!0 
 
 / ' 
 
 ^% ^/l \ ArC" '«:!•* 
 
 CHRIST CHURCH: MONTREAL, 
 %^ ^mtA\ (t\\\m\\ and Cathcrtval 
 
 A REPORT 
 
 liV THE 
 
 SELECTVESTRY OF THE CHURCH 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Ittisit of \\t jpHrisI^, 
 
 • WITH 
 
 APPENDICES, 
 
 COMTAININQ 
 
 OPINIONS OP CANADIAN COUNSEL AND EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 CHIEF CATHEDRAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND, 
 
 RELATIVE TO ECCLESIASTICAL LAAV AND 
 
 USAGE IN ENGLAND AND CANADA. 
 
 iMontrcal : 
 LOVELL TRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 1875. 
 
 For Sale at DAWSON BROTHERS, St< James Street, Montreal. 
 Prige, 25 Cents. 
 
CHRIST CHURCH: MONTREAL, 
 
 <•» 
 
 A REPORT 
 
 BY THE 
 
 SELECT VESTRY OF THE CHURCH 
 
 TO THE 
 
 itciot of t^e §ans^, 
 
 WITH 
 
 APPENDICES, 
 
 CONTAININS 
 
 OPINIONS OF CANADIAN COUNSEL AND EVIDENCE OF THE. 
 
 CHIEF CATHEDRAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND, 
 
 RELATIVE TO ECCLESIASTICAL LAW AND 
 
 USAGE IN ENGLAND AND CANADA. 
 
 ifttontual ; 
 lOVEliL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 1875. 
 

 
 / 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following report is submitted with the object of afifjrc^- 
 ing full and correct information on an issue which has arisen 
 concerning the government of a Cathedral, superimposed by 
 Royal Patent upon a I'arish Church existing under a prior 
 Royal Patent. 
 
 The question is a novel one, and in this instance is com- 
 plicated by the creation of an Honorary Dean and Chapter 
 consisting of the Rectors and Incumbents of various other 
 Parish Churches, and by the separation of the offices of Rec- 
 tor and Dean. Claims have been made on behalf of His 
 Lordship the Bishop, as well as of the Chapter, which are 
 fully detailed in the following pages. The issues are not 
 personal but purely official, and as such should be discussed. 
 Sooner or later they must have arisen, and now that thej'- 
 have been brought prominently before the Diocese, in His 
 Lordship's opening address at the last Synod, it is desirable 
 to have them fully set forth in all their bearings: 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Report of the Select Vestry 7 
 
 Opinion of the Honorable Mr. Justice Badgley 53 
 
 Opinion of William H. Kerr, Esq., Q.C., D.C.L, G7 
 
 Evidence of the Deans and Chapters of the Cathedral Churches of 
 
 England 72 
 
 Evidence of the Bishops of England 81 
 
 Sir Robert Phillimore's remarks upon the maxim that the Cathedral 
 
 is the Parish Church of the Diocese 85^ 
 
 Correspondence between His Lordship the Metropolitan and the Rec- 
 tor of the Parish 87 
 
VESTRY CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL, 
 
 Montreal, Dec, 1874. 
 
 To the Rev Maurice S. Baldwin, M.A., 
 Rector, Christ Church Cathedral, 
 ;Montreal. 
 
 Reverend and Dear Sir, ' 
 
 Your Vestry, in reporting on the chiinis of His Lord- See Appendix 
 ship the MetropoUtan in and over Christ Church in this 
 parish, as stated in tlie Correspondence submitted to them, 
 a copy whereof is hereunto appended, liave to state : 
 
 That they have reviewed, firstly, the history of the 
 Church; secondly, that they have taken means to ascer- 
 tain the legality of these claims •, and lastly, that they 
 have inquired into the custom prevailing in England 
 concerning the government of Cathedrals. 
 
 The statements made by them are verified by authori- 
 ties, and are in all cases based on documentary evidence. 
 The legality of these claims has been submitted to coun- 
 sel, whose professional standing is second to none in thisseo App. A & 
 
 - , B, pp. oo & 
 
 Dominion, and whose reputation is not merely local. g7. 
 These opinions are given at length in the Appendix, and 
 they will possess an additional interest as throwing much 
 incidental liffht upon Ecclesiastical Law in the Province. See App. c, 
 The last point is made plain by the Report ot Her 
 Majesty's Commissioners, made in 1854, from which, 
 extracts bearing on the question are given in the Appen- 
 dix. 
 
 Your personal knowledge. Reverend Sir, of the history 
 
 and status of Christ Church is necessarily limited from 
 
the fact that your residence in the Diocese has not been 
 of very long [date, and that yo'ir connection witli the 
 Church has been comparatively recent. For this cause 
 we have felt it our duty to lay tiie whole case before you 
 as fully as circumstances pennit. 
 
 As might be anticipated, upon such a question honest 
 differences of opinion do exist. These for the most part 
 seem to arise from defective information concerning the 
 past history of the Church. Many intricate questions 
 must arise during the process of adapting the less essen- 
 tial portions of the system of the Church of England to 
 the new circumstances of the Dominion of Canada, and 
 Sea pp. 42 & it is precisely in the latent antagonism which exists 
 between the Synod System and the Cathedral System of 
 government where differences are likely to originate. 
 
 Your Vestry believe that the claims made upon Clirist 
 Church are founded upon a misconception both of the 
 law and the equity of the case, and feel that the defence 
 »jf the rights of a Rector and Congregation, however dis- 
 tasteful to you personally and burdensome professionally, 
 is a defence of right, which, when the facts are fully 
 brought before them, will have the support of all candid 
 
 minds. 
 
 With full assurance of our love and respect for your- 
 
 L.elf, believe us to remain, 
 
 Ever faithfully yours, 
 
 George Smith, 
 
 Acting People's Warden. 
 
 Robert Evans, 
 
 Rector's Warden. 
 
 For the Vestry of the Congregation of Christ Church. 
 
REPORT. 
 
 CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL. 
 
 The history of the Congregation of Christ Church, the 
 Parish Church of Montreal and the Cathedral of the 
 diocese of the same name, dates from the close of the 
 war which gave this country to the British Crown. In 
 any question of the rights and privileges of Christ Church 
 it is necessary to revert to this fact, because, if there be 
 a precedence attaching to any congregation, it would 
 naturally belong to that which is the representative, in 
 our day, of the first Protestant congregation which ever 
 assembled in the City of Montreal. 
 
 When peace was proclaimed in 17G3 the army in Can- 
 ada was disbanded ; but the country was not attractive 
 to English settlers because of the language and religion 
 of its people. The colonies to the South were populous Qameaus 
 and flourishing and few cared to remain among a people Canada. 
 with whom they could have no sympathies in common. 
 The few who settled here, soon however, felt the need 
 of the ministrations of religion, and, in answer to a peti- 
 tion from them, the Rev. David Chabrand Delisle was Bosworth's 
 sent out from England, and commenced in 1766 the first ^ °9'\*^^ 
 register of the Protestant Church in this city. His con- 
 gregation was weak in means as well as in numbers, and, 
 being unable to build a church, they applied to the Re- 
 collet priests and obtained permission to hold their services 
 
8 
 
 in the Church, which stood upon the site of the present 
 ^^KecoUet block," at hours when it was not required for 
 mass. 
 
 At the close of the war of independence many from 
 the revolted colonies settled in Montreal, and the congre- 
 gation so rapidly increased that in May, 1789, a Memorial, 
 signed by the Minister, Churchwardens and Protestant 
 inhabi cants of Montreal, was sent to Lord Dorchester, ask- 
 ing for the use of the Jesuits' Church which stood upon 
 
 Sandhfim's the site of the present Court House. The Bishop of 
 Nova Scotia being at that time in Quebec on an episco- 
 pal visitation, the Rev. Mr. Delisle carried a letter from the 
 congregation to him, soliciting his influence with the 
 
 Vestry Books. Governor. The Bishop wrote in reply, August 10, 17S9, 
 and stated that the use of the church had been granted. 
 He enjoined them, among other matters, tc appoint 
 churchwardens* and sidesmen to manage the temporali- 
 ties. A vestry meeting was then held at the Recollet 
 Church on September 20, when it was decided to raise 
 ^500 to fit up the new church, and that the subscribers 
 were to receive value in return by the sale and allotment 
 of pews. The pews were readily sold, and the church was 
 completed and organised with Minister, Wardens ami 
 Vestry. On the suggestion of the Bishop of Nova Scotia 
 it was called "Christ Church," and on December 20, 
 1789, the Rev. Mr. Delisle preached the dedicatory ser- 
 mon. 
 
 On the death of the Rev. Mr. Delisle the Rev. James 
 Tunstall was presented to the vacancy by the King. In 
 1792 a petition was sent to the Governor, praying him 
 to found a rectory under the Act '31st George 3rd. In 
 
 * The congregation already had churchwardens. 
 
ISOl the Rev. Dr. Mountain, brotlier ofthe first Bishop of yestryijooks. 
 Quebec, succeeded Mr. Tunstall, and in 1803 the church 
 was destroyed by fire. 
 
 The congregation then resolved upon building a church 
 for themselves. Dr. Mountain, lion. James McGill, Hocheiaga 
 Judge Ogden and Messrs. Frobisher, Sevvell, Ross and ^^'° "' 
 Gray were appointed a building committee. They raised 
 a fund by subscriptions and by the sale of pews ; aid 
 was also obtained from the British Parliament. The 
 Governor granted the land upon which the church was 
 to stand, and they added to the site afterwards by the 
 purchase of a strip of land on Little St. James Street. 
 The corner stone was laid in ISOo, and, after many dis- 
 appointmei.^ts and delays, the church was opened for wor- 
 ship in 1814. During the time the church was building 
 the Presbyterian Church in St Gabriel St. (erected in 
 1792) was lent at suitable hours for the English Church 
 sei-vice. In 1815 the Rev. Dr. JMountain died, and his 
 curate, the Rev. John Leeds, succeeded. In 1818 Letters 
 Patent were issued, defining the limits of the Parish, 
 creating a Rectory, and presenting the Rev. Mr. Leeds 
 as Rector. Some informality having been discovered 
 in these Letters, new ones were issued, revoking the ap- 
 pointment of Mr. Leeds and presenting the Rev. John 
 Bethune. Before passing to the consideration of the 
 Letters Patent it is well to note that the church had been 
 built through the eftbrts of the congregation aided by a 
 grant from the British Parliament, that the pews were a 
 freehold of inheritance to the purchasers who received 
 them as a property in exchange for their subscriptions 
 to the building fund, and that the presentation to the 
 Rectoiy was in the gift of the Crown. The Bishop of Que- 
 bec does not appear, excepting at the ceremony of laying jioun^fn^n^s 
 the corner-stone; he aided, however, by his influence 
 
10 
 
 in a subscription which was raised among the merchants 
 of London. 
 
 THE liECTOIi's LETTEIIS PATENT. 
 
 In ordc" tlioroughly to understand this question of 
 Letters Patent it is necessary to go back to the year 
 1774. In that year (the 14th George 3rd) a very cele- 
 brated Act was passed, well known as the "Quebec Act." 
 One of its clauses enacted ''that the King, his heirs and 
 Quebec Act 14 " successors, might, from time to time as they saw fit, 
 ' ' "make provision for the maintenance of a Protestant 
 " Clergy and the encouragement of the Protestant 
 "rehgion." This object was kept in view when Upper 
 Canada was separated from Lower Canada in 1791 by 
 the Act 31 Geo. 3, cap. 31, commonly called the " Con- 
 stitutional Act." The provisions of this Act which bear 
 upon the matter in hand are, divested of technical lan- 
 guage, as follows : 
 
 31 Geo. 3, cap Sec. 3G. Land may be allotted for the support of a 
 2'' Protestant Clergy. (Clergy Reserves.) 
 
 Sec. 37. Rents, etc., may be applied to same purpose. 
 
 Sec. 38. 'The King is empowered to authorize the 
 Governor, with the advice of the Legislative Council, to 
 erect Parsonages or Rectories and to endow them. 
 
 Sec. 39. Presentation to Rectories to be in the Crown. 
 
 Sec. 40. " Provided that every such presentation 
 " shall be subject and liable to all rights of induction and 
 " other spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and author- 
 " ity granted to the Bishop of Nova Scotia, or which may 
 " hereafter be granted to the said Bishop, or to other 
 " person or persons." 
 
11 
 
 Sec. 41. These provisions may be varied or repealed 
 by the Acts of the Legishitive Council and Assembly and 
 assented to by His Majesty. 
 
 Upon this Act the Rector's Letters Patent rest. It 
 was a further definition of the Quebec Act, and the 
 points to be specially observed are : 
 
 1. That Letters under this Act have the authority of 
 the King, specially empowered to that end by Parliament 
 and acting through the established government of this 
 country. 
 
 2. That the presentation is in the Governor, and is 
 subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nova Scotia 
 and his successors. 
 
 3. That the Canadian Legislature may vary or repeal 
 any of these provisions with the consent of the Crown. 
 
 Ihe ground upon which this Patent was issued 
 being thus established, the Patent itself remains to 
 be considered. It bears date, Quebec, June 7, 1S20, 
 and is signed by Sir Peregrine Maitland. 0™itti"o Rector's 
 the customary verbiage of such documenvs, it provides pittent. 
 as follows : 
 
 1. The Constitutional Act is cited as the authority on 
 which it issues. 
 
 2. The Governor is authorized by the King, and is act- 
 ing under the advice of the Legislative Council. 
 
 3. The boundaries of the Parish of Montreal are to be 
 the same as those of the Roman Catholic Parish erected 
 by the Sieur ie Vaudreuil in 1720. 
 
 4. One Parsonage or Rectory is erected in said Parish, 
 to be called " the Parsonage or Rectory of the Parish of 
 Montreal." 
 
12 
 
 Recor's ^* ^^^^ ■'^^^'* Johi^ Betluuie is declared Rector " in the 
 
 patent. same manner as the Incumbent of a Rectory in England." 
 
 6. Powers of the Rector : " And we do hereby will and 
 *' grant that the Rector of the said Parsonage or Rectory 
 ^'and Parish Church of Montreal, and his successors, 
 "Rectors of the said Parsonage or Rectory and Parish 
 " Church, be, and shall continue, a body coi'porate, with 
 
 . "perpetual succession,by the name of the Rector of thePar- 
 
 " sonage or Rectory and Parish Church of Montreal.". . . . 
 "And he and his successors, by the name aforesaid, shall 
 " be able and capable in the la a^, and liave full power to 
 "purchase, have, take, &c., rents, &c., lands, tenements, 
 " &c., of wliat nature and kind soever, in fee and in per- 
 
 " petuity or for term of life, &c.'' " Also to deter- 
 
 " mine any of the said messuages, lands, &c., whereof or 
 "wherein he or they shall have any estate or interest as 
 " aforesiMd." This clause gives the Rector power over all 
 the real estate of the Rectory to buy or sell when auth- 
 orized thereto by license from the Crown in whose 
 power the patronage of the Rectory then was. 
 
 7. The Rector is declared subject to the authority and 
 jurisdiction of the Bishop of Quebec and his succes- 
 sors, " in the same manner as any Rector of any Parson- 
 " age or Rectory or Parish Church in England is under 
 " the jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of the 
 "diocese." 
 
 8. " In ratification of the aforesaid" the Governor " by 
 " these presents doth constitute and declare, etc., the said 
 " church erected in Notre Dame street, in our said City of 
 " Montreal, to be the Parochial or Parish Church of the 
 " said Parish of Montreal and the Church of the said 
 " Parsonage or Rectory of the said Parish, etc. 
 
 9. The Parsonage or Rectory is endowed with the 
 said Church. 
 
13 
 
 10. The Parsonage or Rectory is endowed with the 
 freehold of the site upon which the church was built. 
 
 These are the main provisions of the Letters Patent, i4 & it Vic, 
 and up to the date of the Rectory Act they remained un- 
 touched. It was moreover maintained in the case of the 
 Attorney General vs. Grassett (Rector of the Crown Parish 
 of Toronto) " that the Rector or Parson under the Sta- chief Justice 
 "tute 31 Geo. Ill held in the same manner as tiie incum-oa status o^""^' 
 " bent of a parsonage in England." Canada '° 28 
 
 The year 1S51 marks an important era in the history 
 of the Church of England in Canada. In that year the i4 & is Vic, 
 Church Temporalities Act, the Church Society Act, and u&^io Vic, 
 the Rectory Act, were passed ; and, in the following year, [il'&'is^vic 
 they received the Royal assent. By the Rectory Act, ^iiap. 175 
 sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Constitutional Act of 1791 
 were repealed, and the patronage (or right of presentation 
 to the Crown Rectories) was vested in the Church Socie- 
 ties of the various dioceses, under such regulations as 
 each Society might frame. In other respects, sil exist- 
 ing Rectories were untouched. The Church Society of Church Socie- 
 this Diocese passed a By-law upon the subject, on Oct. ^ ^^^^^ ' 
 o, 1852, and under this By-law the presentation of the 
 present Rector took place. No further legislation oc- 
 cuiTed until, in 1871, the Quebec Legislature passed an 
 Act " to vest in the Synod of the Diocese of Montreal statutes i87i 
 " power to sub-divide parishes constituted for ecclesias- ^^"■P- 1^- 
 " tical purposes under Royal Letters Patent." Under this 
 Act the Bishop and Diocesan Synod are now taking steps 
 to divide the Parish of Montreal. 
 
 THE bishop's letters patent. 
 
 In considering the question of the Bishop's Patent it is 
 necessary to go back almost as far as has been done in 
 the narrative of the history of the Congregation of Christ 
 
14 
 
 See page 7. Church. In the year 1787, while the organized Protes- 
 tant Congregation were worshipping in the Recollet 
 Church, the first . Colonial Bishop was appointed — the 
 Bishop of Nova Scotia, Dr. Charles Inglis. His See was 
 at Halifax, and his Diocese consisted of all the remaining 
 possessions of the Crown in America. In 1789 he made 
 an episcopal visitation in Canada. In 1793 the See of 
 Quebec was erected, and the Rev. Jacob Mountain was 
 nominated first Bishop. In 1825, on the death of Bishop 
 Mountain, the Rev. C. J. Stewart succeeded to the See. 
 He, finding the care of a diocese, extending from Gaspe 
 to Red River too onerous, solicited the Crown to divide 
 it, but without success. The Crown, however, in 1835, 
 
 Ljfe Qf jjig),y created the Rev. George J. Mountain coadjutor Bishop 
 
 leT"*'''" ^" '^^'ithout a See,underthe title of Bishop of Montreal. It was 
 provided that, upon the death of Bishop Stewart, he was 
 
 Life of Bishop to assume charge of the whole Diocese, and, in the mean- 
 
 Strachan p. . -, • • i , . . ' „. , 
 
 1G5. time, he admmistered by commission. In 1837 Bishop 
 
 Metropolitan '"'^^wart died, and, under the title of Bishop of Montreal, 
 letters patent. Dr. Mountain administered the whole Diocese by virtue 
 ' of his Letters Patent. 
 
