Project Canterbury

Life of Robert Machray, Archbishop of Rupert's Land

By His Nephew, Robert Machray

Toronto: Macmillan, 1909.

Chapter XIX. The Fight for the Missions (1896-1902)

DURING the period lying within the years 1896 and 1902 the chief feature of the Archbishop's life was a harder struggle, a keener fight than ever before for the missions in the settlements of Manitoba--a determined, even desperate, sometimes well-nigh despairing, but in the end victorious con test, the object of which was that which he had set before himself at the beginning of his episcopate--"to hold the ground for the Church." Other features of great interest there were--the Second General Synod, which was held in his See city of Winnipeg, the compromise that settled the controversy over the Manitoba schools, the formation of the Diocese of Keewatin out of the eastern portion of his Diocese, the improved position of St. John's College, and the establishment of Havergal Ladies' College, a Church institution in Winnipeg; but, important as all these were, they bulked far less largely in his life during these years than the great fight for the missions.

The country went on growing. The marvellous and unparalleled amount of railway building of which Manitoba was the theatre opened up hundreds of new districts to settlement. Some of the existing settlements filled up somewhat more closely, while others shrank in population as the old settlers, caught by the glamour of the newer West, moved farther and farther across the prairies; but the main characteristic of the movement of immigration was the continued and enormous spreading out of settlement very thinly over thousands of miles of lands that hitherto had not been open or available for cultivation. And wherever these new settlements appeared, there also appeared the occasion and the desire for the Services of the Church, as a proportion of the settlers were Church people and eager for its ministrations. When a clergyman came amongst them he was welcomed with such a greeting as that given Canon O'Meara of St. John's on one occasion. A woman, who had walked six miles to attend a Service, said to him, "God bless you for bringing us this Service; it's many a year since I heard the Church of England Service, and it's just like a bit of heaven to hear the dear old words again."

How were these Services to be provided for the new centres constantly coming into being? The question the Archbishop had to answer, the fight he had to make, were not in the least novel, for they had been with him almost from the commencement of his episcopate, but never in so intense, so poignant a form as that which they assumed in and after 1896. Because not only had he to try to satisfy the needs of those ever-upspringing missions, but one of the chief sources from which had flowed the means to uphold existing and to start new missions suddenly began to run less fully, and threatened in no long time to dry up altogether. The S.P.G., the English Society which was the main stay of the support of the missions from outside the Diocese, announced in 1896 that they were about to reduce their grants to the Church in the Dominion, and within a few years retire from the Canadian mission field.

What was the position financially of the Diocese at this time?

Apart from twelve self-supporting churches in Winnipeg and a few other towns, the whole Diocese was in a dependent position, its clergy being maintained partly by the direct contributions of the people and partly by grants from the Home Mission Fund, the general mission fund of the Diocese. When a mission was opened in a new settlement what happened was this: it was usually begun and nursed for awhile by St. John's College-Cathedral staff; and then came a request from the people for a resident clergyman, a certain sum towards his salary being guaranteed by them, and the balance sought from the Home Mission Fund. For example, the salary of such a clergyman was about $700 to $800 (from £140 to £160) a year; of this amount the congregation of the mission gave a guarantee to raise one-half or more, and the balance, up to $300 or $400, was provided by the Home Mission Fund--so long as it had the means at its command. In 1896 there were fifty-five missions of this description. As has already been mentioned in this book, the amount at the disposal of the Fund was more than once insufficient, and the missions were only kept going by borrowings by the Fund from other Funds, which eventually had to be repaid. In 1896 the Archbishop wrote that these Funds had been repaid--"the dangerous and threatening debit balance of the Home Mission Fund has been paid off"; but this was only accomplished by the abandonment of weak missions (i.e., those missions which were unable to guarantee a sufficient sum towards the salary of a resident clergyman), and by allowing other missions, which should have been opened up, to remain un--occupied. Looking over his Diocese, the Archbishop was, as he said, for the time being painfully "conscious of falling behind in the struggle for the possession of this fertile land." For where the Church was not able to open missions, the Presbyterians and the Methodists, amply supported by subsidies from outside, were able--and did open them. It was at this moment that, to quote his words, "there came a thunderbolt from a clear sky."

On May 13, 1896, the Standing Committee of the S.P.G. passed a resolution which had been sent up by the "Applications Sub-Committee," as follows:

The Sub-Committee have had their attention called to the large sum annually paid by the Society to the Canadian Dioceses, at the present time nearly £9000 per annum. The Sub Committee feel that in view of the fact that all the Canadian Dioceses, excepting Caledonia, now form one consolidated Church, the poorer Dioceses have a claim on the richer far stronger than was the case before the Consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Provinces, and much more urgent than they have on the Society. To mark this their opinion the Sub-Committee have reduced those Canadian annual grants, which are not appropriated to "privileged" clergy,1 by ten per cent. for 1897, and have further reductions in view in the following years. In some exceptional cases a portion of the reduction has been restored by a distinct vote, but the principle of which they approve has been asserted.

