[33] For reply to this statement see extract from Review given on p. 105.—H.

[34] In "a Pastoral Letter from the Clergy of the Church of Scotland in the Canadas to their Presbyterian Brethren" issued in 1828, they say:—"We did, in the year 1820, petition His Majesty's Government for protection and support to our Church, and claimed, by what we believe to be our constitutional rights, a participation in the Clergy Reserves." Montreal, 1828, p. 2. This Pastoral Letter gave rise to a protracted discussion for and against the Presbyterian side of the question.—H.

[35] The Report was adopted by a vote of 22 to 8. It stated:—The ministry and instructions [of the Methodist Clergymen] have been conducive—in a degree which cannot be easily estimated—to the reformation of their hearers, and to the diffusion of correct morals—the foundation of all sound loyalty and social order.... No one doubts that the Methodists are as loyal as any other of His Majesty's subjects, etc. Full particulars of this controversy will be found in Dr. Ryerson's "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pp. 165-218.—H.

[36] In "An Apology for the Church of England in Canada, by a Protestant of the Established Church of England," the writer thus refers to this controversy:—"Our Methodist brethren have disturbed the peace of their maternal Church by the clamour of enthusiasm and the madness of resentment; but they are the wayward children of passion, and we hope that yet the chastening hand of reason will sober down the wildness of that ferment," etc. Kingston, U.C., 1826, p. 3.—H.



CHAPTER IX.

1831-1832.

Methodist Affairs in Upper Canada—Proposed Union with the British Conference.

Of the events transpiring in Upper Canada during 1831 and 1832, in which Dr. Ryerson was an actor, he has left no record in his "Story." His letters and papers, however, show that during this period he retired from the editorship of the Christian Guardian, and that plans were discussed and matured which led to his going to England, in 1833, to negotiate a union between the British and Upper Canadian Conferences. His brother George had gone on a second visit to England in March, 1831. This second visit was for a twofold purpose, viz., to collect money with the Rev. Peter Jones, for the Indian Missions, and also to present petitions to the Imperial Parliament on behalf of the non-episcopalians of the Province. I give extracts from his letters to Dr. Ryerson, relating his experiences of, and reflections on, Wesleyan matters in England at that period. Writing from Bristol, on the 6th of August, 1831, Rev. George Ryerson said:—

In my address to the Wesleyan Conference here I stated that we stood in precisely the same relation to our brethren of the Methodist Conference in the United States as we do to our brethren of the Wesleyan Conference in England—independent of either—agreeing in faith, in religious discipline, in name and doctrine, and the unity of spirit,—but differing in some ecclesiastical arrangements, rendered necessary from local circumstances. I also expressed my firm conviction that the situation in which we stand is decidedly the best calculated to spread Methodism and vital religion in Canada. This statement did not, I think, give so much satisfaction to the Conference as the others, for what Pope said of Churchmen:

"Is he a Churchman? then he's fond of power,"

may also be literally applied to Wesleyan ministers, and, I may add, to Englishmen generally. I have reason to know that they would gladly govern us. I was, therefore, very pointed and explicit on this subject. I rejoice that our country lies beyond the Atlantic, and is surrounded by an atmosphere of freedom. A few months' residence in this country would lead you to value this circumstance in a degree that you can scarcely conceive of; and you would, with unknown energy, address this exhortation to the Methodists and to the people of Canada: "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith God's providence hath made you free, and in this abound more and more." I also assured them of our respect and love for them as our fathers and elder brethren, and mentioned my reasons for giving this information to prevent future collision and misunderstanding.

The Conference or Missionary Society have, however, not given up their intention of establishing an Indian Mission in Upper Canada, but, in consequence of my remonstrances, have delayed it. Brother James Richardson's letter to the Missionary Committee, which I submitted, and was told by Rev. Dr. Townley, one of the Secretaries, that they would by no means withdraw their missionary at Kingston, as it was still their intention to establish a mission to the Indians in Upper Canada, and this station would be very necessary to them. I see that they are a little vexed that emigrants from their Societies should augment our membership.

The whole morning service of the Church of England is now read in most of the Wesleyan Chapels, and with as much formality as in the Church. Many of the members, when they become wealthy and rise in the world, join the Church, and their wealth and influence are lost to the Society. Organs are also introduced into many of their Chapels.

