IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) k /. .^ z & ^ iA H 1.0 11.25 2:5 2.2 1.1 f.-^i 2.0 1.8 1.4 V] VQ ^> '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRKT WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 f wv ^v :1>^ :\ \ "«> 6^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCIVlH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / institut Canadian da microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlced below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or lan-.insted/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicuiie [ I Cover title missing/ D D D D D D Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou it.^ustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relit avec 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 distorslon le long de la marge int6rleure 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 iti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured stained or foxei Pages ddcolories, tacheties ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages ditachtes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prin Qualiti intgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Aditicn disponible I — I Pages damaged/ r~~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ rri Pages discoloured stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~~\ Showthrough/ r~~| 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 ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmtes i nouveau de fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X mmmr- The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks to the generosity of: Dougies Library Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quaiity possibie considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositA de: Douglas Library Queen's University Les images suivantes ont M6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sent filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui eomporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sent filmAs en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui eomporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui eomporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparattra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols >-► signifie "A SUIVRE", Is symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimAs A des tsux de rAduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est f limA A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcsssaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 6 e IB i^V^^ NARRATIVE OF THE DISPUTE m ,i BXTWXEN TBB BISHOP OF ONTARIO AMD THB CONGREGATION OF ST. GEORGE'S, KINGSTON, RELATIVE TO THE I APPOINTMENT OF DR. lAUDER. I TORONTO: W. C. CHEWETT i mP^ Jt^tT/Ji I /I l£ i i ■ i ' ( i ■ /■ 'ij ■;.■' ■ :»■ // f ( |\ . ■ * ,/ NARRATIVE OF THE DISPUTE BETWUM TBI BISHOP or ONTARIO AND THB CONQKBaATION Of ST. 6B0RaE<8, KINGSTOK, RELATIVE TO THE APPOINTMENT OF DR. LAUDER. Before entering on the above narrative, in which it is intended to let the opposing parties speak for themselves as much as possible, it will be necessary to state a few matters of fact as to date and circum- stances, which are briefly as follows. Early in October, 1862, the late Hector, Dr. Stuart, died, and the right of presentation vested in the Synod of Ontario, which was summoned to meet at Ottawa in the beginning of November. For various reasons, it was supposed the Synod would present to this Rectory forthwith, whatever course it might see fit to pursue on the general question of patronage, and, as the city of Kingston was well represented in that body, no great anxiety was felt as to the result. But, as is now well known, the Synod finally determined, after a long and warm debate, on vesting the patronage entirely in the Bishop, the sanction of the lay majority being obtained, it is said, by the Bishop's promising not to use this power to make an appointment which would be distasteful to a congregation ; or, as he subsequently qualified it, that " he would not knowingly appoint a Bector who was decidedly disliked by the people." It is worthy of note that all the parishes in and about Kingston voted against this measure. Shortly afterwards (November 8th), the Synod broke up without any intimation whatever being given as to the person on whom the Bectory would be bestowed ; but as the Kingston Delegates had stated that the Bishop had promised to make no appointment likely to be distasteful to a congregation, and as it was universally supposed that his Lnrdship was well aware of Dr. Lauder's extreme unpopularity in that locality, no action was taken in the matter till it became known (on Monday, the 17th November) that the Bishop, who had only arrived in Kingston the Saturday previous, had appointed Dr. Lauder Bector of Kingston. Dr. Lauder was inducted early the next morning, Tuesday, the 18th, and on Wednesday, the 19th, a very large and influential meeting of X-^ vrA 1 1 It Parishioners was held, at which the following resolutions were passed with but two dissenting voices : — 1st. Moved by S. Mucklestone, Esq., seconded by^W. Rudston, Esq. That, in the opinion of this meeting, the appointment of the Yen. Dr, Lauder is highly unacceptable to the Parish of St. George. Carried. 2nd. Moved by Thomas Askew, Esq., seconded by George Oliver, Esq. " That under these circumstances, it is scarcely possible that the minis- trations of the reverend gentleman can be pleasing or profitable to himself or his intended flock." Cwrried. 8rd. Moved by 0= S. Ross, Esq., seconded by R. J. Cartwright, Esq. That the Congregation of St. George's Church have learned with great regret, that the Lord Bishop of Ontario has appointed the Ven. Dr. Lauder to the Rectory of Kingston without reference to and in disr^ard of the well-known wishes of the Congregation; and from the many painful rumors which have connected Dr. Lauder's name with the late election of the Lord Bishop and the Rectory, it is in the opinion of this meeting highly detri- mental to the best interests of the Congregation, and of the Church, that the appointment should have been made, or, having been made, that it should be maintained. Carried. 4th. Moved by J. Watklns, Esq., seconded by R. Rudston, Esq. That copies of these resolutions be sent to the Lord Bishop of Ontario, and to the Rev. Dr. Lauder. Carried. T. TV. RoBisoK, Chairman. R. J. Cartwright, Secret irp. It is to be observed tha'., independently of the belief of the congrega- tion that Dr. Lewis was very well aware of Dr. Lauder's great unpopu- larity among them, it was generally supposed that Dr. Lewis owed his election mainly to Dr. Lauder's persevering exertions on his behalf. Certain it is that Dr. Lauder had canvassed most indefatigably during the very lengthened period preceding the election, and also that reports were most extensively circulated during that time to the effect that he was to receive this particular piece of preferment on the demise of Dr. Stuart, a man of more than 80 years of age. How far the congregation were or were not justified in holding that the mere fact of the existence of these reports, when coupled with Dr. Lauder's very active canvas for Dr. Lewis, constituted per se a very serious obstacle to his appointment, is a nice question. Probably they would have been wiser to have abstained from taking notice of a report which from its very nature was incapable of legal proof, since no man could suppose that the Bishop or Dr. Lauder would either give evidence against themselves or reduce such a compact to writing. But on the other hand, it is clear that men in the position of the Bishop and the (present) Dean of Ontario ought to have been most cautious not to give any occasion for scandal, particularly where, as in the present case, the surrounding circumstances were such as to lend far too much outward probability to such rumours ] and it is clear als '/ sed Dr. nis- self reat ider the aors lOrd etri- that ^t it ano, m. rega- )opu- dhis ihalf. aring ports at he f Dr. ; that with r 86 a bably i of a ice no r give of the most , as in 9 lend ^r als y V that their currency would, to say the least, seriously endp.igcr Dr. Lauder's usefulnesss among his future flock. The foregoing rcEolutions were at once published in the Kingston papers, aud drew forth the following letters : — i TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH WHIG. Sir, — In your account of the indignation meeting held yesterday at Si George's School-house, you have, doubtless inadvertently, made the meeting, and myself in particular, express a stronger opinion as to the supposed pro- mise of this Rectory to Dr. Lauder, in return for his services in promoting the election of the Bishop, than my words or the resolution itself would warrant. What I did say, in seconding the resolution which it was my painful duty to support, was that this statement had been so publicly and universally circulated in this diocese, that it had risen from mere street gossip to a public scandal, and that, granting it to be altogether untrue, it did, nevertheless, under the circumstances, constitute a very strong reason why any other man in the diocese but Dr. Lauder should have received this appointment This view the meeting endorsed by passing the resolution in question ; but I did not assert, nor do I think the meeting meant to imply, anything further. My reasons for believing that the simple fact of the wide-spread existence of these reports constitutes a most serious objection I shall be ready to give, or rather to repeat, when called on, but I must observe that they do not, by any means, form the sole grounds for dissatisfaction with this appointment, as might, otherwise, be surmised from the language of your report. I remain your obedient servant, Nov. 20th, 1862. R. J. Oartwriqht. THE BISHOP'S LETTER, To T. W. Robison, Ikq., Chairman of Meeting held in St. George's School Sbrue, Nov. 19th, 1862. Sir, — I am sorry to learn that the appointment r>f Archdeacon Lauder to the Rectory of Kingston is so distasteful to 1. . 'neeting at which yoif presided. Exercising the patronage placed in my hands by the Synod of the Diocese, I appointed to the Rectory a clergyman of 18 years standing, a Doctor of Laws of Dublin, who is a Rector of a Parish not second to Kingston, where he labors to the entire satisfaction of the parishioners, whose esteem and affection he has secured. The resolutions assign no reason for the dislike entertained by the meeting toward the Archdeacon, except that '* many painful rumours have connected Dr. Lauder's name with the late election of the Lord Bishop of the Rectory." Now I venture to say, that to drag a respectable clergyman's name before the public, to denounce him as has been done, on the authority and grounds of "painful rumours," is not conduct becoming the character of gentlemen or English Churchmen. What the rumour is which has excited so much ill- feeling, I find plainly stated in the Whig of Nov. 19th, and I pronounce it to be a wicked falsehood, which could only have been conceived or uttered by a thoroughly depraved and ignoble mind. Before the Archdeacon's induction, he took the following oath. "I do swear that I have made no symonical payment, contract or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself or by any other, to my knowledge or with my con- 6 sent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the procuring or containing the Rectory of Kingston," so that the meeting at which you presided has affirmed that the Archdeacon has been guilty of perjury, and that your Bishop is a " a particeps criminis." I have nothing to add, but to express how humiliated I feel at the thought that so ihany members of the Church could by any possibility be found to endorse by resolution a " rumour" which is both wicked and devoid of a shadow of foundation. I am, very truly, J. T. OKTARia TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH WHIG. Sir, — The letter of the Lord Bishop of Ontario which appeared in yester- day's WJiiff is so evidently written in a moment of apparent and perhaps pardonable irritation, produced as I am willing to believe, by the unfortunate mistake in the British Whig's account of the late meeting ; that I prefer learning what his Lordship has to say in answer to Mr. Cartwright's note correcting that mistake, before I reply further to his Lordship's letter. I am, yours, Not. 31st, 1862. T. W. Robison. 