IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I '- IIIIM IIIIM ■" IIIIM 111^ ■ !ilA£ Hill 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" ► VQ <^ /a "cM s. e). o ^h /. / 7 M. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y 14580 (716) 87.^-4503 X" /MS' ^ 1 i/x CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may altar any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou peliiculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couiaur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdas et/ou pellicul6es I — ]/Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I Vi Pagos d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es □! Pages detached/ ! Pages ddtach^es I I Tf^ Shcwthrough/ ransparence I I Quality of print varies/ Qualitd indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement nu partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es 6 nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmt fut reproduit grAce A la ginirositA de: La bibliothdque des Mrchives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printe'< or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol •-^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Let images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plu^ brand soin. compte tenu de la condition et e^ la nettetA de l'exemplaire filmi, et en conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmfo en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols --► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent fttre filmfo d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est fiimi A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 p. 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPEECH UELIVIiKKl) BY JOHN L MORRIS, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE '§mtii Uv i\H "iHanai)f mrnt of Wit l^m\mi\Mt^ /und of the |'it$bytcvian €\\\m\x of a'auada, iw coiv- \mt\m with i\H it\x\\xt\t of «^«otlattd, m;i()Eet at the truth in order to render your decision upon this very important qnestion. I have here a record in appeal in the case of Dobie vs. the Temporalities Board, which was decided by the Privy Council in Eni^land, with all the sworn testimony, so that I shall not merely assert, but will prove my statements as I proceed. I will first refer to the orij^in oi' th(; " Presbyt(nian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland," to which the Temporalities Fund now in dispute bi'longs. This Church was formed in the year 1831, at the suggestion of Sir George Arthur, in his despatch to Lieutenant-Grovin-nor Sir John Colborne of the 1st August, 1830, and the object suggtfsted by him was the union of all Presbyterians in the Province of Canada. So that the foundation principle — the rock on which the Church was founded — was Union ; and what was right in those early days can- not be wrong now as regards the larger union, which took place in 1875. The union of 1831 was in order that all Presbyterians scattered throughout the Provinces might more readily communicate with the G-overnment concern- ing the Clergy Reserves. That was a good object. The union of 1875 was also for a good object. It was to enable the different churches to unite their forces, and thus promote their common aim, namely : The promul- gation of religion according to Piesbyterian doctrine and customs. I now quote the words ol Sir George Arthur : " It appears to mo very dcsiraWe, if such a measure could bo accomplisliod, •' that the whole of the Presbyterian Clergy of tiie Province should form a " Presbytery or Synod, and that each Presbyterian minister who is to receive " an allowance from Government should be recommended by that body. By " this arrangement the whole of the Presbyterian Clergy of Upper Canada " would be placed upon the same footing with respect to the assistance " aflforded by Government towards their support." This suggestion was carried out, and the Church was formed on the 7th of June, 1831, at a convention of minis- ters and commissioners from the different congregations. These ministers and commissioners called it *• The Pres- 6 by terian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland." It was a voluntary and independent asso-- ciation from the beginning. It was not a body corporate, and was not connected with the Church of Scotland in Scotland by any substantial connection. I will prove this by the declaration of the Church of Scotland itself. It is absolutely necessary that you should know exactly the relations which existed between this Church and the Church of Scotland in Scotland, because the words in the name — " In connection with the Church of Scotland " — have misled a great many who do not under- stand the question. Now, here is a letter written from th3 Church of Scot- land in Scotland, to this Church in Ciriada, appearing in its minutes in the year 1844, in which the Church of Scotland states : '' Tlio Cluiich of Scotland has never i-lainied any autlioiity nor exurcised any ( ontrol i>vur your Synod ; neitlier ha.s she ever pos.ses.sed or desired to posse.ss the right ot any such interference. Her elTorts have been limited t<; the tultivation of brotiierly affection and the rendering of pecuniary aid to those who had many claims on her regard." This is the declaration of the Church of Scotland her- self, who states that her relations were limited to the cultivation of brotherly affection and the rendering of pecuniary aid. She never exercised nor claimed to exer- cise any ('ontrol. That is the whole meaning of the con- nection with the Church of Scotland — a connection simply of identity of origin and standards and ministerial and church communion. The Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland was at that time composed principally of ministers who came to this country from Scotland in the early history of Canada. Most of them being Scotchman, they naturally entertained feelings of affection and respect towards the parent Church in the Fatherland. And they therefore 6 callotl their Churcli "in connection with the (^hurch ot* ^Scotland." They owed the allegiance ol' a son to a father, or ol" a daujL'htor to a mother. They wished to be recognized by her in that relation, and always treated her with respect, and she, as a parent, was always ready lo render I hem assistance when they were weak, and gave them of her means to aid them in their work. This she has done up to the present time, and is still doing, to this united Church, while she has ol' late eeased to render aid to those who have remained out ol' the Union. Now, the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, in the year 1844, recognizing these peculiar relations, passed a declaration of inde- p(?ndence referring to this very question of the signi- Jtication of the words in the name — " In connection with the Church ol' Scotland." This was read to every minister and i)iobationer applying for ordination, and to it he was obliged 1 o assent, helore he could be admitted into the Church, in that act it is declared: " Wlicrcas tliis Synod 1ms always, from its first establishment, possessed a perfectly free uiul supreme Jurisdirtion over all tiie Ccnj^ne.nations and Minist- ers in eonncetion tlien^witli ; and a!tlH)H{,'li the indepcsndenee and freedom of tiiis Synod, in rej^urd to all tilings spiritual, ciinnol be called in question, but lijis been repcatt Uev. Mr. Lano- has stated that over and over again. He says this is an established Church in Canada, and that the Church hi^re only got its name and had a right to a share of th(» Clergy Reserves money because it was an established Church. I have just read to you the proof that it is not so ; that the Canadian C'hurch was a voluntary and independent asso- ciation from the beginning. Both the (>anadian Church and