In a letter dated London, Feb. 6th, 1832, Rev. Geo. Ryerson writes again to Dr. Ryerson, and says that he and Peter Jones:

By request, met the Rev. Richard Watson, and some others of the Missionary Committee. They wished to consult us respecting the resolutions forwarded to them from your Missionary Committee. They profess that they will not occupy any station where there is a mission, as Grand River, Penetanguishene, etc., except St. Clair. But they declare that as it regards the white population, the agreement with the American Conference ceased when we became a separate connexion. I opposed their views, as I have invariably done, in very strong and plain terms, and explained to them the character and object of the persons who were alluring them to commence this schism. They proposed that we should give up the missions to them. I told them we could no more do so, than they give up theirs. They finally acquiesced, and voted the L300 as Rev. Dr. Townley wrote. At the Conference, at Bristol, I explained that a union of the two Conferences would be inexpedient and unprofitable, any further than a union of brotherly love and friendship.

In another letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother George, dated London, April 6th, 1832, he says:—

I have been detained so long on expenses, and continually advancing money for the Central Committee at York, that I hope it will be repaid to Peter Jones. I was a long time attending to the business of my mission to bring it to the only practicable arrangement, that is, having it submitted to the Legislature of Upper Canada, with such recommendations and instructions as would give satisfaction to the country by consulting the wishes and interests of all parties. I have never before in my life been shut up to walk in all things by simple faith more than I have for some months past; yet I was never kept in greater steadfastness and peace of mind, nor had such openings of the Spirit and life of Jesus in my soul. The judgments of God are spreading apace—the cholera is more deadly in London, and it has now broken out in Ireland, and in the centre of Paris, where it is said to be very destructive. You need no other evidence of its being a work of God, than to be informed that it is made the public mock of the infidel population of this city; a state of feeling and conduct in regard to this pestilence that never, perhaps, was witnessed from any country, and that would make a heathen or Mahommedan ashamed. I have seen gangs of men traversing the streets and singing songs in ridicule of the cholera, and have seen caricatures of it in the windows.

August 29th, 1832.—To-day, in a valedictory editorial, Dr. Ryerson took leave of the readers of the Christian Guardian, having been its first editor for nearly three years. In that valedictory Dr. Ryerson said (p. 116):—

I first appeared before the public as a writer, at the age of two and twenty years. My first feeble effort was a vindication of the Methodists, and several other Christian denominations against the uncalled-for attack made upon their principles and character. It also contained a remonstrance against the introduction into this country of an endowed political Church, as alike opposed to the statute law of the Province, political and religious expedience, public rights and liberties. I believe this was the first article of the kind ever published in Upper Canada, and, while from that time to this a powerful combination of talent, learning, indignation, and interest has been arrayed in the vain attempt to support by the weapons of reason, Scripture, and argument, a union between the Church and the world—between earth and heaven; talents, truth, reason, and justice have alike been arrayed in the defence of insulted and infringed rights, and the maintenance of a system of public, religious, and educational instruction, accordant with public rights and interests, the principles of sound policy, the economy of Providence, and the institutions and usages of the New Testament.

Dr. Ryerson also published in this number of the Guardian the general outline of the arrangements proposed at Hallowell (Picton) on behalf of the Canada Conference to the English Conference, and designed to form the basis of articles for the proposed union between the two bodies. Rev. Robert Alder was present at the Conference, and was a consenting party to the basis of union.

December 7th, 1832.—The prospects of Union with the British Conference were not encouraging in various parts of the Connexion, and chiefly for the reasons mentioned by Rev. George Ryerson in his letters from England (see pp. 107, 8). Rev. John Ryerson, writing to Dr. Ryerson from Cobourg, also says:—

The subject of the Union appears to be less and less palatable to our friends in these parts, so much so, that I think it will not be safe for you to come to any permanent arrangements with the British Conference, even should they accede to our proposals. I am of the opinion that, except we give ourselves entirely into their hands in some way or another, no Union will take place. I tell the preachers, and they and I tell the people, that, Union or no Union, it is very important that you should go home; that you will endeavour, in every way you can, to convince the British Conference of the manifest injustice and wickedness of sending missionaries to this country.