Meanwhile the Sub-Committee recommend that the Canadian Bishops be informed that after the year 1900 the Society will look to the Canadian Church to relieve it of all its pecuniary responsibilities in the Dominion.

When the Archbishop was notified of this policy of reduction by the S.P.G.--this was the "thunderbolt from a clear sky "--he immediately wrote a strong letter of protest to the Society's Secretary, Prebendary Tucker. "Surely," he wrote, "the resolution has been very hastily adopted. It would be fatal for the Church in North-West Canada, and serious even for Eastern Canada, and, 1 cannot but think, a grave step for the Society itself." The change in the policy of the Society filled him with amazement and consternation, but at first he did not believe it would be persisted in--he could not believe it. It seemed to him a sheer impossibility that a Society, the main reason for whose existence was the support of missions in the Colonies to colonists, could withdraw its support from Canada, especially from Western Canada, where was at this time, from the large and increasing influx of settlers, by far the most magnificent as well as the most hopeful field for that very missionary work and effort the Society had been founded to assist. Needing more assistance than ever for missions, he could not believe that the inadequate assistance which had been given was even to be taken away. This assistance in 1896--the contribution of the S.P.G.--amounted to £1600 ($8000); according to the resolution this sum would be reduced to £1440 in 1897. As the contribution from the S.P.G. was much the largest to the Home Mission Fund, being more than one-third of its whole income, it will be easily seen what the Society's policy of reduction meant to the missions--unless the Fund could be augmented from other sources.

The Home Mission Fund of the Diocese of Rupert's Land drew its income from (1) the interest of the General Endowment Fund, which then came to less than $2000 a year; (2) contributions from the Church people of the Diocese generally to the Fund, amounting to about $5000; (3) the English Societies, which were the S.P.G., giving as above, and the C.C.C.S., giving about $2200; and (4) Eastern Canada, contributing an amount which varied a good deal, but which at this time was about $5000 a year. It should perhaps be explained that the second item consisted of collections for the Fund, which were in addition to the sums raised in the separate missions towards the payment of the local clergymen. In 1896 the Diocese raised internally for various purposes--salaries of clergy, church-building, parsonage-building, Indian missions, and so on--the large sum of $66,ooo (over £13,000), but the Home Mission Fund met the calls upon it only by withdrawing from weak missions and from new work. Threatened now with the 10 per cent. reduction of the S.P.G., it was in evil case. The S.P.G. suggested that the Home Mission Fund should look for support to Eastern Canada; it said that the Diocese of Rupert's Land was a member of the consolidated Church in Canada, and that the consolidated Church, which in this case meant Eastern Canada, should support its missions. Theoretically the idea seemed sound. What actually happened was that Eastern Canada in 1895-96, having contributed to the Fund about $5000, in 1896-97 gave nearly a thousand dollars less--a result which the Archbishop had rather anticipated, as the Dioceses of Eastern Canada were wrapt up and pretty well exhausted in efforts for their individual missions and for the support of the poor missionary Diocese of Algoma, the special charge of the Church in Eastern Canada. When the West got money from the East for missions it was obtained by special deputations and in the face of much opposition; one Eastern Bishop denounced sending help to the West, because of the consequent prospective impoverishment of his own Diocesan missions. In 1898-1899 the Rupert's Land Home Mission Fund received from Eastern Canada $2000 (£400) less than in 1896. But this statement somewhat anticipates the course of the narrative; it is given to show how accurately the Archbishop forecast the situation.

Sidney College, Cambridge, celebrated its tercentenary in June 1896, and the Archbishop, who was now Senior Fellow, was present, preached the commemorative sermon, and took part in the other proceedings that marked the occasion. During his absence from his Diocese its Synod met, with Dean Grisdale, the Archbishop's Commissary, as President. The Dean read an Address which the Archbishop had written, and in which, alluding to the occasion of his absence, he mentioned the fact that he had "enjoyed for upwards of forty years a Fellowship of Sidney, not without advantage to the work of the Church in the country." It was no secret to those who knew him well that the income of the Fellowship, and indeed the far greater part of the rest of his income, were devoted to the work of the Church; living the simplest of lives and unmarried, he spent very little on himself or his house. He gave so much that those ignorant of the facts thought that he must be a very rich man. At this Synod a Memorial was drawn up and forwarded to the Archbishop for presentation to the S.P.G., reciting mission statistics and protesting against the proposed reduction of the Society's grants. In the Memorial it was stated that in addition to larger missions there were missions (branch-missions or "stations") to the number of over a hundred, with an average of only twelve Church families, that in these branch--missions thirty churches had been erected, and that the withdrawal of the S.P.G. would close three- quarters of them. The Archbishop sent the Memorial to the Society, with a long covering letter; towards the end of June he attended a meeting of the S.P.G., and spoke deprecating the reduction of the grants.

