IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

c«

rA
^

1.0

I.I

lA^iia |2.5

1^ us 12.0

11:25 111.4 IIIIII.6

'% ''

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions

Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical Notes / Notes techniques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Physical
features of this copy which may alter any of the
images in the reproduction are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiUeur exemplaire
qu'ii iui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains
d6fauts susceptibles de rsuire d la quulitd de la
reproduction sont notds. ci-dessous.

Coloured covers/
Couvertures de coulcur

Coloured maps/

Cartes c^ographiques en couleur

D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Crloured plates/
Planches en couleur

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes

Show through/
Transparence

E Tight binding (may cause shadows or
distortion along interior margin)/
Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou
de la distortion le long de la marge
intdrieure)

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Additional comments/
Commentaires suppldmentaires

Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques

D
D

Only edition available/
Saule Edition disponible

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

D
D

Pagination incorrect/
Rrreurs de pasination

Pages missing/
Des pages manquent

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Plates missing/

Des planches manquent

Maps missing/

Des cartes gdographiques manquent

r^ Additional comments/ Blank leaves which were added duri.ig restoration may appear within the

LXJ Commentaires suppl«mentaires text. Whenever possible, these were omitted from filming

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall
contain the symbol — ^ (meaning CONTINUED"),
or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever
applies.

The original copy was borrowed from, and
filmed with, the kind consent of the following
institution:

Library of the Public

Archives of Canada

Maps or plates too large to be entirely included
in one exposure are filmed beginning in the
upper left hand corner, left to right and top to
bottom, as many frames as required. The
following diagrams illustrate the method:

Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire film«, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la der-
ni*re image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas:
le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole
V signifie "FIN".

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grfire d la
gdn6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur
suivant :

La bIbEiothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada

Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre
reproduites en un seul clichd sont filmdes d
partir de Tangle sup6rieure gauche, de gauche d
droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le rombre
d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant
illustre la mdthode :

OF THE

S I

vV, -.

H-' :G-:i :

■ '^ ■-■■■ \: > ' ■

>*;a*-'if:

f'-'^ii '■■''.--•' "'■^"^.-'
. ''1>%' '. Y^,' ■'**•-<; "^c- - ~

J^■■^^\.

■:r ■

-^v--^.-^.

■ _,^

"' a' ■ .-r-, r"^ '"^' '5 -

.-■•-.■

• \'^; -'i: '.':>■ \ '-'

,w'.t;- .-r.. .',:-.

'-:j^^o^^y.^'.

. y._r>i.

■1- "S ■ s.

•>>-■ -<"' ..:^^ '

\\- -^"^S--

■^:-S^

.V ^-i j-f .

... i :

^-^■^f'/

'>-^-^--'Km'-^^:

■■'i-

*-
pref

ling:
Rav
ship
the
Mac
Inci
nigh
ofS
or a
Mr.
Frai
conj
ofS

Got
bull
tere
ano'
whe
L. S
of 5
mor
not
Dio

STORY OF TBI MISSION OF STIRLING.

■ 00<i

THE Mission of Stirling is one of the oldest in the Diocese
of Ontario, and used to be looked upon as a desirable
preferment. It embraced originally the villages of Stir-
ling, Marmora and Madoc, and the Townships of
Rawdon, Marmora, Madoc and parts of the Town-
ships of Sydney and Huntingdon. In 1861, during
the incumbency of the late Rev. J. A. Preston,
Madoc was constitited a separate Mission. The
Incumbent of Trenton used to hold monthly or fort-
nightly services at the village of Frankford, in the township
of Sydney, half way between Stirling and Trenton ; but, in
or about i860, he abandoned this Station, and the Rev.
Mr. Preston took it up. From thence forward up to 1876,
Frankford formed part of the Mission of Stirling. The
congregation there was always small, and the Incumbents
of Stirling received little or no remuneration.