the Church of Scotland have agreed upon this point, and it is idle for these gentlemen to dispute what is indisputable. Then, as to the fact that the Synod of the Church was the Supreme Court, the governing body, ruling by a vote of the majority, I refer to page 278 of the evidence in the Dobie case by the Uev. Dr. Jenkins, who, being examined under oath, states : "The Synod is the; Supreme Court of the Church J ts. powers are twofold — first, Judicial ; second, legislative. As a Judicial court, it is a court ot tinal ap- peal in all cases of discipline tried in tJH! lower courts and appealed frojn them. Legislatively, its jurisdiction is twofold — first, it has a spiritual juris- fliction bearing upon the control of all religious matters; second, it lias a sec- ular jurisiliction bearing upon all matters of property, or in the nature of property, relating to the Synod." Then he mentions the different courts, sessions and presbyteries, the highest court of all being the Synod. Hon. Mr. Rotskoru — Unowor hero to create Mr. Moiniis — Yes, thc^ have power, and they did so, and it has never been disputed sin(M\ an njorely for the regulation of its own uHairs. And at ."jas : Assuming that Synod had no power, that gives no jurisdiction to the Courts. There is no Jurisdic- tion in the Court to impiire into th(! rules of a voluntaiy society at all. The only remedy which the member of a voluntary association has, when he is dissatisfied with the proct-edings of the body with which he is connected, is to ii'ilhdntw Irom it. Pago .'■)84 : A religious body forms an imperium. in imperio, of which the Synod is the supreme body. When there is not (as there is in the Church of England) a temporal head, the authority of the Synod is supreme." I <'ite this very important leading Scotch case to bear out the evidence of Rev. Dr. Jenkins, who spoke with reference to the rules and discipline of this particular Church, which have been printed every year since its formation, and I now produce those rules. The Church de<;lared adhesion to the standards of the Church of Scot- land, its forms and customs, and it has much the same kind of discipline, although it has a book of discipline of its own. I think I have shown you enough to prove that this Synod was the supreme and highest Court in this Church, and the ultimate Court of appeal. There was no appeal to the Church ol Scotland in Scotland. Now, as to the origin of the Fund. A great deal has been said about this Fund. You have been told thrt, coming from the proci^eds of the Clergy Reserves, it was only given to this Church bi^causo it was the Church of Scotland in Canada, as if there was any peculiar merit in being the Church ol' Scotland in Canada. I will demon- « strate to you conclusively, i think, that it was not given to this Church on that account, but because it was a Pro- testant ( 'hurch.^^ The Cleri>;y Reserves were set apart, not for the support of the Church of Scotland, but for the support ol a Protestant clergy, and the reason why this Church in Canada obtaiiu^d a share was simply because it was a Protestant Church, and as much entitled to a share as the Church ol' England, which at first claimed the whole Fund. In proof of what 1 say, I will refer to the opinion ol the Judges of England when tlie question was submitted to them Deputies I'rom the Presbyterian Church ol Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland were sent to England to claim a share of this Fund, and Lord John Rnssell consulted the Judges of England u.pon the principles contained in the IJill passed by the Canadian Lof^islature, as lo the meaning to be attached to the term " Protestant clergy," and here is their opinion, delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas : " Wo av(! of opinion that thii words ' Protestant Clergy ' in 31 George III., chap. 31, are large enough to inchitle and do include other clergy out of the Church of England and Pi>>te.stant Bishops, priests and deacons that have re- ceived Episcopal ordination. When your Lordships ask -rany other clergy are included, what other clergy ? we answer that the Church of Scotland is one instance of such other Protestant clergy. And further in answering your Lordships if we specified no other clergy than the clergy of the Church of Sec Appendix. M Hootland, wo did not intend tliereby that the clergy of no other Ciiurch than the Churcli of Scotland may not be included under the said term 'Protestant Clergy.'" So that as the Reserves were set apart for the support of a Protestant clergy, this Church received a share because it was an instance of a I*rotestant clergy. Other Protestant bodies in Canada also received a share — the English Church clergy, i;27r),851 ^s. 2d. stg. ; the Presby- terian clergy in connection with the Church ol' Scotland, i;i27,488 r)s. Od. stg. ; the Uniied Synod of Upper Canada, which was another body of Presbyterians, =£2,240 lis. Od. stg. ; the British Wesleyan Methodists, c£9,7G8 lis. Gd. — all of which is to be found in the records, and proved under oath here at page 322 of this Privy Council record. I have shown, then, that this money was not given to this Church because it was a State Church, but simply because it was a Protestant Church. Now I come to the statement of the gentleman who spoke first here, the Rev. Robert l)urnet, who dwelt upon the sacrifices that he as one of (he original commutois had CD made in handing over to the Church his share of the capital of the Fund, when he might, as he said, have put the whole into his pocket. I do not suppose that the Rev. Mr. Burnet intended to make a mis-statement. He has probably forgotten all about the circumstances of the case. But let me point out to you that he was mistaken in saying that he could have put any part oi" that capital into his pocket. He never could have done so. To demonstrate this, I will refer you to the Act itself, 28 Vic, c. 2, authorizing the Governor of Canada to com- mute with the bodies and parties interested. It was there enacted — "That the Governor of the said Province of Canada miglit, whenever he might deem it expedient, with the conwent of t : parties and boJies aevcraUy n intorested, commute with the said parties such annual stipends or allowances for the value thereof, to be calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum upon the probablo life of each individual, and that such commutation amount should be paid accordingly out of that Municipalities Fund upon which such stipend or allowance was made char^eablu by the said last mentioned Act." Mr. Brymner — Would the learned gentleman be kind enough to read the whole of that. There are parties and bodies mentioned. -Commutation is with parties and with the Presbyterian Church o\' Canada in connection with the Church oi' Scotland. Mr. Morris — 1 don't dispute that. I am going to show that these gentlemen could not have commuted indi- vidually, could not have received a cent of this capital personally. There were two factors to this commutation — the bodies and the parties interested. Up to that time the Ministers had only had a right to (^laim a certain annual sura. They had not a. right to claim a share of the capital. To put an end to all semblance between Church and State, as the Act itself states, the Canadian Parliament was authorized to make this commutation with parties and bodies severally interested. The parties met in Synod in the year 1853, after this Act was passed, for the i>urpose of authorizing the Synod to carry out the commutation, and the resolution then passed by the Synod is what the learned gentleman who spoke the other day called a contract between the j)arties. The resolution siates that it was thought desirable that such a commutation if upon lair and liberal terms should be effected. Then the Synod