^ \^ 1^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A 4^0 ^ 1.0 I.I ^|2£ |25 US 2.2 I: us. 12.0 11.25 III 1.4 III 1.6 7] I? /2 % J> > w 9 Photographic Sdences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 |\ iV ^^ v^^ 4%^^ v^.^^ % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reprodt ction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D \/ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicuide I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reiid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; Various paging. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'ii lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-fttre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de* couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgala de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponible r~T| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~7\ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The ci to the Their poesit of the fiimin Origin begini the la slon, other first p sion, or iilu The la shall c TINUE which Maps, diffprg entirel beginr right a requiri metho 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X • 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Jaire s details ques du It modifier (iger une le filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The Images appeiiring here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated Impression. i/ |u6es L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce h la g4n*rosit4 de: La bibliothdque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont 6t4 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de rexemplaire fiimA, et en conformity avec lea conditions du contrat de filmage. Lea exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont film6s en commen^ant par le premier plat et en termlnant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une emprainte d'impression ou d'lllustratlon, soit par le second plat, seion le cas. Tous lea autres exemplaires originaux sont fllm6s en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'lllustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»•( meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever appliea. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selor le cas: le symbols — ► signlfie "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signlfie "FIN". lire Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at differont reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely irii^iluded In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, os many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Lea certes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de rAduction dIffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cllchA, II est filmA A partir de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant la nombre d'Images nAcesssire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. by errata led to Bnt jne pelure, af on A 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Bish( 01 19 ^ No. n. REPLY TO A SECOND LETT.ER1 OF THE I P And Ulctropoiltun of* Canada, ADDKESSED TO THE Bishops and Clergy of the United Chnroh of England and Ireland in Canada. BT T. HELLMITTH, D.D., ARCHDEACON OP HURON AND ASST. MINISTER OF ST. PAUL>S CATHEDRAL, LONDON, C. W. TO WHICH IS APPENDED t rne, with docu- mentary evidence, which could not be gainsayed, that I should be free from further molestation. But yoir Lordship has seen fit to issue another Pastoral to your Bishops and Clergy, to which I feel mysell compelled to reply. Along with this answer I published your " second letter,'* adopting the same plan as I did wi'h the first, for the simple object that the whole controversy should be before the pid)lio, that all who read may judge from facts as thev real y are, and thus be enabled to give their verdict from a perfect data. If I express myself with perfect freedom and plainness of speech, I trust your Lordship will not interpret it as a want of respect, but as necessary for the protection of my character which you have used your utmost efforts, both in private and in public, to damage and to ruin. I again respectfully submit that no controversy can justify the course your Lordship has adopted, and into which no one simply anxious to vindicate the truth would enter. If your Lordship was simply anxious for the cause of truth, why, before appearing as my public accuser and ilefamer, did you not demand such reparation as the case might have required ? and had I been convinced that what I stated at the Islington Meeting was not in unison with truth, none would have been more ready publicly to retract than myself. But