Five years previous to this, or in 1835, I had, as an extra of the Albion newspaper, published by Mr. Cull, about the time York became Toronto, proposed a plan of settlement for the clergy reserves, fitted to solve the difficulties connected with them, whether Industrial, Educational, or Political. My proposal was that an educational tax should be levied, the payments by each church or sect being shewn in separate columns, and each sect receiving from the clergy reserve fund, in the proportion of its payments for education.

This first attempt of mine to get an endowment for education failed, as there was then no system of Responsible Government. But five years afterwards (in 1840) when my election for Toronto had decided the question of Responsible Government, and before the first Parliament met, I spoke to Lord Sydenham, the Governor-General, on the subject. He felt under considerable obligation to me for standing in the breach when Hon. Robert Baldwin found he could not succeed in carrying Toronto. I told him that I felt sure that if we were allowed to throw the accounts of the Province into regular books, we would show a surplus over expenditure. His Excellency agreed to my proposal, and I stipulated that, if we showed a surplus, half would be given as an endowment for an educational system. Happily we found that Upper Canada had a surplus revenue of about $100,000 a year—half of which the Parliament of 1841 set aside for education as agreed—the law stipulating that every District Council getting a share of it would locally tax for as much more, and this constituted the financial basis of our educational system. Thus I have given you a glimpse of the time when Dr. Ryerson and I were active cooeperators.

Dr. Ryerson has left no farther record of his two years' ministry in Newgate (Adelaide) Street circuit, Toronto, than that recorded on page 282. Some incidents of it will be found in the letter of the Rev. Jonathan Scott, editor of the Guardian, on page 294. Rev. I. B. Howard, Dr. Ryerson's assistant at the time, has also furnished me with some personal reminiscences of his intercourse with him during the latter year of Dr. Ryerson's pastoral life. He says:—

When I was Dr. Ryerson's assistant in Toronto, upwards of forty years ago (in 1841-2), he was studying Hebrew with a private tutor. As I had previously taken lessons in that language he kindly invited me to unite with him (at his expense) in this study. This I did three times a week at his house. On those days I always dined with him; and as it was his custom to spend the hour before dinner in devotional reading and prayer, I had the great privilege of spending this hour with him in his study—and I shall never forget the sincere, heart-searching, and devout manner in which he conducted these hallowed exercises, nor the great spiritual instruction and benefit I received from them. His humble confessions, earnest pleadings, and fervent spirit deeply impressed my youthful heart with the fact that he was indeed a man of God.

During that year (one of the few of his regular pastorate) I had also the privilege of frequently hearing him preach, especially during eight weeks of special and very successful revival services, which we held in old Adelaide (then nearly new and known as "Newgate") Street Church. I have frequently heard him preach since that time, mostly on special occasions, and always with pleasure and profit; but never since he left the pastoral work have I heard from him such earnest, powerful and overwhelming appeals to the minds, and hearts, and consciences of men, as when, with the responsibilities and sympathies of a pastor's heart, he delighted, and moved, and melted the large and admiring audiences which attended his ministry. I have always believed, that, had he continued in his pastoral work, he would have been not only an able and popular, but also in an eminent degree a successful soul-saving preacher.

During the year I was with him in Toronto, Dr. Ryerson frequently heard me preach; and as it was only the second year of my ministry his presence in the congregation was at first a great terror to me; but the kind words of encouragement, as well as the wise and fatherly counsels which he frequently gave me soon allayed my fears, and led me to regard it rather as a privilege than a cross to have him for a hearer.[113] Would that every young preacher had such a kind and sympathizing superintendent!

Hon. William Macdougall also bears testimony to the kindness which he experienced from Dr. Ryerson at this period. He says:

About the year 1840, I was living in the township of Vaughan, and like other boys of the same class and age, devoting my winters to school, and my summers to the healthful exercise of the farm. My father was a good farmer, pretty well-to-do, and I, being the eldest son, was second in command. He had purchased two or three uncleared lots in the same township, one of which was designed for me. I was fond of books, and possessed some good ones, besides I had made diligent use of a circulating library in the neighbourhood. We took in a political newspaper, an agricultural monthly, and the Christian Guardian. At this point of my career I met Dr. Ryerson. He came into our neighbourhood to attend a missionary meeting, and stopped at my father's house. I was asked to go with him to his next appointment. We were thus alone together for some hours. On the way we chatted about temperance, history, politics, education, etc. The rebellion of 1837, and the political questions that grew out of it still agitated the public mind. He spoke of Mackenzie and Rolph; of Baldwin and Bidwell; of Sir Francis Head and the Family Compact. I discovered that he admired Bidwell, but disliked Mackenzie. He took much pains to explain to me some points in reference to the clergy reserve and rectory questions, and seeing that I was an appreciative listener, he asked me if I would like to be a politician. I said I would, if I thought I could overturn the Family Compact, secure the clergy reserves for education, and drive the Hudson Bay Company out of the North-West. He looked at me for a moment with an amused expression. The last plank of my platform seemed to arouse his curiosity. The Hudson Bay Company and its affairs had not then attracted much notice. He asked me why I desired to drive out the Hudson Bay Company. I replied that I had read a lecture by Hon. R. B. Sullivan, on immigration and the movement of population westward, in which he described the Great Valley of the Saskatchewan in colours so glowing, that I wondered why we did not all go there, but on further enquiry I found that a small body of London Fur-traders claimed the whole country as a preserve for musk-rats and foxes, under an old charter from a King who, at the time, did not own a foot of it; that I thought the fur-traders ought to be compelled to give up the good land, vi et armis, if need be. He said, "My young friend, your ambition is great; I am afraid you have not considered the difficulties to be overcome." I felt slightly sat upon; but I warmed with my subject, and as I had already made temperance speeches to admiring audiences in the "back concessions," I was not easily disconcerted. He then made the remark which forty years afterwards I recalled to his recollection. "Before you undertake such enterprises you must study law; it is a noble profession, and in this country is the only sure road to success in politics. If I had not felt it my duty to preach the Gospel, I would have studied law myself." I remarked that I had read articles in the Christian Guardian, attributed to him, which I had heard people say exhibited a great deal of legal knowledge. He seemed pleased by the compliment, but did not acknowledge the paternity of the articles. After some further conversation as to my studies, etc., he recommended me to begin at once to read Latin, and promised to speak to my father and advise him to let me study law. He kept his promise; my father rather reluctantly consented, telling me that if I left home I would lose the farm. You know the rest.

May I not venture the remark, that if a promising agriculturist was spoiled by that interview, Dr. Ryerson was the spoiler? and, if Canada has derived any benefit from my humble labours as journalist, legislator, executive councillor, etc., he is entitled to a share of the credit, for, as I loved—and still recall with envious regret—the unsophisticated pleasures and contentment of a farmer's life, I would, probably, have pursued the even tenor of my bucolic way but for his advice and kind-hearted mediation.

In the political controversies that agitated the country from 1850 to 1862, we sometimes crossed swords. In 1865, it became my duty, as a member of Government, to carry through Parliament an important measure relating to Grammar Schools. Much to his surprise, I successfully resisted all attempts at mutilation, for which he warmly expressed his acknowledgements. During the serious, and sometimes acrimonious discussions which preceded and followed the Act of Confederation, I enjoyed the benefit of his approving sympathy and wise counsel. Others with better warrant may speak of his great power and achievements as a Christian Minister; but you will permit me to say that I knew him as a generous friend and patron of Canadian youth; as a sagacious and resolute man of affairs; as a staunch defender of the British constitutional system of government; and as a patriotic, true-hearted son of Canada—Si monumentum requiris—circumspice!

Dr. Ryerson's pastoral charge of the Toronto City Circuit in 1840-41, and other ministerial duties, engrossed all of his time to the exclusion of other matters. It seemed to have been a positive relief to him to engage in these more congenial pursuits. He rarely used his pen, except on very pressing occasions. He was nevertheless a close observer of passing events, but took no active part in them.

