Sir, — As the Bishop desires me to communicate with him through you, I must do so, although I am forbidden by my medical man to attempt at present to answer any letters. I regret that his Lordship has denied me the privilege of a per- sonal interview, and placed me at the disadvantage of having to explain by letter, and thus necessarily at great length, what could be more clearly explained ' viva voce' and face to face. " The Bishop expresses his surprise that I have not, ere this, tendered my resignation of the Archdeaconry of London, and sent an ample apology for my conduct in connection with the publication of the letter signed ' Churchwoman,' which ap- peared in the London Evening Herald^ of the 17th February last, and bases this expectation upon the fact of a resolution having been passed by the Council of Huron College, on the 26th ult., dealing with the matter. "I beg most respectfully to state that, even if the Council of Huron College were entitled, as they are not, to deal as they have assumed to do, with any member of the corporation in respect of matters wholly unconnected with the College, their too hasty action in the present instance was based upon an entire misapprehension of the actual facts. The history of my connection with the letter iu question is as follows ; About the f y .1 4 6th ugh Explanation8 by Archdeacon Marsh. 17 middle of February an article appeared in the London Free Press and Evening Herald^ containing a graphic account of the * tableaux vivant,' given at Hellmuth Ladies* College, in honour of the Bishop's return from England. This exhibition, in which some forty -two young ladies in various postures and attires, represented ' the noble Red Man ; ' ' the Church ; ' * the Muses ; ' * the Esquimaux ; ' 'the River St. Lawrence,' •Ac, &c., was of a character I could not and did not approve ; but I said nothing, so far as I can remember, to any person outside my own family about it until after the letter in question ap- peared, though my sentiments with regard to such displays have been long and well known, not only to many of the clergy and others, but to the Bishop also, with whom I had every rea- son to believe I was in perfect accord as to the inexpediency of such theatrical displays in connection with our churches and educational institutions. Shortly after the appearance of that article, the Rev. Dr. Schulte called at my house with a letter in his hand enclosed in an envelope, addressed to ' The Editor of the Free Press,' and stated that he was on his way to post it in the box at the corner of the street, but had called in pass- ing, to read it to me and ask my opinion of it. ' - "He produced the letter, which was written out ready for pub- lication, and was headed * To the Editor of the Free Press, same as the envelope enclosing it. This was the first intimation I had concerning this, or any other letter being written, or of any intention of writing, in regard to the propriety of the exhi- bition which had been held at the Ladies' College. " Dr. Schulte read the letter to me, and its criticism of the * tableaux vivants' agreed so well with my own views of such performances, that I said, * I think it is a fair criticism on a matter which has, since the article in the newspapers, become public property, and to publish it will, I think, do good ;' mean- ing that it would tend to put a stop to such exhibitions in fu- ture, * but,' I added, * I think it would be better for you to send it to the Herald.* The heading of the letter was then and there altered, and it was put in a fresh envelope and readdressed, and the Doctor was going, as I understood, to drop it in the P. O. box, when I offered to deliver it for him, as I should be pass- ing the office. I said this out of kindness to the Doctor and his wife, never thinking at the time that I was in any way making myself responsible for the letter ; though I have since been in> B ''%K ExplaTiations hy Archdeacon Marsh. formed that such is the effect of my action. I did leave the letter at the office, and the day after it was published I went to Hamilton, and was absent from London for a week. On my way to Hamilton, I purchased half a dozen copies of the paper, and sent them to some of my clerical friends and to one lay friend living at a distance from London, but not to the parents of the children at the school. My object in sending the papers was, simply because of the criticism on the ' tableaux,' and I must admit with great regret, that so much did my mind dwell upon this portion of the letter, that I entirely overlooked the two sentences of it referring to the * service of welcome,' upon which his lordship especially dwells in his letter of 6th May ; not having myself been present at that service, and then not knowing who had taken part in it. " On my return from Hamilton I was shewn for the first time the letter signed * Churchman,' which had been published in the Herald during my absence and of which, or of any such latter, or of any letter whatever on the subject I was entirely ignorant ; nor did I know until I learned from the bishop him- self, by whom that letter was written. 1 did not and do not approve either of its sentiments, or of its tone. It is to my mind, entirely different in character to * Church woman's ' letter; the latter seems to have been intended as a humorous criticism of the exhibition at Hellmuth Ladies' College, with a doubt whether it was a fitting performance to which to invite our Bishop. The letter of * Churchman,' on the other hand con- tains a direct attack upon the Bishop himself, with which I have no sympathy whatever, and which no one can reprobate more strongly than myself. " The regular quarterly meeting of Huron College Council was held, I think, on the 6th of March, and in the meantime the Bishop had ascertained who was the author of the letter signed * Church woman ;' and Dr. Schulte told rae that he was threatened with expulsion from his Professorship because of it. I went to that meeting ready to explain the whole matter, in case any such motion should be made. After the regular college business had been disposed of, the Bishop addressed us in reference to a letter signed * Churchwoman,' stating that Dr. Schulte acknow- ledged that it had been written by Mrs. Schulte, and that he (Dr. Schulte) had, by the advice of yourself. Archdeacon Sweatman and Canon Inues, written a letter of apology, which letter the ^i •^ / ■> f Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 19 Bishop read to us. The Bishop stated that he was willing to accept the apology if its phraseology was in some respects altered, and he mentioned the expressions with which he was not sat- isfied, and seemed to put a meaning upon them which I thought Dr. Schulte had not intended. I then said that Dr. SchuTte, being a foreigner, did not perhaps use English words exactly as we did. Canon Innes and Archdeacon Sweatman spoke strongly on the matter, and you and Archdeacon Sandys each made a few remarks, the latter saying that he agreed with me and thought the letter should be construed with reference to the fact that Dr. Schulte was a foreigner. Neither Dean Boomer, nor Arch- deacon Elwood made any remark, nor did I join further in the discussion. I liad never seen nor heard of Dr. Schulte's letter of apology until it was read by the Bishop ; not a word was said about expulsion, no vote of censure was proposed or sug- gested, but it was agreed that a committee consisting of yourself and Canon Innes (by whose advice the letter of apology was written) should wait upon Dr. Schulte and get him to change the wording of those expressions to which the Bishop objected, and to this committee were added Archdeacon Elwood and myself. "Under these circumstances I thought it better, in the interests of peace, to say nothing further about ' Church woman's ' letter. To re-open the matter, it seemed to me, would provoke discus- sion and dissension, instead of the harmony which appeared to exist, and to be desired by all present. I now feel that in this I was wrong, that it would have been better had I gone fully into the whole case, but I acted at the time, as I thought, fur the best, not from fear, but for peace. After the matter about Dr. Schulte and * Churchwoman's * letter, had been settled, seeing that the meeting would rise without any further refer- ence to the second letter, signed * Churchman,' and feeling that some, if not all, of those present, including the Bishop, believed me to be the author of it, I said to the Bishop, in the presence of the others, ' My Lord, I think it better to be plain and ' frank among brethren ; I have been told that I am charged ' with writing the letter signed "Churchman," and I felt, from * the manner of some members of the Standing Committee to- ' wards me yesterday, that such a statement must have been ' made to them. Now I beg to say that I know no more about ' that letter than ' the man in the moon.' I was not in Lon- 20 Explanations by Archdeacon Mai'sh, 'i don when it was published and did not see it until several days after it had appeared. 1 went on to say that I was not in the habit of writing anonymous letters to the newspapers contain- ing personal reflections on any one, and that perhaps one reason for my being suspected of the authorship of that letter was that during the time of the recent election of Bishop in Toronto, I had written, over the signature ' Churchman,' to the Mail newspaper advocating a return to the Apostolic method of choos- ing a Bishop ; and many in the Diocese knew me to be the author of that letter. The Bishop said, ' the parties at the Herald office say that ' Churchman's ' letter was written by the brother of a clergyman in town.' I was much startled at this, thinking that he referred to my brother ; the Bishop, seeing this, stretched out his hand towards me and said quickly, ' I do not mean that,' ' I do not mean your brother.' You then said, ' the publishers have stated that that letter was written by a layman.' It seems to me incredible that anyone who was pre- sent at this discussion could possibly think that you, or the Bishop, or myself, referred to any other letter than the one signed * C/mrcAmaw.' The letter of ' Churchwoman ' had been disposed of some time before, and its authorship fully admitted. My remarks referred entirely and, as I think, very plainly to the letter of ' Churchman,' and they were evidently so un- derstood both by the Bishop and by yourself. I did not use the expression attributed to me by the Bishop, that * 1 would rather cut off my right hand than write such a letter ; ' but I did speak in terms of strong disapproval of the letter of * Churchman,' and of the practice of anonymous attacks upon public men, and of the idea that / could have written such a letter as that signed ' Churchman.' It still appears to me that the letter of ' Churchwoman ' contains no such attack. At the request of the Committee, I notified Dr. Shulte that evening of the appointment and object of the Committee, but I did not report to him the language used by any member of the council, regarding our deliberations as private. Dr. Shulte arranged to meet us the next day at the Chapter House, and did so, when he added to his letter of apology certain words of explanation. The letter was then taken by Archdeacon Elwood to the Bishop, who called us all into his room, and in the presence of the Committee, Dr. Schulte and Dean Boomer, told us that he ' was satisfied,' that he * accepted the apology,' and he then shook 1 1 I |- hLvi^hiDntnmffhy Arrhdptnutv Marsh. 21 eason that to, I Mail hoos- the the y the this, eeing 'I do I said, by a pre- • the hands with Dr. Shulte, and said that ^he matter had passed away, and that confidence and haifn<>ny wef now restored. " Such is, in brief, the history of my rj/^nnection with the let- ter referred to in His Lordshif '« coramunication of the 6th inst., and, though I feel that I acted with great imprudence and want of judgment in allowing myself, iti ray position, in any way to be mixed up with the publication of an anonymous let- ter criticising the conduol of an institution owned and controlled by the Bishop, ami though I am willing for this error to suf- fer punisliment even beyond what His Lordship demands, I feel that of the grave charges of ' duplicity, deception and treachery ' I am entirely innocent, nor can I comply with his demands until the stigma placed upon me by the resolution passed by the College Council on the 26th ult. is removed. I feel confident that the members of the Council who passed that resolution would not desire to do me an injustice ; and had I been in their position, and believed the facts to be as they were, no doubt, presented to them, I should probably have felt as they did ; though, I trust, I should not so harshly have con- demned any one, least of all a brother who had been intimately known to some of them for thirty, and to some for well nigh forty, years, and who had up to that time enjoyed their friend- ship, confidence and, I believe, their esteem. " I heard nothing more of this unfortunate matter for more than six weeks. " About the seventeenth of April I received your postal card, notifying me that a meeting of the Council of Huron College, for ' special business,' would be held on the following Satur- day week at the College. The nature of this special business not being stated in the postal card, I asked Dr. Schulte, a day or so afterwards, what was the object of the meeting, and he told me that he supposed it was to consider his request, that a house should be built for him. On the evening of, I think, the 21st of April, I was astounded by the receipt of your let-, ter, enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to you by the Bishop, dated 2l8t April, stating that he enclosed, 'for the information ' of the Council of Huron College, a letter containing evidence * that I was cognizant of the letter which appeared in the * Herald of the 17th February, over the signature of * Church- ' woman,' and that I advised and undertook its publication. * That when the subject was brought before the Council I not ! tl 22 Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. . I * only expressed utter ignorance of the authorship of this letter, * but joined in reprobating such a proceeding, and in demand- * ing from Dr. Schulte an ample apology, and that this con- *duct called for enquiry by the Council into the whole infor- * mation placed before them.