 It should be particularly observed here that it does not 
 appear necessary to inquire into the rights which these 
 various patents conferred. Because, 1st, the Bishop's 
 Letters Patent are not now essentially in dispute ; and 
 2nd, because in 1850 the old order of things terminated. 
 Bishop Stewart had died and Bishop Mountain had suc- 
 ceeded to his powers as titular Bishop of Montreal. Bishop 
 Mountain resigned, and in 1850 new Letters were issued, 
 creating him Bishop of Quebec, and in the same year the 
 Diocese of Montreal was erected under lew Letters Patent 
 which appointed Dr. Fulford as Bishop, and placed his See 
 at Christ Church in Montreal. These Letters Patent of the 
 
15 
 
 See of Montreal have not yet been shown ; but the rights correapon- 
 claimed in Christ Church have been claimed under sue- ^®"*^^ i'- '"^^• 
 ceeding Letters as Metropolitan. The Rector in his reply correspon- 
 states simply " that, not having seen the Patent, he was*^"'^^'^ P- ^•*' 
 " unable to affirm more than that he was willing to recog- 
 " nize the legal rights of the Bishop of Montreal in all 
 " cases whatever." It was decided in the case of Long vs. 
 Bishop of Capetown that " where a Colonial Bishop, Freemantie & 
 " having been appointed by Letters Patent, surrenders his Ecclesiastical 
 " Bishopric and is re-appointed by other Letters Patent, Judgmeuts p. 
 "any jurisdiction conferred by the former thereupon 
 '' ceases." It would seem then that all jurisdiction under 
 the old Letters terminated in 1850 on the issue of the new 
 Letters. As for the temporalities, the Church Temporali- 
 ties Act of 1851 continued them under the newly organized 
 system. One broad distinction exists between the 
 Letters Patent of Bishops and tiiose of Rectors, that the 
 former issued directly from the Crown by virtue of what- 
 ever power may exist in the Crown alone, — the latter 
 issued from the Crown authorized bv Parliament, and 
 acting through the constitutional Government of this 
 country. 
 
 THE CATHEDRAL. 
 
 In the year 1850 Bishop Fulford arrived. The first Vcstry 
 notice in the Minutes of the Vestry of Christ Church of**'""^"'" 
 the added dignity of a Cathedral is on Oct. 7, 1850. On 
 that day a special meeting was held " to provide funds 
 '^ for the unavoidable expense incurred by the erection of 
 " the Church into a Cathedral." It was proposed to raise 
 the money by a tax upon the pews, but no action was 
 taken, and the meetiiig adjourned until the 29th. At 
 that meeting "the Lord Bishop attended, and stated vestry 
 "that, under tha pecuniary difficulties of the Cathedral, *^''^"^*^- 
 
16 
 
 " he did not wish them to incur as large an expense as they 
 " proposed." No tax was levied, but the Select Vestry- 
 Vestry wta-e ordered " to provide a Bishop's seat and a pew for 
 iMinutes. u- r -i » 
 
 his iamily. ' 
 
 Sec p. 15. As has been before stated, the Patent of 1850 of the 
 
 Lord Bishop of IMontreal has not been shown, but the 
 Metropolitan Patent of 18G0 confirms it, and indeed most 
 jirobably recites it almost in full. But, be that as it may, 
 the clause in the patent enclosed in the Bishop's letter 
 
 Sce^rST ^^ ^^^y ^^^^^f ^^^^' under which the claims in question 
 are made, reads as follows. " And whereas in and by 
 " our Letters Patent, bearing date July 18th, 1850, «fec., 
 " &c. * * * and we did further ordain and constitute the 
 
 fatlnT^'*°° "town of Montreal, in the said diocese,to be a Bishop's See 
 " and the seat of the said Bishop, and did ordain that the 
 " said town of Montreal should thenceforth be a city, 
 " and we did thereby further ordain and declare that the 
 " Parish Church called Christ Church in the said city of 
 " Montreal should thenceforth be the Cathedral Church, 
 "■ and the See of the said Bishop of Montreal and his suc- 
 " cessors in the said See." 
 
 THE CHAPTER. 
 
 In succeeding Minutes of Vestry the Bishop's name 
 often occurs. He usually attended when in town, but 
 Vestry the Rector always presided. The next entry bearing upon 
 
 the questions at issue is dated Dec. 20th, 1853. The meet- 
 ing was a special one, called by notice, and the Bishop 
 was present. The Minute, being important, is given in 
 extenso. It is as follows : 
 
 " A meeting to receive and determine upon the proposal 
 '^ from the said Bishop to make provision for two Assis- 
 
 Minutes. 
 
17 
 
 tant Ministers for this Church, and to receive a report 
 of a Committee on By-laws." 
 
 " His Lordship represented to the Vestiy tlie great 
 advantages whicli must result to the Cathedral, to our 
 public institutions and to the general interests of the 
 Cluirch in this Parish, from the establishment of a more 
 extended clerical staff in the Cathedral ; and, with tiiis 
 view, refpiested a permanent grant of five hundred 
 pounds per annum to enable him to make provision 
 for two Assistant ministers tiierein. His Lordsliip also 
 announced his intention of creating the Rector and 
 Assistant Ministers, together with some of the senior 
 Coimtry Clergy, a regular Cathedral Ciiapter, consist- 
 ing of a Dean and Canons, in accordance with the 
 authority given him in the Letters Patent constituting 
 the Diocese of Montreal." 
 
 " The report of the Committee appointed at a previous 
 meeting to revise the By-laws of the Vestry, em- 
 bracing the additional charge required for the perma- 
 nent salaries of the assistant ministers, and the rente 
 constitiid on a lot purchased for the site of a parson- 
 age, was presented and unanimously adopted." 
 
 Then follow the By-laws, adopted under the provi- By-Laws of 
 sions of 14 and 15 Vic. Cap. 176. They are in the main the ^''"'^ ^^"""^ 
 same as they now exist ; excepting that the 7th By-law, 
 the only one which relates to the present question and 
 which contained a list of salaries and estimate of ex- 
 penses, has been altered at each Easter Vestry from year 
 to year as the finances of the church required. It reads 
 thus : , 
 
 " 7th. The following schedule is adopted as the existing 
 charge upon the church funds : — 
 
18 
 
 Rector's aaliiry .£200 
 
 First Assistuiit Minister's salary. . . 300 () 
 
 • Second do do do 200 
 
 Vestry Clerk's do 100 
 
 Organist's do 50 
 
 Beadle's do 64 
 
 Insurance 58 
 
 Fuel 45 
 
 Clock keeper's salary 17 10 
 
 Organ Tuner's do 12 10 
 
 Bell Ringer and Bellows Blowers,. l5 
 
 Vergers 7 
 
 Constitut on Parsonage lot 34 10 
 
 Contingencies, including Water 
 
 Taxes, Washing, Printing, &c. .. 50 
 
 * "It is understood that not more than .£100 of this 
 item will be re([uired before the expiration of one year 
 from next Easter." 
 
 This minute has been quoted at length b(;cause it has 
 been the subject of much misapprehension. Lir. Fennings 
 Taylor, in his life of Bishop Fulford, seems to thiids. that 
 the two clergymen were engaged on the sole authority of 
 the Bishop. He, however, goes on to say that they 
 Lastthree Were "previously miknown to the Bishop," and " were 
 under the chosen for and not by him." The Rector was chairman 
 Grown p. 69. q|< ^^iq committee which brought in the report, and the 
 actual engagement was by some person in England. As to 
 the Chapter it is evident that it was created by the Bishop 
 under his Patent; but as to the Assistant Ministers (Messrs. 
 Lower and Gilson ) the Bishop acted under the authoriza- 
 tion of Rector and Vestry. The Vestry were simply asked 
 to provide funds ; they never had anything to do with the 
 appointment of clergymen, for the late Rector was very 
 
19 
 
 tonacioiiH of his rights against ev(3rybo(ly. Tlio chock of 
 the Vestry on the Rector is their power of stopping all the 
 salaries. No other mimite upon tiiis snhject exists. 
 
 ASSISTANT MINISTKRS. 
 
 Putting aside for the present the subject of the Chap- 
 ter, it is convenient to consider here the question of the 
 appoiutmcuit of Assistant Ministers. Upcjn this head there 
 is, without doubt, abundant evidence acc(^ssible; but the 
 most satisfactory will no doubt be the evidence of the 
 late Bishop and of the late Rector. The whcde subject 
 of a[)j)ointm(,'nt8 was tliorougldy gone into during the 
 unfortunate occurrences connected with Canon Loose- 
 more's resignation. It will be remembered that his 
 appointment by the Rector was never <piestioned ; but, 
 when a movement was made to dispense witli his services, 
 a clause was found in his emjatirement '' that neither 
 " party could dissolve it without sullieient reason in the Printed 
 "judgment of the Bishop." In the course of the discussion Proceedings 
 the Rector wrote to the present Bishop as follows : Vcatry. 
 
 'Hth December, 1869. 
 "My Dear Lord, 
 
 " After mature consideration of your Lordship's pro- Correspond- 
 " posal— that if I would give you a promise that I would ^^'^^' P- ^'^• 
 " not re-appoint either of the Canons after their resigna- 
 " tion or dismissal, you will concur in the dismissal of 
 " Mr. Loosemore — I have come to the conclusion that I 
 " cannot consent to an arrangement which would involve 
 " the surrender of my right of appointment, &c. * * ** ♦ 
 
 "Yours, &c., 
 
 " (Signed,) John Bethune." 
 
20 
 
 Printed 
 
 answer by 
 
 Vestiy 
 
 to BUiiop of 
 
 Ontario 
 
 Minutes of 
 Vestry. 
 
 If the IVisliop Imd a voice in the appointment of assis- 
 tant niiniHters he wouhl not have required to ask this 
 promise from the Iledtor, because in that case tlie liishop 
 couhl have restrained the Rector by vvithhohling his con- 
 sent in the event of a reap[)ointment. 
 
 Tiie evidence of a hitter written by the late Metro- 
 politan is, if possible, still stronger. The letter has been 
 published, and is therefore now public property. 
 
 " See House, Montreal, Jan. 5>()th, 18G6. 
 " My DeauDu. Balch, 
 
 " I herewitii forward to you copies of two letters, 
 "one from the Ch u'chwardens of tlu! Cathedral to the 
 " Dean, and the other I'romthe Dean to me; and, accord- 
 " ing to the recpiesc of the Dean,* I now write to you, in 
 " his name, to propose that you should come and join the 
 '' stall" of Clergy coimecte<l with Christ Church Cathedral 
 " in this city. The nomination rests absolutely and 
 " solely with the Dean. ♦*##** 
 
 " I will only further add that, upon your appointnusnt 
 " by the Dean as one of the olliciating Clergy of the 
 " Cathedral, it will allbrd me much satisfaction to mark 
 " my own appreciation of your worth by nominating you 
 *' as one of the Canons. * # * * 
 
 " Yours very sincerely, 
 
 " Signed, F. Montreal." 
 
 This letter of proposal to the Rev. Dr. Balch is a suffi- 
 cient commentary on the Minute of Vestry concerning 
 the appointment of the Rev. Messrs. Lower and Gilson. 
 
 THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 
 
 In December, 185G, the old cathedral was burned down, 
 and the congregation had again to make a strong and earn- 
 est effort. On the 23rd Dec. a general meeting of Vestry 
 was held at Mechanics' Hall, and committees were ap- 
 pointed to report upon various points connected with the 
 
 * The death ofMrs. Betbune that same morning caused this reqnest. 
 
21 
 
 emergency. Frequent meetings of Vestry followed, nnd 
 through the whole hvYwh of events succeeding, the 
 Finjince and Building Committee took tht^ most |»;iiiifnl 
 precaution to guard every step with the best legal ad- 
 vice. In the words of their (Jhairman, tin* Hon. George 
 Molfatt, " the Connnittee had undertaken a n'sp<»nsij)le 
 " duty, on the jx'rformance of which they <leenu'd it ne- Letter June 
 " ccsaary to be fidly advised on all th<^ points end)raccd Jj^^l^g^^^' *^" 
 
 ** in the case." It was finally resolved to sell the old '''''•',"."*' '^ 
 
 Uuukiu. 
 
 site and rebuild the church where it now stands. 
 
 The Committee a])pointed to investigatt; the title (of 
 which Committee the hite Mr. .Iustic(! McCord was a 
 member) reported that the title "existed in tlu- Rector Vogtry 
 " as the free and uncionditioned gift of the (/rown." And '"""'''^ 
 they appended to their report the following opinion of 
 Counsel, which is given in full as containing the best 
 resume of the matter.* 
 
 "The property on which Christ Church Cathedral 
 " was erected is vested by Letters Patent of the Crown 
 "in the llev. John Bethuiie as a corporation sole, nuder jfr. Hethune'3 
 "the denomination of the Rector of the Parsonage or opinion. 
 " Rectory and Parish Church of jMoutreal and his suc- 
 "cessors, Rectors of such Parsonnge or R(;ctory. 
 
 '' And, by the 21st Section of tlu^ Church Temporalities 
 " Act, power is given to sueh Rector to sell, alienate, or 
 "transfer the propt;rty in question, by and with tluicon- 
 " seut and participation of the Bishop, provided always, 
 "that the price or consideration of such sale, alienation, 
 " or transfer, be applied to the uses and ])urposes for 
 "which the land so sold, alienated, or transferred was 
 " conveyed. 
 
 " Montreal, Dec. SOth, lSo6. 
 
 ^'fSigned,) Stuaciian Betiiune." 
 
 • The title of the Rector in Christ Church and liis power to 8el 1 were 
 investij^ated not only by the lawyers who acted Cor tne Church Imt by 
 the lawyers who cxiinimed the lieeds fjr the purchasers of the old 
 site, iu order to eee that their clients' titles were valid. 
 
22 
 
 Opinion of Acting iipon the advice of Messrs.- Rose and Monk, 
 
 Monk. find of Messrs. Betlrune iind Dunkin, all the deeds of sale 
 
 of tlie old site and of purchase of the new one, and the 
 
 contracts with" the artilicers, were signed by the late 
 
 Copies of Rector in ^' his capacity as Rector of the Parsonage or 
 
 Deeds. l J o 
 
 '' Rectorv and Parish Church of Montreal," the assent of 
 thel^ishop being signilitul by his signature (as assenting 
 party) to the deeds of sale and purchase. Each deed of 
 purchase contained a clause stating that the purcliase 
 '• was made for a site for the Parish Church of the Parish 
 of Montreal," and the title of the new church was as 
 firndy vested in the Rector as that of tlie old one had been. 
 His honorary title of Dean was studiously avoided in all 
 the documents. 
 
 THE BUILDING FUND. 
 
 Vestry^Iinutes It is unnecessary to dwell upon the particulars of the 
 and Reports . . '' •"- . ^ 
 
 rebuilding of the church. The late Bishop toolv a lively 
 
 interest in it, and attended all the meetings of Committee. 
 He, more than any one else, is responsible for the adop- 
 tion of the plan of the present beautiful edifice ; and the 
 deep chancel was decided on mainly through his strongly 
 exerted personal influence. The funds for rebuilding 
 were raised in the following manner : 
 
 Insurances upon the old church S60,000 
 
 Proceeds of sale of site 36,000 
 
 The remaining cost was provided by the sale of pews, 
 the issue of debentures, and by voluntary subscriptions. 
 The total cost of the church was $175,000. 
 
 FUNDS RAISED IN ENGLAND. 
 
 The plans of the church were completed, and the build- 
 ing was in progress, wlien, on Aug. 22nd, 1857, the Bisliop 
 announced to the Building Committee that he intended 
 
23 
 
 shortly to leave for England; and he " recommondod vestryMiautca 
 " that a hst of the subscribers to the building fund should 
 " be sent to him, with a letter signed by the Building 
 " Committee, requesting that he would exert his intlu- 
 " ence to procure subscriptions in England." The letter 
 was at once drafted, and his Lordship was recpiested to 
 collect ''/or the rcbuildlmj of the Parish Church and 
 " Cathedral ". The total amount so collected in England vestryMiautes 
 waSc£2;3oO currency (S9400,) or about five per cent, of the 
 total cost. This amount is entered under the head of j5y;i(jing 
 " voluntary subscriptions," in the books of the Building ^"™™''^^'' 
 Committee. 
 
 THE PEWOWNERS. 
 
 As in old Christ Churcli the pews were the property See pp. 8 & o 
 of private individuals, the rights of tiie pewovvners soon 
 came up for discussion. A value was assigned to each vestryMinutes 
 pew in the old church, and this value, was credited to- 
 wards the price of pews in the new one. Those who 
 subscribed to the building fund were also considered, and 
 tiiey vvere allowed to deduct their subscvi])tions from 
 the prices of their pews in the new edifice. In some 
 instances when these pews were re-sold the proprietors 
 more than recouped the amount of tlieir contributions. 
 Thus in the new cliurch the pew owners have real riglits 
 in their pews, and all who subscribed had, or liad the 
 option of having, this value allowed them in return. 
 
 THE CHANGE OF SITE. 
 
 In England the removal of parish churches is of fre- 
 quent occurrence. The Statute which usually regulates 
 such removals is 59 Geo. Ill Cap. 134. Section 40 makes 
 
24 
 
 Phillimore 
 Eccl. Law. 
 p. 1775. 
 
 Phillimore 
 pp. 2154 
 2155 
 
 a general provision for the pulling down of old parish 
 churches and rebuilding them on any sites, as follows : 
 
 " Where any parish shall be desirous of extending and 
 ^' incT jasing the accommodation in the parish church, 
 '' and it shall be found necessary and expedient to that 
 " end to take down the existing church, and to rebuild 
 " the same on the same site or on a more convenient 
 *' site, it shall and may be lawful for the churchwardens 
 " of any such parish, with the consent of the vestry, or 
 " persons possessing the powers of vestry, and with the 
 '' consent also of the ordinary, patron, incumbent and 
 " lay improprietor, if any such there be, to take down 
 " such existing church and to rebuild the same upon the 
 ^' same or upon a new site. " 
 
 The Statutes 3 Geo. IV Cap. 72 and 8 and 9 Vic. Cap. 
 70 went further, and gave the power to the commissioners 
 for building new churches, upon petition of the ordinary, 
 the patron and the incumbent of a parish church, to 
 transfer to any such new church tlie whole of the rights 
 and privileges of the old parish church, while it yet 
 stood, and the rector of the new church became with- 
 out any new presentation the rector of the parish church 
 in the same manner as he had before been. The parish 
 church, in short, could be moved from one church to 
 another, which then became the parish church. 
 
 Those Statutes are quoted here to show that the emer- 
 gency which occurred at IMontreal has often occ. rred in 
 England ; because an impression might arise that a 
 church required to be rebuilt upon its old site in order to 
 retain its rights and privileges. 
 