Lord Sydenham frequently availed himself of Dr. Ryerson's counsel and co-operation. Shortly before the death of that able Governor, Dr. Ryerson had gone to Kingston, as requested, on matters of public interest. The unexpected death of Lord Sydenham, on the 19th of September, 1841 (the immediate cause of which was a fall from his horse), called forth a burst of universal sorrow throughout the then newly created Province of Canada. One of the most touching tributes to his memory was penned by Dr. Ryerson, while on his way to Kingston to see him. It was published in the Guardian of the 29th September, and republished with other notices in a pamphlet by Mr. (now Sir) Francis Hincks, then editor of the Toronto Examiner. From that sketch of Lord Sydenham's career I take the following concluding passages:—

At the commencement of His Lordship's mission in Upper Canada, when his plans were little known, his difficulties formidable, and his Government weak, I had the pleasing satisfaction of giving him my humble and dutiful support in the promotion of his non-party and provincial objects; and now that he is beyond the reach of human praise or censure—where all earthly ranks and distinctions are lost in the sublimities of eternity—I have the melancholy satisfaction of bearing my humble testimony to his candour, sincerity, faithfulness, kindness and liberality. A few days before the occurrence of the accident which terminated his life, I had the honour of spending an evening and part of a day in free conversation with His Lordship; and on that, as well as on former similar occasions, he observed the most marked reverence for the truths of Christianity—a most earnest desire to base the civil institutions of the country upon Christian principles, with a scrupulous regard to the rights of conscience—a total absence of all animosity against any person or parties opposed to him—and an intense anxiety to silence dissensions and discord, and render Canada contented, happy and prosperous.

... The day before his lamented death he expressed his regret that he had not given more of his time to religion.... The last hours of his life were spent in earnest supplications to the Redeemer, in humble reliance upon whose atonement he yielded up the ghost.

After the publication of this letter in the Guardian, Dr. Ryerson received the following acknowledgment from T. W. C. Murdoch, Esq., late private Secretary to Lord Sydenham:—

I ought to have thanked you before for the numbers of the Guardian containing your letter on the death of Lord Sydenham. That letter I have read over and over again with the deepest emotion, and I cannot but feel how much more worthily the task of writing the history of his administration might have been confided to your hands than to mine. That I shall discharge the duty with affectionate zeal and good faith, I hope I need not assure you, but I fear my inability to do justice to so statesmanlike an administration, or to make apparent to others those nice shades of policy which constituted the beauty and insured the success of his government. In the meantime what are we to hope or expect from the new Governor Sir C. Bagot. My principal confidence is that Sir R. Peel is too prudent a man to wish discredit to his administration by allowing the re-introduction of the old, bad system, and that consequently Sir Charles will be instructed to follow out to the best of his ability Lord Sydenham's policy.

FOOTNOTES:

[112] In the Guardian of October 7th, 1840, Dr. Ryerson says:—Lord Sydenham well knows the feelings of reluctance and apprehension under which I assumed the responsibility of giving my humble and earnest support to the measures of his government in Upper Canada.... He well knows that I adopted the course I did with a deep consciousness that it would be attended with personal sacrifice, with no other expectation or wish but justice to the church to which I belonged—equal justice to other churches—and the hope of prosperity to my native country under an improved and efficient system of government. I did not indeed expect that hostility against me from London would be prosecuted to the extent it has been.... I have incurred the censure of the British Conference for supporting, and not for opposing, the government when it needed my support, and when it was in my power to have embarrassed it.... As it respects myself personally, I shall not repine at having made the sacrifice, if the new system of government but succeeds, and the land of my birth and affections is made prosperous and happy. Note on page 199.

[113] This the Editor has been assured was also Rev. Dr. Potts' experience of Dr. Ryerson as a hearer, several years afterwards, and during the time that he (Dr. Potts) was pastor of the Metropolitan Church, Toronto.



CHAPTER XXXVI.

1841.

Dr. Ryerson's attitude toward the Church of England.

The constant references in this volume to Dr. Ryerson's attitude of hostility to the exclusive claims and pretensions put forth on behalf of the Church of England in this province, require some explanation. His opponents sought to neutralize this opposition by endeavouring to make it appear that, because he opposed these claims and ignored these pretensions, he was hostile to the Church of England as a great spiritual power in the land.[114] He had himself often pointed out the fallacy of this reasoning, and drawn so clear a distinction between men and things in the controversy—the Church and her representatives—that I cannot add any thing to what he has written on the subject. In one letter he said:—

I am often charged with hostility to the Church of England. Did I know nothing of the Church of England except what has been exhibited in this province, ... how could I have any partiality for that Church? There is a large and growing branch of the Established Church in England that I venerate, admire, and love; but there is a semi-popish branch of it for which I have no such respect, and that is the branch, with a few individual exceptions, which exists in this province....

Again, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper, on the clergy reserve question, dated October 12th, 1838, he said:—

I would not derogate an iota from the respect claimed by the Church of England on account of the prerogatives to which she is legally entitled [in England]. As the form of religion professed by the Sovereign and rulers of the Empire—as the Established Church of the British realm—as the Church which has nursed some of the greatest statesmen, philosophers, and divines that have enlightened, adorned, and blest the world, she cannot fail to command the respect of all enlightened men, whatever may be thought of the conduct and pretensions of the Canadian branch of that Church—pretensions which have been virtually repudiated in royal charters, and contradicted by the entire civil and ecclesiastical history of the old British colonies.

Dr. Ryerson's attitude to the Church of England was clearly defined in a private and friendly correspondence between him and John Kent, Esq., Editor of The Church newspaper, in 1841-42. (See page 97.) That paper was established in May, 1837, as the organ of the Church of England in Upper Canada. It was at first edited by Rev. Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Bethune, rector of Cobourg. In 1841, John Kent, Esq., became its editor.[115] In the religions controversies of those days The Church, was ably edited. It was a decided champion of the high church, or Puseyite party, and, as such it came into constant conflict with the Wesleyan Methodists and their organ, the Christian Guardian, and especially with its chief editor, Dr. Ryerson. On the 21st December, 1841, Dr. Ryerson wrote a letter for insertion in The Church, and accompanied it with a private note to Mr. Kent. From that letter I make the following extracts:—

I, as well as my friends, have been the subjects of repeated strictures in your pages; during the last two years I have replied not a word, nor published a line in reference to the Church Of England.

I have stated on former occasions—and perhaps my two years' silence may now give some weight to the statement—that my objections had no reference to the existence, or prosperity, of the Church of England as a Church, but simply and solely to its exclusive establishment and endowment in Upper Canada, especially, and indeed entirely, in reference to the clergy reserves. During the discussions which took place, and which were continued for years, I wrote many strong things; but nothing on the Episcopal form of Government, or the formularies, or doctrines of the Church of England. The doctrines of the Church of England, as contained in the Articles and Homilies, I always professed to believe. On the subject of Church Government, I often expressed my views in the language of Dr. Paley, and in accordance with the sentiments of many distinguished dignitaries and divines of the Church of England, that no particular form of Church Government has been enjoined by the Apostles. I have objected to the Episcopal, or any other one form of Church Government, being put forth as essential to the existence of the Church of Christ, and as the only Scriptural form; but no further. I do not think the form of Church, any more than the form of civil government, is settled in the Scriptures; I believe that both are left, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown at large, to times, places, and circumstances, to be determined upon the ground of expediency and utility—a ground on which Dr. Paley has supported the different orders of the Church of England with his accustomed clearness, ability and elegance. I know, on the contrary, that much may be said upon the same ground in favour of itinerancy, of Presbyterianism, and of independency.

On the subject of forms of prayer, I have never written; though I have for many years used forms of prayer in private as helps to, not substitutes for, devotion. I believe the foundation of the Church of Christ is not laid in forms, but in doctrines....

I believe it would be a moral calamity for either the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches to be annihilated in this province. I believe there are fields of labour which may be occupied by any one of those Churches with more efficiency and success than by any of the others. They need not, and I think, ought not, to be aggressors upon each other....

As there were seven Apostolic Churches in Asia, we believe ourselves one of the Apostolic Churches in Canada.... Those persons, who believe that the instruction, and religious advantages and privileges afforded by our Church will more effectually aid them in working out their salvation than those which they can command in any other part of the general fold of Christ, are affectionately received under our watch-care; but not on account of our approximation to, or our dissent from, the Church of England, or any other Church.

With the settlement of the clergy reserve question ended my controversy with the Church of England, as I have again and again intimated that it would. Churches, as well as individuals, may learn wisdom from experience. I therefore, submit, whether the controversies and their characteristic feelings between the Church of England and the Wesleyan Methodist Church in this province ought not to cease, with the removal of the causes which produced them?... Whether both Churches are not likely to accomplish more religious and moral good by directing their energies against prevalent vice and ignorance than by mutual warfare?

