Chapter XVIII. Primate of All Canada (1893-1895)

IN many respects 1893 was the wonderful year of the life of Bishop Machray; the spring saw him receive the only special distinction which was in the power of the Sovereign to bestow on a Colonial Bishop, and the autumn beheld him elected, by the unanimous choice of his brother Bishops, to the highest position in the Church of England in Canada. He was informed by the Earl of Derby, then Governor-General of the Dominion, that on March he had been appointed "Prelate of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George" by Queen Victoria. The Order was founded in 1818 by George IV. when Prince Regent, in commemoration of the republic of the Ionian Isles being placed under British protection it was reorganised after the Ionian Isles were ceded to Greece, and it was made to include men who had rendered special services to the Empire in the Colonies or in connection with Foreign Affairs. Bishop Machray's immediate predecessor was Bishop Austin of Guiana Bishop Selwyn of New Zealand, afterwards of Lichfield, and Bishop Perry of Melbourne, had also been Prelates of the Order. At that time Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister and the Marquis of Ripon Colonial Secretary--the former a Liberal and High Churchman, the latter a Roman Catholic; Bishop Machray was a Conservative and an Evangelical, and when he received the intimation of his appointment he was surprised, but neither State nor Church politics had anything to do with it. It was a recognition of his work in the Canadian North-West, and probably the action of the British Government was inspired by the chiefs of the S.P.G. To the Bishop it was "an unlooked-for honour." Writing to Mr. Jones, his Commissary, he said: "I did not know that any one connected with the disposal of such an honour knew sufficiently of me or my work to have thought of me. The Queen's Warrant and the Badge of Office came on Saturday, Easter Eve; so as I was preaching in the morning in the Cathedral I wore the Badge on Easter Sunday."

In the letter to Mr. Jones, referred to above, there are some glimpses of the anxieties and preoccupations of the Bishop at this time

We have again several vacant missions, and two or three others to which we wish to appoint clergymen, but we have several students (of St. John's College) soon to be ordained, so that I do not think at present of seeking men in England for ordination.

We have had a very trying time on account of the appearance of scarlet fever, first in the residence of Canon Matheson, Deputy Head Master of the College School, and then in College. We broke up all classes for a week and then resumed. The College work has gone on without further break; one student took the fever about eight weeks ago. But a fresh case among the boys made us break up the College School again.

We have practically lost the income of a term, with heavy expenses about buildings, etc. What makes the matter more trying is that we were more than full in College, and had the largest attendance of students and boys we ever had--about 40 students and over 70 boys.
As to finances apart from this mishap, we were promised before the end of last year several hundred dollars more than we required for claiming £1500 ($7500) from the Church Societies, but, unfortunately, we find great difficulty in getting in the amount. . . . You will see by our Synod Report that we are to start an effort for paying off £3000 ($15,000) of the debt on the College. I have the promise of £500 towards making up this sum, and I rather hope that a friend who promised, if necessary, £200 towards meeting the £1500 (from the Societies) may also give it for our new effort. We shall always be uncomfortable and in hazard of difficulty till we get clear of our College debt.

The Provincial Synod of Rupert's Land met in Winnipeg on August 9 and 10, 1893, the Bishops present being those of Rupert's Land, Athabasca, Saskatchewan and Calgary, Qu'Appelle, and Moosonee--the Bishop of North Dakota was a guest. After alluding in his Metropolitical Address to the retirement of Bishop Anson, the death of Bishop Horden, the establishment of the new Diocese of Selkirk, and the appointment of Bishops Reeve, Burn, and Newnham to their Sees, Bishop Machray stated that the main work of this Synod was the confirming what had been done at the last Provincial Synod (t 890) with respect to the General Synod. Certain changes had been made in the Constitution of the Province, by which such power as was claimed for the General Synod by the "Winnipeg Scheme" of Consolidation was conveyed legally to the General Synod; these changes had now to be considered a second time, accepted or rejected. The Provincial Synod lost very little time over the matter, its mind having been fully made up and declared at its previous meeting; the changes in the Constitution were voted, and so passed into law. Thus when the Bishops and clerical and lay delegates of Rupert's Land to the General Synod went to Toronto a month later to attend the General Synod, they stood committed to the General Synod. The attitude of the Church in Eastern Canada was not quite the same; its Bishops and delegates went to Toronto rather to debate as to the establishment of such a Synod than committed to it, though favourably inclined on the whole towards its formation.