* " You did not however, enclose to me a copy of the letter to which the Bishop refers, nor say by whom it was written, and I was therefore in entire ignorance of the evidence proposed to be used against me, nor did I know what I had to meet until I saw Dr. Schulte, and learned from him that, by the Bishop's direction he had written to his Lordship five days before, a letter, of which he then shewed me a copy. Dr. Schulte stated to me that he had written this letter in great haste and excite- ment, being forbidden to see me, and not allowed any time for deliberation, and being under the influence of a positive assur- ance that at the meeting of the College Council on the 6th of March, I had been the loudest, and strongest in denouncing him, for his connection with the letter of * Churchwoman,* and had endeavoured to secure his expulsion, and that, but for the more moderate counsel of the Bishop, and others, he would have been expelled at my instigation. He was led, no doubt, the more easily to believe this, since I had abstained from men- tioning to him the language actually used by the members of the Council in reference to the letter. I told him that I hardly wondered at his action under the circumstances, but that his letter did not give the facts exactly as they occurred ; and I gave liim my own account of the entire transaction, which he said was precisely correct, and that he intended his letter to mean the same thing and that he would make all right at the meeting on Saturday, which I asked him to attend. ** On Saturday, the 26th of April, I went at the time named in the notice to the place there indicated, the Library of Huron College, and waited there at least, I should think, half an hour, wondering that no one came. Had it been an ordinary meet- ing of the Council I should have gone away, believing that I had mistaken the date, but, as the business was of a character so nearly affecting myself, I remained determined to see the end, and meet my accusers face to face. After a long time Dean Boomer came in, and told me that this meeting was to be held, not in the usual place, but, in his drawing-room. I went with him and, on entering the room, found most of the Council Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. ^ and- |con- ifor- T to and !d to intil lop's 'e, a ated cite- for already assembled. The Bishop soon after entered, took tho chair, and opened the meeting. The minutes of last meeting were read. They related wholly to college business, and con- tained no reference to the discussion about the letters.* " It was, however, proposed by you to add a minute of what had taken place with reference to the letter of ' Churchwoman,' from notes taken by yourself at the time ; but when you read these notes it appeared from them that the Council had * un- animously condemned Dr. Schulte.' I at once said * if you ' mean by that, that we all spoke against Dr. Schulte, I object * to the statement, for Dean Boomer and Archdeacon Elwood * said nothing whatever, and I said nothing in condemnation of ' Dr. Schulte.' " The Bishop then commenced to speak of the matter affecting myself ; and, fearing if I had to contradict the Bishop, there might be excitement and discussion, I asked his permission to make my own statement first, which was agreed to. I then stated exactly what had taken place between Dr. Schulte and me respecting the letter signed * Church woman,' giving, I be- lieve, the same history which I have given above. " Dr. Schulte said that ray statement was entirely correct, and that what he had written was meant to convey the same im- pression. He particularly referred to the statement, in his letter of the 16th April, that ' before Churchwoman's letter * was composed, we talked disapprovingly of theatrical exhi- ' bitions in our colleges generally, and how the manner of wel- ' coming our Bishop had grown very similar to Romish recep ' tions ; ' and he explained that * we ' meant himself and Mrs. Schulte, and not himself and me ; and stated that he had no communication with me whatever before the letter of ' Church- woman ' was written. I then explained that my remarks at the previous meeting had referred entirely to Churchman's letter ; when Dean Grasett said, ' there was only one letter 'before that meeting.' I said, 'Mr. Dean, I brought up the ' second letter myself.' My statement was frequently inter- rupted, and there was much excited discussion. Among other things Canon Innes stated that papers had been sent to the parents of the children at the school, and asked Dr. Schulte if ' This proves that I am correct that this matter had «o connection with our college bu ^uiess, otherwise it would have been inserted in the Minutes of March 6th with the rest. It was only when it was found necessary to have a coniiecting link between tliat nicetinsr ;in(l the present one that these "Notes" were made part of the miinitos. n 'li 24 Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. he had sent them, to which he replied in the negative. The Bishop then said that if I did not deny sending the papers, I should be considered to be the party who sent them to the parents of the children. I was fully impressed at that time that Dr. Schulte had sent them, as I knew that he got some papers to send to some ladies, and believing in my own mind that in a moment of weakness he had been tempted to deny this, I said nothing, lest I might have placed him in a false position. I subsequently ascertained from him that, although he had obtained papers for such purpose, he had changed his mind, and not sent them. " Dr. Schulte, not being a member of the Council, was told that he might retire ; and then, without further discussion or consultation. Dean Grasett, in my presence, took up a pen, wrote a few lines on a piece of paper, rose, and walked over to Archdeacon Sweatman, who was at the other end of a long table, and asked him if he * would second that,' showing him the paper. The Archdeacon read it, and said *yes.* The Dean walked back, read the paper, which was a resolution to erase my name from the list of members of Huron (JoUege Council, and handed it to the Bishop. Archdeacon Sweatman then said, ' that when he was asked to second that resolution ' he agreed to do so, because he looked upon this as the re- * suit,' (or the outcome, I am not sure which,) * of my opposi- * tion to the Bishop, and that he had always considered me ' sincere until recently, when a circumstance came to his know- * ledge which proved my want of sincerity.' He did not state the circumstance, nor did I then know what it was ; but it has since been fully explained, I think, to his satisfaction, and he has agreed to write to the Bishop on my behalf. The resolu- tion was put to the meeting and carried ; and the Bishop then, in presence of all the Council, told me with a most scornful tone and look, that ' I might go, 1 was not wanted there.' I said, ' I do not think that you have power to dismiss me ; I * am a member of the Council by Act of Parliament.' I con- tinued, * if you say that I should abstain from attending your * meetings for a fixed time, though the Council has nothing to ' do with it, well and good ; ' but there was no response. " I then said : — ' Were we in our own committee room, I should remain, but, seeing that I am in a gentleman's private drawing-room, when I am told that I am not wanted, nothing ^ f y Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 25 is left for me but to rise and go ; ' and I accordingly left the room. " I have now, Mr. Chancellor, given the history, not only of my connection with the letter of ' Church woman,* but of the manner in which I was treated and condemned, without any proper opportunity to defend myself, by a meeting which had no power to act in the premises, which was irregularly called and irregularly assembled, and the members of which had no opportunity for consultation or discussion after hearing such defence as I was permitted to make, imperfect as that defence necessarily was, by reason of my not having been furnished with any copy of the evidence proposed to be used against me. " A judgment so obtained, even were it the act of a tribunal competent to deal with the matter, would, I submit, require reconsideration before I could fairly be asked to submit to it ; and I have only to say in reply to the Bishop's letter of the 6th inst, that, with every desire to obey His Lordship's commands, I cannot ' resign the office and title of Archdeacon ' until this judgment is reconsidered and reversed. To do so, at present, would be interpreted as a confession of a crime of which I am not guilty, and to cast upon myself, my children and the Church an undeserved disgrace. " I deeply deplore that my thoughtlessness and want of proper judgment have given the Bishop so much anxiety and pain. I desire to shew every respect to his office and person, and now apologise for what I have done in regard to the publication of * Churchwomaii's ' letter, and if, after hearing my defence, the charge of duplicity, deception and treachery is removed from me, and the resolution of the Council rescinded, I am willing, after a sufficient interval has elapsed, to allow the public mind to recover from the false impressions, which have now been spread abroad for nearly a month past, (2) voluntarily to resign my position as a member of Huron College Council ; also (3) to place my resignation as Archdeacon of London in the hands of the Bishop, giving my reasons for so doing ; and further, to shew that I never intended any personal opposition to the Bishop, even where I differed from him in opinion, and, to remove my- self from the possibility of any appearance of opposition in future, (4) voluntarily to withdraw, for, say, two years, from any active part in the deliberations of the Synod of our Diocese. As to the Bishop's command that I should leave my own house 2ff Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. ! I in London, and reside within my parish, I am willing, if he still desires it, after hearing my explanation, to comply with Canon VII., and remove to my parish so soon as I can possibly make arrangements to that end. " I have written to you thus unreservedly, in the hope that full and mutual explanation may remove this unhappy misun- derstanding ; but, should this hope prove vain, without preju- dice to my rights in any position in which I may hereafter be placed, " I remain, my dear Sir, " Yours faithfully, " J. Walker Marsh, " Archdeacon of London and Rector of St. Johns." "719 Waterloo Street, London, " V. Cronyn, Esq., " May 29th, 1870. " Clmncellor of the Diocese of Huron ^ ' " My Dear Sir, — I beg to say for the Bishop's information, that, upon further consideration, I beg to withdraw that part of my letter of the 2lst, addressed to you, beginning on page 23, Hue 4 : ' and, if after hearing my defence, the charge of ' duplicity, deception and treachery is removed from me, and ' the resolution of the Council rescinded, I am willing, after a * sufficient interval has elapsed, to allow the public mind to 'recover from the false impressions which have now been ' spread abroad for nearly a month past (2) voluntarily to ' resign my position as a member of Huron College Council ; * also (3) to place my resignation as Archdeacon of London in ' the hands of the Bishop, giving ray reasons for so doing ; and ' further to shew that I never intended any personal opposi- * tion to the Bishop, even when I differed from hira in opinion, ' and to remove myself from the possibility of any opposition * in future (4) voluntarily to withdraw for, say two years, from ' any active part in the deliberations of the Synod of our 'diocese.' " I now withdraw all the above, and thus leave myself free to do what I may think right in the premises, when the Council has rescinded the resolution passed on the 26th ult., and re- moved the stigma placed upon me, by acknowledging that I was unfairly and unjustly treated on account of the precise f he with ibly that Explanations hy Archd^amn Marsh. 27 facts of the case not being fully understood by all the parties present at that meeting. I state this, like the other parts of my letter of the 21st inst, without prejudice to my rights in any position in which I may hereafter be placed. " I remain, my dear Sir, v . ^.i ; ' ' " Yours faithfully, . n>, " J. Walker Marsh, " Archdeacon of London and Redo7' of St. Johns." ; our Note. The reason that I withdrew the above was, that it looked like bidding for a verdict, and 1 felt that this was a wrong position, both for the Council and for myself ; and moreover, 1 felt that T was not justified, for the sake of others, in proposing voluntarily to with- draw from the Synod for any time, and the character of the legislation sent out for the last meeting proves that this was a correct view. I was most anxious, for the sake of the peace of the Church, to make any personal sacrifice ; but, whatever view may be taken of my thoughtlesness and want of judgment in allowing myself , in my po- sition, to be drawn in to take part in the publication of " Church- woman's" letter, the cruel treatment that I have received, and what I have, on this account suffered, has more than condoned for what I did. My views on such exhibitions as that criticised by that letter are fixed, and were such an exhibition to be repeated anywhere, and were I asked for my opinion in the same way, my answer would be as before, and I venture to assert that this view of the matter would be taken by a very large proportion of the right-thinking members of our community. Notes on Meeting. March 6. The reason that I spoke about ' ' Churchman's " letter at the March meeting was that I knew that efforts had been made to induce the publishers to name me as its author, and I was told that it was reported in the town that I had written that letter. To show the determination that existed in the minds of some to father that letter upon me, 1 may mention that one person, when told who wrote "Churchman's" letter, said "It matters not whether he wrote it, or whether Archdeadon Marsh wrote it, it is all the same thing for the Archdeacon inspired it." Can malice go further than this ? Knowing all this, and feeling indignant at such treatment, 1 $8 Exphinftfiovfi hy Archdeacon Marfih thought it due to all parties, as well as to myself, that I should pub- licly declare that I knew nothing whatever about ' ' Churchman's " letter. ii Notes on Meetingr, April 26. It is quite optional with the members of the Council whether they attend the meetings or not. There are some parties, whose names are on the list, who have never been present at a meeting, and 1 do not think that Canon Hincks was ever at a meeting before, at least I do not remember seeing him there, and until the last two or three years (my parochial duties sometimes prevented) I have attended almost all the meetings, and yet, what induced him suddenly to appear at a special meeting, if his notice was similar to that sent to me, is most unaccountable. Dean Grasett, also, was only at two or three meetings previous to that of April 26th, and it seems strange, unless by special invitation, not only that he should come to a special meeting on such a notice, but also that he should profess to know more about what took place at the March meeting than I did, a meeting at which he was not even present. When Dr. Boomer invited me to enter his house, he must have had, to say the least, a pretty good idea of what was going to take place, and he must have known that, had I been aware of any such inten- tion, I would not have crossed his threshold, as there is nothing in our rules to compel the attendance of any member ; at any rate, how any man with the instincts of a gentleman could invite a friend and brother into his house, and then join in insulting him, and in driv- ing him out of that house, is entirely beyond my comprehension. Canon Innes, M.A., was one who was most bitter at this meeting, and of what Canon Innes is capable of saying the Synod has had painful evidence more than once. No copy o^ the letter to which the Bishop refers in his let- ter of April 2 1st to V. Cronyn* was sent to me, and it was not until May 1st, Jive days after the special meeting of the Council, that I obtained a copy of it from Dr. Schulte, and also of that written by the Bishop, ordering him to write it. I give them here : ''London Ont., April 16th, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Schulte. — Understanding that Archdeacon Marsh was not only cognizant of, but a party to the letter, which ■^ See page 7. Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 29 appeared in the London Evening Herald of the 17th February last, under the signature of * Churchwoman,' I think it due to all concerned that you should distinctly state whether this is the case and to what extent, as important issues depend upon it for the well-being and good government of Huron College, of which you are a prominent professor. Relying upon a frank and full statement of the case from you — the truth and nothing but the truth. , , ... < > 1 . . . r . "I am yours sincerely, Aoua - ^ "I. Huron, " President of Huron College. " The Rev. Professor Schulte, D.D., &c. &c." r-^ji.91 ,h.: :■;' " My Lord, — I received your letter of the 16th inst. and am sincerely grieved that the difficulty about that letter is not yet fully buried. Your Lordship will remember that I took from the very first the wholg blame to myself, and thought that my apology was satisfactory to the Council, and thought there the matter would end. The whole affair is truly disagreeable and distasteful to me. I hate to implicate Archdeacon Marsh, who has been kind to me ever since I came to this diocese. I would rather that you should ask himself about the matter contained in your letter. " But as I would like to hear nothing more about it as far as I am concerned, I make the following statements which I trust will be final. . s- " 1. Before the composition of that letter, we talked disap- provingly of theatrical exhibitions in our colleges generally, and also how the manner of welcoming our bishops back to their dioceses grew imperceptibly very similar to Romish receptions. This may have been the occasion why Mrs. S. composed the letter, but Archdeacon Marsh never instigated any of us to write it. " 2. When the letter was composed I took it to the Archdea- con, asking his opinion about its publication. He thought it would serve a good purpose to have it published, and under- took to find a publisher. From that time I know nothing fur- ther about it, nor did I take any further interest in it in any shape or form. , ; ... - " This statement contains the whole truth of the matter. I f 80 Explaiiations by Archdeacon Marsh. Ill express again my sorrow that it should have been the occasion of so much trouble both to your lordship and to others. / ot ' "I am, &c., &c. "J. SCHULTE." 'j:-. M .'j. :• l'^ Notes on Rev. Dr. Sohulte's Letter, April 16th. To understand the pressure that was brought to bear on Dr. Schulte,* to make him write this letter, see letter May 2l8t, to V. Crony n, which part of that letter Dr. Schulte has since acknow- ledged to be " every word true. " What weight is to be attached to letters written under these cir- cumstances, each one can judge, especially when the writer is thus led to colour his previous statements. When I made my statement at the meeting, April 26th, of the manner in which I was drawn into expressing my opinion of the contents of *'Churchwoman's " letter, and how 1 came to be in any way connected with its publication. Dr. Schulte said, before the meeting, that my statement was correct. Dr. Schulte's description of his mental torture under the pressure put upon him, reminds one of the bodily torture, endured for the like purpose, by those who were under the merciful (!) hand of the "Grand Inquisitor" in former ages, and the cry "ask himself about the matter contained in your letter," sounds like the dying throes of expiring manliness. Had this proper course, suggested by the Dr., been followed, much of the unpleasantness which has since taken place would have been avoided. Dr. Schulte acknow- ledged at the meeting, April 26th, that " we talked," referred to Mrs. Schulte and himself only ; and that I knew nothing about the letter until he brought it to me. Dr. Schulte came to my house on Sunday afternoon, February 16th, when I was busily engaged in looking over and revising my sermon for our evening service. I mention this here, as it may in some measure account for my not giving the matter the considera- tion which I might have given under other circumstances. I did not state this before, out of delicacy to Dr. Schulte, as I thought at the time, and was almost tempted to say so, that he might have been better employed on that day, but, as I have explained, the criticism on the exhibition at the school so thoroughly agreed with my views and feelings, that I did not give the matter much thought, especi- ally as I was anxious to continue the work in which 1 was engaged, and I solemnly declare that this was the only feeling, and not from such motives as have since been imputed to me, that led me to act as I did. Dr. Schulte says that I "undertook to find a publisher. " The * See page 22. Explanations hy Archdeaxiou Marsh. ( fact is simply this, the publisher was " found," i.e. was agreed upon to whom it was to be sent, and he (Dr. Schulte) addressed the en- velope himself, and the only reason 1 volunteered to take it was, as I have stated, from a feeling of delicacy to Dr. and Mrs. Schulte. I delivered the letter at the office, and stated by whom it was written, thus, though I was not at the time aware of it, relieving myself, in great measure, of the responsibility which my friends (?) seem so anxious to fix upon mo . 1 do not state this from a desire to shrink from any responsibility which I may have incurred, but simply to show what was done, and how it was done. " Toronto, May 21, 1879. "My Lord Bishop — I am surprised and pained by your re- fusal not only to allow me an opportunity to explain in person, more clearly than it is possible to do by letter, the facts upon a misapprehension of which your letter of the 6th instant pro- ceeds, but also to grant to my nephew, Mr. Beatiy, the inter- view you were good enough to promise him for the like pur- pose. I feel that it is due not only to your lordship, by whom, as you remark, I have been advanced to the office of Archdeacon of Loudon and Rector of St. Johns, but to the clergy and laity of the Diocese, who placed and so long continued, in ray hands, the management of important diocesan trusts, and to my chil- dren, one of whom is even now preparing for holy orders, that T should allow no unworthy dread of possible consequences to myself or to the Church, to deter me from declaring the whole matter, in the hope that the truth may yet be made clear to all ; and the terrible accusations contained in your letter proved to be unfounded. I have endeavoured in the letter, which, by your direction, I have addressed to Mr. Cronyn, to set forth as fully as possible, the precise nature and extent of my connection with the letter signed * Church woman ;' which appeared in the Evening Herald of the 17th February. In your lordship's pres- ence, at the meeting of the Council of Huron College on the 26th ult., I explained how it was that 1 came to overlook those two sentences which refer to the *' service of welcome," held in honour of your lordship's return from England. I was not in London when that service was held, being engaged in my own parochial work at St. John's. As to the other and principal portions of the letter, which comment on the theatrical exhibi- tion given in your lordship's honour at the Ladies* College and, 9i Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. IV \ to the account of it which appeared in the newspapers, I must say, with every respect for your lordship's views, that I am still unable to approve either of its expediency or seemliness — I had almost said — its propriety. , .;,,; *' Your lordship is no doubt perfectly aware of my opinions with regard to such exhibitions— opinions which are the result of deliberate and conscientious convictions — and which, both privately and in public, I have never attempted to conceal. I feel that your lordship, as one of the Episcopal representatives of Evangelical Protestantism, would be the last to deny me the right of private judgment, in a matter affecting the moral and religious training of the young people of our Church, even though such judgment should involve a criticism of the man- agement of an educational institution controlled by your lord- ship ; nor can 1 believe that my advancement to the office of * oculus episcopi' necessitated the sacrifice or concealment of ihese, or any other conscientious opinions, in which 1 may have the misfortune to differ from your lordship. If I am mistaken in this, I shall deem it my duty, on receiving yoar lordship's intimation that such is the case, to resign my Archdeaconry so soon as this unhappy matter is cleared up. " I must say, however, that my feelings with regard to these histrionic displays in connection with our churches and educa- tional institutions, though perhaps somewhat old-fashioned and puritanical, is shared by many of the best of our clergy and laity ; and I had even believed that my views in this respect were identical with your own, knowing as I do, that you had positively forbidden, at least, one of your clergy, to allow such exhibitions in connection with his congregation ; and that, though one had been held, and others were, 1 believe, adver- tised, they were stopped by your lordship's command. " And now, my lord, as to the other and graver charges of your letter, it is a sad and grievous thing, that, after having gone in and out so long among these people in all good con- science until this day, I should suddenly and without any proper opportunity for defence be not only charged, but judged and condemned of the heinous crimes of duplicity, deception, and treachery. I appeal to my whole past life before you and the Church, in proof that I am innocent of these crimes ; imprudent T have doubtless been, errors in judgment I confess, and for these I am willing to suffer, even beyond your lordship's de- N \ Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 33 mands but deception and treachery are, I am thankful to say, sins, as far as I know myself, entirely foreign to my nature, No man suddenly becomes very wicked. I have been asso- ciated with your lordship in the administration of the affairs of this diocese from a period long prior to your elevation to the Episcopate. I have often had occasion to differ from you as to the conduct of these affairs, and on every such occasion, I ha^e frankly and fearlessly stood up for my opinions, yet you have never before, openly to myself, accused me of hostility or dis- loyalty to you as my Bishop, or of unfaithfulness in the per- formance of my duties as Archdeacon ; on the contrary, you have not only advanced me from one preferment to another, but in the presence of the Synod you were good enough to speak of me in terms of great praise. "I am now rejoiced to learn from your lordship's letter, that your private expressions concerning me have been equally kind and charitable. I had b()en led by the reports of mutual friends to think otherwise. It may be that my own expressions, with regard to your lordship, have been similarly misreported, for only thus can 1 account for the accusation of personal hostility to your lordship, which I totally deny. " In my letter to the Chancellor of the Diocese, I have fully explained the mistakes of fact, under which the Council of Hu- ron College passed the resolution of the 26th ult. I beg that your lordship will read and consider that letter, praying that the Spirit of Truth may lead you to a right judgment in a mat- ter of momentous importance to the Church, to your lordship, and to myself and my family. " I thank you for the concluding sentences of your letter of the 6th inst. It cannot be that you have quite lost confidence in my integrity, or you would not offer as you do, that in case of my accepting your permission to exchange into another dio- cese, you will give me * letters testimonial' of my good life and conversation,' certifying as my Bishop, that, during my service in the Diocese of Huron, I have ' behaved myself piously, so- berly, and honestly.' »< Awaiting your lordship's reply, • ' '* I am, my lord, your obedient servant, "J. Walker Marsh. *' The Rt. Rev. J. Hellmuth, D. D., "Bishop of Huron." ' . ^ . C 34 ExplaTiations by Archdeacon Marsh. L'l'f* '. -^ii.) " 30th May, 1879. "My Dear Mr. Archdeacon — Enclosed is a copy of a letter received by me from the Bishop this A. M. Yours of last evening to me, I have forwarded to the Bishop. , " I am, faithfully yours, «*V. Cronyn. "The Venerable Archdeacon Marsh, "City." "Chapter House, London, Ont., " May 29, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Chancellor, — Will you kindly acknowledge the receipt of the letter addressed to me by Archdeacon Marsh, dated Toronto, May 21, and say that, although there are erroneous statements and inferences in his letters of the 21st regarding the basis of the action of the Huron College Council of the 26th, and my own action as set forth in the letter of the 6th, yet I feel sure that the Council, at its next meeting, will aid me in dealing as forbearingly with his case as is compatible with truth and justice. " Believe me, " Yours sincerely, "(Signed) 1. Huron. " V. Cronyn, Esq., &c.,&c." The plan which the Bishop took to enable the Council to deal in a manner " compatible with truth and justice," was to press again upon Dr. Schulte, and therefore, on eTune 5th, I re- ceived the following : "5 June, 1879. " The Venerable Archdeacon Marsh, City. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — Enclosed is a copy of a let- ter to me from Dr. Schulte, which I send you, as desired by the Bishop. " Faithfully yours, " V. Cronyn." J, 4 Explanations hy AriJidtaani Marsh. « Ont., J >> "London, .Tuih' :>, 1«7!). «• V. CUONYN, liSf^, " Chaticellor Jjlocese of Jlurmt, <. " LowIdh. "DearSih, — ThoBislioplms sent me the letter of Archdeacon Marsh to yon, dated May 2l8t, 1879, which you forwarded to his Lordship for my perusal, * with the view that the truth and nothing but the truth may be laid before the Council for their guidance.' I therefore proceed to state more fully what 1 have already stated before. Although Mr. Marsh and myself had the same views in regard to some points criticised in ' Church- woman's ' letter, and talked of them in a general way among our- selves («. «., between the Archdeacon and myself), yet I must state that neither the Archdeacon nor any one else outside of my house is responsible for writing the letter ; it was written inno- cently, without any instigation, on the impulse of the moment, and without any intention of hurting the feelings of any one. It having been written, I took it to the Archdeacon for the ex- press purpose of asking his advice and opinion about publish- ing it. Of course, the letter was headed * To the Editor of the Free Press* but it was not ready for the post. I was not on my way to the letter-box, and did not call incidentally only at the Archdeacon's house, but went expressly to have his opinion. If he approved of it I intended to post it after returning to my own house ; but not if he disapproved of it. I certainly asked him plainly what do you think of it? Shall it be published ] His answer was, ' certainly,' it may do good ; but do not send it to the Free Press as that is the Bishop's organ. I have to go out early in the morning and will take it myself to the Herald office. This is what I meant when I said in my former letter he undertook to find a printer, and not being acquainted with the printing offices of this city except the Free Press, I left, therefore, the letter with him. The following morning we be- gan to think at home that it would be better not to publish it, and thought of getting it back ; but as I was so very busy in College the time slipped by, until it was too late. When I left the manuscript with Mr. Marsh, I asked him to get me a few copies, partly because I wanted to have some myself, and partly because I thought I might send Home away ; but even before they were brought to me I had changed my mind, and neither II }e 36 Explanatiov^'i hy Archdeacon Mavf^h sent any, nor allowed any to be sent, although Mr. Marsh wrote to me from Hamilton stating to whom he himself had sent copies, and to show a copy to the Dean, pointing out what the public thought of the proceedings. " Some of my copies were destroyed, the rest I have still. We neither showed them to any one, nor mentioned the matter to any one, nor thought of it any more. I bought no copies, nor got any, except through Mr. Marsh. If I had sent my copies, I would have owned to it at once, as I did to the au- thorship of the letter. When 1 told Mr. Marsh that the Bishop had spoken to me and knew all about the matter, he was anxi- ous to know whether I had implicated him. " I replied in the negative. I fully expected that the Arch- deacon would speak in my favour at the meeting of the Coun- cil. I was greatly astonished and grieved that he did not do so. In my intercourse with the Bishop afterwards, on several occasions, I became aware that his Lordship knew perfectly well that Mr. Marsh was, to a certain degree, concerned in the publication of the letter. Of course, I could not contradict him, so I kept silent, ar.d let it pass. In the course of conver- sation with him one day, I mentioned incidentally that nothing had grieved me so much in this matter than that the Arch- deacon had not taken my part at the meeting of the Council, by telling what he knew about the matter, and that I consid- ered it unmanly and cowardly on his part that he had not done so, and I understood the Bishop to say that Mr. Marsh spoke strongly against such publications, and consequently condemned me ; of which the Council assured me again at their last meet- ing at the Dean's house,* if 1 remember rightly. On the next day the Bishop sent me word by Mr. Innes that he wanted to see me at his house on the following morning. When I saw him he requested me, as President of the College, to write a letter explaining how far Mr. Marsh was concerned in the pub- lication of the letter. I did so accordingly. When notices of the Council Meeting were sciit out, the Archdeacon came to my house, asking me what all this meant. I showed him the Bishop's letter and my reply to it ; he expressed himself as very much displeased that I had replied without consulting him. * This is a raistalce, tiie Council did not assure the Doctor of tiiis, at least while I was E resent, and he left before me, so if such an assurance was jfiven, it must have been efore I was called in. Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 37 J \ I told him that the Bishop wished me to write without consult- ing hira, so that my mind might be unbiassed. He objected to two expressions in my letter, one of which I explained, and the other I insisted was correct. I told him the time for compos- ing it (from 1 1 a.m. to 2 p.m.) was rather limited, as the Bishop desired to have an answer before his leaving town (2 o'clock p.m.), and that I had not time for weighing every word minu- tely, but that I had said as little as possible, and what I had said was quite correct. The Archdeacon wanted to know how all this had come about. I told him that it had come out (as I have stated above) in the course of conversation, namely, that the Bishop had spoken to me on several occasions as if he was fully aware that he (Mr. Marsh) had a share in the publication, inasmuch as the Herald office admitted that a dignitary brought the letter to be published, and but for that it would not have been inserted ; that at one of my interviews with the Bishop I expressed to him, without premeditating it, my surprise and regret that he (Mr. Marsh) had not defended me at the Coun- cil Meetings. I told him further, that the day after this inter- view Mr. Innes had called at my house, during my absence, leaving word that the Bishop wished to see me the following day at his house, that when I saw him he required me to an- swer a letter which he had written to me as President of the College, and that, among other things, he had stated that he (Mr. Marsh) had virtually condemned me instead of defending me at the Council meeting. I stated to him also that Canon Innes had told me the same, when I called on him the day after the letter to the Bishop had been written ; and I did not say to Mr. Marsh that the Bishop had told me that he (Mr. Marsh) denounced me directly, and threatened my expulsion at the meeting of the Council. The foregoing are the main facts, and although as to details I may not be very clear, yet these facts 1 distinctly recollect, and emphatically declare to be strictly true. The whole affair has been so distasteful to me, for many reasons, that I steadily endeavour to forget it, and to banish it altogether from my mind, especially as my heavy duties in the College require the utmost peace and calmness. " I am, dear Sir, " p'aithfully yours, "J. SCHULTE." Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. Notes on Dr. Shulte's Letter, June 3rd. This is another letter written under the same circumstances as that of April 16th. We can easily judge by this what would be the position of persons "holding office during pleasure." and liable to be dismissed at a moment's notice, if they did not come up to the required standard. Dr. Schulte here tries to weaken his former statement, that it was only he and Mrs. Schulte who " talked, &c.," before writing, and by this letter tries to leave a different impression. To what he al- ludes I know not, unless it be to sentiments to which he himself gave expression at various times when he came to my house, but for which I am no more responsible than for many other statements, about persons and things in general, which he occasionally uttered. Dr. Schulte says in this letter that I called the Free PresK, the Bishop's " organ." This I positively deny, and moreover he knows that this is not true, for when this word was used by the Bishop, he told me that he (Dr. Shulte) did not make use of that word. With regard to the letter from Hamilton. I wrote to Dr. Schulte from Hamilton, to ask him to take my duty on Sunday, February 23rd, and did suggest to him to shew the Herald to the Dean, as I knew that he did not take that paper, and it was solely on account of the criti- cism on the " tableaux," just in the same way as I sent it to other friends, and for no other reason, however much my words may be twisted and tortured. My letter to the Doctor was private, such as pass without much thought between friends, and it is not usual among gentlemen to have these exposed to public view, and turned to one's injury ; still, whatever I said in that letter, I am prepared to defend or explain. Dr. Schulte says of the Herald, " I bought no copies nor got any except through Mr. Marsh." This is quite true ; but few gentlemen would care to boast of this. He got them, for he ordered them through me, and I sent them to him as he requested. I paid for them. I did say to Dr. Schulte that as he had drawn me into the matter, I did not see why my name should be mentioned, nor do 1 still ; seeing the matter was settled so far as he was concerned, and would have remained settled but for his own action. Had matters taken a different turn, I should have acted differently . Dr. Schulte's own words, after hearing read twice that portion of my letter of May 21st,* on which he now labours to put a different meaning, is quite answer enough ; he said " it is every word true," and further he told me ' ' that he wrote his letter on April 16th, so hastily, that he had not even time to read it over to his wife." I am very sorry to have to lay all this bare, but the course adopted by the Doctor and others leaves me no alternative. N ' S«iC pii^'u 22. Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. a9 ^ In answer to the above, I sent the following letter, which, owing to the June Quarterly Meeting being held about a week sooner than the usual time, was not before the Council Meeting held on June 14th : — "719 Waterloo Street, "London, June 13th, 1879. "V. Cronyn, Esq.: "My Dear Sir, — With reference to Dr. Schulte's letter of June 3rd, a copy of which, by the Bishop's direction, you have been good enough to enclose for my perusal, I beg to say that, although Dr. Schulte's visit to me on the afternoon of the 16th February last may have been for the express purpose * of ask- ing and being guided by my advice as to whether the letter of " Church woman" should be published or not,' I certainly under- stood from him that he was on his way to post the letter for publication, and had simply called en route to read it to me. Dr. Schulte has, both publicly and privately, acknowledged that my statement of the manner in which I was brought into con- nection with the publication of that letter is strictly correct. " And further, on the evening of May 23rd, Dr. Schulte came to my house, and I read to him the Bishop's letter of May 6th, and also my letter addressed to you and to the Bishop, both dated May 21st. " He said that he considered my letter of May 21st, addressed to you, to be a plain statement of the facts as they occurred ; and as to that part of it which describes how he was led to write his letter of April 16 th, to the Bishop (after hearing it read a second time by his own request), he remarked, * it is every word true.' " I remain, my dear Sir, " Yours faithfully, " (Signed) J. Walker Marsh, M.A., " Archdeacon of London and Rector St. John's, London.^' Not having heard from Mr. Cronyn, as Secretary, since the meeting of the Council, on April 26th, I wrote to him as follows ; — 40 Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. "719 Waterloo Street, "London, June Uth, 1879. " V. Cronyn, Esq., ^^ Sec. Huron College Council : " My Dear Sir, — As the time for issuing the notices of the Quarterly Meeting of Huron College Council is now past, and as I have not received any notice of such meeting, may I beg you to be good enough to let me know whether the said notices have been issued and whether a notice has been sent to me. If no such notice has been sent to me, please to inform me why it has not been sent. " I remain, " Yours faithfully, " J. Walker Marsh." I sent the above by a messenger, and asked for an answer, and received the following : — " Huron & Erie Buildings, Richmond Street, "London, Ont., Uth June, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — The June meeting of the Huron College Council has been held. No notice was sent you, for the reason I need not explain, as you are perfectly aware of it yourself. " I am, yours faithfully, " The Ven. Archdeacon Marsh. V. Cronyn." On receipt of this, I wrote again : — "719 Waterloo Street, "London, June 14th, 1879. " V. Cronyn, Esq., " Sec. Huron College Council : " My Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of to-day just received, but as, I need hardly remark, it is not an answer to mine of this morning, I again ask you, as the Secretary of the Corporation to give me your reason for not sending me the usual notice of the June meeting of the Huron College Council, which I now learn by your letter has been held. " I remain, " Yours faithfully, " J. Walkkk Maush." Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 41 f I sent this also by private hand, and demanded an answer. Mr. Cronyn read it, muttered something, and then declined to give any other answer, and it was not until the following Mon- day evening, when I received (for the first time) a copy of the resolution passed on April 26th, and the minutes, etc., of the June meeting, that I became aware that the meeting was held on the very day that the above letters were sent to Mr. Cronyn. On the evening of June 16th, I received the following : " London, Ont., 16th June, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — Enclosed are extracts of meeting of Huron College Council, held on Saturday last, also letter just received by me from the Bishop ; and I also enclose copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the 26th April last, which is what you probably require as reply to yours of Saturday last, asking for my reason for not sending you notice of the last meeting of the Council. " Faithfully yours, " V. Cronyn. " The Venerable Archdeacon Marsh." Copy of the resolution passed by Huron College Council^ held Uth June, 1879. *' Moved by the Very Rev. Dean Grasett, seconded by the Venerable Archdeacon Sweatman, and resolved : That circum- stances having come to the knowledge of the Council which deprives Archdeacon Marsh of their confidence, and in their judgment renders him unfit to share in the charge of the in- terests of this Institution, his name be erased from the list of the Council." Extract from Minutes of Meeting of Huron College Council, held \ith Jtine, 1879. " A letter from the Venerable Archdeacon Marsh, dated 21st May, 1879, addressed to the Chancellor of the Diocese, has been laid before this Council, with a request that the Coun- cil will reconsider the resolution passed at the special meeting held on the 26th day of April last. In accordance with this request, we have given the said letter the fullest and most im- partial consideration, and in order to avoid the possibility of any misapprehension on the part of the Archdeacon, as to the grounds upon which we have arrived at a decision, we desire mmiumii^ 42 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. to record the exceptions which we take to the statements made ^n the said letter. "1st. The Archdeacon charges the Council with an act of in- justice, in having passed the resolution of the 21st ult. ( ? 26th) in a hasty manner, without full consideration and consultation, and without having allowed him the opportunity of defending himself. " We beg to state that the subject was fully considered in a session which lasted over three hours. The Archdeacon had the opportunity of making a lengthy defence, and availed him- self of it, but we considered that it was so lame, so abounding in prevarications, and statements which we believed to be not in accordance with the facts which were before the Council, that when the resolution ' to erase the name of Archdeacon Marsh from the list of the College Council ' was moved by the Very Rev. the Dean of Toronto and seconded by the Ven. Archdea- con Sweatman, Bishop elect of Toronto, was put by the Presi- dent, it was carred unanimously. " 2nd. We are constrained to express our surprise that Arch- deacon Marsh so labours to throw the contents of the letter pub- lished in the Evening Herald on the 17th February last into the foreground. This as we conceive can only be with the view of drawing the mind of the Council from the main issue. We would, therefore, distinctly state that we admit the right of the exercise of private judgment upon all matters, and of the ex- pression of such opinions in the public press or otherwise. But the contents of the said letter, or the subject animadverted upon therein, did not in the least degree enter into the question before the Council, nor had it anything to do with the decision arrived at.* " 3rd. On page 2 of the Archdeacon's letter, he calls in ques- tion the right of the Council to deal with a member of its body : 1. On the ground, as he states, that it was a question with which the College Council had nothing to do ; and, 2, that their action was ultra vires, he being a Councillor by Act of Parliament, and not by election by the Council. *' In reply, we would state that the Rev. Dr. Schulte, who was presumably responsible for the publication of the letter which appeared in the Evening Herald, signed ' Churchwoman,' had reflected most injuriously upon the action taken by the See Bishop's letter, May 6th, page 10, Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 43 leading members of the Council in according to the President of the College, the Bishop of the Diocese, a welcome, by an ad- dress, to a service of thanksgiving in the Chapter House, after his long absence from the diocese, and although neither the ad- dress nor the service had any direct connection with the Col- lege, and the members of the Council took part in the welcome only in their capacity as clergymen of the diocese, nevertheless the fact that the Rev. Dr. Schulte was a professor in the Col- lege, to whom the students are expected to look for an example of loyalty to the diocese and the Bishop, and the publication of the letter signed ' Churchwoman,' emanating from a profes- sor, could not but be highly injurious to the best interests and discipline of the College ; it was deemed necessary that the matter should be brought before the Council ; and it thus be- came a question to be dealt with by that body. So far as the Archdeacon is concerned, he being a College Councillor, was subject to the College Council in matters relating to College business, and the Council dealt (we again repeat), not with the subject of the letter signed ' Churchwoman,' but with what we believe to have been the designed deception* practised on the Council at its meeting, held on the 6th day of March, by the Archdeacon. •' With reference to the 2nd objection viz., that he was ap- pointed by Act of Parliament, &c., the Act of Incorporation does not name a Council, leaving the first appointment to the Bishop of the diocese, and makes provision that when the num- ber of the Council shall be reduced to a minimum by ' death, resignation, or dimissal, &c.' " 4. On page 6 the Archdeacon states that Dr. Schulte told him that he was threatened with expulsion on account of the publication of the said letter, which publication it has since been revealed, was undertaken with the advice and through the in- strumentality of Archdeacon Marsh. We reply that Dr. Schulte had no authority for making such a statement, neither the Bishop, nor any member of the Council had so informed him. The subsequent action of the Council at which the subject of expulsion was not even mentioned is the best refutation and, in addition, Dr. Schulte positively denies that he made such a statement. " 5. On page 10 the Archdeacon denies that in his remarks at the Council meeting held on the 6th March he made any * See note, page 44. 44 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. reference to the letter signed * Churchwoman ' which was the only letter under the consideration of the Council, that his denial, and the words of strong condemnation which he used in relation to the practice of anonymous attacks upon public men had reference only to the letter signed ' Churchman.' We again remark that the unanimous feeling of those present was, and still is, that the address of the Archdeacon was designed* to leave the impression upon the minds of the Council, that he distinctly repudiated all connection with both letters. " This impression is deepened and confirmed by the fact, as stated by the Rev. Dr. Schulte, that tlie Archdeacon went to him and warned him earnestly against saying a word to impli- cate him (the Archdeacon) with the publication of the letter. " 6. On page 13 the Archdeacon implies that the facts of the whole case have been misrepresented to the members of the Council, ** The facts were already known to the members of the Coun- cil, all of whom, with the exception of one or two, had been present at the Council meeting, at which the Archdeacon, in their opinion, had distinctly denied any complicity in the pub- lication of the letter signed ' Churchwoman.' " 7. On page 20 of the letter of the Archdeacon, it would seem to be implied, thai the remark made by Archdeacon Sweat- man * that he seconded the resolution moved by the Very Rev. the Dean of Toronto, because he looked upon that as the result or outcome of Mr. Marsh's opposition to the Bishop,' is appar- ently intended to convey the idea that the dismissal of Arch- deacon Marsh from the Council was a predetermined punish- ment on account of such opposition. Whereas the true mean- ing of Archdeacon Sweatman in the above sentence and that conveyed to the minds of all those present, was, that the connec- tion of the Archdeacon with the publication of * Churchwo- man's ' letter was the culmination of Jong continued opposition on the part of Archdeacon Marsh. " 8. The charge against the President of scornfully address- ing the Archdeacon after the resolution had been carried is not in accordance with fact ; the painful duty placed upon the Bishop by the resolution was performed with the most marked consideration and courtesy. ' Goil alone knows " tlio thoughts and iiitjuts of tlie licart." To read the (^uinqua yosiiaa collect and epistle (1 Cor. xlii.) before each meeting of the College Council, would probably lead to an increase of humilty among its members. Explanation!^ hy Archdeacon Marsh. 45 " 9. The Archdeacon states that the Very Kev. the Dean of Toronto, when he wrote and moved the resolution, was not aware that there were two letters, or that there existed any misunderstanding between the Archdeacon and the Council as to which letter he had reference to in his remarks. The Dean was so aware and his reply to Mr. Marsh simply meant there was but one letter under the consideration of the Council. ** We cannot consent to regard the matter in the light of a mere thoughtlessness or want of judgment ; we feel that which- ever letter it was to which the Archdeacon immediately directed his remarks at the Council Meeting, his designed purpose was to mislead. After a thorough and impartial consideration of all the materials placed before us, and with every desire to avoid injustice to Archdeacon Marsh, this Council regrets that in view of the above facts, and of our obligation to maintain the true interests of the College, we have no other course but to reaffirm the resolution passed at the special Council meeting, held on 26th April, viz. : * That the name of Archdeacon Marsh be erased from the list of Councillors of Huron College.' We further desire distinctly to state that our action throughout this whole matter, so far as Archdeacon Marsh is concerned, has been based entirely and solely upon the deception and duplicity exhibited by him towards this Council with regard to his know- ledge of and participation in the publication of the letter signed * Churchwoman,' and since the Archdeacon evidently regards the action of the Council as having been based upon the subject animadverted upon in the said letter, we would further state that neither the fact of the publication of the letter, nor its sub- ject, have entered into the consideration of this Council. " So much has been written by the Archdeacon which reflects upon the course which this Council, in the interests of the Col- lege, and the cause of truth, has felt it its solemn duty to pur- sue, that we, the members of the Council, who were present at the two former meetings, deem it due to ourselves, in addition to the foregoing remarks upon the several points to which we take excepion, in the Archdeacon's letter, to place on record a resum6 of the circumstances which actually occurred and the conversation which (in substance) took place. " We feel confident that when these facts are duly and calmly weighed by the Archdeacon, he will see that the conclusions arrived at by the Council are fully warranted, and such as he himself, had he been called on to pronounce on another, 4<; lucplanaflovn hy ArchtWicofi Marf*/t. would have unhesitatingly endorsed. The circumstances which occurred at the Council meeting held on the 6th March, are as follows : — "After the discussion which took place upon 'Church woman's ' letter, during which the Arclideacon kept silence, he rose and said, addressing the Bishop, * I would like to ask your Lordship, whether I am correctly informed that you charge me with being the author of 'Churchman's' letter 1 ' The Bishop replied, 'I did think that you had much to do with it, as I was told that it had been taken to the office of the Herald by the brother of a clergyman of the Diocese, and that the letter signed ' Church woman ' was brought to the Editor by a dignitary of the Church of long standing, I must, therefore, confess that I attributed the letter to you.' Being further asked by the Archdeacon his reasons for suspect- ing him of such unworthy conduct, the Bishop replied, ' because of the long continued hostility which you have always manifested towards me, and my administration of the Diocese. I told you of my conviction of your unfriendly feeling towards me many years ago, when the Church Society's office was in Dundas Street. There are but two other dignitaries residing in London besides yourself, Dean Boomer and Canon Innes, as they were both promoters of the Service of Welcome and personal friends, I could not suppose that either of them could be a party to the adverse criticism contained in ' Church woman's' letter. " The Archdeacon then asked if it was his brother to whom his Lordship referred as having taken * Churchman's ' letter to the printing office. The Bishop replied, ' No.' The Archdea- con then spoke in the strongest language of detestation, of the practice of anonymous attacks upon public men, saying that he would sooner cat off his right hand (or words to that effect) than be guilty of such an act. One of the members of the Council who was convinced from the language used by the Archdeacon (as were all), that his denial referred to both letters, said, with an evident intention of removing all suspicion from him, ' I do not think that we ought to attach too much importance to the statement that the letter was taken to the office by a dignitary, the Editors are not members of the Church and would probably consider that a representative to the Synod or even a pew- opener was a dignitary.' "To this the Archdeacon, with the rest, assented. The above remark could only refer to the letter signed * Ohurch- ' woman,' for the Bishop had stated distinctly that he had Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 47 The irch- had been informed that that letter was delivered at the office by. a dignitary of the Church. The Archdeacon could not but be aware that this last remark referred to 'Churchwoman's* let- ter, and that only ; and that the Council