In 1859, the congregation of Stirling built a beautiful
Gothic Church, at a cost of $5,000. At its completion, the
building was mortgaged for the sum of $1,200, bearing in-
terest at nine per cent, per annum. From one cause or
another, this debt hung over the congregation up to 1877,
when it was paid off during the incumbency of the Rev. F.
L. Stephenson, now of Almonte. Up to 1874 the Mission
of Stirling virais going on well, and things were working har-
moniously ; but now came a sad change, and the (shall we
not say) almost ruin of tho Church in this part of the
Diocese.

In 1872, the Rev. Mr. (Irout removed from Stirling to
the parish of Carleton Place. During his incumbency of
Stirling, which lasted seven years, the Mission comprised
the villages of Stirling, Marmora and Frankford, together
with the adjoining townships. To him succeeded Rev.
John Halliwell, who, up to 1871, had been a preacher of
the Episcopal Methodists. He took charge of the Mission
as Mr. Grout left it. It was now felt that efforts should be
made to pay off the mortgage on the Church. A subscrip-
tion list was circulated with this object in view. On the
1 2th July, 1874, a pic-nic was given by the Orangemen,
the proceeds of which were to go towards the Church debt.
This pic-nic was numerously attended, and a large amount
is supposed to have been received. At the previous Easter
Vestry Meeting Mr. Halliwell, at his urgent request, was
appointed Treasurer of the Church. He also undertook
the Sexton's duties. So the whole of che Church finances
were at his disposal. After the pic-nic he announced pub-
licly from* his place in the Church that the debt had been
reduced by $650. This same year Mr. Halliwell had com-
menced the erection of a handsome house, his own private
property. The congregation of St. John's Church, Stirling,
being under the impression that they were paying off their
debt, were well satisfied, and Mr. Halliwell was very popu-
lar. But, jus' at this juncture, one of the Churchwardens,
who was also one of the collateral securities for the debt on
the Church, received a letter from the mortgagee stating
that neither princij>al nor interest had been paid for some
time, and demanding an explanation. The Churchwarden
was astonished at such a statement, but came to the con-
clusion that the money had been deposited in the Bank at
Belleville and Was lying there. But, upon enquiry being
made, it was found that no money had been deposited to
the account of the debt. The Churchwarden next privately
requested an explanation from Mr. Halliwell, but was curtly
informed that " It was none of his business." A meeting of
the Vestry was called^ and the two Churchwardens were
appointed to audit Mr. Halli well's accounts. But Mr.
HalUwell refuse^ to submit the accounts to them. Several
other Vestry meetings were called^, but Mr. Halliwell would
never attend. On a certain Sunday, from his place in the

Church, he informed the congregation that he dismissed one
of the Churchwardens from office, and that certain other
members with their families were cut off from the privileges
of the Church on account of their conduct.

And now comes in the saddest part. Poinding that he
was fast losing the respect and confidence of the congrega-
tion of St. John's Church, Stirling, Mr. Halliwell industri-
ously set to work to sow dissention and stir up ill-feeling
between that congregation and the other congregations in
tne parish. And he succeeded only too well. The charges
made against him were so serious that outsiders refused to
credit them. He represented himself as persecuted by a
few leading men in the Stirling congregation, whom he held
up to public odium. He had placed lamps in St. John's
Church, which were partly paid for by the congregation ;
he took up a part of the floor of the Chancel, and into the
hole thus made he lowered a common three feet long stove,
which he called a furnace, and asserted that the money
received had been spent in providing lamps and a furnace
for the Qhurch. He called a meeting in the Church, which
was packed by his adherents from all parts of the Mission,
and to this meeting he proceeded to vindicate himself. His
vindication was received with stamping of feet and other
noises most unseemly and unprecedented in the house of
God, and thi^ too in spite of the protests of one of the
Churchwardens who was present.

Utterly disgusted, the entire congregation to a man
ceased to attend the Church, and it was closed for over two
years.