 Any such impression is speedily dissipated on a close 
 examination of the Letters Patent. The Patent, 1, 
 defines the boundary of the parish ; 2. erects therein one 
 
■» 
 
 26 
 
 Rectory ; 3. presents the Rector ; 4. creates a body corpor- 
 ate with perpetual succession under the title of " the Rector 
 of the Parsonage or Rectory of Montreal/' with power to 
 buy and sell ; 5. ^^In further ratification a?id confirmation 
 as aforesaid " declares the church in Notre Dame street 
 to be the Parish Church ; 6. endows the Rectory with it ; 
 7. endows the Rectory with the site. 
 
 To borrow the words of an elaborate opinion by Messrs. Opinion of 
 Rose and Monk it is clear " that the Coqioration survives Rose & Monk 
 " in the person of the Rector." But it may be argued '^''''^''^^' ^^^^• 
 that the church in Notre Dame street was alone declared 
 to be the Parish Church. The quality parish church 
 then resides in the structure of the church, not in the 
 site, for the Letters make a distinction. If the church had 
 been rebuilt upon the same site (as happened in the case 
 of the Toronto Parish Church), it would not have been 
 the identicfil church mentioned in the Patent; consequent- 
 ly, a parish church never could be rebuilt when once 
 destroyed. In this instance, strictly according to English 
 usage, and to the provisions of the Church Temporalities 
 Act, the money value of the destroyed church and the 
 land with which the Rector was endowed was re-invested 
 and placed upon another street, and no church stands now 
 upon the old site. If the church had been rebuilt in 
 Notre Dame street upon the next lot, would the object 
 of the Patent have been better fulfilled ? The Rectory 
 was endowed with the site and not the site with the Rec- 
 tory, for there could be no occult virtue in Notre Darne 
 street rendering it specially suitable for parish clmrches. 
 Moreover all the deeds recosrnized the new church as the 
 Parish Church, and the Bishop accepted it as sucli. It 
 was recognized as such in the Act 22 Vic. Cap. 4, entitled 
 " An Act to enable the Rector of the Protestant Parish of 22 vie. cnp 4 
 
26 
 
 "Montreal, with the consent of the Bishop and Church- 
 " war(l(!ns, to raise a loan on certain Cliurcli property lor 
 " the purpose of linishing the Parish Chnrch." It was so 
 recognized hy the Synod, when it procured an Act to di- 
 vide the Palish ; and it is so recognized by the Metropo- 
 litan Letters Patent. These last " ordain that the Parish 
 " Church called Cin-ist Church shall be the Cathedral." 
 If Christ Church, which stood where it does now at the 
 date of the IVIetropplitan Patent, be not tlie Parish Church 
 it is not the Cathedral. And if the Diocesan Letteri. 
 Patent of 1850 be taken, they read in the same way. 
 They were issued while the old church stood; and if the 
 Parish Church was not moved, neither was the Cathedral 
 moved. If the Rector of the F.vrish has no Parish Church 
 the Bishop has no Cathedral. In that case there need 
 be no question of the ]5ishop's rights in Christ Church 
 any more than in St. George's or Trinity. The conlla- 
 gration which destroyed the Rector's rights destroyed 
 the Bishop's rights. 
 
 INSTALLATION OF THE BISHOP. 
 
 Printed 
 
 Installation, 
 
 yervice. 
 
 On the 5th of Sept., 1869, the present Bishop was 
 enthroned in Christ Church, and took the oath adminis- 
 tered on such occasions. In this he engages " that as 
 " far as in me lies, I will well and truly direct and 
 " govern this Christ Church, the Cathedral Church 
 " of the Diocese of Montreal, according to the rules and 
 " ordinances thereof ; and the property, rents, issues and 
 "profits, rights, privileges, and liberties thereof, and 
 " generally all things moveable and immoveable, there- 
 " unto belonging, I will well and faithfully keep, defend 
 " and preserve, according to the laws and ordinances of 
 " the said Church, and cause by others to be kept, 
 
27 
 
 " defended and preserved, and the rules and ordinances 
 " of the Church by our Sovereign Lady the Queen 
 '^ enacted, in what relates to me, I w^ill well and truly 
 "observe, tind cause to be diligently observed by others, 
 " and I will not knowingly prevent or impede anything 
 " which may be lawfully done for the advantage and 
 " honor of the Catliedral Church." 
 
 It would appear then, tliat with wiiat privileges the 
 Bishop found the Church, he engaged, not only to let it 
 remain, but also to maintain and defend it in the enjoy- 
 ment of them. 
 
 CHANGES SUGGESTED. 
 
 At the Easter meeting of Vestry, on the 18th of 
 April, 1870, the following letter from the Bishop to the 
 Rector was read : 
 
 Drummond Street, April IGth. 
 
 My Dear Mr. Dean, 
 
 When we liad some conversation about the Cathe- Vestry Report 
 dral on Wednesday, you kindly invited me to speak ^^'^O- 
 openly to you on the subject, audi am sure you will not 
 misunderstand me if I now put a few of my thoughts on 
 paper. As there liave been rumors of my intention to 
 leave tiie Cathedral for some other Church, I am ghid to 
 takethis opportunity of contradicting them unreservedly. 
 
 The fact of Christ Church having been assigned to me 
 by Koyal Patent, as my Cathedral, and also the recollec- 
 tion that on my first arrival here, I was solemnly inducted 
 by yourself and others into this Church, as the Bisliop of 
 the Diocese, — these would of tliemselves be sulhcient 
 reasons why I should not liglitly take so unusual a ' 
 
 step. 
 
 I have never, however, concealed from you that I 
 much regret the present condition of the Cathedral, and 
 I am not altogether satisfied with the manner in whi'h 
 the services are conducted. ' ,. 
 
■h 
 
 28 
 
 Owing to the financial and other canses which have 
 led to the lowering of the Clerical Staff, I much fear 
 that the Cathedral has alrendy sullered in popular esteem, 
 and that it will suffer still furtluM-. 
 
 I feel also that the mode of conductin<r Puhlic "Wor- 
 ship is not altogether such as the Mother Church of the 
 Diocese demands, and tiiat it would be well that one of 
 tlie three services should partake of a more specially 
 Ciitliedral character. 
 
 I have, further, a strong conviction, which has never 
 changed since I first entered the building, tliat, owing to 
 the peculiar formation of the Church, the position of the 
 choir is such as to militate against a hearty and united 
 congregational worship. I see but one way of remedy- 
 ing this structural inconvenience, viz. : by bringing for- 
 ward the choir and the organ, and ranging them luider 
 the tower ; by removing tiie pulpit from the centre 
 (where it now intercepts both the choir and the Com- 
 munion Table from the view of the Congregation), and 
 placing it on the side where the present lectern is ; and 
 further by rimning a screen across the chancel arch, to 
 t\\e height of about 12 feet. 
 
 In tins case the Communion Tahle would be removed 
 from the extreme end of the building, and pU'ced before 
 the screen. The chancel would consequently be unused, 
 excepting for occasional week-day services, for which it 
 would be admirably adnpted. 
 
 I give this merely as my own opinion, having constdt- 
 ed no architect. If, however, such plan wei'e adopted, 
 it could not be expected that the expense of carrying it 
 out should be borne by the Vestry. 
 
 I cannot, however, but tliink that voluntary contribu- 
 tions would be cheerfully given to effect so desirable an 
 object. 
 
 I may add that a similar plan has almost always been 
 found necessary in our beautiful EngHsli Cathedrals. 
 
 I have no wish to claim any authority in the Catlu'dral 
 w^hich I do not possess, either as regards the structure 
 of the building or the mode of conducting its public ser- 
 vices I but I feel that, in virtue of my office as overseer 
 
29 
 
 of this Diocese, it is my privilege as well as my duty to 
 make any suggestions which aj)pear to me to be likely 
 to conduce to the well-ordering of" this or any oth«!r 
 Church under my Episcopal cliarge, and I feel sure tiiat 
 you are willing to receive kindly any suggestions which 
 I may desire to offer. I long to see this Cathedral stand 
 high in the affections of our people, and take that plaee 
 of dignity which it ought to hll among the Churclies of 
 this City and Diocese. 
 
 It will tiius meet with the favor and support which 
 we shall all gladly see it enjoying. 
 
 Believe me, dear Mr. Dean, 
 
 Very faithfully and sincerely yours, 
 
 (Signed,) A. I^Iontueal. 
 
 As this letter proposed a very important and costly 
 change in the structure of the church, it fell properly 
 upon the Vestry, who would have to provide the funds 
 to consider it. It was discussed at the Easter meeting, 
 and ordered to be printed and appended to the Church- 
 wardens' report. The matter was, however, still kept 
 before the Vestry, and came up at a meeting of the 
 Select Vestry, on May 16th, and again on May 23rd. 
 A Committee was then appointed to wait upon the^?^*^ 
 Bishop and upon the Rector, and, having ascertained 
 their views definitely, to make a report at next meetin<r. 
 On the 30th of May the Committee reported. The sug- 
 gestions of the Bishop were then considered clause by 
 clause, and it was unanimously resolved " that in the pre- 
 " sent state of the funds of the Church, it is impossible to 
 " sanction any project for structural changes in the 
 " church entailing expense." 
 
 Other considerations also led to this conclusion. The 
 chancel is the most beautiful part of the church, and it 
 would be extremely distasteful to the congregation to 
 
80 
 
 hide it behind a screen; moreover tlie clianges suggested 
 would interfere with the rights of a niiniher of pew 
 owiu'VH, and tiie income of tlie clnircli would be narrowed 
 by tlu! obliteration of jiews. There would also be this 
 inconvenience in making so costly a change, that a suc- 
 ceeding liisliop might take the same view of the matter 
 Seep. 22 wiiicli the prececMng Bishop did, and order the screen 
 to be removed and the chancel restored to the church. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE SERVICES. 
 
 Vestry 
 
 In the ]\Iinutes of succeeding meetings, questions of 
 Aliautes. changes in the services occasionally came up. At a meet- 
 ing on Oct. 17th, 1871, a pastoral letter of the Bishop 
 to the whole Diocese concerning changes in the services 
 was read. The Vestry could not interfere in this matter, 
 but a resolution was passed unanimously " that the 
 ''Very Rev. the Dean be respectfully requested to cause 
 " Evening Prayer, with the exception of the Psalms and 
 "Canticles, to be said and not sung or intoned in any 
 " manner." 
 
 An adjourned meeting of the Select Vestry took place 
 on Nov. 13th, 1871, from the Minutes of which meeting 
 the following is extracted : 
 
 " Letter received from the Rev. John Bethune, Dean 
 " and Rector of Christ Church Cathedral, in reference to 
 " the motion carried at last meeting; and advising that 
 *' no changes should be made in the services. It was 
 "then resolved, that, as the Dean has expressed his wish 
 " that no change should be made in the services, the 
 " Select Vestry do not take further steps for the pre- 
 i( Hpnt " 
 
31 
 
 THE NEW RECTOR. 
 
 On the 22nd Aug., 1S72, the lato Rector died. Two 
 or three days after his derth the IJisliop nominated the 
 Incumbent of St. G(!orge'sas Dean, and afterward, in due 
 cours(», tlie vestry met and presented two names to the 
 Bishop, who nominated tiie present Itector. The instal- 
 lation of the Dean and the induction of the Rector took 
 place on the same day, the 13th of October, |n72. In 
 the order of services the installation of Dean came first. 
 Concerning the induction of the Rector a (hlference iiad 
 however, arisen between the Bishop and the Church- 
 wardens with regard to tlie ceremony. The mamisciipt 
 form as prepared by the Bishop read thus : " We by 
 '' divine permission Bishop of this Diocese of Montreal, 
 *' d<),by these presents, give and grant unto you the 
 '' Rev. ]\Iaurice S. Baldwin, in whose learning and 
 *^ sound doctrine we do fully confide, our authority to dis- Bishop's MSS 
 " charge the office of a Priest in the Cathedral of 6V<>v'6'^|,rhiter'3 
 " ChurchJ' Now, inasmuch as Mr. Baldwin had, for two l^''""^^' • 
 years previously, been exercising the oflice of Priest in the 
 Cathedral, this form granted him nothing, and would have 
 leftthe Rectory still vacant. Dr. Bethune would have had 
 no successor as Rector, and the Vestry would have been 
 called together to present two names for the Bishop's choice 
 to no practical effect. Inasmuch as the title of the church 
 is in the Rector, it would be difficult to say to whom the 
 ownersliip of the church would then have passed. Tlie 
 Churchwardens as guardians of the rights of the congre- 
 gation resisted this change, and, after some difficulties not 
 necessary to detail, the Bishop consented to an alteration 
 of the ceremony so that the Churchvi^ardens delivered 
 the keys to Mr. Baldwin as Rector of the Parish of Mon- 
 treal. The offices of Dean and Rector having been sepa- 
 
32 
 
 rated, there was found at the ceremony no special seat in 
 the chancel lor the Dean as Dean, and the new Dean was 
 for that occasion, as a temporary arrangement, installed 
 in the Rector's seat, over which the family escut- 
 cheon of the late Rector still hangs. The sermon was 
 preacihed hy the Bishop ; tlie following extracts from the 
 newspaper report at the time will show that the Bishop 
 still retained the views enunciated in his letter of April 
 10, 1S70, while he testified to the riihrical manner in 
 which the services were conducted: — 
 8ermon°in '' There are also many details of spiritual arrangement, 
 
 naper"'^^' '' '^'^*^ *^"^ sanctioned by time, endeared to us by old atul 
 ''sacred association, and tested by long expenence, which 
 "our Church wisely adopts. For example, in this 
 " diocese the Bishop has his place, the Dean his appoint- 
 " ed stall, with the Archdeacons and Canons, each in their 
 " respective gradations. These form what is called the 
 " Cathedral Chapter, who are sometimes called together 
 '* to advise their Bishop. But Clirist Church is not only 
 " a Cathedral, it is also a Parish Church, and as such 
 "it has its Rector and his assistants, who are entirely 
 " responsible for the services within it.'' 
 
 m * # # li "With regard to the services of this 
 "Cathedral I am thankful to know they are done decently 
 " and in order. The building is cared for, never more so 
 " than at the present time ; the services are well attended 
 " and often crowded. His Lordship in closing remarked : 
 " that there were, however, one or two improvements 
 " which he would like to see effected in order to make 
 " the Cathedral worthy of the high and dignified position 
 "which it holds in this important diocese, and in this 
 " connection he mentioned the placing of the choir in the 
 " main body of the worshippers, converting the unoccu- 
 " pied space into a little chapel for daily worship." 
 
33 
 
 THE NEW UECTOU'h CHAN(JES. 
 
 Since the mooting of Select Vestry on Nov. l:3th, 1871, 
 tlie (juostion ot'changes intlie services cimie u[) butonce ; 
 and that was at Easter, 1873, when a uiotioti was made, 
 respectfully to re<iuest the Rector to canse the " choral 
 responses " and the " aniens " at the end of prayers to be 
 said and not sung in future. The matter was referred to 
 the Rectof wlio made no change. He did, liowever, 
 make a change to conform to the Bishop's pastoral by dis- 
 continuing the Litany at the morning service, and with 
 this pastoral the services of the Cathedral are now in 
 entire accord ; a proposition which cannot be afliniied of 
 some other churches in the city. 
 
 THE NEW STALLS. 
 
 In the year 1S72 the Vestry erected under the tower, 
 upon the decanal side of the church, which happened to 
 he the only side unoccupied, three stalls for the officiat- 
 ing clergy. In relation to this a special meeting of Select 
 Vestry was called on Dec. 30, 1872. The Minutes com- 
 mence with the following letter from the Bishop : — 
 
 "Dec. 2G, 1872. 
 " My Dear Baldwin, 
 
 " When the Churchwardens so kindly called upon 
 ^' me on Monday evening, I felt quite satisfied with their 
 " assurance that they had not intentionally thwarted my 
 " wishes, as regards ray original proposal for moving ray 
 " seat in the Cathedral, but were under the impression 
 '' that I had abandoned the idea. 
 
 '' At their request as well as yours I have looked at 
 " the new stalls, with a view of suggesting a plan for 
 " avoiding the present difficulty. You kindly proposed 
 " that I should occupy the seat which was designed for 
 " you, and that you were ivilling to take the next seat. 
 
 (0 
 
84 
 
 ■*' This I could not consent to do, tlionu;h I !i)n very sure 
 ''that you really wished it. liut 1 thiniv that, if the 
 *' stalls are to remain where they are, it would be very 
 " desirable that there should be a corresponding one on 
 " the o[)poHite side, the lirst of which would naturally 
 '*^ be occuj)ied by yourself. Thus there would be six 
 *' seats, four of which would be available for any clergy 
 " who might be taking part in the service. 
 
 ** T!ie present stalls strike nie as being unnecessarily 
 ''high, and should be on the floor of the church. They 
 " could easily be lowered by the removal of the base, 
 *'and this would give them a lighter appearance. I 
 "also think that there should be a door on the pillar 
 " side. There would be difficulty about Mr. * * * • 
 " pew, and therefore nothing could be put up till a 
 " pew becomes vacant in the body of the church. 
 ''With regard to my seat: a little device would suf- 
 " ficiently mark it as the Episcopal stall. I hope that 
 " the Churchwardens will allow me to bear a part of the 
 " expense which this or any other arrangement may en- 
 ^' tail. 
 
 " I have thought again of my proposal to get the 
 " Chancellor and two or three others to confer together, 
 " and draw up a kind of code defining the two-fold posi- 
 " tion of the Cathedral, as a Parish Church and a Cathe- 
 " dral, and I am persuaded that it would be desirable in 
 "order to avoid future difficulties. 
 
 " Believe me, 
 
 " Yours, very faithfiUly, 
 
 ^' (Signed,) A. Montreal.'' 
 
 The Vestry then " Kesolved— that having heard the 
 " statements of the Rector and Churchwardens with re- 
 " ference to the letter of the Lord Bishop to the Rector, 
 *• this Vestry is of opinion, that the Rector and Church- 
 " wardens should meet the Lord Bishop in the Cathedral, 
 *' and select a place in which to put a throne or seat to 
 " be occupied by His Lordshp the Metropolitan." 
 
35 
 
 '* With regard to the proposal of His Lordsliip: that 
 ** the Chancellor ami two or three others shoiihl confer 
 ** together, and draw up a kind of code defining thetwo- 
 " fold position of the Cathedral as a Parish ('hurch and 
 *' as a Cathedral. 
 
 " Resolved — that inasmuch as this is the Parish 
 " Church of the Parish of Montreal as defined by law, 
 " this Vestry is of opinion that it has no power to con- 
 " sent to such commission." 
 
 THE KECENT CORKESPONDENX'E. 
 