November 21st, 1832.—The proposed union with the British Conference excited a good deal of discussion at this time in various parts of Upper Canada. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, addressed a note on the subject to Rev. Robert Alder, the English Conference representative. I make a few extracts:—

At the Hallowell Conference (1832) the question of the union was principally sustained by my brothers, and was concurred in by the vote of a large majority of the Conference.... But in some parts of the country, where Presidential visits have been made, certain local preachers have found out that the Societies ought to have been consulted; that they have been sold ("by the Ryersons,") without consent; that no Canadian will henceforth be admitted into the Conference; that our whole economy will be changed by arbitrary power, and all revivals of religion will be stopped, etc. The first of the objections is the most popular, but they have all failed to produce the intended effect, to an extent desired by the disaffected few. The object contemplated is, to produce an excitement that will prevent me going to England, and induce the Conference to retrace its steps. The merit or demerit of the measure has been mainly ascribed to me; and on its result, should I cross the Atlantic, my standing, in a great measure, depends. If our proposals should meet with a conciliatory reception, and your Committee would recommend measures, rather than require concessions, in the future proceedings of our Conference, everything can be accomplished without difficulty or embarrassment. You know that I am willing, as an individual, to adopt your whole British economy, ex animo. You also know that my brothers are of the same mind, and that a majority of the Conference will readily concur. May the Lord direct aright!

Dr. Alder's reply to Dr. Ryerson in February, 1833, was that:

You must look at the great principles and results involved in this most important affair, and not shrink from the duties imposed on you, to avoid a few present unpleasant consequences. It is not for me to prescribe rules of conduct to be observed by you, but I must say, that I am surprised that any circumstance should cause you to waver for a moment in reference to your visit to Europe. If you were to decline coming, would not the many on the other side, who are strictly watching your movements, at once say that the whole arrangements are deceptive, and merely designed to make an impression on me for a certain purpose. You know they would. Of course you will act as you please. I neither advise nor persuade, but say: Be not too soon nor too much alarmed. There are no jealousies, no evil surmisings, no ambitious designs in the matter, but a sincere desire to promote the interests of Methodism and the cause of religion in Upper Canada; and nothing will be desired from, or recommended to, you, but for this purpose.

It is a noble object that we have in view. Rev. Richard Watson takes a statesmanlike view of the whole case, and will, I am persuaded, as will all concerned here, meet you with the utmost ingenuousness and liberality, and, if they be met in a similar manner, all will end well. If you can agree to the following recommendation, I think everything else will easily be settled, viz., to constitute two or three districts, to meet annually, as District Conferences, and to hold a Triennial Conference, to be composed of all the preachers in the Provinces, under a President, to be appointed in the way mentioned in the plan of agreement proposed by your last Conference. Several of your preachers wish it; Bro. Green, the presiding Elder, is in favour of it.

January 10th, 1833.—It being necessary to collect funds to defray Dr. Ryerson's expenses to England, his brother, William, wrote to him from Brockville at this date, giving an account of his success there as a collector. He said:—

After the holidays I commenced operations, and having besieged the doors of several of our gentry, most of whom contributed without much resistance, on most honourable terms, of course, such as paying from $3 to $6, with a great many wishes, and hearty ones too, for your success. More than two-thirds of the sum collected are given by the gentlemen of the village, most of whom expressed and appeared to feel a pleasure in giving, and who have never been known to give anything to the Methodists before on any occasion whatever. Our congregation has greatly increased, so that we now have about five hundred, some say more, in the evening. A majority of the first families in the village attend our chapel. Among many others, Mr. Jonas Jones, and several of the families in the same connection; Mr. Sherwood, the High Sheriff, and several others, most of whom have never been known to attend a Methodist meeting before. You will be surprised to hear that Mrs. James Sherwood has become my warm friend, treating me with the greatest attention and kindness; and also on various occasions speaking most kindly and respectfully of me and all our family, especially yourself.

