^ ^.^.•^ .0>^.. \f^ ^^^\% IMAGi: EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4. ,^ fe LO I.I Li]2^ |2.5 1^ IM 112.2 I |;£ 12.0 11.25 11.4 6" 1.6 m. v: •^ w // f/ y Hiotographic Sciences Corporation ^^ i\ iV <^ mv \ ',*. V 4ffS 4^. Ci^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 MiS- CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ^ :\ \ «.'•. o' °<* Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas et bibliographiquas The Institute han attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la diatorsion la long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible da se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvant modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mithode normals de fiimage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagias Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies ges discoloured, stained or foxe< ges d6color4es, tacheties oy piqu^es ges detached/ Pages ditach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigala de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Saule idition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or lamina'^ed/ I 7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ lyl Ps, ry\ Pages detached/ r~71 Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ r~n Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellament obscurcies par un feuillet d'errats. unf; pelure, etc., ont iti filmies ii nouveau de facon A obtanir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmsignifie "A SUIVRE '. le symbols V signifie "FiN". Lea cartee, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fllmte i des taux de rMuction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film^ i partir do Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche & drof Scotland set up a claim to a share '* of the pro- ftSv'* This claim was immediately followed by others, from the different sects of Protestant Dis- senters in these Provinces ^ and I shall shew, in the sequel, that they have all an equal *« ri(/hi*' with the sect known by the name of the Kirk of Scotland. « They (the Clergy of the Church of England) style themselves (you say) *« the Pro- testant Clergy," as if they were the only Pro- testant Clergy — their Church ''the established Church of tlie Mother Country," as if it were the only established church of the Mother coun- try." By the expression <* they style themselves," vou evidently mean that they have assumed a ti- tle derived from no authority but their own. But, IS this true? Let those acts of the Imperial Par- liament, whicli have conferred on them, and on them alone, the title of "the Protestant Clergy," answer the question. That they have styled their Church «* the Established Church of the Mothev Countri/t''^ as if it were the onli/ established church ©f the Mother Country is false, in every sense of the words. They are, no where, nor have they ever been, so styled. They ai*e indeed styled \ 1 ; "tlie Established Cliurch of England," and "the United Church of England and Ireland/* and Ihejr, of course, use the titles which have been con- Ferred on them, by the proper, constituted autlior- ities of the Realm. *« These positions are not supported by fadts and fair induction, but by colours of reasoniag^ adduced with boldness and art." Here, for oiKe, you have told some truth. The positions, of which you speak, are none of ours — tliey are your own— and I admit that they are not supported by ^« facts and fair induction," not even by " colours of Ma- soning; adduced," certainly, «'with boldness," buC no " art." There is a «« colour" of art runniaiff through your whole production, but you have bk[ it on so thickly and so unskilfully that, iinfortoi. nately, little else can be discerned. In page 14 of your Letter, you say that idhe 'Clergy of the Church of England " must blaaiffle themselves for exciting tliis discussion, by didr greediness and intolerance." I have already pm- ved this to be false ; but I must give an additional proof that the Clergy of the Church of Englaimd did not « excite this discussion," from your owa mouth. In the very next page, you say ; « why bur legislators on the north of the Tweed, aM especially why the Clergy of the Church of Soot- land have hitherto silently allowed the rights,, privileges, and advantages of their Church, secifi- red to them, as a birth right, by the valour amd virtue of their fathers, to be taken from them m the North American Colonies, by art and ini«^ ence, is not easily conjectured." Truly you are a most noble champion ! ! ! Knowing that the Lc gislatorsand Clergy of the Church of ScotkiaJ have hU/ierto (i. e. previously to the commejao©* taieUl of this discussion) sikntly allowed their