this would not have answered your Lordship^s aim ; and in your eagerness to destroy the man who is evidently in your way, your Lordship < ssurnes a divine prerogative, pro- nouncing " ex-cathedra " as Metropolitan, before the church and the word, that I am influenced in all my labours by the worst of motives, and that my statements therefore are not to be depended upon. Not onlj' is such a course contrary to the plain precepts of the Gospel, but it is also condemned by the ordinary rules which guide men of the world. The first point to which I shall advert is on page 1 of your Lordship's •'second letter," (alluding to the Metropolitan Patent) : •' I can truly say that in the first place I have always wished for free and open discussion whether on that" (i. e. the Patent) *' or any other public measures." I should not have taken notice of this, in any way, had not more than one of the Quebec Delegates to the Provincial Synod directed my attention to this passage, as not being in unison with what we experienced when we met your Lordship more than a year ago, at the residence of the Bishop of Quebec. When some of us stated to your Lordship that we thought the powers in the Patent were excessive, and would be objected to I and (liscMissed in the Synod, you distinctly cxprcHsed your dis- ap|)roval of such a course, and said that you hoped tlie Patent would not he discussed in Synod ; that it was not sent for criticism but for the correction of a mere clerical error, and that it was a voluntary act on your I^ordship's part, to brinf; the s)d»jcct at all before us. For the truth of this, I appeal to (til who met your Lordship on that occasion. So much, my Lord, as to ** your wish for free and open discussion," at least on the Metropolitan Patent. It was only at the meetinj:; of the Synod of the Diocese of Montreal, some time aftcrwai'ds, that it liccanje known that your Lordship had distinct and ))Ositive instructions from the Colonial Secretary to submit the patent to the liishops and others interested in the other Dioceses for their opinion and BU<:;^estions. This unexpected informatioM produced much surprise, and was publicly alluded to in a letter by the Bishop of Huron, as the members of the Church, in his diocese, and elsewhere, would, in all probability, had the desire of the (^olonial Secretary been known at an earlier date, have addressed them- selves by petition to the Queen a<;ainst the extraordinary powers conferred by the Patent. The Universal dissatisfaction caused hy the autliority conveyed in that instrument induced your Lordship to alter your course^ and concur in its alteration, hnt you had in tin; meantime (am I not warranted in usin}^ the term you have applied to me?) rt^^M^7?/ claimed and obtained Kome credit for doing spontaneously what the instructions of the Imperial Govermnent made it impossible for you to avoid. Your Lordship, in the same jjuge, seeks to reconcile your public acts of approval of my character for eleven years, after you had found vie out, by the simple remark that " the erec- tion of the Church was of a private nature." And yet it was by that very transaction your Lordship discovered mc to be '< a dcsi'jning and decMtfnl man"; that you had "no confidence in my truth and integrihf ; that I had " manoeuvred and attemjited to take you in"; that I '■'■ conspired icith Oenl. Havana to entrap you," &c., &c." My Lord what more frightful crimes, I would ask, can a Minister of the Gospel be guilty of? Believing, na your Tiordship did, all thirf, and bcrotiiinp: more and iiinri! conllnned in tliin opinion of inc, " the more you ob served my course," why did not your Lordship rej)rove me, even in private, with a christian aihnonitionV Hut instead of tluK, duriufi; eleven subsequent years, your liordship beeoines a pro- minent party in assigning to n»c places of honor, responsibility and inlluenec, some of them in your own Diocese. And now because I h:ivo said in Kn;;land th'it the teaching of Trinity Collef^e, Toronto, is unsound, and that " lOvan^^elical men" as such, arc few in nund)er "in the H. N. A. ColonicH generally," — facts which your Lordship has not even attempted to disprove, — your Lordship, as Metropolitan, denounces me, in no ineasured terms, to your Hishops and Clergy, and before the world at large, as a man, whoso testimony cannot be relied upon. M.iy I not be permitted to ask the question you put to mc : — *' How are tliese matters to be reconciled ?" Your Lordship, in both your letters, asserts that T have made an "attack upon the <'anadian Church and (/ana lian Institu- tion.s" and in that to Mr. Crooks, that I have made a " violent attack." Twice 1 have distinctly stated that I did no such