1 r Alwington House, Nov. 22nd, 1863. Mt Dear Db. Bobison, — In reply to your letter, which appears in to- day's newspapers, let me say, in the first place, that I did not write to you in a " moment of irritation," but under the influence of deep moral indignation. I most willingly accept the assurance tendered to me yesterday in the presence of Mr. Denroche, that you did not believe in the base " rumour," and that Mr. Cartwright gave the interpretation of the Resolution in his note of Friday last. But I must be allowed to afiOrm that the speeches of Messrs. Ross and Cartwright, taken in connexion with the third Resolution, more than warrant the inference of the Editor of the British Whig, who was present at the meeting, viz. : that the meeting endorsed the " rumour" " that Dr. Lauder canvassed for Dr. Lewis on condition that, if successAil, he should be re- ' warded with the Rectory of Kingston." This foul charge was made in terms not explicit enough, perhaps, to justify an action, for defamation, but suffi- ciently plain to wound my feelings in the cruelest manner. I now take leave of this sulyect, so far as newspaper writing is concerned, and appeal from the verdict of St George's Congregation to that of the dio- cese at large with calm confidence. I trust you will not siippose that I intended to be discourteous to you in not furnishing you with the manuscript of my letter before sending it to the press ; the fact is, that the Meeting has addressed me only through the press, as I have received no written communication from its Secretary or Chairman, and replied to the Resolutions of the Meeting by addressing its Chairman tiirough the same channel I am, yours, very truly, J. T. Ontario. T. W. RoBtsoN, Esq., M.D. On Monday the 24th November, the Bishop called a meeting of the congregation, and addressed them in a manner described by the Whiff of that date, as follows : — it H * ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH. Another large Meeting of the Parishioners of St QeOrge*s Parish was held this afternoon at the Sunday School House, called hy the Bishop himself who took the chair. His Lordship certainly did not throw oil on the troubled waters. He was very angry, and expressed himself very angrily. At the conclusion of his speech he left the Meeting, and it broke up discordantly. It is but fair to add that a good many friends of the Bishop were present : James A. Henderson, Esq., moved that the Bishop should take the chair, which he accordingly did. The Bishop then proceeded to give his opinion of the resolution passed at the Indignation Meeting. He said he was led to call this meeting in consequence of the Indignation Meeting which had taken place in tho school-house. He was first inclined not to call this meeting, as being undignified on his part, but had since changed his mind. He did not think he had been fairly treated at that Indignation Meeting, and, in fact, knew nothing about the proceedings thereat but what he had learned through the medium of the presa There was nothing at all extraordinary in a Bishop's having the patironage of Rectories in his diocese, and such was a common thing in the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland. The - Bishop then took up the first resolution passed at the Indignation Meeting, saying that he had no objection to it, but that, from what had taken place at that meeting, he felt still more determined to uphold Dr. Lauder. He would here thank Sir Henry Smith and Mr. Milo for the part they took in the afiair. He then passed on to the third resolution, which was exceed- ingly offensive to him. The Bishop here read the third resolution. He be- lieved that there was a wicked meaning in it t^t, as Dr. Lauder had been a supporter of the Kshop in his election, therefore he, the Bishop, had placed him in the Rectory of Kingston. He would say that this resolution actually imputed simony, to him, but it looked like it. He had not acted in disregard of the feelings of the congr^tion of St George's, and, in fact, with the exception of a gentleman who 6nce told him he thought Dr. Lauder a bad reader, ne had never heard a word said against Dr. Lauder. Speak- ing of the other resolution, he denied that he ever said he would appoint Dr. Laider to the Reetory in defiance of the Congregation, but the power of appointing whom he pleased had been invested in his hands by the Synod, and therefore tiiought he had the right to enjoy it He would, in speaking of what Mr. Ross had said, assure the meeting that if ih9 congregation had apprised him at the proper time and place, he might have given more con- sideration. Dr. Lauder nad never yet said anything which snowed he wished preferment ; buthc, t'lc Bishop, had appointed Dr. Lauder because he thought he would be a iav.n iitted for the position he now held. The last speech he would refer to, was that of Dr. Yates, wherein it was hinted that he, the Bishop, had treated the congregation with contempt ; but he assured them that he could not treat them with contempt Further- more, he, as the Bishop of the Diocese, could never be intimated ; he would assure Dr. Yates of this. They should, before calling a public meeting, and admitting reporters, have had a private conference with him (the Bishop). With regard to the induction of Dr. Lauder, there was nothing whatever wonderful in its having been privately done, inasmuch as it only occupied a few minutes' time. As far as regarded Dr. Lauder's going or staying, he would mention that he (Dr. Lauder) had placed the matter entirely in his own hands. He thought that now was the time for him to stand by Dr. Lauder ; for although a Bishop might be responsible to the laity, he was also responsible to his clergy. If there could be a single charge made against the moral character of Dr. Lauder, orif any really good reasons could be adduced for the step, then Dr. Lauder should be deprived of his rectory. He would 1 , I > ,j, ■ i i . i.i- i 1 8 • now finally say that he actually held in his hands the resignation of Dr. Lauder, conditionally, that the grounds for his dismissal, mentioned at the Indignation Meeting, should he set aside. He (the Bishop) was ready, therefore, to have an open and clear enquiry into the matter, which he was willing to at once inagurate. As the Bishop had expressed his desire to have no reporters no full report of the ahove could he obtained, the foregoing being only from memory. Su£Sce to say that his Lordship produced the reverse of a beneficial effect, and that a formal vestry meeting was summoned for Friday the 25th with the avowed intention of placing the above four resolutions on the vestry books. This the Bishop was most anxious to avoid, and finding threats useless, convened a meeting of the lay dele- gates of the other churches in Kingston, in which, according to their joint statement to be given hereafter, he promised virtually that he would accept Dr. Lauder's resignation which he said he held, if they could induce St. George's congregation to absolve himself and Dr, Lauder from the charge of simony. On this understanding the above gentleman canvassed the various members of the vestry with such success that they finally prevailed on them to pass the subjoined resolution. Several persons who had taken part in the meeting of the 19th ult., having first withdrawn on the ex- press and declared ground that they would not under the circumstances interpoue between the Bishop and the congregation. " Retolved, — That this vestry meeting cannot but regret that resolutions passed at a meeting of St. George's congregation, held at their Sunday School house, on the 19th instant, have been construed to imply that a simoniacal contract had been made between the Lord Bishop of Ontario and the Rev. Dr. Lauder, relative to the rectory of St George, Kingston. " That this meeting disavow any intention of conveving such an impres- sion to the public by such resolutions, and exonerate his Lordship and Dr. Lauder from any such charge affecting their characters. Yet this Yestry would nevertheless respectfully request his Lordship to accept the resigna- tion of Dr. Lauder as Rector, inasmuch as the late unhappy misunderstand- ing must necessarily have engendered feelings which would, to a great extent, impair his usefulness amongst us." With this resolution a Deputation waited on his Lordship, to request bis acceptance of Dr. Lauder's resignation, nothing doubting but that everything was now arranged, when, to their extreme astonishment, they were told that although his Lordship was much obliged to the Vestry for their conduct in passing it, he could not think of accepting Dr. Lauder's resignation, unless they could substantiate charges against his moral character. On receipt of the above intelligence, a new meeting was summoned for Monday, December 1st, at which evidence in support of the follow^ ing resolution was laid before them. SPEECH OP R. J. CARTWRIGHT, ESQ., 2iade before the Vestry of St. Oeorge'a Church, on Monday, the \at December, 1882, in support of the following Resolution, moved by Br. T. W. Itobison. ** Eesolved, That the congregation of St George's Church, has learned with great regret, that the Lord Bishop of Ontario has appointed the Yen. Dr. Lauder to the Rectory of Kingston, without reference to, and in disre- gard of the well known wishes of the congregation ; and from the many painful rumours which have connected Dr. Lauder's name with the election of the Lord Bishop and with this Rectory, that, without asserting or insinu- ating that the rumours had foundation m fact it is in the opinion of this congregation highly detrimental to the best interests of the congregation, and of the Church, that the appointment should have been made, or having been made, that it should be maintained." Ma. Chairmait and Gentubhen: — Before I proceed to diecass the resolution which I have the honor to support, I wish to say that the reason why the vestry meeting was summoned for so late a day as Friday last, was specially to give you an opportunity for recovering from your first natural outburst of indignation, and in order that you might vote calmly and conscientiously as the facts and your conscience directed you. This, I know, is the earnest wisn of my esteemed friends, Mr. Boss and Dr. Robinson, as well as my own, and, I may also add, that in my judgment you would not be justified in passing this resolution without some other and further c^ounds than those which I think fuUy warranted your conduct in passing it at Jie indignation meeting of Wednesday, the 19th ult. And, Gentlemen, I fear I must yet further tax your patience while I recapitulate the leading facts of the case. Tou all know that His Lordship is a very young Bishop, — Uiat he is of no very long standing as a clei^yman even, — you know also that he was elected by a very email clerical majority after an unusually long and protracted canvass up to the last moment of wmch every single clerical vote was of great importance to him. You know, too, that he was mainly elected by lay influence, and that that influence was especially exerted on his behalf, because it was supposed that he was a much better Protestant than his opponent, Dr. Bethune. And I do say, that under these circumstances. Dr. Lewis was bound to pay all reasonable difference to the wishes of the laity, and not be in too great a hurry to kick down the ladder by which he has mounted to his present eleva- tion. You are aware, fdso, tliat Dr. Lewis, at the Synod lately held at Ottawa, succeeded, after a pretty warm contest with the laity, and after what I consider ' a very peculiar use of ms power of veto, in obtaining the right of presentation to idl the rectories in this diocese, on the honorable understanding, however, that he would not use that power to make any appointment distasteful to the wishes of a congregation. And it is to be noted that Dr. Lewis was bound to be specially careful whom he appointed to the Rectory of Kingston, if for no other reason than for [this, that I am informed every parish in and about Kingston voted dead against him on this question, thereby conveying a tolerably distinct caution that he ought to be careful how he excercised his patronage here. Now, what does Dr. Lewis do after having obtained the right of presentation under these very peculiar circumstances ? Why, the very moment he gets it into his hands he goes and appoints a clergyman to this Rectory, whom he must have known to be dis- tasteM to the great majority of the congr^ation, — a clergyman whose name has been long associated with his own and with this Rectory by a peculiarly scandalous rumour ; and he does all this so quietly and expeditiously that not one soul in Kingston, so far as 1 am aware, heard that the appointment was likely to be made, till the man was actually appointed, and withm a few hoars of his in- duction! 