As the agitation proceeded, Bishop Strachan and Dr. Ryerson again became involved in it. The Bishop took the lead, and addressed a letter to Lord John Russell on the subject. Dr. Ryerson at once joined issue with the Bishop, and prepared the following able rejoinder in reply to the Bishop's letter. He said:—

The statements of the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in his letter to Lord John Russell, dated Canada, February 20th, 1851, and in his Charge delivered to the clergy of the Diocese of Toronto, in May, 1851, relate to the same subjects, and appear to be designed for perusal in England, rather than in Canada. These statements, as a whole, are the most extraordinary that I ever read from the pen of an ecclesiastic, much less from the pen of a Bishop of the Church of England, and an old resident and prominent actor in the affairs of the country of which he speaks. These statements are not only incorrect, but they are, for the most part, the reverse of the real facts to which they refer; and where they are most groundless, they are the most positive. To discuss them seriatim would occupy a volume. I will, as briefly as possibly, notice the most important of them under the following heads:—

1. The circumstances and objects of the original Clergy Land Reservation.

2. The position of the Church of England in Canada, and the professed wishes of the Lord Bishop.

3. The conduct of the Imperial and Canadian Governments towards the Church of England.

4. The effect of the union of the two Canadas on the proceedings and votes of the Legislative Assembly in regard to the Church of England.

5. Public grants to the Church of Rome, and the endowment of that Church in Lower Canada.

6. The Toronto University and Public Schools.

I am to notice in the first place the statements of the Lord Bishop respecting the circumstances and objects of the Clergy Land Reservation. He speaks of it as having been suggested by the circumstances of the American revolution, and as having been intended as the special reward of those who adhered to the Crown of England during that seven years' contest.

The Bishop says:—

At the close of the war, in 1783, which gave independence to the United States, till then colonies of the British Crown, great numbers of the inhabitants, anxious to preserve their allegiance, and, in as far as they were able, the unity of the empire, sought refuge in the western part of Canada, beyond the settlements made before the conquest under the King of France. These loyalists, who had for seven years perilled their lives and fortunes in defence of the throne, the law, and the religion of England, had irresistible claims when driven from their homes into a strange land (yet a vast forest), to the immediate protection of government, and to enjoy the same benefits which they had abandoned from their laudable attachment to the parent State.

The Bishop subsequently states [See Chapter xxviii., page 219] that the object of the Constitutional Act of 1791 was

More especially to confer upon the loyalists such a constitution as should be as near a transcript as practicable of that of England, that they might have no reason to regret, in as far as religion, law, and liberty were concerned, the great sacrifices which they had made.

Allusions of this kind pervade a considerable part of the Bishop's letter, and furnish the first example, within my knowledge, of any writer attempting to invest the dispute between the American colonies and the mother country with a religious character; when every person the least acquainted with the history of those colonies, and of that contest, knows that the question of religion was never alluded to on the part of the colonists—that General Washington and other principal leaders in the revolution were professed Episcopalians—that the Church of England did not exist as an established church in any of those colonies, unless adopted as such by the local legislature, as in the case of Virginia—and that in the northern and eastern parts of those colonies, whence the first emigration to Upper Canada took place after the peace of 1783, the Church of England never did exist as an established church. Therefore, for the "religion of England" in that sense, those "loyalists" never could have "perilled their lives and fortunes;" nor could they have been influenced by any predilections for an establishment which they had never seen. The Bishop says truly that:

The noble stand which the Province made against the United States in the war of 1812, in which the attachment of its inhabitants to the British empire was a second time signally displayed, brought the country into deserved notice.

But nothing can be more fallacious than the claims he would found upon this fact, any more than those of the American revolution of 1776, to the clergy reserve land. For the Lord Bishop himself, when Archdeacon of York, in a printed discourse on the death of the first Bishop of Quebec, represents the benefits of the establishment as "little felt or known" in Upper Canada, and states that down to the close of the American War of 1812—namely, in 1815—there were but five clergymen of the Church of England in that vast province. And a few years afterwards, December 22nd, 1826, the Upper Canada House of Assembly, consisting of the representatives of the Loyalists and their sons, who had twice "signally displayed their attachment to the British empire," adopted, by the extraordinary majority of 30 to 3, the following remarkable and significant resolution:—

Resolved, that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Province bears a very small proportion to the number of other Christians, notwithstanding the pecuniary aid long and exclusively received from the benevolent society in England by the members of that Church, and their pretensions to a monopoly of the clergy reserves.

The original Loyalist settlers of Upper Canada, and their immediate descendants, must be held to have understood their own feelings and sentiments better than the Lord Bishop: and the almost unanimous expression of such sentiments, through their representatives twenty-five years since, together with other circumstances to which I have referred, show how greatly mistaken is his Lordship, and how perfectly baseless are his assumptions and frequent allusions and appeals in reference to the hopes, wishes and sentiments of the original settlers of Upper Canada as a ground of claim to the clergy reserves in behalf of the Church of England.

I have next to say a few words on the Bishop's statement as to the position of the Church of England in Canada, and the professions which he makes in respect to her position. He says, "Our position has, for some time, been that of a prostrate branch of the National Church;" and that position he, in another place, calls "a condition of inferiority to other religious denominations;" and he says, "she has been placed below Protestant dissenters, and privileges, wrested from her, have been conferred upon them." As to the position in which the Bishop would wish the Church of England in Canada to be placed, he says, "We merely claim equality, and freedom from oppression."

These expressions are deeply to be regretted, when it is perfectly notorious that the pre-eminence and peculiar civil advantages claimed by the Bishop for the Church of England, have been the ground of all the disputes which have agitated the Legislature and people of Upper Canada for more than twenty-five years; when every person of the least intelligence in Canada knows that the Church of England, besides other large educational and pecuniary patronage of government, enjoyed until 1840 an exclusive monopoly of the clergy lands which the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada long contended, and which the judges of England have decided, extended by law to Protestants generally—that the Church of England enjoys at this moment the greater part of the annual proceeds of the sales of those lands, besides rectory endowments of portions of them—that every political and religious party in Canada awards every thing to the Church of England that they ask for themselves—"equality and freedom from oppression." During the present session of the Legislature, Bills have passed the Assembly giving the Church of England in Lower Canada all the facilities of holding property and managing her affairs which have been desired by the Bishop of the Diocese, as had been granted a few years since in Upper Canada; and when it was objected that privileges were given by such Bills to the Church of England not possessed by any other religious persuasion, it was replied that others might obtain them by asking for them, and the Bills in question were passed with only two dissentient votes.

I repeat the expression of my regret that the Bishop should draw entirely upon his imagination for such statements, and that his feelings should prompt him to represent objections to his own particular views and pretensions as oppression and persecution of the Church of England.

The next class of the Bishop's statements which I shall notice, relate to the conduct of the Imperial and Canadian Governments towards the Church of England. Throughout his voluminous documents the Bishop represents the conduct of government, both Imperial and Colonial, as hostile to the Church of England; and employs, in some instances, terms personally offensive. The great question at issue is thus stated by the Bishop himself in his recent charge to his clergy:—

In 1819, the law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that the words Protestant clergy embraced also the ministers of the Church of Scotland, not as entitling them to endowment in land, but as enabling them to participate in the proceeds of the reserves, whether sold or leased. In 1828, a select committee of the House of Commons extended the construction of the words Protestant clergy to the teachers of all Protestant denominations; and this interpretation, though considered very extraordinary at the time, was confirmed by the twelve judges in 1840.

In his letter to Lord John Russell, the Bishop alludes to two of these decisions in terms peculiarly objectionable, while he omits all reference to the latter. He says:—

The Established Church of Scotland claimed a share of those lands, or the proceeds, as a National Church within the Empire; and in 1819, the Crown lawyers made the discovery that it might be gratified, under the 37th clause of the 31st of George III., chap. 31. Next, the select committee of the House of Commons, in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, influenced by the spurious liberality of the times, extended this opinion of the Crown lawyers to any Protestant clergy.

The Bishop thus impugns the impartiality and integrity of the opinions expressed by the law officers of the Crown in England, and by the select committee of the House of Commons, sarcastically calling the one a "discovery," and ascribing the other to "spurious liberality;" while he declares that the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 78 (which only carried partially into effect the decision of the twelve judges, and was, as he states, agreed to by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops in London), "deprived the Church of England in Canada of seven-twelfths of her property."