thing. In my speech at Lslington, T referred only to Trinity College, Toronto — the teaching of which I believed, with my own HLshoj) and man}' others, to be highly dangerous to our Protestant Church, — why not prove me wrong in this, instead of deliuiiing my character and avoiding the (piestion ? Again, in my state- ment at that meeting as to " the paucity of Kvangelical t^lei-gy- mcn in the Kritish N. A Colonies generally," why, instead of impugning my motives, does not Your Lordship attempt to prove nie incorrect on this head also? But the truth is, your Lord.ship cannot disprove these things, hence the course y«)u have i-cen fit to adopt to destroy the man who is bold enough to spc'di out fearlessly his ojjinions. But, My Lord, have you not sai(. more as to the paucity of " Evangelical men" in Canada, than I have ever ventujed to say ? As examples of encouragement held out to " Kvangelical nien '' in Canada, your lordship has specified places in the Pro- 39 » inoro fn ob- "veii this, pro- l>ility liing licAl vinoe, sayinpj : " Evangelical men, as sncli, may not bo ag abundant an the Archdeacon wishes, yet ho will allow they aro to be found in many most impoitaiit placcH. Tho Cathedral at Toronto ond all tho churches at Kingston have long been so filled, that at liOndon, three in Montreal, ono in Quebec, ono in Hamilton, all principal cities in the Province. But whet' ,'.r the clergy generally como up to tho mark as " Kvangelicu. men " or not, I say it is a positive misrepresentation of the fact." You assign thus to the most populous protestant city in Canada, viz : Toronto, where there arc 22 Clergymen, 3 Evangelical men, — all on the Cathedral stalf; to tho city of Montreal, where there are 12 or 13 Clergymen, you assign throe ; to the city of Quebec, where there aro 12 Clergymen, yoiir Lordship assigns one, &c. &c. &c. This is your Lordship's own estimate, and yet you say that my statement in Kngland •' is a misrepresentation of the fact," of what ? That Trinity College, Toronto, is not in its teaching diingerous ? And that Evangelical men, as such, are not in a minority? Does it not occur to Your Lordship that it would be at onco more just and honorable, to meet the question openly and fairly? Should Your Lordship show by arguments, founded on unde- niable facts, that what I have stated is not correct, none will be more ready publicly to retract what I have said on this head, than L My Lord, it is no small comfort to me in this severe trial, to have had it in my power, by undeniable facts and documentary evidences, to clear myself from every charge and insinuation which you have seen fit to publish against my charaecter. You again try in your " second letter " to make the most of the " Sherbrooke Street Church," — reiterating the same story, as in the first. Your Lordship evidently begins to see the mistake you have made in charging an old distinguished General Officer, well known for his scrupulous integrity, vvitfi a "manoeuvre, and an attempt to take you in ;" with "conspiring to entrap yo\i," &c., ttc. And although it is perfectly cl ar from your first letter that General Evans is included in these grave charges, you feel compelled to retract to a certain extent, as far aa ho in con- corned, Htill leaving thcin upon nic. In order to extricate yoursilf from tluH difficulty, your Lord- 8hip is obliged not only to withdraw whnt you have written, b'Jt to deny the accuracy of the Bishop of Huron's statement in his letter to me. In yo'jr eagerness, my Lord, to accomplish the one thing — to blast my reputation— you gave utterance to things which you now sc^ cause to regret. It is not likely the Bishop of Huron would give any other than the correct version of your charges against CJencral Evans and myself Your Lorship spoke no doubt warmly; the Bishop of Huron listened calmly and thoughtfully. The Bishop of Huron carefully wrote down what you said to him in Kingston regarding the Sherbrooke Street Church ; and his language is poititive and distinct in the following words : — *' lie " [that is Your Lord.ship] " had nccn through " the trap which trait thvn laid for him, and diacocered that '♦ Oeyd. Evana and Dr. Jlellmnfh had corinjnrcd to obtain ^^/rom him his consent to a measure which was only intended '• to enhance the valve of Genl. Evavn^ property, and to ohtain " a church in this city for his son-in-law ; hut which would in " the end prove highly injurious to the Church:^^ Any one comparing this with Your Lordship's own state- ment on this head, on pages 10 and 11 of your first letter, would at once see that there is no material difTcrencc. Your Lordship, however, now denies the accuracy of the Bishop of Huron's statement, adding