This in every way memorable and important Synod assembled at Toronto on Wednesday, September 13, 1893, the opening service being held in the Choir of St. Alban's Cathedral. Bishop Machray preached the sermon from Deut. xxxi. 6, "Be strong and of a good courage." in the course of his remarks he observed:

There are, I believe, various questionings as to the business, position, and uses of a General Synod. Some, perhaps, are anxious for a Court that can give decisions on matters of doctrine, worship, and discipline. Others, on the contrary, are apprehensive of too much legislation with the General, Provincial, and Diocesan Synods. I think most of us in the West are neither wishful for such legislation nor apprehensive of too much of it. We certainly do not insist on the retention of our Provincial Synod with any view of encouraging it. Indeed, we expect this Synod to be a check on any action of the General Synod which may be unacceptable to our people, or for which they may not be prepared. We are looking forward to a General Synod simply for united practical work, through the systematising, unifying, and consolidating of the work of the Church in its various departments, for the provision of any additional Services, so that there may be, if possible, a uniformity of use throughout the Dominion, and for giving expression to the mind of the Church on social, moral, and religious questions as may be needed. And we believe each of the Synods in its own place can materially second and advance this common work.

First of all, what a grand field of work is before a United Church, as a living missionary Church, in this growing Dominion. We inherit the great traditions of the old Province of Canada. Our Bishops have before them the devotion of a Stuart, of a Mountain, of a Strachan, of a Fulford, of a Medley. Our whole Church has the memory of a host of devoted presbyters, the pioneers in the days of extreme hardness--a hardness which the settlers of our time, not having in youth the same simple habits and hardening discipline, would not submit to. What devotion to duty, simplicity of life, and hearty sympathy with their people marked and endeared those early labourers in the backwoods and new settlements of their day! And they still call us to emulate them, for the pioneer work is not over even in old Canada. There is much ground still to be occupied--many who report themselves as members of our Church not yet reached--many missions, still weak and struggling, requiring aid.

But while these should call out sympathy and help, is there not a view to create enthusiasm in the vast field opening up in the new lands of the North-West and West? We may well feel pride in the material progress of old Canada, and infinitely more in the moral and religious condition of its hardy, healthy, industrious population. Yet old Canada seems like a fringe along the great lakes and the St. Lawrence. How vast in comparison the dimensions of the younger Province! Granted that far more than the half is for ages--perhaps for ever--hopeless in the way of settlement, still what a massive block of land remains, most of which is suitable for raising grain or stock--9oo miles along the south to the west, several hundred miles towards the north! The Church in this Province has also its history illustrated by lives of great devotion. Cochran, Cowley, and Horden each gave to the work some forty years or more of loving, untiring service, and there have been results, alike in the early days of isolation and in the past few years of settlement, that may well cheer us.

In my own Diocese the Church has now a picture of what the other (Western) Dioceses will be. Only some four teen years have passed since there was not a mile of railway in Manitoba, and now we have in the southern half of that Province practically five parallel lines of railway. The thin population that has come in is not scattered, as in old Canada, over a fringe of backwoods, but over the whole of the part of the Province that has received settlement. There are now 8o clergy in the Diocese of Rupert's Land, and most of these are in missions needing help. The Diocese of Sodor and Man (England) has 220 square miles--these missions are commonly larger; some of them have each about 400 square miles. The growing population calls for more centres with Services and the division of the mission. Hence when a mission might be expected to be approaching the ability of self-support it has to be divided, and then a double call comes upon our mission funds. Thus, putting aside altogether advancing settlement with new fields of work, our older missions will through sub division be for a long time imposing new duties on the Church.

Surely all this mission field will have its needs much more clearly recognised and more adequately met if the whole Church has them kept before it and is made to feel its responsi bility. Then there are the Indian missions. A very large sum is expended yearly on them by the C.M.S. of England. That Society, in view of other calls from heathen lands, thinks that the Church in Canada should rise to the duty, or shall I rather say the privilege, of gradually taking up those missions.