 The recent correspondence between the Bishop and 
 the Rector, for convenience of reference, is appended to 
 tliis report. The ^' suggestions" of 1S70 are tiiere, Hil' p. 28. 
 *' demands" and ''rights," and the "claims" of the «•> pp. 92, oo 
 Bishop would reduce the Rector to tlit position of"" '^ ' 
 Curate, which a change of seat to the opposite or 
 "Cantoris" side of the Church would conspicuously 
 mark.* 
 
 And here it is well to observe that this is not 
 a personal question between individuals ; it is a ques- 
 tion between the offices of Bishop and Rector. Some 
 
 • This question of seats, so trivial at first sight, excites inquiry when 
 the Rector is asked to move. In an Anglican Church the first seat 
 on the right hand, passing up from tlie nave, is occupied by the cler- 
 gyman who possesses the church, whether he be called Rec;'ir or 
 Dean ; the next in rank sits opposite. In a Parish Church in Hng-phiUimore p. 
 land the Rector, even when a lay impropriator, has the chief pew in 1807. 
 the chancel. In Lichfield Cathedral the first seat on the right is 
 occupied by the Dean, the first on the left by the Precentor, the last Statutes of 
 on the right by the Chancellor (not the Diocesan officer of that name), f','*!^'^^''^ ■ 
 the last on the left by the Treasurer, and the Canons take their seats 
 right and left alternately inwards according to their precedence. Tlie 
 new stalls being upon the right hand, the Rector at present occupies 
 the seat proper to the owner of the fabric. 
 
36 
 
 of the points have been ah-eatly touched upon in tlie 
 narrative on the preceding pages, but, even at the 
 risk of tediousness, it will be necessary to touch upon 
 them again, for they may be looked at in a threefold as- 
 pect ; — as involving the rights of a bishop in a cathe- 
 dral — as involving the rights of the rector in his parish 
 church — and as involving the general powers of a bishop 
 in his see. It will be found on close examination that it 
 is impossible to touch the rightsof the Rector of this parish 
 without laying down principles applicable to all parishes ; 
 and, if it be established that the rights claimed by the 
 Bishop are his inherent rights as Bishop of the Diocese, 
 the clergy, in after years when the persons now con- 
 cerned have passed away, will find that powers con- 
 ceded to tlie Episcopal otlice can never be recalled, but 
 grow,,by continual accretion ; for each successive Bishoji, 
 being solo in his order, and having an absolute veto 
 upon all legislation, power necessarily tends to accumu- 
 late in his hands. 
 
 ^ Returning, however, from such general considerations 
 
 Correspon- ^' ' , ° _ 
 
 dence to the particular rights claimed in this instance, a few 
 
 ^^^' ' remarks may be added as to the power of appointing the 
 
 assistant clergymen. Xo single instance has as yet been 
 
 adduced of any cathedral in England or in Canada, where 
 
 the assistant clergy are appointed by the Bishop. The 
 
 Metropolitan Patent specifies no such power ; as to the 
 
 Seepp 19 custom in Christ Church, the preceding pages aflbrd 
 
 and 20. abundant evidence, if therefore the right of appointment 
 
 or nomination exist in the Bishop it must be by virtue of 
 
 his office, and be of general application to all churches. 
 
 A curate is described by Stephen (Commentaries on 
 
 Stephen the laws of England) as " a clerk in holy orders employed 
 
 p^egTed^isu^' (^^ ^ general rule) by a rector, vicar, or other incum- 
 
37 
 
 ^' bent of a living, either to serve in his absence or as his 
 
 '^ assistant as the case may be." And again, Phillimore 
 
 (Ecclesiastical Law) says curates ^'are the spiritual P'^'^'^^o'"'^ 
 
 " assistants of a rector or vicar, by whom they are 
 
 " employed and paid. They may officiate in a parish 
 
 *' churcli, or chapel of ease in the parish of the rector or 
 
 *' vicar." In the case of chapels of ease dependent upon 
 
 the parish church, Stephen says " the nomination to Stephen Vol, 
 
 "them is in the incumbent of the parish church, and 
 
 " cannotbe taken from him except by agreement between 
 
 "himself, the patron and the ordinary." So Phillimore Phillimore p. 
 
 (Ecclesiastical Law) : " Whenever a chapel of ease is 
 
 "erected, the incumbent of the mother church is entitled 
 
 " to nominate the minister unless there is a special agree- 
 
 ^' ment to the contrary." If this be so in the case of 
 
 curates in chapels outside the walls of the parish church, 
 
 it must be so " a fortiori'^ within the walls of the 
 
 parish church itself; but the bishop always has the 
 
 power to refuse his hcense for just cause, and without 
 
 his license no curate can officiate anywhere in his diocese. 
 
 In that sense the assistant clergy of every church are 
 
 " subject to the approval of tne bishop." 
 
 Regarding the services of the church, the Bishop com-Convspoa- 
 plains that he has on several occasions "made sugges- ^' ' 
 
 " tions for the improvement of the Cathedral worship 
 " which have been disregarded, and no steps taken to bring 
 " them before the proper authorities." Upon this point 
 his Lordship is evidently under misapprehension, as the 
 extracts from the Minutes given in the preceding pages See pp. 30 
 will abundantly show. AVhile his proposals for choral 
 service and surpliced choir were being debated, many of 
 the Vestry were urging the Rector to put a stop to such 
 choral responses as were actually in use. As regards the 
 
38 
 
 general powers of a bishop over the services of the 
 church, they are undoubtedly large, and are limited only 
 by the limitations of the Prayer Book itself. The prin- 
 Martin vs ciple is laid down by Sir Robert Phillimore in Martin vs. 
 p.'to."""^ '^ Mackonochie, " that in all cases of doubt reference mustbt^ 
 " had to the ordinary, to whose authority there was on' 
 " one limitation ;" that nothing should be done contrary tp 
 " anything contained in this book" — the Prayer Book.. 
 It has been shown by the Bishop's installation sermon on a 
 Sermon of the preceding page that the services are done " decently and 
 32. in order," and that '^ the Rector is responsible for them." 
 
 If, however, anything be done in the Cathedral inconsis- 
 tent with the Prayer Book, the Bishop has power of visit- 
 ation summarily to correct either the excess or the 
 defect ; and he has the same pcwer in every church in. 
 his Diocese. 
 Correspon- ^^^ the correspondence the Bishop claims the right 
 
 and*^9i^^ ^^ " Occasionally to introduce a stranger." The difficulty 
 in conceding this point, as a matter of right, is not so 
 much in the present as in the future. Men pass away, 
 but institutions endure; and, in after years, a bishop 
 might occupy the episcopal throne who mighi care very 
 little for the privileges commo^i to Christ Church with all 
 other parish churches in the I iocese. It might well 
 happen that the Rector would be compelled to concede 
 one of the services, or that a series of strangers, to the 
 church, if not to the Diocese, might systematically,, 
 endeavor to inculcate views which (though allowable 
 in the liberty of the Anghcan church) might be repugnant 
 to the Rector and congregation.* 
 
 • The trouble in British Columbia arose in a manner similar to- 
 this. The Archdeacon preached a sermon in the Cathedral which 
 (though it seems to have met with the approval of the Bishop who was 
 present) was so intolerable to Vie Dean that before giving out the 
 
39 
 
 The Rector's reply resei-ves the right of objection, but 
 that is stated in the most hypothetical manner. He states See p. 04. 
 that he will always desire to meet the Bishop's 
 wishes, and this must be so, for a bishop has many 
 ways of making his displeasure felt, and no one 
 would lightly incur it. As for the right of a rector to 
 object, there can be no serious question that it exists. 
 Sir Eobt. Phillimore says : " There is no general principle Piiiiiimoro p. 
 '^ of ecclesiastical law more firmly established than this : 
 '^ that it is not competent to any clergyman to officiate 
 '' in any church or chapel within the limits of a parish 
 " without the consent of the incumbent." This he calls 
 ^' a cardinal point of ecclesiastical law." So again, in Piiiiiimoie p- 
 
 . 1181 
 
 the case of Farnworth vs. Bishop of Chester, the judge 
 said. '' It appears to me that no person can have the rigiit 
 '^ to compel the vicar of the parish to allow another, 
 " though licensed by the Bishop, to officiate in a public 
 " chapel erected for the ease of the inhabitants of a por- 
 " tion of the parish ; and that no such person can officiate 
 " without the consent of the vicar." If this be so in a 
 chapel it must be so in the church itself where the vicar 
 officiates in person. The principle is laid down by Chief 
 Justice Mansfield in Rex vs. Bishop of London : " No per- Phuiimore p. 
 '^ son can use the pulpit of another unless he consents." It 
 is a universally admitted proposition in the Church of En- 
 gland that no one can preach anywhere without the 
 license of the Bishop, but it is a very different thing to 
 
 closing hyinn he made a i'ew remarks of protest which led to an admo- 
 nition from the Biahop. The quarrel went on until the Dean (who Address of 
 is the eldest clergyman of that Diocese, being an old Hudson's Bay Dean Cridgo 
 Missionary) left the Church of England with 350 of the leading laity ^'Je^'^atlon-' 
 including the foremost men of the colony. Tlie late Governor, Sir 
 James Douglas, has offered a site for the new church and $1000 to the 
 building fund. 
 
40 
 
 assert that a clergj'man may preach in any place with 
 the permission of the Bishop. In the case even of lec- 
 Phiilimore p. tureships Phillimore says " it seems generally that the Bis- 
 " hop's power is only to judge as to the qualification and 
 ^' fitness of the person and not as to tlie right of the 
 ** lectureship." The right to object to the introduction 
 of strangers and the right to nominate the assistant clergy 
 in reality fall under the same general principle of eccle- 
 siastical law, and must be considered togetlier. 
 
 In dealing with this matter it must not be forgotten 
 that the congregation are most important factors in the 
 problem. It is so easy in a church like the Cathedral to 
 introduce discord. If a clergyman were supported by 
 the Bishop, and knew that he was not dependent on the 
 Rector, how could peace be preserved ? Nothing could 
 prevent the congregation from being divided into parties. 
 The majority can always put out the man they do not 
 like by stopping his stipend ; but the process is tedious 
 and causes great agitation. 
 
 The theory of the Church of England is by many held 
 
 to be, that, as all authority to preach issues from the 
 
 For English bishop, all clergymen preach merely as the bishop's vi- 
 
 rfghf of^ ^'^"^ ^^^^ J ^^'^"^ ^^"^ *^^®y conclude, that the bishop has a 
 BishoDs to right at any time to preach to the exclusion of the rector. 
 
 preach in ° -^ _ ■•■ 
 
 Cathedrals This Conclusion does not follow from the premises, even 
 84. if the premises were undisputed. The bishop has the 
 
 power of ordination, and may, without cause assigned, 
 shut the door of entrance to the Church. He may like- 
 wise refuse, without cause assigned, to promote to priest's 
 orders, and he may (with or without cause assigned does 
 not clearly appear) refuse to admit a clergyman from 
 another diocese. He may also, for cause assigned, refuse 
 to induct into a benefice ; but where he has once induct- 
 
41 
 
 ed and committed to another the riglit to preach and 
 minister in a special place, it does not follow that lie re- 
 tains the right himself. If, for any cause, the services of 
 the church be intermitted, as in the case of the suspen- 
 sion of a clergyman or the sequestration of a living, the 
 bishop may nominate a curate ; for upon the bishop is 
 the responsibility that the services of the Church are 
 performed according to the law of the Church; but when 
 once he fills a benefice, the church is full — it is full 
 against every one, even against the Queen. The bishop's PjiiUimore p. 
 powers are general, and as visitor he can compel every 
 one in his diocese to conform to the Law of the Church ; 
 but if the Law be unbroken it does not follow that he 
 can interfere. 
 
 Much, however, may be said on the theory of this 
 point ; but it is at least undeniable that the Rector has a 
 right to preach. His right is the usual and constant 
 right. It has been shown that he is responsible for the 
 services, and he must therefore provide beforehand for Bee p. ;j2. 
 the services of each coming Sunday. The right of the 
 Bishop, from the nature of his office, must be intermittent 
 in its exercise, and it cannot be thought unreasonable 
 that therefore he should give notice to the Rector of his 
 intention to preach. The Rector's proposition obviates all 
 difficulty, for he proposes to send to the Bishop at the be- 
 ginning ot each month a blank form, upon which the Bishop See p. 94. 
 may designate the days when he wishes to preach, and the 
 Rector will then provide for the remainder. Practically 
 the whole matter is conceded to the Bishop ; there re- 
 mains only a question of abstract ecclesiastical law which 
 it is not necessary to dwell upon. The only point re- 
 maining is that of notice ; for, if the Rector has given 
 public notice and made preparation for any special occa- 
 sion, it would be unreasonable that the Bishop should 
 
43 
 
 Correspon- 
 dence 
 pp. 90 & 01 
 
 intervene as a matter of right without notice and take 
 the pulpit from him. 
 
 Much of the difficulty of the present discussion arises 
 from the supposition that a Chapter,* consisting ofDean and 
 Canons, have rights inside the walls of Christ Church. 
 And indeed, if it be granted that they have inherent 
 rights to seats in the chancel, it would be difficult to 
 refuse them, in a year or two, the right to preach ; and 
 the functions of tin; Rector would gradually be absorbed 
 by a body of men nominated by the Bishop, while the 
 functions of the Congregation would be limited to paying 
 the bills for keeping up a most costly church and an 
 expensive service. When the late Rector was created 
 Dean, no new right in his church accrued to him there- 
 by. He obtained only Diocesan precedence. The Rector 
 of Christ Church, as the corporation possessing the fabric^ 
 corresponds to the corporation which possesses the 
 fabric of an English cathedral in all matters of real rights. 
 He does not now possess the honorary title and precedence 
 Sermon p. 32. ^f Dean. As for the Chapter if it be a council to advise 
 the Bishop, whenever it exercises its functions it must 
 come into collision with the Synod. The Synod has dis- 
 tinctly refused to recognize it as an advisory body.f In 
 
 • It should be noted that the quahty " Cathedral " does not reside 
 Royal Com- j^^ g^ church because of tlie dean and canons, but because of the 
 port'p'! XXVIII. bishop's " Cathedra," or chair which is placed there. There are deans 
 and canons at Windsor and Westminster, but no bishop, and cathe- 
 drals can exist as Quebec now, and St. David's and Llandaff before 
 1840 where there were no Deans. 
 
 t At the Synod of 1874 a motion was made to appoint a standing 
 Committee of advice for the Bishop. It found rery little favour and 
 was negatived by a very large majority. An amendment was pro- 
 posed to make the Cathedral Chapter with four laymen, a Committee 
 of advice. This proposition received only two votes. — Gazette Report. 
 
43 
 
 the parallel case of Archdeacons (who in England may 
 even hold visitations and exercise usually large powders) 
 the Synod, after years of discussion as to what power they 
 should have, finally gave them the power to collect sta- 
 tistics, and to repoiirto the Bishop when churches were out canons of 
 of repair. The right of the Bishop to create honorary ""^ Diocese, 
 titles of precedence is not called in question. It is when 
 real rights are claimed that the Chapter is asked to 
 produce its title-deeds. All that appears upon the books 
 of Christ Church concerning it has been given in the 
 preceding pages. The Bishop appeared at a vestry See p. 1 7. 
 meeting and announced his intention of creating a 
 '^ Chapter by virtue of the authority given him in his 
 '^ Patent." What authority could any patent give him 
 to bestow the Rector's rights upon tlie newly constituted 
 body ? He asked the Vestry for no stalls ; and, if any 
 were given by the Rector, it would surely be easy to 
 produce the document. In England when Honorary 
 Canonries were founded under an Act of Parliament it 
 was provided that the Honorary Canons should have no 
 seat in the Chapter, and that their appointment should be 
 under regulations made with the consent of the Chapter 
 — the Corporation possessing the fabric. So long as the 
 Deanery and the Rectory were represented by one person, 
 no difficulty arose ; but as soon as the othces were separ- 
 ated and the present anomalous position created there See page 3U 
 was of necessity a collision. The Dean has been 
 installed and the question may arise : Has he a right to 
 preach ? and if so how often 1 The power of assigning 
 seats does not seem to flow from the Bishop's Patent. 
 The Patent states simply that the Bishop's own seat shall 
 be in the " Parish Church called Christ Church." The 
 soil and freehold of the Church are by the Rector's Patent 
 
44 
 
 vested in the Rector; but the power over seats is by 
 14 & 15 Vic, Act of Parliament vested in the Rector and Cliurch- 
 
 cnp. 17C. 
 
 wardens; and.no other person than the Bishop fwliose 
 6 Vic. cap. :!2. powers of visitation enable him to go everywhere in hi.s 
 diocese) can sit in the chancel excepting by permission 
 or capitulation of the Rector and Churchwardens. 
 But, supposing the Rector were ousted and the Dean 
 and Canons installed in his place, the Bishop wouhl 
 have no more authority than now; and the congre- 
 gation would have changed a minister in whose 
 nomination they have a voice for a number of min- 
 isters nominated by the Bishop. The Rector, in his 
 reply, has engaged t© provide stalls for the Canons 
 whenever they may be expected to be present ; but to 
 tiorrespon- assign defined seats* to be kept vacant always, for 
 them, would be to acknowledge claims from which a 
 long train of consequential rights might How. 
 
 In this discussion the rights of the congregation 
 cannot be ignored. To them the church is tlieir 
 Parish Church. They worship in it ; they pay the 
 Clergymen and support the sei'vices ; they pay the expense 
 (not a slight one) of maintaining it; they have carried it 
 through great difficulties, and their wishes should have 
 great weight in the matter. As a Cathedral it is seldom 
 used. Only at the meetings of Synod can the Canons be 
 present, and on those occasions when the Diocese 
 requires the Church in its Cathedral capacity, by tacit 
 consent, the Bishop gives the orders for the services as it 
 may please him. 
 
 tJorrespond- * ^^^ custom as given in the evidence of the Dean and Chapter of 
 
 ence p 98. Durham before the Hoyal Commissioners is that " stalls are provided 
 
 " for the honorary canons whenever they may be present." This has 
 
 always been the custom in Christ Church also. No change has been 
 
 made by the present Rector, the choir always sat as they do now, 
 
An impression is common in America that, although 
 the powers chiimed could not be exercised by a Bishop 
 ill a Parish Church, the powers of a Bishop (as it is gen- 
 e-rally put) in " his " cathedral are much greater. It is 
 indisputable that the exact opposite is really the case 
 in England. There the Deans and Canons possess the 
 Cathedrals in a much more exclusive manner than Rectors 
 and Vicars do their parish churches. The fact of Christ 
 Church being a Cathedral strengthens its position very 
 much in the present controversy. The question now is 
 not as to what powers St. Dunstan or St. Thomas a 
 I3ecket might have possessed 5 but as to what powers 
 Archbishop Tait now possesses in the Cathedral of Can- see p. 72. 
 terbury. These latter are the only powers the Crown 
 pm'ported to convey by the Letters Patent. 
 
 The present powers of a Bishop in a Cathedral ai'e 
 stated concisely by Sir Robert Phillimore in the following Phiiiimorep. 
 sentence : " By degrees the dependence of the Dean and ^'''" 
 " Chapter on the Bishop, and their relation to him, grew 
 " less aind less ; till at last the Bishop has little more left 
 " than the power of visiting them, and that very much see p. 82. 
 'limited; and he is now scarcely allowed to nominate 
 ^' half of those to their prebends who all were originally 
 " of his family." 
 