While the Diocesan Synod was in session Dr. Burn, the Bishop of Qu'Appelle, died--June 18, 1896. The Archbishop had in any case not intended to make a long stay in England, and he hurried back to Winnipeg. The Provincial Synod of Rupert's Land met on August 12 at Regina in the Diocese of Qu'Appelle, and sat on that and the two following days. In his Address the Archbishop referred in feeling terms to Bishop Burn's death, and said that he thought it would be well to find a successor to the vacant See in a clergy man belonging to the country if it were possible, instead of selecting one from England--a local man was more in touch with the people and their needs. The House of Bishops nominated Dean Grisdale of the Diocese of Rupert's Land, and as the Lower House concurred he was appointed Bishop of Qu'Appelle. Dr. Grisdale was consecrated in Holy Trinity, Winnipeg, on August 30, the consecrating prelates being the Archbishop and the Bishops of Montreal (Dr. Bond), Toronto (Dr. Sweatman), Athabasca (Dr. Young), Saskatchewan and Calgary (Dr. Pinkham), Ottawa (Dr. Hamilton), Mackenzie River (Dr. Reeve), New Westminster (Dr. Dart), and Niagara (Dr. du Moulin).

An incident which occurred in connection with the meeting of the Provincial Synod of 1896, and which showed in a striking way the Archbishop's consideration for Church views other than his own, is mentioned in a letter to the writer by Dr. Pinkham, the Bishop of Calgary, formerly Bishop of Saskatchewan and Calgary, who says:

You probably remember your uncle's strong objection to taking the Eastward Position. I never knew him take it but once--at the meeting of the Provincial Synod held at Regina in 1896, after Bishop Burn's death, and when it was the Synod's chief duty to elect his successor. He had evidently made up his mind to take it at Regina, because it had always been the custom there; and, as I served for him, he asked me to give him very special attention in case he made any mistake.

This Provincial Synod sent a Memorial to the S.P.G., couched in somewhat similar terms to that presented by the Diocesan Synod of Rupert's Land, praying the Society not to reduce its grants to Western Canada.

As will have been observed, the Consecration of Bishop Grisdale was participated in by Bishops from Dioceses of the Church that lay outside the Province of Rupert's Land; these Bishops had come to Winnipeg to be present at the Second General Synod, which met on September 2, 1896, and lasted up to and including September 11. It had been on the motion of the Bishops of Eastern Canada that Winnipeg had been chosen as the place of meeting--at once a compliment to the Primate, Archbishop Machray, as Winnipeg was his See city and the centre of all his work, and a recognition of the growth, present and prospective, of Manitoba and the great North--West. There was a large attendance of Bishops and delegates, both clerical and lay. Eighteen of the twenty-one Bishops of Canada were present--the Archbishops of Rupert's Land and Ontario, and the Bishops of Montreal, Toronto, Fredericton, Algoma, Huron, Athabasca, Ottawa (a new Diocese formed out of the See of Ontario), Saskatchewan and Calgary, Nova Scotia, Mackenzie River, Quebec, Columbia, Moosonee, New Westminster, Niagara, and Qu'Appelle. All the twenty Dioceses that had joined the consolidated Church were represented by delegates; one Diocese, Caledonia, stood outside the confederation, and the Diocese of Newfoundland also retained its independent position. The total membership of the Second General Synod was about 150; the numbers present were swelled by a deputation from the American Church, consisting of the Bishop of Marquette and the Assistant Bishop of Minnesota, with several clergy and laity.

On the evening of September 2 the Bishop of Nova Scotia preached the opening sermon in Holy Trinity from Rev. iii. 8. Next morning the Synod assembled in St. John's College, when Archbishop Machray delivered his Address as Primate. His remarks were very brief. After alluding to the new Diocese of Ottawa, and the business that was to be brought before the Synod, he spoke of the action of the S.P.G. as affecting the whole Canadian Church, but most of all, and most injuriously, the Church in the West. The business before the Synod was the passing of a Canon establishing a Court of Final Appeal for the whole Church in Canada, and the organisation of a General Board of Missions. With respect to the former there was much discussion, natural in any circumstances and inevitable in this particular case, because a large number of the lay delegates were gentlemen belonging to the legal profession who were greatly interested in the subject. It was finally settled that the Court should consist of all the Bishops, with the Primate as President, and five lay assessors.

A Board of Missions was formed for all Canada, and it was intended that this Board should take the place of the missionary organisation of the Church in Eastern Canada which was known as the Domestic and Foreign Missions Society, but later it was evident, when the new Board got to work, that it was too much restricted and circumscribed to be of any special service; the "D. and F.M.S." stood in the way. This was a tremendous disappointment to the West. How little the D. and F.M.S. did for the Home Mission Fund of Rupert's Land is seen from the fact that it contributed only $250 (£50) in 1898-99, and this was its first payment since 1894-1895, when it contributed $310 (£62). An entire change in the attitude of the Church in Eastern Canada towards missions, or rather in the scope and methods of its missionary organisation, had to be brought about. This was another phase of the fight the Archbishop waged during these years for the missions; it came to an end in 1902, when the Third General Synod, at which he was absent in body but dominant in spirit, passed a Canon establishing, on the lines he desired, a Missionary Society for all Canada.