In the afternoon the Metropolitans of Canada (Dr. Lewis, the Bishop of Ontario) and Rupert's Land (Dr. Machray), the Bishops of Toronto (Dr. Sweatman), New Westminster (Dr. Sillitoe), Fredericton (Dr. Kingdom), Algoma (Dr. Sullivan), Huron (Dr. Baldwin), Athabasca (Dr. Young), Niagara (Dr. Hamilton), Saskatchewan and Calgary (Dr. Pinkham), Nova Scotia (Dr. Courtney), Quebec (Dr. Dunn), Qu'Appelle (Dr. Burn), and Columbia (Dr. Perrin) met the clerical and lay delegates in the Convocation Hall of Trinity University, Toronto. The Metropolitan of Canada delivered a short Address, in which he spoke of himself as the oldest missionary of the Church in the meeting, and added, "When I commenced my work exactly forty-four years ago as a missionary of the S.P.G. on the banks of the Ottawa River, there was no Diocese of the Church of England west of the Diocese of Toronto except the Diocese of Rupert's Land, which was then being organised; and eastward there were but three Dioceses--Nova Scotia, Fredericton, and Quebec--within the limits of the present Dominion of Canada. To-day we meet to unite if possible nineteen or twenty Dioceses into one organic whole." The Bishops having withdrawn, Dean Grisdale (Rupert's Land) was chosen temporary chairman of the meeting, and the roll of delegates was called; it is certainly worth while to give the names:

CLERICAL. Canada--Canon Partridge, Archdeacon Smith, Archdeacon Kaulbach, Archdeacon Weston Jones, Dean Norman, Archdeacon Roe, Canon Thornloe, Provost Body, Dr. Langtry, Archdeacon Allen, Canon du Moulin, Archdeacon Brigstocke, J. de Soyres, Canon Neales, Dean Carmichael, Archdeacon Lindsay, Archdeacon Evans, Canon Mills, Dean Innes, Canon Davis, Principal Miller, Archdeacon Lauder, Archdeacon Bedford-Jones, Rural Dean Bogert, Canon Spencer, Archdeacon Dixon, E. M. Bland, Canon Sutherland, Rural Dean Liwyd; Rupert's Land--Dean Grisdale, Canon O'Meara, Canon Pentreath, Archdeacon Fortin, Archdeacon M'Kay, A. W. F. Cooper, W. A. Burrnan, J. P. Sargent; Columbia--G. W. Taylor; New Westminster--H. G. Fiennes Clinton.

LAY.--Eastern Canada--Hon. Justice Ritchie, Dr. R. W. Heneker, Hon. H. Aylmer, Hon. G. W. Allan, A. H. Campbell, J. A. Worrell, N. W. Hoyles, Hon. Justice Hanington, Chancellor Bethune, Dr. L. H. Davidson, Dr. Alex. Johnson, Major Bond, Charles Jenkins, Richard Bayly, Matthew Wilson, Judge Ermatinger, Chancellor Walkem, Judge Macdonald, Judge Wilkinson, R. Vashon Rogers, Judge Senkler, Archdale Wilson, Dr. Bridgland; Rupert's Land--J. H. Brock, Sheriff Inkster, H. S. Crotty, A. F. Eden, J. A. Machray, T. E. Birbeck; Caledonia--Dr. Praeger; New Westminster--W. Myers Grey. Four delegates were added to the above on September 14.

CLERICAL.--Eastern Canada--Archdeacon Marsh; Rupert's Land--Septimus Jones. LAY.--Eastern Canada--James Dunbar and John Hoodless.