that you " certainly did not use any such expression." T have simply quoted verbatim, and must leave the matter here. In Your Lordship's second letter, on page 6, you say : — *• T had but one short interview with Genl. Evans, when he cer- tainly declined to give me any statement of his proposal in writing, but I cannot pretend to say that he knew exactly what had been the communication made to me by Dr. Hell- muth." The reader of this passage can hardly fail to perceive, a distinct insinuation^ that not satisfied with deceiving Your I 9 liOrdship, I hud nlsohoen ptiilty ofV 'ving my own fntlior-in" law ill til.'ition to this innttcr. I sliiill only niiiark upon this point, that it in (hlii- truth of the report of his speech at Islington. The fav.'. was that 10 while I was travelling down from Kingston wiih the Bishop of (Quebec, he spoke of what the Archdeacon was reported to have said respecting the Canadian Colleges ; and ex- pressed himself very nearly as given in his letter. All I did was simply to ask whether he had any objection to send me in writing what he had then said, which he said he would do very willingly." I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with that of the Bishop of Quebec, who, on the contrary says : ** The terms of cordial friendship which have subsisted between Dr. Hellmuth and myself, make it peculiarly distressing to me to comply witk your desire for injormation.'^ You have, my Lord, placed yourself both with the Bishop of Quebec and the Bishop of Huron, in a dilemma. If your Lordship's memory is of such retention that you can safely rely upon it, you must of necessity suppose that the Bishop of Quebec has deviated in his letter, from what he said to you in conversation, and that the Bishop of Huron has mis- represented you in the matter of the Sherbrooke street Church. All this, my Lord, shows the necessity of quoting from docu- ments instead of depending entirely upon memory. And here I would make it a special request, that should your Lordship see fit to issue a third Pastoral on this controversy, that you will do me the justice of quoting from my speech and letters in my own words. As another of the many illustrations which I miglit bring fc vard of the mode in which your Lordship seeks information that might prove detrimental to my character, I append a letter which your Lordship wrote in answer to the very missionary who justly complained of your conduct towards him, and whom, having already wronged, with apparent indif- ference, you re-open the wound you have inflicted by exposing him again to public gaze in your last letter : " Montreal, May 13, 1862. ♦' Rev. Sir, " I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter and to " assure you that nothing was more painful to me in connection " witli the subject of my letter to the Bishops and Clergy, &c. U( u '• then the necessity I felt of aUuding to you in any way. I " would not for a moment wish to express any opinion on your " case, and most truly hope that you may overcome the diffi- " cultics in which you have been involved and prove a useful " minister of the Church. But I did not consider that Arch- " deacon Ilclhnuth's conduct first here in regard to your case, " and while those who acted with him in the C. C. and S. So- " cicty were still urging your removal, and his voluntary eulogy " of you in England, was so inconsistent that it most forcibly " exemplified the manner of his acting. He either behaved *' most unfairly to you here in leaving you in the position he *' did, or he misrepresented the case in . " I have been told that the Archdeacon proposed another " solution of your difficulty to you. That he told you you " must resign because a promise had been given to certain in- " fluential parties connected with — that you should do so — but " that he recommended you to get up a petition from some of " your congregation to have you re-instated, and then you " could be reappointed, and all would be settled. May I ash " you whether this is the fact or not ? as I should not wish to ** have any thing misrepresented. " I remain, Rev. Sir, " Your's faithfully, «' (Signed,) F. MONTREAL." From the very man whom your Lordship unnecessarily brings before the world, you seek in a most ingenious way to extract a testimony against me — as having played a double part — I trust it will bo satisfactory to your Lordship to hear that your enquiry can be distinci'y answesod in the negative. If your are not willing to receive my testimony, I refer you to the Missionary, as I advised him to the very last, for the reasons already given in my '* Reply", to leave his Mission ; and so fully was I persuaded that he would do so, that I introduced