Dr. Ryerson concludes his letter in the following truthful and striking language:—

I intend no offence when I express my conviction that the Church of England in this province has vastly greater resources for doing good than for warring with other Protestant Churches. I know her weak points, as well as her strong towers. I am not a stranger to the appropriate weapons for assailing the one, and for neutralizing the strength of the other. And you have not to learn that it is easier to deface than to beautify—to pull down a fair fabric than to rear a common structure; and that a man may injure others without benefitting himself. On the other hand I am equally sensible that the Wesleyan Methodist Church has nothing to gain by controversy; but I am quite sure, from past experience, as well as from present aspects, that she has not so much to fear, to risk, or to lose, as the Church of England. If controversy be perpetuated between your Church and our own, I wash my hands from all responsibility of it—even should the duty of self-defence compel me to draw the sword which I had, in inclination and intention, sheathed for ever. History, and our own experience to some extent, abounds with monitory lessons, that personal disputes may convulse churches, that ecclesiastical controversies may convulse provinces, and lead to the subversion of governments....

In his private note to Mr. Kent, Dr. Ryerson said:—

I have long been impressed with the conviction that Canada could not prosper under the element of agitation. I supported the Union of the Canadas with a view to their civil tranquility. I believe my expectations will be realized. In our new state of things I desire not to be considered as standing in an attitude of hostility to the Church of England, any more than to any other Church. I have wished and resolved to leave civil and ecclesiastical party politics with the former bad state of things. Travelling, observation and experience, have been a useful school to me, and time will do justice to the merits or demerits of my motives and conduct.

On the 22nd of December, Mr. Kent replied to Dr. Ryerson:—

Do not think that I wish to meet you coldly. I would gladly fling away the weapons of strife. The warfare in which I am engaged, and which I dare not decline, is literally embittering my existence, and pressing upon me very severely. I am not aware that I have in any way personally attacked you, or ever by name, since the commencement of my editorial career. I should hail a day of concord with overflowing joy. I should rejoice to see your powerful, acute, and vigorous mind exerting itself in a manner that we should all consider serviceable to the cause of loyalty and the Protestant religion.

From a glance at your letters, I fondly hope that some gleam of light is breaking in upon us all. My firm conviction is that the doctrine of the apostolical succession will be the bond of union and the cementer of differences, now apparently impossible. You must have studied the question—and how can your vivid and clear mind elude its force? Must there not be some one apostolical mode of conferring the ministerial functions, or must it be open to all, and Quakerism be right? I do not think I have been the assailant. The Guardian is outrageously personal and unscrupulous in its misstatements.... I am far from thinking that I am meek and gentle enough; but I have carefully excluded personalities,—though I readily concede that my course of argument, which pervades all I write or select, has been to cut away the ground from under the feet of every denomination in the province, outside of the Church.

The papists, I firmly believe, are meditating some grand movement all over the world; and it would be glorious indeed if Protestants could find a common centre of union. But what can I, in my humble way, do? I dare not drop the necessity of the apostolical succession,—though I might dwell less upon it, and avoid, as much as possible, as I always have done, to mix it up with offence to other denominations. Yet, as I before intimated, the assertion and maintenance of it, in the simplest and least controversial manner, must ever provoke hostility. It is an endless subject to get upon....

I shall be very happy to call on you at an early opportunity, and obtain, or rather revive, the pleasure of your personal acquaintance. It would be the happiest Christmas I ever spent, if it witness the extinction of long theological enmities, and the dawn of an era of Christian concord and love.

On the 29th December, Dr. Ryerson wrote a private note again to Mr. Kent. He said:—I was glad to learn by the last Church that you will give my remarks a place in your columns, and that you cordially and elegantly respond to the general spirit and design of them....

I have had a correspondence with the Editor of the Guardian in reference to the mode of conducting it, in regard to the Church of England, and in some other respects. I am happy to be able to say that he has at length yielded to my reasonings and recommendations, and will, I have no doubt, conduct the Guardian in accordance with the general views expressed in my communications to you.[116] To-day's Guardian, as you see, presents a visible and agreeable improvement in the points referred to.

I blame you not for your strict and high principles as a churchman, but I do not think that you do now make sufficient allowance for difference of forms and ceremonies in the common faith of Protestantism. I think you should allow as much as Archbishop (Lord Keeper) Williams has done, and as much as is involved in the passage quoted by him from Irenaeus. Why should we be "unchurched" any more than the continental churches?

Mr. Kent, in reply to Dr. Ryerson (31st December), said:—

I trust you will think that in the remarks which I have made on your letter in The Church, I have met your overtures in a pacific and cordial spirit. I am sure that my remarks will be much more acceptable to churchmen, so far as such remarks are friendly to you, than they will be to others not belonging to our pale. I have not consulted a soul about what I have written, nor have I shown your pleasing reply to my first note to any one save good and safe Mr. Henry Rowsell; though I should like to show it to Rev. H. J. Grasett, and Bishop Strachan. You need never be afraid of what you say to me in confidence.... It is certainly much more consistent in you (provided only you get rid of Mr. Wesley's authority, and then, by the way, you destroy your genealogy and succession) to call yourselves a Church, than to be of the Church and not in it.... You are said to possess some fine old Divinity works. You cannot have read them without some approximation to our Church.

You are not in the position of the continental Churches. No constraint is upon you. You can get Episcopacy, if you desire it. Neither does the Church of England stand relatively towards you, as the Gallican Church towards the Huguenots. You admit the purity of our doctrine, and do not consider our discipline unscriptural. If you were to read Bishop Stillingfleet on Separation, I think you would open up new trains of thought. I just became so staunch an Episcopalian, from viewing the matter extrinsically of Scripture and history, and was led to conclude, from the nature of things, that there can be but one valid ministry.

You are certainly a Prospero. You have waved your magic wand over the Guardian. I saw it in an instant, and saw that you had done it. I purposely, in my editorial, abstained from all allusions to our confidential intercourse, or I would have thanked you for this exercise of your healing influence.

It is by no means an unpleasing marvel that you and I, on the last day of 1841, should be conversing so pleasantly and amicably. I trust that peace and amity will flourish still more!

Do me the favour to accept a slight New Year's gift at my hands.

Dr. Ryerson wrote a reply to the strictures of The Church newspaper, and on the 26th addressed a private note on the subject to Mr. Kent, in which he said:—

... The great difference between us seems to be that I value what I hold to be the cardinal doctrines, and morals and interests of Christianity, above either Churchism or Methodism. So that those interests are advanced, either through the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or any other Protestant Church, I therein do rejoice and will rejoice. You make the Church of England first of all—essential to all—all in all; and that all who are not in the Church of England are enemies to the Church of Christ, "strangers to the covenants of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." ... It is true you have exempted me by way of compliment; but no intelligent man would wish to hold his religious intercourse and standing on the tenor of a compliment; and that too at the expense of his ecclesiastical connexion and general principles. If I cannot but be viewed as an enemy of the Church of England as a Methodist, it is a poor compliment to tell me that I am friendly to it as a man. I do not understand the hair-splitting casuistry which separates the man from the Christian....

I believe in your perfect sincerity and personal disinterestedness and kindness, but I must say that you do not appear from the last Church to suppose it possible for a man to think in a different channel from yourself without endangering his title to the skies, or to common sense, and without absolutely forfeiting his claim to orthodox Christianity. I refer not all to your maintenance of apostolic succession, but to your unqualified reprobation of the motives, feelings, and character of all who are not of your own fold. How different are the sentiments and spirit of Bishop Onderdonk's essay in support of the "Divine Right of Episcopacy" from those of your articles in the last Church? Now, though we may be without the attributes of what you believe to be a scripturally constituted Church, we are not without the attributes and feelings of men.... The apparatus of the Church of England is surprisingly powerful when spiritually, rightly, and comprehensively applied; but to build your structure like an inverted pyramid, and to rouse every one not of you into warfare against you, does not appear to me to be sound in theory, or wise in practice.

Mr. Kent, in a private reply, dated 3rd February, said:—

I have read your letter over so as to prepare my remarks. In doing this I anticipate no trouble. On the contrary, I hope to strengthen my position and give greater weight to my axioms respecting the duties of Churchmen in withholding aid from all religious societies unconnected with the Church. I find, however, that your tone of remark is excessively warm and indignant; and, deeming from the tenor of your conversation on Thursday last, that you have doubts on your mind respecting church government, and feeling convinced that if ever you are led to subscribe to the indispensable obligations of episcopacy, ... you will admit the validity of my reasons for acting and writing as I do—under all these circumstances I feel bound to ask you to meditate whether you will not withdraw your letter. I give you my sacred honour that I do not dread its effects. But I feel this, that should you ever experience and avow a change of opinion in reference to the matters that are now engaging your attention, it will be brought up against you by your enemies, and may altogether prove a constant embarrassment. Should you withdraw it, I will only mention the matter to Mr. Grasett, who has already seen it. Should you determine on its insertion, it shall appear next Saturday.

Dr. Ryerson did not withdraw his letter, and it appeared in The Church of February 5th. The personal correspondence, however, ended here.