* * * * *

January 31st, 1833.—Under this date, Dr. Ryerson has recorded in his diary the following tribute to his first wife:—

A year ago this morning, at half-past five o'clock, the wife of my youth fell asleep in Jesus, leaving a son and daughter (John and Lucilla Hannah), the former two years and a half old, and the latter fourteen days. Hannah Aikman (her maiden name) was the daughter of John and Hannah Aikman, and was the youngest of eleven children. Hannah was born in Barton, Gore District, on the 4th of August, 1804. Her natural disposition was most amiable, and her education was better than is usually afforded to farmer's daughters in this country. At the age of sixteen she was awakened, converted, and joined the Methodist Church, of which she remained an exemplary member until her death. I became intimately acquainted with her in 1824, when she was twenty years of age, and after taking the advice of an elder brother, who had travelled the circuit on which they lived, at the strong solicitation of my parents, and the impulse of my own inclinations, I made her proposals of marriage, which were accepted. This was before I had any intention of becoming a preacher in the Methodist Church, either travelling or local.

About this time the Lord laid his afflicting hand upon me;[37] I was brought to the gate of death, and in that state became convinced by evidence as satisfactory as that of my existence, that in disregarding the dictates of my own conscience, and the important advice of many members of the Church, both preachers and lay, in regard to labouring in the itinerant field, I had resisted the Spirit of God; and on that sick, and in the estimation of my family, dying bed, I vowed to the Lord my God, that if He should see fit to raise me up and open the way, I would no more disobey the voice of His Providence and servants. From that hour I began visibly to recover, and, though the exercises of my mind were unknown to any but myself and the Searcher of hearts, before I had sufficiently recovered to walk two miles, I was called upon by the Presiding Elder, and several official members, and solicited to go on the Niagara Circuit, which was then partly destitute through the failure in health of one of the preachers. I could not but view this unexpected call us the voice of God, and, after a few days' deliberation and preparation, I obeyed, on the 24th of March, 1825, the day on which I was twenty-two years of age.

This unanticipated change in the course of my life, while it involved the sacrifice of pecuniary interests and some very flattering offers and promises, presented my contemplated marriage in a somewhat different light; though the possibility of such a change was mentioned as a condition in my proposals and our engagement. And I will here record it to the honour of the dead that she who afterwards became my wife, wrote to me a short time after I commenced travelling, that if a union between us was in any respect opposed to my views of duty, or if I thought it would militate against my usefulness, I was perfectly exonerated by her from all obligations to such a union; that, whatever her own feelings might be, she begged that they would not influence me,—that God would give her grace to subdue them,—that she shuddered at the thought of standing in the way of my duty and usefulness.

Knowing, as I did, that her fondness for me was extravagant, I could not wound the heart which was the seat of such elevated feelings, or help appreciating more highly than ever the principles of mind which could give rise to such noble sentiments, and such martyr-like disinterestedness of soul. In subsequent interviews, we mutually agreed—should Providence permit—and (at her suggestion) should neither of us change our minds, we would get married in three or four years. During this interval, I had at times agitations of mind as to the advantages of such a step, in regard to my ministerial labours, but determined to rely on the Divine promise, "Blessed is the man that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." This promise has been abundantly fulfilled in me. We were married on the 10th of September, 1828. A more affectionate and prudent wife never lived. She was beloved and respected by all that knew her. I never saw her angry, nor do I recollect that an angry or unkind word ever passed between us. Her disposition was sweet, her spirit uniformly kind and cheerful, sociable, and meek. Her professions were never high, nor her joys rapturous. But in everything she was invariably faithful, and ready for every good word and work. In her confidence, peace, and conduct, as far as I could discover, without intermission, the poet's words were clearly illustrated:—

"Her soul was ever bright as noon, and calm as summer evenings be."

Though her piety for years excited my respect, and in many instances my admiration, it was nevertheless greatly quickened and deepened about six months before her death, during the Conference held at York. From that time I believe she enjoyed the perfect love of God. At least, as far as I can judge, the fruits of it were manifest in her whole life.