him last September, when in Montreal, to the Bishop of Huron, whom I requested, ii he could, to receive him in his Diocese. The Missionary being still in his Parish, I can only conclude that his people who contribute £130 per annum to his salary, (besides a comfortable parsonage,) wish n 'ii him to remain witli them, and your Lordship well hioim that he remains there by the express desire of his Bishop. Your Lordship remarks on page 7 : " I would ask then why, " as General Superintendent of the Society, he did not take *' measures to have the Rev. Mr. restored to his *' proper status, before he left Canada ; and whether the other " members of the Society's Committee were not left by him " still seeking to enforce the removal ; and were not a little " embarrassed and t irprised, when they read what had oc- *' curred at the meeting in England. Perhaps the Archdeacon *' knows whether his conduct in this matter has been satisfac- "tory to them." In reply to this I would observe, that the Rev. Mr. having never been removed from his Mission, it is obvious there was no necessity for restoring him *' to his proper status." Si cc the first of October last my official connection with the Society has ceased, and I have therefore not mixed myself further up with the matter. If my speaking favorably of this young Clergyman, in England, has caused any dissatisfaction to friends whom I esteem, I should of course regret it, but they will, I feel assured, give me credit for sincerity in what I said. In bringing this letter to a close I can truly say that none can be more anxious for peace than myself, but I will never purchase it at the cost of truth, nor at the sacrifice of my character, which is as dear to me as my very life. Your Lordship not satisfied with sending your Pastoral to your Bishops and Clergy in Canada, to whom alone it pro- fesses to be addressed, has sent it to the leading laity in this Province, and to England also, and caused it to be reprinted in e.vtenso, in some of the Church newspapers in this country, in the United States and in Nova Scotia. It is also offered for sale in the book stores, and I have just heard that your Lordship has sent a good supply of the Pastoral into my own Parish to be sold for 5 cents a copy. If this does not evince a determination to persecute and destroy my character, as far as your Lordship's influence can effect it, I do not know what more you can do, and yet on page four you say : " I never had any ill will to Dr. Hell- muth, or wished to injure his position elsewhere." 13 "IDS that |n wliy, |ot take to his |e other (by him a little Ihad oc- ideacon featisfuc- )bvious status." ith the myself of this ■faction Jt they I said. it none never of rny oral to t pro- n this ted in Jntry, also I that into I If I spread my answers as widely as I can, I am only in self defence following your Lordship's example. If, in the course of this correspondence, I have expressed myself strongly, it is to be attributed entirely to the course which Your Lordship has pursued. Whilst Your Lordship's proceedings against me are most trying, and calculated to mar the peace and happiness of my family, it might have proved ruinous to me, as a Minister of the Gospel, had I not been better known, and able, by docu- mentary evidences, to prove how futile and groundless are all and every one of your accusations and insinuations against my character and motives. Most deeply do I regret the necessity which Your Lordship has forced upon me to reply thus in self-defence. Nothing but the vindication of my character as a man, a christian and a Minister in the Church of God, would have induced me to write as Your Lordship compels me to do. My reliance is upon Him who judgeth righteously, and who, I am confident, will uphold and sustain me in this hour of trial, and by whose grace, I trust, I shall be enabled through good and through evil report, to discharge my duties as a faithful servant of Christ. I remain, my Lord Bishop, Your Lordship's Obedient servant, J. HELLMUTH. The Right Reverend The Lokd Bisuop of Montreal AND Metropolitan. and > can 3t on fell- in 'II LETTER. RicuM' Ri:v. A.VD Rev. Buktuukn, Skk TIorsE, Montreal, J II ue 5th, 1802. I hiive just veooived a reply from Arclulcacon Ilcllmutli to a letter lately tid.lres.sed by nio to you, respecting certiin stateuieiits luiule by him wliilo in I'^nglanJ. There arc some pnrls of if on which I wish to make a few remarks. The Archileacon havinj^ first given liis version of what ociniired on the occasion of the proposal nia^'c to me for the erection of a new Clnircli in this City, goes on to cnnmcrntc certain sul/sequent acts of mine, whicii he says. justified iiira in believing that