 While these questions were under discussion in Mon- 
 treal, the case of Exeter Cathedral was decided by Sir 
 Robert PhiUimore in the Arches Court of Canterbury- 
 (In this instance, the Bishop is a Canon of the Cathedral 
 and therefore has a voice in the Chapter.) The case first Exeter Case. 
 came up in his own court, when, acting under the advice 
 of his assessor, the Bishop gave judgment against 
 the Dean and Canons to remove a certain reredos, be- 
 cause it had been erected v i;hout a faculty from him. 
 
46 
 
 Oimrdian " The proposition of Ecclesiastical Law involved in this 
 "g- • a pj^^j- Qf ^|,g sentence," says Sir Robert Phillimore, "has 
 
 " very greatly surprised me. After an experience of no 
 * ordinary lengtli with the subject of faculties, which, as 
 " Chancellor of various dioceses before I occupied my 
 " present position I have often been compelled to con- 
 " sider in all its bearings, I could not recollect a single 
 " instance in which a Dean and Ciiapter had asked for, or 
 " obtained, a faculty for alterations in " their " cathedral. 
 " It has been admitted that after a careful search no re- 
 " cord can be found of such a fticulty ever having been 
 " issued for the Cathedral of Exeter." " It would not 
 " have surprised me to learn that in some Cathedrals 
 " which included within their walls, as Chichester and 
 *' Carlisle Catiiedrals did formerly, and as I believe Ban- 
 " gor Cathedral does still, a parochial church, a faculty 
 " had been obtained from the Consistorial Court for alter- 
 " ations in such a parochial church, and, upon enquiry, 
 "I find that in 1813 a faculty, so specially limited, was 
 " granted in the Diocese of Carlisle. This particular and 
 " solitary exception seems to strengthen the rule to the 
 " contrary." 
 
 The learned judge then goes on to explain what a fac- 
 ulty is : "It is, properly speaking, a license, issued by the 
 " Ordinary through his Consistorial Court, to effect cer- 
 " tain alterations of a grave nature in a parish church. 
 " The issue of this instrument is preceded by a citation 
 " affixed to the church door calling upon all parishioners 
 " to show cause, if they desire to do so, against the grant 
 " of the faculty on a certain day in the court ; if they do 
 " appear, a suit begins and is prosecuted in the usual 
 " manner." 
 
 The subject of faculties is, in England, an important, 
 one. There the theory is, that every parishioner has 
 
47 
 
 a right to a sent in the Parisli church without payment. 
 ^' As for personal property in n pew, the law knows no piiinimore p. 
 '* such thing; every Jiousehohler has n nght to a seat." •^'''''• 
 The Bishop's court is part of tlie machinery of tlie state 
 churcli to protect the riglits of the parishioners against 
 alterations by the Rector which would interfere with tliem. 
 Therefore in England tiie churchwardens are more the Kteiaieii Vol. 
 deputies of the IJisliop wlien they appoint seats to parti- ^'" 
 cular persons in the parish church; because the funds I'liiilimoro p. 
 are provided by the church rates.* In Canada, all this is ^^^^* 
 inapplicable, for there are local statutes regulating sucliTemiioraiiites 
 matters. There are no Bishop's courts ; and tlie parish- 
 ioners tind the money for alterations, and own the pews 
 by law. They can protect their own rights by ordinaiy 
 suits in the civil courts. In the congregation which 
 Christ Church represents there were churchwardens gee p^ge s. 
 before an Anglican Bisliop had ever landed on the shores 
 of America. 
 
 In the case of Exeter Cathedral there were certain 
 p[rivileges claimed by the Chapter, of exemption from 
 visitation by the Bishop, which were not sustained; and 
 the whole case, as regards the powers of the Bishop, 
 turned upon his rights as Bishop of the See. Sir Robert 
 Phillimore in his judgment limits those rights as follows: Guardian 
 "The Bishop indeed has his throne in the Cathedral, '^^^'"^ ' 
 
 * In England, by prescription, the cost of repairs in the chancel generally 
 falls upon the Rector and is not levied as a rate upon the parish. The 
 churchwardens receive their commission and authority from the Bishop 
 before being admitted to office and neither they nor the parishioners have 
 any rights in the chancel as to seats. In Canada this portion of the Eng- 
 lish law is inapplicable. The churchwardens do not represent the Bishoj), 
 the parishioners pay for the whole structure, and the Canadian Legisla- 
 ture has placed the whole fabric without exception in the control of the 
 Incumbent and churchwardens. 
 
48 
 
 "aiul has a right to preach in it ; but it i.s niaiiifii'st that 
 "the relations of the Dean and (Jliapter to the Ordinary 
 " are very ditlerent from those of the clergy generally. 
 "The Dean and Chapter have privileges which paro- 
 " chial incnmbents have not, both with respect to the 
 ''services in titcir Cathedrals, the fabric itself, and 
 " various otiier matters ; and as has been shown their 
 " consent is required in order to confer validity on cer- 
 Sec b:i a t-^jn j^ct^ ^f the Bishop." 
 
 THE SYXOI). 
 
 Having considered the rights claimed by the Bishop in 
 their different aspects — as rights under the Queen's patent 
 — as rights in a Cathedral — as rights in a Parish Church 
 — as general rights in his See — and as rights according to 
 the rules and customs of Christ Church ; it might be 
 well, before coming to a conclusion, to consider the 
 powers of the Synod in the matter; the more especially, 
 because an idea is prevalent that, without any reference 
 to the law of the case, the Synod can regulate it as it 
 pleases. 
 
 And here a preliminary consideration arises. If the 
 Synod pass a canon on this subject, it ^^so facto concedes 
 that the Bishop does not now lawfully possess the 
 powers claimed. And if he does not possess these 
 powers, and the Synod endeavours to bestow them on 
 him, it might be confidently expected that, in accord- 
 See iDstaiia- ance with the terms of the oath to " defend and main- 
 tion Oath p 26. ^^-^^ ^^^ privileges of Christ Church," the Bishop would at 
 once negative such a canon by the absolute veto which 
 he possesses. 
 
 The Rector has asserted in his reply that, whatever the 
 legal rights of the Bishop may be, to these he will wil- 
 
4» 
 
 lingly submit ; and (wliilo guiinling himself from con- corroBpon- 
 ceding the right of the Conunittee of Synod to interfere) '^"°''® '' ^^• 
 he hiis voluntarily exposed to a gtMitleman, a member of 
 that committee, all the books and papers of the church 
 which were under his control If ihe claims made bo 
 found to be legal, it will be impossible to charge contu- 
 macy against him, but, if it be fbimd that the Bishop 
 does not possess such powers in Christ Church, and a 
 canon be enacted to confer thein, it will be impossible 
 to give such canon operative force without another Act 
 of Parliament. For if it was found necessary to obtain 
 on Act of Legislature to divide the Rector's Parish ; it 
 nmst be necessary to obtain another to enable the Dvan 
 and Canons to invade his church. The rights of the see p. lo. 
 Rector of the Parish of Montreal have been shown to 
 rest upon the firm basis of Imperial and Colonial legisla- 
 tion, and a regulation of Synod cannot touch tiiem. 
 
 There is yet another reason why the Synod cannot, in 
 this matter, grant new powers to tlie Bishop. The quality 
 of Cathedral was superimposed upon tlie Parish Church 
 under a contract between the incoming Corporation and 
 the Corporation in possession. The terms of the con- 
 tract are expressed in the words of the obligation of each 
 Bishop who enters the Church. To make this clear, 
 reference must be had to the primary contract. In 1S50, 
 when Bishop Fulford (according to English custom) stood statutes of 
 atthedoor of the Parish Church called Christ Church, and ^''^^'''"^'^ 
 requested to be installed, he took the usual instal- 
 lation oath at the hands of the Rector of the Parish 
 Church, for the Dean and Chapter were not created until 
 1853, three years later. The mutual obligation then 
 entered into between the two Corporations the Synod 
 cannot touch by any direct canon, and if a canon be 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 drawn in declaratory shape its form will not avail to 
 protect it from an inquiry as to the facts. 
 
 That the Synod ciinnot Jo as it pleases, was shown in 
 Davidson vs. the case of Davidson vs. Baker. In that instance, an over- 
 whelming majority declared Baker legally elected, but the 
 Superior Court revised all the proceedings, and an order 
 issued to compel the Secretary to erase Baker's name 
 and insert Davidson's on its list of delegates. If the 
 • Synod then were to pass a canon traversing the Rector's 
 
 patent it could only be carried into effect through the 
 civil courts, from which an appeal would ultimately lie 
 to the Queen in Council. 
 
 It has sometimes been doubted whether a right of 
 appeal exists, but it must be evident that the Synod can- 
 Declaration of not go behind the declaration upon which all their legis- 
 iynol.^ ^^^^ lation is built, and the condition precedent, without which 
 no compact would have been made. This declaration may 
 Constitution be found at the commencement of the constitution. Ifc 
 " ^°° ■ " reads: '^ In particular we maintain the ancient doctrine 
 "of theChurch,thatthe Queen is rightfully possessed of the 
 " chief government and supremacy over all persons within 
 "her dominions, whether ecclesiastical or civil, as set 
 " forth in the 37th of the Articles of Religion and we 
 '^desire that such supremacy should continue un- 
 " impaired." Every clergyman of the Church of England 
 subscribes to the 39 articles. Referring to this subject 
 the late Metropolitan writes "As to the Royal suprem- 
 Pan Anglican i( ^cy I conceive that we can have no hesitation in 
 " acknowledging it in the fullest sense in which it can 
 " under the circumstances of our position be claimed or 
 " exercised." * * * * This supremacy he defines as the 
 "supreme right of the Crown to revise all judgments 
 " given in any courts." In short, in the Church of 
 
51 
 
 England, the Queen's supremacy is nothing else than 
 her supremacy in her Courts. 
 
 The case of Christ Church is now put before the congre- 
 gation fully. Many other considerations might be urged, 
 but this statement would extend to an unreasonable lenirth. 
 Many of the facts contained in these pages are unknown 
 to all but the older members of the Church, but now tliat 
 there is a danger that an irresponsible body like the 
 Chapter may be placed in a position in Christ Church 
 Cathedral to interfere in its future government it is well 
 that the congregation and all interested should understand 
 the case with its history and legal bearings, on which 
 alone a correct opinion can be formed as to the present 
 issue. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 OPINION OP THE HONORABLE WILLIAM BADGLEY. LATE 
 JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF QUEEFS BENCH. 
 
 Montreal, 28 November, 1874. 
 Reverend and Dear Sir, 
 
 I have received from you the following letter, iu 
 which you say : " Fjferring to the accompanying papers 
 " enclosed, wiU you inform me whether, in your opinion, 
 " the claims of His Lordship the MetropoHtan, Lord 
 " Bishop of the Diocese of Montreal, over the Christ 
 " Church Cathedral, the Parish Church of the Eectory or 
 " Parsonage of the Parish of Montreal, as stated in His 
 " Lordship's letter to me of May 2nd, 1874, are or are not 
 "legal. 
 
 "Yours respectfully, 
 
 (Signed,) Maurice S. Baldwin, 
 
 " Rector." 
 Enclosed : 
 
 1. Copy of Letters Patent of Metropolitan. 
 
 2. Copy of Letters Patent of Rector. 
 
 3. Copy of Correspondence between Metropolitan and 
 Rector. 
 
 4. Manuscript Report. 
 
 Regretting sincerely that you should have deemed such 
 a reference necessary, I have the honor to say that your 
 
54 
 
 letter and its accompanying documents have received ray- 
 best consideration, especially the printed correspondence 
 between the Lord Bishop of the Diocese and yourself as 
 Rector of Christ Church, in reference to the claims 
 made by His Lordship therein in connection with Christ 
 Church Cathedral in this City, and to which you particu- 
 larly direct my attention. 
 
 The claims suggested by His Lordship seem to have 
 arisen from Christ Church having been considered exclu- 
 sively as the Cathedral Church of tiie Diocese of Mont- 
 real, without attention to its precedent and continuous 
 title of Parish Church of the Rectory of the Parish of 
 Montreal, established long anterior to its added Cathedral 
 difeiinction, and therefore, for thepurpose of this reference, 
 the two-fold character of the Church must be considered, 
 and thevewith incidentally, the rights therein of the 
 Bishop of the Diocese and of the Rector of the Parish. 
 
 To do this satisfactorily, the claims in question will be 
 adverted to and answered in the numerical order in which 
 they have been made by His Lordship, previous to which, 
 however, a few remarks are required as introductory to, 
 but more or less intimately connected with the matters 
 of dilference submitted to me. 
 
 It is trite to say, that wherever the Church of England 
 was established or its ministrations planted in British 
 conquered colonies or dependencies abroad, the suprem- 
 acy of the Crown in such church matters, and the car- 
 dinal point of Episcopal Government in connection with 
 that Church, have been recognized as existing of right, 
 without legislative allowance required therefor, or until 
 otherwise ordered by colonial or local legislation, thereto 
 sanctioned and authorized by the Crown. 
 
65 
 
 These supreme rights inherent in the Crown necessari- 
 ly included the appointment of Colonial Bisliops in new 
 countries as here, and the establishment of their dioceses 
 and sees, and also the establishment of ecclesiastical 
 divisions of the Bishopric called parishes, with the jip- 
 jiointment of ministers called parsons, or rectors, who 
 thereby became subjected to the authority and jurisdic- 
 tion of the Bishop of the Diocese in which the parish 
 was located, an ecclesiastical subordination, the neces- 
 sary consequence of the episcopal principles upon which 
 the church was founded. 
 
 The earliest Imperial legislation for Canada, the Sta- 
 tutes 14 and 31 George the 3rd, did not extend, nor were 
 in construction allowed to extend, to hinder or prevent 
 the exercise by the Crown of its inherent administrative 
 supremacy, nor in any way to assume its direction or 
 regulation ; but for better assurance, the Royal intentions 
 for the support and advancement of the Church of Eng- 
 land in the colony were embodied in the enactments of 
 those statutes, and, among other intended means for the 
 purposes intimated, the erection of parsonages and rec- 
 tories was expressly declared and mentioned, for which 
 endowments, from the ungranted provincial lands of the 
 Crown, might be granted by the Executive authority of 
 the province. 
 
 It will be sufficient to add that by the exercise of the 
 supreme prerogative power. Bishops have been appointed 
 in ^^he Colony from time to time, with constituted dio- 
 ceses and sees, amongst winch the })resent separate 
 Diocese of Montreal was constituted by Letters Patent 
 in 1850, which appointed the first Bishop of the separate 
 Diocese, constituting liim and Ins successors in perpetuity 
 Bishops of the Diocese of Montreal. 
 
66 
 
 In like manner, by Letters Patent issued in 1820, the 
 Church of England Parish of Montreal was established, 
 and its boundaries defined, with one Parsonage or Rec- 
 tory erected therein, presenting the named Rector and 
 Parson of the parish, and ordaining the then existing 
 City church of Montreal, called Christ Church, to be the 
 Parish Church of the said Parsonage and Rectory ; con- 
 stituting the said named Rector or Parson and his suc- 
 cessors to be Rectors or Parsons of the said Parish Church, 
 and expressly subjecting him and them, as such Rectors, 
 to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop of the 
 Diocese as Rectors in England to their Diocesans there ; 
 also, erecting the said Rector and his successors, Rectors 
 of the Parish, a sole corporation witli perpetual succes- 
 sion, in other words a sole mortmain corporation, with 
 power to acquire real estate, &c., and to determine the 
 same, as should be autliorized thereto by grant or license 
 therefor under the Great Seal of the Province, in other 
 words by Letters Patent, and finally endowing and in- 
 vesting the said Rector and his successors for ever, with 
 the freehold and inheritance of the said Parish Church, 
 and its appurtenances, and with the mentioned and des- 
 cribed site of land on Notre Dame Street, in the said 
 City, on which the said Christ Church was erected. 
 
 By the Diocesan Letters Patent of 1850, which 
 are in part embodied in the Letters Patent of his Lord 
 ship the Bishop as Metropolitan, the said Parish Church, 
 called Christ Church, above mentioned, was thereby 
 a])pointed to be the Cathedral Church of the Diocese of 
 Montreal in the terms following : " That Christ Chm-ch 
 ^' aforesaid, in the said City of Montreal, should thence- 
 " forth be the Cathedral Chnrch, and the See of the 
 " said Bishop of Montreal and his successors in the 
 
 \ 
 
67 
 
 *' said See, "which appointment was afterwards acquiesced 
 in by the Rector and Vestry of the Church, and which 
 continued to be so known, until its destruction by fire 
 in 1856. 
 
 This occurrence aflTorded tlie desired opportunity of 
 substituting a new site and church for the old ones, ne- 
 cessitated from the confined extentof the fonnor, and the 
 inconvenience of the latter to the increasing numbers of 
 its congregation, who in process of time had become 
 located at inconvenient distances from the churcli, and 
 therefore the old site on Notre Dame street was sold, and 
 the new site on St. Catherine street in this City was 
 ac(|uired, upon which the new church has since been 
 built, as the substitute of the old church; the change 
 having been effected under the directions of tlie then 
 Hector of the Parish, and with the express sanction and 
 approval of the then Bishop of the Diocese, and towards 
 these substituted purposes, the proceeds of the old site 
 and tlie insurance money of the old church were duly ap- 
 pli'.id, together with large contributions from the congre- 
 gation and others interested in the erection of the new 
 church. 
 
 Upon its completion, the name of Christ Churcli was 
 appropriated to the new churcli, which became and has 
 since been publicly recognised in the Acts and Records 
 of its Diocesan Synod, in those of the Provincial Synod, 
 and in the Acts of the Legislature having reference thereto, 
 and also by the present Rector of the Parish and Bishop 
 of the Diocese to be the Parish Church, called Christ 
 Church, of the Rectory of the Parish of Montreal, consti- 
 tuted under the Parochial Letters Patent of 1820, and also 
 the Cathedral Cliurch of the Diocese of Montreal under 
 the Diocesan Letters Patent of 1850. 
 
68 
 
 It is important to ascertain the extent and effect of 
 those several Letters Patent, because tliey arc the only 
 constituent titles of the Rector or of the Bishop to Christ 
 Church, as the parish Church or Cathedral Church above 
 mentioned. 
 
 V>y the Parochial Letters Patent, which have prece- 
 dence in date, Christ Church was constituted the Parish 
 Church of the Rectoiy of the Parish of Montreal, many 
 years before the existence of the present Diocese of ]\[ont- 
 real, and its Rector was expressly endowed and inv(!st- 
 ed with the freehold and inheritance of the Parish church 
 and its appurtenances, as a sole corporation, and his pre- 
 sent successor in the Rectory of the Parish, "by his in- 
 '^ duction into the substituted or new Church, was install- 
 ^' ed as Incumbent into the full possession of the Church 
 " with all the rights and appurtenancesthereto belonging. 
 '' It is aprinciple of law that the induction of the Rector 
 " fills the Church even against the King, and by conse- 
 " quencethe Church is completely full and the Clerk in- 
 " ducted a complete Incumbentor possessor." By the 
 Temporalities Act for this Diocese, 14 and 15 Vic. ch. 
 17G,it is enacted " that the soil and freehold of all churches, 
 " &c., erected or to be erected in the Diocese, shall be in 
 " the parson or incumbent thereof and the churchwardens," 
 but to this is added the express proviso, " that nothing 
 " contained in this section shall extend to affect the 
 " tenure of any parsonage or rectory now established 
 " by Letters Patent." At that time, the Parochial 
 Letters Patent were in full force, and nothing has since 
 occurretl to set them aside, or to oust the Rector from 
 the Parish Church of his Rectory. Morever, the induc- 
 tion of the Rector was into the possession and seizin of 
 the whole Church without distinction of parts by the 
 
59 
 
 Letters Patent, nor has any divestment from him of any 
 part of the Parisii Cliurch been since made by law or 
 otherwise. 
 