rights, privileges, &c. to be taken from them ;-- knowing, too, that these pretended rights, prmle- ges and advantages were the identical rights priv- ileges and advantages of which the Clergy of the Church of England were " hitherto'* ui the quiet possession, pray how could you attribute the exci- ting cause to them? I^eople do not usually provoke an attack upon their right to property, of which they have been long in quiet possession. No, sir, the «« greediness** of the Clergy of the Church of Scotland was the exciting cause of this discussion ; & your assertion is, therefore, a falsehood so gross, so wilful and malicious, that I know not "'hich to plate pre-eminent, the wickedness of the heart that could have conceived it, or the folly of the fool that could have expected it to gain credence. « A portion of the profit, arising from the allot- ment of the seventh part of the lands, in Canada, would plant ministers and schoolmasters of the Church of Scotland, in every township in thesie Colonies, and an University at Kingston or Mont- real '" This would, indeed, be a most splendid effect of this " munificent appropriation," were it but true. I consider this false statement however an error rather of the head than of the heart— but sins of ig- norance should be corrected, as well as wdful trans, o-ression. I shall therefore endeavour to set you ricrht, by proving, that, so far is a portion ot the Clergy lands from being sufficient for the crreat purposes you have mentioned, even the ?« whole profits" never can be more than sufficient for the maintenance of a Clergyman, (let alone the schoolmasters and University) in "every township in these Colonies,"^ The average num. \l 9 ber of clergy lots, of 200 acres, m each township, in Lower Canada, (for we have no authentic pub- hshed statement of the number, in Upper Cana- da) is fifteen, very nearly. In order to irive to a Clergyman, "ill eVery township," the same sti- pend which the Government of England thinks necessary for his support, viz : £225 currency, each lot must yield a revenue of £ 1 5. Comparinc: this with the average price now obtained for smm few of the best of these lots, viz : £^ los. per an- num J I may, I think, venture to say that neither you nor I, though we should even pass the age Of fourscore years, can expect to see the day when the « whole profits" will be sufficient for the main- tenance of a Clergyman " in every township in these Colonies." But, let us take up the ques- tion in a more positive point of view. Let us sun- pose every clergy lot, in any given township, to be leased; and let us suppose the average price to be £2 10s. which is very nearly double the sum that can be actually obtained— what then would be the income of the clergyman situated xn this given township ? Why truly ! it would be the enormous sum of ^^37 10s. I cannot brin^ myself to believe that even ^ow, with all the dit interested feeliy disphyed in your letter, could be satisfied with this sum. But you will perhaps say ; the lands will rise in value— and I admit it— but what is to cause this rise ? I apprehend it must be an increase of population. Upon this principle of the rise of land keeping pace with the increase of population, you must also have a pro- portionate increase of ministers— foi-, before we • can suppose all the clergy lots, in any given town- ship, to be leased, we must suppose that township to be fully settled— and, under these circumstan. 10 ces, no man will, I apprehend, think the labours of a clergyman too much for such a population. Double that population, and double, with it, if you please, the revehde of the Reserves, but you must also double the Parson. Had you looked a little more minutely into the qtiestion you have so pompously undertaken to settle, you might have avoided the errbr into which you have here fallen, as well as some others, which 1 shall point out, be- fore J have done with you. After this display of J^our splendid establishment of school masters, ministers and University, you triumphantly ex- claim— "And "what have these effected in Scot- land since 1688 ? they have changed the Scottish peasantry from being poor, ignorant, idle and wicked, to be comfortable, industrious, enlighten- ed and moral/' Your readers must have been at some loss to guess what effects could have been produced in ^Scotland, so long ago as 1688, by ministers and schoolmasteis in *« every township in these Colonies^** and by "an University at Kingston or Montrea!" which have no existence in 1826, had they not been enlightened, by such a shrewd, tnUh4elling gentleman as yourself. "Episcopacy alone (you say) caniK)t produce these effects." I agree with you — she would, cer- tainhr, need the aid of so skilful a man. midwife as " a Protestant of the Church of Scotland" to ena- ble her to bear the pangs of bringing forth such a monstrous mass of necromancy. «« The genius of Episcopacy is in opposition to the genius of the people." I trust, sir, it ever will be so. We have-the highest authority for beheving that what you are pleased to term " the genius of the peo- ple," which, I suppose, is included in "every ima- ^ation of the thoughts af the heart," is "only 11 .' ceSvn ^' /J\'. S«»!