Hamilton Free Press and the Cobourg Reformer be requested to insert these resolutions, and other papers to copy them. JOHN W. BRYAN, President. TRAFALGAR, March 12th, 1834. In all these meetings the chief objections to the Union were: I. That the General Conference was not legally constituted. 2. That the change from Episcopacy to an Annual Presidency was without authority. 3. That the rights and privileges of members were sacrificed. Against the General Conference it was alleged that certain persons had been admitted without legal qualification. Through lack of a Bishop, the ordination of certain elders-elect had been unavoidably deferred. The Constitution of the General Conference provided that it be "composed of all the travelling elders who have travelled four full calendar years last past and have been received into full connection." By vote of the General Conference this article was changed to meet the exigency of the candidates who, though admitted into full connection, had not been ordained; and, to prevent any possible pretext for objection, to read: "The General Conference shall be composed of all the elders and elders-elect who are members of the Annual Conference." This change the General Conference by its Constitution was competent to make, and that General Conference was therefore legally constituted. As to the change from Episcopacy, No. 7 of the Restrictive Rules provides: "That upon the joint recommendation of three-fourths of the Annual Conference or Conferences, then the majority of three-fourths of the General Conference shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions except the 6th and 7th, which shall not be done away nor altered without the recommendation or consent of two-thirds of the Quarterly Meetings throughout the Connexion." "The modification in the Episcopacy or General Superintendency was made according to the very letter of Discipline, first by a majority of three-fourths of the Annual Conference; and secondly, by a majority of threefourths of the General Conference."-Guardian, April Ist, 1835. Of the above exceptions the 6th refers to temporal economy and the 7th to doctrines, rights of members, etc.; these were laid before the Quarterly Meetings and received the necessary three-fourths majority. The General Conference, therefore, did not exceed its authority, and the rights of members were not violated. As to the ordination of local preachers, this was a temporary permission to meet necessities of the work in Canada, but not admissible either in the United States or England. Its discontinuance was not strongly objected to, even by local preachers themselves, as the ratification by the Quarterly Meetings shows. Any other apparent lessening of privileges was abundantly compensated for by new provisions. While we willingly concede the fairness and reasonableness of these proceedings, we think it probable that before such a project could be carried through in our day, the whole question would be submitted to the Quarterly Meetings for the verdict of the people, as was done prior to our later general union. But we do not admit that because this was not done, that the subsequent organized and persistent opposition was justifiable, even though many with pure motives may have taken part in that opposition. Some individuals in the Methodist Church,' writes the Editor, March 26th, 1834, have been opposed from the beginning to the Union. The Articles of Union were so unexceptionable that the anticipated grounds of opposition were taken away. But the new clause of Discipline regulating local preachers' meetings, etc., which was laid before the Quarterly Meetings, afforded a pretext for opposition. In the public press appeals began to appear in behalf of the rights of local preachers. The rules were published, discussed and adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the Quarterly Meetings. The complaints of violated rights were found to be groundless. Conventions were called, but the 'professed cause of complaint was scarcely alluded to. The Union was denounced and the Conference condemned.' . . . ' What Discipline ever authorized sixteen self-moved and selfappointed individuals to judge for the Church, to condemn for the Church, to assume the property of the Church, to elect a Superintendent for the Church, and to appoint a General Conference for the Church? The preachers and trustees will now know their duty in regard to those persons who are sowing discord and inveighing against the Discipline.' In regard to church property the following legal opinion had been given, on application, January 5th, 1833: "We are of opinion that if Episcopacy should be abolished in your Church, and some other form of church government should be established in the manner mentioned in your book of Discipline, the rights and inter ests of the Conference in any church property, whether they were legal or only equitable rights and interests, would not be impaired nor affected by such change. MARSHALL S. BIDWELL, "JOHN ROLPH. 66 "Rev. Messrs. J. Richardson and A. Irvine." In Quebec, at a temperance meeting held in March, 1834, the Lord Bishop presiding, it was stated that there were in that city 135 taverns, 130 shops and stores in which liquor was sold-one house in every thirteen. An American Missionary Society at this time made the following estimate: February 11th, 1834, the Rev. Joseph Stinson writes of his missionary tours: I arrived at Cobourg the day after I left York and was kindly received by Mr. and Mrs. Bevitt. On Sunday morning I held the Quarterly Meeting at Rice Lake. The chapel was full. The Indians were very happy, and it was most pleasing to hear them sing the praises of the Lord and tell of His love. On Monday I rode twenty-five miles in the woods. to Mud Lake and preached to a few Indians. In the evening I preached in a ball-room, in a village called Peterborough, to a large and very attentive congregation-several of them English settlers. Tuesday I preached in Cobourg; Wednesday, drove with Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong to Colborne; Friday I preached at the Mohawk mission, and on Saturday went with Bro. Case to Grape Island. Sunday morning we had preaching, sacrament and love-feast; in the evening a missionary meeting in Belleville; collection, £8. Monday, after visiting the school at Grape Island and meeting the leaders we attended a temperance meeting at Demorestville. Came this morning with Bro. J. Ryerson to Hallowell for a missionary meeting.' A local preacher spoke of "Local Preachers' Conferences" as an injurious innovation. Districts were too extensive and distances too great for poor men's time or money. Quarterly Meetings were much more convenient, economical and satisfactory-therefore much to be preferred.' Some agitation in Belleville was succeeded by harmony, attentive hearers and good Sunday-schools. A twelve-days meeting on the Hallowell circuit brought forty additions, the work still going on, peace within our borders and glory in our souls.' The Rev. S. Waldron writes from Whitby, April 22nd, 1834: At the commencement of this Conference year several were unfriendly to the Union for want of correct information. This has been supplied by the Guardian, by the preachers, and especially by our good Bro. Richardson at our Quarterly Meetings. At a recent local preachers' meeting it was evident that times were growing better. An independent society was actually commenced, but now we witness better things. The Holy Spirit has been poured out, and several have passed from death into life.' From St. Catharines the Rev. James Evans wrote: 'With few exceptions our people remain firm. It was |