In other documents the Bishop has designated this Act "an act of spoliation," and "robbery" of the Church of England.

When the Bishop employs language of this kind in respect to Acts of Parliament and the official opinions in regard to their provisions, he cannot reasonably complain if other parties should respect them as little as himself, much less regard them as a "final settlement" of a question to which they have not been parties, and against which they have always protested. Under any circumstances, it is singular language to be employed by a person towards a government by whose fostering patronage he has become enriched. The fact is, that the successive Governors of Upper Canada have been members of the Church of England; that the principal cause of their unpopularity, and the most serious difficulties which both the Imperial and local governments have had to encounter in the colony, have arisen from their efforts to secure as much for the Church of England, in the face of the popular indignation and opposition, so much inflamed and strengthened by the irritating publications and extreme proceedings of the Bishop himself. It is understood that the report of the committee of the House of Commons on the civil government of Canada, in 1828, was written by Lord Stanley. However that may be, the sentiments of that report on the clergy reserve question were strongly expressed by his Lordship in his speech on the subject, 2nd May, 1828; and he and the other distinguished men who investigated the subject at that time, know whether they were "influenced by a spurious liberality" in the conclusion at which they arrived, or whether they were guided by a sense of justice, and yielded to the weight of testimony. At all events, the grave decision of the twelve judges of England to the same effect ought to have suggested to the Bishop other terms than those of "spurious liberality," "spoliation," and "robbery," and to have protected not only the "powers that be," but the great majority of the Canadian people, from the shafts of his harsh imputations.

Here I think it proper to correct the Bishop's repeated references to the origin and circumstances of the differences of opinion in Upper Canada, as to the import of the words "Protestant clergy," and the "right of dissenting denominations" to participate in the benefit of the clergy reserves. He represents those differences as having originated with the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland, and that the idea that any other than the clergy of the Church of England had a right to participate in the benefit of the reserves was never entertained in Upper Canada until the friends of the Kirk of Scotland commenced the agitation of the question.

So far from this representation being correct, it appears that the first submission of the question to the law officers of the Crown in England took place at the request of Sir P. Maitland, in reference, not to the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland, but to "all denominations" of Protestants—a question on which Sir P. Maitland, then Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, states in a despatch to Earl Bathurst, dated 17th May, 1819, that there was not only a "difference of opinion" on the subject, but "a lively feeling throughout the Province." It appears that certain "Presbyterian inhabitants of the town of Niagara and its vicinity" (not at that time in connexion with the Church of Scotland), petitioned Sir P. Maitland for "an annual allowance of L100 to assist in the support of a preacher," to be paid "out of funds arising from the clergy reserves, or any other fund at His Excellency's disposal." In transmitting a copy of this petition to Earl Bathurst, Sir P. Maitland ("York, Upper Canada, 17th May, 1819,") remarks as follows:—

The actual product of the clergy reserves is about L700 per annum. This petition involves a question on which I perceive there is a difference of opinion, viz., whether the Act intends to extend the benefit of the reserves, for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy, to all denominations, or only to those of the Church of England. The law officers incline to the latter opinion. I beg leave to observe to your Lordship, with much respect, that your reply to this petition will decide a question of much interest, and on which there is a lively feeling throughout the Province. [See page 221.]

Earl Bathurst's reply to this despatch is dated "Downing Street, 6th May, 1820," and commences as follows:—

Having requested the opinion of His Majesty's law officers as to the right of dissenting Protestant ministers, resident in Canada, to partake of the lands directed by the Act of the 31st George III., c. 31, to be reserved as a provision for the support of a Protestant clergy, I have now to state that they are of opinion that though the provisions made by the 31st George III., c. 31, ss. 36 and 42, for the support and maintenance of a Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the Church of England, but may be extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, yet that they do not extend to dissenting ministers, since the terms Protestant clergy can apply only to the Protestant clergy recognized and established by law.

It is thus clear that the question of the right of different Protestant denominations to participate in the benefit of the clergy reserves did not originate in any claims or agitation commenced by the clergy of the Church of Scotland; that as early as the beginning of 1819, (only four years after the close of the last American War, during which, as the Bishop truly says, "the attachment of the inhabitants to the British empire was a second time signally displayed,") there was "a lively feeling throughout the Province" on the subject. The first Loyalist settlers, and their immediate descendants, were opposed to the Bishop's narrow construction of the Act 31st George III., chapter 31; their representatives in the Legislative Assembly maintained invariably the liberal construction of the Act; the select committee of the House of Commons in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, after taking evidence as to the intentions of the original framers of the law, expressed the same opinion, and that opinion was ultimately confirmed by the decision of the twelve judges in 1840. The Bishop is, therefore, as much at fault in his facts on this point, as he is in the language he employs in reference to Imperial legal opinions, and an Imperial Act of Parliament.

It now becomes my duty to examine another large class of statements, which I have read with great surprise and pain; and which are, if possible, less excusable than those which I have already noticed. I refer to the Bishop's statements in regard to the influence of the union of the two Canadas on the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the united Province, on the question of the clergy reserves.

The Bishop, in his letter to Lord John Russell (referring to the Address of the Legislative Assembly, at the session of 1850, to the Queen), states as follows:—

Before the union of Upper and Lower Canada, such an unjust proceeding could not have taken place, for, while separate, the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had frequently a commanding weight in the Legislature, and at all times an influence sufficient to protect her from injustice. But since their union under one Legislature, each sending an equal number of members, matters are sadly altered.

It is found, as was anticipated, that the members returned by dissenters uniformly join the French Roman Catholics, and thus throw the members of the Church of England into a hopeless minority on all questions in which the National Church is interested.

The Church of England has not only been prostrated by the union under that of Rome, and the whole of her property made dependent on Roman Catholic votes, but she has been placed below Protestant dissenters, and privileges wrested from her which have been conferred upon them.

In his recent charge to the clergy of his Diocese, the Bishop remarks again:—

So long as this diocese remained a distinct colony, no measure detrimental to the Church ever took effect. Even under the management and prevailing influence of that able and unscrupulous politician, the late Lord Sydenham, a Bill disposing of the clergy reserves, was carried by one vote only—a result which sufficiently proved that it was not the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject.

I shall first notice that part of the Bishop's statement which relates to Upper Canada, before the union with Lower Canada. The Bishop asserts it not to have been "the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject" of the clergy reserves; that the Church of England prevailed, and had sufficient influence to maintain what he regards as her just rights. The Bishop has resided in Upper Canada nearly half a century, and such a statement from him, in direct contradiction to the whole political history of the Province during more than half that period, is difficult of solution, though perfectly easy of refutation. I have already transcribed one of a series of resolutions, adopted by the Legislative Assembly as early as December, 1826, by a majority of 30 to 3, objecting entirely to the exclusive pretensions made in behalf of the Church of England. But I find that nearly a year before this, namely, the 27th of the January preceding, the House of Assembly of Upper Canada adopted an Address to the King on the subject, in which it is stated, respectfully, but strongly,—

That the lands set apart in this Province for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy ought not to be enjoyed by any one denomination of Protestants to the exclusion of their Christian brethren of other denominations, equally conscientious in their respective modes of worshipping God, and equally entitled, as dutiful and loyal subjects, to the protection of Your Majesty's benign and liberal Government; we, therefore, humbly hope it will, in Your Majesty's wisdom, be deemed expedient and just, that not only the present reserves, but that any funds arising from the sales thereof, should be devoted to the advancement of the Christian religion generally, and the happiness of all Your Majesty's subjects of whatever denomination; or if such application or distribution should be deemed inexpedient, that the profits arising from such appropriation should be applied to the purposes of education and the general improvement of this Province.

The following year (January, 1827), the House of Assembly passed a Bill (the minority being only three), providing for the sale and application of the whole of the proceeds of the reserves for purposes of education, and erection of places of public worship for all denominations of Christians. And, on examining the journals, I find that from that time down to the union of the Canadas in 1841, not a year passed over without the passing of resolutions, or address, or bill, by the House of Assembly of Upper Canada, for the general application of the proceeds of the reserves, in some form or other, but always, without exception, against what the Bishop claims as the rights of the Church of England in respect to those lands.

It is difficult to conceive a more complete refutation than these facts furnish of the Bishop's statement, that the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had a commanding weight in the Legislature; nor could a stronger proof be required of "the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject," than such a course of procedure on the part of their representatives for so many years during successive Parliaments, and amidst all the variations of party and party politics on all other questions.