was under the im- pression that his denial was intended to include both letters. He assured the Bishop, in the presence of the Council, that he knew as little about the affair as the man in the moon ; that the Bishop's expressed charge of his being the author of the the letter was libellous, and might be made the ground for an action at law. He further said that he left for Hamilton shortly after, and thought nothing more about the matter till his re- turn, when he was informed that it had been disclosed that the Rev. Dr. Schulte was responsible for its publication. Upon this the Bishop said, ' I am perfectly satisfied ; 1 accept the ' Archdeacon's denial, and exonerate him from all suspicion * of connection with it.' " Here was an opportunity afforded for his giving, in an open and manly way, an account of the extent to which he was connected with the publication of ' Churchwoman's ' letter, and thus to some extent have mitigated the offence of the Classical Professor, who, as it subsequently appeared, had been to the Archdeacon for advice, and was guided entirely by that ad- vice ; yea, more than this, had even left the letter with the Archdeacon, who undertook to find a publisher for it, and him- self took it to the office of the paper, thus becoming wholly re- sponsible. Yet not a word was oflfered by the Archdeacon, and he even allowed himself to be named on the Committee ap- pointed to require of the Rev. Dr. Schulte a fuller apology than was contained in the letter from him, which had been read at the Council. " Such were the grounds upon which the action of the Coun- cil was taken at the special meeting held on the 26th April. " The Archdeacon now requests that the resolution passed at that meeting should be rescinded. " The Council cannot consent thus to stultify itself, since the grounds upon which this action was based have not been modi- fied, but, on the contrary, strengthened by a letter written by the Rev. Dr. Schulte since the Council meeting, from which it appears that the Archdeacon most earnestly warned him, on no account, to divulge his connection with the letter, an indi- rect evidence that he was fully aware how seriously such a re- 48 Explanations hy Arehcleacon Marsh, velatioii would involve him. Further, the Professor's letter also states that he (the Archdeacon) wrote from Hamilton, de- siring him to take a copy of the paper containing * Church- woman's ' letter to the Dean and point out to him what the public opinion was upon the subject to which it related. Was this the act of an honest man ? to send the Classical Professor (a teacher to train young men for the ministry of the word of truth), with an implied lie in his right hand, he being fully aware of the authorship of the letter, and present it as the ex- pression oi'jfublic opinion. " The same letter from the Archdeacon to Dr. schulte con- tained the names of those to whom the paper was to be sent, and these papers had been supplied to the Dr. by the Archdeacon. Can any unprejudiced mind fail to arrive at the same conclusion as that at which the Council arrived, and upon which their action was solely based at the special meeting, on the 26th April, viz., that such unworthy conduct on the part of a member of its body renders it impossible for them to continue to act with him upon the same Board, and, therefore, that the striking of his name from the list of the Council was not only merited, but was what they were bound to do for their own protection, and for the wellbeing of the College of which they are the appointed guardians. " The above statement explains why it is impossible for the Council to reverse its decision by rescinding the resolution passed on 26th April, with respect to Archdeacon Marsh. "We, the undersigned members of the Huron College Council, who were present at the Council meeting held on 26th April, 1879, have hereto attached our signatures, as to the correctness of what then actually took place. (Signed), I. Huron, President, Arthur Toronto, H.J. Grasett,D.D., Dean of Toronto. M. Boomer, L.L.D., Dean of Huron, Principal and Divinity Professor. Fras. Wm. Sandy, Archdeacon of Kent. E. L. Elwood, Archdeacon of Huron, Geo. M. Innes, M.A. ,Ganon, Rector St. Paul's. J. P. Hincks, Rector Trinity Church, Gait, Canon. V. Cronyn, Chancellor of the Diocese and Se- cretary of the College.^^ (< <( (( (( (( << (( I \ Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 49 ! ; r i Of the above, Dean Grasett and Canon Hincks were not present at the meeting on March 6th, an«l Archdeacon El wood was not present on April 26th, and yet they all assert " we the members of the Council who were present at the two former meetii.gs," and " we, who were present at the college meeting held on 26th April," and these are the gentlemen who charge me with ''prevarication, duplicity and deception." Notss on Minutas of Meetin?, June 14, 1879. 1. I was not present for " three hours. " The meeting was called for ten o'clock ; it was nearer eleven, as T believe, before Dr. Boomer fcaine and invited me into his house, and when I left I walked to my own house, and was back before one o'clock. 1 did not go to the meeting with any idea of being put upon ray trial. I went there fully impressed that I had only to call to their minds what took place at the meeting on March 6th, to show them w. re the misun- derstanding lay, and also to make a statement of what I know about the publication of ' ' Churchwoman's " letter, as that was now neces- sary from Dr. Schulte's action. And I was amazed to find that my statement was not believed, and this is proved by the wordin» of the present paper which assumes to charge me with prevarication. I leave it to the community in which we dwell to decide whether my character for truth, honesty and straightforward dealing will not bear comparison with that of any of ray calumniators, from the highest to the lowest, from the Bishop down to Canon Innes, MA. How I was treated on that occasion is explained in my letter of May 21st, to V. Crony n ;* and I again assert that it is true in every particular, notwithstanding the statements of this paper. 2. My letters of May 21st to the Bishop and to V. Cronyn are in answer to the Bishop's letter of May 6th, and this justifies me in what I have written. 3. I still maintain that the College Council has no power to act as a " board of triers " on any of its members. (2) The Constitution of the College was drawn up and adopted before " Incorporation." In that Constitution a number of mem- bers of the first Council were named by the first President, the late Bishop Cronyn, and I am one of those so named ; when the Act of Parliament was obtained incorporating the College, the Constitution was confirmed and ratified^ and thus (as our Solicitor has always im- pressed upon us) the Constitution became, as it were, part of our Act of Incorporation, and could only be changed by an appli- cation to Parliament, as has been already done when a change was ■• See page 24. D 50 Explanations by Ardtdeacon Marsh. desired. This explains what I meant when I said '' I am a member by Act of Parliament. " 4. Dr. Schulte told me that the Bishop, in his anger, threatened to have him expelled from the Professorship in Huron College ( al- though the cause of oflfence was not at all connected with Huron College but with the Bishop's private business, with which we, as a Church, have nothing whatever to do) and to argue that the threat was not made because the subject of '' expulsion" was not brought up at the March Meeting (an apology having been made and ac- cepted in the mean time) is childishness, unworthy of men who have received real college training, however much it may suit those who pretend to be what they are not. Moreover, I have not seen any denial of this in writing by Dr. Schulte, and if he has denied it verbally, I can only pity him for the position he occupies, and regret that any pressure could lead such a man so far astray. 5. All this is contradicted by what is set forth in another part'*' of this paper, which fully bears out my statement, and refutes the charges brought against me ; moreover the imputation of motives by which to judge my words looks more like malice than Christian Clarity. 6. The word that I used is presented^ and the facts must have been " presented " to those who were absent from the previous meeting. If conscience tells my self-constituted judges that the word should have been " misrepresented " it is not for me to ques- tion their decision ; especially as they all still persist in " misrep- resenting facts " when thej say that I * ' denied any complicity in the publication of the letter signed ' Churchwoman, ' " 7. Archdeacon Sweatman's remarks were very plain, and, not- withstanding any way they may be turned, were most unmanly under the circumstances, for they dragged in matters, which, even if true, had no connection with the matter in hand. I deny all feeling of personal opposition to the Bishop, unless difference of opinion in some matters is to be considered as such. There is a feeling abroad that the Bishop looks upon " differences of opinion " as " personal opposition," and Archdeacon 8weatman knows this, and whether he himself has ever given expression to such a feeling he well knows. Where then is the manliness in quoting t^uch a feeling and using it against me at such a time ? How he came to make the other remark, which he pressed upon me (and which is even more unmanly), is shewn elsewhere in these " explanations." 8. I repeat my statement that 1 was treated with '* scorn," both in " tone and look," by the President, and assert that what I have written is within the truth, for 1 was insulted by the President even while I was making my statement, and before the resolution was written. ' i' ' \ See page 46. If Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 51 It ^ evident (positions being changed) that persons can take a very different view of what constitutes *' the most marked consider- ation and courtesy." 9. What Dean Grasett " simply meant " I know not, but I have given his words and he presumed to contradict me as to what took place at a meeting at which I was present and from which he was absent. This may be ** simplicity," but if any one else had acted in this way ',he Dean would probably think it very ** wicked," and with good cause. To refer my words " thoughtlessness and want of judgment " to the remarks I made at the meeting on March 6th, when they know (see my letter May 21st, to V. Cronyn)* that they referred to my connection with the publication of " Church wo- man's" letter, and to nothing else, is conduct so unworthy of Christian gentlemen that it renders all their other statements worth- less, and shows a determination — a feeling which crops out all through this matter — to crush me down, blast my character, and destroy my usefulness as a clergyman, and for what i on account of some feeling of fancied opposition to the Bishop, which he has been cherishing for years, but which I utterly deny. With regard to the latter part of this paper commencing " So much has been written by the Archdeacon which reflects " &c. I beg to say that, while words and expressions that were used are interwoven, the whole account here given of what took place and the conversation assumed to be given, and the inferences drawn as to my position and the part I and others are said to have taken at that meeting as here described, the whole relation as here given amounts to " pure fiction," and could only have been thus built up to cover conclusions which it was determined to maintain. The account in my letter. May 21st, to V. Cronyn, contains the words I used, and describes what took place, f This present account is my statement as it were " travestied " to suit other ends. But even take the matter as it is here given, I am fully borne out in my statement, for it is acknowled«^ed here that I did speak of " Chiirchman's " letter at the meet'mg on the 6th of March ! ! What now becomes of the statement made again and again, " timt there was only one letter before that meeting. " This alone shews how unjustifiable is the conduct of these gentle- men all through this matter. A deliberate misstatement. These gentlemen write thus : '' The same letter from the Archdeacon to Dr. Schulte contains the names of those to whom the paper was to be sent, and these papers had been supplied to the Dr. by the Archdeacon." This is simply untrue, and has not even the flimsy foundation of Dr. Schulte's letterlj; (written June 3rd, under the circumstances described) to support it. See page 21. I r See i>ages 19 and 20. I See pago :M. 5^ Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. What confidence then can be placed in gentlemen who delibe- rately put their names to a paper containing such a positive un- truth ? and these are the men who have the temerity to charge me with '* prevarication, treachery, duplicity and deception." Whose statement of facts, where we differ, is likely to be the more cor- rect, I leave all candid readers to decide. One thing I know, and that is that " Qod knows ; " and none of us can deceive Him, and with Him I am willing to leave it. " Chapter House, London, Ont., June 16, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Chancellor, — I take it for granted that you have already furnished Archdeacon Marsh, with a copy of the minutes, which embody the reasons why the Huron Col- lege Council on Saturday last, felt constrained to reaffirm their decision of the 26th of April last. I need only add that the demands set forth in my letter of the 6th ult., were not, as he erroneously implies in his letter to me of the 21st ult., on ac- count of any opinions he may entertain touching the manage- ment of the Hellmuth Ladies' College, nor as regards the ad- ministration of my diocese, nor for the right of exercising his private judgment, nor for any personal reasons, nor even for his share in the publication of the letter which appeared in the London Evening Herald, on the 17th February last,* signed * a Churchwoman, * nor on account of any other letter, but entirely and exclusively on account of the duplicity and deception he practised at the meeting of the College Council, on the 6th of March last, when from his words and acts, the members of the Council could come to no other conclusion than that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole matter. " With all the facts revealed, it is impossible to regard the Archdeacon's conduct before the Council of which he was a member, in the light, he would wish it to be considered — as a mere error in jitdgment, or an imprudence. 