1 ! Then, when the uproar, which was the natural and inevitable result of these proceedings took place. Dr. Lewis turns round on us with a charming air of mjured innocence, and tells us that if we had waited on him meekly, cap in hand, i < I 10 with bated breath and whispered humbleness, he might raciously have conde- scended to take our case, into consideradon, and perluips have advised Dr. Lauder to resign I Well, Gentlemen, so we would, so we would, If Dr. Lewis would have given us » chance, but we hadn't even an hour ; and, I am bound to say, that if we had, the tone and manner which his Lordship saw fit to use to the last deputation from the congregation, which waited on him on a limilar subject, was not such as to tempt any nonourable man to address him again. And I must say farther that I am informed by some members of that deputation that their recollection of what then occurred does dot correspond with nis Lordahip's^tatement made here on Monday last. Thia, at least, I must add, that his Lordship ought to have been the very last man in this city to have said one word about any lack of courtesy or of straightforwardness on our part. If there was any lack of courtesy or of straightforwardness, it was not on the part of the congregation of St. Qeorge. Finally, Gentlemen, before I quit this part of my subject, I have one question to ask Dr. Lewis. Why did he appoint Dr. Lauder to the Rectory of Kingston ? He gave you the answer himself in his speech in this very place on Monday. He told you that he knew that Dr. Lauder was not a burning or a shining light, (I use his own words), but that he appointed him because he was a very convenient and useful mar to him (Dr.. Lewis); in plain English, because Dr. Lauder was his convenient creature and complete tool, l^ow, I can understand this bein|^ a reason under other and widely-wfferent circumstances for Dr. Lewis' own self: but I do emphatically declare, that it was no kind of reason why the eongr^ation of St. George should be forced to accept a man they detest, because it suited Dr. Lewis' convenience ; nor do I consider it to be at all a sufficient and honourable ground for Dr. I^ewis' promoting Dr. Lauder to be the second man in his diocese, that he thought he would prove a convenient tool. And now. Gentlemen, with respect to the resolution itself, I may observe that it contains three distinct assertions, or implications, c«dl them which you will. First, it states that Dr. Lewis appointed Dr. Itauder to the Rectory of Kingston, well knowing that such appointment would be distasteful to the congregation. Secondly, that a certain wide-spread public rumour coupling his name and Dr. Lander's with the election to the Bishopric, and with this Rectory, did exist. Thirdly, that under these circumstanees Dr. Lauder's appointment was, and is, highly detrimental to the best interests of the Church and of this congreation. Now, Gentlemen, you will please observe that proof of these three assertions is all that you require to j ustify you in passing this resolution ; and proof of these is all that Mr. Ross or I have ever pledged ourselves to give. Mind, I do not say that I have nothing more to ura^e on other matters; but I do say that we only stand pledged to give proof or these three things, and that proof I shall now proceed to lay before you. And with reference to tbe statement, that Dr. Lewis appointed Dr. Lauder to the Rectory of Kingston, well knowing that such ap- E ointment would be distasteAil to the congregation, I shall have once more to eg your patience while I recall to your recollection the feet that some months ago, at the time of the departure of the Rev. Alexander Stewart, it was currently reported, chiefly, I believe, from some expressions dropped by the Bishop himself that Dr. Lauder was to come here as an Assistent Minister ; and you will also remember that there was then a pretty general and audible outburst of discontent. Well, from whatever cause, Dr. Lauder did not come here, but was sent to Brock- ville, and we fondly imagined we had done with him for ever. Now, I do not say positively that our discontent was the reason, although I can myself answer for its being tolerably loud spoken, and although it would be a very fair inference that his Lordship, wno was living in Kington at the time, and in constant com- munication with many members of the congregation, must have known of this discontent ; but this I do say, that if his Lordship did not hear of it, then I am certain ho was the only man at all closely connected with this congregation who did not. Nevertheless, I will not rc'it my cnse on proofs like these. And first, I betr to inform you that his Lordship himself, within these few days, stated to Dr. l&obison, in presence of the Rev. ^r. Dcnroche, that he would not have ap- P t c ( t I i c - I ; E ( f \ ' I 11 J have conde- advised Dr. biave given us »t if we had, putation from ot such as to 1 farther that icoUection of nt made here ; to have been i; of courtesy lourtesy or of t. George. one question of Kingston ? ^ondav. He oing light, (I ry convenient . Lander was this bein}^ a ns' own self: congregation it suited Dr. d hononrable n his diocese, observe that Ich you will, of Kingston, congregation, lame and Dr. »ry, did exist, b was, and ia, ongreation. ree assertions {>roof of these ind, I do not say that we of I shall now lat Dr. Lewis ;hat such ap- onee more to some months was currently ishop himself you will also of discontent, sent to Brock- !fow, I do not lyself answer fair inference sonstant com- nown of this ' it, then I am :regation who ). And first, ays, stated to not have ap- pointed Dr. Lauder if he had known he was distasteful to the congregation, but that with the exception of Mr. Simpson, no man had ever told him so. And I call on Dr. Robison to rise and correct me if I have made any piisstatement. (Here Dr. Robison rose and confirmed Mr. C.'s statement.) and, seconcUy, I b^ to say that Mr. S. Taylor, who is also present, informed me in presence of Mr. Ross and Dr. Robison, that he, several nioutlks sinee, deliberately went out to Alwington for the express purpose of warMn^ his Lordship that the appointment of Dr. Lauder, in any shape, would be most mstosteful to the cpngreg^ion. And I call on Mr. Samuel Tayior to Hse and correct me if I have ipode any misstate- ment. (Here Mr. Suuuel Taylor rose and confirmed Mr. C.'s statement.* And ^ith rewoot to his Lordship's pledpe given publicly in hM Synod at Ottaiira to the effect that he would not use bis power to wp(;4nt m^ one distaste- ful to a congoegotion, I bej^ to say that there is some din^enoe m tP the exact words used oy Ms Lordsh^. I was informed by ShenjTCIorbfBvt, ;n poreaenoe ^ Dr. Robison, that lus Lordship said that he vovdd «Qt Oi^^t ^ny one (Hstosteftil. Mr. J. Shannon, who was also present, thonght the words weve, that he wo«ld not appoint any one whom he knew to be distosbeful. Mr. A. O'LougMin, I am informed, stated that his Lordship said that it would be v^y extroormnory if he appointed any one ^o wotdd be distostefiiL Other gentiem^en oonfirm the state- ment of Sheriff Cwbott. Birt, at edl events, all these witnesses i^e agreed in two main points, that his Lordship pledged himseU in substance not to make any appointment distasteful to a co^gr^aUcm, oni that he gave this pledge before he ^ot the power into his hands at all. (Here on interrm>ti<»i, Mr. Simpson stating that tJie pledgr v^as made after.) Mr. C. resnmod. This may be ; I only repeat these gentlemen ■ ittotoneots^ not having been personally present, but from the different wording (^ their stfttemente it occurs to me that the pledge may have been repeated more ths^ once, before as well as after. ^J^dnow, my Mends, I have to ask you one question, S^ing aside for ^et inom«nt any evidence we have that his Lordship knew that Dr. Lauder's appointment would be dista^tefol to the congregation of St. George, I ask you what Would you consider to be the honourable fulfilment of an honourable pledge, giv^n on an occasion tike this ? Do you consider that his Lordship bos a rieht to demand that he shoi^d be deemed to have fulfilled his pledge in every case where the congregation ^U to furnish legol pro- FROM JUDGE MALLOCH TO 0. S. ROSS. ,, .,„. i ! ■ ,. . , [OOPT.] -^-". - ' . - •"' Pketh, Nov. 28th, 1862. Mt Dear Sir, — ^With regard to the Church notes, various defen" s have been set up. I have had the most trouble at the village of Renfrew, where several gentlemen swore that the notes were given on the express conditions that the Bishop would reside at Ottawa, and that a resident clergyman would be settled at Renfrew within three months. Neither of these conditions were complied with. But as they were not embodied in the notes, and the notes were trans- fiprred to the plaint.tf for value, before they became due, and without notice, the plaintifr was entitled to recover. The impression is that the notes were trans- ferred to O'Donnell, merely to prevent the parties setting up this defence, and consequently, a very strong feehng exists with regard to some of these suits ; and I have no doubt it will be at considerable sacrifice in such a season as this that some of the parties will be able to satisfy the judgments obtained against them. , . ■ ■ •!.■■":■ i ^ .■■ ; I am, my dear sir, ' , ' Tours respectfully, C. S. Ross, Esq., Kingston. J. G. Malloob! But as Sheriff Corbett and tbe other gentlemen wlio had waited on the Bishop did not appear, and as the meeting was disposed to hope against hope that the Bishop could not be in earnest in refusing to accept Dr. Lauder's resignation, it was finally moved in amendment and agreed by all parties, as follows ; That in view of the action taken by this Vestry at its last meeting, it is inexpedient at the present to discuss further in Vestry the differences which have arisen in relation to the appointment of Dr. Lauder to the Rectory of St. George. And this Vestry would respectfully solicit that, in the event of no charges being preferred against Dr. Lauder, within two weeks from his Lordship's reception of this Resolution, that his Lordship do then give an answer to the Deputation from the Vestry Meeting of Friday last. Meantime, fuller details of the Bishop's interview with the lay dele- gates formerly referred to having become known, a good deal of indig- nation was excited, which was not allayed by the publication of the accompanying letters from the Dean and Bishop. BROCKVHiLK, Dec. 6, 1862. My Lord — After having duly weighed and considered all that has occur- red with regard to the Kingston Rectory question, I feel that the speeches of several gentlemen at the meetings have been so offensive, that I am obliged now to withdraw the resignation which I placed conditionally in your Lordship's hands. When I did so, I knew that a great principle was involved in the question, and I felt much reluctance in giving way, and thus embarrassing your Lord- ship j but believing that I was unacceptable to the congregation who wor- ship m the Rectory Church, on the ground of simple unpopularity, I thought n '-■ 1 I, ; ! V I 14 it better (perhaps wrongly) to wave that principle and withdraw. The Rectory of Kingston belongs to the Diocese at large, and not to the congre- gation of St. George in particular ; and when your Lordship was pleased to give it to me without any seeking on my part, I never anticipated the (^po- sition which has arisen, and I should now have gladly shrunk from it if I had been allowed ; but I feel that, having resigned freely and voluntarily in consequence of the spirit exhibited at the first meeting, I have been so aspersed that it is due to myself now to hold my position, which I am glad under the circumstances to think the laws of the Church and the country enables me to do. I have the honor to remain. Your Iiordship's obedient servant, W. B. Lavder. Alwington House, Dec. 6, 1862. Mt Dbab Dban — I am i* receipt of yours of the 5th inst, in which yoii withdraw your resignation tf the Rectory of Kingston. On a review of the whole case, I