The General Synod of 1896 memorialised the S.P.G., asking the Society to reconsider their policy of reducing grants; the S.P.G. had now been sent Memorials, more or less similar, from the General Synod of Canada, the Provincial Synod of Rupert's Land, and the Diocese of Rupert's Land.

Writing to the S.P.G. in the beginning of 1897 the Archbishop gave Prebendary Tucker some of his impressions of the Second General Synod. "We had the great privilege in September of having with us in Winnipeg the General Synod. . . . This was only its second meeting; that it was held here shows the importance of Winnipeg and this country, though Canada has 5,000,000 and Manitoba only 200,000.

Among those present were the veteran and devoted missionaries, Archdeacon M'Donald of Mackenzie River, Archdeacon Vincent of Albany (Diocese of Moosonee), and Archdeacon Canham of Selkirk in the Arctic Circle. . . . The Synod met with a great reception in Winnipeg; there was much in it that cheered ourselves." He mentions that the Mayor and Corporation of Winnipeg gave a luncheon in the City Hall to the Synod, and that he held a reception in the Manitoba Hotel which was an enormous success. He expressed a pride in Winpipeg. "There is much to give joy and even pride in the work here." He noted the surprise expressed by the American Bishops and clergy at the position occupied by the Church in Winnipeg and Manitoba. He quoted a statement of the Bishop of Marquette, which had been published in the American Churchman:

The city of Winnipeg has 35,000 people and nine churches of our Communion, some of them very large indeed. I attended while there steadily the largest church, Holy Trinity, of which Archdeacon Fortin is Rector. We seldom meet with so large a church in this country (the United States). There is no church so large in St. Paul or Minneapolis, and there were no more creditable Services at our last General Convention. Holy Trinity was densely crowded on every occasion during the Synod, and so were all the other eight churches and chapels, so that a moderate estimate of the people in Winnipeg worshipping at one time at the 11 o'clock Sunday Service, or at the 7 o'clock Service, would be 5000 souls. I can think of one town in my own State equal in population to Winnipeg where our Church is called popular, having one church building only, and an average Sunday congregation of 350, if as large. The Province of Manitoba has about 175,000 people who are served by no fewer than 8o priests of our Church, and there are a great many more church buildings than clergy, the mission stations numbering over 200, 1 believe. I think this shows our northern sister can teach us many things. They call us there a great Church, but in many things they are greater than we.

The Archbishop pointed out to Prebendary Tucker that to the S.P.G. was due a great part of the credit for the success of the Church in Winnipeg and Rupert's Land, and did not forget to ask if the S.P.G. really intended to jeopardise much of that success by persist ing in reducing their grants. In a later letter he announced his intention of being present at the Lambeth Conference of 1897, when he would again make a personal appeal to the Society. The Diocesan Synod met on May 5, 6, and 7, 1897, and the most important part of the Address with which he opened its deliberations was concerned with the action of the S.P.G. The Society had taken no notice of the Memorials. He spoke of attending the meeting of the S.P.G. in 1896, and placing before it the need of the missions. Dean Gregory of St. Paul's, replying, said that "too much had been done for old Canada, and they would, not make that mistake with Western Canada." The Archbishop declared the Church in the West was in a position very different from that of the Church in old Canada; he would place the facts before the Society again. In this Address his Grace alluded to the settlement that had been effected between the Dominion Government and that of Manitoba with respect to religious teaching in the Manitoba schools; a compromise had been made by which, while the separate schools of the Roman Catholics were not re-established, a certain amount of religious instruction was permitted in the schools. [Amended Manitoba Education Act, 1897.] "If the law, as amended, was not all that could be wished," said the Archbishop, "it was the evident intention to afford the means of religious instruction to the children of those who desire it, without interfering with the best secular education possible in the circumstances of the country."

In June the Archbishop was in England again. Late in that month he read a paper on the Church of England in Canada at the Anniversary Meeting of the S.P.G., and he had several conferences with the Society regarding their policy of reduction and withdrawal. In that year, 1897, the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria was celebrated, and the Archbishop was present at the great Service at St. Paul's. He was present, too, at the meetings of the Lambeth Conference, and took a leading part in a discussion on "The Duty of the Church to the Colonies." But soon after his arrival in England he began to feel ill owing to a weak ness of the heart caused by overwork; he had many invitations, but most of them had to be declined. He was better at times, and then was able to appear in public. In July he delivered an address on "The Church in Canada," which was afterwards published, with other addresses on the Church in various parts of the world, in a book entitled The Anglican Communion the general theme of the work being what Bishop Barry, in a preface to it, called the Ecclesiastical Expansion of England. With other Bishops he went to Oxford, where he was made D.C.L. He also received the D.C.L. degree from Trinity University, Toronto, in 1893.