appointed commissioners with full power to give the sanction of the Synod to such commutation as they should approve of, and then to join all the sums obtained into one fund which should be held by them until the next meeting of the Synod, by which all further regulations were to be made. They authorized these Commissioners to obtain an Act of Parliament (22 13 Victoria, cap. 66), which is the Act incorporating this Board, the Act of 1858. Now, some little time before that, some of these gentlemen came to the conclusion that they did not care about this arrangement which they had authorized the Synod to make for them ; they pre- ferred some other plan by which they could put a share of the capital into their own pockets. One of them, the Rev. Mr. Gibson addressed a lettin*, the proved copy of which I have now before me, to the Hon. Mr. Chauveau, as follows : — ''(»Ai/r, Itit January, 1855. " HONOKAHI.E SlH, '' Being an incumbent of tlie Cliun li of Scotland, at Gait, in Canada Went, and consequently allccted in my rij^hts l>y the Hill seculaiizirig the I'leigy Keseives iu Canada, anil fully disposed to avail myself of the commutation clause, I therefore beg leave to inquire whether the Government are willing to commute with me as an individual, or must a[)i>lications be first sanctioned by our Church. I write this with the concurrence of several of ray brethren in this section of our country who are etjuaily interested and desirous of inform- ation on the subj(;ct. " May I presume to ask the favor of an iniint^diate answer. " I remain, etc., (Signed,) H. GIBSON, Minister. " Hon. p. .1. 0. Ciiaovkaij.'' The reply was as follows : " Secretary 's Office, Qukkkc, "24th January, 1855. " Rkvkkkni) Sik, "I am commanded by the Governor General to inform you in rei)ly to your letter of the 1st instant, that His Excellency is advised that the Governniout cannot entertain applications for commutation from individual ministers un- less the consent of the Church to wliicii thoy belong shall have l»ee.» first ob- tJiined. " I have, etc., " 1'. J. O. CHAUVEAU, " Secretary, "Kev. H. GntsoN, Gait." I think now I have made out my statement that the 14 I . I I commutors could not have put any part of the capita] into their own pockets ; that the money was for the benefit of the ministers only as connected with the Church, and for the benefit of the Church as connected with the ministers. The reason why the Government would not give them the «apital was because it was intended for the benefit of the Church in Canada, and if they had got the money they might have gone oil" to the United States, or anywhere (^Ise, and expended it as they liked, and then it would have be(Mi of no benefit to the Church. Therelbre, from the beginning that money was more the property of the Churcli than of the ministers, who only had a claim upon the Revenues. Tlie sums obtained were to be joined into one Fund, to be held by the Commissioners until the next meeting of the Synod, which was to make all further reguhitions. This shows you that from the very first tlu' Synod dealt with, con- trolled and made regulations concerning the Fund. The following is the Synod's resolution : Ruaol'Ucil. — '• 1st. That it is dcHiiablo tliat such coram iit^itioii, if. upon fair and liliorul terms, shoiikl be affected; and that tiic liov. Alexander Matiiieson, D.D., or Montreal ; the Uev. John Cook, J).D., ot Quebec; llugli Allan, Ksq., of Montreal ; John Thompson, Ksq., ol' Quebec ; and tiie Hon. Thomas Mackay, of Ottawa City, be the Synod's comniissiouors, with full power to f^ive the formal sanction of tlu! Synoil to such commutation as they shall approve, the said comiuissionerh ijeing hereby instructed to use their best exertions to obtain as liberal terms as possible ; tin' Rev. Dr. Cook to be convener ; three to b(; a quorum ; the decision of the majority to he final, and their lormal acts valid ; but that, such formal sanction ol the Synod sl)ull not be t;i/,'ate8 to the said Ilev. DiTJohn Cook full power to endorse and assent to thi; sevi^ral Powers of Attorney from the individuiil |)arties on behalf of the said Synod, and in their name, and as their act and deed, aa evidence of their assent thereto. "3rd. That all ministers be and they urv hereby enjoined and entreated (as. to a measure by which, under Providence, not only their own present in- terests will be secured, but a permanent endowment for the maintenance and extension of religious ordinances in ti.e Church) to grant such authority in the fullest manner, thankful to Almighty Cod that a way so easy lies open to them for conferring so important a lienefit on the Church. " 4th. That the aforesaid Commissioners l)e a committee to take the neces- sary steps to get <'ui Act of Incorporation for the management of the general fund so to be ttbtained ; the aforesaid Commissioners to Constitute the said corporation till the next meeting of Synod, when tour more members shall be added by the Synod." So you will s(^e that tlic Synod had the power to make ail regukitious coiiceming this fund. It was handed over to the Synod absolutely, to be r(\f»ulated and disposed of subject only to the lundamenlal principle of guarantee- ing to the Minist(n-s their life int(n"est, and also to the fundamental principle that they would cease to have a claim if they ceased to belong to the Church. For instance, if any one went to the Church of Scotland, as some of them did go, he ceased to have a claim becausi^ he ceased to be connected with the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and it was to this Church in Canada that the fiTnd belonged. You will see from that resolution also that » i I 16 t ■* , * ' the only thing the Synod had not power to alter, except with the constant of the commuting* ministers, was the provision that each one should receive c£112 10s. a year, and you will remember that that has never been altered to this day. Anything" else they might alter without the consent ol' anyone. The amount obtained by the Com- missioners from that commutation was c£ 127,488 os., and under the authority of the Synod they obtained the Act of Parliament, 22 Victoria, cap. 6G, which incorporated this Boaid, I !( This brings me down to three projiositions upon which I think this whole case turns. The first is that the fund from that time became the property of the .hurch. No part of it was the Ri^v. Mr. liurnet's property. It was handed over by mutual agreement and consent to the rrcsbyterian Church of Canada in connectioii with the Church of Scotland. It was its property, subject only to the provision that the revenues were lo be devoted to the payment of Mr. Burnet and others who had a life interest in it. My second proposition is that this church, being a voluntary association, had power to form a union, which it did in 1875, and had power to change its name, which it did. My third proposition is that if this Church legally and constitutionally formed this union, it carried its Y)roperty with it. Its title to the property was not vitiated by the Act of Union. This Act of Incorporation of the Board, as well as the original resolution which I have read, proves that the fund is the property of the Church. Our opponents have referred to the original resolution. I do not object to their doing so, for we stand by it also, and it is embodied and contained in the Act of incorporation. 