T could have futer- taine I no reason to condemn his conduct in that matter ; and that he ind his frii-nd supposed that it was now brought forward again because 1 had taken umbrage at tlic opposition made by him to the jiowers which uere iiitetHled 10 be vested m me by my original patent as Metropolitan. In answer to this I can truly say that in the first place I have always wished for free and open discussion, whether on that or any other public measures ; and that I have never for an instant harboured any ill-will against any one for tlie honest and fair expression of his opinion-*; and liaving had every reason to be more than satisfied at the manner in which the discussions on that particular sulyect were conductcil, nnd with the results arrived at, it has not occurred to me to think unkindly of any thing that took place in connection therewith Then as to any subsequent acts implying approval. The communication rcsjiect^rig the erection of the Church was of a private nature ; antl would never iiave been made public at all, uidess it had become known at first thriugh tlu! Archdeacon and his friends. I certainly mo.-t entirely l^e- lievei that it was an unfair attom[)r to liurry lue into an approval of a proposition of the terms of which I had not at the time been projierly infuimed ^ and from t\ t time I was anxious not to admit the Archdea- con into this Diocese, or to let him interfere in iis concerns. But I never had any ill-will to Dr. Hellmuth, or wished to injure his position else- where. 2>or should I have brought forward the subject in the way 4 I have now done had not the occasion appeared to mo to justify my statinjif, whv previously I had objected to his being connected with the Diocese, and why I thought his present sweeping attack on the ch^rgy and ecclesiastical Institutions of Canada, did not come most appro- priately from him. For the same reason when objection was made to bis hoing appointed General Superintendent of the Colonial Churcli and School Society in British North America, though all the mcmliera of the Montreal Committee were perfectly cognizant of my feelings on the subject in regard to Dr. Hellmuth, I was satisfied, witliout officially and specifically pressing them, on finding for other reusons stated by the Committee during ray absence from home, that the Diocese of Montreal was to be excepted from his charge. It was distinctly known to the members of the Committee that I should not liavo continued to act with them, had it been otherwise arranged. The ArclKhMiion, however, alleges in his favor that two \ cars afterwards he was .ippointcd by the Montreal Committei\ with my consent. Presi- dent of the Cliurch of England Missiou to the French-speaking popula- ti' h of ISritish North Am<-rica. tlie principal Ins'itufion of which is at Sahrovois in this Diocese. This, however, so far from involving any inconsistency on my part, was a, proof 1o the contrary ; wliile, at the same tinit*, it was my wish not to act vcxatiously, or in a way injuiious to the Mission. The work of the Montreal Committee emh'.aceil two objects : 1st. The schools, whether Normal, Model, or Common, within the Diocese ; these were simply Diocesar. matters, and, excepting a grant from the Parent Society in London, deriving no aid from external Bouces. 2nd Tiie Mission to the French Canadians, in aid of which subscriptions were received, ami collections made in all th:; Dioceses of B. N. A. It was found that after the Archdeacon's appointment, as General Superintendent, there was some difficulty in carrying on the work of the Mission at Sabrevois, in consequence of the clashing of arransrements made by our Committee, and the deputations we sent out, over which Archdeacon Hellmuth had no control, witli those made by him for the general purposes of the Society, and collections taken up by him to be remitted to the Parent Society in I^ondon. Upon this subject I wrote a long explanatory letter to the Society in Lomlou in July, 1858. And some little time after, in consequence of the aixiety of our Committee, that some arrangement couM be made, at the pMvti- cular request of one of their number, I had an interview with Dr. Hell- muth, who, as well as the members of the Committee, was fully aware of my objection to let him interfere in this Diocese This interview led to no result at the time ; but seeing that I had nothing to do with his authority 1 1 act for the rest of B. N. A., and since it was evident that the work of the French Mission would sutler ; and, as in reality the two objects of the Committee were quite dis'inct in their nature, one Diocesan, the other British American, I proposed to the Montreal Committee that they should be placed under the charge of two distinct Boards or Committees ; and then I would not object to the General Superintendent acting in connection with the latter, the support of which was very mainly derived from parts of the Province already under his charge, ami in the prosperity of which so many from the other Dioceses were interested. This was accordingly so carried out, and has since been continued on the same plan. . 