One of the objects for which he had gone to England was to raise funds to found the "Machray Fellowship" in St. John's College, to be held by a lecturer in Higher Mathematics; ever since the College had started he had filled that position himself. But the heart-weakness from which he suffered continued and sapped his strength; in October he was seized with pneumonia, and for some time his life was in danger, but he rallied, and gradually recovered, and by the end of the year was fairly well. In the beginning of 1898 he spent some time with the Williams-Ellises at Glasfryn, their place in Wales, gaining somewhat in health and vigour, as was shown by his old friend, Mr. Williams-Ellis, and he taking a little longer walk each day. Back again in London, he renewed his representations to the S.P.G., but his efforts to induce the Society to change their settled policy were unsuccessful. In 1898 their grant for 1899 to the Home Mission Fund of Rupert's Land was reduced to about £1100 ($5500); in 1898 the Society had so far temporarily modified their policy, in deference to him, as to make up the sum, by a special vote, to what it had been in 1897--about £1450 ($7200), but the reduction for 1899 was equal to about one-third of the sums voted for 1898. The Archbishop had to tell his Synod of 1898 (June 28 and 29) that the Society now "meet all representations with silence."

But his visit to England had borne some fruit, for he obtained funds sufficient to complete the establishing of the "Machray Fellowship" in the College, raising in all $25,000 (£5000) for it. Mr. J. F. Cross was appointed to the Fellowship; a graduate of the University of Manitoba and also of Cambridge, he had been a student of St. John's College and brought up under the eye of the Archbishop. To him, then, the Archbishop handed over the Higher Mathematics of the College after having taught them for over thirty years.

Yet if the prospect of outside help for the missions was disappointing to him, there was satisfaction, if not compensation, in the splendid efforts put forth by the Diocese to help itself. Writing in July 1898, the Archbishop stated to the S.P.G. that the voluntary contributions of his people for all Church purposes, from Easter 1897 to Easter 1898, were $87,836, or nearly £17,600, an increase on the previous year of about $14,000, or £2800. He expressed a hope that in spite of the reduction of the S.P.G. subsidy the Church might hold the ground already occupied, but added "only to do this and nothing more is grievous." There were so many new missions crying out for occupation! He protested against the "lamentable action" of the Society, and asked if the Society were now to withdraw from the Colonies to become solely an evangelising organisation among the heathen--were they to become a different Society altogether? He drew their attention to a resolution passed by the last Diocesan Synod, in view of the fact of the Society's action, to form a committee to consider the advisability of establishing a Rupert's Land Missionary Association in England--in other words, to invade the territory from which the S.P.G. drew their funds; the Archbishop said he did not like the idea, but what if no other course were open? In a later letter he wrote: "We are losing ground." The S.P.G. had told the West to look to Eastern Canada; the Archbishop bluntly replied that it was "no use looking" there, for no adequate help came from it. The Society at last replied in a printed Memorandum, upholding the policy of reduction, but modifying it somewhat by making the diminishing grants continue on the 10 per cent. basis of reduction annually until their extinction. The Memorandum stated:

The Society deeply regret that the pursuance of what they believe to be a wise policy should give pain to any one, and especially to the Archbishop of Rupert's Land, who has been the spokesman of the North-Western Dioceses on this subject, and for whom the Standing Committee entertain feelings of warm respect and esteem; but they cannot believe that the reductions proposed can inflict any injury on the Church, but rather good. The grant to the Diocese of Rupert's Land for 1898 is £1215, and the reduction next year £121; to Saskatchewan and Calgary £1080, and the reduction £108; and to Qu'Appelle £71; and the reduction £71; but these reductions are spread over in Rupert's Land thirty-one missions, which will lose in 1899 £4 per annum each; in Saskatchewan and Calgary over fourteen missions, which will lose next year £8 each; and in Qu'Appelle over sixteen missions, which will lose about £4: 10s. in 1899; and the future reductions, being so per cent, on current grants, will be less each year, and it will be a long time before the grants are extinguished.

But although these instances are quoted to illustrate the effect of the reduction, and the probable ease with which in each parish the amount may be made up, the Society cannot any longer regard one part of the Canadian Church as separate from the whole. Seeing that in 1893 the several Canadian Dioceses were welded into one organisation with its own Canons and its freedom of Synodal action, according to the opinion of the Society, definitely expressed, the richer and older parts have not only the obligation of Supporting the poorer, but might well rejoice in having the opportunity of doing so. That they have not done their part must be admitted: into the causes thereof the Society do not inquire, but naturally surmise that not the least potent may be found in the hope that the Society, yielding to importunity, might relax or abandon their declared policy.

The recent action of the Provincial Synod of Eastern Canada leads the Society to the assured conviction that the Church not only can but will provide for its needs as a whole. By the resolution of the Provincial Synod the whole of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary work is to be handed over to the (Mission) Board of the General Synod, and the Western Dioceses will for the first time have a voice in the distribution of the funds that are raised. This important movement, which the Society have for years been recommending to the Canadian Church, will certainly introduce a new order of things. The Eastern Dioceses will know the needs of the Western, and it cannot be doubted that the resources of the one will be liberally poured forth for the building up and sustaining the other, and that any apparent grievance caused by the policy of the Society will disappear.