17 The Church, not being an incorporated body, thought it best to have the fund managed by a Corporation; therefore it appointed a Board to manage it, and applied to Parliament and obtained this Act, which provides that a certain number of members shall retire from the Board each year, and the Synod of the Church fills up the vacancies from year to year. I now quote from the Act to show that this property is the property of the Church. It states that the funds •'Are now held in trust by certain Commissioners, on behalf of the said Church and for tiie benefit thereof;" And again — "But such holding is subject always to the special condition that the annual interest and revenues of the said moneys and fund now in their hands shall be and remain charged and subject, as well as regards the character as the extent and duration thereof, to the several annual charges in favor of the several ministers and parties severally entitled thereto." You cannot go back of that Act and say that the fund belongs to the commuters. This, then, is the nature of the contract. It declares that the money belongs to the Church and is held in trust for the Church, subject to the special condition that the first charge on the interest and revenues of the then fund shall be the payment of these seventy-three ministers who were jiarties to the commutation. the the Lave rch. I and ion. Hon, Mr. Caryell — Does that arrangement make pro- vision for the residue of the fund after these gentlemen have departed this life ? Mr. Morris — It says that it shall be a permanent endow- ment for the Church. It belongs to the Church. The moment a commuter dies, of course his interest ceases. Then, new men w^ere coming into the Church all the time, 9 18 and the next man according to priority of admission to the Church stepped into his shoes, as it were, and took his . place in the enjoyment of the revenue. So it has been ever since. Some of these new men have been enjoying a revenue from this fund for twenty years and more, and their vested rights in it are just as sacred as those of the seventy-three original coramutors. This Act of the old Province of Canada (1858) which our opponents appeal to with so much conlidence decides the whole question in favor of the x^romoters of this Bill. Subject to the provi- sion respecting vested rights being secured to the commu- tors, the Act giv«s the Church absolute power to administer and disi)08e of the fund at will. It has so controlled it ever since, and regulated the payments that the new men were to have ; sometimes it raised them, sometimes it lowered them. Then, section 4 goes on to state that the Board : "Shall have power and autlioritv to frame and make statutes, by-laws, rules and orders, touching and concerning the good government of the said corpor- ation, and the collection, administration, investment, application, appropria- tion and management of the funds aforesaid and any other matter or thing • which to them shall seem fit or expedient for the eft'ectual attainment of the objects of the said (lorporation and the administration of its concerns, and for fixing and ascerbiining and establishing the scale or rate of stipend from the said funds to the ministers or others entitled thereto under the provisions of this Act, subject however, to the aforesaid original annual or other charges, and the same to vary, alter, repeal, or make anew, provided always that all such by-laws shall be submitted to the first meeting of the Synod or other supreme court thereafter for confirmation, amendment or rejection.' iii:!! Now this shows that the Synod not only dealt with that Fund from the beginning, but that it was authorized by this act so to deal with it and to sanction by-laws. The Board could not make by-laws without the sanction of the Synod. And when gentlemen come up here and state that the Synod had not power to deal with the capital of that Fund, I answer that under this Act it had power to 19 deal with, and dispose of the capital, as the above quota- tion proves. It might dispose of the fund just as it liked, subject always to" the condition that the life interest of the com- muting ministers who remained in connection with the Church should be secured. The original commutors expressly declared that the only matter the Synod could not alter was that particular clause, that they were to preserve their life interest. Hon. Mr. Dp:ver. — Supposing they went out of the spiritual communion of the C'hurch of Scotland, could they dispose of that property ? Mr. Morris. — If the Church went out legally they could. Bu^ that is not the point in dispute. It did not go out of spiritual communion, it retained all its principles and doctrines. I am not prepared to say that without the consent of the whole it could go out of spiritual commu- nion with the Church of Scotland, so far as holding by the doctrines of the Church of Scotland, and retain its funds, but I suppose if every one consented, it could join the Church of Rome, but that is a difterent question entirely. Hon. Mr. Dever. — Parties here say that they are out of communion. Mr. Morris. — I do not think so. I have proved that they never were in connection with the Church of Scotland, and the Church of Scotland herself has ex- pressly declared that the same communion exists, and has approved of this union, and our opponents attach great importance to what the Church of Scotland says. I will read the declaration of the Church of Scotland which heartily endorses this union, and says that this Church 20 holds to the original doctrines, and that she saw nothing in the union to disapprove of. The Church acts through the Synod. The Synod is a representative body ; it is composed of representatives of the whole Church, and every congregation sends two representatives ; one min- ister and one layman. So the Synod is the supreme, ecclesiastical and judicial court in dealing not only with that which is spiritual, but as I have shown you from the Act, in dealing with temporal matters ; it is also perfectly independent of the Church of Scotland. I explained that the relation was simply that of a son to a father, or of a daughter to a mother ; and as the rich father often helps the poor son, so in this case the mother Church very often gave pecuniary aid to her daughter in this country. She always gave good advice lO her children, and continues to do so up to the present tim:>. She gave them very good advice about this union, which some of her wayward children w^ould not take. I think I have now demon- strated my second proposition, that this money was the property of the Church. But had this Church the power to change its name V Now, I will ask, who really doubts this power ? I never hc^ard any one doubt it except those seven gentle- men. We are seven, they say, the majority are the dis- senters, and therefore we are the true Church, and the Synod seceded from us. Upon that principle one man might say, I am in the minority, but I am the Church, and entitled to all its property, buildings, manses and colleges I never heard any one except these gentlemen doubt the power of a voluntary association like this to unite. The Greneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland never doubted that power, and I would like to refer again 21 to their resolution, more particularly to impress it upon the minds of honorable gentlemen present, not, as I said before, that it had any right to interfere, but because the Church of Scotland is a very influential church, a very A'enerable church. The Church of Scotland, perhaps as much as any church in the world, is wredded to customs and forms. The General Assembly which meets at Edin- burgh every year is composed of some of the most eminent men in the land. It is an eccle .iastical court, and lawyers learned in ecclesiastical lav look after its interests. That court knew all about the Scotch cases which our opponents cited to you from some old- fashioned books t ) shew that a union could not be effected against the wishes of a minority, but it also knew that these had no application in this country. What did that Church say in 1872, before the union took place, when her daughter here sent delegates home, as she had always