«« of Episcopacy" ted hv fhl^ •' °ft''^ people" »he was constitu- ^d, by the inspired Apostles of that Divine Mas worM ^W "^f^f ^' f'^ ^''' to tJ'e e-lS of the" tZ-fh Zl *''""\y»" fo"- these two compliments, T io'n f '^^ '?? ^^"y *ere not intended. exDosure fef " P""' ?^ ""^ ^"''Je<=t with the a^S tC frfi r'^ .^ y"""" ^^'^e statements, and then I shal leave the wrtd to judge whether I have not, so far. redeemed my pled-^r dee7Z pZ^I^ '' "°' " ^^"•^erdafe. an Aber- ec^^ng pSte3^^ by peiv """» f rejsDjtenans. i his is something morp iers"ecuterr/r ^'f ^he Presbyterian: e persecutea m this colony. If to r^si^f th*> r.-^ tended "rights" of the ksiyterian ClS/Tn^ Episcopal clergy, and of which they have been sTo7 ffi h" "•' *^"'^* ^""^ undisp^ited p Jss^": sion— If this be persecution, then are the Presbv terians persecuted. Had the clergvof the cS: of Scotland been in possession IFtl^—S fi™ * 1 ^'^'^•>' of the Church of EnHand at of afieSrorT r^,"^'"^' *° deprfve ttm or a snare ot it-~or had a clergrrnan of the Churrh of Sfa" d'r;;;ri ?• ^'^'?™^" ^^ *^ « or Scotland, in the public discharge of his sacred functions, as was done by one of tie latte to o^e of the former not an hundred miles from your own door; then. I admit, you might. wTthsome Rp^ r*" • * "-r ""'"«'" have shouted. ^Tsecutiont mSra « c'y f"'' -!>» have^somettog ""i^ *''.''." '^ . ^^o our of reasoning" for savin.? th-Tt s7e;i of Zs! '"' '"'* ^«^™Pt^d,-on yourpa?t, in! 1'2 J. t come now to the proof of your sophistry. — You have entered into a long, and unnecessary discussion, about the meaning of the term, " a Protestant Clergy," used in the preamble of the 3 1st of His late Majesty. I say unnecessary, be- cause, the preamble of a Bill, if it be ambiguous, can only be explained by its clauses. But, there is a httle unfair dealing in your manner of en- deavouring to make out your point, which, it is necessary to expose. After quoting a pretty long passage from the Sd chap, of the 25th article of the Act of Union, which has no allusion, whate- ver, that I can discern, to the subject in question, you give us the following : " And lastly, that after the decease of Her present Majesty, f whom God long preserve,) the sovereign succeeding to her, in the Royai Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, shall, in all time coming, at his or her accession to the Crown, swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the trut Protestant RelU ^ion; with the government worship and discipline, right and privileges of this Church, as above estab- lished, by the laws of this Kingdom, in prosecu- tion of the claim of right." This last quotation, you have given as being also a part of ch. 2, of the 25th Article — ^but, it happens to be part of the 4th ch. of that article, which is intended mere- ly to exempt the Presbyterians, in Scotland, from taking any oath, inconsistent with the establish- ment of Presbyterianism in that country, — and to oblige the Queen's successors to maintain the same. To have quoted this clause in its proper place, would not have answered your purpose, quite so well as the transposition you have adopt- ed. But, sir, to have quoted it fairly, you should IS hAve toL s it was part of the act passed by the ParHamr of Scotland, securing the establish, ment of Presbyterian Church Government, in that Kin^domy as it stood by ««the fifth act of the first Parliament of King William, and Queen Ma- ry"— and you should have given us the benefit of chap. 8, of the same article ; whereby it would have appeared that the Queen, and her successors, were bound «* to take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve, inviolably, the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, wor- ship, and government thereof, as by law establish- ed, within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, the Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the territories thereunto bdong- ing'' From all this, it would have ben evident that the establishment of the Presbyterian Church Government was confined to that part of her Ma- jesty's dominions, commonly called Scotland — and that the establishment of the Church of Eng- land was secured, in all other parts of her dominons. The first quotation you