For this improvement in the condition of the Church of England in this . Province, the time is propitious if not fully ripe. A considerable amount of the Forward Movement money is available for the Diocese of Nova Scotia, and a 3 considerable portion of that money is, of right, due to the Church of England 3 in this Province of Prince Edward Island and in Cape Breton. Representation ; of the advisability of providing adequate Episcopal supervision for these 1 northern islands should, I think, be made. The Diocese of Nova Scotia would ' be in a better position than it is, if it were not burdened with the charge which they involve, and ought therefore to contribute a substantial amount to the Episcopal Endowment Fund. There are in this Island and the Island of Cape Breton some wealthy churchmen, who could be induced to give largely to that fund if convinced that additional Episcopal supervision is essential to the life and growth of the Church in this part of Canada: and those who are not wealthy might be expected to contribute the small amounts they could afford — if only they were made to see clearly the importance of Episcopal Supervision. So that the accumulation of an Episcopal Endowment Fund is not beyond the bounds of possibility.156

The obstacles facing the Church of England on Prince Edward Island continued to prompt discussion. The present arrangement and the issue of the authority and leadership voice of the Diocesan Church Society as opposed to that of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia (in which P.E.I. parishes were represented by clergy and lay representatives) continued to raise questions. The D.C.S. provided a vehicle for, and a means of drawing together the Island parishes into a cohesive unit where it was possible to reach a consensus agreement on special problems and situations facing the church on P.E.I.. That body , however, was weakened by the representation and participation of the individual Island parishes in the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia. There continued to be no acceptance by the Diocesan Synod of P.E.I. as a unique unit. This was true despite the physical geographical separateness of P.E.I.from mainland Nova Scotia. It remained true despite the disparate political environment which further added to this separation. The difi‘errences went as far as to include distinctly individual Political legislation regarding Church-State relations in the two Provinces. It was also true despite the independent historical development which clearly demonstrated the independence of the Church of England on Prince Edward Island from that of the Church in Nova Scotia (apart from the common heritage of a shared Bishop which involved Episcopal jurisdiction only of the Bishop of Nova Scotia within the Province of Prince Edward Island).

The Synod of Nova Scotia continued to practice ‘divide and conquer’

techniques in its dealings with Island parishes. P.E.I. was looked upon simply as a brief interlude of clerical stopover on the road toward more wealthy,

156. Ibid.

127