It is also incorrect to say that the Bill of Lord Sydenham in 1840 "was carried by a majority of one vote only." A Bill did pass the Assembly of Upper Canada the year before, by "a majority of one vote only;" but that was a Bill to re-invest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament for "general religious purposes,"—a Bill passed a few hours before the close of the session, during which no less than forty-eight divisions, with the record of yeas and nays, took place in the Assembly on the question of the clergy reserves; and after the Assembly had passed, by considerable majorities, both resolutions and a Bill to give the Church of England one-fourth of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, and the other three-fourths to other religious denominations and to educational purposes—a Bill which, with some verbal amendments, also passed the Legislative Council, and against which the Bishop, joined by one other member, recorded an elaborate protest. But just at the heel of the session, and after several members of the Assembly voting in the majority had gone to their homes, a measure (which had been previously negatived again and again) was passed by a "majority of one vote only" (22 to 21), to re-invest the reserves—a measure which the law officers in England pronounced "unconstitutional," as the manner of getting it through the Canadian Legislature was unprecedented. [See page 249.]

But the measure of Lord Sydenham was carried in the Assembly by a majority of 4, and in the Legislative Council (of which the Bishop was a member and voted against the bill) by a majority of 8. A considerable majority of the members of the Church of England of both Houses of the Legislature voted for the bill, and were afterwards charged by the Bishop with "defection," and "treachery" for doing so. [See page 262.] On this point Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated Toronto, 5th February, 1840, stated as follows:—

It is notorious to every one here, that of twenty-two members being communicants of the Church of England who voted upon this Bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate; whilst in the Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those who gave it their warmest support are to be found many gentlemen of the highest character for independence and for attachment to the Church, and whose views in general politics differ from those of Her Majesty's Government.

After this epitome of references to the proceedings of the people of Upper Canada, through their representatives, from 1825 to 1840, on what the Bishop terms the "rights" and "patrimony" of the Church of England, it is needless to make more than one or two remarks on his statements as to the influence of the union of the Canadas on the proceedings and votes of the Legislative Assembly upon the subject. My first remark is, that the question of the clergy reserves has not been introduced into the present Legislative Assembly by any member, or at the solicitation of any member, from Lower Canada. I remark, secondly, that though there is not a Roman Catholic among the forty-two members elected for Upper Canada; yet when a resolution was introduced into the Assembly, both at the last and during the present session, expressing a desire to maintain the present settlement of the clergy reserves, as provided in the Act, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78, only sixteen in the first instance, and thirteen in the second, voted for it—only about one-third of the members for Upper Canada. Should, therefore, the union of the Canadas be dissolved to-morrow, the Bishop would be in as hopeless a minority as he was before the union. The following remarks of a recent speech of Mr. Lafontaine (the leader of the Roman Catholic French members of the Assembly) will show how entirely groundless are the Bishop's imputations upon that portion of the Assembly.

He thought the clergy reserves should be fairly divided among the Protestant denominations, and that they should be altogether taken out of the hands of the Government, as the only way to take them out of the reach of agitation. He thought the rectories were vested rights, and should not be disturbed, unless by due process of law, if, as was pretended, they were improperly obtained. If there were any claims in the Act of 1791 which seemed to connect the Church of England to the State, though he did not think they did, they might be repealed, and the Bishop of Toronto seemed to be of opinion that that might be done. Let the appointment of the incumbents to the rectories, too, be taken from the Government, if it were thought proper, and given to the Church for other uses. He merely suggested that without wishing to impose it. He would conclude with one reflection: Let his Protestant fellow-countrymen remember they would never find opposition to their just rights from Roman Catholics and French Canadians. The latter had repeatedly passed Acts in Lower Canada to give equal rights to those who were called dissenters, and Jews, which were rejected by members of the Church of England in the Council, and it was worthy of remark that, at a moment when in England a pretended aggression had given occasion for persecution, the Church of England here had to rely upon Catholics to protect it against the aggression of other Protestant sects.

I shall now make a few observations on the Bishop's statements respecting government grants to the Church of Rome, and the endowments of that Church in Lower Canada. The Bishop, framing his statements with a view to the Protestant feeling of England, inveighs in general terms against the Government on account of its alleged patronage of the Church of Rome; makes exaggerated statements on one side, and omits all references to facts on the other side which would enable the Protestants of England, to whom he appeals, to understand the part which he has himself taken in favour of grants to the Church of Rome, the manner in which those grants are paid at the present time, and the alliance which he has long endeavoured, and would still wish to form with that Church in respect to endowments. The Bishop says:—

In Upper Canada, the Roman Catholic clergy do not, at present, exceed seventy in number, and the provision for their support is very slender. It depends chiefly on their customary dues, and the contributions of their respective flocks; unless, indeed, they receive assistance from the French portion of the Province, where the resources of the Romish Church are abundant.

Now, while the Bishop presents an overdrawn and startling picture of the emoluments of the Church of Rome in Lower Canada, he omits all statements of public grants and payments to the clergy of that church in Upper Canada. The Bishop must know, that in addition to their "customary dues, and the voluntary contributions of their flocks," the clergy of the Church of Rome receive L1,666 per annum, and that that sum is paid out of the clergy reserve fund under the provisions of the very Act, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78, for the perpetuation of which he contends. The first instructions to support the Roman Catholic clergy in Upper Canada out of public funds, were given by Earl Bathurst, in a despatch to Sir P. Maitland, dated 6th October, 1826, and which commenced in the following words:—

You will receive instructions from the Treasury for the payment, from funds to be derived from the Canada Company, of the sum of L750 per annum, for the salaries of the Presbyterian ministers, and a similar sum for the support of the Roman Catholic priests.

But what is remarkable is, that this very policy of granting aid to the Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, for which Government has been so much blamed by the Bishop's friends in England, was urged by, if it did not originate with, the Bishop himself. For, in a speech delivered by the Bishop in the Legislative Council of Upper Canada, 6th March, 1828, and afterwards published by himself, I find his own statement of his proceedings in this matter, as follows:—

It has always been my wish to see a reasonable support given to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, because they belong to a Church which is established in one section of the empire; and to the Roman Catholic Church because it may be considered as a concurrent church with the establishment in the sister Province; and to this end I have, at all times, advised the leading men of both those churches to make respectful representations to His Majesty's Government for assistance, leaving it to Ministers to discover the source from which such aid might be taken.—His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province (Sir P. Maitland), having represented in the strongest manner to His Majesty's Government the propriety of making some provision for the clergy in communion with the kirk, and also of the Roman Catholic clergy resident in Upper Canada, a reference was made to me on that subject, while in London, in June, 1826. On this occasion I enforced, as well as I could, the recommendations made by His Excellency, in respect to both churches.

Thus four months before Earl Bathurst sent out instructions to give salaries to Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, the Bishop states that he urged it upon the favourable consideration of His Lordship. The Bishop then significantly adds:—

I did flatter myself that they would have been satisfied, as indeed they ought to have been, and that henceforth the clergy of the two denominations, the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian, while discharging their own religious duties, would cordially co-operate with those of the establishment in promoting the general peace and welfare of society. It is gratifying to me to state that, as far as I know, the Roman Catholic clergy, during this contest, have observed a strict neutrality.

However ingenious it may be, I cannot regard it as ingenuous that the Bishop should promote the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in this country in order to secure their political alliance and support against other Protestant denominations, and then appeal to Protestants in England against the Government and Legislature in Canada, because of the countenance given to the Church of Rome. It is hardly fair for the Bishop to act one part in Canada and another in England; and it is fallacious and wrong to represent the votes of Roman Catholics as exerting any influence whatever on the state of the question in Upper Canada—as of the twenty-five Roman Catholics who voted on the question last year, twelve voted on one side and thirteen on the other; and they are known to hold the opinion declared by their leader, Mr. Lafontaine, that the proceeds of the clergy reserves belong to the Protestants of the country in contradistinction to Roman Catholics.

The Bishop's statements in regard to the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada are most extravagant. They cannot affect, in the least, the merits of the question which has so long agitated Upper Canada; and they appear to be introduced merely for effect in England, where the social state and position of parties in Canada are little known or understood. It is needless to examine the Bishop's statements on this subject in detail; but I will make two or three remarks, to show the fallacy of both his assertions and his reasoning. He gives no data whatever for his perfectly gratuitous and improbable assumption of four hundred parish priests in Lower Canada at a salary of L250 each, exclusive of those employed in colleges, monasteries, and religious houses, making, he says,

The revenue of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, L100,000 per annum, a sum which represents a money capital of at least L2,000,000!