To this Memorandum the Archbishop replied in a long (printed) letter, dated March 18, 1899, adducing once more the facts he had previously brought to the knowledge of the Society, and bringing them up to date. The central fact of the position of the Church in Western Canada, and Manitoba particularly, was the great expansion of mission work caused by the extension of railways and the consequent opening up of new lands to settlement which were being rapidly though sparsely settled. He quoted a striking instance, which was typical:

The extension of railways in Manitoba goes on with an almost increasing rapidity. In the past three years a new great trunk line, the Canadian Northern Railway, has been built through a district including nearly a fourth of the Province, hitherto only sparsely settled in spots. This railway runs for 176 miles north of Gladstone, and of these 50 miles were made last summer. It is to be carried this summer to the Saskatchewan country, perhaps 100 miles west. Notice how this development of the country affects the Church. We have in all that country just one missionary--in the town of Dauphin--provided by your special grant of £100 in 1895, and now left on us. But the Presbyterians have already five men, and the Methodists six in that field.

After mentioning by name forty small towns and villages in Manitoba along the lines of railways that should have had, but did not have, a resident clergy man, he continued:

In the population of Manitoba of 240,000 there are many thousands belonging to foreign nationalities, but if we allow not quite one-fourth to the Church in the English-speaking settlements, there should be over 40,000 Church people who would so designate themselves in the census. Last Easter our Clergy reported 5158 families and 1880 adult members not living in families. Allowing for considerable omissions, these can scarcely represent a larger population than 27,000. This leaves one-third of our Church people outside the services of our Clergy. Thus is being reproduced with us what has so grievously injured the Church in parts of Eastern Canada--large tracts of country without any adequate provision of the means of grace by our Church for our people. Naturally in such circumstances our few members dwindle away, and, when an effort is at last made, some have formed new connections, or at any rate promised help to other bodies; others have not sufficient interest in the Church or preference for it to venture on what for some time must call for self-denial in providing in part for the support of a clergyman and in time for the building of a church.

Turning to the figures quoted in the Society's Memorandum, the Archbishop showed that the effect of the reduction of their grants was seriously understated. The annual grant of the Society was £1215 for 1898, but a special grant had brought up the amount to £1465. In 1899, when the reduction was in force and there was no mitigating special grant, the grant for the year was £1094 and from that sum there had to be deducted £90 voted by the S.P.G., not for missions, but for studentships in the College, leaving about £1000 for the Home Mission Fund--a net difference to the individual missions of £12 not £4 each, which was more than they could bear. He took up the Society's main point--the support now to be expected for Western missions from the Consolidation of the Church in Canada--and dealt with it at considerable length. He asserted that the Society had an imperfect conception of that Consolidation, which, in reality, had not the importance the Society attached to it. "It is at present little more than a name," said the Arch bishop. The Province of Rupert's Land had given the General Synod the jurisdiction it claimed, but the "Province of Canada" had "done nothing of the kind," and in the latter Province "no attention need be paid by any Synod, Diocese, parish, or individual to any of its directions or advice." This was seen in the action of the Dioceses of Eastern Canada by which the scheme for a General Mission Board under the General Synod had been rendered useless. Further, the Society over-estimated the ability of the Church in Eastern Canada. The Archbishop wrote:

You hear much in the newspapers of the resources of the Dominion, and the Dominion, as a Colony, is powerful and capable; but the Church in Canada is weak, and has everywhere difficulty from the vast area over which it has to work. The Church in Australia is the dominant body, having 40 per cent. of the population. The Church in Canada has only about 13 per cent. . . . When you speak of richer Dioceses you are using a term which has for you in England a meaning that applied to us is not true in fact. The wealthiest men in Canada are not Churchmen. The preponderating Protestant element is Scotch, not English. No doubt there are some wealthy Churchmen in Montreal and Toronto, and others scattered about, but even of this number, quite inconsiderably small as it is from an English point of view, only a proportion are liberal in giving for mission purposes. But whatever the ability of the Church in "Canada," it surely should be a very important factor in determining your action that it has no belief in its ability. We are told that it is with difficulty that the Dioceses raise what they require for their own missions. Several have had considerable deficiencies. The Church of "Canada" has not only never accepted any responsibility for us, but has made us understand that it cannot help us adequately.

The Archbishop sent copies of his reply to the Memorandum of the S.P.G. not only to their most pro minent members, but to every one whom he thought interested in the subject. In his Addresses to the Diocesan Synod (June 21, 22, 23) and the Provincial Synod (August 9, 10, 11) of 1899, he referred in strong terms to the disastrous policy of the Society, which still remained unchanged. At the latter Synod it was resolved to send a Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other English Bishops, pro testing against that policy, and begging them to obtain a reconsideration of it. The Archbishop himself continued by letter to appeal to the S.P.G. Writing to Prebendary Tucker on February 27, 1900, he said that "the struggle for the missions must go on," and that as he was getting old (he was now near his seventieth year, and his health was not what it had been in former days), he would resign if necessary the struggle to a younger man, but "the struggle must go on." He referred to the great efforts made locally; the Diocese had raised over $100,000 (£20,000) for Church purposes in 1899, in spite of poor crops that season the Diocese was doing nobly, but could not achieve the impossible; it must have more outside help.