 On the other hand, the Diocesan Letters Patent, issued 
 thirty years after those for the Parish and Rectory, 
 chiefly established the present Diocese of Montreal and 
 appointed a Bishop thereto, constituting him and his 
 successors in perpetuity to be the Bishops of the Diocese, 
 and declaring the Parish Church of Montreal, called Christ 
 Church, to be thenceforth the Cathedral Church and See 
 of the Bishop of Montreal. 
 
 The Diocesan Patent did not and could not legally 
 profess, either expressly or impliedly, to set aside and 
 annul the Parochial Patent, nor to conflict with the grant- 
 ed rights and privileges of Christ Church as such Parish 
 Church filled by its Incumbent, nor to divest its Incum- 
 bent from his possession or seizin thereof as Rector of the 
 Rectory of the Parish of Montreal under his continuing 
 Patent. It is manifest that the Diocesan Patent in this 
 respect was limited to the personal introduction of the 
 Bishop of the Diocese into Christ Church as his See, and 
 to the conferring upon the Church as such Parish Church, 
 the distinction of being thenceforth recognised and known 
 as the Cathedral Church of the Diocese ; beyond these, 
 the Diocesan Patent conferred no Episcopal authority over 
 Christ Church, or over the Parish Church, or over its In- 
 cumbent, except what by the general constitutions and 
 canons of the Church of England, were the acknowledged 
 rights and privileges of the Ordinary, belonging to him ns 
 Diocesan, in virtue of his appointment as Bishop of the 
 Diocese. 
 
 In connection with the foregoing, by the Church 
 Society Act of Montreal,14 and 15 V. ch. I71,it is enacted, 
 
60 
 
 tlint nospiritual or ecclesiastical ri^ht or jurisdiction shall 
 be conferred npon either of the Bishoj»s or of his suc- 
 cessors or otlior ecclesiastical persons, &c., and tiiis is 
 repeated in similar terms in the Church Temporalities 
 Act of the Diocese, 14 and 15 V. ch. 17G. Both tliese 
 were reserved Acts, and received the special sanction of 
 the Crown. 
 
 Having detailed the foregoing circumstances of fact in 
 connection with Christ Church, it is scarcely necessary to 
 remark, how much the Church of England and its eccle- 
 siastical establishments in this new country ditFer from 
 their position in England, and that, except as to the gen- 
 eral principles of the mother church contained in her 
 constituent canons and expounded in her Church juris- 
 pcudence, which must be received with respect in all her 
 branches as advisory and explanatory, the Ecclesiastical 
 law of England has no force here, being composed of local 
 legislative enactments which have not been express- 
 ly (extended to tliis province, and of judicial decisions 
 founded, for the most part, upon prescriptions Ixyond 
 man's memory, or upon ancient churcli customs in Eng- 
 land, entirely beyond our provincial Church establish- 
 ments of yesterday ; and, therefore, our provincial church 
 law in sucli matters must be sought for in the rules 
 and regulations of our provincial Diocesan Church Socie- 
 ties and Corporations, in the proceedings and decisions 
 of our Diocesan and Provincial Synods,and in their exercise 
 of the delegated powers expressly conferred upon them, 
 or distinctly imphed in the Acts of the Provincial Legis- 
 lature having reference to them, with the addition of such 
 general principles of our Municipal law, as might apply 
 to the legal construction or extent and effect of the several 
 Letters Patent above adverted to, as they affect Christ 
 
81 
 
 Church in its two-fold character of Parish Church and 
 Catht'dral Ciiiirch, which cannot bo separated witliont 
 setting aside the Patents therefor. 
 
 The only difticulty in answering the claims of the Lord 
 Bishop arises from their persistent and exclusive refer- 
 ence to Christ Chuich; as the Cathedral Church only, hut 
 its original condition of Parish Church is not separ- 
 able at mere wish ; and hence though Ilis Lordship's 
 claims are partial and peculiar in their object, the con- 
 junct character of Christ Church must be kept in mind in 
 the answer given to them, and therefore under all the 
 circinnstances, the answer to Ilis Lordship's first claim is, 
 that Christ Church must legally continue to be known and 
 distinguisiied as, at present, the Cathedral Church ot the 
 Diocese, until deprived of that distinction by competent 
 authority, but without interfering with its character of 
 Parish Church of the Rectory of the Parish of Montr«!al, 
 or divesting the Rector of his rights and privileges there- 
 in as its Incumbent. 
 
 By His Lordship's second claim, the admission is re- 
 quired of His Lordship's personal right to preach in the 
 Cathedral, and, in addition, to exercise the right, if he sliall 
 see fit, occasionally to introduce a stranger to preach in 
 the Cathedral, on giving due notice to the Rector. Ad- 
 mitting the two-lbld character of the Parish Church, the 
 Bishop of the Diocese is legally entitled to preach in his 
 Cathedral in like right as the Rector in his Parish 
 Church, and, as each by virtue of his office is said to be 
 severally resident in his Cathedral and Church, they are 
 required to officiate and minister therein, and therefore 
 neither can be legally prevented from the right to preach 
 in Christ Church. Besides, as preaching has become an 
 important part of public worship, both Bishop and Rector 
 
62 
 
 have the lo^al riglit to pnmch in ChriHt CInircli, but tlio 
 tiriH'S mid occasions are not exincssly rc<fulat(!(l by law, 
 furtlicr tlian tliut tbo ofliciatini^diity of tln^ Rector for his 
 parish church is general tliroughoiit the year, whereas that 
 of the liishop in his Cathedral is merely temporary : — Pliil- 
 " liniore says that the Bishop should olliciate in hiscathe- 
 " dral on the chief festivals an<l in Lent and Advent," but 
 in fact no certain rules prevail, and in Kimiand nnich is 
 left in that respect to the custom of tlui church, but the 
 Bishop, as head of the church in the diocese, should noi> 
 be h'gally refused, when his wish in that respect is niude 
 known to the incumbent. 
 
 The second part of His Lordship's daiu), occasionally 
 to introduce, if he desire it, a stranger to prciach in the 
 Cathedral upon giving d(n! notice to tlu; Rector, does 
 not rest upon the sanu; right as the JJishop's personal 
 claim, and the admitted necessity of the notice to the 
 Rector, involves of itself the necessary consent therefor 
 of the latter. It is, however, notorious, tiiat the congrega- 
 tion assembled for worship in Christ Church is not 
 distinctly a Cathedral congregation, but mere parishioners 
 who attend the Parish Church service, under the general 
 ministry of the Rector of the Parish who has the cure of 
 souls therein. 
 
 Now the legal decision of this part of the claim rests 
 upon the general principles and ordinances of the Church 
 of England, in explanation of which, the dicta of Mr. 
 Justice Bayley in Farnsworth vs. the Bishop of Chester, 
 4 Barn. & Cres. 570, are extremely apposite, and substi- 
 tuting Rector of the parish here for Vicar of the Parish 
 in that case, and confining the judge's remarks to the 
 spiritual obligations of the Rector, he says "his opinion 
 " is founded upon the general position, that the spiritual 
 
68 
 
 "ol)1igntion of tho Rector cannot bo intorforod witli, 
 ** rmiiu'ly his rofusal to allow a (straii<;or) c'l«M'j;ynian to 
 " olliciato, even wIh'm liccMiscd by the IJislioj) of tlio 
 'M)iocese." lie adds: " It appears to nu; that it the 
 *' l^'ctor has the cun^ of souls, oo-ext«Misive with the 
 '' wh(de limits of his parish, that easts a very serious and 
 " important duty iq)oii him, and he has a right, and is 
 *' l)()und,as the conservator pnruchia; to tak«! care that no 
 " pers«m shall deliver doctrine in that Parish, except 
 " nn<ler his sanction and authority. It is said that the 
 ** Bishop will never appoint an uidit person, but if the 
 " Rector has the cure of souls in his parish, he has a 
 " right to act on his own judgment, and is not bomid to 
 " trust to the judgment of the Ordinary." The same was 
 declared to be law^ in the case of the King vs. the Rishop of 
 Exeter, 2 East 402, where tiie Vicar's consent was with- 
 held, and it was assumed that he might disregard the 
 licenseofthe Bishop. In thismatter of the allowance of the 
 license, Doctor Lushington held in one of his judgments 
 " the license of the Bishop emanates from his Episcopal 
 " authority, but he could not grant it without the 
 " consent of the Rector of the Parish, for the cure of 
 '' souls belongs exclusively to the Rector." And in a foot 
 " note is added, '■'■ But it does not appear that the consent 
 "of the Rector is necessary to enable the Bishop to 
 '• license, but only that the license is nugatory if that 
 '• consent is afterwards withheld." This was furtlier 
 exemplified by the Act 3 and 4 Vict. ch. 83, which enabled 
 the Bishops and Ministers of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Churches of Scotland and the United States of America 
 to officiate in the churches of the Church of England 
 and Ireland, that is, to perform divine service, preach or 
 administer the Sacraments therein ; which, however, was 
 
64 
 
 not to be allowed without the license in writing of the 
 Bishop of the diocese, and for one or two days only speci- 
 ed in the permission, and not even then without the 
 '' consent of the incumbent of the parish, wliich will, of 
 " course, in every such case be essential." 
 
 Tiie distinction is thus plainly drawn. The right to offi- 
 ciate and preach in his own church is personal in the 
 Bishop, but cannot be extended to strangers whom he 
 might wish to occupy the pulpit of Christ Church with- 
 out the consent of the Incumbent, in accordance with 
 the old rule that "a church or pulpit, loco ecclesice, once 
 " filled, is filled even agains^t the King," or as expressed 
 by Lord Mansfield in 2 East, 462, cited above, who says 
 " nothing can be so clear as that no person can use the 
 "pulpit of the Rector without his consent," and, as it is 
 held by authority that by the above Act 3 and 4 Vict., 
 ''the church in our Colonies is considered, for the pur- 
 " poses of the Act, as tlie Clmrch of England," its pi'o- 
 visions are both instructive and applicable here, and 
 moreover conclusive of the absolutely required consent 
 of the Incumbent of tiie Parish in such case, and there- 
 fore the right, as such, claimed by the Bishop in this res- 
 pect is not legal. 
 
 The third claim of His Lordsliip, that the ordering of 
 the services in the Cathedral and the appointment of the 
 clergy therein, shall be subject to the approval of the 
 Bishop, is also quite partial in the exclusive chi'racter of 
 Cathedral attributed to Christ Church, ignoring altogetiier 
 its legally established parochial cliaracter, and thereby 
 involving in its claimed allowance the absolute govern- 
 ment of Christ Church by tho Bishop, in the order of its 
 services and the appointment of its officiating clergy there- 
 in. As to the church services, it is a general rule of the 
 
65 
 
 Church, obligatory in parish churches as well as cathe- 
 dral churches, that the general order of church service 
 as expressly enjoined by the Rubric and the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, is to be observed, and is not to be departed 
 from by the Minister, yet subject to the directions of 
 the Bishop, as Ordinary, in case of irregularities or in ex- 
 ceptional cases ; but the manner in which that church 
 service is to be performed, is at the direction and discre- 
 tion of the Rector of the Parish, the officiating Minister. 
 So long, however, as the directions of the Rubric are 
 not departed from, the Minister cannot be interfered 
 with : as where the direction is as to the saying or singin<'- 
 of a particular part of the service, it is for the Minister a^t 
 his discretion to choose which alternative should be 
 adopted, according as he might think best adapted to his 
 congregation. 
 
 The right of approval claimed by the Bishop in the 
 appointment of the clergy of the Cathedral practically 
 involves the nomination of the officiating clergy of the 
 Parish Church,andis not legally within the powers of the 
 Bishop. The officiating clergy of the parish church, in 
 addition to the Rector, are not cathedral clergy, eo nomine 
 as the Dean and Canons, nor assistant ministers to the 
 bishop of the diocese, but to the rector of the parish, and, 
 like curates in England, are stipendiaries of the parish' 
 being employed by the rector for a fixed stipend, paid 
 by the parish funds, as assistants to him.iin his absence, 
 or in the service and duties of the parish church. Under 
 his general Episcopal authority as Ordinary, the Bishop 
 can control and prevent the appointment of improper and 
 inefficient clergymen to officiate in the church, but except 
 within those supervising powers, which can only be 
 exercised for cause, the approval of the Bishop of such 
 clerical appointments, as a right, is not legal. 
 
'66 
 
 As to the fourth chiim, the reservation of the stalls in 
 the church for the Dean and Canons, distinct from those 
 used by the choir, I have little information that would 
 justify my expressing a legal opinion. Cathedral stalls 
 are described as the pews or seats of clergymen^ and, it may 
 be concluded, are not convertible to the use of other 
 persons, I believe, how^ever, that the Dean and the other 
 Canons, except yourself, Reverend Sir, have duties to 
 attend to in their own cimrches, and very rarely attend 
 the services in Christ Church, so that my reluctance 
 to give a legal opinion up,on tliis claim will be of no im- 
 portance. 
 
 The printed correspondence tells me tliat the fifth 
 claim calls for no legal opinion. Nor will I undertake to 
 tidvise upon your notes A and B which have been added 
 as glosses to Ilis Lordship's claims as set out in his 
 letter of the 2nd ]May. The really im2)ortnnt claims have 
 all, I tliink, been distinctly answered. 
 I have the honor to be, 
 Reverend and dear Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 W. Badgley, 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 OPINION OF WILLIAM H. KERR, Esq., Q.U., D.C.L. 
 
 Previous to the passing of the 19 and 20 Vict., c. 121, 
 the members of the Church of England in the Diocese ol' 
 Montreal formed but a voluntary association governed by 
 the rules of the United Church of England and Ireland, 
 but only so far as such rules w^ere applicable to the pecu- 
 liar circumstances of the Diocese at the time as modified 
 by the various Provincial Statutes relating to the Tempor- 
 alities of the Church. 
 
 The Church of England is essentially an Episcopal 
 Church, and the Bishops thereof exercise certain jurisdic- 
 tion and have certain powers over the inferior clergy and 
 the laity in their respective dioceses. 
 
 The right of appointment to Bishoprics in England has, 
 ever since the reign of Henry VIII, been virtually vested 
 in the Sovereign, and the right of tlie Sovereign of the 
 United Kingdom as head of the Church to erect Dioceses, 
 and appoint Bishops thereto, naturally flowed from the 
 adoption by the Church of England in Canada of the 
 rules and ordinances of the Church of England in Eng- 
 land as the law by which the association was to be gov- 
 erned. 
 
 By the Letters Patent appointing Dr. Fulford to be 
 Bishop of Montreal, he on his consecration became 
 Bishop of the Diocese, and was thereby invested with all 
 the powers and jurisdiction of a Bishop therein, p-ovidcl 
 for or given to that dignitary by the rules and ordinances 
 
68 
 
 of the United Church of England and Ireland in England, 
 but only so far as they were applicable to tlie peculiar cir- 
 cumstances of the then Province, as modilied by the 
 above-mentioned Provincial Statutes. 
 
 The Letters Patent conferred upon him no powers. 
 Any power that he may have possessed, any jurisdiction 
 that he could have exercised, were derived solely from 
 the Constitution (if it may be so called) of the Association 
 of which he was a Bishop. 
 
 That r,ortion of the Letters Patent which declared 
 
 i. 
 
 Christ Church to be the Cathedral Church of the Diocese 
 was inoperative, save by the consent of the person in 
 whom the property of that Church was vested. The 
 Crown had no rights therein, consequently could convey 
 none to the Bishop. The basis whereon rested the 
 l^ishop's rights in Christ Church was the consent of the 
 authorities of that Church, so far at least as any other^ 
 rights were concerned than those he possessed in the 
 other churches of his Diocese. 
 
 By the consent of the authorities a throne for the 
 Bisliop was erected in Christ Church, and it may be 
 assumed that so f"Y a consent was given by the proper 
 authority tliat tiiat church should be considered as the 
 Cathedral Church of the Diocese, but no further consent 
 was given, nor was it a matter of agreement that it should 
 lose its character of Parish hurcli of the Parish of Mon- 
 treal, and be solely the Cathedral of the liishop of Mon- 
 treal. It may also be considered as very doubtful 
 whether the corporation or corporations in which was 
 vested Christ Church, and which under the original 
 grant and the Temporalities Acts managed the affairs of 
 that Church, could validly have consented to merge its 
 character of Parish Church in that of Cathedral of the 
 Diocese. 
 
69 
 
 Not the slightest analogy exists between the Dean and 
 Chapter of a Cathedral in England and the Dean and 
 Canons named and appointed by the late Metropolitan. 
 It may be very questionable whether his Lordship had 
 the power to create the otlice of Dean, and to appoint 
 the late Rector to that office, less doubt attaches per- 
 haps to the appointment of the Canons, but it cannot be 
 pretended that that portion of the rules and ordinances of 
 the Church of England relative to Cathedrals was appli- 
 cable to the peculiar circumstances of the Diocese of 
 ]\[ontreal in ISoO. 
 
 In England the Dean and Chapter of a Cathedral are a 
 corporation in which is vested amongst other things its 
 government. It cannot for one moment be pretended 
 that the present Dean of Montreal and the Canons have 
 any right of government in Christ Church. 
 
 In England, in the words of Dean Alford, Cathedrals 
 "at present are governed by corporate bodies of their 
 own, are held to belong exclusively to those bodies, being 
 by them willingly or reluctantly lent for diocesan pur- 
 poses when so required, but being in fact the private 
 chapels of the Deans and Chapters. These Deans and 
 Chapters reside under their walls but take no part what- 
 ever, as members of the Cathedral, in Diocesan work."* 
 
 As to the rights of a Bishop in the Cathedral of his 
 Diocese, much doubt exists in the minds of the English 
 Bishops themselves, as is apparent by the evidence of 
 the Bishops of Lichfield, Lincoln, Carlisle and Salisbury,! 
 given before the Royal Commission appointed " to en- 
 quire into the state and condition of the several Cathe- 
 drals and collegiate churches in England and Wales, and 
 
 * 12 Con. Review, p. 43. 
 
 t 1 Report, pp. 56G, 581, 583, 592. 
 
70 
 
 into the duties of the members and ministers tliercof, 
 &c." 
 