This imaginary estimate of the Bishop is simply absurd, and supposes in Lower Canada ten-fold the wealth that really exists.

The Bishop also gives a return of the seignorial lands of several religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, then invests those lands with a fictitious value, and sets them down as representing "a capital of L700,000!" whereas the rights to these lands are simply seignorial, and the annual revenue arising from them does not amount to threepence per acre. The Jesuits' estates, 891,845 acres—by far the largest item in the Bishop's paper—are in the hands of the Government, and not of the Roman Catholic Church at all.

The fallacy of the Bishop's reasoning on this point will appear from the facts, that the British Crown has never made a grant or endowment to the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, or to any religious order of that Church; that whatever lands or endowments that Church or its religious communities may possess, were obtained either from the Crown of France, and therefore secured by treaty, or by the legacies of individuals, or by purchase. The island of Montreal was obtained by purchase; the rights are merely seignorial, or feudal, and yield to the seigneurs L8,000 per annum.

There is, therefore, no analogy whatever between endowments thus obtained and held, and lands appropriated by the Crown for certain general objects, which have been vested in the hands of no religious community, and over which Parliament has expressly reserved the power of discretionary legislation.

I shall now offer a few remarks on the Bishop's statements respecting the Toronto University and system of public schools in Upper Canada. As these are questions which have been set at rest by local legislation, by and with the sanction of the Imperial Government, I need only refer to the Bishop's statements so far as to remove the erroneous impressions and unjust prejudices which they are calculated to produce.

In reference to the Bishop's statements, that "graduates in holy orders are declared ineligible as members of the Senate," I remark that such graduates are and have been members of the Senate from the commencement. And when the Bishop pronounces the University "essentially unchristian," he must have known that not only a Parliamentary law, but a University statute, exists for the religious instruction and worship of all the students of the University; whereas, when the Bishop had the management of it, no provision whatever existed for the religious instruction and worship of any of the students except members of the Church of England. The statement, therefore, of the Bishop, that—

There is at present no Seminary in Upper Canada in which the children of conscientious churchmen can receive a Christian and liberal education,

is contradicted by the fact that the children of many churchmen, as "conscientious" as the Bishop himself, are receiving such an education at a "Seminary in Upper Canada."

* * * * *

The lands out of which the University has been endowed were early set apart by the Crown, not on the application or recommendation of any authority or dignitary of the Church of England, but on the application of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada; and the cause of all the agitation on the subject is, that the Bishop, unknown to the Canadian people, and by representations which they, through their representatives, declared to be incorrect and unfounded, obtained a University Charter in England, and the application of those lands as an endowment, which the Legislative Assembly never would recognize. And now that that Assembly has at length got these lands restored to the objects for which they were originally appropriated, but from which they had for a time been alienated, the Bishop seeks, by the most unfounded imputations and representations, to do all in his power to damage a Seminary which he ought to be the first to countenance and support.

In his recent charge to his clergy, the Bishop has sought to damage the public elementary schools; and here his statements are equally at fault with those noticed in regard to the University. The Bishop says, "Christianity is not so much as acknowledged by our School law." This statement is contradicted by the 14th section of the School Act, and the general regulations which are made under its authority, headed, "Constitution and government of schools in respect to religious instruction," and which commence with the following words:—

As Christianity is the basis of our whole system of elementary education, that principle should pervade it throughout.

The Bishop says again:—

To take away the power of parents to judge and direct the education of their children, which is their natural privilege from God, as our schools virtually do, will never be allowed in Great Britain.

The Bishop makes this statement in the face of the express provision of the 14th section of the School Act, which declares that "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents or guardians shall desire."

The Bishop furthermore states that "the Bible appears not among our school books," and says also that the "system is not based on a recognition of the Scriptures." It would be strange if the Bishop were ignorant that in a lengthened correspondence, printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, the Chief Superintendent of Schools objected to any law or system which would exclude the Bible from the schools,—that the Government sanctioned his views,—that his annual reports show that the Bible is used in the great majority of the schools in Upper Canada. By the returns of last year, the Bible was used in 2,067 of the 3,059 schools reported—being an increase of 231 schools over those of the preceding year in which the Bible was used.

The Bishop likewise says:—

A belief of Christianity is not included among the qualifications of school-masters; and I am credibly informed that there have been instances of candidates for schools disavowing all religious belief.

There is no law to prevent the vilest person from being "candidates" for any office, even that of holy orders; but "candidates for schools," and "school-masters," with legal certificates of qualification, are two very different things. According to the school law, no person can be a legally qualified teacher, or receive any portion of the school fund, without appearing before a County Board of Examiners (who consist, in all cases, more or less of clergymen), produce to them "satisfactory evidence of good moral character," and be examined and approved by them. Even the name of the church to which the "school-master" belongs is specified, and the annual reports of the Chief Superintendent of Schools include this item of information. A teacher may also, at any time, be dismissed for intemperance or any immoral conduct. It is notorious that the standard of qualification for teachers, both moral and intellectual, and the provisions and regulations for religious instruction in the schools, are much higher, and more complete and efficient, than under a former school law which the Bishop himself introduced into the Legislature, when he was Chairman of the Provincial Board of Education.

Again, the Bishop states that

All that is wanting is, to give power to the different boards or authorities to grant separate schools to all localities desiring them.

This is precisely what the school law provides; for the 24th section of the Act expressly authorizes and empowers the Board of School Trustees in each city or town, "to determine the number, sites, kind and description of schools which shall be established in such city or town." The Boards of School Trustees may therefore establish as many "separate schools" in all the cities and towns in Upper Canada, as they shall think proper. But they are not willing to establish such separate schools as the Bishop desires; and when an amendment to the school law was proposed at the last session, to compel the local "boards or authorities" to do so, it was almost unanimously rejected. The Bishop says, indeed, referring to this circumstance, that "when the Church of England requested separate schools for the religious instruction of her own children, her prayer was rejected by the votes of Romanists." The fact is, that that proposition received the votes of but five members of the Legislative Assembly, in which there are upwards of fifty Protestants.

It is lamentable to see the Bishop making such statements to damage and pull down the educational institutions of the country, merely because they are not under his denominational control, and subservient to his denominational purposes,—a system of schools which he has, from the commencement, endeavoured to establish in Upper Canada, and for which he has agitated the country these many years. That I do the Bishop no injustice in this statement, I may remark, that in his letter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1827, applying for the so-much-agitated Charter of the Provincial University, he states his object to be, that the clergy of the Church of England in Upper Canada may "acquire by degrees the direction of education which the clergy of England have always possessed." Now that the Legislative Assembly, since the establishment of free constitutional government, have defeated the peculiar objects of the Bishop, he labours by groundless imputations and statements to bring the whole system of public instruction into contempt. It is to be hoped that such efforts will be as unsuccessful in England as they have been in Canada, where his appeals for agitation have not been responded to by one out of ten of the congregations of the Church of England, and are not sustained by the greater part of the members of the Church of England in both branches of the Legislature. Not a petition has been presented by members of the Church of England against the present system of public schools, except one, adopted by a meeting presided over by the Bishop, and signed by himself; and the Legislative Council within the last few days, by a majority of more than two to one, concurred with the Legislative Assembly and Administration in regard to the clergy reserves and University. The Bishop's extreme policy and proceedings have been and are a great calamity to the Church of England in Canada—a calamity which can only be mitigated and removed by the discountenance of such proceedings, and by the adoption of a more Christian and judicious policy on the part of members of the Church, both in England and in Canada.