been in the habit of doing, in order to get advice ? Dr. Jenkins tells us that he was one of the deputies. He says : — " I did appear before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at its meeting in May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and furnished the General Assembly to the best of my ability with all the information that I possessed re- spectinij negociations for union in so far as they had proceeded. Whereupon, uftei kindly expressions from the Moderator, the General Assembly agreed to the following resolution : '' That the General Assenibly desires to record the high satisfaction with which they have heard of the energy, Christian zeal, and distinguished success with which their work as a Church is carried on by the Synod of which Dr. Jenkins is the representative, and in bidding them Cod speed in the great work before them in a great country, daily advancing in wealth and population, they feel assured that that work will be carried on by God's help for the future as it has been in the past, and that no union of the several Presbyterian bodies in Canada will be agreed to, without their being all fully satisfied that the great object of extending the benefits of religion will by that union be even more vigorously and eft'ectively carried on than now.' The quotation goes on to say : ' The Moderator then, at their request, tendered the thanks of the Assembly to Dr. Jenkins for his able, eloquent, and most interesting address.' " 22 It was suggested })y Mr. Macmaster that something was kept back, and that the Church oi' Scotland never was told of this terrible spoilation th*it was going to take plac**, — that this moiK^y was going to be handed over to the united Church. I will show presently that the Church of Scotland knew all about it, and that it approved of this very disposition of the fund and sanctioned it. Now, I read this simply to show that the Church of Scotland, that wise and learned Church Assembly, the highest deliberative body of that Church, did not dou])t that this Church could form a union. It has l)een asked, how do you prove that it had a right to form the union ? I say it had a right to do so, because it was a a voluntary association. It seems to me that it is only necessary to state that iact to prove my position. The Church of Scotland understands all that sort of thing. It admits impliedly by its resolution that this Church had aright to form a union. It said: We are sure you will not go into this union unh'ss you are satislied it will be of general advantage. And the Church here was satisliiMl that it would be of bonelit. In 1875 another deputation went from the Presby- terian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland to the Greneral Assembly in l']dinburgh, and what did the Groneral Assembly say then ? "The Geneml Asst;ml)ly woUiome witli sincfn; sentiments of e.steeni and re- gard the rcspeeted deputies t'lom tlie Synod of Canada as bretliren whose sacri- fices in promoting the religions interests of our eountrymen in that colony have deserved the gratitude of the Church both at home and abroad, and while receiving with profound concern and regret the intimation that on the subject of an incorporating union of Presbyterian Churches, threatened division in the Canadian Synods is endangering the cordiality of co-operation which is bo es- sential to the success of the work of the Church in all lan'ls, the General As- sembly claim no title to review the proceedings which have issued in that re- sult ; but the General Assembly, while continuing to recognize all old rela- tions with the brethren in Canada, are quite prepared to declare, after consid- 28 (•ration of the tcrniH of the propoHod union rh laid bofore tiiom in tlicir com- niitteo'H report, as tliey li(!rei)y cio deelure, tliiit there is nothing in the Haid terinH of union to prevent tli<( Asseinltly from (;ordiiilly wiHldng (lod speed in their future ial)orH for the Lord to bn'tlireu wlio propose to iiecept tiie union on that basiH, or from co-operating witli them in any way that may l>e found possible in the t.ow state of tilings in promoting tho religious Interests of Scottish Presbyterians in the Canadian Dominion." Now, what does that mean ? It mean.s that the Church was sorry thor«» should Yx' any dissension at all. It did not sympathise with the minority, who were lomenting discord, who were dissenting from the majority of their brethren, and it received with profound concern and rei^ret the intimation that threatened division was endan- gering the cordial co-operation, thiit is so essential to the work of the Church in all lands. If they had been told there was a complete union, that there was no division, would they not have said, we rejoice to iind that this is a perfect union? They say in the resolution that they absolutely approved of the union, and admit the iact that the Church could contract a union, but they extremely regret to see that there were dissentients. Still holding to their original attitude, they claim no tith' to review the proceedings. They said, in effect, The matter rests with yourselves ; you have the right to take these proceedings, and we are satisfied to leave them to you. " The new state of things !" say our opponents. They seem to think there is a great deal in that. Of cou.rse it was a new state of things. There was this union with the churches. They were not exactly as they were before. But the Church at home was ready to co-operate with them in the new state of things, just as it did before, " in promoting the interests of Presbyterians in the Domi- nion of Canada." Now, I emphasize particularly what the Church of Scotland said with reference to the terms of the union. They said that they had considered the whole terms of union — the whole terms, not a part of 9BS !iii;v 24 these terms — and they saw nothing in them to disapprove of. Now. what were the terms of the union ? I hold in my hand a printed statement prepared by the members of the deputation which went lo Edinburgh that year — a printed statement of the whole matter, prepared for sub- mission to the G-eneral Assembly of the Church of Scot- land, and submitted tu luat body. An Hon. Senator — Who first proposed this union ? Mr. Morris — It was proposed long before it took place. It was proposed fifteen or twenty years before that, in Synod, and I think that the late Judge McLean, the father of a gentleman who is sitting here as an opponent to union, was one of the promoters of it. Mr. McLean — That is simply forcing the case, and is only for the purpose 'vf prejudicing this Committee. Mr. Morris — I will turn up the resolution. I know he w^as appointed by the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland as a member of the Committee to see whether the union of all the Presbyterians could not be effected. I refer to Synod Minutes for 1852, p. 20. The union was proposed at first in Synod, by one of its members, and the negotiations for this union, which took place after they had been under discussion for over five years, were submitted to all the bodies in the Church. The question asked has turned me rather aside from the line of my argument, though I am glad to give informa- tion on every point to any honorable gentleman who may desire it. I was answering the statement of Mr. Macmaster with reference to the report of the depu- tation to Scotland. Of course he had been misinformed when he said that the terms of the proposed union were not submitted to the parent Church in Scotland. Now, 26 I have read to you the declaration of the General Assembly ot the Church of St^otland in Scotland, in which they expressly state that the terms were submitted to them ; that they considered these terms, and saw nothing objec- tionable in them. But Mr. Macmaster said