In accounting for his decided opposition to a church establishment in Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:—

Before I was twenty years of age I had read Paley's Political Philosophy, including his chapters on the British Constitution and a Church Establishment; Locke on Government, and especially Blackstone's Commentaries, particularly those parts on the Rights of the Crown and the Rights of the Subject. From Paley I learned that a Church Establishment is no part of Christianity, but a means of supporting it, and a means which should be used only when the majority of the people are of the religion thus supported. From Blackstone I learned that the Church of England is the Established Church of England and Ireland, but not of any colony, except under one or more of three conditions, none of which existed in Upper Canada. Upon the grounds, therefore, furnished by Blackstone and Paley, I opposed the erection of a Church Establishment in Upper Canada, without touching the question of a Church Establishment in England.

Dr. Ryerson in a letter to a friend, thus refers to his early experiences in regard to the Church of England:—

Although I had no opportunity of attending the service of the Church of England until I was nearly twenty years of age, I made the Homilies and Prayer Book, with the Bible, very constant companions of travel and subjects of study. I drew my best pulpit illustrations from them, at the very time that I was controverting the pretensions of the leaders of that Church to exclusive establishment and supremacy in Upper Canada; and, in so doing, I had the sympathies and support of a large portion of the members of the Church of England, in addition to the unanimous support of the members of other religious denominations. I felt that I was preaching the Protestant Reformation doctrines of the Church of England; and throughout life I have loved the Church of England with all its faults, only second to that of my own church. I declined the offer of ordination in the Church of England [page 206] several months after I commenced preaching on a Methodist circuit, simply and solely upon the ground that I was indebted to the Methodists for all the religious instruction and influences I had experienced. I believed that I would be more useful among them, though my life would be, as then appeared, one of privation and labour. During the first four years of my ministry, my salary amounted to less than one hundred dollars per annum, and during the next twelve years (after my marriage) my salary did not exceed six hundred dollars a year, including house rent and fuel.

In a letter written on the 28th October, 1843, to the Editor of the Guardian by Dr. Ryerson, he says:—

It is still, as it has long been, the position with the Editor of The Church and writers of his school to represent the efforts of other Churches to maintain their own equal rights and privileges as hostility to the Church of England.... Who proposed peace, and who has perpetuated war—aggressive war? [page 292.] ... Who is it that proclaims bodies prior to his own in Western Canada as "Dissenters," and seeks by every species of unfair statement and insinuation to injure and degrade them—both politically and religiously—and substantially maintaining that Civil Government itself is an appropriate Providential instrument to put down "dissent." For one, I have as yet been silent under this provocation, insult, and proscription.

Circumscribed must his views be who does not perceive that "Puseyism," both in a religious and civil point of view, will soon become a far more important question for the consideration and decision of the inhabitants of Western Canada than that of the seat of Government, or than even that of the University. And the day is hastening apace, when it will be a prime matter of inquiry with them to determine ... whether they will quietly consent to have their civil rights and liberties placed in any form in the hands of men who regard the great majority of their Christian fellow-subjects as unbaptized heathens and aliens in a Christian country. Such is the issue to which The Church is bringing matters in Western Canada.[117]

* * * * *

In a journey from Kingston to Toronto by stage, which Dr. Ryerson made in February, 1842, Bishop Strachan was a fellow passenger. Dr. Ryerson thus speaks of the agreeable intercourse which he had with the Bishop on that occasion:—

For the first time in my life I found myself in company with the Lord Bishop of Toronto. He was accompanied by Mr. T. M. Jones, his son-in-law, and Mr. Jarvis (Indian Department), very pleasant companions, nor could I desire to meet with a more affable, agreeable man than the Bishop himself. It would be unpardonable to introduce remarks ... of one's neighbours ... into travelling notes in any form, but there has been something so peculiar in the relations of "John Toronto" and "Egerton Ryerson," that I must beg, in this instance, to depart from a general rule. Conversation took place on several topics, on scarcely any of which did I see reason to differ from the Bishop. He spoke of the importance to us of getting our College at Cobourg endowed—that an annual grant was an insufficient dependence—that as the clergy reserve question had been settled by law, we had as much right to a portion of the clergy lands as the Church of England—that as we did not desire Government support for our ministers, we ought to get our proportion appropriated to the College, as religious education was clearly within the provisions of the Clergy Reserve Act. Valuable suggestions, for which I thanked his lordship. I took occasion to advert to what had excited the strongest feelings in my own mind, and in the minds of our people generally—namely imputations on our loyalty to the Government and laws of the country. The Bishop, with his characteristic energy, said that what he had written on the subject he could at any time prove—that he never represented or supposed that the Methodist body of people were disaffected; nor had he represented or supposed that those preachers who had been born and brought up in the country were disloyal; but he was satisfied that such was the case with the majority of those who used to come from the United States. I felt that the whole matter was one of history, and not of practical importance in reference to present interests; and I was much gratified in my own mind to find that the real question, as one of history, was the proportion of preachers who formerly came from the United States, and the character and tendency of their feelings and influence; for no preachers have come from the United States to this country these many years, and we have none but British subjects in the Canada Conference.

After parting with the Bishop at Cobourg, in analyzing the exercises of my own mind, I found myself deeply impressed with the following facts and considerations:—

1. That the settlement of the clergy reserve question had annihilated the principal causes of difference between those individuals and bodies in this province who had been most hostile to each other.

2. That how much asperity of feeling, and how much bitter controversy might be prevented, if those most concerned would converse privately with each other before they entered into the arena of public disputation.

3. That how much more numerous and powerful are the reasons for agreement than for hostility in the general affairs of the country, even among those who differ most widely on points of religious doctrine and polity.[118]

FOOTNOTES:

[114] I have already on pages 41 and 206 mentioned the overtures which were made to Dr. Ryerson by the late Bishop Stewart of Quebec to induce him to enter the ministry of the Church of England. See also page 97.

[115] "From 1841 to 1843 the editorial management of The Church was assumed by Mr. John Kent, who had been a valuable contributor to its pages from the commencement. The excitement, however, amid the clash and din of party strife was too much for him, and the paper came back to its first editor, who held it again ... for nearly four years.... It gradually lost ground, and died out ... in 1856. Memoir of Bishop Strachan by Bishop Bethune," page 159.

[116] From Dr. Ryerson's letter to Rev. J. Scott, Editor of the Guardian, I make the following extracts:—I take the liberty to mention two or three things that I have seen in the Guardian which have caused me some pain and concern. I refer to your mode and style of controversy with "The Church." During, and since my late tour to the West, I have heard several preachers and some others allude to it, and nearly all in terms of regret. I set down the questions as they occur to my own mind.

1. We have no controversy with the Church of England as a Church Establishment. We have disclaimed opposing, or doing anything to disparage the Church Establishment in England.... 2. Then on the subject of church polity. Your articles, especially the series entitled "Dissent, etc., No Wonder"—were put forth as a defence.... But which of our institutions did they defend? The burden of them went to prove that the Church of England is unscriptural in its polity, union with the state, etc. Suppose all this were true, would it prove that our own Church is apostolic and Scriptural? To prove that our neighbours are black, does not prove that we are white. We do not profess to build up ourselves upon the ruin of any body else, or to be "foragers" upon others, although we readily accept members of other churches when they offer themselves. To prove that Presbyterian ordination is valid (as did the valuable series of articles copied by you from the Wesleyan Magazine, and Powell, on Apostolic Succession) defends our ordination. To prove that the Church of England is wrong and rotten from beginning to end cannot be a defence of ourselves. It may, indeed, please some of our friends; but it also tends to prove that we are settled enemies to the Church of England in all its forms and features, as well as in its union with the state.

Far be it from me to look upon the things I have mentioned as characteristics of the Guardian; I look upon them as blemishes, and as drawbacks from its usefulness—objects which I know are scarcely less dear to your heart than life itself. If we narrow our own foundations by such sweeping denunciations against the Church of England, and strictures on persons without our communion, ... we multiply our opponents, and reduce the circulation of our journal within the circle of our own members.

I am sensible of my own errors, deficiency and unworthiness; but I have felt that I should not do my duty to you as a brother beloved, and one from whom I have received too many proofs of regard, and so much aid in my labours, without thus telling you what was in my heart.