Where, it may be asked, was the Bishop all this time ?
How was it possible that he would permit such a state of
things ? We are forced to confess that, although complaint
after complaint was made to him, set forth in writing and
signed by every member of the Vestry, his Lordship took
no notice, so far as the congregation knew, until 1875, when
Archdeacon Pamell visited the Mission. He undertook to
investigate the matter, but in rather a novel manner. He
listened to Mr. Halliwell's story, accepted Mr. Halliwell's
vouchers, decided that he owed the Church sixty dollars,
and wound up by telling the congregation to be good, for-

get the past and go to Church. But not in this way could
the matter be settled. . The congregation, now seeing that
it was vain to appeal to the Bishop, appealed to the courts
of law. The Court of Chancery gave judgment against
Mr. Halliwell, notwithstanding he appealed three times.

On the conclusion of this suit, the congregation for-
warded a memorial to the Bishop charging Mr. Halliwell
(in addition to their former charges) with having made false
statements under oath on several occasions in the recent
suit, and reque-iting his Lordship to issue a Commission in
accordance with the provisions of Canon viii. This the
Bishop declined to do, alleging as a reason that he had
Ijeen advised by the Chancellor of the Diocese, Dr. Hender-
son, that the charges against Mr. Halliwell amounted to
perjury, and, as this was a crime punishabiO by law, the
Courts of the Church could not try a clergyman for it. If
this be the case, it is hard to see any use for the Canon at
all, and unless the parishioners undertake to bring their
clergyman to justice (which they are for the most part un-
willing to do) we may have to witness men charged with
grievous crimes ministering at our altars and undertaking to
preach to the people the unsearchable riches of Christ.
We should have thought that rather than countenance such
a thing as that , a Bishop would run almost any risk. Other
Bishops think or act differently. Bishop Helmuth at once
suspended a clergyman in his Diocese who was accused of
forgery, but aften\'ards acquitted ; and, in the Buckingham
case. Bishop Fulford did not delay suspending the Incum-
bent, though he too was afterwards acquitted in a court of
law. And the words of the Canon (Canon viii., Sec. 2)
make no such exception : "That in every case of any Clerk
in Holy Orders * * * * who may be charged
with aiiy crime^ * # # * or concerning whom
there may exist scandal or evil report, it shall be lawful for
the Bishop, on the application of the party complaining
thereof, or, if he shall think fit, of his mere motion, to issue
a Commission." # # * ♦ There was ^mple
power in the Bishop's hands to issue a Commission ; but,
as after events proved, for some reason or other he was
determined not to do so. It is not very creditable to the

Diocese to have a man ministering in one of its paiishes
over whose head hangs such a dreadful charge ; and it
would seem to be the dut> of every Churchman, but
especially of every clergyman, and chiefly of the Rev. Mr.
Halliwell himself, to demand of the Bishop thit this terrible
charge should be investigated. If the charge be false and
malicious, as is alleged, one would think that Mr. Halliwell
would proceed by law against one or more of the parties
who have made the charge over their signatures, for defama-
tion of character.

In April, 1876, the Bishop seemed to be alive to the
gravity of the situation, for he sent the Rev. F. L. Stephen-
son to the parish, and the Mission Board professed to with-
draw Mr. Halliwell's grant. But Mr. Halliwell stood his
ground, and continued, in defiance of the Bishop, to
minister to such as would receive him. No intimation
came from his Lordship to any of the stations outside of
Stirling, and the people actually could not tell whether Mr.
Stephenson was not an intruder, or whether the Bishop
found any '"ault with Mr. Halliwell. At this crisis the
Vestry of St John's Church, Stirling, failing to obtain any
redress from the Bishop, presented a memorial to the Synod
praying for an investigation into the charges against Mr.
Halliwell. This memorial was referred to a Committee
consisting of the Rev. Mr. Lewin, Incumbent of Prescott,
Mr. Shannon, editor of the Kingston Daily Neivs^ and Mr.
Radenhurst, barrister, of Perth. This Committee carefully
investigated the case, and examined witnesses on both
sides. The Report recommended that a Commission
should be issued to investigate the case. But the Synod
was adjourned before the Report could be presented, and
when it was called for at the Synod in June, 1877, it was
found that it had been suppressed, and did not appear as
it should have done in the journal of the Synod for that
year. Moreover, the rriemorial to the Synod, which had
been received and which was in the custody 6f the Synod,
was handed back to one df the delegates from Stirling, by
sonte persoh unknown to him, just as he was getting on the
traih at the Grand Trunk station.