* * * * *

In reviewing the history of this question from 1840 until its final settlement by the Canadian Parliament, in 1854, Dr. Ryerson said:—

Messrs. William and Egerton Ryerson had been appointed representatives of the Canadian to the British Conference in 1840. On their arrival in England, they found Lord John Russell's Bill for the disposal of the Canadian Clergy Reserves to the Churches of England and Scotland before Parliament; and, as representing the largest religious denomination in Upper Canada, they requested an interview with Lord John Russell on the subject of His Lordship's Bill before Parliament. In the interview granted, they pointed out to His Lordship the injustice, impolicy, and danger of the Bill, should it become law, and respectfully and earnestly prayed His Lordship to withdraw the Bill; but he was inflexible, when the Messrs. Ryerson prayed to His Lordship to assent to their being heard at the Bar of the House of Commons against the Bill; at which His Lordship became very angry—thinking it presumptuous that two Canadians, however numerous and respectable their constituency, should propose to be heard at the Bar of the British House of Commons against a measure of Her Majesty's Government. But the Messrs. Ryerson knew their country and their position, and afterwards wrote a respectful but earnest letter to His Lordship against his measure, and faithfully warned him of the consequences of it if persevered in; they went so far as to intimate that the measure would prove an opening wedge of separation between Great Britain and the people of Upper Canada; and lest they should be considered as endeavouring to fulfil their own predictions, they did not publish their letter to Lord John Russell, or write a line on the subject for more than ten years—knowing that a wound so deep would, without any action or word on their part, fester and spread so wide in the people of Upper Canada as ultimately to compel the repeal of the Act or sever their connection with Great Britain. The result was as they, Messrs. Ryerson, had apprehended; for in 1853 the Act was repealed by the British Parliament.[136]

Early in 1852, the Government of which Earl Grey was Secretary of State for the Colonies, was superseded by that of the Earl of Derby, with Sir John Packington as Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in a despatch to Lord Elgin, dated April 22nd, 1852, says:—

By a despatch from my predecessor, Earl Grey, of the 11th July last, you were informed that Her Majesty's then servants found themselves compelled to postpone to another Session the introduction of a Bill into Parliament giving the Canadian Legislature authority to alter the existing arrangements with regard to the clergy reserves.

With reference to that intimation, I have to inform you that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's present advisers to propose such a measure to Parliament this Session. "The result would probably be the diversion to other purposes" of the clergy reserves than "the support of divine worship and religious instruction in the colony."

Sir John Pakington was soon undeceived as to the continued Canadian sentiment on the subject, for Sir Francis Hincks, then Inspector-General and Premier of Canada, who happened to be in London on official business on behalf of the Canadian Government, enclosed to Sir John Pakington an extract from a report, dated 7th April, 1852, approved by His Excellency, in which the Executive Council said:—

The assurances of Her Majesty's late Government that such action would be taken, had prepared the people of Canada to expect that no further delay would take place in meeting their just wishes upon a question of such paramount importance to them; the Council, therefore, recommend that their colleague, the Inspector-General, be requested by the Provincial Secretary to seek an interview with Her Majesty's Ministers, and represent to them the importance of carrying out the pledges of their predecessors on the subject of the clergy reserves, and thus empower the Colonial Legislature to deal with the question in accordance with the well-understood wishes of the people of Canada.

The Derby ministry resigned office in December, 1852, and the Duke of Newcastle succeeded Sir John Pakington as Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the 15th January, 1853, the Duke addressed a despatch to the Earl of Elgin announcing the decision of the new ministry to propose the repeal of the Imperial Act of 1840, which was successfully accomplished.

After the passing of the Imperial Act transferring the final settlement of the clergy reserve question to Canada, a coalition Government was formed by the aid of Sir Allan McNab, called the Hincks-Morin Ministry. After protracted negotiation (with the beneficiaries under the Imperial Act) and discussion in the Legislature, a Bill was passed providing for the interests of these claimants, but "secularizing" the remaining proceeds of the reserves to municipal purposes. This was the last of the Acts assented to by Lord Elgin previous to his departure from Canada. Sir Edmund Head, his successor, speaking on this subject, said:—

An Act assented to by my predecessor has finally settled the long pending dispute with regard to the clergy reserves, and it has done so in such a manner as to vindicate liberal principles, whilst it treats the rights of individuals with just and considerate regard.

Thus was a struggle of more than twenty-five years ended, equality before the law of all religious denominations established, and constitutional rights of the people of Upper Canada secured, to their great joy. But the Bishop of Toronto, whose policy and measures had caused so much agitation in Upper Canada, regarded this settlement of the clergy reserve question as an irreparable calamity to the Church of England in Canada. On the 16th of March, 1853, the Bishop addressed a letter to the Duke of Newcastle, of which the following are extracts:—

Power and violence are to determine the question; vested rights and the claims of justice are impediments to be swept away. Hence the spoliation sought to be perpetrated by the Legislature of Canada has no parallel in colonial history. Even in the middle of the American Revolution, the old colonists, during the heart-burnings and ravages of civil war, respected the ecclesiastical endowments made by the Crown against which they were contending....

The grants made by the Crown were all held by the same tenure—whether to individuals or corporations—not reservations for certain purposes, with power expressly given to Colonial Assemblies to "vary or repeal" them. The Bishop proceeded:—

I feel bitterly, my Lord Duke, on this subject. Till I heard of your Grace's despatch, I had fondly trusted in Mr. Gladstone and his friends, of whom you are one, notwithstanding the present doubtful Administration; and I still argued in my heart, though not without misgivings, that the Church was safe, I have cherished her with my best energies for more than half a century in this distant corner of God's dominions; and after many trials and difficulties I was beholding her with joy, enlarging her tent, lengthening her cords, and strengthening her stakes, but now this joy is turned into grief and sadness, for darkness and tribulation are approaching to arrest her onward progress. Permit me, in conclusion, my Lord Duke, to entreat your forgiveness if, in the anguish of my spirit, I have been too bold, for it is far from my wish or intention to give personal offence. And of this rest assured, that I would most willingly avert, with the sacrifice of my life, the calamities which the passing of your Bill will bring upon the Church in Canada.

There is a touching pathos in the close of this letter; but the Bishop himself lived to see his apprehended calamities turned into blessings; for the most prosperous and brightest days of the Church of England in Upper Canada have been from 1853 to the present time.

FOOTNOTES:

[136] Earl Grey had intended to propose its repeal in 1850-51, and had requested the writer of these papers (who was then on an educational tour in Europe) to remain in England in order to furnish His Lordship with data and details to enable him to answer objections which might be made to his Bill in the House of Lords, and wrote to Lord Elgin, then Governor-General of Canada, requesting the protracting of Mr. Ryerson's leave of absence for two or three months. But the Bill had to be deferred until another Session, and Mr. Ryerson returned immediately to Canada. (See page 455.)



CHAPTER LIII.

1851.

Personal Episode in the Clergy Reserve Controversy.

Dr. Ryerson made another educational tour in Europe in 1850-51. While in London, early in 1851, Earl Grey sought Dr. Ryerson's counsel on the clergy reserve question, which had been lately re-opened in Canada. The proceedings and result of the interviews which he had with Earl Grey, are detailed in several letters which he wrote to me from London during a period of four months. I give such extracts from these letters as will explain the nature of Dr. Ryerson's conferences with Earl Grey on the subject. His first letter was written on the 7th February, in which he said:—

You will rejoice to learn that Her Majesty's Government have adopted the prayer of the Canadian Legislature on the question of the clergy reserves, and have determined to bring forward a measure on the subject. Whether Lord Grey will desire me to remain longer on account of the question I have not had time to learn. Mr. [afterwards Sir Benjamin] Hawes says that he will procure me admission to the speaker's gallery to tear Lord John Russell bring forward his measure on the Papal Question.

In a letter written by Dr. Ryerson the following week, dated 14th February, he enclosed to me a confidential letter on the clergy reserve question, in which he explained the likelihood of his being detained in England by Lord Grey in connection with it. He said:—

I send this to you, so that you may know all the circumstances which are likely to protract my stay for some months in this country; and for the same reason, and that you may co-operate with me, I entrust you with the perusal of my confidential letter—another proof of my unreserved confidence in your prudence and fidelity. I think it would not be well for you to mention anything as to my probable delay in England, and especially as to the reasons of it, until it becomes known to the public.

My position is, indeed, a gratifying one, after so long labour and so much abuse in connection with the great clergy reserve question, that I should be desired to aid in its final settlement according to the voice of the people of Canada, and should now be called upon to aid Lord John Russell himself to undo his own measure of 1840, against which I then protested. I am sure you will be prepared to perform any additional labour to enable me to fulfil such a mission. I trust that I will be enabled to confer a benefit upon Canada. It is a gratifying position in which such a concurrence of circumstances will place me, and my personal character and history in regard to a question which has engaged so large a portion of my past life—the ground of all the opposition I formerly met with from the London Wesleyan Committee and Conference. Verily there is a God that ruleth over all things, that makes the wrath of man to praise Him, that rules in ways we know not of. We should indeed fear Him, bow down in the dust before Him, but at the same time most calmly and implicitly trust Him. Please write me as to the effects produced by Lord Grey's despatch, the manner in which it is received, etc.