have made from the act of Union, proves that the Parliament of Scotland, had no other view, with regard to the Church of Scotland, Jthan to secure her establishment, as set- tled by " the fifth act of the first Pariiament of King William and Queen Mary." Surely this gives her no right (and she has had no extension of her privileges since that period, j to an estab- lishment, in any other part of the British Empire. But the same act of union secures the Church of England, as she was then, « by law established." To what extent was she, then, by law established ? assuredly" in all parts of the British empire, except Scotland, or in no part of it. This, sir, is the conclusion at which vou would have arrived, had you been candid, instead of sophistical. You have- ciertainly shown that, in the Act of Union, the terms "Protestant Religion," and "trueProtes- tant religion," are applied indiscriminately to the two churches, but what this has to do with the explanation of the term, « a Protestant Clergy," I am at a loss to discern. — You have not thought proper to enlighten us on this point— I shall there- ibre leave it where it is. In examining "the authority by which *the Clergy of the religion established in England/ claim the whole of the profits accruing from the Clergy Reserves in this country," you have a- dopted a mode remarkable for nothing but disin- genuity. You state that the clauses of the 31st of his late Majesty, which relate to the Clergy, are, m number, eight, viz : the 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 4 1 St and 42d. You proceed to shew, that, in the first three clauses, no particular men- tion is made of " the Clergy of the Church of England ;" and from hence, sagely conclude that on neither of these can they found any exclusive claim to the lands in question. The 38th clause, ^you admit, " chanpes the general term Protestant, for \h^ particular expression Church of England," and this ''change," you should have added, 'is continued through all the clauses, to the 4 1st. I take no notice of the random expressions which may have fallen, in the debate, from any of the members, both because they can have no weight in the question, and because I have some i^uspi- cion that Mr. Fox's speech has not been fairly quoted, since one part of it is wholly unintelligi- ble ; but I have not the means of detecting you m this particular. From this change of terms, you infer that the « framers of the act knew the . 15 ineaning of the language they used and did not apply the term « Protestant" as synonymous with the term "Episcopal." "U/ho has said they did so apply it ? Do they so apply it, in any of the clauses which, you allow, have exclusive reference to the Clergy of the Church of England? it was not necessary so to apply it ; the term " Pro- testant Clergy," was quite sufficient for tiieir purpose. But your grand object, in exhibiting this change of terms, is to induce the world to be- lieve that the Clergy of the Church of England are, here, more particularly designated, in order to point out the manner in which they were to be invested with t\\eiv portion of the lands in ques- tion. But if the " Clergy of the Church of Scot- land" were, also, to have a j[w?-^/ow of these lands, where are the clauses which point out the manner in which they are to be invested with it ? or by what authority, or by whose act or instrumentaU- ty, are they to be put in possession of it ? You have yourself said, they are «* supported by Gov- ernment, in Great Britain," ^s well as « the cler- gy of the Church of England." Surely then, that government, if they include the former in the provisions of the Quebec act, to an equal extent with the latter, would have been equally explicit with both, as to the mode of putting them in pos- session of the intended benefit. The King is the temporal head of both Churches ; why should he not, then, have been empowered, by some clause of the act, to present '* Ministers of the Church of Scotland," to livings, or Parishes endowed by some : V the Clergy lands ? Simply because no such endowment ever was intended. In com- menting on those claus'is which you are pleased u\j s»ay, |i4uviuc iKji mw iUiiiutCiiaiice or uieulergy 1^ ftf the Church of England, particularly, you have attempted to cavil upon the mode in which this provision has been actually bestowed, as differinff irom that which is pointed out, by the act, «* ThI 38th clause (you say,) has not beeen acted upon, in Upper Canada.