Rev. Mr. Scott at first felt aggrieved and disappointed on receiving this letter and a personal correspondence between him and Dr. Ryerson ensued, which, however, ended satisfactorily. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, written in 1864—23 years afterwards,—Mr. Scott thus recalls the reminiscence of his career as Editor of the Guardian. He says:—My esteemed friend: You and I have not always thought alike (and what is manliness worth that is not independent enough to disagree?) but as age advances I have an increasing pleasure in recalling to mind the years, when you were Superintendent of old Adelaide street Church, and I was your supplementary helper,—in joint intercession with the humbled at night—in the damp basement, and during the day pursuing the penitents in dirty taverns, and the dens of dirtier March [now Lombard] street, the sainted Mrs. S. E. Taylor praying for us; and Christ won many souls. Since then what progress Scriptural Christianity—Methodism—has made in Canada! I trust that when you repose in the tomb, and I am beneath some quiet sod of loved Canada, we shall meet those again for whose salvation we laboured. In the words of an ancient wish: May your last days be your best days! Mr. Scott entered the ministry in 1834; and died at Brampton, May 5th, 1880, aged 77.

[117] In this connection see the significant conclusion of the note on page 291.

[118] This incident might also form a fitting sequel to chapter xxvii, page 213.



CHAPTER XXXVII.

1841-1842.

Victoria College.—Hon. W. H. Draper.—Sir Chas. Bagot.

Amongst the last public acts performed by Lord Sydenham was the giving of the Royal assent to a Bill for the erection of the Upper Canada Academy into a College with University powers. This he did on the 27th August, 1841. Dr. Ryerson thus refers to the event, in a letter written from Kingston on that day:—

The establishment of such an institution by the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada attests their estimate of education and science; and the passing of such an act unanimously by both Houses of the Legislature, and the Royal assent to it by His Excellency in Her Majesty's name, is an ample refutation of recent statements and proceedings of the Wesleyan Committee in London ... while the Act itself will advance the paramount interests of literary education amongst Her Majesty's Canadian subjects.... For the accomplishment of this purpose, a grant must be added to the charter—a measure ... honourable to the enlightened liberality of the Government and Legislature. When they are securely laying a broad foundation for popular government, and devising comprehensive schemes for the development of the latent resources of the country, and the improvement of its internal communication, and proposing a liberal system of common school education, free from the domination of every church, and aiding colleges which may have been established by any church, we may rationally and confidently anticipate the arrival of a long-looked for era of civil government and civil liberty, social harmony, and public prosperity.

In October, 1841, Dr. Ryerson was appointed Principal of the newly-chartered College, and on the 21st of that month, he opened its first session by a practical address to the students.

At the close of that address he said:—

His late Most Gracious Majesty William IV., of precious memory, first invested this institution, in 1836, with a corporate charter as an Academy—the first institution of the kind established by Royal Charter, unconnected with the Church of England, throughout the British Colonies. It is a cause of renewed satisfaction and congratulation, that, after five years' operation as an Academy, it has been incorporated as a College, and financially assisted by the unanimous vote of both branches of the Provincial Legislature,—sanctioned by more than an official cordiality, in Her Majesty's name, by the late lamented Lord Sydenham, one of whose last messages to the Legislative Assembly was, a recommendation, to grant L500 as an aid to the Victoria College.... We have buoyant hopes for our country when our rulers and legislators direct their earliest and most liberal attention to its literary institutions and educational interests. A foundation for a common school system in this province has been laid by the Legislature, which I believe will at no distant day, exceed in efficiency any yet established on the American Continent;[119] and I have reason to believe that the attention of Government is earnestly directed to make permanent provision for the support of colleges also, that they may be rendered efficient in their operation, and accessible to as large a number of the enterprising youth of our country as possible.



Dr. Ryerson, although appointed Principal of the newly chartered Victoria College in October, 1841, did not relinquish his pastoral duties as Superintendent of the Toronto City Circuit until the Conference of June, 1842. His appointment as General Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, in 1840, necessitated his constant attendance during the winter season at missionary-meetings. Correspondence, consultation, and committee meetings filled up such time as he could spare from his duties as Superintendent of the Circuit. His was indeed a busy life; and by his untiring energy and industry he was enabled to give more than the usual time to the various departments of the Church's work. His aid and counsel was constantly being sought in these things, and was as freely given as though he had the most abundant leisure at his command. In February, 1842, he went to Kingston to attend its missionary anniversary. While there he says:—

In an interview which I had with Sir Charles Bagot, the new Governor-General, it affords me a satisfaction I cannot express, to be able to say that, in advancing the interests of Victoria College, and in securing the rights and interests of our Church, Sir Charles Bagot will not be second to Lord Sydenham—that while, as a man and a Christian, His Excellency is a strict and conscientious churchman, as a Governor he will know no creed or party in his decisions and administration.... I believe that it is a principle of His Excellency's Government, in public appointments, etc., qualifications and character being equal, to give the preference to native and resident inhabitants of the province—those who have suffered in the privations, have grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength of the country. Sir Charles has the wisdom and experience of sixty-three years, and the buoyant activity of our public men of forty. If I mistake not, the characteristics of his government will be impartiality and energy—not in making further changes, but,—in consolidating and maturing the new institutions which have been established amongst us—in obliterating past differences, in developing the latent resources of the country, and in raising up a "united, happy, and prosperous people."

In March, 1842, the question was raised as to the right of ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, who had been members of the old organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, to solemnize matrimony, or for the Conference legally to hold church property. Dr. Ryerson prepared a case on the subject, and submitted it to Hon. R. S. Jameson, the Attorney-General, for his opinion. The opinion of the Attorney-General was conclusive in favour of these rights, and thus this troublesome question, so often raised by adversaries, was finally set at rest.

The transition period between the death of Lord Sydenham and the arrival of his successor, Sir Charles Bagot, was marked by much uncertainty in political matters. In September, 1842, Dr. Ryerson wrote to his friend, Mr. John P. Roblin, the Liberal M.P.P. for Prince Edward county, on the apparently threatening aspect of affairs. Mr. Roblin, in his reply, dated Kingston, September 16th, said:[120]

The political sea has indeed appeared rough; the clouds were dark and ominous of a dreadful storm. But I am happy to say that they have passed away, and the prospect before us is now favourable. There were in the House quite a large majority against ministers; this they plainly saw, and, therefore, shaped their course to avert the blow. Hon. W. H. Draper stated distinctly that it was, and had been, his opinion, that the Lower Canadians should have a fair proportion of members in the Executive Council, and for that purpose he had no less than three times tendered his resignation; that he was ready to go out, and would do so at any moment. Hon. R. Baldwin certainly occupies a proud position at present, and may continue to do so, if he is not too punctilious. The arrangement, which it is understood has been come to, is that Messrs. Ogden, Draper, and Sherwood go out, and that Mr. L. H. Lafontaine comes in as Attorney East; Mr. Baldwin, Attorney-General West; Mr. T. C. Aylwin, Solicitor-General East; Mr. James E. Small, or some other Liberal, as the third man. This will make a strong Government, for it can command a large majority in the House. It is true that the gentleman you mentioned, and a few others will be dead against it, but they are a small minority, and will form a wholesome check.

No man would regret more than I would to see the country thrown into confusion at this time. I entertain a high opinion of the Governor-General (Sir Charles Bagot.) He certainly has shown a disposition to do everything he consistently could to give satisfaction to the prominent party, and being (as he is) of the Tory school, and appointed by a Tory ministry, he certainly is deserving of much credit for going as far as he did to meet the views of the Reformers.

The following was the only record left by Dr. Ryerson of his principalship of Victoria College:—At the end of two years' labours in the station of Adelaide Street Church (the predecessor of the present Metropolitan Church), I was again wrested from my loved work by an official pressure brought to bear upon me to accept the Presidency of Victoria College, which was raised from Upper Canada Academy to a College, and opened and inaugurated, in 1842, as a University College.

* * * * *

On the 3rd of August, 1842, the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Connecticut, conferred on the Principal of Victoria College the degree of D.D. His old and valued friend Francis Hall, Esq., proprietor of the New York Commercial Advertiser, was the first to convey to him the pleasing intelligence. He said:

Perhaps this will be the first communication from Middletown which announces to Victoria College that its head is Rev. Egerton Ryerson, D.D. May you long live to enjoy the distinguished title! I hope to take you by the hand in a few days, and congratulate you personally.

On the 21st of June, 1842, Dr. Ryerson was, with appropriate ceremonies, formally installed as Principal of Victoria College. The Editor of this volume well remembers what a joyful day it was for the College; and how heartily and kindly the new Principal spoke words of encouragement to each of the students then present. On that occasion he delivered a carefully prepared inaugural address, which was afterwards published in pamphlet form and widely circulated. On the 10th September, he sent a copy of the address to Hon. W. H. Draper. In his note Dr. Ryerson called Mr. Draper's attention to what he conceived to be the defective nature of the provisions for the education of law-students, before their entrance on the study of the law (pages 24 and 25 of the address). To this Mr. Draper replied on the 16th. He also added an explanation in regard to his present position in the Government. He said:—

I have perused your address with much satisfaction. The Law Society of Upper Canada, by appointing a well-qualified examiner last term, will, I think, forward your views as to the education which should precede the study of that profession.