that the only thing subn^liied to them was the basis of union, which he called the ecclesiastical basis, having reference to the standards of the Church and its doctrines. To disprove this I refer to the long letter of these deputies to the Church of Scotland. They related the whole proceedings relative to the union from first to last. But we were told that these eminent gentlemen : Rev. Dr. Cook, one of the most venerable members of the ChiiT'^-h and a Commutor, Rev. Dr. Jenkins, Prof. Fergu- son, of Kingston, the Rev. Daniel M. Gordon, of Ottawa, and Mr. James Croil, agent of the Church, went home and only gave the Assembly a part of the terms of Union. Is it to be believed that these gentlemen, who were deputed on the part of this Church, went there and only told half the story V Gentlemen, I put it to you : is it likely ? Here is their own written statement in which they say they told all about this contemplated union. If you take w^hat is called the basis of union and look at it, you will see that it is one document composed of several parts. It is called the proposed terms of union of the Presbyterian Churches in the Dominion. First is the Preamble and Basis which holds to the Bible and the "Westminster Confession of Faith, and the larger and shorter Catechism. Then follow the resolutions relating to other churches, and the resolution regarding the disposal of the Tempo- ralities Fund, being exactly the same disposition as is contained in our Bill now before you — all this is one docu- nent. 26 Would our opponents dare to affirm that these distin- guished men who formed the deputation,and submitted this printed document, giving a history of the whole of the steps towards union, only submitted the first part and left out all the rest ? I say it is incredible, and it is useless to discuss the matter any further. Now 1 think I have disposed effectually of the point which Mr. McMaster made, that the Church of Scotland, in Scotland, only approved of the doctrinal part of the terms of union, and did not approve of the disposition o^ the Temporalities Fund proposed by this Act. The Church of Scotland, in Scotland, recognized the union, and approved not only of the ecclesiastical basis but also of the act by which the Synod took this money into the united church. Before I leave this question, I would like to read you another resolution of their Greneral Assembly, passed after the union took place, and which recognizes the i^rinciple that the Canadian Church had a right to unite. I have endeavoured to prove that this Church had a right to form a union, and that the Greneral Assembly has said so expressly. Well, in 1876, a deputa- tion was again sent from the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, one year after the union, and what did this Asssembly say ? They had been told that the union had taken place. What union was referred to ? They were not told that the Synod had seceded from the seven gentlemen ; and that these seven gentlemen were the Church. They were told that this church in which they had so long taken an interest, and to which they had rendered assistance for so long, had formed a union. What did the Assembly say ? " Tho Assembly liave heard with much interest that the ?i« jo ?i of Presby- terians in the Dominion of Canada lias at length taken phiee. The terms on which this union has been affected, having been brought under the considera- tion of the last General Assembly, and that Assembly having declared that there is nothing in those terms to prevent the Assembly from wishing God speed in their future labors for the Lord to brethren who propose to accept 27 L of one ? TToion on that basis, or from co-operating with tlieni In any way that may be found possible in the new state of things, the General Assembly resolve to record, and tlirongh the respected deputies from Canada to convey to the brethren in the United Church of the Dominion, an expression of their earnest prayer that God may be pleased to hallow and bless the union, and to make it the means of promoting peace as wt-ll as all the other interests of religion among tlie i)eople. The Assembly, at the same time, regret to learn that the threatened division in the Canadian Synod, of wliicli intimation was given in the Report to the last General Assembly, has, to some extent, become a reality. As to differing views of duty in regard to accepting or rejecting tlie union, this Assembly, like all former Assemblies, express no opinion ; but bting persuaded that those brethren wiio have declined to enter the United Churcii, not less than those who have accepted the union, have acted under a «trong sense of duty, the Assembly assure them of their continued regard and desire for their prosperity and usefulness. And, while tlie Assembly will not cease to pray and use such means as may be within their power, and entreat their brethren in Canada to unite in the same prayer and efforts, that all heats may be allayed and any remaining division may be healed, they will cordially continue to co-operate in any possilile way with both parties in promoting the religious in- terests of their colonial brethren. The General Assembly having learned from the deputies that an impression exists in Canada, that the Church of Scotland regards the action of those connected with her in Canada in forming the union now consummated as an indication of disloyalty to the Parent Church, assure the deputies that they entertain no such idea : but, on the contrary, give full :!! ■!,' , .'ijli' 86 the roll of the united Church. This was done out of consi- deration for them, and their names were not erased in a hastv and unkind way, but were kept on the roll of Synod, until at length it became necessary to strike them off, and this was done with the. greatest reluctance. How different was this action of the majority trom the conduct of the minority. What did these seven or eight or ten men do? I hold here the proven copy of the official minutes of their so-called Synod, hold in St. Andrew's Church, Montreal, on the 14th of Juno, 1876, and signed "Gravin Lang," whereby they decla-^d that all their brother ministers who went into the union — "Are no longer ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Camidii in con- nection witli the Chiirch of Scotland in Canada, and that they are hereby deposed from the Ministry of said Churcii." Well, it is an awful thing to be a deposed minister. A deposed minister is disgraced for life, and cannot per- form any Ministerial act. So you can fancy the disastrous results that would have followed if this wholesale depo- sition had been of any force. Oui friend, the Hev. Mr. Grordon, and his brother ministers, have been uniting people in the bonds of matrimony ever since, and the whole of these marriages would be null and void. Following up this act of deposition, the clerk of their Synod, the Rev. Robert Burnet, who is now present here, wrote an official letter to Scotland warning tie Moderator of the Presbytery of Langholm, that the Very Rev. Prin- cipal Snodgrass, of Queen's College, who had received a call to that Parish, was a deposed minister. I will now read you his letter as follows : — " LoNnoM, Ontario Dominion of Canada, 2nd October, 18 77. " To the Rev. Moderator of the Presbytery of Langholm : '» Dear 6m, — I am directed by the Synodical Commission of the Presby- " terian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, to I ill I their here, erator Prin- ted a now ida, 1877. Presby- ilaud, to 87 " ropreHent to the Prosbytory of Langholm that we have heard, with deep « regret, of the presentation- of the Very Uev. Principal Snodgrans to the " Parish of Canonby. " Principal SnodgrasH as a minister of this Church and head of Queen's " College, Kingston, has made himxelf moDt active in