The delegates passed a resolution that, as it was most desirable that the Bishops should be present with them till the Synod was constituted, there should be a joint Conference, and to this the Bishops agreed, naming the next day for it. Accordingly, there was a joint meeting on the Thursday morning, when a committee was appointed "to draft a resolution solemnly declaring the position of this Body as empowered by the Diocesan Synods, and assembled in pursuance of the action of the Winnipeg Conference." The committee consisted of Bishop Machray, the Bishops of Toronto and New Westminster, and twelve clerical and twelve lay delegates--Bishop Machray, as a Metropolitan, being its chairman. In the afternoon the committee brought in its report, Dr. Machray acting as its spokes man. At this meeting all the Bishops of the Church in the Dominion were present, with the exception of the Bishop of Montreal (Dr. Bond, afterwards Arch bishop), who was recovering from an illness, and the Bishops of Moosonee (Dr. Newnham), Mackenzie River (Dr. Reeve), Selkirk (Dr. Bompas), and Caledonia (Dr. Ridley). Bishop Machray prefaced the reading of the report by stating that the three declarations it contained had been agreed to unanimously as the fundamental principles on which the General Synod was to be formed. These declarations were

1. A Solemn Declaration that the Church of England in Canada desired to continue an integral part of the Anglican Communion, adhering to and upholding all the distinctive tenets and features of the Mother Church.

2. The General Synod, when formed, did not intend to, and should not, take away from or interfere with any existing rights, powers, or jurisdiction of any Diocesan Synod within its own territorial limits.

3. The Constitution of a General Synod involved no change in the existing system of Provincial Synods, but the retention or abolition of the Provincial Synods was left to be dealt with according to the requirements of the various Provinces as to the Provinces and the Dioceses within such Provinces seemed proper.

The Constitution submitted in the Report differed but slightly from that suggested by the Winnipeg Conference.

Bishop Machray read the Report of the committee, which began with the statement that the assembly of Bishops and delegates was in a position to declare itself a General Synod on the above basis, subject to amendments agreed to at that session. The Bishop moved, seconded by Dr. Davidson (Montreal), that the Report be adopted, and that in accordance with it "We, the Bishops of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, together with the Clerical and Lay Delegates present, do hereby declare that we do now constitute a General Synod of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada." The resolution was adopted unanimously, and immediately afterwards the Doxology was sung, all present rising. Thus was the General Synod brought into being, and the Consolidation of the Church in Canada successfully accomplished, September 14, 1893, being the ever-memorable date. Next morning, Canon Pentreath (Rupert's Land) moved, seconded by Dean Carmichael (Montreal), a resolution that voiced the feelings of both Eastern Canada and Western: "That whereas the union of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada has been happily consummated, and whereas the said union has caused great joy in many hearts, therefore be it resolved, that the General Synod, in devout thankfulness to Almighty God, sets apart an evening for a solemn Service of Thanksgiving, and respectfully requests the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in consultation with the other Bishops, to take order for a Service of Thanksgiving in such form as he deems expedient."

It is unnecessary to describe the doings of this, the First General Synod of Canada in detail; at times, discussion on the Report of the committee was animated--"heated" once or twice, but a fine spirit of good will and tolerance characterised the assembly. In the end the Constitution drafted by the Winnipeg Conference was passed without substantial change. Perhaps the most important alteration--certainly the most striking--was introduced by a motion of the Bishop of Toronto, and carried by forty-three votes to twenty, to the effect that the head of the united Church was to be styled "Primate of All Canada and Metropolitan of his own Province, and Archbishop of the See over which he presides." Later (see next paragraph) it was resolved that the Metropolitans of the Church in Canada should all be styled Archbishops. As the styling a Bishop Archbishop does little more than assign a certain precedence to him with respect to Bishops not so styled--primus inter pares (the head of the Scottish Episcopal Church is styled the Primus)--the change was more in name than in anything else, but it was a new departure as regards the Anglican Church outside England and Ireland.

The Constitution provided that the Bishops should form the Upper House, and the Clerical and Lay Delegates the Lower; on September 18 the Synod resolved itself into the two Houses. Next day the Upper House requested a joint session of the two Houses, which the Lower House at once agreed should take place immediately. When the Bishops eitered the Lower House, it was noticed that Bishop Machray came last, and then that he took the chair as President of the Synod -- heretofore the Metropolitan of "Canada" had presided. By the President's direction the Secretary of the Upper House read this message from the Upper "The President of the General Synod begs to inform the Prolocutor that under the Constitution, on the motion of the Most Reverend the Metropolitan of Canada, the Most Reverend the Lord Bishop of Rupert's Land was unanimously elected the Primate." This first historic message of the Upper House was followed by another, equally historic: "The President of the General Synod begs to inform the Prolocutor that, the Lower House concurring, this Synod directs that the Metropolitan of each Province now in existence, or as hereafter created, shall be designated Archbishop of his See as well as Metropolitan of his Province." When the Bishops had retired to their House the Lower House considered and concurred in the above.