By the recent changes which have taken place, I have no longer the right to visit Victoria College officially; but I hope that I may be favoured with an opportunity of doing so in my private capacity.

You will not, I trust, consider it intrusive in me to briefly state the cause of my retirement from the Cabinet. I have long considered the Government in a false position, while the French Canadians saw in the Council no person acquainted with their wants and wishes—able and willing to look after their interests, and in whom they had confidence. Apprehending from what took place in the beginning of last session that they might refuse to take office with me, I signified several months ago my readiness to retire if that were the case. In July I renewed that offer. And now, when a negotiation was opened on, it appeared that they would not come in without Mr. Baldwin. I again offered my resignation, because, taking the view I do of his conduct when we were last in Council together, I feel I should not be in that body if he were there also. From that moment I ceased to advise or have anything to do with the matter. Had every other part of it been satisfactory to me, or had it been altered so as to make it satisfactory, nevertheless his being brought in inevitably put me out. Should you hear my conduct canvassed and misunderstood, this explanation will, I trust, set it right.

To Mr. Draper's letter Dr. Ryerson replied, and on the 7th October again wrote, asking him to deliver an address to the students at the opening of the session. In his letter Dr. Ryerson said:—

I deeply regret any occurrence which would deprive Canada of the advantage of your official counsels. I have observed your public conduct throughout, and it has been such in my estimation, as I have felt it a pleasurable duty to appreciate and defend, even in the most doubtful and trying circumstances. You now enjoy the proud distinction of advising and assisting, on public grounds, to form a government, from which, on personal grounds, you have felt it your duty to retire. You cannot suppose that I entertain a less exalted opinion of your disinterestedness and high sense of honour, when the strong opinions I have again and again expressed of it, have been more than realized by your present patriotic and noble course of proceeding.

In regard to the address which I have solicited you to deliver at the opening of the next session of our College, I desire to state that you will of course make it long or short, as you like, although I should like it long. It is my intention to get, if possible, some gentleman of high public standing and literary talent to deliver an address at the commencement of each collegiate year. I think that such addresses will have a salutary influence upon the taste and feeling and ambition of the students; and the notices and publication of them in the newspapers will tend to elevate the standard of the public taste, and will, I think, be useful to public men themselves. I shall be gratified, and I am sure good will ensue, from your appearing before the public in a somewhat new character.

To this letter Mr. Draper replied, on the 10th October:—

I find that, consistently with my professional engagements at the different assizes (which are now of paramount importance to me), I cannot prepare an address so as to do justice to your request. If it involved only the attendance on the day, I would cheerfully make some sacrifice to accomplish it; but there is more, for I would wish, if I undertook the task, to perform it well, and try to approximate the favourable expectation of those who were willing to entrust it to me; and for this end I cannot devote time enough out of the short interval between this and the latest day named by you. Accept my assurance that I feel great reluctance in declining your proposal. The compliment it conveyed was highly gratifying to me under existing circumstances, and I should have felt sincere pleasure in exciting my humble abilities in favour of an institution to which, when I had fuller opportunities, I had endeavoured to be of use (page 179). Accept my acknowledgements for the kindness and courtesy of your other remarks in reference to myself.

Sir Charles Bagot did not long hold the office of Governor-General. Like Lord Sydenham, he was unexpectedly stricken by the hand of death, at Kingston, on the 19th May, 1843. A sketch of his life and character was prepared by Dr. Ryerson and published in the Kingston Chronicle. In that sketch he said:—

Sir Charles Bagot has created throughout the length and breadth of United Canada the settled and delightful conviction that its Government is henceforth to be British, as well as Colonial—and, as such, the best on the continent of America; that Canadians are to be governed upon the principle of domestic, and not transatlantic, policy; that they are not to be minified as men and citizens, because they are colonists; that they are (to use the golden words of Sir Robert Peel) "to be treated as an integral portion of the British Empire."

This sketch was very favourably received by the leading public men of Canada, and, after it appeared in the Chronicle, was reprinted by Stewart Derbyshire, Esq., Queen's Printer, who, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson on the subject, said:—

Your letter in the Chronicle has attracted high admiration in the quarters most competent for criticism, and it is felt you have done a real service to the country. Supposing your wish is to diffuse the sentiments of your letter, I have taken the liberty of giving it to our printers of the Canada Gazette to set up in handsome type, 8 octavo pages, and shall strike off 1,000, and send about, giving away a good many, and putting the rest at book-stores at a very small price. The common run of people do not value what they do not pay for. Have I acted in this in accordance with your wishes—or do you interdict the publication? Many extra copies of the Chronicle were struck off, and about forty copies sent to-day to England by the steamer "Great Western." Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Sir Charles Buller had one each.

Dr. Ryerson assented to the republication of his letter.

* * * * *

In the light of after events, the following extract from a letter received by Dr. Ryerson from Hon. R. B. Sullivan, dated Kingston, 21st July, 1843, is somewhat interesting. Mr. Sullivan had placed one of his sons under Dr. Ryerson's care at Victoria College. After referring to matters relating to the education of youth, Mr. Sullivan proceeded:—"I hope that our friendship will be a sufficient inducement to you to teach my boy that upon his own good conduct under Providence his future happiness depends, and to give him that steadfastness of mind which lads naturally want. In asking these things of you, I place myself under no common obligation. There is no man in Canada of whom I would ask the same. My doing so of you arises from a respect and regard for you personally, which has grown as we have been longer acquainted, and which no prejudices on the part of those with whom I have mixed, and no obloquy heaped upon you by others, have ever shaken."

* * * * *

It is pleasant to get a kind word from those who approve of one's course. It is pleasanter to get it from those who have been indifferent, or even hostile. Thus, in a letter from Rev. Matthew Holtby to Dr. Ryerson, written in March, 1842, he said:

Soon after I arrived here from England, I became acquainted with you and your writings, and ever since, I have watched your course, often with painful and prayerful anxiety. It is long since I doubted the propriety of your public conduct, or the justice of your cause; but as I observed the storm gathering around you, and the winds blowing into a hurricane, from all the cardinal points at once, I have had my fears, that you might faint in the apparently unequal conflict. Thank God, he has delivered you—he has enabled you to stand at the helm, and to steer the Old Ship into smoother water. But we may rest assured that our foes are not dead. I only wish you may manifest as much nautical skill in a calm, as you have in the long storm, and I doubt not but all will be well.

FOOTNOTES:

[119] This memorable prophecy as to the future of our educational system was evidently made by Dr. Ryerson under the conviction that the verbal promise made to him by Lord Sydenham in 1841,—that he should have the superintendence of that system—would have been carried out by his successor, Sir Charles Bagot. There was no written promise, however, on the subject, and he and his friends were greatly surprised at the singular appointment made in May, 1842. It was not until 1844 that Dr. Ryerson received the promised appointment—the reward (as was then most unjustly alleged against him) of services rendered to Sir Charles Metcalfe in the crisis of that year. (See, however, chapter xliii. on Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent of Education.)

[120] This correspondence illustrates one phase of the political history of the times.



CHAPTER XXXVIII.

1843.

Episode in the Case of Hon. Marshall S. Bidwell.

As mentioned in Chapter xxiv., page 188, an effort was made in 1843 to induce Hon. M. S. Bidwell to return to Canada. Copies of the correspondence on the subject were enclosed to Dr. Ryerson, by the Hon. Robert Baldwin, in a letter dated Kingston, 5th June, 1843, as follows:—

I enclose you copies of letters which I am sure will afford you much pleasure. At present this communication of them must be confidential, as you will see by their date that they have not yet reached their object himself. But after the warm interest you have taken in the cause of my friend, at a time when any interference on my part would have been worse than useless, I feel it due to you to make you early acquainted with what has taken place. I have seen, with much pleasure, that you have carried out the intention you hinted to me when I last had the pleasure of seeing you at Kingston. Your admirable letter must have had a good effect. I see that some little popguns were let off at you on the occasion, but they are too puny to excite anything but a smile at their imbecility.

I regret much my inability to have been present at your last annual examination, but hope to be more fortunate another year.

The Hon. Robert Baldwin's letter to Mr. Bidwell, enclosed to Dr. Ryerson, dated Kingston, 2nd June, 1843, was as follows:—

I have great pleasure in being able to transmit to you a copy of a note addressed by me to His Excellency the Governor-General, with a copy of that of Mr. Secretary Harrison, conveying His Excellency's reply, which, I am happy, so distinctly removes every obstacle to your return to what has been in all essentials your native country; and that without the descent on your part, by even a single step, from the high ground which you have always maintained in relation to your unjust expatriation.

