The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

| ; e E 2y ineerted last session to protsot the minori | . 4 ' ' it the Iaiter bad asked tor 1t, 1t should be i in. PPE Teny, aod a priociple whice hat Revet * | -- serted now in order to remedy the ustice P fa | | mch had been dore. The A;(lnanr; iiroul; me:dmmd by either of the now united c ; M I i dissented from the unton altogsether, an * t . | the lay delegate from that olronlt":sd voke1 Mr, Armour® protested against the prin-- 6 agsinst it at the Conference in Jave, 1874 | c!ple that the majority of the voting mem: ; w He did not think it would be any iojury to | bers of a church could csarry over the du. e s a church profesting Cbristianity to do justice perty of the whole body to another Church, | S to their neighbours, They wanted to be Mr, PaATTERSON (Essex) said churshes were C A protected in the erjoyiment of the property generally held in trust for the whole body | which was created by their monsy, instead of and built by the contributions of others not bsing turned out of it by a bili in Chancery, of the particular locality, which kbad been filed by their opponents. Mr. MzrzorE said the Woesleyans might 4 If any other mears could be devised by thote not have gone into the union if this condition | wh¢l> 'i)ppmd the B:ll by n'l't:":: "lilll.x pr(;parfiy had been enforced. | could be secured, he wo wliiling to go C f | as far as pu-ibl?;to meet their vie ";x Thess Mr, HaroY suggested that it would be un . reasonable to introduce an element of saces: 5 § people in Manvers were the eatliest foanders ion lnto the whole Charoh that the j otf Methodiem there, and they felt having o h.tfi w arch now tha : 4 | this property beivg taken away very strong'y. on been consaummated, | p He did n t insist upon the clausa absoluiely Rev, Mr. Dewart made a few romarks al-- , / . as it stood.. It Corictian feeling had bsen leging that this Bill was principally promoted | . | shown he thought these people would have | by the Bible Christians, whom these dissen-- s | come into ths union ultimatsly, but the tients intended to join. It was not pratended [ 4 | bigh--banded course pursued against them had ' that it was interded to keep the congrega: M | | "got their Irish up." tions portions of the New Connexion Caurch. I |__ In answer to Mr, Clarkse (Norfolk), Mr. Armour sald these parties had not | j | | _ Mr, Armour said there weresix o! thess gone over to the Bible Christians. f | churobes in Mauvers, Ho did not know In answer to Mr. Lauder, * | | . why the oriziual deeds of thros of them wors Sevator ArKENS said the Aot adopted by j | | got rid of asd new ones obtained, He un-- the Lepislature was the same as that adopted f | derstood that Mr. Maguire, one of the pro-- by all the other Provinces. 1 | moters, was a member of the Naw Connexion i Mr. Graxay (Lambton) was a member of | Chursh _ He bslieved he destroyed the the Episcops! Methodist Church, and be: ( | origiual €eed becanse he thought it was uss-- lieved this Bill would introducs an elsmont i | less. of discord into tho Church, Still, he ' | Benator Aikins appeared on bahalt of the thought a provision should be made [ f H Metbodist Chuarch of Canada, Thors wore protecting these people in the enjoyment of 4 | about GCO signatures to the petition for this their Church property, l | Bill, but he jound from the official records \ Mr. Haroy pointed out that the effact that there wero cnly 3u0 membors in the 'of the Bill would be to change the whole | Manvers clrenit, comprising the townships ot polity of the Methodist Church, and to intre-- | C | Manvers and Cartw: ght. The majority ot duce an elsment which had not been pro-- | a | thoso were, ho was informed, in fasour of posed or agreed to before Union, | | unios, so that not 150 members could have Mr, Sxxrox sald if the object of the Bill | rigned the potition, though it pa were e{mply to give rellef to these parties he ! | ported to be sisned by 600 members, might vote for it, but could not vote for a | | He cou'd not understand the ignorance of preporal to sbatter the whole Methodist | > tbese peritioners of tne passage of the Act, | Chorchk o! Canada. | because the saubjses was discuesed for two A division was then taken on tha questlon | } or three years in all these chursh courts, in whether the preamble was proved, which | A which, in the Naw C --nnexion, laymsen were was lost on the follow'!ng vote.-- C1 A | represented, and before the Act was passed l ¥ras.--Messre, Currte, Ballsntine, Gra« | I | the United Conference met. 'The trusts of ham (Lambton), McMahon, Tooley, Wil-- | | the differont bodics were not changed at all. | Hams, Wilson.--7. n i h The Uznited Church had no power to inter-- | Nays, -- Moessrs, McDougall (Simcoe), f fere with the trusts at all, which remained I Baker Broder, Clarke (Norfolk}, Cole, Daw« | as they were except whoere the parties yo | son, Finlsyson, Grant, Hardy, Lauder, Mo-- | them chose to come under the model deos. | Cowan, Meredith, Merrick, Monk, Paiter-- In the FPrezbyterian body there was a pre-- | son (E:scx), Patterson (York), Preston, | * | vious agreement that the dissentient congre-- Richardsnn, Soott, Sextom, Sincia'r, Snst. | | gations ahocld hold their property, but thera ringor. --22. y <aas | was no such sgreement prior to the Tho Committeo shortly after adjourned. \ P Methotist unicu, to whish thero wore mm mm msem commsneme ommmnwmmmevennme. A very ow disaentieats, The Methodiat Church C ' was a connexion, not a conglomeration of ' | congregations, and trustees held the property 6 | for the wholo body, In most omses the |* e greater part of the money was not contri-- NA outed by the memvers of the particular [ chureh, and yet by this Bill a masjorlty | NA of the congragation could take the @ okurch bul'ding to which they had contri-- ' | buted little awsy from the body to which it | belonged. Snuch & condition as this wa | | never iwentioned beaforse the unlon, and it is l | had been introduced the unlon would noever have beeo consummated. There bad nover _ * | in the soveral parties to the union been hoard -- 'A cof any such power to secedse, \| Mr Rost, Wirkrs said he had takon a / promirent rrt in all the negotiations ard | meetings with a view to union as a member | of the New Connexion Church. He ex-- . \ plained the steps taken by that Charch, - © their agreement to union on conditiony, ths f 4) arment of the English parent body, and the & | Bnal deciaration of unlon by the last Confer. | ence of the New Connexion Church, leaving t | «l details ct legislation to the united body, f .4 | which was« unanimounsly adopted, delegates ; $s being present from these vory cironits which & ; E> now asked for the passage of this Bill, The Ala I notices of the paszaga of the Act o! last year 4 were published in the (Untario Gozs(te and * \. . k * | in the Guardian, the officlel organ of the t wo § bodies, and the circsalts which hai been re-- f . a ferred to were each represented by a minister AW } and a lay representative, There could, P A therefore be no pretence that there circuits | ~©C were not fully advized of the union. It the majority of these congregations hai # 0_ ' desired to join some other bod{ before this \@ union, the New Connexion could not have al-- y lowed them to do so. The present proposal \A was a complete novelty in Methodism, aud { the Methodist New Connexion Chursh in : | England had no #aympathy with it Taese ¥ entlemen had no New Connexion Conference / feft, and they would thersfore have to join 8 ' zome other bodyjand take their}property with ; ' : Wce oib oemmnarenne eA 2 00 N0AAAE atrr 0000 msccss ies ac se o e h ie ce ca ulc .ce 1 c is