Qn the afternoon of Friday, 23rd June, 1876, just after

the Synod had been adjourned, the Rev. F. L. Stephenson,
in company with the two delegates from Stirling, waited
upon the Bishop, and represented to his Lordship that it
was necessary, in order that Mr. Stephenson should be
made right in the eyes 61 the people, that he should have
his License to the Mission, and also asked him what he
proposed to do in the case of Mr. Halliwell. His Lord-
ship a;t once replied that within three weeks he would send
Mr. Stephenson his License for the it'Ao/e Mission, "And,"
added he, ^'■to-morrow I will silence Mr. Halliwell." The
delegates returned home thinking that now at last there was
hope that matters were about to take a turn for the better.
But they were doomed to be disappointed. On the follow-
ing Sunday, 25th June, 1876, immediately after morning
service, Mr. Halliwell's son brought a letter from his father
to Mr. Stephenson. This letter informed Mr. Stephenson
that the Bishop had appointed him (Mr. Halliwell) to the
parish of Hillier and Wellington ; that the Mission of
. Stirling had been divided,, and that Frankford, together
with a certain $1,000, had been given to the Incumbent of
Trenton, Rev. Wm. Bleasdell. This information Mr.
Stephens>on and the congregation, remembering what the
JBishop had said on the preceding Friday afternoon, a.t
once considered false. However, one of the congregation
volunteered to go to Trenton at once and find out the truth
from Mr. Bleasdell The whole congregation waited for
his retu^. Qi^ his return, to the astoni^ment of all, he
said \haX the information contained in Mr. HalliweU's letter
W9S true. Mr. Stephenson then told the people that he wiais
sincerely soiry for them and for the Church in Stirling, but th9,c
after what had occurred he .(fould no longer hope to remain
with them, and that he resigned the Mission. But the peo-
ple prevailed uppn him to see the .Bishop before deciding
finally. A^cord^gly he^ accompanied by one of the
Churchw^dens, Mr,, James Boldrick,(« started on' Monda^r
morning iipr Kingston, hoping ta fi^e the Bishpp there. But
his Lordship l^d ieft on sSaturday for Isle DQrvaL They
saw Archdeacpin Parnell, howisv^, andheiUi^rtoQ^ to
communicate with the Bishpp4 . Mr, : St?ep^fei>sQ«i sent his
resignation to the Bishop, and went to Perth, where his
ftittily Were stilf tefiiidit^g. The efforts of AiduI6tcon Par-

son,
ited
It it
I be
lave
: he
ord-
end
id,"
The
was
tter.
low-
ling
ther
kson
the

I 0/

ther
t of
Mr.
the

a,t
tion
ruth

for

he
itter
was
that
lain
jto-
iing
the
day
But
hey

to
hm
his
?ar-

ne
R
th

m;
de

ca
ha
de
in]

se
ce
be
th;
pa

•

- :,;..

St£

■ ■ ; ''■

pr.

ali

:* ' '-'

' i '. '

St<

sal

nell seemed to be successful, lor, on the 30th of June, the
Rev. F. L. Stephenson received the following letter from
the Bishop :

Isle Dorval, 28th June, '76.

, My dear Mr. Stephenson, — I received yours of the
26th, and in reply write to say that I have placed the whole
management of the Stirling difficulty, unreservedly, in Arch-
deacon Pamell's hands. He knows my mind on the sub-
j°rx, and has guaged accordingly the merits of the case.