I will at present only stop to assure you of the sentiments of unabated affection and respect with which you have ever continued to be regarded in this country, during the whole period of your exile, and to express my conviction of the satisfaction with which your return will be hailed by all your former friends, and by many even of your former political opponents—in which satisfaction, I trust, I need scarcely add that no one will more sincerely participate than myself.

The following is a copy of Mr. Baldwin's note to Sir Charles Metcalfe, the Governor-General, dated 25th May:—

Mr. Robert Baldwin, having been informed by Mr. Secretary Harrison that with reference to the case of Mr. Bidwell, which Mr. Baldwin had the honour of bringing under the notice of the Governor-General shortly after his assumption of the Government, His Excellency only requires a request to be made to him as a foundation for his directing that the pledge taken from that gentleman, in his departure from Upper Canada, should be cancelled, and giving His Excellency's sanction for the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to restore to Mr. Bidwell the political rights of which his residence abroad, under pressure of that pledge, has deprived him, Mr. Baldwin respectfully begs leave to make that request.

The letter in reply, of Mr. Secretary Harrison to Hon. Robert Baldwin, dated 29th May, was as follows:—

I am commanded by the Governor-General to inform you, in reply to your note of the 25th inst., that His Excellency considers it right that whatever pledge may have been given by Mr. Bidwell on his departure from Upper Canada, to preclude his return, should be cancelled. The letter of that gentleman to the then Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Francis Bond Head, supposed to contain such a pledge, is not to be found in the archives of the Secretary's office. I am, therefore, directed to say that the pledge is considered as cancelled, and that the letter, if ever found, may be returned.

I am also further desired to acquaint you that in the event of Mr. Bidwell's proposing to return, His Excellency will give his sanction to the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to restore to that gentleman the political rights of which his residence abroad, under pressure of his pledge, deprived him.

On the 14th August, 1843, Hon. Robert Baldwin wrote the following letter to Dr. Ryerson:—

I send you a copy of a letter from our friend, Mr. Bidwell, in answer to my letters to him. The original I have sent up to my father, but had a copy made for you, knowing the interest you have ever taken in his case.

Hon. M. S. Bidwell's letter to Hon. Robert Baldwin, dated New York, 31st July, 1843, was as follows:—

I hardly know how to commence my answer to your letter after so long a delay which has been unintentional and unexpected, and in a great measure unavoidable. I might, indeed, and ought to have written to you when I first received it, but I then hoped it would be in my power to make you a short visit in compliance with your invitation. On this point I was kept in suspense by the state of Mrs. Bidwell's health, and was besides very laboriously occupied with indispensable professional engagements. With this frank explanation I throw myself upon your indulgence to pardon my delay.

Never, my dear friend, for one moment have I doubted your kind and friendly feelings, or your anxiety that I should be treated with justice and liberality by the Government, and I have never ceased to be gratified that I was honoured with the friendship of one whose wishes and talents have, for many years, commanded my respect. Amidst the dejection of spirits and perplexity of mind that I have suffered, this consideration has afforded me great consolation.

Your communication has now taken me by surprise. You will add to your former obligations if you will make suitable acknowledgements for me to His Excellency for the answer which, by his directions, Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to your letter.

All that I have learned of Sir Charles Metcalfe's character and measures has filled me with the highest respect, and with a confidence that Canada will be governed by him with wisdom, justice, and liberality. Loving that country, this confidence has been a source of great joy to me.

Let me add that, in my judgment, Sir Robert Peel in all his measures, since his last appointment has shown a wise moderation and conciliatory spirit, and an anxious desire for the true welfare of the vast Empire beneath the sway of Her Majesty's sceptre.

I would gladly make you a visit at once if I could, but I should feel great pleasure to see you here. I shall do with great pleasure what I can to make the visit agreeable to you. I have heard with concern of the feeble health of your venerable father. I cannot tell you with what deep interest and great respect I think of him. He has been the consistent friend of constitutional liberty through evil report as well as good report. Amidst perfidy and violence, folly and bigotry and intolerance, he has presented a rare and happy example, which I admire, of an enlightened and cultivated mind supporting the great principles of the British Constitution with discriminating zeal, constancy of purpose, and moderation of temper. I beg that you will do me the favour when you write to him to present my most affectionate and respectful regards.

I perceive that Mr. Secretary Harrison alludes to the possibility of my returning to Canada. I cannot fail to feel, as long as I live, a deep interest in that country, and the most ardent wishes for its prosperity. But I have formed no plans for a change of residence. A constant attention to my business, which is necessary for the support of my family, has left me no time to form plans.

With a gratified sense of your kindness and with great regard and affection, your friend,

Marshall S. Bidwell.

To this letter from Mr. Bidwell, Hon. Robert Baldwin replied on the 12th August, as follows:—

I have, believe me, great pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your letter, as well on account of its relieving me, to a certain extent at least, from apprehensions that Mrs. Bidwell's health was the cause of your silence.

I cannot, however, conceal my disappointment at the last paragraph of your letter, in which, though you do not altogether shut out the hope of our having you again amongst us.... The obligations in regard to Mrs. Bidwell's health which you wrote (as precluding such consideration for the present) are, however, too sacred for even friendship to venture upon more than a repetition of those assurances, which my former letter contained, of the feelings of affection entertained towards you in this country, and the satisfaction which your return would afford. I, however, find it impossible to do otherwise than indulge in the pleasing anticipation of again seeing you amongst us, not as a mere visitor, but as once more a Canadian, in fact as well as in feeling. We have not, and certainly for the generation to which we belong, shall not, have any subjects of equal importance, in a pecuniary point of view, to those which seek the aid, and reward the exertion, of your professional talents where you are. It seems, therefore, to partake somewhat of selfishness to wish to withdraw you from an arena worthy of your great talents, to appropriate those talents to a sphere so much more limited. Be that as it may, I will indulge the hope, so long as you do not forbid it. In the meantime, could you not take a leave of absence for a few weeks during the coming Autumn Assizes, and amuse yourself with holding some briefs on some of them here? We have now five Circuits—the Eastern, Midland, Home, Niagara, and Western. Mr. Justice Jones takes the Eastern, Mr. Justice McLean the Midland, the Chief Justice the Niagara, and Mr. Justice Hagerman the Western. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see you thus renew your relations with our bar; even if you should not do so with a view to a final return to it. Let me know soon, in a post or two, if possible, as well as the circuit you mean to go on.... Now as I have gone on with this scheme, I find myself grow warm on it, so do not throw cold water upon it by a negative.

If I could do so with any propriety, I would avail myself of your kind invitation to visit you at New York for the purpose, not only of seeing you, but of urging this my suit in person. But I assure you it is out of my power to do so. Parliament is called for 2nd September, and I shall not have a moment's leisure from this time till the Session is over. You must recollect that, as a Parliament man, I am comparatively but a young hand, and I have to try and make up for want of experience by hard work; though I find it by no means a sufficient substitute.

I complied in substance with your request to make your acknowledgements to His Excellency for the answer, which by his direction, Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to my letter; but lest I should do so less appropriately than I ought, I took the liberty of letting you speak for yourself, by showing His Excellency your letter.

Your opinions of the Governor-General and of Sir Robert Peel entirely agree with my own. But I regret to say that some of our friends, and of our firm friends too, seem to me to forget what has been accomplished because everything is not done at once, or, because some things are done not exactly as they would have them. This impatience is much to be regretted. If I were one whom it was necessary to keep up to the mark, as it may be called, it might be excusable, but they do not even profess to think that to be the case as respects the points in question. Their display of dissatisfaction, therefore, has only the effect of lessening the weight of the party in Upper Canada in the eyes of both the Head of the government here and the Imperial authorities at home. But I did not mean to make this a letter of complaint; but the fact is, I am just now smarting under an ebullition of violence on the part of our friends in Toronto, on the subject of Mr. Stanton's appointment to the Collectorship there, which almost involuntarily led me into these remarks. You will, I hope, excuse me.

My dear father, I am happy to say, appears by his last letters to be rather better. I fear much, however, that the improvement cannot be considered of a permanent character. As the Governor-General kept your letter till yesterday, I was only able to send it up to him to-day. It will, I am sure, afford him much gratification.

I hope you will excuse the length of this epistle, and rebuke me by the shortness of your reply, which need contain no more than six words, to wit: "I will ride the circuit." I believe "ride" is the professional term; at least used to be so, though it may belong to the era of Mr. Justice Twisden, if not a still more remote one, rather than at present.... You see how inclined I am to run on, so that lest I should transgress beyond endurance, I will conclude at once, with the assurance of my warm and continued regard. Ever your affectionate friend,

R. B.



CHAPTER XXXIX.