Thus Dr. Machray became Primate of All Canada and Archbishop of Rupert's Land. Congratulations poured in upon him from all quarters. The appointment was in every way a most popular one, and the liveliest satisfaction was expressed with it everywhere in the West, especially, was it hailed with joy and enthusiasm as the crowning recognition of the life- work of "The Bishop"--not for some time did the West get comfortably into the way of speaking of him as "The Archbishop." When the Archbishop returned to Winnipeg he was given a great reception by its citizens, with Sir John Schultz, the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, at their head; Sir John was an old friend, being no other than that Dr. Schultz who figured conspicuously as a Canadian loyalist during the Red River Rebellion, and had since become very prominent in Canadian politics.

Writing to a friend, the Archbishop described the General Synod as "most happy and harmonious." Referring to the use of the title Archbishops for Metropolitans, "the usual and ancient title for Metropolitans," he wrote"

How this will be received in England by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others we do not know, but there was but one opinion among clergy and laity of the advisability, indeed of the urgency, of the step. Two or three Bishops, remembering the apparently unfriendly attitude of both the present and the late Archbishops to the consideration of the matter at the Lambeth Conferences, suggested care, but the Houses would not hear of this. So whatever opinion may be entertained in England, this resolution is irrevocably passed.

The House of Bishops unanimously elected me Primate of All Canada--the word All is introduced, as "Canada" is the title of the Church in the limited portion of the Dominion, old Canada, now the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada.

Much responsibility is added to me and more work, and I fear, what I have always shrunk from and avoided to the utmost, public appearances. Still grace is promised for the need if sought aright.

The next General Synod meets in Winnipeg in September 1896. What an insight this gives into the growth and influence of this city and country!

Addressing the Diocesan Synod of Rupert's Land in June 1894, the Archbishop declared that the Constitution which had been adopted by the General Synod was eminently satisfactory to the Province of Rupert's Land. It was necessary that the arrangements for the appointment of the Bishops of the Province should remain with the Province, and that the Province should be able to suspend the application of coercive measures that were not acceptable. "There was a risk of opposition," he said, "to such concessions. There is an attractiveness in the simplicity of a single authority, and a natural fear of weakness in allowing non-concurrence in its decisions. But better counsels prevailed." Further on in his Address he said, "While we have reason to feel satisfied with securing these Provincial safeguards, it is not that we apprehend any necessity for their exercise, or that we do not appreciate the desirability of conforming, if possible, to the decisions of the majority. The Consolidation of the Church has been heartily welcomed throughout the Dominion, and seems to have met with the cordial approval of the whole of the Church of England."

Archbishop Machray, in the letter quoted above, said "How this will be received by the Archbishop of Canterbury we do not know," but he had written to Archbishop Benson on October 5, 1893, giving an account of the General Synod, of his election to the Primacy of Canada, and of the action of the Canadian Church with respect to the styling of its Metropolitans Archbishops. Archbishop Benson, in replying to this letter, said: "Your own election to the Primacy was in the nature of things. After your great services nothing else was to be expected," but he did not take kindly to the new state of affairs, as appeared later in the Life written by his son, Mr. A. C. Benson, vol. ii. pp. 474 if Mr. Benson wrote of his father:

Some two years later (i.e. two years after 1891) an announcement suddenly reached him in an informal and, as he thought, disrespectful way that the two Canadian Provinces (sic) had conferred the title of Archbishop upon their respective Metropolitans. A voluminous correspondence ensued. If the tone of the few letters I extract seems abrupt or over vehement, it must be remembered that the friends to whom he wrote knew him well enough not to mistake for controversial or personal animus what was merely a frank expression of rigid principles of ecclesiastical government. (Then followed the subjoined extract from Archbishop Benson's diary):