attempting to obliterate " the honored name of the Church of Scotland in this colony, in fact, has " almost succeeded. If it be a sin and a crime to deny the Church, he is verily " guilty, and ought not to have the opportunity effectually to do in Scotland " what he lias done in Canada, overthrow the Chiircli. <' The Very Rev. Principal has l)cen deposed from the office of the ministry " in our Church. Ho was act and part in the consummation of the union " recently accomplished between the Church here and tlie bitterest enemies <' of the Church of Scotland in any of the Colonies belonging to Great " Britain. " I may add that the public opinion of the Free Church regarding Principal " Suodgrass, (or what those of us attached to the Church of Scotland call, • the " I(jgic of events ') has driven Dr. Snodgrass from his sphere of labor in Canada, " ns it has i.lready driven many ministers lately bt-Iongiug to the Church of " Scotland, from their congregations. We, in Canada, Churchmen, and Scot- " tish Churchmen, would be recreant to our Church and to our principles, did " wc not thus publicly protest against tlie induction of the Rev. Principal '• Snodgrass into any parish in Scotland. " In name and by authority of the Commission of the Presbyterian Church " of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland. v ''ROBERT BURNET, Clerk of Synod and of Commission.'' The Presbytery of Langhc^in treated this letter as it deserved, and inducted the Very Reverend Principal ; but these proceedings of the minority sufficiently show the spirit which has animated them in this controversy throughout. I have taken up more of your time than I intended, and have only a few more words to say, with reference to this proposed compromise of which the Rev. Mr. Lang talked so very plausibly. The same offer was made at the very end of the proceedings in the House of Commons, after all the other gentlemen had spoken. Now, that was iiir- 88 not the attitude of these gentlemen during these seven years in which they have been trying to get hold of the Fund. They claimed the whole of the Fund, upon the ground that the Church had seceded from them. They came also with an appeal to the House of Commons asking to be incorporated as the " Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland." And it was only at the last moment, in the Committee of that Houso, when they saw that things were going against them, and that they could not make out their case, that they changed their policy and came forward with this plausible proposal for a compromise. At first they were willing to take $100,000, then they would take $80,000, and finally they only asked for |50,000. Mr. Girouard, M.P., remarked in the House of Commons that it was like a Dutch auction. In their final proposition to this Committee, they say : Let us divide the Fund as seven is to 27. "VVe are seven, and the number of com- mators at the time of the union was 27, and in that way we shall get our fair proportion. That is not a fair statement of the case at all. 1 am sure that no honorable gentleman here would think of making a division on that basis of a fund intended to be indivisible, when the rights of these men are already perfectly secure. These gentlemen assume that the original commuters now living are the only individuals who have vested rights in the Fund. That is not correct. According to the terms of the Act of Incorporation and By-Laws, the moment an original commutor died, the next man in the Church, according to i riority of induction or admii>sion into the Church, stepped into his place and had his share of the revenue. There are many of these men who have been enjoying these revenues for the last twenty years, some more than that ; there were over one hundred of them at the time of the union, and if this Fund were to be divided in the way proposed — only among the surviving com- 39 mulors — the effect would be simply to deprive a number of ministers of their just dues, and hand them over to persons who have not a shadow of a claim to them, but who are now getting, and will continue to get, all they are entitled to. That is the real meaning of this otl'er of compromise which has been submitted to you at the last moment. Our Bill is itself a compromise on our part, for we are offering these gentlemen more than they are entitled to under the law. Hon. Mr. Odell — What amount do you offer in your compromise ? Mr. Morris — Wo say our Bill is a comin-omise, from the fact that it guar:intees to them rights which we con- sider they have lost l>y leaving the Church ; and it is a compromise because we give them certain representation on the Board, and an ultimate share in the residue of capital. Sub-section 2 of the 4th section of the Act reads as follows : — " After tlie first and third classes of payments named in section one shall have been extinguished and provision shall have been made for tlie annual receipt in perpeturity of the sum provided for in tlie second cla-^s of payments, each congregation which declined to liecome a party to the union, and which shall not have entered the union before the time of the extinction of such pay- ments, shall be entitled to a share of the residue, such share to oe in the pro- portion of one to the whole number of congregations on the Synod Roll on the Fifteenth day of June, 1875, the date of the union." Now, that is treating the minority exactly as the majority are treated. If you were to give a share of that capital over to the minority now, you would be giving them what you do not give to the majority. They do not get any share of the capital; their ministers only get their interest in the revenue. The Fund was intended to be kept as an undi- vided Fund until all vested interests ceased, but as a com- promise we said that we would not object, when vested Sn59Bi 40 rights had lapsed, to hand over to the original congregations remaining out of union a share of the Fund proportioned to their number. That offer was on the i)rinciple which I have already explained to you, namely, that this money was not designed for the benefit of ministers apart from con- gregations. The two were connected in their interests. It w as for the benefit of congregations having ministers, and for the benefit of ministers having congregations. "We say to them : Show us how many congregations you have — that probably would be a better arrangement for them than if we paid only the commutors. Suppose ten con- gregations remained out of the union, and I believe that is the correct number, they will get their equitable share. Hon. Mr. Botsfok.d — Irrespective of the number in each congregation ? Mr. Morris — Certainly, so far as numbers go, the con- gregations which remained out of the union, with one exce])tion, are pretty small. Hon. Mr. Odell — Can you give any approximate amount in money, at all events ? Mr. Morris — I think it will give them about $23,000, but it makes no difference whether the congregations are large or small so far as the principle is concerned of dividing the Fund according to congregations. If they had ten or twenty congregations at the time of union still remaining out of union at the time of division, they get a share accordino" to that number. We consider this is going a very long way, much further than the minority had a right to expect. Hon. Mr. Power — What did you say was the whole number of congregations at the time of the union? 