I would hereby say that, in my opinion, the $1,000
cannot be taken away Irom Frankford ; and, moreover, I
have no desire to attach Frankford to Trenton, and nothing
definite has yet been done on the subject, except in an
informal conversation with Canon Bleasdell.

I am, faithfully yours,

(Signed,) J. T. Ontario.

The matter then was left to Archdeacon Pamell to
settle. He settled it satisfactoiily ; for as soon as he re-
ceived authority from the Bishop, he telegraphed at once
both to the Stirling Churchwardens and to Mr. Stephenson
that the Mission was to remain as it had been, and that no
part was to be given to Trenton. With this understanding
Mr. Stephenson again consented to take charge of the Mis-
sion. But in the following September the Bishop apparent-
ly forgot all about his letter to Mr. Stephenson, and Arch-
deacon Pamell's settlement of the difficulty, for he gave the
station of Frankford and the benefit of the $1000 to the
Incumbent of Trenton. Indeed, it would seem as if Fate,
or Bishop Lewis, had decreed to destroy the church utterly
in this part of the Diocese. Mr. Halliwell was in close
proximity, and was and is determined to keep the strife
alive. Whenever there appears to be any prospect of
peace he comes into the Mission and stirs up strife afi-esh.
During the period of Mr. Stephenson's incumbency Mr.
Halliwell came into the parish and performed official acts,
such as marrying and burying. H*": continued for a week at
a time preaching the gospel of discord, baptizing, etc. Mr.
Stephenson complained to the Bishop, but could get no
satisfaction. After Frankford and the $1000 had been

diverted from the Mission a second time, Mr. Stephenson
consented to remain and try and save St. John's Church,
which had been placed in chancery, and was in imminent
danger of being sold. Great efforts were made and liberal
subscriptions given during the winter and spring of 1876-77.
Application was made to the S. P. C. K. for assistance, and
a grant of ;^53 stg. was made by the Society, but, although
the necessary certificate was given that that amount would
clear the church of debt, and although the Churchwardens
were ready to deed the church to the Synod, that money is
still withheld. However, once the mortgage on the church
was paid off, it became evident that Mr. Stephenson was
very desirous of leaving a Mission where he only met dis-
couragement at every point from those from whom he had a
right to look for support and encouragement, and where he
had not the protection usually given by the Bishop against
meddlers from outside the parish. There is no doubt but
that Mr. Halliwell's efforts to set the people of Frankford
against their brethren in Stirling were ably seconded by
parties in Trenton who were desirous of securing for that
already well endowed parish, with its small congregation,
the income to be derived from the famous $1060, beside
whatever the congregation was disposed to contribute.

But it has been said that it would be monstrous to
force the church people of Frankford into union with
Stirling against their will This has been put forward as an
unanswerable argument by those who are interested. It
might be replied that the Village of Marmora is just as
much opposed to the union, and yet nothing has b.epn done
to detach it. But the truth is, this is not the question at
all. The real question is the depriving the Mission of
Stirling, a poor Mission, and poorer now than ever (thanks
to the machinations of Mr. HaUiwell), of what used to form
a considerable item in the clergyman's salary. Let the
church people of Frankford join on with Trenton if they
will, but wherefore should this money go with thena;?,, , What
claim have they on it ? With out it they will find but a poor
welcome from the Incumbent of Trenton. Seventeen years
. ^go, when Mr. Bleasdell threw that station oyerboard, as
well as the other station on the Belleville road whose church

now forms a horse-shed for St. George's Church in the Vil-
lage of Trenton, the Frankford church people were glad
enough to obtain services from the Missionary at Stirling.