In a letter, dated 13th March, Dr. Ryerson said:—

I have received a letter from a member of the Government in Canada, expressing a wish that I would remain in England until after the great Exhibition, as the Canadian Parliament would not meet until May. This, in anticipation of what Lord Grey has desired, has quite settled my mind on the subject of remaining until May or June.

I shall remain in Paris until I am wanted in London on the clergy reserve question—I suppose until the middle of next month. Listening some hours each day in Paris to some of the most learned men in Europe, giving the results of all their researches and reflections on various branches of literature and science, will be of great advantage to me in my future lectures, writings and labours, and this I shall continue until the voice of war on the clergy reserves shall echo across the Atlantic. I suppose my presence in England at this time will be a great annoyance to the exclusive Church party, and it will perhaps make them more cautious than they might otherwise be in their statements.

As the ministry in England continue firm, I hope no effort will be wanting in Canada to sustain Lord Grey, should an opposition be raised against his proposed bill, the bringing in of which may be delayed some time by the late long ministerial crisis in England.

In a letter, dated 11th April, Dr. Ryerson said:—

In regard to the clergy reserves, I have been inclined to think the Bishop of Toronto and his friends would not attempt to renew the agitation of the clergy reserve question in Canada, but would prepare the strongest statement of their case for the Parliament here, in the mouths of some of their ablest friends in both the Commons and Lords, and thus take the Government here by surprise, and try and defeat the Bill in the Lords, after having, reduced the majority in favour of it in the Commons as much as possible.

On the 18th April, 1851, Dr. Ryerson wrote again:—

The Scotch Presbytery of Kingston, U. C., have sent a petition to the House of Commons against Lord Grey's Bill, or against complying with the prayer of the address of the Canadian Assembly, and sent to me with the request that I would prepare an answer to it. I think of preparing my answer in the form of a communication or two to the Times newspaper, and thus bring the whole subject before the Members of Parliament and the public. Should I succeed in this, Lord Grey may not think my longer stay to be necessary. I am anxious to get away as soon as possible; the season is advancing, and I have so much to do before the close of it in the autumn.

Business and embarrassments have so accumulated in the House of Commons that it is pretty nearly decided to bring the clergy reserve Bill into the Lords by Lord Grey himself, and he expects to do so about the middle of May. Should it be brought into the Lords, of course there would not be so long delay there before deciding the question one way or the other. But the chances are so strong against its success if brought into the Lords first, that Lord Grey is unwilling to adopt that course until it is seen that that is the only alternative. If it should be lost in the Lords now, he, of course, thinks it would soon be carried by a pressure from Canada, such as the rejection of the Bill by the Lords would probably call forth.

On the 25th April, Dr. Ryerson wrote:—

The late crisis has made no change in the intentions of the Government in regard to the clergy reserve question. I send you a copy of the Times of the 23rd instant, the day before yesterday, in which you will see the first of my papers on "The Clergy Reserves of Canada." The second and third will occupy a column and a half or two columns, each. I finished and handed in the remaining papers this morning. Lord Grey spoke to me twice on the subject of writing something for the press, and Mr. Hawes, the last time I saw him, seemed to think the Bill would be lost in the House of Lords, but the Government would send out a despatch to Canada saying that the question was not abandoned, but would be brought forward again the next Session. I have thought this was a very poor consolation for the loss of the Bill, and that it was best to see what could be done. I have written strongly, and with an express view to the House of Lords—confining myself wholly to the question of the right of the people of Canada to judge and decide in the matter. What may be the effect of these papers, I cannot, of course, tell; but if Lord Grey should be of opinion that the publication of them will supersede the necessity of my longer stay for that purpose, I will leave as soon as possible—by the third week in May.

I wrote fully to Dr. Ryerson on this subject, pointing out the relation of parties in Canada on this subject, and deprecating his taking any further active part in the discussion which had become so heated in this country. On the 2nd May, Dr. Ryerson replied:—

What you have communicated on the clergy reserve question has changed my mode of proceeding in some respects; and the second and third articles I prepared for the Times will not appear as first intended; but I will explain by and by. I was at the great Exhibition yesterday. It was the grandest of all grand affairs I ever witnessed. I had a place near the centre, within a few feet of the "Iron Duke," until he left to join the procession.

On the 9th May, Dr. Ryerson wrote his final letter:—

On reflection, and from what I found to be the relations of parties in Canada, and the turn the clergy reserve question was likely to take, I came to the same conclusion you have expressed in your last letter—not to come into collision with any party on the question, beyond what is expressed in the short article in the Times newspaper—namely, that Canada should judge for itself on the question. I have determined to furnish Lord Grey with a memorandum of facts and principles on the question. I have seen Lord Grey and stated my wish not to remain longer, and not to be further mixed up with the question—that I was now on good terms with all parties—had thus great facilities for usefulness—that party agitation in Canada was becoming violent—two extreme parties, uniting against the Ministerial measure. I told him that I would furnish him with a memorandum, with all the chief points of the question on which he was likely to be opposed. He seemed to be disappointed, but said if I thought my Department would suffer by my longer absence, he would not insist upon my staying. I told him that all parties would approve of my staying for the Great Exhibition, and that I thought a memorandum, such as I would prepare on the question of the clergy reserves, would be as serviceable as my presence, etc.

Memorandum on the Clergy Reserve Question.

The following is the memorandum which Dr. Ryerson prepared for Lord Grey on the clergy reserve question, and to which he refers in his letter to me of the 9th May, 1851:—

Fully concurring in the remark of the Bishop of London, in a late reply to the deputation of the inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover Square, that "there is no kind of intestine division so injurious in its character and tendency as that which is grounded on religious questions;" and firmly believing, as I do, that the long continuance of Canada as a portion of the British Empire depends upon the proceedings of the British Parliament on the question of the clergy reserves, I desire, as a native and resident of Upper Canada, as a Protestant and lover of British institutions, to submit the following brief observations on that question, in order to correct erroneous impressions in England, and to induce such a course of parliamentary proceedings as will conduce to the honour of Great Britain, and to the peace and welfare of Canada:—

1. My first remark is, that this is a question agitated for more than twenty-five years, almost exclusively among Protestants in Canada, and the agitation of which, at the present time, has not, in any way whatever, been promoted by Roman Catholic influence. An attempt has been made in some quarters to create a contrary impression in England; but that I am correct in my statement will, I think, appear from the following facts:—First, though the question of the clergy reserves nominally relates to Lower as well as Upper Canada (since the union of the two Canadas under one Legislature), it is historically and practically an Upper Canadian question. The agitation of it originated in Upper Canada; it never was agitated in Lower Canada before the union of the two provinces; it is discussed chiefly by the Upper Canada press, and pressed most earnestly by the Upper Canada members of the Legislature. So strongly is it viewed as an Upper Canadian question, that a considerable portion of the press of Upper Canada has objected to Lower Canadian members of the Legislature interfering in its discussion or influencing its decision by their votes. Secondly, all the Upper Canadian members, both of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Assembly, are Protestants. Of the forty-two members of the Legislative Assembly elected in Upper Canada, not one of them is a Roman Catholic; of the five Upper Canadian members of the Executive Council, all are Protestants, and all were in favour of the late Address of the Assembly to the Queen, praying for the repeal of the Imperial Act, 4 & 5 Vic., chap. 78. and for restoring to the people of Canada the constitutional right of judging for themselves as to the disposal of the clergy reserve lands in that country. It ought, therefore, to be remembered in England, that this question relates chiefly to Upper Canada, which is, for the most part, a Protestant country, and which has not a single Roman Catholic in the Legislative Assembly.

