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

a. . _ -.u------------ , METHODIST UNION. d The Bill Passes the Parliamentary Com. - mittee Without Amendment. WUIENTS OF .THE IMrtr'ILtT8 OF m MEASURE. (From Our then Corrtupondent.) V Ottawa, March 4.--la the Private Bills Com. Ilttee to-day, the Methodist Union Bill reported with amendments by the Sub-Committee Wascon sidered. Mr. BOLTON read a letter signed by Fl. Bristol, Chairman. and Thomas Webster, Secretary of the Committee of Petitioners against the bill. Tie writers asked to be heard before the Coav. mittee by letter rather th m personally, " they are unavoidably prevented from coming to Ut. towa. The petitioners refer to the statement of Bishop Cannon, that none of the time- honoured usages and ordinances of the Church which all true Methodists hold dear Clerc! left out. They contend that the oonstitu- tion of the Methodist Episcu at Church differs widely from that of Other Il'l'difdl'ii','l bodies. They instance the fact that the Methodist Epis- copal Bishop is ordained in,tead of inducted, like the chief officer of other bodies, and they quote from the ordination ser- vice to show that this difference does exist. The petitioner: also take exception to the remark of J. J. McLaren. legal adviser of the unionists, that thouzh it was said the epis. copacy was aboiislie i, Bishop Carman contend, ed he was not abolished. Tuey contend that the office of bishop and the otiico itself are entirely distinct. They contend also that the basis of union provides tor a system of clinich govern. ment which had no pntvlt" in. history. They refer also to thtturtrytso'n of Mr. B'thuiii-, Q C., read before the Cunard 1'ouierenett, that the action of the Conference Was a violation oi the restrictive rineq oi discipline. Mr _ Holton, reading thi, letter. said that it was from an important body of peo- ple. and he trusted it would receive at the hands of the Committee the careful consideration which it deserved. QUESTION or CHURCH DEBTS. lie read also a private letter, protesting against the provisions of the bill infecting the property of the Church, urging that the trustees. even though they dissented from Union, were left liable to the debts of the Church. This question' came up in disculaion on the clauses of the bill relating to property, especially clause ls, which reads :--"The said corporation in receiving, tak, ing, or holding any property heretofore held by any of the said four denominations. shall not in anyu'ise become rorpousible or liable for debts or . obligations which have been contracted in respect thereto." Mr. Lisrlii strongly objected to the. clause. In many cases the debt on the Church was Kuarl5tt'" teed by the trustees in the faith that the congregation would work together to pay it off and relieve them from the responsibility. " the property were vested in . a new corporation and the congregation objected, the church mick: he closed up or sold and the debt of the trustees remain. . In reply to suggestion that property itself was liable for debt, Mr. Lester said it, wry often be, came lltbl. without a mortgage on thuv.'uurrl. thiorootrer,debts on churches were very often much more than property would brine if sold. He however favoured the principle of Methodist union. . f Mr. McLstw.s said that when the trustees , made themselves liable to pay the debt of the 'church, they did it knowing that tho church might amalcaiuate with another any. If that result came about therefore, and the trustees left ' the church, they would be in the tame position as if they had left the church when no amalga- mation was proposed. No injustice was done them; no representation against this prooostel 'had been made by any board of trustees in the tonncctiou. Rev. Dr. Rice said that the new corporation really held no propart , nor would it have the fund to pay " the liabilities were they put upon it. The effect of such a proposition " Mr. Listeil'inade would be to block the whole project of union. Clause 18, referred to above, was carried after some discussion. DELAY ASKED you. t Mr. CAMERON (Victoria) read a letter from a cleigvniaii who favoured anion, asking for time because of a large number who had voted against union. and who should be given further opportu- . nity to enquire into union before it should he finally decided upon. He represented that Bible Christian Church, one of the parties to this union, was a branch of the Church in England, that the parent church had ref med assent to the union, and there would be a difficulty about the property if union were effected without that assent. Mr. Malaria}: explained that the connection between the Bible Christian Church in Canada and that in England was merely ecclesiastical ; that the property of the Canadian body was held , in its own name . and that the Conference of the Bible Ctwutian Church in Canada had power to ', deal with it. After further discuuion the bill was passed. and ordered to be reported to the House. I t -r--_r-'-"-"" 'I