"Oct. 16, 1893.--About now I received on a half-sheet of foreign notepaper, signed by 'Canon A. Spencer,' the information on behalf of the Synod of the Canadian Church, that they had appointed the Bishop of Rupert's Land and the Bishop of Ontario to be Archbishops. Lightly done! A day or two after a letter from the Bishop of Rupert's Land saying the same, and that the chief reason for their unanimity was that the Papists had Archbishops. I have not yet ascertained whether Provincial Synods have in the past done this kind of thing. The last Lambeth Conference apparently did not suppose they could. It will make no difference to Canterbury. But certainly the 'Church of Canada' is not a very courteous body."

Archbishop Benson's views were evident also from a letter, also quoted by Mr. Benson in the Life of his father, which was addressed to the Bishop of Bloemfontein on January 25, 1894: "I am also quite persuaded that the Lambeth Conference will not accord precedence to Metropolitans who have simply taken to themselves the title of Archbishop without reference to the Conference." Archbishop Benson died before the assembling of the Lambeth Conference of 1897, but as a matter of fact that Conference did declare for Metropolitans being styled Archbishops. Perhaps it is enough to say this, adding that the subsequent history of the Church in Canada shows quite sufficiently that "this kind of thing" was not "lightly done," to use Archbishop Benson's phrases, but it may be pointed out that it was not the Provincial Synods that conferred the title of Archbishop on their Metropolitans, but the General -Synod of the united Church in Canada. The only reflection which the Consolidation of the Canadian Church--from the Church point of view, a momentous fact--called forth apparently in the "private mind" of the ecclesiastical head of the English Church was, judging from the extract given by Mr. Benson from the Archbishop's diary, that "the 'Church of Canada' was not a very courteous body"! Of course, there was no intentional slight in the famous "half-sheet of foreign notepaper," and though the matter somehow provokes a smile, it must be admitted that the Arch bishop of Canterbury should have been treated with more ceremony.

With respect to the styling of Metropolitans Arch bishops by the Church in Canada, the general feeling of Churchmen in England was seen in a leading article in the Guardian, the most influential organ of the Church of England, which appeared on October 18, 1893:

We congratulate the Canadian Church in being the first of the daughter Churches of the Anglican Communion to take this important step, which, we have reason to believe, will be taken before long by more than one of the other Colonial Churches. It is important, not only or chiefly because of the unquestionable dignity which the title confers on the Metropolitans of Provinces rapidly growing in population, but because it has a direct bearing on the difficult question of jurisdiction, which has more than once agitated the Colonial Churches. By the law of the Church, we believe, the mere title of Arch bishop does not give the holder of it any precedence or primacy above other Metropolitans. It would indeed be strange if a title which is not borne by the Bishop of Rome should convey any inherent jurisdiction or dignity. But though an Arch bishop, as such, is in no way superior to a Metropolitan, there is no question that, except in the case of a See eminent in itself; a Metropolitan who is only a Bishop is likely to be held by general opinion to be inferior, if not actually subordinate, to a Metropolitan who is also an Archbishop.

No one is likely to dispute the primacy of honour which by natural and historical right belongs to Canterbury, and we take it that this is fully and gladly acknowledged by the Churches of Canada, South Africa, Australia, and other Provinces. But it is a very different thing to assert that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is after all in canonical status only a Metropolitan, possesses an inherent jurisdiction over all the Provinces into which the Anglican Church is or may be divided. He has no inherent jurisdiction over the Province of York; why should he possess it over the Province of South Africa or Australia?

As a matter of fact, apart from the oath of allegiance, Canterbury has no jurisdiction of any sort within the provincial Churches of the Colonies, except in cases where a Province may, by its own free act, have conferred certain powers on the Archbishop of Canterbury. The sooner this is clearly recognised on all hands the better, and it is because we believe that the adoption of the Archiepiscopal title by the Colonial Metropolitans will facilitate its recognition, that we welcome the proceeding of the Canadian Synod, and hope that it will be imitated in other Provinces.