1844.

Events Preceding the Defence of Lord Metcalfe.

The defence of Lord Metcalfe, the Governor-General of Canada, who succeeded Sir Charles Bagot in 1843, was unquestionably the most memorable act of Dr. Ryerson's long and eventful life.

His previous training for twenty years in the school of controversy in relation to civil and religious rights; his personal intercourse with leading statesmen in England on Canadian affairs; his contests for denominational equality with successive Governors in Upper Canada, and his counsels and suggestions, (offered at their request), to such notable representatives of Royalty in Canada as Lord Durham, Lord Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot, and Sir Charles Metcalfe, put it beyond the power of even the most captious to question the pre-eminent qualifications of Dr. Ryerson to discuss, in a practical and intelligent manner, the then unsettled question of responsible government as against the prerogative—a question which had arisen between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors. In the chapter which Dr. Ryerson had prepared for this part of the Story of his Life, he thus refers to his intercourse with, and relations to, the distinguished Governors whom I have mentioned. He said:—

In 1839 a Royal Commission was issued to Lord Durham to investigate the affairs of Canada, and report thereon to Her Majesty. While engaged in his important duty he sent for and conferred with me repeatedly, and treated me with such consideration, as that on leaving him he would accompany me to the door and open it for me, shaking hands with me most cordially. After his return to England he sent me a copy of his famous Report (addressed by himself) before it was laid on the table of the House of Lords. On receiving in advance this report of Lord Durham I published in the Guardian, with appropriate headings, extracts from that part of it which related to the establishment of responsible government and its administration in Canada, and then lent the extracts and the type on which they were printed to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Francis Hincks for insertion in the Examiner newspaper, of which he was at that time proprietor and Editor. I afterwards aided Lord Sydenham in every way in my power to allay the party passions and animosities of the past, and to establish responsible government upon liberal principles, irrespective of past party distinctions, comprehending Hon. W. H. Draper and Hon. Robert Baldwin in the same administration—a union or coalition which did not long survive the life of Lord Sydenham—Mr. Baldwin declaring his want of confidence in Mr. Draper, and retiring from the government. Soon afterwards, Mr. Baldwin and his friends succeeded to power under Sir Charles Bagot.

This was the state of things until 1843, when Sir Charles Bagot died, and Sir Charles Metcalfe was appointed to succeed him. I had the melancholy pleasure of offering a tribute (in the form of an obituary notice) to the character and administration of both Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot—papers much noticed and widely circulated at the time as the best specimens of any writing which had ever appeared; but I had a genial theme and good subjects in both cases. Sir Charles Metcalfe was popular with all parties at first: but after a few months a difference arose between him and his Councillors as to the appointment of the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Lanark, and then on the principle of appointments to office; or in other words, the exercise of the patronage of the Crown.

To understand the character of this famous and much misrepresented controversy, and how I became involved in it, some preliminary and explanatory remarks are necessary:—

It is to be observed in the first place, that one chief subject of complaint by "Reformers" for many years—nay from the beginning—was the partial exercise of the patronage of the Crown, appointing magistrates, officers of militia, judges, etc., from men of one party only, in whose behalf every kind of executive favour was bestowed for years. This was the purport of their complaints in the various petitions and addresses of "Reformers" to the Earl of Durham, Lord Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot, etc., who necessarily promised that the Governments should henceforth be conducted upon the principles of justice, "according to the well understood wishes of the people," of whom "Reformers" claimed to contribute a large majority, and even of the liberal Conservative members of the Church of England. But singular to say, on the occurrence of the first vacancy, the Reform government urged upon Sir Charles Metcalfe the appointment of one of their own party, irrespective of the superior claims, as the Governor conceived (on the ground of service, experience and fitness), of a deserving widow and her orphan son. The circumstances were as follows:—

Amongst the early gentlemen immigrants in the County of Lanark was a Mr. Powell, a man of wealth and education; but in attempting to clear and cultivate a farm in a new country, he soon expended his means and became reduced in circumstances. He was appointed Clerk of the Peace, and discharged its duties for many years, when he sickened and died. During the two years' sickness which preceded his death, the duties of office were discharged satisfactorily by his son, who was then about twenty or twenty-one years of age. On the death of her husband, the Widow Powell proceeded to Kingston to plead in person before Sir Charles Metcalfe for the appointment of her son to the office vacated by the death of her husband, and as the only means of supporting herself and family. One can easily conceive the effect of such an appeal upon Sir Charles Metcalfe's benevolent feelings. He declined the advice of his Councillors for a party appointment, and determined to appoint the widow's son to the office rendered vacant by the death of her husband, and one which he had successfully discharged for nearly two years. The Council, instead of resigning on the fact of the appointment, sought to obtain from Sir Charles Metcalfe a promise that he would henceforth act upon their advice. He said he would always receive and consider their advice, but would give no promise on the part of the Crown as to how far he would pledge the prerogative in advance and act upon that advice. On this the Councillors resigned, charging Sir Charles Metcalfe with violating the principles of responsible government. This he positively denied. The circumstances of the case were so mystified by the statements made, that general prejudice was excited against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and the Councillors seemed for the time to have the country at their backs.[121]

I was at that time President of Victoria College; and the late Hon. Wm. Hamilton Merritt, returning from Kingston at the sudden close of the Session of Parliament held there, stopped the stage in front of the College, called to see me, and asked me what I thought of the occurrences between the Governor-General and his Councillors. I told him that, from what I had heard, my sympathies were with the Councillors. He answered that I was mistaken; that the Councillors were clearly in the wrong; that they had made a great mistake, and were endangering principles of government for which he had so long contended. He then stated the particulars of what had transpired, and referred me, in confirmation of his statement, to the documents and correspondence which would all be printed in a few days. I replied, that if what he (Mr. Merritt) stated was correct, Sir Charles Metcalfe was an injured man, and that the new system of responsible government was likely to be applied in a way contrary to what had always been professed by its advocates. Mr. Merritt requested me to examine for myself the documents and correspondence to which he had referred, but enjoining secresy as to his conversation with me—and which I never mentioned to any human being during his life.

After Mr. Merritt returned to St. Catharines he wrote to Dr. Ryerson early in January, 1844 on the subject, as follows:—

There can be little doubt that both the Governor and his late administration have erred. A conciliatory spirit would have avoided this crisis; they had an opportunity of placing this Province in a most enviable situation—they have neglected, or did not possess the ability to avail themselves of it; and I am sorry to say, that I am neither satisfied with their measures, nor can I place confidence in their judgment. At the same time I feel so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of having under the control of our Legislature the entire management of our internal concerns—without which any attempt at a thorough reformation would be useless—that I have my apprehensions, that any movement which would have a tendency to check its onward progress, would be injurious—the principle does not appear to be fully understood, or fully conceded. The time has not arrived—nevertheless I feel satisfied the Governor-General would admit it, and act fully up to it with any Cabinet which possessed his confidence, and thus bring it into action much earlier than persisting in the opposite course. On the other hand, you are subject to the imputation of abandoning men who resigned for the maintenance of that principle, and few can doubt the honesty of purpose of Lafontaine and Baldwin.

Being thus placed on the horns of a dilemma, the wisest plan is, perhaps, to let matters take their course—at all events I have made up my mind to do so. I should be most happy to hear from you on the subject, knowing you have given those subjects much attention; and believing that your mind is devoted to promoting the best interests of your fellow countrymen, your opinions are received with attention, and always carry great weight with me.

To this letter from Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson replied on the 20th January, 1844, as follows:—

After you called upon me, I turned my attention to the state of our public affairs, and reflected on them from various points of view. I concluded to state my views to His Excellency, if he requested me to do so, and also to Hon. S. B. Harrison, if I should see him.

Dr. Ryerson having gone to Kingston at the request of Sir Charles Metcalfe, saw Mr. Harrison, who urged him to state his views fully to the Governor-General. In the same letter to Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson said:—The next day, in compliance with His Excellency's expressed wish, I laid before him the result of my reflections on the present state of our affairs, in an interview of three hours and a half. In them His Excellency expressed his full concurrence, and thanked me cordially for the trouble I had taken to wait upon him and state at large what he considered of so much importance. In addition to the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson discussed with him the subject of the reconstruction of his Cabinet. The result he thus states in his letter to Mr. Merritt:—I cannot of course enter into every one of the subjects to which I referred in my conversation with the Governor-General. Mr. Harrison has doubtless written to you on the whole matter. The result was that Mr. Harrison will take office if you will.[122]