 The rights of the Bishop of Montreal in Christ Church 
 in excess of thoe le possesses in the other churches of 
 his Diocese are based, as already mentioned, on the con- 
 sent of the authorities of that church. Having consented 
 to the erection of the Bishop's throne, it may be conceded 
 that thereby the right to preach therein was admitted, 
 but, as the Rector has the right of preaching throughout 
 the year, matters should be so arranged that the Bishop 
 should preach on giving reasonable notice to the Eector. 
 
 The claim of His Lordship to introduce occasionally 
 a stranger to preach in the Cathedral does not appear to 
 me to be well founded in law. The Rector is responsible 
 for the doctrine preached in his Church, he is its ruler, 
 consequently his consent to a stranger preaching in 
 Christ Church is necessary. 
 
 So long as the Rector conforms to the rules of tlie 
 Church in the ordering of the services, I cannot see that 
 the Bishop has any right to interfere. 
 
 The appointment of the clergy of Christ Church sub- 
 ject to the approval of the Bishop would have the effect 
 of transferring to him ihe right of nomination and 
 appointment of the Rector's deputit^s. I can see nothing 
 to justify his claim either in the custom of the Diocese 
 or in the law regulating the Church of England in the 
 Province of Quebec. 
 
 The Dean and Canons, as already remarked, have not 
 the same right in Christ Church as a Dean and Chapter 
 have in a Cathedral in England. They are but honorary 
 officials at the best, having no right of property in 
 the Cathedral, and unable to urge a claim as of right 
 to stalls. If there has never been any consent on the part 
 
71 
 
 of the authorities of Christ Cliurch, tliat stalls should be 
 appropriated to their exclusive use, I am of opinion 
 that the fourth claim of His Lordship cannot be 
 admitted. 
 
 The fifth claim, I believe, may be considered as con- 
 ceded. 
 
 William II. Kerk. 
 
 Montreal, 14th Dec, 1874. 
 
APPENDIX C, 
 
 For convenience of reference, and in order to avoid 
 encumbering the narrative portion of the Report, the fol- 
 lowing answers given by the highest Cathedral authori- 
 ties in England to the Royal Commissioners in lS-34 are 
 here appended. 
 
 That Commission made a searching inquiry into all 
 matters concerning Cathedrals, and the condition of the 
 English Cathedrals at that time must be presumed to be 
 the condition intended by the Queen's Patent of ISoO. 
 Among the members of this distinguished Commission 
 were — The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the 
 Bishops of London and Oxford, Dean Hook, tlic Earl of 
 Ilan'owby, the ]\[arquis of Blandford, Sir Wm. Page 
 Wood (afterwards Lord Cl;ancellor), and Sir John Dod- 
 son. The pages given in the margin refer to the Report 
 of the Commissioners and its Appendix. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE 
 DEANS AND CHAPTERS. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 Page 9. Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — We know of no right which has ever been 
 claimed by the Bishop or disputed by the Chapter. 
 
73 
 
 D AN AND CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL's. 
 
 Q. — What aro the relations between the Ijishop and Pago 38. 
 the Chapter as defined by statutes, charter or composi- 
 tion ? 
 
 Q. — What are tlie riglits of the Bishop with respect to 
 tlie Cathedral Clnn-ch ? 
 
 A. — The Bishop is the Visitor. 
 
 DEAN AND CIIAPTEU OF DUIillAJI. 
 
 Q. — What are the powers of the Visitor ? 
 
 A. — To visit in person or by his Visitor, to examine Pageca, 
 on oath the Dean, the Canons, the ]\Iinor Canons, and all 
 the officers of the Church, to punish and reform and to 
 do all such tilings necessary for the rooting out of vice 
 as are known to belong to the office of Visitor ; and all 
 the above mentioned are, as to all the premises, bound to 
 obey him. 
 
 Q. — What are the relations between the Bishop and 
 the Chapter as defined by charter, statutes or composi- 
 tion? 
 
 A. — The relations of the Bishop to the Chapter are 
 not expressly defined by charter, statute, or composition. 
 They are considered indeed to be the relations of a body 
 having certain duties to perform, and living under cer- 
 tain statutable rules and regulations, to the authority 
 appointed by the Crown to secure the performance of 
 those duties and the observance of those rules and resru- 
 lations. But even these are relations to the Bishop as 
 Visitor rather than as Bishop. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect 
 to the Cathedral Church ? 
 
74 
 
 A, — The rights of the Bishop with respect to the 
 Cathedral Cliurch are: — To appoint the Canons and the 
 Honorary Canons, to receive the pre-eminence in honour 
 and dignity before the Dean, tiio Canons, and all the 
 oiHcers of the Ciiurch, to ofiiciate in the Cathedral when- 
 ever it may please him to do so, either in the service, oi- 
 in preaching, or in the burial of the dead, and to deliver 
 the benediction whenever he may be present. 
 
 DEAN AND GHAPTER OF TTINCIIESTER. 
 
 Page 81. Q^ — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — None, except as Visitor. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPl'ER OF WELLS. 
 
 Page 102. Q, — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — We know of no absolute rights of the Bishop with 
 respect to the Cathedral Church, but we are on every 
 occasion ready to pay every deference to his wishes. 
 
 DEA j; AND CHAPTER OF CARLISLE. 
 
 Page 120. Q- — What are the relations between the Bishop and 
 
 the Chapter, as defined by charter, statutes or composi- 
 tion? 
 
 A. — The Bishop of Carlisle is Visitor, and has power 
 to preach in the Cathedral when he pleases. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 the Cathedral Church % 
 
 A, — The question is answered above. 
 
75 
 
 DEAN AND CIIAlTEIi OF CHESTER. 
 
 Q What are the relations l)etween the Bishop and Page 130. 
 
 the Chapter as defiued by cliarter, statutes, or composi- 
 tion? 
 
 A. — The rehition of the Chapter to the Bisliop, as 
 defined })y the charter of Henry VIII, is this : they are 
 the two component parts of the Cathedral Church. 
 
 The relation of the Chapter to the Bishop as Visitor 
 has been described. He is not otherwise referred to in 
 the statutes, except as instituting the Dean and Canons. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — No other definition of tlie rights of the Bishop is 
 given by charter or statutes than those already quoted. 
 No question on this subject has arisen in the Cathedral. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF CHICHESTER. 
 
 Q. — What are the relations between the Bishop a:.id page 150. 
 Chapter, i&c? 
 
 A. — The statutes of the Cathedral must be confirmed 
 by the Bishop to give them vahdity. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The appointment of prebendaries and the use of 
 the church for ordination, besides the rights of a Visitor. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ELY. 
 
 Q, — What are the relations between the Bishop and page 176. 
 Chapter, »&c.? 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect 
 to the Cathedral Church ? 
 
76 
 
 A. — Tlu! JJisliop jippoiiits to t]\o Caiioiirios (two ex- 
 cepted,) and is tlio Visitor of the (Jlmpter, hut there is no 
 statute vvhicli cholines his jiowers in the Cathedral when 
 not acting as Visitoi'. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF EXKTKU. 
 
 Page 193. Tlie relation of the liishop to the Chapter is that of 
 
 Visitor. The rights of tin; IJishop in the Catiiedral are 
 those of r)ishop of tlie See. The Chapter are )H)t aware 
 of any delinition of such rehition by lloyal ciiarter, by 
 the statutes, or any composition. The present Bisiiop 
 hohls with the bishoiJric the dignity and otKce of Treasur- 
 er and a phice of Canonry. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAI»1'EU OF GLOUCESTEK. 
 
 Page 211. Q^ — Wiiat are tlie rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ! 
 
 -4. —The Bishop is entitled to a seat in the Cathedral 
 Church, and is Visitor of the Chapter. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OP BRISTOL. 
 
 Page 221. Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 A. — None by statutes. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF HEREFORD. 
 
 Page 234. Q. — "What are the powers of the Visitor ! 
 
 A. — He is interpreter of the statutes. 
 Q. — Are his general powers modified by any special 
 custom ? 
 
 yl. — His powers are conferred by the statutes. 
 
77 
 
 Q. — What are the relations botweon the Bisliop and 
 the Chapter, &c.? 
 A. — Visitorial. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bisliop with respect to 
 the Cathedral Church? 
 
 A. — Those of a Visitor. 
 
 DEAX AXD CHAl'TEIJ or LICHFIELD. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to Pnge 247. 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The rights of the Bishop with respect to the 
 Cathedral Church are to occupy his Episcopal Throne on 
 the south side of the Choir ; a seat near the Communion 
 Table ; the central stall in the Chapter House, and the 
 Consistory Court on the south side of the south aisle of the 
 Choir; to preach and perform the divine offices in the 
 Cathedral as often as he thinks proper ; to have access to 
 the registry of the Capitular body, and to consult, without 
 payment of any fee, the documents which it contains. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF LINCOLN. 
 
 <?.— What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to Page 202. 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The liishop has the right of pre-eminence in the 
 Cathedral ; he holds his ordinations, visitations, and con- 
 firmations there ; his Consistory Court for the diocese is 
 held in part of tlie Cathedral appropriated to that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF MANCHESTER. 
 
 Q- — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to Page,286. 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
78 
 
 A. — The same as those of the Bishop of Ripon with 
 respect to the Cathedral of Ripou. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF NORWICH. 
 
 Page 204. Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church '? 
 
 A. — He has his throne in which he is installed ; seats 
 for his family and servants. Until 1S50 he appointed 
 certain Sunday preachers from the Diocese, since which 
 time the sermons have been preached by the Dean and 
 Canons. He has his own appointed days of preaching. 
 He frequently assists in the celebration of divine service, 
 and he holds liis ordinations, confirmations and visita- 
 tions in the Choir. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF PETERBOROUGH. 
 
 Page ?,()». Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The right of visiting the Dean and Chapter once 
 in every three years or oftener, if need be, and of preaching 
 in the Cathedral whenever he thinks proper. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF RIPON. 
 
 Page snG Q- — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The Order in Council will show what the rights of 
 the Bishop are with respect to the Cathedral Church. 
 
 This Order in Council is not accessible in this country, 
 but the statutes of the Cathedral based upon it, confirmed 
 in 1844, contain the following provisions : 
 
 " No order or direction respecting the Cathedral, or 
 Page 326. any person or persons belonging thereto or officiating 
 
79 
 
 therein either as a Cathedral or a Parish Church, shall be 
 given, save as hereinafter mentioned, but by the Dean or 
 in his absence by the Canon in residence." 
 
 " None but the appointed clergy of the Cathedral shall, Page 325. 
 otherwise than is mentioned in the order book, olliciate 
 in the discharge of any duty belonging or appertaining 
 thereto, either as a Cathedral or a Parochial Church." 
 
 " The sermons at visitations, confirmations, &c., will be 
 under the direction of the Bisiiop and Archdeacons, who 
 will also themselves occupy the pulpit when they are 
 disclosed to do so, but on all occasions due notice of the Page 32ij. 
 intention is to be given to the Dean, or in his absence to 
 the Canon in residence." " Any other dignitary may be 
 allowed to preach with the like notice and consent." 
 
 " The Minster is used by the parishioners of Ripon to 
 all intents and pui-poses as a Paiish Church, although tlie 
 maintenance of tiie building and the freehold of it belong Page 319. 
 solely to the Dean and Cliapter. All the olilces of the 
 Church are performed within it, the registers are in the 
 Dean's possession, and he performs all the duties of a 
 parish priest with the assistance of the two vicars who 
 act under him as his curates in the parish." 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ROCHESTER. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of a Bishop with respect to Page 357. 
 tlie Cathedral Church ? 
 
 A. — The general supervision of the capitular body as 
 implied by the statute giving visitcrial power. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF SALISBURY. 
 
 In this Cathedral the Bishop is a prehendury and a 
 Canon. 
 
 Q. — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to Page 419. 
 the Cathedral Church ? 
 
80 
 
 A. — The Bishop has the right to celebrate the Holy 
 Communion. 2. The Bishop, at any rate by long custom, 
 holds his visitations, confirmations and ordinations in the 
 Cathedral Church. 3. There is a table by which provision 
 is made for sermons for all the Sundays and chief festivals 
 w^itli the exception of Holy Tlmrsday, but no days are 
 set apart for the Bishop ; whether this omission implies 
 or negatives any claim of right, we know not. 4. The 
 Bishop's Court has been ever held in some part of the 
 Catliedral. 
 
 DEAN AND CIIAPTEli OF WORCESTER. 
 
 I'age 451. Q- — What are the rights of the Bishop with respect to 
 
 the Cathedral Churcli ? 
 
 A. — We are not aware of any, except those included in 
 his ofhce of Visitor. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OE WESTMINSTER. 
 
 Page 4G1. " The Church of Westminster being a Collegiate Church 
 
 and not a Cathedral, and being also a Royal peculiar, is 
 not subject to Episcopal jurisdiction. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER OF YORK. 
 
 Page 25. Q. — What are tlie rights of the Bishop, with respect 
 
 to the Cathedral Church. 
 
 A. — The Dean and Chapter htive no peculiar defini- 
 tion of these relations to state. 
 
 After tiie Deans and Chapters of all the Cathedrals of 
 England had been examined, evidence was taken from 
 some of the Bishops. The following extracts will show 
 their opinions as to their rights. 
 
81 
 ANSWERS OF THE BISHOPS. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD. 
 
 " The Dearij either by himself, ot in conjunction with Page 581, 
 '^ the Chapter, has (so far as I li.now) the direction of the 
 '' services there, the appointment of the persons con- 
 '' nected witli them, and the administration of everything 
 " belonging to the Cathedral Church : and I see no reason 
 ^'why the exercise of this power should be transferred to 
 '^ the Bishop, or exercised by the Dean in conjunction,.' 
 *' with him." 
 
 THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 "The Bishop should, I think, have the option of 
 " preaching when he sees fit in the Cathedral Church, 
 ^'giving due notice of his intention to the Dean or 
 " Canon in residence ; and he should avail himself of his Page 583, 
 '" power occasionally, or on certain stated days. That he 
 " should usually preach there I do not think, believmg 
 " that his influence will be more beneficially exercised 
 " by preaching frequently in the parish churches in 
 " the diocese. At Lincoln Cathedral but one turn in the 
 '^ year falls to the Bishop; and that not as Bishop but as: 
 " Canon of Buckden." 
 
 BISHOP OF CARLISLE. 
 
 " I am not aware that any closer connection between Page 566. 
 " the Bishop and the Cathedral is either practicable or 
 " desirable." 
 
 BISHOP OF SALISBURY. 
 
 " I cer^^ainly do think that there is room for improve- Page 592. 
 ^' ment in the relation of the Diocesan to his Cathedral. 
 
82 
 
 "His present relation is that of having extraordinary 
 ''jurisdiction as Visitor, but not ordinary jurisdiction as 
 "Bishop. lie has not in consequence any right to 
 
 •" preach, or to give any such directions as he might do 
 
 •" in any other church in his diocese." 
 
 BISHOP OF WORCESTER. 
 
 " So completely lias custom vested all control over the 
 
 Page 596. " Cathedral in the Dean, that it is the invariable custom 
 
 "at Worcester for the Bishop to ash leave of the Dean 
 
 " before he holds an ordination in the Cathedral. I have 
 
 " never objected to this." 
 
 CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL, OXFORD. 
 
 The answers of the Dean and Chapter to the Commis- 
 sion are too diffuse to abstract, and scarcely apply to the 
 present question. The Bishop of Oxford is not even 
 Visitor of this Cathedral, and it can only be visited by 
 the Crown. The Bishop's " Cathedra " is there, and when 
 a vacancy occurs the letters missive of the Crown (congd 
 d'elire) are directed to the Dean and Canons, who go 
 through the form of election usual in England. 
 
 From the preceding extracts a clear idea may be 
 gained as to what are the usual rights of an English Bis- 
 hop in the Cathedral Church of his Diocese. There 
 are no churchwardens in a Cathedral and it is evi- 
 dent that the freehold of the fabric and the entire govern- 
 ment of such churches is in a corporation styled the Dean 
 and Chapter, of which the Bishop is not a member. 
 This corporation is always convoked by the Dean. In 
 capitular business the Bishop has no voice, unless he 
 Page 41G. happens to hold a place of Canonry. Upon special occa- 
 sions the Dean is obliged to summon a Chapter upon the 
 
83 
 
 mandate of the Bishop, but, although the Commissioners 
 reported that it was desirable that the Bishop himself Rojai Com' 
 should have the power to summon the Chapter, no change Repon p. viii. 
 was made. 
 
 The Chapter has moreover diocesan functions. It 
 (pro forma) elects the Bishop, but must always elect the 
 nominee of the Crown. By common right and ancient 
 usage the Dean and Cliapter administered the spiritua- 
 lities of a Diocese during the vacancy of a See. This 
 function has now fallen into the hands of the Archbishops, 
 but on the vacancy of an Archiepiscopal See the Dean 
 and Chapter still administer the spiritualities of the 
 Province. In all Dioceses the concurrence of the Dean 
 and Chapter is necessary to confirm the Bishop's leases. 
 The executive Committee of a Canadian Synod corres- 
 pond nearly to the English Chapter in such functions. 
 
 The advisory functions of the Chapter have, for many 
 centuries, fallen into utter desuetude, certainly since the 
 Reformation, and probably since the 14tli century. 
 Some of the Bishops think that this function might be j^eport of 
 revived, but most of them do not. iioyoX Com- 
 
 The conclusion is therefore evident that the Corpora- 
 tion in Christ Church which corresponds (tvithin the ivalls 
 of the church) to the English Corporation of Dean and 
 Chapter is the Rector of the Parish. The Dean and 
 Chapter of Montreal are not an incorporated body — they 
 own no church — and their functions (if such there be) 
 must be advisory or diocesan, and cannot in any wny 
 pffect the Cathedral Church. They have met not prob.i- 
 bly more than five times during the twenty years ot 
 their existence. No traces of their influence can be found 
 in the Diocese and it is doubtful whether they themselves 
 have any records of their doings in the shape of minutes. 
 In Canada the Synod (a much more primitive body than 
 
 mission. 
 
84 
 
 a Chapter) performs those advisory functions which in 
 the middle apjes were appropriated to Chapters. If then 
 it be now desired that tlie Dean and Canons sliould per- 
 form the functions of a modern Enghsh chapter, it will 
 be necessary to obtain an Act of Parliament to abolish 
 the Rector ; but if it be desired that they should perform 
 the functions of a medieval chapter, it will be necessary 
 to obtain an Act to abolish the Synod. 
 
 Regarding their stalls it sliould be observed that, 
 although the freehold of the cimrch is in the Rector, the 
 allotment of seats is, by the law of Canada, in the Rector 
 and Churchwardens, wlio are a corporate body empowered 
 to that end. It is the placing of the Bishop's seat in a 
 
 Hook's Church church which creates it a Cathedral — nothing else is 
 
 Dictionary, j-equired for the complete definition of the word. 
 
 tronary. It must be evident from these extracts that, in a Cathe- 
 
 dral the rights of a Bishop in England are very limited. 
 If any doubt can remain, the following extract from the 
 first Report made by the Commissioners must remove it: 
 
 Pj^ _j^ " There is no express provision for the Bisliop's taking 
 
 " part in the Divine Service, nor any definition of his 
 "r"'j:htsand duties, as regards the Cathedral Church ex- 
 '' ctpt as Visitor, which office is generally assigned to 
 " him ' 
 
 In their third and final report the Commissioners make 
 various recommendations, and among others the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 " That it be made clear by declaratory enactments 
 
 Page XIV. " that the Bishop has the right of preaching, and of per- 
 " forming all the ordinances and ceremonies of the Church 
 " in the Cathedral whenever he shall think fit." 
 