—Portions of the Clergy Re- serve^ are not set apart to particular Rectories. I he Episcopal Clergymen are not paid in the way pre vided for, by this clause of the act. They are ?did, partly by the Society for the Propagation of Rehgioa in Foreign Parts, and partly from the -profits of the whole of the Clergy Reserves, given to the Episcopal Clergy, but in contradiction to Us letter and spirit, and in direct contradiction to the articks of the Union of Scotland and Eng- land." Now, supposing all this to be true, what has It to do with the question under consideration ? It the clergy of the Church of England have not been endowed with these reserved lands, according to the letter of the act, are the lands thereby fort felted to the Clergy of the Church of Scotland ^ 1 apprehend, even t/ou, who have said so many absurd things, will not maintain such an inference The Clergy of the Church of England, in this colony, are certainly not fully paid, from the profits ot these lands. And why are they not? "The why is plain as way to Parish Church"— be- cause ** the profits" have hitherto amounted to httle or nothing. The Clergy are therefore, almost entirely, paid, by the British Government, and so- ciety, untd such time as '« the profits" shall be sufficient to relieve them from the burden. But how you can make out that this is done contrary to the spirit of the act, unless, indeed, you contem- plate giving the lands to one, and " the profits" to another— or how it ic \n A;^^r.4. — ^.-ij-.x- . ■I 17 to , the « Act ofUbion." unless you tan shew some c^e^ lartds, I confess I am at a loss to deter, mifte. This IS anpther point on whirh voii Iiavp coptend) who have assumed -lie title of Rector' ZSL^T-^'a^T. n^ithe'-been presented, in' ^ed, nor inducted, as provided by this act." tra h whi/!h?' ''^^''"'^ ""'? departures from the truth which escaped my notice, when I was on thesubject of your falsehoods. It happer hat His Majesty has. « by an instrument underX great seal." Constituted, and erected all the ml s^ns and other livings in the Diocese of Que^c' Thy'T^^' "' '^"'=t°"^«' ^ provided in the w»7wwM0^, m language more clearly expressed and not admitting a double meaning." P'^'"'^''' r XLI. Provided always'^ and be it fur- fr enacted by the authority aforesaid, iiiat the several provisions hereinbefore contained, respecting the allotment and appropriation of lands for tlie sup. port ot a Protestant Clergy within the said Provinces, and also respecting the constituting, erecting, and endowing par- sonages, or Rectories, within the said The I J ''°^"?'^^^' and also respecting the pre lUtureoO ^f"'ation of Incumbents or Ministers to Protestant Clergy generally. EpiscopaJ Clergy, iwrticular- gialature of Canada ftxay alter tllia ail»«. m^ntof the same, and also respecting the man. ner m wnich surh Tncnmi>o»^o ^.- ti|- . Listers shall hold and enjoy the suine c ' Vnd, and grant the whole to the Church of Scotland. IS f shall be subject to be varied <"■ '•epeajed bv any express provisions for that pur- .na pise, contained in any act or acts which "? . mav be passed by the Legislative Couu- °^" \ Tand Assembly of the fid Provinces, respectively, and assented to by His Ma- iesty. his heirs, or successors, under the , restriction hereinafter provided. Now, sir. there is nothing contained in this clause of ihe act, « more dearly e^Fessed. oi « less admitting a double meaning." than n any of the clauses you have before dragged into no- tice There is, indeed, something more « clearly expressed/' and not " admitting a double mean- inl" fn the marginal references of the said 4lst Sause. which you have 8^ « u, as the margind references contained in the Act 'tself I ba^e taken the trouble to examine the 31st of Fhs kte Majesty, and, on the margin of *« *'^^"^ clause, l fina instead of what you have quoted, the tollow-, fi" SiL respiting the allotment of lands for the support of a Protestant Clergy, &c. may be varied or repealed by the Legislative Coun- cU and Assembly." but not another syllable.- Yoa must have been hard driven indeed; and Svoui ophisticated ingenuity mj'^t have been exlfausted,^vhen you resorted to this base and naloable falsehood. I forbear to give tuU vent rS feelings at such dishonourable dealing And here' sir, I take my leave of you. 1 intenaea fatve'tXA some notice of J"- -"i— of about the comparative numbers of the Churches oi Sand andlcotland. But the Rev. Mr. Camp- bdT of BelviUe, whom you so infamously slan- dered has giv'en you a sufficient castigation on this subject.' I shall only aaa, inai x usg "v '-- or 19 dcrs to bear in mind, that I have no quarrel with the €hurch of Scotland ; I respect her as sister to the Church of England, and shoulJ be ever ready to defend and support her establishment in Scotland, if necessary. . It is only the conduct of some of her unworthy children in this colony, which I feel myself called upon, in the present case, to expose and condemn. MISOPSEUDES. 1st July, 1826.