think you have come to a wise decision, for although I should not have felt it to be my duty to urge your retention of the Rectory, yet I cannot but think that your withdrawal would have been attended with compromise of your character and a lot;s of your own self-respect. You have, however, relieved me from any necessity of advising you by your spontaneous determination to hold the position to which I appointedyou. But I must now make some remarks on this unhappy agitation. When your appointment became known, a very fierce indignation meeting was held by the Parishioners of St. George's Church. Resolutions were passed (if they meant anything) meant that the Rectory was given to you as a stipulated reward for your zeal in my behalf before my election to the Episcopate. As there must be of necessity two parties to a contract, not only were you accused of improper conduct, but the Bishop of the Diocese was held up to the scorn of the whole Province, as guilty of the detestible sin of simony. The most charitable construction I was able to put on their resolutions, was to suppose that the framer of them had little idea of the heiniousness of the, crime with which he charged his spiritual pastors, or that because craft and cunning in gaining wealth and office are so naturally used in the present day, there is no harm in their ludging of the clergy by the prevalent standard. It is true that the Vestry has disavowed any offen- sive me<;ning in their resolution, and saved their decency at the expense of their understanding; and since I accepted their disavowal as an apology, I would never in any public way have again alluded to their proceedings, but that the whole matter was re-opened in the Vestry meeting held on D ^com- ber 1st, when a large audience listened to Mr. Cartwright, endeavouring to fasten charges on myrelf, without apparent disgust at his unmanliness, or reminding him that a Vestry is not a tribunal competent to entertain charges against a Bishop of the Church. L is urged that I paid no deference to the feelings of the congregation in appointing a Rector whom I knew to be unpopular. Now, had the congre- gation met in private and passed resolutions expressive of your unpopularity, and sent those resolutions to me by a deputation in the first instance, thus fulfilling the injunction, •' If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone," I know that you would in- stantly have resigned, and the whole subsequent scandal would have been avoided. To excuse themselves from adoptmg thi.^ course, it is said that I was well aware of your unpopularity. This I solemnly deny. I had no reason to believe that you were unpopular in any such sense as to make it 1 ? ss, or ion in ongre- arity, thus d tell d in- been hat I id no keit 15 manifest that your usefulness would be destroyed. No one of those present at the ''indignation" meeting had even told me of your unpopularity, except one sentleman, who, in an interview with him, left on my mind th& impression tnat you were un^. opular with himself, but not of necessity with the majority of the congregation. Perhaps the cause of their silence was a feeling of shame, which kept them back &om expressing a dislike for which they could give no rational account ; for even to this moment I am unable to find an individual who can assign a cause for his opposition. It is an old proverb that "we do not readily forgive those whom we have injured;" accordingly, after the first injustice done at the indignation meeting, ev/ery method was used to intensify the feeling against you. The mode of pro- ceeding was diabolical. " Rumours " were circulated to your detriment, and then their existence was pleaded as justification for denouncing you as im- worthy of being Rector of Kingston. Tho crafty ringleader of this unmanly game informs the meeting of th^ existence of "disgusting" rumours. Of course, he disbelieves them, he says ; yet he is not above alluding to them. So astonishing was the effirontery of your assailants, that your firiends were staggered. A friend of yours wrote to me to say, that " They must certainly have something more serious than what has been put before the public, or they would not appear so firm." And though I never wavered in my belief in your entire integrity, yet I was not wholly firee from uneasiness till I heard from the Rev. Mr. Bartlett that when the Rev. Mr. Denroche demanded from Mr. Cartwright what his accusations against you were, he replied that " he would not show his hand," and untQ Theard firom the Rev. Mr. Den- roche that the same person said " he would white-wash you to any extent if you would only resign." Then I perceived the true position of affairs. Intimidation was to effect what reason and evidence could not be employed to accomplish. " Resign or we shall ruin you," was the alternative held out — a menace more odious in the sight of God and man, th&n the threat- ening letters of the ignorant but determined assassin, who imagines that he has wrongs to avenge. I have openly in public meeting expressed my anxious wish to bring all these "rumours" or charges before a competent tribunal I challenge scru- tiny on your behalf; but now I am met with the reply, " We have made no charges," though I possess a letter signed by Messrs. Cartwright, Ross a^d Robison, in which they say, "After the speech of his Lordship of yes- terday, we must accept the challenge ; and the consequence will be, that we must impugn both Bishop and Dean." And they go un to object to the constitution of the Bishop s Court, on the ground that I preside therein, an objection easily got rid of by abstaining from acting as President for the occasion. I am anxious for the investigation on my own account likewise, because there seems a tendency to shift the indignation and the " charges " from you to myself; and the executor of the late Dean has so far forgot his position as to examine the correspondence of the deceased for evidence whereby to &sten on me the charge of falsehood. This imputation I desire may be enquired into, of the whole correspondence published, as Mr. Cartwright has in a public meeting made use of it For this and the additional reason that some explanation may be given for Mr. Cartwright's vindictiveness, whereby the possibihty of his not being wholly influenced by chagrin can be established, I reiterate my readiness to issue a commission to sift these damaging charges by evidence to be given on oath. I shall not dwell upon the many other methods made use of to intensify the feeling of the congre- gation against you — such as that the Rev. Mr, Loosemcre would not serve 16 under you, and that St George's congregation ought to hare an English, not an Irish rector — ^but conclude with some remarks on the attempt now being made to bring what is called public opinion to bear on this controyersj. Under our present mode of Uhurch government, I exercise my power as Bishop in a constitutional manner. Hence I am responsible to tne public opinion of the Ghurch. But that public opinion which originates in " rumours," and finds expression in newspapers, I utterly ignore. In the language of an eminent Irish prelate, whose spirit I admire and adopt, " I would sooner tear the lawn from my shoulders, and sink my seal deeper than ever plummet sounded, than hold rank and emolument on the dis- graceful tenure of never opposing public opinion." In what I have thus addressed to you, I do not wish to be understood as implicating the whole congr^ation of St George's in this disgraceful agita- tion. There is a large and respectable minority of persons who view with disapprobation the conduct of a majority who are guilty of the very tyranny they would denounce in their Bishop. Commending you to Him " who helpeth them to right who suffer wrong," I am, my dear Dean, yours faithfully, J. T. Ontario. The Very Rev. the Dean of Ontario. y i' TO THE BISHOP OF ONTARIO. Mt Lord, — I am sorry that you have stated in your letter of December 6th, addressed to the Dean of Ontario, that '' the executor of the late Dean had so far forgot his position as to examine the correspondence of the depeased for evidence, whereby to fasten on me the charge of falsehood." This statement is unworthy of a Bishop, who had been assured by the executor in question that all the correspondence of your Lordship with the late Dean, that had come into his pomession, h&d, at the very putset of this unhappy controversy, been burned by him ; and that, while in his keeping, no person had seen or perused it This statement was made aiso to two of your clerical friends. My character for honesty of purpose and straightfor- ward dealing is, I trust, too firmly established in this community to be lightly shaken, even by the all^ation of a Bishop. It has not hitherto been doubted ; and I am not going, at my time of life, to falsify all my previous conduct, even for the purpose of removing an obnoxious rector, or of proving a Bishop untruthful The letter of the late Dean of Ontario, to which your Lordship alludes in your letter to Dr. Lauder, was not hunted up by me, among the correspon- dence of the late Dean, as your Lordship rashly asserts, but was given to me months ago. I read it, showed it to three friends, and returned it Since then I have not seen it or sought for it I am your obedient servant, Thomas W. Kobisom. TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH WHIG. Sir, — In to-day's News appears a long letter from the Bishop of Ontario, commenting pretty warmly on my conduct As my speech of December 1st is, I hope, b^ this time in circulation, I direct his Lordship's attention thereto. He will find in it facts, proofe and authorities, which he will do well to explain. I presume no one who heard that speech, will expect me to pay much I 17 . ♦» \ ing on his own personal word alone — except, indeed, to contradict them emphatically, which I do now, once for all £f his Lordship has anything to advance against me, he is probably aware that I am not likely to decline answering him, so soon as distinct particu- lars are given. The public must decide between us, and I have not much fear of the result — ^particularly if his Lordship will continue to write letters. I am your obedient servant, Kingston, Dec. 8, 1862. R. J. Oabtwriqht. The pablication of Mr. Cartwright's pamphlet was answered by the Bishop, through the medium of the Synod Chaplain, Mr. Bartlett, in the following letter. ' TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH WHIG. Sib, — The Lord Bishop of Ontario has read Mr. Cartwright's published version of his speech, made in support of a resolution, afterwards unani- mously abandoned, at the vestry meeting of 1st December instant. The tone and temper of that speech is so offensive, that his Lordship does not feel called on to reply to it himself; but he has directed me, as his Secretary, to make some remarks thereon ; and he has furnished me with some materials for the purpose. \ Mr. Gartwright, who is not a member of our Synod, speaks of a "very ^ peculiar use of his Lordship's power of veto," as having been made by him at Ottawa. Now, the Bishop made no use of his power of veto, and never had occasion to use it. He did not, in fact, speak on the patronage question, till the debate had closed, and the question was about to be put. He then plainly told the Synod that they could not compel him to accept the patronage ; that they could retain it themselves ; but if they gave it to him, they must give it untrammelled widi any conditions whatsoever. This information was given to the Synod by his Lordship, as an act of courtesy, to save them the possible trouble of giving a useless vote. The amendment proposed by Mr. Chancellor Henderson, gave occasion to the Bishop for stating that he would not consult lay delegates, nor churchwardens, nor any other persons, about the appoindment of a Rector ; but that he would not knowingly appoint a Rector who was decidedly disliked by the people. , I now come to the following extract from Mr. Cartwright's speech, as printed. " He (the Bishop) told you that he knew that Dr. Lauder was not a burning or a shining light (1 use his own words), but that he appointed him because he was a very convenient and useful man to him (Dr. Lewis) ; in plain English, because Dr. Lauder was his convenient creature and complete tool." Now, sir, if Mr. Cartwright heard the Bishop deliver his explanation to the meeting on Monday, November 24th, he cannot but know