 If Bishops in England have the powers claimed in 
 Canada, why did the Commissioners ask for the above 
 enactment ? No such enactment was in fact made. 
 
APPENDIX D. 
 
 A maxim lias often been cited in common conversation 
 on this case which, not having appeared in the correspon- 
 dence, did not properly call for notice in the Report. It 
 is " that the Cathedral is the Parish Church of the 
 *' Diocese." Sir Robert Phillimore comments on the 
 maxim in the Exeter Reredos case. He says : *' It is not 
 ^' to be supposed that the maxim that the Cathedral is the 
 ■*' Parish Church of the Diocese would entitle all the 
 ''' inhabitants of the Diocese to be cited. It could not be 
 *' seriously maintained that the Dean and Chapter of St. 
 ^' Paul's must obtain a faculty from the Bishop's Consis- 
 ^^ tory to render legal the embellishments now in process 
 '^ of being effected in their Cathedral, in which case all 
 " the parishioners of London (and indeed of the whole 
 •" Diocese) would have a right to be cited before the 
 ■' faculty issued." 
 
 The absurdity of attaching any practical value to a 
 vague maxim of that sort is evident ; for if all the inha- 
 bitants of the Diocese of London had a voice in the 
 arrangements of the Cathedral of St. Paul's the work 
 •would soon stop. 
 
 There is this to be said regarding an English Cathedral 
 that it has no parish of its own and therefore might in 
 some respects be imagined to belong to the Diocese ; but 
 Christ Church has always had a distinct Parish defined 
 by law. The Synod (having procured an Act of Legis- 
 
86 
 
 lature for tliat purpose^ luis recently curtailed the Parish 
 of Montreal to less than one-tenth of its original limits ; 
 so that in fact a less area has been assigned to Christ 
 Church than has been granted to some churches one half 
 its size. Of this area a large portion on the one hand is in 
 the business part of the city where there are few dwellings, 
 and a large portion upon the other is covered by the 
 Mountain Park. If it be desired now to extend the Parish 
 over the whole Diocese another Act might perhaps be got 
 to enable the Synod to go to the other extreme. 
 
APPENDIX E. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 BiSHOi's Court, April 27tl), 1874. 
 My DEAR Baldwin, 
 
 You will not I think be surprised when I tell you that 
 my connection with the Cathedral is becoming more and 
 more embarrassing, and until some fresh arrangement is 
 made I feel that I cannot attend the service with any de- 
 gree of comfort. 
 
 I allude to the entire ignoring of my position in what 
 I have always wished to consider as the Cathedral Church 
 of my Diocese. 
 
 There is some idea of bringing the matter before the 
 Synod; but before encouraging such a step I feel that it 
 will be better to call our Chapter together, when I could 
 speak more freely and amicably of the grounds of my 
 complaint. 
 
 I propose therefore to call a meeting in the Chapter 
 House, on Wednesday, May the 20th. I name that day, 
 as I think it will be more convenient than any other. 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 A. Montreal. 
 
88 
 
 May 2nd, 1S74. 
 
 My DEAR Lord, 
 
 I received on Thursday evening your letter of the 
 27th, and most sincerely regret tiiat your Lordship shoidd 
 see any cause in the present management of the Cathe- 
 dral to interfere with your pleasure in attending, or to 
 lead you to withdraw your friendly sympathies. 
 
 liefore calling the meeting of the Chapter to which 
 you allude, I would take it as a kindness if your Lord- 
 ship would freely state in writing that whicii you consid- 
 er to be a reasonable ground of complaint, in order that, 
 if possible, a speedy and amicable solution of the dilHculty 
 may be arrived at. 
 
 With all respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Maurice S. Baldwin. 
 The ]\Iost Rev. 
 
 The ]\Ietropolitan. 
 
 Bishop's Court, May 2nd, 1874. 
 
 My dear Baldwin, 
 
 However unwilling I might be to enter into parti- 
 culars on paper, your request that I should do so is so 
 reasonable that I cannot refuse it, and I am sure you 
 will prefer that I should frankly tell you what my griev- 
 ances are respecting the Cathedral. 
 
 First, however, let me say that there are many little 
 things which have from time to time annoyed me, as 
 indicative of a wish to exalt the Parochial character of 
 
89 
 
 the Church, at the expense of its Cnthednil cliaracter, and 
 which I cannot mention in writing. 
 
 But tlie mam points wiiich I complain of are the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 1. That as Bisiiop of the Diocese I do not enjoy the 
 right of preaciiing in my own Cathedral, or of introduc- 
 ing a preacher when I desin; to do so ; hut I am forced to 
 make the proposal subject to a refusal. 
 
 The inconvenience of this 1 specially felt two months 
 ago, when, after having preached a sermon on Pid)lic 
 Worship which I proposed to continue on a subsefpient 
 .Sunday, you threw an ohst;icle in the wiy (intentionally 
 or unintentiouidly) which made me resolve ncner again 
 to subject myself to a similar olyection. I feel that in 
 my own Cathedral this should not have occurred. 
 
 2. That inasmuch as the Ciithedral is my proper 
 church, andl nuist Uiieds be specially interested in all its 
 ministrations, there has been little or no consideration of 
 my wishes either as to the mode of conducting the ser- 
 vices, or as to the introduction of fresh members of the 
 clerical stafh During the late Dean's incumbency it was 
 otherwise in both these respects. 
 
 3. That my position in the Chancel has, especially of 
 late, been extremely distasteful, owing to the irreverent 
 conduct of certain of the Choir, which must be very dis- 
 turbing to any one who wishes to take part in the service. 
 Of this I have more than once complained to you, but 
 without the least effect. 
 
 4. That I have on several occasions made suggestions 
 for the improvement of the Cathedral worship, but these 
 liave been disregarded, and no steps taken to bring them 
 
90 
 
 before the proper authorities ; whereas it would have 
 been but an act of courtesy to have done so. 
 
 5. That the position of the Dean and Canons has of 
 late been scarcely recognized, their stalls having been 
 virtually obliterated by the erection of new seats for the 
 Rector and his assistants in a prominent, but totally dis* 
 tinct part of the church, and the capitular stalls having 
 been gradually absorbed by the choir. 
 
 6. That for many months past no pains have been 
 taken by the Cathedral clergy for the decent celebration 
 of Divine Service on week days, as was always the case 
 previous to your incumbency, and according to the pre- 
 vaihng custom in all Cathedi ds. 
 
 These are some of my main complaints, which at your 
 request I have put upon paper ; but there are many 
 things which have combined painfully to convince me 
 that the feeling which now prevails with those who 
 have the management of the Church is to build it up in 
 its Rectorial capacity, but gradually to divest it of its 
 original Cathedral character, ignoring as much as possible 
 the presence and authority of the Bishop. 
 
 I send you my grievances in the same spirit as that in 
 which you asked for them. 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 ' A. Montreal. 
 
 The claims of the Bishop are as follows: — 
 1. That, in accordance with the Queen's Patent, the 
 Parish Church, called Christ Church, shall always be re- 
 cognized as "the Cathedral Church of the said Bishop of 
 Montreal." 
 
 . > 
 
91 
 
 2. That the Bishop's rights either himself to preacli in 
 the Cathedral, or occasionally to introduce a stranger, if 
 he shall desire it, on giving due notice to the Rector, be 
 hereby admitted. 
 
 3. That the ordering of the Services in the Cathedral, 
 and the appointment of the clergy thereof, shall be sub- 
 ject to the approval of the Bishop. 
 
 4. That of the stalls hitherto assigned to the Dean 
 and Canons, a sufficient number shall be appropriated 
 for theiv exclusive use, and shall be kept distinct from 
 those used by the Choir. 
 
 5. That due provision shall be made for Daily Service 
 in the Cathedral, during at least seven months of the 
 year, according to the custom prevailing heretofore in 
 this Church, as well as in Cathedrals generally. 
 
 In order to bring matters to an amicable issue, the 
 Bishop has drawn up the above claims, which he feels 
 to be the minimum of what he may fairly require, and 
 to which he conceives that the Rector (having the dig- 
 nity and well-being of the Cathedral at heart, as well as 
 himself) should be willing to assent. 
 
 The Bishop desires further to state his decided opinion, 
 that the present location of the Rector and his assistants, 
 in a block of stalls, at a distance from the Choir, from the 
 Capitular Stalls, and from the Episcopal Throne, is very 
 objectionable, as tending to create a distinction between 
 the Parochial and Cathedral Clergy, and effectually 
 separating the Choir from the main body of worshippers. 
 
 i !; 
 
92 
 
 Bishop's Court, May 11, 1874. 
 
 My Dear Baldwin, 
 
 As I leave for Bedford this afternoon, only returning 
 here to-morrow evening for one night, I must remind 
 you that I have received no answer to my last letter. I 
 am anxious to receive your reply, as I shall be guided 
 by it as to whether it will be desirable to send out no- 
 tices for a Chapter meeting on the 20th. As my demands 
 were as moderate as I could make them in justice to 
 myself, I hoped that you would have felt desirous at once 
 to concur in my proposals. 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 A. Montreal. 
 
 Montreal, May 12th, 1874. 
 
 My de .r Lord, 
 
 Finding my answer to your last communication 
 may be delayed a few days further, owing to my anxiety 
 to give it all due consideration, I write in the meantime 
 to explain that which, I grieve to say, has caused your 
 Lordship trouble. You refer to a sermon which you 
 proposed to preach, and in the way of which, you say, L 
 intentionally, or unintentionally, threw an obstacle. 
 
 Now, my Lord^ I can only say I acted unintentionally 
 in the matter ; and the furthest idea from my mind was 
 that of either opposing or slighting you. Seeing, how- 
 ever, by your Lordship's letter that I really did wound 
 
93 
 
 you, I offer you my most sincere and humble apology, as- 
 1 have no other wish than to act with all due courtesy 
 and respect. 
 
 Your obdt. servant, 
 
 Maurice S. Baldwin. 
 
 ]\Iy dear Baldwin, 
 
 I willingly accept your explanation about the sermon, 
 and believe that you did not intentionaUy prevent my 
 preaching it. 
 
 As some of our Canons live at a distance, and will 
 require a few days' notice in the event of a meeting on 
 the 20th, I hope that you will let me hear from you at 
 Lachine on Saturday. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 A. Montreal.. 
 Bishop's Court, May 13, 1874. 
 
 Montreal, May 14th, 1874. 
 My DEAR Lord, .^ 
 
 In answer to a communication received from your 
 Lordship on Friday the 8th of May, through the Very 
 Reverend the Dean, I beg to submit the following reply,, 
 humbly hoping your Lordship wiE admit the justice of 
 my several conclusions. 
 
94 
 
 As the subjects brought forward by your Lordship are 
 of the gravest importance, I sliall consider them seriatim. 
 
 Claim No. 1. — '' That in accordance tvith ihe Queen' s 
 Patent, the Parish Church, called Christ Chnrch, shall he 
 always recognized as the Cathedral Church of the said 
 Bishop of Montreaiy 
 
 In reply to this I may state that, not having seen the 
 Queen's Patent, I cannot affirm more than that I am will- 
 ing to recognize the legal rights of the Bishop of Mon- 
 treal in all matters. 
 
 Claim No. 2 — " That the Bishop's right, either himself 
 to preach in ihe Cathedral, or occasionally to introduce a 
 stranger, if he should desire, on giving due notice to the 
 Rector, he herehy admitted.''^ 
 
 I cannot admit these claims, as they interfere with the 
 rijjhts of the Rector of the Parish of Montreal under the 
 Patent. In order, however, to avoid all mistakes in the 
 future, I promise, as an act of courtesy, to furnish your 
 Lordship, on the first of every month, with a blank form 
 of the services to be held in the Cathedral throughout 
 that period, on which your Lordship may write down 
 when it will be your pleasure to preach, which appoint- 
 ments shall be loyally observed. 
 
 With regard to strangers, while I shall ever be desi- 
 rous to meet your Lordship's wishes, occasions might 
 arise when I would be compelled to assert my right of 
 objection. 
 
 Claim No. 3. — " That the ordering of the services in the 
 Cathedral, and the appointment of the Clergy thereof, shall 
 he suhject to the approval of the Bishop." 
 
95 
 
 As this claim is wholly at variance with the liberty 
 granted to the Rector by the Patent, it is inadmissible. 
 
 Claim No. 4. — " That of the stalh hitherto assigned to 
 the Dean and Cations, a sufficient number shall he appro- 
 priated for their exclusive use, and shall he licpt distinct 
 from those used hij the Choir." 
 
 On all occasions when the Cathedral Chapter may be 
 expected at Divine Service, due provision will be made 
 in the Stalls for their accommodation. 
 
 Claim No. 5. — " That due provision shall he made for 
 daily Service in the Cathedral, during at least seven months 
 of the year, according to the custom prevailing heretofore in 
 the Church, as ivell as in Cathedrals generally." 
 
 It is my wish and intention to hold daily Service in the 
 Cathedral as heretofore. 
 
 Note A. — " The Bishop desires further to state his deci- 
 ded opinion that the present location of the Hector and his 
 assistants, in a Nock of stalls at a distance from the CJioir, 
 from the Capitidar Stalls, and from the Episcopal Throne, 
 is very ohjectionahle, as tending to create a distinction 
 hetween the Cathedral and the Parochial Clergy, and effect- 
 ually separating the Choir from the main hody of the ivor- 
 sliippers." 
 
 The seats now used by the Rector and his assistants 
 were erected by the Church authorities for the purpose 
 of giving more suitable accommodation and without any 
 intention of creating a distinction between the Cathedral 
 and Parochial Clergy. 
 
 I would also respectfully disclaim all idea whatever of 
 building up the Church in its Rectorial capacity at the 
 expense of its Cathedral character. 
 
96 
 
 Note B. — " That I have on several occasions made sug- 
 (jcstions for the improvement of the Cathedral ivorship, hut 
 these have been disregct/rded, andno steps taken to bring them 
 before the proper authorities, tvhereas it woidd have been 
 but an act of courtesy to have done so." 
 
 Of thf suggestions made by your Lordship as to the 
 improvement of the Catliedral worship, some could only 
 be settled by myself; others needing the consent of 
 the Church authorities, I found had already been inves- 
 tigated, but, ©Vising to the fact that the approval of the 
 proprietors of pews was necessary, were considered im- 
 practicable. 
 
 Your Lordship has been pleased to inform me of your 
 intention to convene a meeting of the Dean and Chapter 
 in the Chapter House of the Catliedral. 
 
 Now, my Lord, while I do not wish to exercise my 
 right of objection to the use of the Cathedral building, 
 your Lordship will readilj'^ perceive I cannot attend the 
 meeting convened for the purposes above specified. 
 
 With all respect. 
 
 Your Lordship's obedient servant, 
 
 Maurice Scollard Baldwin, 
 
 Rector of the Parish of Montreal. 
 
 To The Most Rbv. the Metropolitan. 
 
 ' Lachine, May 18th, 1874. 
 
 My dear Canon Baldwin, * • 
 
 It grieves me to say that your letter of May the 14th 
 is anything but satisfactory to me. The spirit in which 
 it is written only confirms me in the opinion, which I 
 
97 
 
 had [ulrcady expressed, that your aim seems to be to 
 " build up the Parochial, rather than the Cathedral cha- 
 racter of your Church." 
 
 As regards the first point mentioned, namely the recog- 
 nition of the Church as " the Cathedral Church of the 
 Bishop," since you seem unwilling to accept the state- 
 ment without having it verified, I herewith send you a 
 printed copy of the patent, from wliich you will see that 
 I copied it correctly. 
 
 As to my preaching in the Cathedral, I cannot consent 
 to do so as a mere matter of courteous permission, though 
 I am persuaded that the courtesy you promise I should 
 always have received at your hands. Had you assented 
 to my proposal, I need hardly say thai, judging from the 
 past, you might have felt very sure that I should never 
 have unduly pressed my claim, either by desiring to 
 preach oftener than I have hitherto done, or by not cor- 
 dially consulting you as to your own wishes. During 
 the late incumbency, although your predecessor urged 
 me to claim the Pulpit whenever I felt so disposed, you 
 yourself will bear testimony to the fact that I never 
 availed myself of that privilege without first consulting 
 you as to your feelings and convenience. 
 
 You have further declined to accord to me the privi- 
 lege of offering the Cathedral Pulpit to a brother Bishop, 
 or to any other stranger. This being the case, I feel 
 that I cannot ask permission to do so with the contingen- 
 cy of being refused, an event which you yourself contem- 
 plate as possible. 
 
 In the ordering of the services, I desired some conseuiing 
 voice ; for it is surely an anomaly to regard the Church 
 as " the Cathedral Church of the Bishop," and yet to 
 
98 
 
 make him an entire ciplier in this respect. And here 
 again I think you know me well enough to repose a 
 fuller confidence in me than your objection implies. 
 
 Also as to the appointment of the Catheorai clergy, 
 can it be right that the Bishop should not even be con- 
 sulted since the choice of a fit or unfit person would so 
 closely affect him, and since also, from his official position, 
 he has a more intimate knowledge of the clergy than 
 others. 
 
 I speak feelingly on this point, as I understand that 
 you have recently engaged a clergyman to act as one of 
 the permanent Cathedral staff without even mentioning his 
 tuime to me. In the present instance it so happens that 
 I know nothing against his personal character, bul rather 
 the reverse. It might, however, have been otherwise. 
 
 "With regard to the Dean and Canons, I must still insist 
 npon their claims to have special stalls allotted to them, 
 as was the case during my predecessor's time, so that 
 they may occupy them whenever they are present at any 
 service, instead of depending upon casual provision being 
 made for them on special occasions. I presume that the 
 present stalls were originally erected with that intent. 
 You will bear in mind that I only asked that a certain 
 number of these should be appropriated to them. 
 
 And now I must close this correspondence, which was 
 entered upon because I felt myself sorely aggrieved, and 
 because I hoped that you would meet me in a generous 
 and fair spirit — the same spirit that I have (as I think 
 you will acknowledge) ever shown towards you. I also 
 conceived that you would have desired to make an equi- 
 table adjustment of the claims both of the Rectory and 
 the Cathedral, and that you would have shown a little 
 more anxiety to place your Bishop in a position becom- 
 
99 
 
 ir)g his oOlce, instead of rondoring liiin dependent on the 
 courtesy of the Rector. lam very sorry that in these 
 respects our correspondence has failed. 
 
 Yours very faitlifully, 
 
 A. MONTUKAL. 
 
 1 regret that you decline to ..Hend tlic meeting of tlie 
 Chapter which I have called. I should not have pressed 
 you to do so against your inclination, but I think you 
 will see that you were hardly right in your refusal.