As far as we can understand, the Bishop maintains
that the $rooo is a sacred trust given to him for the express
purpose of endowing this particular congregation at Frank-
ford by the Commissior ^r of Crown Lands, out of the pub-
lic chest. The Assistant Commissioner, however, gives a
very rational aiid by no means sentimental account of the
matter, which effectually clears the Hon. R. W. Scott, the
Commissioner, of any imputation of misappropriating the
funds of the Province. The $1000 in question, instead of
being a present to the Bishop, was a sum of money paid by
certain squatters upon two lots in the Township of Sydney,
(a Dorchester glebe), and which they were obliged to pay,
in order to extinguish the claim of the Synod, before they
could obtain patents from the Crown. The money really
belonged to the Synod, to dispose of for the i'est- interests
of the church. In those days, however, when Synods are
looked upon as mere ornamental appendages to church
dignitaries, it was not thought worth while to lay the matter
before this dignified body, so the Secretary, as acting for
and representing the Synod, with a stroke of his pen creates
Frankford a Rectory, and when people read the Synod
Journal for 1876 they were surprised to find a new Rectory
had sprung into existence in the Diocese.

In May, 1877, the Rev. Mr. Stephenson addressed a
letter to the Crown Lands Office in Toronto, asking for
information concerning the lands in question. He received
the following reply, which speaks for itself :

Department of Crown Lands,
Sales and Free Grant Branch,
Toronto, 29th May, 1877.
The Rev. F. L. Stephenson,
St. John's Church, Stirling;.

' Sir, — With regard to the enquiry you make by your
letter of the 23rd inst., I beg to state that the lands com-
monly known as "Dorchester Glebes" were set apart m the
early surveys of the Province under an order of the 17th

}

February, 1789, for religious purposes, without any other
specific appropriations, and apparently were in many in-
stances treated as ordinary Crown Lands, when one-seventh
of the public lands were set apart as Clergy Reserves under
the Statute 31 of Geo. III., ch. 31 (1791), when several
were thus selected, as was the case with the two lots (Nos.
19 and 20 in the 6th conctssion) in the Township of Syd-
ney, to which you allude.

These two lots, when inspected as ordinary Clergy
Reserves in 1844, were found to be in the occupation of
certain parties under leases from the Rev. John Greer, of
Belleville.

After considerable delay, an arrangement was effected
with the Synod by which the several occupants were secured
in their holdings, and obtained patents accordingly.

Your obedient servant,
(Signed,) Thos. H. Johnson,

Ass't Commissioner.

The document of which the foregoing is a copy tells
us all that is to be told about the so-called "Frankford en-
dowment." The $1000, so often referred to above, was the
price paid by the occupants of lots Nos. 19 and 20 in the
6th Concession of the Township of Sydney to purchase the
claims of the Synod.

This $1000 was invested by the Secretary of the Synod
at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, and this interest was
paid regularly to the Incumbent of the Mission of Stirling
up to July, 1876. When Mr. Stephenson was appointeu to
the Mission in June, 1876, no one doubted but that he was
to serve the whole Mission, as his predecessors had done.
The Mission was poor and in Jebt ; there was no parsonage
house, and no prospect of obtaining one ; nor was there any
house in the village which could be rented suitable for a
parsonage. One of the parishioners, George E. Bull, Esq.,
offered a fine site and half an acre of ground, and applica-
tion was made to the Synod in 1876 to grant this $1000 to
assist in bui ding a parsonage, the congregation binding
itself to put up a building, at a cost of $2000, exclusive of
the value of the land, to keep it insured, and to deed it to

the Synod. In this way it was thought that the $1000
would yield a better income to the clergyman. The appli-
cation was granted by tlie Synod, as may be seen by refer-
ence to the journal of the Synod for 1876 at page 141 7.
No objection was made by the Bishop at the time. It has
since been stated that the favorable report of the committee
to whom the application was referred was owing to the
information laid before them. This, of course, would be
true in any case, but the only information given to the
committee (as those who were present can prove) was given
by the clerical Secretary, Archdeacon Parnell, and that
information was perfectly true, viz., that the $1000 in ques-
tion was entirely at the disposal of the Synod. The very
next day, however, the Bishop, utterly ignoring the action
of the Synod, undertook to hand over this money to the
Incumbent of Trenton, Rev. Mr. Bleasdell. However, this
action of his Lordship was protested against on the part of
the congregation of St. John's Church, Stirling, and the
money still remains, together with accumulated interest
thereon since July, 1876, in the custody of the Secretary of
the Synod.