As showing Archbishop Machray's appreciation of the article from which these excerpts are taken, the page of the newspaper on which it was printed was preserved by him, and was found among his papers after his death. A question respecting jurisdiction arose between him as Primate of Canada and Archbishop Benson. The latter, as Archbishop of Canterbury, was the Metropolitan of the Dioceses of British Columbia, but these Dioceses, with the exception of Caledonia, had put themselves under the General Synod of Canada, thus recognising Archbishop Machray as their Primate; in these circum stances Archbishop Machray thought the position of Archbishop Benson as their Metropolitan was anomalous, and brought the matter to his attention, with the result that some unsatisfactory correspondence ensued. Archbishop Benson, it appeared, wished still to continue Metropolitan of these Dioceses, thus ignoring the action of the Dioceses themselves and of the General Synod. Relations between the two Arch bishops were somewhat strained, and when Archbishop Machray, during a short visit to England in 1896, was invited to stop at Lambeth Palace by Archbishop Benson, he accepted the invitation with some hesitation. However, when they met, Archbishop Benson put the Canadian Primate at his ease by addressing him as "Your Grace," and showing him every mark of consideration. Referring to this episode, Archbishop Machray said to his Diocesan Synod in 1897, after Archbishop Benson's death, "I cannot but ex press my sense of the marked kindness of the late Archbishop during my visit to England last year. He asked me to come to him as soon as I reached England, and he set apart an apartment for me at Lambeth, which I could occupy during my visit when I desired."

After some years of steady growth and prosperity Manitoba suffered a check, made all the worse by its coinciding with a period of depression in Toronto and Eastern Canada generally. The harvest was disappointing in 1893 and 1894, and though the crops were good in 1895 the prices received for them were very low. Naturally the Church's work, especially in the missions in the newer settlements, suffered very heavily, and the Mission Fund again showed a consider able deficit--in 1894 it amounted to about $2000, and in 1895 to $4250 (£850) Diocesan Synods were held in June 1894, and in June 1895; at both of them the Bishop's Addresses were largely taken up with a discussion of the finances of the Diocese, their unsatisfactory position causing "great misgiving and alarm." The English Societies continued and even increased their grants temporarily, though the S.P.G. spoke of reduction; the people of the country, in spite of the hard times, evinced much self-denial in the largeness of their contributions, and the General Missionary, Mr. Rogers, succeeded in raising considerable sums in Eastern Canada, but the total amount received was insufficient. It was the old story, the story with which the Archbishop was sadly familiar. Some of the weaker missions had for awhile to be given up, and all the grants in aid of others were reduced. Some time before this the C.M.S. had initiated a policy of gradual withdrawal from the Indian missions in the country, throwing the burden of them on the Dioceses; in 1894 the Indian Industrial School at St. Paul's was taken over by the Government, as the Church found its cost too heavy. "The financial demand on us for the school was too much for us," said the Archbishop, with great regret. On the other hand, things were somewhat better with the College, which had not only recovered the ground it lost owing to the epidemic of scarlet fever, but by the sale of a portion of its lands to the city of Winnipeg for a public park had its debt reduced by $15,000 (£3000).

Both in 1894 and in 1895 the Archbishop referred at some length in his Synod Addresses to the Manitoba Schools Question. After much discussion throughout Canada, and proceedings in various courts of law, the Imperial Privy Council confirmed the legality of the Manitoba Education Acts, which did away with separate schools, but this only made the political controversy which raged round them the more acute. In the circumstances the Archbishop thought it his duty to place before the Premier of the Dominion, then Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the views of the Church in Manitoba, as they had been indicated from time to time by resolutions of the Diocesan Synod, and to pro test in the strongest manner against any proposition to secularise the public schools of the country; he put forward a powerful plea for such an amount of non sectarian religious instruction as was allowed in the Board Schools of England, non-sectarian religious instruction being defined as instruction acceptable alike to Protestant and Roman Catholic--the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and the teaching and learning of selected portions of the Bible. Speaking to the Synod of 1895, he said that after writing to the Canadian Premier he had abstained from taking further action, but he suggested to the Synod an arrangement by which religious teaching might be given when desired in the schools--"the teachers to give a limited amount of unsectarian religious teaching, and a portion of time to be set apart during school hours, when ministers or others authorised by them or by a religious denomination, would meet weekly the pupils belonging to their own denomination. He added:

Personally I am not wedded to any particular method of securing religious instruction, nor to any particular amount of it. But considering how many desire religious instruction for their children, and will make, as soon as possible, great sacrifices for it, I think every endeavour should be made by the State to meet their wishes, as far as can be done, without inefficiency or unfairness to others; if this is not done, parish (Church) schools will rise up here as elsewhere, as soon as people have more means, and there cannot but be with this a sore feeling of hardship.