Several days previous to her death, when her illness assumed a mortal aspect, and she became sensible that her earthly pilgrimage was closing, her usual unruffled confidence rose to the riches of the full assurance of understanding, faith and hope, and she expressed herself with a boldness of language, a rapture of hope, and triumph of faith that I never before witnessed. Passages of Scripture, and verses of hymns, expressive of the dying Christian's victories, triumphs, and hopes, were repeated by her with a joy and energetic fervency that deeply affected all present. Her deathbed conversations and dying counsels were a rich repast and a valuable lesson of instruction to many of her Christian friends. The night before she took her departure, she called me to her and consulted me about disposing of the family and all her own things, with as much coolness and judgment as if she had been in perfect health, and was about leaving home on a few days' visit to her friends. A little before midnight she requested the babe to be brought to her—kissed it—blessed it, and returned it. She then called for the little boy (John), and, embracing and kissing him, bequeathed to him also the legacy of a pious mother's dying prayer and blessing. Afterwards she embraced me, and said, "My dear Egerton, preach the Word; be instant in season and out of season, and God will take care of you, and give you the victory." She then bid an affectionate farewell individually to all. She continued in the perfect possession of her reason, triumphing in the Rock of her salvation, until the messenger arrived and her spirit took its departure with the words, "Come, Lord Jesus," lingering upon her lips. Thus lived and died one of the excellent of the earth,—a woman of good, plain sense, a guileless heart, and a sanctified spirit and life. Such is the testimony respecting her, of one who knew her best.

In his deep sorrow and affliction, at that time, Dr. Ryerson received many sympathizing letters. I give an extract of one from his brother George, dated London, Eng., 29th March, 1832. He says:—

I deeply sympathize with you in your affliction. I know how to feel for you, and you as yet know but a very small part of your trials. Years will not heal the wound. I am, even now, often quite overwhelmed when I allow myself to dwell upon the past. I need not suggest to you the commonplace topics of comfort and resignation, but I have no doubt you will see the hand of God so manifestly in it, that you will say "It was well done." I will further add that the saying of St. Paul was at no time so applicable as at the present (1 Cor. vii. 29, etc.).

* * * * *

The years 1830-1832 were noted in the history of the Methodist Church in Upper Canada for two things: 1st. The establishment of the Upper Canada Academy—the radiating centre of intellectual life in the Connexion. 2nd. The erection of the Adelaide St. Chapel, which for many years was the seat and source of Church life in the Societies. At the Conference of 1830 it was agreed to establish the Upper Canada Academy. In the Guardian of the 23rd of April, 1831, Dr. Ryerson gave an account of the new institution and made a strong appeal in its favour. On the 7th June, 1832, the foundation stone of the Academy was laid at Cobourg. On the 16th June, 1833, the new brick church on Newgate (Adelaide) St. was opened for Divine Service. In the Guardian of June 19th, Dr. Ryerson says: "For its size—being 75 by 55 feet—it is judged to be inferior to very few Methodist Chapels in America." P. 126.

FOOTNOTES:

[37] See note on page 86 and page 28.



CHAPTER X.

1833

Union between the British and Canadian Conferences

I undertook the mission to England to negotiate a Union between the British and Canadian Conferences with great reluctance. I determined in the course of the year, from various circumstances, to abandon it; but was persuaded by letters from Rev. Robert Alder, the London Missionary Secretary (one of which is given on page 110), and the advice of my brother John, to resume it.

The account of my voyage and proceedings in England are given in the following extracts from my journals:—

March 4th, 1833.—This morning at 6 a.m. I left York via Cobourg, Kingston, and New York, on my first important mission to England, an undertaking for which I feel myself utterly incompetent; and in prosecution of which I rely wholly on the guidance of heavenly wisdom, imploring the special blessing of the Most High.

Kingston, March 11th.—I find that considerable excitement, and in some instances, strong dissatisfaction, exists on the question of Union, by misrepresentation of the proceedings and intentions of our Conference respecting it. Full explanations have in every instance restored confidence, and acquiescence. A correction of these misrepresentations, and the reply of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee to the proposals of our Conference have given universal satisfaction, and elicited a general and strong desire for the accomplishment of this all-important measure. My interviews with my brothers (William and John) have been interesting and profitable to me.

Watertown, N.Y., March 12.—Came from Kingston here to-day, twenty-eight miles. This Black River country is very level, and appears to be fertile, but the people generally do not seem to be thriving.