2. I remark, in the next place, that it is not a question of Church and State union, or whether the State shall contribute to the support of religion in one or more forms. It is whether the Canadian people shall judge for themselves as to the mode of supporting their religious worship, as well as to the religious creed they shall adopt. This right was clearly secured to them by their constitutional Act of 1791, 31st George III., chap. 31, but was taken from them by the Imperial Act of 1840, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78. In what manner the people of Canada, through their representatives, may exercise the constitutional right, the restoration of which they claim, for the support of religion, I am not prepared to say. But whether they shall exercise wisely or not that, or any other right constitutionally vested in them, is a matter appertaining to themselves, and not to parties in England. I am not to be the less anxious for the restoration to my country of its constitutional rights because it may not exercise them wisely, or exercise them in a manner opposed to my personal views and wishes. The constitutional rights of legislation in Great Britain may not have always been exercised most judiciously, but who would adduce that as an argument for the annihilation of those rights, or against the existence of constitutional freedom in England? Is Canada to be made an exception to this rule?

3. I remark, thirdly, that neither is this a question which affects the vested rights of any parties except those of the people of Canada generally. When one-seventh of the wild lands of Canada was reserved for the support of a Protestant clergy, by the Act of 1791, 31st George III., chap. 31, the Canadian Legislature, created by the same Act, was invested with authority, under certain forms, to "vary or repeal" the several clauses relating to that clergy land reservation. That vested right the people of Upper Canada possessed from 1791 to 1840. All other vested rights are subordinate to those of a whole people, and are not to be exalted above them. The Canadian Legislative Assembly has proposed to secure all parties who have acquired rights or interests in the revenue arising from the sales of the clergy reserve lands during the lives of the incumbents or recipients; but, beyond that guarantee, it claims the right of "varying or repealing," as it shall judge expedient, the landed reservation in question, and the application of the revenues arising from it.

4. The real question for consideration in England being thus separated from other questions with which it has sometimes been erroneously and injuriously confounded, I proceed to remark that the Imperial Act 3 and 4 Vic., chap. 78, is at variance with what the Imperial Governments without exception and without reservation, for twenty-five years, have admitted and avowed to be the constitutional rights of the people of Canada. It has at all times been admitted in the first place, that the Act 31st Geo. III., ch. 31, which created a legislature in Canada, and authorized the clergy land reservation, invested the Canadian Legislature with authority to legislate as to its disposal, and the application of revenues arising from it; and secondly, that whatever legislation might take place on the subject should be in harmony with the wishes of the Canadian people. The Imperial Act 3 and 4 Vic., ch. 78, deprives the Canadian people of that right of legislation which they had possessed for forty years, and does violence to their wishes and opinions in the disposal which it makes of the revenues of the lands in question. Now the rights of the people of Canada on this subject were explicitly stated by the late Sir George Murray in 1828, by the Earl of Ripon in 1832, by His late Most Gracious Majesty in a message to the Legislature of Upper Canada in 1833, and by Lord Glenelg in 1835 and 1836. I give a summary of the whole in the words of Lord Glenelg, in a despatch to the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, dated December 5, 1835, in reply to an attempt on the part of the latter to induce Imperial legislation on the subject. Lord Glenelg says, in behalf of the Imperial Government, that:—

Parliamentary legislation on any subject of exclusively internal concern, in a British colony possessing a representative assembly, is as a general rule unconstitutional. It is a right of which the exercise is reserved for extreme cases, in which necessity at once creates and justifies the exception.

After showing that no necessity existed for setting aside the constitutional rights of the Canadian people, Lord Glenelg expresses himself in the following language of enlightened political philosophy:—

It is not difficult to perceive the reasons which induced Parliament, in 1791, to connect with a reservation of land for ecclesiastical purposes, the special delegation to the Council and Assembly of the right to vary that provision by any Bill which, being reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, should be communicated to both Houses of Parliament for six weeks before that decision was pronounced. Remembering, it should seem, how fertile a source of controversy ecclesiastical endowments had supplied throughout a large part of the Christian world, and how impossible it was to foretell with precision what might be the prevailing opinions and feelings of the Canadians on this subject at a future period, Parliament at once secured the means of making a systematic provision for a Protestant clergy, and took full precaution against the eventual inaptitude of that system to the more advanced stages of a society then in its infant state, and of which no human foresight could divine the more mature and settled judgment.

In the controversy, therefore, respecting ecclesiastical endowments, which at present divides the Canadian Legislature, I find no unexpected element of agitation, the discovery of which demands a departure from the fixed principles of the constitution, but merely the fulfilment of the anticipations of the Parliament of 1791, in the exhibition of that conflict of opinion for which the statute of that year may be said to have made a deliberate preparation. In referring the subject to the future Canadian Legislature, the authors of the Constitutional Act must be supposed to have contemplated the crisis at which we have now arrived—the era of warm and protracted debate, which, in a free government, may be said to be a necessary precursor to the settlement of any great principle of national policy. We must not have recourse to an extreme remedy, merely to avoid the embarrassment which is the present, though temporary, result of our own legislation.

I think, therefore, that to withdraw from the Canadian to the Imperial Legislature the question respecting the clergy reserves, would be an infringement of that cardinal principle of colonial government which forbids parliamentary interference, except in submission to an evident and well-established necessity.

In January, 1840, the two branches of the Legislature of Upper Canada passed a Bill (the Legislative Assembly by a majority of 28 to 20, and the Legislative Council by a majority of 13 to 4) relative to the clergy reserve—provided for the interests of their existing incumbents, and dividing the proceeds of the sales of said lands among various religious persuasions according to a census taken once in five years, and leaving each religious persuasion free to expend the sum or sums to which it should be entitled according to its pleasure, whether for the support of its clergy, the erection of places of worship, or for purposes of education. Though the great majority of the people of Upper Canada desired the application of the proceeds of these lands for educational purposes only; yet a majority of both branches of the Legislature agreed to a compromise which could be defended as just to all parties, whatever preferences might be entertained on the subject in the abstract. But instead of the Royal assent being advised to be given to that Canadian Bill on a local Canadian question, a new Bill was introduced into the Imperial Parliament, giving about three-fourths of the proceeds of the clergy reserves (including past and future sales) to the clergy of the churches of England and Scotland, giving nothing to any other church, but leaving the remaining one-fourth (or half of future sales) at the discretionary disposal of the Executive for religious purposes. This part of the Imperial Act has proved inoperative to this day; and should any religious persuasion receive any portion of this comparative pittance of the clergy land funds, it would do so not as a matter of right (as do the Churches of England and Scotland in receiving their lion's share), but at and during the pleasure of any party in power—a position in which no religious community should be placed to the Executive, and in which the Executive ought not to be placed to any religious community. Such an Act can be justified upon no principle of justice or sound policy, and is at variance with the almost unanimous and often recorded wishes of the people of Upper Canada. The Christian Examiner—a monthly organ of the Church of Scotland in Upper Canada—expressed not only the general sentiments of the members of that Church, but also of people at large, in the following words, contained in an elaborate editorial which appeared in that publication a few months before the passing of the Imperial Act of 1841:—

Year after year, at least during the last decade, the general sentiment in this colony has been uttered in no unequivocal form, that no church invested with exclusive privileges derived from the State, is adapted to the condition of society among us. It cannot be doubted that this is the conviction of nine-tenths of the Colonists. Except among a few ambitious magnates of the Church of England, we never hear a contrary sentiment breathed. Equal rights upon equal conditions is the general cry. And although several Assemblymen of the present House have chosen to misinterpret the public voice, and to advocate a different principle, we doubt not that on their next appearance before their constituents, they will be taught that this is not the age, nor this the country, in which the grand principle of equal rights can be departed from with impunity.

Now, although the Imperial Act of 1840 may have induced "a few magnates" of the Church of Scotland to unite with other "magnates," whom they once considered "ambitious," in denying the "grand principle of equal rights" to their more numerous Methodist brethren, and other religious persuasions, yet the "convictions of nine-tenths" of the Canadian people remain unchanged; nor will they, because of the changed circumstances of a few clergymen of the Church of Scotland, suffer "the grand principle of equal rights to be departed from with impunity."

5. I observe, likewise, that the continuance of the Imperial Act of 1840 is desired by a mere fraction of the Canadian population, while its repeal is demanded by that country at large. The assertions of any interested parties on a matter of this kind are of little weight against the proceedings and statements of the representatives of the people. The Address of the Legislative Assembly to Her Majesty must be regarded as the authoritative and true expression of the opinions and wishes of the Canadian people. It is true, there was diversity of opinion as to the manner in which the incumbents on the clergy reserve fund should be dealt with, and also as to certain other declarations contained in the Address of the Assembly; but no member of the Canadian Legislature ventured to justify the provisions of the Imperial Act, and very few ventured to vote in favour of its continuance, even upon the ground of expediency, in behalf of the "magnates" of two favourable Churches. When the resolutions of the Address to Her Majesty were moved in the Legislative Assembly of Canada on this subject, an amendment was moved by the supporters of the present exclusive privileges of the Churches of England and Scotland in Canada an amendment which contained the following words:—

That in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient to disturb or unsettle, by resolution or enactment, the appropriations or endowments now existing in Upper and Lower Canada for religious purposes; that the well-being of society and the growing wants of the various Christian bodies in Canada demand that the several provisions of the Imperial Act 3 and 4 Vic., cap. 78, should be carried out to their fullest extent.