1 cannot therefore withdraw anything I have written in my letter of the 6th ult., without being guilty of purchasing peace at the sacrifice of truth, which 1 cannot be called upon to do. Tiie wisdom which is from above is ^ first pure, then peaceable .* It is with deep sorrow and under a sense of imperative duty. I owe to the trust committed to me that I am thus compelled to write once * This contradicts what the liisliop says in iiis letter uf May (>tli. See page 10. I Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh 53 more on this painful and distressing subject. Will you kindly send this, or a copy of it, to the Archdeacon. " Believe me, yours faithfully, **L Huron. *' V. Cronyn, Esq., Chancellor of the Diocese of Huron." I refrain from making any comments on the above letter, only be- cause the writer is my Bishop. of the a a ore It., of ich To the above documents I made reply as follows : "719 Waterloo Street, London, July 2, 1879. "My Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the minutes of the College Council meeting of June 14th, with a letter from the Bishop addressed to you, dated June the 16th. " I can only regret that the Council have seen fit to reenact their resolution passed on April 26, which is based upon their * impressions ' in opposition to my positive assurance of what I said at the meeting of the 6th of March ; and also that the Bishop should again repeat his charge against me of * duplicity and deception,' when I have positively assured him that I never intended anything of the kind. " Under these circumstances, I can only refer to my letter of May 21st addressed to you, which I still maintain gives a truth- ful account of what took place at the meetings held on March the 6th and April 26th. " I remain, " Dear Sir, " Yours faithfully, *' V. Cronyn, Esq., "J. Walker Marsh. " Chancellor Diocese of Huron, «« London." SPECIMEN OF THE TREATMENT I HAVE RE- CEIVED THROUGHOUT THIS BUSINESS. I append the following letters to shew the manner in which I have been treated, and the difficulties that are put in my way when I try to unravel the web which they have woven around me. After my interview with Bishop Sweatman in Toronto, on 54 Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. May 16, when I fully explained the whole matter, he promised to write to the Bishop of Huron ; the following letters will shew how he fulfilled his promise : " Woodstock, Ont., May 29, 1879. " My Dear Archdeacon,— At our recent interview in Tor- onto I promised to write to the Bishop of Huron as its result. I now enclose you a copy of the letter which I have written and am yours, " Very faithfully, " The Ven. Archdeacon Marsh, M.A., " Arthur Toronto. " London." (Bishop Sweatman told me that he was quite aware that I was speaking of *' Churchman's " letter, at the meeting on March 6th.) " Toronto, Ont., May 28th, 1879. " My Dear Lord, — In a recent interview which I had with Archdeacon Marsh, he represented to me, in very strong terms, that in the transactions connected with the publication of the letter signed * Churchwoman * in the London Evening Herald of 1 7th February last, and the action taken in reference to it at the Council meeting of Huron College, on the 6th of March, he was not guilty of intentional duplicity or treachery, and as a result of that interview I promised to write to your Lordship. " While my own interpretation of the Archdeacon's conduct in allowing judgment to pass on Dr. Schulte, with his tacit con- sent, though consciously implicated in the action condemned, must remain unchanged ; I think that the Council might accept Mr. Marsh's written disavowal of any design to deceive or act a treacherous part, so far as to agree to withhold from the minutes the resolution erasing his name from the list of mem- bers of the Board, until he sends in his resignation of his seat thereat, unqualified by anything that might reflect upon the judgment of the Council ; as I do not see how they could have acted otherwise than they did, with the facts before them. " I am, my dear Lord, " Very sincerely yours, " Arthur Toronto. " The Bight Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron." "-\ k "-V Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh, 56 ' On receiving the above I wrote as follows: — ,^ »/ .?M 7*:V " 719 Waterloo Street, " London, May 30th, 1879. "To the Rt. Rev. A. Sweatman, D.D., " Bishop of Toronto. " My Dear Bishop,—! am obliged to you for your letter of the 29th inst., just received ; but must ask you to allow me to call your attention to one sentence in your letter which does not, I think, clearly explain the matter as it took place. You say ' while my own interpretation of the Archdeacon's conduct in allowing judgment to pass on Dr. Schulte, with his tacit consent, though consciously implicated in the action condemned must remain unchanged.' I would recall to your recollection that the Council, as a body, did not formally pass any judgment on Dr. Schulte. Individuals gave their views thus : After the regular college business had been disposed of, the Bishop ad- dressed us in reference to the letter signed * Church woman,' stating that Dr. Schulte acknowledged that it was written by Mrs. Schulte, and that he (Dr. Schulte) had, by the advice ot yourself, Canon Innes and V. Cronyn, written a letter of apology, which the Bishop read to us. The Bishop stated that he was willing to accept the apology if its phraseology was in some respects altered and he mentioned the expressions with which he was not satisfied and seemed to put a meaning upon them which, I thought. Dr. Schulte had not intended. I then said that Dr. Schulte, being a foreigner, did not perhaps use English words exactly as we did. Canon Innes and you spoke strongly on the matter, and Archdeacon Sandys and V. Cronyn made a few re- marks, the former saying that he agreed with me and thought the letter should be construed with reference to the fact, that Dr. Schulte was a foreigner. Neither Dean Boomer nor Arch- deacon Elwood made any remarks, nor did I join further in the discussion. Not a word was said about expulsion, no vote of censure was proposed or suggested, but it was agreed that a committee consisting of Canon Innes and V. Cronyn (by whose advice the letter of apology was written) should wait upon Dr. Schulte and get him to change the wording of those expressions to which the Bishop objected, and to this committee were added Archdeacon Elwood ai myself. " Under these circumstances how can I be charged with * al- lowing judgment to pass,' there was no judgment passed by the 5G Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. -\ body, it was simply a discussion in which each individual gave his views. No apology was asked for by the body, for the apology was made before we met, and the letter of apology was read, and we were told that it was accepted, pending a few sug- gested changes. " Hence the matter was practically settled anrl peace restored. This is why I said nothing, I went to the meeting prepared to explain, what 1 knew, had any vote of expulsion been proposed. It was after this was settled that I made my remarks about * Churchman's ' letter, all which referred to this letter only. " I remain, " Yours faithfully, "J. Walkeii Marsh." To this letter no reply was vouchsafed. At the Council meeting on April 26th, Archdeacon Sweat- man did not hesitate to drag in a matter which had no connec- tion with the business in hand, when he said " that he had always considered me sincere until recently when a circum- stance came to his knowledge which proved my want of sin- cerity." This remark could not have been made to raise me in the estimation of those present, and, as I had not the remotest idea to what he alluded, I wrote to him as follows : — /.,- : "719 Waterloo Street, London, "April 26th, 1879. "My Dear Archdeacon Sweatman, — Referring to the remark that you made this morning ' from some circumstance that had lately come to your knowledge, you were led to doubt my sincerity,' " May I ask you kindly to let me know to what you alluded, as perhaps I may be able to explain it, and thus remove from your mind the feeling of any want of sincerity. " I remain yours faithfully, " J. Walker Marsh." Keply of Archdeacon Sweatman, — > 1/ -\ Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 57 " Woodstock, Ont., . " "April 29th, 1879. " My Bear Archdeacon MARSH,--It is only just both to you and to myself that I should frankly satisfy your enquiry. Some months since, I travelled from Woodstock to London, in company with Mr. John Beard and yourself, when I jocularly related how I had given Mr. Lampman, the agent for the Dominion Churchman, a list of all the farmers in my parish, that he might have plenty of running round to do, in consequence of his complaining that after four or five days' trial, he was already heartily tired of the work of canvassing. I learned subsequently to my extreme indignation that you, on the same evening, expressed to Dean Grasett, grave doubts a^ to my views, &c., because to your knowledge, I had been using every effort to drive the Evangelical Churchman out of my parish and to supplant it by the Dominion Churchman. " I merely state the circumstance which was in my mind when I made my remarks at the Council meeting without com- ment, because I desire to answer your question, and not to enter upon a controversy. " It is perhaps right that I should also make you aware that I communicated to the Bishop the purport of your remarks when I submitted to you the draft of the address which it was proposed to present to his Lordship on his return ; but only after I found I could no longer keep it within my own know- ledge. " I wish to take this opportunity of saying how deeply I felt the pain of being compelled by a sense of duty to act and speak at the recent meeting of the Council in a manner to which I am unaccustomed, and which is most repugnant to my incli- nations. " I am faithfully yours, " Arthur !Sweatman." On receiving the above I immediately wrote as follows : — "719 Waterloo Street, London, " April 30, 1878. " My Dear Archdeacon Sweatman, -While it would be wrong for me to attempt to draw you into a controversey on points to which your letter of yesterday refers in answer to the '^68 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. enquiry I made in my letter of the 26th, yet it is but right that I shall give you my explanations which will show that there was no * want of sincerity.' " Dean Grasett asked for my opinion as to whether you were not the very man to fill the post made vacant by the death of the late Professor Halpin, and after the Dean had given his views, without any reference to character or literary qualifi- cations, for as to them I felt that there could be no difference of opinion, I said, Mr. Dean, there is one requisite which for that office underlies everything else, a man of thorough Evange- lical views. Do you think that his views are thoroughly Evan- gelical 1 because, I said, so far as I can see, he has never in any prominent way identified himself with Evangelical views amoii<;st us, and I have been told that he has expressed himself more favourable to the Dominion Churchman than to the Evan- yellcal Churchman ; but, I said, I will tell you what I know my- self, and then I told him what occurred on the train, and told him exactly what you said (I did not understand that it was any way jocular), viz., that Mr. Lampman was in Woodstock canvassing for the Dominion Churchman, and that you gave him a long list of the names of parties (stretching out your hand as shewing a long list) for him to call upon, and Mr. John Beard, who was sitting with us, said ' he tried to get me to give up the Evangelical Churchman and take the Dominion GhurchmanJ " I said to the Dean, do you think that shews him to be a man of thorough Evangelical views ? *' Remember that we were talking with reference to a duty we had to perform — the filling up of an office which reqviired as a sine qua non ' that the occupant should be a man of tho- rough Evangelical views, and surely it was no proof of want of sincerity on my part, under the circumstances, to answer the dean as I did when he asked my opinion, but I should have been wanting in my duty to him, and to the College, if I had acted otherwise ; it was what it 'as my duty to do in respect to any person whose name would be brought forward in the same way. Dr. Schulte's qualifications were discussed publicly and privately before he was appointed, and it was quite right ; and in making the remark I did to the Dean when asked by him about you, in reference to the vacant choir in Huron College, I did not intend any personal reflections on you, nor to act ^ ^ Explanations hy Archdeacon Marsh. 