The utter injustice of giving this money, or any part of
it, to the Incumbent of Trenton, or to assist in paying the
stipend of his curate, is manifest to any person at all
acquainted with the facts of the case. In the first place,
Mr. Bleasdell gave up Frankford 17 years ago, leaving the
people to obtain the services of the church the best way
they could. With the exception of Frankford, he holds no
services outside of the Village of Trenton. The congrega-
tion attending St. George's Church, Trenton, is small — sel-
dom as many as 120. The church population of the
Village of Trenton by the census of 187 1 is given as 456, or
about 92 families. The work to be done is therefore
necessarily small. Let us see what this work costs the
church. First there is a fine parsonage house. Next, by
turning to page 1433, journal of Synod for 1876, we find
there is an endowment of $5,870 • again, at page 1409 we
find that the Rev. Mr. Bleasc' receives $486.64 a year
from the Commutation Fund, anu it is to be supposed that
the congregation of St. George's Church, Trenton, pay their

clergyman something. But this is not all that the church
people of Trenton cost ihe church. Mr. Bleasdell has a
Curate, ihe Rev. Mr. Stanton, and the Rev. Mr. Stanton
receives $400 a year from the Commutation Fund. Now
look at the Mission of Stirling, a Mission thirty miles long
by ten miles wide at least. In the Township of Rawdon
there are (according to the last census^ 810 members of the
church ; in Stirling Village, 162 ; in the Township of Mar-
mora, 406, besides those in the parts of the Townships of
Seymour, Sydney and Huntingdon which come under the
charge of the missionary. Each Sunday he has to officiate
three times. What is his remuneration? No parsonage,
no endowment, the only certainty $200 a year from the
Mission Fund. The people to whom he has to minister are
for the most part poor people, and people who have been
shamefully neglected by the church. The census of 1861
gave us 1059 members of the church in Rawdon, 269 in
Stirling Village, and 515 in Marmora. Will not the next
census in 1881 show a much larger decrease ? The people
of Trenton have services twice each Sunday ; they have two
clergymen to attend to their spiritual wants. In five years,
the people of Stirling have had their Church opened for
fifteen months only. Gentlemen of the Synod of the
Diocese of Ontario, lay and clerical, look at these things ! —
they are facts — and then say are you going to take away this
wretched pittance from the poor Mission of Stirling to add
it to the already large revenues of Trenton. Let the people
of Frankford be joined to Trenton if they choose ; but surely
the Incumbent of Trenton can afford to minister to them
without any additional endowment. Let the Bishop come
among the Stirlmg people and find out for himself. It is
going on seven years now since his Lordship visited this
Mission. Surely, had he < ome during the time of the
trouble, much evil might have been averted. It is now
over a year since the Rev. Mr. Stephenson left the Mission,
during that time there have been at least four applications,
all of which have been either put off or refused. In one
case a clergyman applied for the mission and his application
was seconded by the Churchwardens, but he too was re-
fused. The Mission is now completely disorganized. It is
useless to seek for any guarantee of salary for anyone who

comes. The people are disheartened and disgusted, and
many of them have left the Church.

Gentlemen of the Synod, this is the stoiy of the Mis-
sion of Stirling. You are the supreme power in the Diocese,
if you choose to assert your rights. Do you know of any
remedy in this case, or preventative that the like may not
occur again ?

GEO. E. BULL,
JAS. BOLDRICK,

Churchwardens^
St. John's Church, Stirling.

Stirling, 13th November, 1878.

The above document was submitted to a full informal
Vestry of St. John's Church, on 12th Nov., and a resolution
carried unanimously that the Churchwardens have it print-
ed and distributed to all the clergy and lay members who
compose the Synod of Ontario Diocese.