The South African War furnished the Archbishop with a fresh and remarkably striking argument for England giving help to the missions. He wrote:

It is very important for the English Church--indeed, I may say for England--to have the "Old Church" worthily started in the great land that is rising up here, for loyal as are the Canadians to the British Throne, if sacrifice is looked for it may be expected especially from English Churchmen. Though Churchmen only form 53 per cent. of the population of Canada, more English Churchmen volunteered for service in South Africa than men of other denominations combined, and of these English Churchmen a large proportion came from the West.

Addressing the Diocesan Synod of 1900, he spoke in a similar strain, and stated that twenty "old St. John's boys," including a Major of the Royal Engineers, had gone to the front.

In 1901 there was still no change in the Society's policy, but two events fell within that year which altered the situation materially. In that year Dr. Jacob, then Bishop of Newcastle, now of St. Albans, paid a visit to Winnipeg, and was the guest of Archbishop Machray, who thoroughly convinced him that the policy of the S.P.G. with regard to Western Canada, was a profound mistake. On his return to England Bishop Jacob wrote to the Society that their treatment of the Western missions should be reconsidered. The other event of 1901 which had its effect on the situation was the resignation by Prebendary Tucker of the Secretaryship of the S.P.G., and the appointment in his place of Dr. Montgomery, formerly Bishop of Tasmania, who understood very thoroughly the problems of Colonial missionary work. Writing to Bishop Montgomery early in 1902, Archbishop Machray made a fresh and full presentment of the case of Western Canada, and asked that the policy of the Society should be changed. Mission opportunities and needs were greater and more pressing than ever, and Eastern Canada was not more helpful: would not the Society at last realise that Western Canada presented the best, the choicest, and most likely-to- be-fruitful field for their assistance? At length the Archbishop heard, "with great thankfulness," that the policy of the Society was to be reversed. That side of the fight for the missions was won. The other side was won a few months later, in the same year curiously enough--the other side which was concerned with the missionary action of the Church in Eastern Canada, which up to that time had done so little for the West. This part of the story will be related in the next chapter, in connection with the Third General Synod, which was held in September 1902.

Though the chief outside help for the missions, with respect to the salaries of the clergy, was looked for by the Archbishop from the S.P.G. and Eastern Canada, the C.C.C.S. gave much appreciated support, and steadily increased their grants to the Diocese. In 1901 this Society provided part of the stipends of fourteen clergy. The S.P.C.K. helped in other ways--by grants, amounting in the aggregate to large sums, for the building of churches in the missions, and for studentships in St. John's College. When in England in 1897 the Archbishop addressed the monthly meeting of the S.P.C.K., and spoke gratefully of the "invariable and never-ceasing kindness" of this Society. He recalled that they had given £1500 to the College for theological professorships, £1000 to its General Endowment, and £1000 to the building of the "new College."

When all was done that could be done by the Home Mission Fund of the Diocese, supported in the various ways recorded above, the position in 1901 of the Church was, as the Archbishop wrote to the C.C.C.S., taking Winnipeg and a few towns out of the calculation, unsatisfactory and depressing: "In the country districts not half our Church members have Services. The Diocese of Sodor and Man contains 220 square miles and is served by over fifty clergymen; the average in Rupert's Land is one clergyman to a district of at least that area." He enlarges on the generosity of the Church people of the country, and the devotion shown by the clergy in their work, which was of the most arduous character from the size of the missions, involving much driving in all weathers.

All through this period one of the Archbishop's great anxieties was the future of the Indian missions of the Diocese. The C.M.S., which had founded these missions, were gradually reducing their grants, but funds had been collected to keep them in active life by Archdeacon Phair, who had succeeded to a large part of the Indian work of Archdeacon Cowley. The Indians themselves could do little to support the missions. In 1899 the Archbishop said to his Synod, "Any appreciable help from the Indians is hopeless. . . . In most of our missions the Indians live from hand to mouth, and, as their Reserves in this Diocese are generally unsuited for cultivation, they must be reduced, as the wild animals decrease, to greater straits, till the Government makes some other disposition for them." The Archbishop expressed a fear that the Diocese would not be able to face a further strain on it. "What is to happen in a year or two we cannot see, except abandonment, but God can open a way," he wrote of these Indian missions to the S.P.G. But he constantly pointed out that these missions must be maintained by the Diocese, if it was possible. The Rev. A. E. Cowley, a son of Archdeacon Cowley and the Secretary of the C.M.S. in Rupert's Land, said after the Archbishop's death:

I should like to bear testimony to the real interest always displayed by the great Archbishop in the effort to impart to the scattered tribes of Indians in this country a knowledge of God, and to raise them to a higher plane of civilisation. My heart has warmed to him as he has championed the cause of the poor Indian both on the missionary platform and in the meetings of the Executive Committee. While sometimes with some there appeared a feeling that the work was not worth the expenditure, it was not so with the Archbishop. He was too just to overlook their claims, and had too much of the spirit of the Master to despise them. He never refused to see an Indian, however humble, who came asking for an interview, and none went away from his door without help and encouragement.