that he has misrepresented his Lordship here. I will give my own recollection of what the Bishop said, which his Lordship himself considers accurate. I may here remark that the speech of the Bishop was not a " written statement," as Mr. Cartwright says it was. "Dr. Lauder," said the Bishop, " may not be a burning and a shining light in the pulpit, but he is a good and useful parish priest, a man of standing in the diocese, a Doctor of Law? of a celebrated university ; he is a good man of business, and, from my own intimate personal knowledge of him, I feel that he will co-operate well with me, and help me to carry out my principles and views in the Cathedral Chv .M< Mt' 1ft Next, I must enquire for what possible reason, other than to make mis- chief, is the dismissal of the Rev. A. Stewart from St George's, dragged into this affair of the appointment of Dr. Lauder to the Rectory ? The history of Mr. Stewart's dismissal is this : after the election to the Bishoprick, Archdeacon Stewart told the Bishop elect that he was about to dismiss Mr. Stewart at once. Dr. Lewis entreated him not to do so, and, at his urgent request, he consented to retain him ; and nothing further Sassed between the Archdeacon and the Bishop elect on the subject, till [ovember 22, 1861, when the following letter reached the Bishop elect, at Brockville : Kingston, Nov. 22, 1861. RiosT RsvBREND SiR, — It is my intention, immediately after your approaching consecration, to dismiss the Rev. Mr. Stewart from the charge and cure of the St. George's congregation, and to relieve him from the office of Assistant Minis- ter. By this step you will be requested and required to supply the vacancy by the appointment of a successor to the vacant office, to be obtained from the United Empire, or from one of the Provincial dioceses, or from Mrithin the Arch- deaconry of Kingston. I am compelled, by reason of the extraordinary conduct and bearing of Mr. Stewart, to have recourse to his dismissal. Upon adopting this resolution, I had entertained the idea of retaining his services three montlis beyond the period of your approaching consecration, out upon mature reflection, I abandoned the intention, convinced in my mind that Mr. Stewart would avail himself of the delay to create a party in the congregation of St. George's favour- able to his retention in office, and on the plea and argument that he derived his appointment of Assistant Minister which emanated from the Buhop of Toronto, and not from the Rector, and to become my successor on the vacancy. I should be glad to have your opinion on this course I intend to pursue, and which I think will secure peace and harmony to St George's. I am. Right Reverend Sir, * Your faithful and obedient servant and brother, ' ", Geobge O'Kill Stuabt. The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop Elect of Ontario. This letter is printed here from the original MS. of Dr. Stuart It is marked " private," and would not have been published but for the letter from the Rev. A. Stuart, which appeared in the Whig of last night. It was not long after die date of this letter from Dr. G. O. Stuart, when Dr. Lewis, being in Kingston, called on the Archdeacon, found him very angry, enquired the cause, and learned that he considered that Mr. A.. Stewart had insulted him, and had the nature of the insult described to him. The Archdeacon then showed Dr. Lewis a letter which he had written to Mr. Stewart, dismissing him in very offensive terms. The Bishop Elect remonstrated and the Archdeacon, in Ms presence, made two several attempts at a suitable letter on the subject He liked neither of these, so he at last asked Dr. Lewis to assist him, which he did according, by inter* lining or expunging or doing both. The Bishop Elect mentioned these circumstances on the same day to several persons, to Mr. W. B. Simpson for one. All these facts are perfectly compatible with another fact, that is, that Dr. Lewis did not impel the Archdeacon to dismiss Mr. Stewart, against whom, indeed. Dr. G. 0. Stuart was so incensed that the Bishop Elect could not have prevailed upon the Archdeacon tO' retain him. The assumption of Mr. Gartwright that the Bishop was taxed by the Venerable Archdeacon Patton with procuring the dismissal of the Rev. A. Stewart, is a very cool piece of impertinence on his (Mr. Cartwright's) part Archdeacon Patton never presumed to tax his Lordship with anything, as appears by his own letters published at the end of Mr. Gartwright s pamphlet I and 19 I come lastly to that rery contemptible insinuation about "church notes," which Mr. Gartwright makes. What is that to us — to Dr. Lauder — to the Bishop ? Who has broken any promises in connexion with these notes ? Who had any power to make such promises ? No doubt many persons desired that Ottawa should be the cathedral city. It may be that the church people of Ottawa will again give utterance to such a wish, and beg their Bishop to leave a parish where he has been insulted and maligned, and to come to them, who have always honoured, trusted, and loved him ! I am. Sir, your faithful servant, T. H. M. Bartlett, Chaplain and Secretary to the Lord Bishop of Ontario, and Clerieal Secretary of the Synod of Ontario. Kingston, December 10, 1862. To which Mr. Oartwright replied, by proposing to refer the whole matter to the decision of the other Canadian Bishops. THE CHURCH DIFHCULTIES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS. Sib, — I was agreeably surprised at the general tone of Dr. Lauder's letter which appeared in your issue of to-day, and I am bound to add that, strongly as I disapprove of his appointment, I think Dr. Lauder has acted with considerable judgment and good sense throughout (save only in with- drawing his resignation). Dr. Lauder, to do him justice, writes l&e a man fully conscious of the gravity of the case, and as he and the Bishop (vide his Lordship's letter of December 6th) have now both publicly expressed their anxiety to have an investigation of ihe various statements affecting their character, I take the liberty of offering a Buggesti.t, while every Churchmaii in Canada would attach the extremest weight to the verdict of such a body, it is at the same time one which from its very constitution would be certain to show his Lordship every reasonable indulgence. It rests with his Lordship, however, to demand that this court be held, nor is there much room to doubt that, where interests of such magnitude are at stake, it would be granted him at once. I remain, your obedient servant, R. J. Cartwright. Kingston, December 23rd, 1862. 20 ■i i«. This proposal was not accepted, and, on the 6th January, 1863, Sheriff Gorbett published a statement of the interview between the Bishop and the Lay Delegates, the substance of which had already appeared in the press. THE BISHOP'S PRIVATE MEETING.— STATEMENT OF THE LAY DELEGATES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS. SiR) — Owing to what has appeared in the papers relative to the meeting of Lay Delegates of St Paul's and St. James, which took place on the 26th of November, at the residence of Mr. Wm. Shannon, I consider it my duty to lay before the public the circumstances which took place upon that occasion. The meeting was called at the Bishop's request, and he was accompanied by the Rev. Mr. Denroche. His Lordship opened the proceed- ings by remarking that he had called the meeting in consequence of an article which had appeared in the Daily News that morning, stating that the interests of the congregations of St Paul and St James were identical with those of St George's, and that the laity of those congregations sympa- thized with that of the latter ; which assertions his Lordship denied. His Lordship entered into full explanations with regard to the difSculty at St. George's, stating that if there was any thing at all connected with the matter the Delegates did not understand, or if there was anything they wished explained, he was anxious to explain it A friendly conversation followed, in the course of which I said, " is there no way, my Lord, by which these unhappy difficulties can be settled f" His Lordship replied, *' that he wished to God there was, but he did not know of any so long as the resolution imputing simony to himself and Dr. Lauder remained uncan- celled." I replied, supposing that the resolutions were rescinded, wo'ild he accept Dr. Lauder's resignation ? The Bishop rejoined that " undoubt- edly if that resolution were rescinded, it would remove a very great obstacle in the way of an amicable settlement ; and although he would make no promises, yet he would meet them half way, and more than half way." It was in the course of this conversation that I observed, " Blessed are the {)eace makers ;" to which his Lordship replied, '* As much as lieth in you, ive peaceably with all men." I am not aware of anything which passed at that meeting which could justify Mr. Denroche in stating that " nothing said thereat by his Lordship could warrant the presumption that he was disposed to obtain peace by the sacrifice of his friend, or by the compromise of that friend's character in any way, or to the smallest extent whatsover." Who wanted the Bishop to sacrifice his friend or to compromise his character ? Certainly no person at that meeting. Ilis Lordship further stated, that had the congregation of St George's met him privately, by delegation or otherwise, and expressed that Dr. Lauder was personally unpopular, he would have consulted their feelings. A Delegate asked, " If the Congregation publicly retracted their offensive resolution, would his Lordship treat them the same as if it had not been passed ?" To which the Bishop replied, " Yes, yes, we would begin anew.'* From the whole tenor of his Lordship's conversation at that meeting it was the unanimous opinion of the Delegates present, that if the resolution passed by the Vestry of St George, which was believed to impute simony to the Bishop and Dr. Lauder, were rescinded, that his Lordship would mmmmm 21 they accept Dr. Lauder's resignation, which he then held, and that the whole diflSculty would be ananged. Acting upon this belief, after his Lordship and Mr. Denroche bad retired from the meeting, the Delegates and Church- wardens, remained and drew up the resolutions which, slightly modified, was, on the following Friday, at the Vestry of St George, moved by myself and seconded by his Worship the Mayor, and it passed by a vote of 28 to 9, the former being the opponents, and the latter the Clergy and friends of the Dean. I may add that I succeeded in getting theVestrjr of St. Georse's to pass that resolution chiefly on the ground that by its doing so the Bishop would accept Dr. Lauder's resignation, and peace would be restored. When the committee waited on the Bishop and read to him the resolu- tion 'that had been passed, he said, " Now peace is restored between St George's Vestry and their Bishop ;" thus acquiescing in the action taken, and confirming the belief that peace had thereby been restored. Yet about a fortnight later the Bishop writes to Dr. Lauder that "the Vestry had disallowed any offensive meaning in their resolution, and saved their decency at the expense of their understanding. I will conclude by stating that, as to that portion of Mr. Denroche's letter referring to the fitness or unfitness of Dr. Lauder, not one word was said upon the subject at the meeting. I trust this letter will satisfy the Congregation of St. Geoi^e that in persuad- ' ing them to vote for the resolution rescinding their former resolution, I at least did not deceive them. I an your obedient servant, , , Thomas A. Cobbett, Sheriff, Lay Bel^aU of St. PauTt. Kingston, 5th January, 1863. We do hereby certify that the above statement is correct as far as the same relates to the meeting held at Mr. Shannon's, on the evening of Wednesday, the 26th of November. •* .' James Hope, - James Shannon, Churchwardens and Lay delegates of St. PauVs. Wabben p. Stbeet, ' Churchwarden of St. James's. Wm. Shannon, Churchwarden and Lay Belegaiefor St. Jameis. T. W. Nash, , Lay Delegare for St. Jaimaf s. Kingston, 5th January, 1863. ,'.!,' iThis statement was confirmed, as has been seen,, by five other gentle^ men, and was never attempted to be refuted save by a simple reaffirm- ation of Mr. Denroche's letter of January 2Dd, therein alluded to. THE RECTORY DIFFICULTIES. , - <, TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS. ' Sir, — In your leading