Utica, March 13th.—This is a flourishing town of about 10,000 inhabitants, beautifully situated on the south side of the Mohawk river. I travelled through a settlement and village called Renson, consisting principally of Welsh, where the Welsh language is universally spoken; there is a Whitefield Methodist chapel, but I was told they retained more of the name, than of the genuine spirit of their founder. "Because of swearing the land mourneth."

Hartford, March 16th.—The southern part of Massachusetts and the northern part of this State, are mountainous and rocky and barren. The inhabitants are supported by manufactures, grazing and dairies. They appear to be rather poor but intelligent. In my conversation to-day with a professed infidel I felt sensibly the importance of being skilled in wielding any weapon with which theology, history, science, so abundantly furnishes the believer in the Christian revelation; and never before did I see and feel the lofty superiority of the foundation on which natural and revealed truth is established, over the cob-web and ill-shaped edifice of infidelity.

Hartford, March 17th.—I have attended service three times to-day, and preached twice. Religion seems to be at a low ebb. Yet I have not heard religion spoken of, or any body of religious people referred to, in any other way than that of respect.

New York, March 20th.—I am now about to embark for England, the reason of my long journey from Canada to New York is the slow travel by stage, before any railroads, and the Hudson river not navigable so early.

New York, March 21st.—[Just on the eve of sailing for England, Dr. Ryerson wrote from New York to his brother John, at Hallowell. He said:—

I stayed with the Rev. Dr. Fisk all night and part of two days. I was much gratified and benefited, and have received from him many valuable suggestions respecting my mission to England and agency for the Upper Canada Academy. He was unreserved in his communications, and is in favour of my Mission, as were Brother Waugh, Drs. Bangs, Durbin[38] and others. They all seem to approve fully of the proceedings of our Conference in the affair.—H.]

New York, March 22nd.—[On the day on which Dr. Ryerson sailed for England, Mr. Francis Hall, of the New York Commercial Advertiser, sent him a note in which he said:—

I have just received from a friend in Montreal the following information which I wish you would give to the Rev. Richard Reece, of London:—The Lord has blessed us abundantly in Montreal. Upwards of four hundred conversions have taken place in our chapel since last summer. It is now necessary for us to have a chapel in the St. Lawrence suburbs, and another in the Quebec suburbs immediately. This (said Mr. Hall) for those who know Montreal, is great news indeed. It is equal to an increase of as many thousands in the city of New York; the whole population being only a little more than thirty thousand, a great portion of which are Roman Catholics.—H.]

Dr. Ryerson's journal then proceeds:—

At Sea, April 10th.—On the 22nd ult., I embarked on the sailing ship "York," Capt. Uree, New York. I was sick for fourteen days, ate nothing, thought little, and enjoyed nothing. Feeling better, I was able to read a little.

April 12th.—After twenty days' sail we landed at Portsmouth. Thanks be to the God of heaven, earth, and sea for His protection, blessing, and prosperity! I was greatly struck with the extensive fortifications, and vast dockyards, together with the wonderful machinery in this place; such indications of national wealth, and specimens of human genius and industry.

April 13th.—This morning I arrived in London, and was cordially received by the Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and kindly invited to take up my lodgings at the Mission House.

April 14th—Sabbath.—Heard the Rev. G. Marsden preach. In the afternoon this holy man addressed about four hundred Sunday-school children, after which I spoke a few words to them. We then attended a prayer-meeting, where many found peace with God. In the evening I heard the Rev. Theophilus Lessey preach a superior sermon, and I felt blessed.

April 16th.—This evening I preached my first sermon in England, in City Road Chapel, from John iii. 8. This is called Mr. Wesley's Chapel, having been built by him, and left under peculiar regulations. Alongside is Mr. Wesley's dwelling-house, and in the rear of it rest his bones, also those of Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke and Rev. Richard Watson; three of the greatest men the world ever saw. In the front of this chapel, on the opposite side of the street, are the celebrated Bunhill Field's burying ground, among whose memorable dead rests the dust of the venerable Isaac Watts, John Wesley's mother, John Bunyan, Daniel Defoe, etc.

April 21st—Sunday.—To-day I went to hear the celebrated Edward Irving. His preaching, for the most part, I considered commonplace; his manner, eccentric; his pretensions to revelations, authority, and prophetic indications, overweening. I was disappointed in his talents, and surprised at the apparent want of feeling manifested throughout his whole discourse.