The magnificent health which the Archbishop had enjoyed showed signs of breaking down in 1894. His strong constitution had enabled him to stand the prodigious and incessant strain of his work and its anxieties for nearly thirty years of his episcopate, with scarce a moment unoccupied from early morn till late at night, but he was now sixty-three, and the strain was bound to tell, and to tell upon him more and more with advancing years. In the summer of 1894 he went on a Visitation of the Indian missions of the C.M.S. at Fairford and Staggville, which entailed a journey during three nights of pouring rain in an open boat on Lake Manitoba, and this brought on a severe attack of rheumatism, followed by complications that confined him to the house for three months in the ensuing winter. Dr. Young, the Bishop of Athabasca, was spending the winter in Winnipeg, and kindly took a good deal of episcopal duty off the Archbishop's shoulders. Writing of this time to the C.M.S., the Archbishop gratefully referred to the assistance given him by Bishop Young, who cc took many Confirmations for me, involving very long and wearisome travel, for my Diocese is still a kingdom in size." The Archbishop was well again in the spring of 1895, and as busy as ever. In October I 895 he headed a deputation from the Canadian Church to the General Convention of the American Church, which met in Minneapolis that year to settle its Constitution, the other representatives of Canada being Bishop Burn of Qu'Appelle, Dean Carmichael of Montreal, Dean Grisdale of Winnipeg, Mr. Matthew Wilson, K.C., of Chatham, Ontario, and Mr. J. H. Brock of Winnipeg. The Convention gave the Archbishop a tremendous reception," as an American writer expressed it.

In a letter to Prebendary Tucker, Written in the late summer of 1895, the Archbishop presented an interesting summary of the progress of Manitoba:

Fifteen years ago a railway reached Winnipeg, then a few years later came the C.P.R. How striking is the progress of the country!

1. Education.--It has a University with four denominational Colleges and a Medical College, all with excellent buildings, a normal school, college schools, and collegiate departments of public schools for secondary education, and nearly 1000 elementary schools. [In addition to the three original Colleges--St. Boniface, St. John's, and Manitoba--there was now a fourth, Wesley College, belonging to the Wesleyans.] If religious education from a Churchman's point of view is unsatisfactory, the secular teaching is excellent.

2. Material Progress.--There are five lines of railway nearly parallel to each other crossing the Province, besides several branch lines. Roads and bridges have been made. Even in small towns there are all modern improvements--furnaces in private houses, baths, electric light, and telephones, and in Winnipeg electric street railways.

3. Beneficent Institutions.--There are hospitals, lunatic asylums, infant and maternity homes, hospitals for incurables, institutions for the deaf and dumb.

And all this has been built up in a few years by a small community of new settlers, not yet 200,000 in number, who have had at the same time to build their houses and other buildings, break up land for farms, and fence their lands! The result is most surprising and creditable. It also has to bear its share of the expenses of the Dominion, and besides has its own Lieutenant-Governor, Ministers, and Deputy Ministers, a paid Legislature of 38 members, with all the expenses of the Legislature, four supreme judges, several courts with their judges and magistrates, and seventy organised municipalities with paid officers rendered necessary by a sparse population spread over an enormous area. Such is the present condition of a country which I found simply an Indian hunting-ground, valuable chiefly for fur.

Often and often in letters to various correspondents did the Archbishop express his admiration of the spirit, of the strength displayed by the people of Manitoba in their splendid efforts towards the development of their country, frequently shown in the face of great discouragement. He was very proud of them--of their courage, their perseverance, their liberality, their in domitable hopefulness; "a fine people and a generous," he wrote of them, "far beyond ordinary."

Project Canterbury