41 Mr. M0RRI8 — There were 138 congregations, and ten went out, though 1 believe some of the ten had not min- isters with them. The fund is $322,000, and their share would be about $23,000. in .rity Hon. Mr. Powek — I asked Mr. Macmaster if this act was the same in substance as that passed by the Legisla- ture of Quebec, and he pointed out some point in which it differed. Would you be kind enough to explain what that difference was '? Mr. MoiiKis — It is the same as the Ontario Act, but the Quebec Act was slightly different. In the Quebec Act there is a slight inconsistency in a certain section where there is a proviso protecting the rights of these dissenting ministers which guaranteed their claims to their success- ors in office. The word " successors " has been left out of this bill, and the guarantee extended to all men who were on the roll at the time of the union. It treats the minority the same as it treats the majority, liecause under the Bill, the successors of the majority do not get any- thing. It is only the men who were on the roll at the time of the union, and it is in order to guarantee their vested rights, because, as was pointed out by Rev. Mr. Campbell, the Fund has been consideral)ly depleted by losses owing to the failure of the Commercial and Consol- idated Banks, and there is ])aTely enough now to pay the commuting ministers out of the revenues. To divide it up as proposed would simply be to destroy the rights of a great many men. iSo it is intended to keep this guaran- tee fund until all vested rights have ceased. Hon. Mr. Power — Do you. understand from the judg- ment of the Privy Council that they throw out any sug- gestion as to the proper course to be adopted ? i 42 Mr. Morris — I am very glad the honorable gentleman has mentioned that point. The Privy Council decided that the Quebec Parliament had not power to pass this Act, and that it came within the functions of the Domi- nion Parliament. The judgment then goes on to say : — " Unless the Dominion Parliament intervene, there will be ample oppor- tunity for new and protracted litigation." Now we come to you. and we say : Give us that legisla- tion which, it seems, the Local Legislatures had no right to give, and on the faith of which the Church has been acting for the last seven years. The Privy Council, I am satisfied, from the terms of their judgment, meant nothing else than to say that what the Local Legislature could not do, the Dominion Parliament can do. Now we come to you and we say : Intervene and pass these bills. Hon. Mr. Odell — I want you to explain more clearly that point w^ith regard to the right of the majority to rule in this matter, which you seemed to gather from the judgment of the Privy Council. Mr. Morris — The judgment says : — "' " The Respondents were therefore justified in referring to the niinntes of the Synod from 1831 to 1875, for th« purpose of showing the extent of the l)0wer vested in majorities by the Constitution of the Church. The minutes, which were founded upon by Counsel for the Respondents, afford ample evi- donee to the effect that, in all matters which the Synod was competent to deal with and determine, the Avill of the majority as expressed by their vote was binding upon every member of the Synod, a proposition which the Appellant did not dispute." Hon. Mr. Odell — Of course, if they w^ere not com- petent their act would be illegal. Is there any further qualification ? Mr. Morris — No, I do not think there is. Hon. Mr. Haythorne- was to return. 43 -Did you not say their remedy Mr. Morris — That was a quotation from a Scotch case, which said that if they were not satisfied their remedy was to withdraw. I have shown that this Church acted constitutionally, and did not lose its identity, as I proved by the case of the Wesleyan Church Trustees. I also cited from the Scotch law to show that the Synod, as a voluntary association, had a perfect right to change its name. If it is still the same Church, these men who remained behind surely cannot be that Church. They may form themselves into a new Church, and they may even, as a voluntary association, call themselves by the old name, but it does not follow that they are the old Church, or that they have a right to ask this Parliament to incorporate them as such. Gentlemen, thanking you for the patience and interest with which you have listened to my remarks, I once more ask you, in the words of the Privy Council, to " intervene." Give us the necessary legislation, and thus prevent "new and protracted litigation." ■'■\ • 1 • 'i • 1 ■ '■' t 1 45 APPENDIX. By request of the Synod of " The Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland," the late Hon. Wm. Morris went to England, and there urged, " at the foot of the Throne," the claims of the Church to participate in the Clergy Reserves. Both he and the Church to which he belonged were much broader and more liberal in their views, in those early days, than are now the champions of the minority who have so stubbornly fought this battle against union. Our Church, not puffed up with the narrow view, that it was entitled to a share, only because it was in connec- tion with the Church of Scotland, sought to forward the rights of all other Protestants in Canada equally with its own, as appears from its petition to the " King's Most Excellent Majesty, of date 13th June, 1831, commencing : " The claim of the Church of Scotland and of all natives of that portion of your Majesty's dominion, is founded upon the Act of Union betv.'een the two Kingdoms ;" and as also appears by the petition of the United Pres- bytery of Upper Canada (another body of Presbyterians) to the Right Hon. Sir George Murray, his Majesty's prin- cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies, of date the 1st ot September, 1830, as follows : — " A few years ago the ministers in this country in connection with the Church of Scotland, who are much less numerous than your petitioners re- quested your petitioners to join them in an application to His Majesty's 46 Government for pecuniary assistance. They did so, and the signatures of their numerous congregations were attached to tlioso petitions, as well as money forwarded to assist in sending home an agent to represent the Presbyterian claims in general. In a letter of ]s( July 1838, addressed to the Very Rev. rrincipal Maciarlan and the Rev. Dr. Barns, the Hon. Wm. Morris wrote : — " A very general opinion prevails here, as well on the part of many iuflu- ential ministers and members of our Church, as among numerous classes of other denominations ; that composed as is the population of Upper Canada, it would not only be highly inexpedient but positively unjust, were the Govern- mont to clothe either or both of the national establishments with exclusive spiritual powers and advantages, or to confer in like manner the whole of the clergy lauds. There are other Protestant Communities, particularly the Methodists, who have done much to meliorate the religious destitution of tho Colony, and at a time, too, when few other clergymen were in the Country. It would, therefore, seem exceedingly selfish were we, when advocating our con- stitutional claims and rights, to deny to our fellow christians and neighbours that countenance and support from the Government, the deprivation of which iias caused us so long and so justly to complain " Another quotation from the same letter is as follows : — '•' I have never been able to perceive that the powers of an establishment such as our Church enjoys in Scotland, could benefit that branch of it which exists in the Canadas, even if there were no jealousies and opposition in the way. Endowment, to secure the decent and permanent support of public worship is all we ought to desire, and endowment only to a limited extent. " All we re([uire is a moderate and limited endowment, with legal corporate powers, to enable lay members of the Church, as trustees (not Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions), to hold and manage the property for the benefit of the Clergy; and this is as necessary for other Churches as for ouns, and will readily be granted by the Legislatiu'c whenever asked."