April 20th.—This morning I attended the funeral of the great and eminently pious Rev. Rowland Hill, who died in the 89th year of his age. Lord Hill, his nephew, was chief mourner. There was a large attendance of ministers of all denominations, and a great concourse of people. Rev. Wm. Jay, of Bath, preached an admirable sermon from Zech. ii. 2. "Howl fir tree, for the cedar hath fallen." The venerable remains were interred beneath the pulpit.

April 26th.—To-day I heard Rev. Richard Winter Hamilton, of Leeds, an Independent, preach a missionary sermon for the Wesleyan Society. His text was Col. i. 16. It was the most splendid sermon I ever heard.

April 28th.—Heard the Rev. Robert Newton in the morning. In the afternoon I preached a missionary sermon in Westminster Chapel, and in the evening another at Chelsea.

April 29th.—This day was held the Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, in Exeter Hall, Lord Morpeth in the chair. He is a young man, serious and dignified in his manners. The speeches generally were able and to the point. Collection was L231.

May 1st.—The Annual Meeting of the British and Foreign Bible Society was held in Exeter Hall. Lord Bexley presided. The Bishops of Winchester and Chester, brothers, addressed the meeting. They are eloquent speakers, but the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel was the speaker of the day.

May 3rd.—This morning I attended the Annual Breakfast Meeting of the preachers' children, at the City Road Morning Chapel; nearly 200 preachers and their families were present. Rev. Joseph Entwistle spoke, as did Mr. James Wood, of Bristol, myself and one or two others.

May 5th., Exeter.—Left London at 5 a.m. and arrived here at 10 p.m., within a minute of the time specified by the coachman. We passed over the scene of that inimitable tract, "The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain." We were shown the tree under which the shepherd was sheltered.

May 6th.—Rev. Wm. Naylor preached this morning in Exeter, and I preached in the evening.

Taunton, May 7th.—At a Missionary Tea Meeting to-day, deep interest was excited in the cause of the British North American Missions. Taunton is a very ancient town. It existed in the time of the Romans. It was in this town that King Ina held the first Legislative Assembly or Parliament ever held in Britain. It consisted of ecclesiastics and noblemen and enacted certain laws for the better government of the Heptarchy. It was near this town King Alfred concealed himself, and was discovered in the capacity of a cook. Here also stands the Church of St. Mary, a most splendid and ancient gothic building, where that venerable and holy man of God, Joseph Alleine, author of the "Alarm to the Unconverted," preached.

In a letter to a friend in Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson at this date writes:—

Nottingham, May 29th.—I this morning called upon Mrs. Watson, mother of the late distinguished Richard Watson. She is nearly eighty years of age, and in rather humble circumstances. She is in the possession of a naturally strong and unimpaired intellect, and has apparently not the least vanity on account of the unrivalled talents, high attainments, and great popularity of her son. In conversation she stated the following particulars: That her husband was a saddler, that he formerly lived and followed his business in Boston-on-the-Humber in Lincolnshire, where Richard was born; that her husband was the only Methodist in the town, and was the means of introducing Methodism into that town; that his business was taken from him, and he was obliged to leave and remove to another place on account of it; that Richard was very weakly, and so poorly that she carried him when a child on a pillow in her arms; that when he began to talk and run about he was unusually stupid and sleepy, would drop asleep anywhere; that he was very tall of his age, and made such advancement in learning, that he read the Latin Testament at five years of age, and had read a considerable part of it before his parents knew that he had been put to the study of Latin; the clergyman, his tutor, thought him older, from his size and mind, or, as he said, he would not have put him to Latin so young; that Richard had a very great taste for reading; when he was a very small boy, he read the History of England (when not eight years of age), and recollected and related with the utmost correctness all its leading facts; that he would frequently remain at school after school hours, doing difficult questions in arithmetic for older boys; that he was bound out, according to his request, to the trade of a house-joiner; that he was most diligent and faithful at his work, and made such rapid advancement in learning the trade, that at the end of two years, his master told his father that he had already learned as much as he could teach him, and that he was willing to give him up if he desired—the best hand in his shop; that Richard began to go out and exhort when he was fourteen years of age, and that he preached when he was fifteen, and was received on trial by the Conference as a travelling preacher about a month after he was sixteen; that he was frequently pelted with eggs, and even trodden under foot; that his own uncle on one occasion encouraged it, saying, "My kinsman does it pretty well, give him a few more eggs, lad" (addressing one of the mob), and that Richard came home frequently with his clothes completely besmeared with eggs and dirt.