article of Wednesday you refer to a meeting of the Wardens and Synod Delegates from and of St Paul's and St James's Churches, held in Kingston, at which meeting the Lord Bishop of the Diocese was present Having accompanied his Lordship, at his own request, I trust you will suffer me to state certain facts and points as I understood them, and more 22 especially as connected with the " honourable understanding" which, you gtj, " hia Lordship did not act up to." The only understanding, if such it ma/ i called, that was arrived at, has been acted up to by the Bishop an far as it Wi' within his own power to act And this I now proceed to ' legate from St. Paul's, who has a seat in St. Qeoi^e's, expressed himself most anxious for the full restoration of peace in the congregution of the latter with its Bishop, and used the words of our Saviour — " Blessed are the peace makers." His Lordship reminded him of the aords of that Saviour's Apostle— "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" — and observed tliat however highly desirable is the blessing of peac^ it should never be purchased by any sacrifice of truth or of principle. After- wards, when this gentleman was endeavouring to draw out from his Lord- ship some expression that might commit him to the acceptance of Dr. Lauder's conditional resignation of the Bectory of St. George's, one or more of the gentlemen present told him not to comer the Bishop, as his Lordship would do what he thought right The Bishop had expressed himself as feeling deeply hxirt by the proce- dure of the St George's indignation meeting, but agreed that an action r.n the part of the St George's Vestry, exculpatiug him from the impucatioT^ of simony, would tend materially to the restoration of amicable feeling , and that were such action taken, the ground would be so far cleared for a fresh starting point in reference to the fitness or unfitness of Dr. Lauder for the St George's Rectory. I listened with much attention to all that- passed at that meeting ; and I must most distinctly say that nothing said thereat by his Lordship could warrant the presumption that he was disposed to obtain peace by the sacrifice of his friend, or by the compromise of that friend's character, in any way or to the smallest extent whatsoever. Nor, on the other hand, did his Lordship say anything that could lead the meeting to suppose that had Dr. Lauder, after being fully and fairly cleared of every insinuation, imputation, and detrimental rumour, thought proper to ask to be permitted to retire from a post that had been made so unpleasant to him, his Bishop would have resistc^vt that D' Lauder had actually obtained ce.-^ain money obligati' iv-. m . h. jry noteo) upon false pretences. He also tried hard, through '''•.''. < .ideuce of Dr. R. and Mr. T., to make out the Bishop to have told a falsehood. (I am happy here to be able to state that Mr. T. thanked me afterwards most cordially for having fully explained away in the same vestry Mr. Carwright's impu- tations against his Lordship.) . ^ce efforts on the part of Gartwright to blacken the character of both Di. i. ^ '''e- and uis friend and patron, were too much even for so quiet and rc^'.r*.n< «j indU'dual as the Dean to submit to. VLq thereupon withdrew his Cffn:^-. 'oivil resignation out of the hands of the Bishop, and thus boldly Mil 28 threw down lie gauntlet for his aaEailaot to take ud, and has, in so doing, challenged hnn to make good his revilings. From that moment his Lord- $hip had no power whatever lo " act" in the matter at all. It is for the oppo- nent of the rpf^tor of St. Tiporge to take action ; and has had, as I am credibly informed, eviry information how to proceed against Dr. Lauder supplied to him by the Doctor's law agent, Dr. Henderson. "Xou say tit a reeoluudn moved by Mr. Corbett ai the Friday vtstry meeting of St. George's passed without dissent Here, Sir, you have beeD misinformed. The Kev. Mr. Bartlett's auxmdroent had nine votes recorded in its favor. The objoct of that amendment vi afi to a^'sert that Dr. Lauder ought not to be expected to resign the Rectory until he had been pri^^sd guilty of one or other of the charges insinuated against him. These bioe gentlemen, by the refusal of Mr. Corbett to divide his resolution, which embraced two distinct subjects, were actually compelled to withhold a vote, exculpatory of bis Lordship, so that they might not do an injury to the Rector of St. George's. Hoping that you will excuse the unavoidable length of this commuoi- oation. I am, Sir, ; '^ . Your obedient and faithful servr it, E. Dknkochi. Kingston, January 2, 1863. The publication of Sheriff Corbett's st: ement called forth many severe remarks from the press, of which the following article from the Globe may serve as a sample. ^ - . . SHARP PRACTICE. Bishop Lewis, in dealing with, the St. George's Church difficulty, has displayed avast deal of cleverness. He has got his nominee duly iDf>talIed, after having by, adroit management procured the rescinding of the i-esolu- tion which imput-ed simony to himself and Dr. Lauder. He has thus got the congregation at a disadvantage, there being an apparent unreasonable- ness in their continuing to remonstrate against Dr. Lauder's appointment, after they have themselves withdrawn the only distinct objection which they had urged against it. He has undoubtedly shown a very considerable amount of smartness in bringing matters into this position, but, as the whole facts come to be known, many will be of the opinion that, while he has in a measure attained the olyeot he had in view, he has done so by having recourse to a style of sharp practice which we should sooner expect to be exhibited by an unscrupulous man of the world than by a Christian Bishop. He has managed the Kingston Rectory business with a slippery adroitness which, if he had any opportunity for dispi'iying his talents in the walks of politics, would foe apt to make tne most accomplished political tricksters, even John A. Maodonald himself, feel jealous of him. We publish to-day a letter from Sheriff Corbett, of Kingston, giving a plain, unimpaasioned narrative of the meanures adopted by the Bishop to induce the congregation of St. George's to withdraw the resolution which ascribed to him unworthy motives in appointing Dr. Lauder. Even the unsup- ported statement of a man like Sheriff Corbett of what took place at the interview with the Bishop, would be entitled to much weight, but, when we find it confirmed as it is in every particular by the otner Lay Delegates and Churchwardens who were present, no one will hesitate to give it entire confidence. To what, then, do these gentlemen testify ? They say , I ■ 1 i • V: % t 24 that the Bishop told tfaem that, if that reaalution were rescinded, a very great obstacle m the way of an amicable settlement would be removed, and when he told them this he could not but be aware that the only amicable settlement of the difficulty to which the congregation would listen, was his acceptance of Dr. Lauders resignation. He told them further that " he woum meet them half-way, and more than half-way," although in saying this he cunningly left himself a back door to escape by, in adding that "he would make no promises." The congregation doubtless imagined that, in declining to make promises, while holding out to them the hope that he would meet their views, he desired merely to save his dignity. The result has proved that hie Lordship interposed this remark with a very different object. He told them further, that, if the congregation publicly retracted their offensive resolution, he would treat them the same as if it had not passed. Taking this in connection with his statement that, if they had in the first instance met him privately and informed him that Dr. Lauder was personally unpopular, he would have consulted their feelings, they considered they had the Bishop's sacred word for it, as much as if they had had his written pledge under his own hand and seal, that, if they rescinded the resolution, he would accept Dr. Lauder's resignation which was then in his hands. Sheriff Corbett and the other gentlemen reported to the vestry meeting the result of the interview, and the vestry, in the full belief that the resolution in question was the only obstacle in the way of Dr. Lauder's appointment being cancelled, agreed by a vote of 28 to 9 to rescind it. The Bishop had now accomplished his object of putting the congregation in a disadvantageous position, if they continued to object to their Rector. With a heartless sneer at their simplicity, he wrote to Dr. Lauder that they had " saved their decency at the expense of their under> standing," and, instead of fulfilling the implied obligaiion to remove Dr. Lauder, he proceeded to instate him in the Rectorship with all the cere- monies usual on such occasions. . The proceeding certainly redounds little to the Bishop's credit. He made the congregation no promise, he told them. True ; they had not thought a promise necessary. They trusted his honour as a gentleman that he would perform what he said, when he intimated to them, in terms as plain as are considered a sufficient warrant for ordinary transactions in every-day life, that, if they withdrew the obnoxious resolution, he would withdraw the obnoxious appointment, and they did not care to insult him by making him sign a distinct contract to that effect. Having made up his mind that Dr. Lauder should be Rector, is there any code of morality which will justify his offering the congregation an amicable settlement, his expressing a willingness to meet them half way, and his telling them, " we will begin anew,'' in the event of their rescinding their resolution ? If he carried his point cleverly, the means he employed were not such as would be resorted to by a Bishop who earnestly strove to preserve his episcopal lawn unsullied. He succeeded in outwitting his congregation, and may have chuckled over their simplicity and his own astuteness, as he assisted in the ceremony of the " reading in" of Dr. Lauder as Rector. But, after all, he was not clever enough to foresee that, when the whole proceeding came to be exposed, as Sheriff Corbett and his co-delegates have now revealed it, the respect entertained for him in his episcopal character would be infinitely more damaged by such a revelation tnan it would have suffered from his submitting to have his will thwarted as to who should be Rector of St. George's. For the present the Bishop has got a question- able victory, in having the Rectory filled by his nominee, in opposition to the protest of almost the entire congregation. But the matter cannot remain where it is. CanadiauB will not submit to be trampled upon in 25 tbeir ecclesiastioal any more than in their civil character, and Bishop Lewis will probably find that, instead of havine strengthened his episoopu authority by the course he has taken in the Kingston Rectory case, he has only succeeded in awakening the Churchmen of Canada to the necessi^ of asserting and vindicating tneir rights, with a firmness of purpose which the opposition of a whole Bench orBisbops would be unable to resist. • And the inference thence drawn was materially strengthened in the minds of the people of Kingston, at least by the publication of the sub- joined letters narrating a conyereation between J. A. Henderson the Chancellor of the Diocese of Ontario and Mr. G-. LaSere, from which it appears to be put beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bishop was aware of the dislike of the congregation to Dr. Lauder many months before the Rectory fell vacant. THE RECTORY DIFFICULTIES. TO THE EDITOR QF THE DAILY NEWS. Sir, — Shortly after the publication of my speech of December 1st, I learned that Mr. Chancellor Henderson had, prior to Dr. Lauder's appointment, ad- mitted that the Bishop was aware of the dislike of the people of Kingston to Dr. Lauder. Yesterday, being desirous of settling the matter, not only be- fond doubt, but beyond question, I called on Mr. LaSerre and stated what had heard, whereupon that gentleman firankly acknowledged that shortly before Dr. Lauder's induction, Mr. Henderson had called upon him and had stated, in the course of conversation, that Dr. Lauder eoidd not he appointed^ because the Bishop, at the time of the Rev. Alexander Stewart's final dis- missal, had remarked to him (Mr. Henderson) : *' The people of Kingston seem to be very much afraid of my bringing Dr. Lauder here ; they need not be afraid, I have no such intention." If this be correct, and I presume Mr. Henderson will not deny that it is, if not verbatim* at any rate substantially so, I trust we shall hear no more of his Lordship's ignorance of the feelings of the congregation of St. George's relative to Dr. Lauder. Your obedient servant, Jan. 15th, 1863. R. J. Cartwbioht. ] TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS. ... 