In favour of the amendment, that is, in favour of the continuance and operations of the Imperial Act of 1840, voted sixteen; against it voted fifty-two. Who would think of perpetuating a law in England at variance with the sentiments of three-fourths of the members of the House of Commons, and even of a large proportion of the constituency of Great Britain? Could the present constitution of government in England be maintained, could revolution be long prevented, if laws were retained on the statute book condemned by three-fourths of the Commons, and more than three-fourth of all classes of people in the land, and those statutes involving religious questions? And is that to be perpetuated in Canada which would not be retained in England for a month?

6. Into the origin and progress of the controversy connected with the clergy reserves, it is needless for me to enter. They are sufficiently stated in the Address of the Legislative Assembly of Canada to the Queen, a copy of which is herewith annexed, together with the majorities by which each of the thirty-one clauses of the Address was separately voted. It will be seen that the first twenty-three clauses of the Address were carried by a majority of 52 to 18; the 24th clause by 51 to 20; the 26th clause by 48 to 19; the 27th and 28th clauses by 47 to 20; the 29th clause by 36 to 34; the 30th clause by 40 to 28; the 31st clause, containing the prayer of the Address, by 45 to 23. The only clause of the Address, therefore, in favour of which the majority of the Assembly was not large and decided, was the 29th; and in a vote to that clause, I have shown that the smallness of the majority was occasioned by objections to different parts of the clause upon quite opposite grounds, of three classes of members—the sixteen supporters of the present pre-eminence of the Churches of England and Scotland, a section of the Roman Catholic members, and what in England would be called the extreme dissenters. In the vote referred to, I have explained the ground of the opposition to this clause by each of these three classes of members. It will be seen that the 29th clause is rather speculative than practical, and does not affect the character and completeness of the Address, every other clause of which was carried by a large majority. It is, however, curious to remark, that while the supporters of the present exclusive privileges of the Churches of England and Scotland are indebted to the assistance of Roman Catholic members for the only vote in which the minority was large; yet in England some of these same parties represent the Address as having been carried chiefly by Roman Catholic votes, with a view of destroying all Protestant institutions in Canada.

7. No enlightened and candid person can look at the religious history and social state of Canada and desire the perpetuation of the Imperial Act 3 and 4 Vic., ch. 78. It is now quite sixty years since Upper Canada was formed into a province with a representative government. Its population was then 7,000 souls; it is now about 700,000. During the first and most eventful half of that sixty years, the ministrations of the Churches of England and Scotland can scarcely be said to have had an existence there. The present Bishop of Toronto, in a discourse published on the occasion of the death of the first Canadian Bishop of the Church of England, states that down to the close of the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1815, there were but four resident clergymen or missionaries of the Church of England in all Upper Canada—a statement which is confirmed by the annual reports of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts; and the same reports will show how few were the clergy of the Church of England in that province down to a recent period. We learn from the same authority, that till 1818 there was but one clergyman of the Church of Scotland in Upper Canada, and that in 1827 there were but two. It is, therefore, clear that during the first half of its sixty years' existence as a province, Upper Canada must have been indebted almost entirely to other than clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland for religious instruction; yet during that thirty years, it is admitted that the people of Upper Canada were a religious, an intelligent, and loyal people. To whom the people of that province were mainly indebted for their religious instruction, and for the formation and development of their religious character, appears in a report of a Select Committee of the Upper Canada House of Assembly, appointed in 1828, on the religious condition of the country, and before which fifty witnesses, chiefly members of the Church of England, were examined. I quote the following words from the report of that Committee, (which was adopted by the Assembly by a majority of 22 to 8), a report which was partly prepared in reference to a letter addressed by the present Bishop of Toronto to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1827:—

The insinuations (says the report) in the letter against the Methodist clergymen, the committee have noticed with peculiar regret. To the disinterested and indefatigable exertions of these pious men this province owes much. At an early period of its history, when it was thinly settled, and destitute of all other means of religious instruction, these ministers of the Gospel, animated by Christian zeal and benevolence, at the sacrifice of health, and interest, and comfort, carried among the people the blessings, and consolations, and sanctions of our holy religion. Their influence and instruction have been conducive in a degree which cannot be easily estimated, to the reformation of the vicious and to the diffusion of correct morals, the foundation of all sound loyalty and social order.

This religious body has now 180 regular ministers in Upper Canada, about 1,100 churches and preaching places, and embraces in its congregations one-seventh of the population.[137] Yet this oldest religious community in Upper Canada, together with the Free Presbyterian Church of Canada, the United Presbyterian Church, the Baptists and Congregationalists, are treated as nobody by the Imperial Act, while the more modern Churches of England and Scotland are exclusively endowed, and that by setting aside legislative rights which the Constitution of 1791 had conferred upon the people of Upper Canada! In Great Britain the Established Churches are associated with the early and brightest periods of British history, and are blended with all the influences which distinguish and exalt British character; but the feelings and predilections arising from such reminiscences and associations are not the proper rule of judgment as to the feelings, predilections and institutions of Canadian society. As Englishmen best know their own feelings and wants, and claim and exercise the sole right of judging and legislating for themselves; so do the people of Canada best know their own wishes and interests, and ought to judge and legislate for themselves in all local matters which do not infringe any imperial prerogative. No Englishman can refuse this who wishes to do to others as he would have others do to him.

8. But it should also be observed, that down to the passing of the Imperial Act of 1840, the influence of the Church of Scotland itself was adverse to any such act of partiality and injustice, and in favour of applying the proceeds of the clergy reserves even to educational as well as religious purposes. The discussion of this question was first introduced into the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada in 1823, by the Hon. William Morris—a gentleman of great respectability, and who has always been regarded and acknowledged as the guardian of the interests, and representative of the sentiments, of the Church of Scotland. December 22nd, 1826, Mr. Morris moved a series of resolutions on this subject, of which the following are the 9th and 10th:—

9. Resolved,—That it is the opinion of a great proportion of the people of this Province that the clergy lands, in place of being enjoyed by the clergy of an inconsiderable part of the population, ought to be disposed of, and the proceeds of their sale applied to increase the provincial allowance for the support of district and common schools, and the endowment of a provincial seminary for learning, and in aid of erecting places of public worship for all denominations of Christians. [Carried by a majority of 31 to 2.]

10. Resolved, That it is expedient to pass a Bill, authorizing the sale of the clergy lands within this Province, for the purposes set forth in the foregoing resolution; and to address His Majesty, humbly soliciting that he will be graciously pleased to give the royal assent to said Bill. [Carried by a majority of 30 to 3.]

On the 28th of the same month, Mr. Morris reported a draft of Bill for the sale of the clergy reserves, pursuant to the foregoing resolutions. The Bill passed the Assembly by a majority of 20 to 3; was sent to the Legislative Council, and was rejected. Similar attempts to legislate having in like manner and from the same cause proved abortive, another address to the King on this subject was adopted by the Assembly in March, 1831, and supported, if not introduced, by Mr. Morris. That address, which was adopted by a majority of 30 to 7, contains the following words:—

That a large majority of the inhabitants of this Province are sincerely attached to your Majesty's person and government, but are averse to any exclusive or dominant Church. That this House feels confident that, to promote the prosperity of this portion of your Majesty's dominions, and to satisfy the earnest desire of the people of this Province, your Majesty will be graciously pleased to give the most favourable consideration to the wishes of your faithful subjects. That, to terminate the jealousy and dissension which have hitherto existed on the subject of the said clergy reserves—to remove a barrier to the settlement of the country, and to provide a fund available for the promotion of education, and in aid of erecting places of worship for various denominations of Christians: it is extremely desirable that the said land reserved should be sold, and the proceeds arising from the sale of the same placed at the disposal of the Provincial Legislature, to be applied exclusively for those purposes.