The passage of this resolution had a rather curious and unexpected effect. Instead of reassuring the steadfast members of St. Paul’s, it provoked some sympathy from within their ranks toward the ideals held forth by the strong supporters of the second church. William Cundall interpreted this new resolution as something of a cloaked threat. He saw it as giving free reign to the wealthy members of St. Paul’s congregation to eventually move in on St. Peter’s, to pass a few amending resolutions, then to simply buy out control of the church through introduction of the system of Pew Rents. He, in turn, moved a motion in which he opposed the passage of the previous resolution, stating:

that the committee of the St. Peter’s Church having been charged, by the meeting at which time they were appointed not merely to build a district church but a church, the seats of which shall be free and unappropriated forever, feel bound to use every precaution to prevent the imposition of Pew Rents in any shape or form — and therefore do now as well for themselves as in behalf of the subscribers solemnly protest against the assumption of any proprietary

influence or control over the said church by the congregation or corporation of St. Paul’s.”

Although the motion received strong support from the full spectrum of the congregation it was not enough to force those assembled to adopt Cundall’s motion. Even so, it did provide him the opportunity to speak out publicly against the course of action being advocated by the Churchwardens and members of the Vestry of St. Paul’s. This small victory presented those present with the position held by the Building Committee members. This was encouragement for all members of the congregation of St. Paul’s Church to re- examine the needs of the church community within the city and to withhold ‘blind’ support for any further measures proposed on behalf of the rector and church congregation.

It was at this point that the story took a dramatic turn of events prompted by the intervention of the Bishop of Nova Scotia, Hibbert Binney. Bishop Binney realized that the course of action proposed at the congregational meeting of St. Paul’s Church was impractical at best, and involved legal difficulties which would ultimately split the parish irreconcilably. Personally he sympathized with those individuals who sought to expand the availability of the forms of services provided by the Church of England in Charlottetown. This was especially important for the church’s own interests when one of those individuals was seeking to donate land as a site for the construction of a new church, and wished to make certain that the new church to be built would remain free and unrestricted for all who wished to attend services there.

1 4. Ibid.

13