1 . Sir, — Permit me to correct a vnrong interpretation which might possibly be put on the remarks Mr. Henderson made to me and which Mr. Cartwright refers to in your last issue. Before the Bishop's consecration, so far back as March last, and when there were reports in St Georee's congr^ation, that the Rev. Alexander Stewart had received his dismissal, to make way for Dr. Lauder, who was to succeed him as Assistant Minister, and which caused some feelings of dissatisfaction, Mr. Henderson stated that the Bishop elect, in a conversation with him, remarked : *' The congregation seem to be very much afraid of my bringing Dr. Lauder here ; they need not be alarmed, I have no such intention,'' or words to that effect. Mr. Henderson, before the induction, and when everyone was surmising who was to bo Rector, in an answer to my inquiry, stated that he was per- fectly unaware, to the best of his own knowledge the Bishop had even hinted about the appointment ; and when Mr. Henderson mentioned the conversation 26 I I Fiii which took place some ten months ago respecting Dr. Lauder*s not coming here as Assistant Minister, and from which we both conjectured (wrongly as it turned out) that Dr. Lauder would not be appointed. Your obedient servant, Kingston, Jan. 16th, 1863. G; F. LaSerre. No attempt has ever been made to contradict Mr. LaSerre's letter, which was succeeded very shortly by a letter from Mr. Cartwright giving a sort of resum^ of the evidence against the Bishop, and analysing the defence set up in Mr. Bartlett's letter of December 10th, 1862. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS. Sre, — It was not originally my intention to have again addressed the public on this subject. But the general interest which has been manifested respect- ing it, and the evident tendency (the clei^y excepted) to elevate the contest from a mere personal local gquabble to an important church question, coupled with the advice of friends whose opinions I am bound to respect, induce me to believe that is on all accounts desirable that, now that it has been entered upon, it should be fully discussed. It is, I admit, a matter of regret that the action of the Synod of Ontario in vesting the right of presentation absolutely in the Bishop debarred us, ds a vestry, fi-om taking up this affair on the higher ground of the abstract right of Obristian congregations to (at least) a negative voice in the selection of their pastor for life ; but though the turn things have taken will compel me to devote the great bulk of this Iptter to the question, how fkr the con- duct of the Bishop did or did not warrant the proceedings of the congregation of St. Oeorge^s, it is no less true that the principle involved is one of the gravest importance to the well-being of our own and, indeed, to some ex- tent, of all our sister Protestant churches in Canada. Moreover, as regards the conduct and character of Dr. Lewis himself, it must be remembered so lon^ as he continues to fill his present position, it is of very considerable practical moment to some 80,006 persipns (that being the number appertaining to the Church of England in this diocese) whether Dr. Lewis be an honorable and truth-telling man, or whether he be what not only I and my friends, but many of the most influential journals of this Province, have declared him to be. And I particularly request my fellow- churchmen to observe that while it would have been utterly absurd on the one hand to have expected a Bishop to submit to an investigation until such charges as might exist had been publicly stated on primd facie reasonable evidence — which has been done by myself and others, though not till we had repeatedly made overtures for a reconciliation — so, on the other hand, before proceeding further, I have earnestly endeavored to persuade Dr. Lewis to submit his cause to the arbitrament of his brother prelates and their chan- cellors. Nor was it till after all hope of his consenting to such reference had departed, that I have had recourse to the sole remaining tribunal — to wit, that of public opinion itself It is unfortunately useless to deny that the question now agitating the minds of all churchmen in this diocese is nothing less than this : Can the veracity of our Bishop, Dr. Lewis be relied on or not ? Nor can the most orthodox believer wonder that doubts have arisen when he discovers there are now no less than six several incidents or statements before the public, each wholly distinct from the other, and supported by different and inde- pendent testimony, in each of which the honor and veracity of the Bishop are distinctly impeached. f 27 ' i For perspecuitv and fair play's sake, I shall recite them in order, and afterwards state briefly on what kind of evidence they are advanced, and how refuted and explained (if at all). And, Firstly— The Bishop is chained with having been fully aware that Dr. Lauder's appointment would be distasteful to the congregation of St. George's — his solemn denial (see his letter of December 6th) to the contrary notwithstanding. Secondly — He id charged with having broken the pledge he gave in the Synod room at Ottawa, to the effect that he would make no appointment distasteful to a congregation. Thirdly — He is accused of havine induced the vestry of St. George's to abstain from putting on record their strong disapproval of his Lordship's conduct in this matter, and in lieu thereof to pass a conciliatory (though not contradictory) resolution at the meeting of Nov. 28th, 1862, by virtual pro- mises that if this concession were made he would then accept Dr. Lauder's resignation, which he afterwards evaded doing. Fourthly — He is accused of mean and dishonorable conduct in the matter of the dismissal of the Rev. Alexander Stewart, and of subsequent prevari- cation in reference thereto. Fifthly — He is accused of making a certain false statement in his letter of December 6th, respecting Dr. T. W. Robison, knowing the same to be false. Sixthly— He has in his letter of October 24th, 1862, to the Bishop of Huron, staked his personal honor and veracity against that of Archdeacon Brough, in reference to a certain conversation between them, in such terms that it is manifest one or other must be guilty of a Wilfltl untruth. Now, it is to be noted, that so grave has been the character of the evi- dence against him that the entire Kingston press (with the exception of the Argua\ although at first by no meatas inclined to deal hardly with his Lord- ship, have since severally accused him of prevarication and duplicity in edi- torial articles (vide the Whig of Dec 6th and 15th, 1862 ; the Do-ly Newa of Dec. 9th and 81st, 1862 ; and Jan. 8rd and 6th 1863 ; and the Herald and Advertiser of Dec. 12th 1862, and Nov. 28th, 1862) ; and though I by no means adduce this as proof positive of his Lordship's guilt, yet I think that most dispassionate bystanders will agree that when three rival editors, hav- ing very full opportunities of hearing both sides of the question, are all found uniting on one point — viz., that his Lordship's veracity is not to be depended on, it is abundantly clear tbat the primd facie evidence against him is enough to make it expedient f^r his Lordship to demand an mvesti- gation, for his honor's sake. Those who desire to examine the evidence on which the first and second, and (in part) the fourth charges rest, will find it detailed in extenao in my speech of December 1st, published in pamphlet form ; and it is therefore enough to say here, as regards the first charge, that it was proved by Dr. Robison, that his Lordship had himself admitted that Mr. W. B. Simpson had told him that Dr. Lauder would be distasteful to to the people of St. George's, and by Mr. S. Taylor that he had deliberately paid a visit to his Lordship for the sole purpose of warning him of the self- same thing : while in addition to the direct testimony of these two gentlemen, a whole mass of circumstantial evidence was adduced to show that it was morally impossible that the Bishop should have been ignorant of the fact that Dr. Lauder was a perfect " bete noir" in the eyes of his future congre- gation. In answer to this, wo have, it is true, the solemn denial of the Bishop— but nothing more — unless the statement that he thought Mr. Taylor had gone out to Alwington to give the Bishop formal notice that Dr. Lauder's 28 appointment would be personally objectionable to him (Mr. S. Taylor), is to oe deemed an explanation. If it is; all I can say is, that it would have been a most remarkable proceeding on Mr. Taylor's part ; but as it is in direct contradiction to Mr. Taylor's public declaration, it seems needless to enlai^ge on that head. The second charge, viz., that his Lordship pledged himself to the Synod at Ottawa that he would not use his power to appoint any one distasteful to a congregation, rests on the evidence of Messrs. Corbett, Shannon, O'Lough- lin, and also on the involuntary but vabuable admission of Mr.W. B. Simp- son (vide pamphlet of Dec. 1st), who all, though differing slightly as to time and wording, are agreed as to the fact of its having been made. This, however, is of less consequence, as his Lordship admits, through the mouth of his official secretary, Mr. Bartlett, in his letter to the Whig of Dec. 10th, that he did make such a pledge, but proceeds to explain it as follows : — " The amendment proposed by Mr. Chancellor Henderson, gave occasion to the Bishop for stating that he would not consult lay delegates nor church- wardens, nor any other persons, about the appointment of a Rector, but that he would not knowingly appoint a Rector who was decidedly disliked by the people." I invite attention to the above passage. Certainly, if the Bishop did say all this, as there stated, and stuck to his determination not to consult any person who could inform him what the people thought, it would be almost beyond the power of man to prove that he had knowingly appointed a Rec- tor decidedly disliked by the people. But I am sorry to say that the whole sentence as it stands is, from first to last, one of the most disingenuous specimens of the suggestio falsi which it has ever been my lot to encounter. What will your readers, what will all honest men, say when I inform them that if the testimony of half a dozen most respectable witnesses is to be believed, the foregoing sentence consists of two totally different observations, made at two different periods, and relative to two different subjects of dis- cussion! which are here most unfairly blended together and made to appear as if said at the same time ! Nevertheless, I am informed that such is the fact, and that while the first half of this sentence " that he would not consult lay delegates nor churchwardens nor Any other persons about the appointment of a Rector," was uttered by his Lordship in reference to Mr. Henderson's amendment making it compulsory on the Bishop to consult the above named congregational representatives, the remaining portion, " that he would not knowingly appoint a Rector who was decidedly disliked by the people," was spoken at a quite subsequent period, after Mr. Henderson's amendment was withdrawn, and when the question under debate was the original one whether the Synod should retain the right of presentation or vest it absolutely and uncontrollably in the hands of the Bishop ! It was then that the latter half of the sentence was uttered without one word (at that time) to the effect that the Bishop would not consult lay delegates or others, and as all the witnesses averred without the interpolation of the word " decidedly." In fact, Mr.W. B. Simpson, the Bishop's special friend, pointed- ly declared (see pamphlet of Dec. 1) that this pledge was made not only after the withdrawal of Mr. Henderson's amendment, but after the passage of the motion vesting the presentation in the Bishop. And it may be remarked in passing, that the recollection of the Kingston delegates may the rather be depended on, as they were probably the only laymen in the Synod who had an immediate personal interest in the matter, their Rectory being the only one then vacant. But if, contrary to all evidence. It be still maintained that his Lordship used the words Mr. Bartlett gives as his, and especially those I have emphasized, I have only to say that independent of the fact that he y \?