50 with any insincerity towards you, and am amazed that it should have been turned in that way to my injury. " With reference to the proposed address to the Bishop, which you shewed me, you will surely remember that I said, * if you will draw up an address to the Bishop, welcoming him back to the Diocese, and invoking all possible blessing from on high upon him, and with all the good wishes for his health, long life and happiness that you can conceive, / will sign the address, but if you include matters upon which you know there is a great difference of opinion, I cannot join with you.' T mentioned three points, and as to my remarks on one you said, * I quite agree with you.' I did not intend these remarks to be private, they were made in the hearing of all those in i-he room at the time, and I have mentioned the matter to others, rtsp^nting the remarks about the address whenever the matter came up, for I did not intend any unkindness to the Bishop or anybody elsf3, and, to say the least, it seems a great pity that these matters are brought up now (no explanation having been sought), when I am surrounded with difficulties and charged with saying and doing things which my conscience tells me that I never in- tended, and I certainly thought this was clear to all. " With reference to your closing remarks, which I am sure you intend in kindness (the more valuable, as I have received so little of it of late from my brethren), I can only say that I also * felt deeply ' and was much surprised to see and hear what was done and said at that meeting to a brother whose character and acts have been clear, to some at least, for over thirty years. " Trusting that God's blessing may be vouchsafed to you to enable you rightly to fulfil the duties of that high and respon- sible office on which you are so soon to enter, and that you may be largely blessed in your own soul, " I remain, " Yours faithfully, " J. Walker Marsh.' " Toronto, May 6th, 1876. "My Dear Archdeacon Marsh, — Your letter of 30th April duly reached me. The great pressure of work on com- mencing my new duties prevents my doing more than thank 60 K.rphi luii'ur « />>/ Archdcnvon Murnh. ^ you for explanation, but especially for the kind wishes which you express for myself. " Trusting you may have a happy issue out of the recent troubles, " I am, faithfully yours, " Arthur Toronto." In order, if possible, to find out who had so maliciously per- verted my words, I wrote to Dean Grasett on May 26th, and gave him a copy of my letter of April 2Gth to Archdeacon Sweatman, with the Archdeacon's reply of April 29th, and my letter of the 30th, and concluded my letter to him thus : " I think you will agree, Mr. Dean, that the above is a correct ac- count of what took place between us ; and I feel certain that you could not have so perverted my words, or even have re- peated what passed between us, to Bishop Sweatman, as you will remember that vou did not mention his name at the meet- ing on the following day. Will you, therefore, be so good as to let me know to whom you mentioned our conversation, and the remarks that I made in answer to your question. Perhaps it may help you to recall the matter if I remind you that at the time you asked me the question 1 was guiding you to Canon Innes' house. " Awaiting your reply, " 1 Remain, " Your obedient servant, " J. Walker Marsh." In reply, I received the following : — "Toronto, 29th May, 1879. " My Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — I had so entirely forgotten your remarks in regard to Bishop Sweatman and his alleged patronage of the Dominion Churchman in preference to the Evangelical Churchman that, until you repeated it, the matter had passed from my memory. I regret that I am unable to inform you to whom the subject was mentioned, as the recol- lection of the whole matter and of all persons and things con- nected with it has completely vanished from my mind. " I am very sincerely yours, " H. J. Grasett." vt Explanations by Archdeacon ^farsh. Gl Herein is a marvellous exhibition of a treacherous memory when a brother asks for assistance to get him out of a diffi- culty, brought on him by the very person to whom application is made, " the recollection of the whole matter and of all per- sons and things connected with it have completely vanished from the mind ; " and yet the same " mind " is so clear that when a matter has to be remembered against the same brother Dean Grasett can actually remember what, he says, took place at a meeting nearly two months before, at which he was not present. "719 Waterloo Street, "London, July 4th, 1879. " lliGHT Rev. a. Sweatman, M.A., " Bishop of IWonto : *' KKiHT Rev. Sir, —I regret that I am obliged to trouble you again in reference to the remark that you made on April 2Gtl), that * a circumstance came to your knowledge which proved my want of sincerity.' This matter has been already so tar explained to you that, I think I may say, the false im- pression against me, under which you then laboured, has been, to some extent at least, removed. " I now ask you, as between man and man, to do to me as you would wish to be treated under the same circumstances, to give me your authority for making the remark above quoted, that is, to give me the name of the party who told you of the ' grave doubts,* etc., that I was said to have * expressed to Dean Grasett,' as stated in your letter to me of April 29th. " Awaiting your reply, " I remain. " Your obedient servant, " J. Walker Marsh." (Bishop Sweatman' s Answer.) "Toronto, Ont., July 7th, 1879. " Ven. Archdeacon Marsh, London. " Dear Sir, — I returned to town late on Saturday night, only to leave at seven to-morrow morning, and can therefore only hurriedly write that, to the best of my recollection, it was 02 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. the Dean of Huron who gave me the information of which you ask me for the author. " I am yours faithfully, •* Arthur Toronto." On receipt of this I wrote to the Dean of Huron. " 719 Waterloo St., London, July 10, 1879. " Very Rev. M. Boomer, " Dean of Huron. " My Dear Mr. Dean, — You will doubtless remember the remark made by Archdeacon Sweatman, now Bishop of Toronto, in your Draioing room, on April 26th last, that a ' circumstance had lately come to his knowledge which proved my want of sincerity.' " I send you herewith the correspondence which has passed on this subject, by which you will see tliat the onus of pervert- ing my words at present rests on you, and as I have no doubt that you will be able satisfactorily to explain the matter, I would ask you to be so good as to let me know : " 1. What you said to Archdeacon Sweatman respecting any remarks I was said to have made about him, giving me, as far as you can, the very words used. ** 2. Your authority for any statement you may have made, that is, the name of your informant. '* Please to return to me the enclosed copies of correspondence with your answer, viz : six pages and letter of Arch. Sweatman. " I remain yours faithfully, "J. Walker Marsh." To which the Dean replied : — " Huron College, I2th July, 1879. " To the Ven. Archdeacon Marsh, " My dear Mr. Archdeacon, — I beg leave to return (by hand) the copies of correspondence (six pages and a letter) which you thought it necessary to enclose to me, and from which you are pleased to conclude that an onus rests upon me to clear myself of the charge of perverting some words of yours. In the first place, allow me to say that I am thoroughly uncon- scious of having ever misrepresented or perverted the words of Exj)lanationfi by Archdeacon Marsh 03 you or any gentleman on any occasion, or for any purpose. In order, however, to convince you, as far as in my power, of the truth of this, I shall endeavour to answer as succinctly as I can your two questions. I may remind you that, before the ap- pointment of a successor to the late Professor Halpin, I called one morning at your house, suggesting that if he would accept the position, the then Archdeacon Sweatmaii would, in my opinion, be a suitable person ; this I di I from my conviction of his fitness for the post, both as a good classical scholar and as a clergyman of sound Protestant and Evangelical views, and I need scarcely say that recent facts have proved that in jny esti- mate of him I was correct. " 1 was therefore not a little surprised when you objected to the present Bishop of Toronto on the ground of his not being Evangelical, giving as the reason for your opinion what you have stated, though more fully in your letter of the 30th of April, and this reason you also gave to Dean Grasett for the same opinion. With regard to your second question, any statement I made was upon your authority and yours only, and I beg to state that 1 repeated a great deal less than fell from your own lips in regard to Archdeacon Sweatman, and that only when I was obliged to do it as a reason for not continuing to urge his appointment to the vacant professorship, and I am perfectly in- nocent of any inference which may be drawn as to your insin- cerity. I hope this will satisfy you that the charge of pervert- ing your words is altogether groundless, and you will oblige me by giving the bearer a mere acknowledgment of its receipt. " Yours faithfully, " M. Boomer." My friend Dean Boomer indulges in righteous indignation at the bare idea of any charge being brought against himself, though he does not hesitate (upon such foundation as these ex- planations show) to charge a friend, of a lifetime, with dupli- city, deception, &c. But in his indignation he gets " mixed," for any visit he paid me must have been some days before that on which the appointment of Classical Professor was made, and my conversation with Dean Grasett was on the afternoon of the day previous to that on which the appointment was made, and the conversation with Archdeacon Sweatman in " the train " "WMHiMMIM r>4 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. occurred that same day ; consequently I could not have given that conversation to Dean Boomer by anticipation. I beg to tell the Dean that anything I said of Archdeacon Sweatman, was neither personal nor unkind, whatever his in- sinuation may mean, and further that I cannot understand how any presmre should lead him to betray the confidence which he himself had sought, and to use it to injure the friend who re- posed confidence in him. Some one has twisted my words, and which is the offending party I must leave them to settle among themselves ; one thing is certain ; if this kind of thing is to continue, the only safe course to pursue, when a " friend !" comes to ask your opinion on any matter, is politely to show him the door. Had the following letter been read to the Synod as it ought to have been, there would have been no room for some of the disparaging rumours that v/ere spread about me in my absence. I sent the following letter to the Clerical Secretary of the Synod on June 14th. "719 Waterloo Street, "London, June 13, 1879. " Rev. J. B. Richardson, M. A., Clerical Secretary of Si/ nod, Diocese of Huron : " My Dear Sir, — I had intended to be present at the ap- proaching Session of our Synod, but my medical man, Dr. Brown, has informed me that rest and quiet are necessary for me in my present state of health, otherwise tie will not answer for the consequences. " It is but right, under the circumstances, that I should ex- plain to the members of the Synod, to whom I am pledged to move some amendments to canon 24, on the distribution of the Mission Fund that, for the reason given above, I have with- drawn my notice of motion for the present. I would ask you as secretary to be good enough to read this letter to the Synod at the proper time (Order of proceedings 5) (4). " I remain my dear Sir, " Yours, faithfully, "J. Walker Mahsh, M.A., Rector of St. JolirCs, London 7'^." ■ have given Archdeacon wer his in- rstand how le which he nd who re- e offending one thing 3 only safe ur opinion nod as it a for some me in my iry of the .879. at the ap- man, Dr. Jssary for 3t answer hould ex- ledged to on of the Eive with- t ask you le Synod Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. On my return home, I was told that my letter to the Secre- tary was not read to the Synod, and therefore wrote to him as follows : — "719 Waterloo Street, ♦• London, June 30, 1879. " Rev. J. B. Richardson, ^ Clerical Secretary of Synod, Diocese of Huron : : . .< < •* My Dear Sir,— On the 1 4th inst., I wrote to you, giving the reason why I should not be present at our Synod meeting on the 17th. " Since my return home, I hear that my letter was not read as I requested. If this is the case, please to inform me why you did not read it to the Synod. "I remain, my dear Sir, " Yours faithfully, "J. Walker Marsh. '* The bearer will wait for an answer." ulou Tpr \Anw)erJ\ "Memorial Church Rectory, " London, Ont., 30th June, 79. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — Your letter was not read at the Synod, because it was considered that as it did not relate to any business before the Synod, the reading of it would have been irregular. " Yours truly, "J. B. Richardson" On receipt of this, I sent the following : — "719 Waterloo Street, " London, June 30, 79. "My Dear Sir, — In your letter just received, you say that my letter, which I wrote to you as Secretary, * was not read because it was considered that as it did not relate to any busi- ness before the Synod, the reading of it would have been irre- gular.* May I ask you as Secretary kindly to let me know E 66 Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. whether you acted tlius ou your own authority, or if not, please to say hy whom 'it was considered,' &c., &c. " I remain, Yours faithfully, "J. Walker Marsh. " Rev. J. B. Ricluudson, " Clerical Secretary, Synod of Huron." On receiving this, Ivlr. Richardson was excited and refused to give an answer then. Two days afterwards I received the following : — " Memorial Church Rectory, " LOMDON, Ont., 30th June, '79. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — In reply to your last note I havo briefly to say that, as is usual with such communications, your letter of 1 4th inst. was laid before the committee appointed to prepare the business for the Synod, and the opinion of one and all was as I have written to you. Yours truly, " J. B. Richardson." ti The Rev. Secretary must have forgotten that he was writing to one who had some little experience in these matters, or he would not have ventured to penyuch an evident " put off." Mr. Richardson knows very well that the said committee met dur- ing the month of May, and completed their business when they put out the circulars, &c., dated May 29th, 'and had nothing further to do with any business that might afterwards be sent. Moreover, ** as is usual with such communications," my letter was sent direct to the Secretary, and it was his duty to rtitad it, as has always been done in this diocese, notwithstanding " the opinion of one and all," whoever they may be. I have now given a full statement of the case, and it is with deep regret that I have been compelled to lay bare the acts of those to whom we ought to look for a)i example of all that is good and holy ; but it could hardly be expected that I would submit in silence to the malicious and persistent attempts that have been made to crush me down, to blast my character, to destroy my usefulness, and to wreck the peace and happiness of myself and my family. Should any evU results follow from this, or from any further action which I may be forced to take. Explanations by Archdeacon Marsh. 67 the responsibility must rest on the heads of those who have driven me to take this course. In the above correspondence, holy scripture has been impor- ted ; but whether the passage quoted is applicable to the " wis- dom " displayed, I leave others to decide. We all profess to be " disciples " of the Lord Jesus Christ ; it cannot be wrong then to apply the Master's test to prove whether we can justly claim to be His true followers. Jesus said, " a new command- ment I give unto you : That ye love one another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my di^iciples, if ye have love one to another " The conscience of each one can decide this ; but I fancy thi ' most will agree, judging from the fruits above displayed, that the words of the prophet Daniel apply here to some of us with terrible force. "TEKEL, Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting." »>