5 [justify tny Reeled with the cU'Tfry lost nppro- «s maile to [-'hurch and nicni 1)013 ly feelings 'fl, witliout or rensons that the le- It was I slioiilcl arrannrod, af forwards e'lt, Presi- ins popula- which is at olving any lile, at tJie .V injuiious i:accil two "«, within inga irrant 11 exfernal '1 of which Dioceses of ntment, as ing on the chishing of IS we sent ivith tliose collections on. Upon in London lie a'lxiety the p.'irti- Dr. Hell- lly RAvare interview do with 13 evidtMit a reality '• natni-e, Montreal of two ibject to tter, the Province iny fr-om ried out, Before leaving this subject, I would also notice an allusion which the Archdeacon makes towards the close of his letter to a J'astoral issued by me, soon after I came to Canada, against " the Colonial Churcli and School Society ;^^ "Their rules, (he says) as you no doubt " then thought, clashing with what you considered your Kpiscopal " authority. Their rules and constitution, I am thankful to sa} , have not " been, and I trust will never be changed." Here the Archdeacon has been in error. The objections I made in my pastoral were, 1st. To the conduct of one of the agents, ami on this point it turned out that the Parent Society were exactly of the .'■ame opinion as myself. 2nd. I objected to a Rule of the Society under which they claimed to send their Agents into whatever places they thought fit, 1 contended that if I was to act with them, I could be no paitj to pla- cing any Agent in any Parish or Mission, where there was a clergyman holding my license, without his consent. And after some correspondence had passed on the siihject, I received a document, dated .lunc, l^!■"^2, signed by the Rev. Me.sac Thomas, Secretary to the Parent Smiety, on liehalf of the Committee in London, setting forth " the arrangement between the Lord Bishop of Montreal and he General Committee of the (.; C. & S. Society." The 7th article is as follows : " No Cate^diist or Schoolmaster shall be employed within the local limits of any Clergy- man's charge without his consent." But to pass on to the matter of the church in Sherbrooke Street ; and here I must notice an inaccuracy in the account given by the Bishop of Huron of my conversation with him at Kingston. I most certainly did not use any such expression, as that Genl. Evans had " conspireW^ with Dr. Hellmuth to take me in; nor did I state that I considered tliat the erection of the proposed building would •' in the end prove highly injurious to the Church.''* I took no objection to the church itself, nor to Dr Hell- muth, as the incumbent. I am ready to express regret at Oen Evans' name having been mixed up with the statement ; and 1 shouhl not have mentioned it, except tor the purpose of explaining the transaction. I had but one short interview with him ; when he certainly declined to give me any statement of his proposal in writing, but I can- not pretend to say that he knew exactly what had been the com- munication made to me by Dr. Ilellmuth. Having promised this, I most unhesitatingly deny the correctness of the Archdeacon's version throughout : certainly, acording to his statement, I might, if I thought right, have refused to accede to the proposal, but I could have had no further ground ot complaint. I must leave those best acquainted with us both to form their judgment as to what the facts were. At leajrt I can say it is no fault of mine, that I am unable to produce a document in writing, to certify to the exact terms in which the application was made, and I think I may venture to assert that there never was a proposition oi the like nature made to any Bishop, of which after repeate! applica- tions on three successive days not the slightest memorandum could be obtained in writing. Why was there this reluctance ? And again why such secrecy enjoined ? It was surely a great public work ; and in Contradiction to the Archdeacon on this, as on almost every point of detail. I must distinctly asaert that I named the Dean and one layman, 6 ?/hom I should wi'^h to consult before giving un finswor, ami 1 was fold tlmt I must not mention it louny one. Why nguin and ugaia wiih 1 prcsaed for ftn immc'ilmto decJHiou? Tasked for only iv few diiys delay, which I thought coulil not bo material ; as it would take about eighteen montha before tlio ciiurch rould liavc been tit for occupation. And liere itgaia as to this point the siutemcut of tlie Archdeacon gives u version entirely new to me. The proposition in fact was simply tlmt Oenl. Evans wns willing to speni.'