- 29 \ ) can by a singular fatality be shown to have in this instance violated his ple%e by hiowingly appointing a Rector whom he knew to be decidedly distasteM to the people of St. George's, it would in my judgment, almost make his case worse that it is ; since it would then be very difficult to avoid the conclusion that his Lordship had his project already cut-and-dry, and that he has been guilty of the almost incredible meanness of using language deliberately cal- culated to mislead those who were about to entrust him with a power td which he had no legal claim, in the full confidence that he would faithfully discharge the trust. As respects the third charge, that his Lordship obtained an exculpatory resolution from the St. George's vestry by indirect means, it is sufficient to refer to SheriflF Corbett's letter in the i\r(5M*of Jan. 6th, from which it clearly appears, on the evidence of six witnesses, that his Lordship induced them to take up his cause (and save him the disgrace of seeing strong condemnatory resolutions recorded in the vestry book of his Cathedral Church) by represen- tations which implied a promise of accepting Dr. Lauder's resignation. To a charge supported by such evidence, it is hard to see what an answer can be made ; and even if his Lordship has any explanation to offer, what can he urge in excuse for his mean and ungenerous taunt in his letter of Dec. 6th, where he speaks of the passage of a resolution, granted to his entreaties and apparent distress, as " saving the decency of the congregation at the expense of their understanding 1" It is right to state that two other letters have appeared on this subject ; but as Mr. O'Loughlin (see News of Jan. 7th) does not deny any state- ment made as a matter of fact by Sheriff Corbett, and as the Rev. Mr. Den- roche is not entitled to much credit as to his version of the matter, he having tacitly acquiesced in Sheriff's Corbett's declaration to the. vestry on Friday, Nov. 28th, that if this resolution passed, all difficulty would be over, I think it enough to refer any inquirer to the Nevos of Jan. 6th and 7th for further particulars. On the fourth charge, relative to his Lordship's conduct in the case of the Rev. Alexander Stewart, I shall merely say here, that there are many cir- cumstances connected therewith known to me and others, which render it impossible for us to accept his Lordship's explanations as correct ; but as this affair is wholly episodical and of local interest only, and would moreover require to be treated at some length, I think it better to defer its considera- tion to a future occasion, and to pass on, without further comment, to the fifth charge, which is that his Lordship, in his letter of Dec. 6th, falsely accused Dr. Robison of having made use of his (Dr. Lewis) private corres- pondence with the late Dean to convict his Lordship of falsehood. It is to be noted that this accusation rests solely on his Lordship's authority, and is one which, from its very nature, could only have been proved from Dr. Robison's own admissions. It would, therefore, have been quite sufficient for Dr. Robison to have denied it, as he has in his letter of December 8th. (See Netcs.) But it happens, unluckily for the Bishop, that Dr. Robison is able to prove, not only that the Bishop had no right to make such an accusation, but that he actually knew it to be false several days at least before the publication of his letter of Dec. 6th. In fact, his Lordship, for some reason best known to himself, saw fit to pay Messrs. Ross and Robison a long visit on the morning of I ecember 8rd, and after the interview, in which Dr. Robison repeated what he had already told him touching his cor- respondence with the late Dean of Ontario, viz., that he (Dr. R.) " had never shown any one a line of Dr. Lewis' letters since the Dean's decease," but on the contrary had scrupulously destroyed all that had come into his hands, bis Lordship was pleased to express himself perfectly satisfied that Dr. Bo- 80 bison had acied with honesty and uprightness ; and at parting tendered him him his hand, imasked, in token of his sincerity. How, after this interview, and after holding the language he then did to Dr. Robison, his Lordship could have been insane enough to bring such an accusation against that gentleman, is a matter I must leave for himself to explain. For the benefit of the public, I may as well state, however, that theonly lettwin Dr. Lewis' handwriting which Dr. Kobison ever showed to any one, was the one alluded to in my speech of Dec. 1st — and that was given him by the late Dean several months before his death, apparently for the express purpose of prov- ing to his friends that he was not so entirely to blame for the abrupt dismissal of the Rev. A. Stewart as some of them had supposed. Of the sixth and last instance in which Dr. Lewis has contrived to put his personal word in direct antagonism with that of gentlemen of undoubted worth and position, it would be unnecessary to dwell at length, were it not that the whole tone and tenor of his letter of Oct. 24. to the Bishop of Huron from his egotistical assumption of proprietorship in ''my Synod" to his delib- erately charging Archdeacon Brough with a wilful and malicious falsehood (for the word "fabrication" implies no less), prove most conclusively that the Bishop of Ontario has, of all men, least just ground of complaint if his con- duct and motives are severely criticised by his opponents. If they have at times forgotten the respect due to his position m the Church, Dr. Lewis might have remembered, that in dealing with Archdeacon Brough, he had to do with a man fully his equal in worth and in social standing (his Bishopric apart), and one, too, as far his superior in years and experience as he is — if we are to judge from the calm though dignified tone of his reply to Dr. Lewis' injurious aspersions — in the practice of a higher Christian morality. Surely Dr. Lewis must have lost sight of common prudence, if not of common decency, when he spoke of a man old enough to be his father, and one of the highest dignitaries of a neighboring diocese, as a " fabricator'' in reference to a private conversation held between them alone, and in which no witnesses could be called. And though, as regards the public, I am aware that I have no right to plead another's wrong-doing as an excuse for mine, yet, as regards Dr. Lewis himself, I have a right to say that i^ in anything I have said or written here or elsewhere, I should prove to have spoken too severely, or to have judged his conduct too harshly, I have in so doing only too faithfully copied the example of the ecclesiastical head of this diocese. I may have wronged his Lordship by judging of his acts and words by ordinary rules of evidence ; if I have, I regret it, for his own and yet more for his office sake ; but let me tell his Lordship, that but for such pamphlets as his of Oct. 23rd — such speeches as his to St. George's congregation of Nov. 24th — and last but not least, such letters as his Lordship's epistle of Dec. 6th — scarce any amount of evidence which could be possibly brought together would have sufficed to shake the time-honored reverence for his office which is rooted in the minds of the members of our Church, and which makes it almost a matter of religious belief with many, that a Bishop, like a King, can do no wrong. One thing at least I can say, that out of respect to the feelings of those to whom I have alluded, I have omitted many things which, though they might have strengthened the case as against the Bishop, would undoubtedly have pained and shocked their minds. Still, I think even the most devoted will admit that if the statements made above are true, either the Bishop must profess and show by his acts some evident token of penitence for the wrong he has done, or it will become their duty no less than ours to do ail they can to limit his powers of mischief for the ftiture. If they are not true, then I 31 € /! \ A, 1; T let the Bishop or Ihs friends put forth some more lucid refutation than they have as yet contrived to do ; for whether they believe me or not, I can most sincerely assure them that not even their staimchest supporters profess themselves satisfied with what they have hitherto set before the public. I have only further to say, that if anything above stated is false, it ought to be a very easy task to disprove it, inasmuch as all these occurrences have taken place within a very few weeks or months, and as they are set out with all possible detail of place, time and circumstance, which can &cilitate de- tection and exposure. Tour obedient servant, Jan. 15, 1862. R. J. Cabtwright. With this letter closed the correspondence as far as the Bishop of Ontario and the congregation of St. George's are directly concerned ; and as this pamphlet does not pretend to take notice of the various side questions relative to the case of the Rev. A. Stewart, Dr. Lauder, and the Rev. Mr. Bartlett, it may suffice to refer enquirers to the pages of the Kingston papers, if anxious to investigate them in detail. It only remains to add an extract from Dr. Lewis' letter to the Bishop of Huron, dated the 24th October, 1862, several weeks before the com- mencement of these difficulties and Archdeacon Brough's answer thereto* EXTRACT. " As regards Archdeacon Brough's statement, I have only to say that I distinctly remember the conversation he alludes to, when I did admit my dislike of the term ' glorified humanity,' on the ground that it was new to me in connection with the reception or the Eucharist, but the assertion that I called the Provost's views on this subject heretical, I affirm to be a fabrication .'" TO THE RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF ONTARIO : St. John's Rectort, London, C.W., December 8. My Lord — I had placed in my hands, a few days since, your Lordship's published letter, addressed to the Lord Bishop of Huron, on the suWect of the controversy connected with the theological teaching in Trinity College, Toronto, and in which you introduced my name with " fabrication." The letter found me in my bed, where I have been for some weeks past, owing to a rather severe accident. The perusal of the document induced various impressions and purposes of mind, which I now desire to repress, and hope to forget. Had I yielded to impulse and not to principle, you can understand, I presume, the terms in which I should have met your extraordinary imputations. A little reflec- tion, however, checked my first emotion, and let me to the contemplation of your position rather than my own personal feelings, merged into solicitude for the peace of Churcn, and your Lordship's character as one of her chief pastors. I accordingly desired to bow to the dictate, " recompense to no man evil for evil ;" and again "avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wTath." I commit myself in this matter to Him who judgeth right- eously, whilst I trust that it is not inconsistent with His will that I should say, 'n refutation of your charge, that I have fabricated nothing. And I here re-affirm what 1 asserted in your presence, and before the Board of Trinity College, assembled in large numbers — that in conversation with me. 32 on the subject of a topic contained in one of Provost Whittaker*s letters, namely, the reception of the glorified humanity of the Saviour in the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper — you said, " It is heretical." This, my statement, you pronounced "a fabrication." I am extremely sorry you should so express yourself The time, place, and circumstances relating to what I have set forth, are all firesh in my recollection. I should fain hope that your Lordship's memory is at fault, and I should rejoice to abide under that impression. I make the declaration (which I have now for a second time expressed) in a chamber of indisposition, to which I am at present confined, and under a solemn sense of my responsibility to God in so doing. You will doubtless be prepared to learn that I intend to place this letter before the public I am, my Lord, Your obedient servant, Chas. H. Bbougb. W. C. CHKWKTT