Frequent mention has been made in this chapter and elsewhere of the increasingly large sums raised in the Diocese for its missions and otherwise; much of this success had been due to the ability and tact and energy of the first General Missionary, Canon Rogers, but in 1898 he fell ill, and had to leave the country. It was hoped that he would recover, but as his health did not improve sufficiently he resigned, and in 1901 the Rev. C. N. F. Jeffery, a graduate of St. John's, was appointed to the vacant position. The illness and retirement of Canon Rogers was a great grief to the Archbishop, who said he was an "invaluable man." Another loss which he felt deeply occurred in 1901 in the death of Dean O'Meara, who had succeeded Dean Grisdale as head of St. John's Cathedral when the latter was elevated to the Bishopric of Qu'Appelle. Dean O'Meara had been associated with. the work of the Church and of the College since the early 'seventies (see p. 235), and had rendered excellent service to both. "One of my dear helpers for twenty-nine years," the Archbishop sadly wrote, "has passed away." Canon Matheson succeeded Dr. O'Meara as Dean of Rupert's Land.

In 1899 the Archbishop thought the time had come for the formation of a new See--that of Keewatin. The Bishop of Moosonee was anxious for a division of his See owing to the difficulty of giving it efficient supervision, and the Archbishop proposed that the western portion of Moosonee and the eastern portion of his Diocese of Rupert's Land should be erected into a new Bishopric. The new See was definitely established by the Provincial Synod of 1899. After a sufficient endowment had been secured, and the necessary legislation obtained, the House of Bishops met on April 9, 1902, and nominated Archdeacon Lofthouse of Moosonee as Bishop of Keewatin. This made the ninth Diocese of the Province of Rupert's Land. The Archbishop's original See was now divided into nine Bishoprics, this tremendous expansion having taken place within almost exactly thirty years. Dr. Lofthouse was consecrated at Winnipeg on August 18, 1902, the officiating Bishops being those of Athabasca, Saskatchewan and Calgary, Moosonee, and Qu'Appelle; Archbishop Machray was absent in England and seriously ill. Dr. Young, the Bishop of Athabasca, was the senior Bishop at the Consecration, but as his health was infirm it had been already announced that he was about to resign his See, and that an arrangement had been made by which the Bishop of Mackenzie River was temporarily to administer Athabasca. If this looked a backward step there was, on the other hand, the prospect of the early completion of the endowment of Calgary Diocese, when another Bishop would be added to the Province of Rupert's Land.

I cannot conceal from myself that there is much reason, especially in this Ecclesiastical Province, for dissatisfaction with the result of the Consolidation of the Church. A main object of it, at any rate with us, who have before our eyes the magnificent heritage of Canada in the North-West, was the strengthening and expansion of the Church by a unification that, we hoped, would promote and enlarge the missionary efforts of the Church. The scheme proposed by the Western Sub-Committee of the Mission Committee, nominated by the First General Synod, would have greatly conduced to this, but it failed to win the approval of the Eastern Sub-Committee. The counter-proposals of that Committee were accepted by our Committee, though felt to be inadequate, and in the main adopted by the General Synod (1896).

It might have been expected that the Eastern Dioceses would have cordially worked a scheme which may be said to have come from their own delegates, and circumstances singularly favoured its early adoption. A special meeting of the Provincial Synod of Canada, held only a few weeks after the General Synod for the election of a Bishop of Algoma, could have temporarily suspended the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society till the Provincial Synod of 1898 could dissolve it. So far, however, from such a course being followed, the Synod of Montreal, on the ground of an alleged violation of the Basal Principles of the General Synod, declined to elect representatives on the Mission Committee of the General Synod, and protested against any interference with the D. and F.M.S. I do not know if any other Synod took the same position, but the action of the Synod of Montreal was so far supported that it has not been possible to bring the scheme of the General Synod into operation, and the Provincial Synod of Canada has resolved not to dissolve the D. and F.M.S. until certain amendments are made by the General Synod. Even if the General Synod is agreeable to these amendments, the dissolution of the D. and F.M.S. cannot now take place before the meeting of the Provincial Synod of Canada in 1904, and indeed not before that in 1907, unless a special meeting of the General Synod be called.

All this is far from satisfactory to us. The S.P.G. have adopted their policy of reduction with us avowedly on the ground of the Consolidation of the Church, throwing on what they call the richer Dioceses a greater responsibility and duty for the North-West than on them. Eastern Canada is aware how hardly the policy is bearing on the Church in this Ecclesiastical Province. It is difficult for us, then, not to feel that our friends in the Diocese of Montreal and in the Provincial Synod of Canada have been rather light-hearted in their treatment of this pressing subject. In view of the gravity of the consequences, the Diocese of Montreal might well have been content with simple inaction on its own part till its objection could be considered by the General Synod.

Project Canterbury