. JS'.i iW) for tlie erection of a oliuich on hi.s property in Sherhrooko Street ; not one hint was given about its being only advanced, either with or witliout interest, or that t»>e laud was other than a free gift Tliere was nodifliculty raised as to private patro- naiie •■ all that I cuuld elicit was that 1 might settle c\cry tiling ns I pleased, and make every arrangement, with this proviso, tliat Dr. HcUniuth was to be the first incuinbent There was a proposition almut a service in tJeiman, t'Ut tlcit Wii- quite a collateral inci i'-nt, and had nothing to di) with the essential meriis of the ease. Tiie Germans, who happened to be going to present au address to me, on the day of my last intirview witli the Arciideacon, stated that there were then only about seventy f.imiiies of them in the city ; aud therefore, in answer to a ([ues- tiou from me. very wisely decnled, ai that time, against any encouragement beinir given to a separate German >ervice ; thinking it mucli better that they should al'. continue, as they were doing, to attend tlie several English churches and be identified with (hem. A hirge immigration, f<<»nie five or six years after, has hince lei to tlie necessity for a separate Gotmua service. l>ut so far from their answer affecting the question, 1 imme- diately, on their leaving the room, said to the Archdeacon ; " Well, you see that part of the plan falls to the ground ; but now let us return to the general proposition ;" and then it was — and not at the first interview as Dr. Hellmutii asserts, that on ihird diiy in consequence of suniiiy questions put hy me in order to try and find out what the proposal really meant, tliaf 1 was at last informed of the actual terms on which fho I'huicli was to be built. And certainly 1 at once expressed how entirely I had been under a misapprehension during all our negotiations ; and upt>u that ground, put an end to the oonfereuce, so that all the Archdeacon lias stated on this subject is purely imaginary. Most ceitaiuly 1 kneAV the terms (as he asserts), upon which the money was to be advanced before 1 came to a decision, and it was he who communicated that fact to me ; but it was thus elicited at the eleventh hour, and was the sole and simple reason of my declining to proceed with the business, which I did directly I was informed upon this point. II >l\ The Aichdeacon justifies him>^elf in the matter of the Clergyman, whom he eulogized in England, after he had been under censure in Canada, by stating that a considerable time, two years, had elapsed ; and that he had much improved during that period, and that therefore it was correct to speak of hira as he did. This may he perfectly true ; and I most truly rejoice to think it m;iy be so. But as the Archdeacon left for En- gland towards the end, 1 believe of September, and the speech in question was made about the middle ut November, of course he was in possession of these tacts before his departure. I would ask then why as General Superiniendent of the Society, he did not take measures to have the Rev. Mr. restored to his proper status, before he left Canada ; and whether the other mrmbcrs of the Society's Committee were not loft by him Biill seeking to eni'oico the removal ; and were not ii lictlo embarras- sed and surpriued, when they read what had occurred at the meeting ia England. Perhaps the Archd'-acon knows whether his conduct in thia matter has been satisfactory to them. The Archdeacon complains in connection with a letter from the Bishop of Quebec, puMislied by me. thui I ha^ been seeking information against him, while waiting for his reply to my letter to him in England, enquiring as to the truth of the report of his speech at Islington The tact was that while I was travelling down from Kingston with the Bishop of Quebec, he spoke of what the Archdeacon was leportcd to have said respecting the Canadian Colleges ; and expressed hims^elf, very nearly as given in his letter. All 1 did was simply to ask whether he had any objection to send mn in writing what he hod then said, which he said he would do very willingly. It was with the full conviction that I had undertaken a most painful task, that I moved at all in this matter ; and have done it solely as a matter of public duty. My only desire has been for the cause of truth ; and if I have used any language that the occasion has not war* ranted, no one will regret it more than myself. I remain, Tour faithful brother in Christ, F. MONTREAL.