I attended the Wesleyan Missionary meeting here and spoke at it. The meeting was highly interesting. It was addressed by Rev. Mr. Edwards, (Baptist) and by the Messrs. Bunting, Atherton, and Bakewell. In this town the noted Kilham made his first Methodist division, and here suddenly ended his life. Here Bramwell got the ground for a chapel in answer to prayer. Near the town runs the River Trent. From Nottingham I went fourteen miles to Mansfield and attended a missionary meeting. I was in the house which was the birth-place of the great Chesterfield, and passed through Mansfield forest, the scene of Robin Hood's predatory exploits.

In his journal Dr. Ryerson says:—

London, June 24th.—I had an interview with Rt. Hon. Edward Ellice, on Canadian affairs; a man of noble spirit, liberal mind, and benevolent heart. He condemned Dr. Strachan's measures, and manifested an earnest, desire to promote the welfare of Upper Canada. I gave him an account of the political and religious affairs in Upper Canada with which he expressed himself pleased, and gave me L50 for the Upper Canada Academy.

June 16th.—This day was dedicated, by Rev. Wm. Ryerson, the new brick chapel on Newgate (Adelaide) Street, Toronto. (See subsequent chapter.)

June 24th.—Writing to-day to a valued friend in Upper Canada in regard to his mission in London, Dr. Ryerson told him that he had no doubt of its advantageous results in promoting harmony and peace. He then said:—

I apprehend that Mr. Stanley's appointment to the Secretaryship of the Colonies will not be very beneficial to us. The reason of Lord Goderich and Lord Howick (Earl Grey's son) retiring from that office was that they would not bring any other Bill on slavery into Parliament, but one for its immediate and entire abolition. I understand that Lords Goderich and Howick are sadly annoyed at Mr. Stanley's course.

It will only be for the friends of good government to pray for the re-appointment of Lord Goderich, or insist upon a change in the Colonial policy towards Upper Canada. This part, however, belongs to political men. But I am afraid it may have an unfavourable bearing upon our religious rights and interests.

In Rev. J. Richardson's letter to me, he mentions that the petitions were sent in the care of Mr. Joseph Hume. He is not the person to present a petition to His Majesty on religious liberty in the Colonies, and especially after the part he has taken in opposing the Bill for emancipating the slaves in the West Indies. It has incensed the religious part of the nation against him. He is connected with the West India interest by his wife, and his abandoning all his principles of liberty in such a heart-stirring question, destroys confidence in the disinterestedness of his general conduct, and his sincere regard for the great interests of religion. I leave London this afternoon for Ireland. My return here depends upon whether I can do anything in this petition business.[39]

It is difficult to get a moment for retirement, excepting very early in the morning, or after twelve at night. It is not the way for me to live I had, however, a very profitable and good day yesterday. I preached, and superintended a love-feast in City Road Chapel last evening. It was a very good one, only the people were a little bashful in speaking at first, like some of our York friends who are always so very timid, such as Dr. Morrison, Mr. Howard, and others.

In his journal Dr. Ryerson says:—

June 26th.—According to appointment, I called upon the Earl of Ripon, and was most kindly received. I wished to enquire about the medal promised by His Majesty, William IV., to Peter Jones, and to solicit a donation towards our Academy at Cobourg. His Lordship gave me L5. He expressed his disapprobation of Sir John Colborne's reply to the Methodist Conference in 1831, (see page 98). He stated that he was anxious for the Union between the British and Canadian Conferences, and was gratified at the prospect of its success.[40] His Lordship stated that, while in the Colonial Department, he had only received Mr. W. L. Mackenzie as a private individual, and had done no more than justice to him.

June 28th.—I called at the Colonial office, and laid before Mr. Stanley statements and documents relative to the Clergy Reserve Question. Mr. Stanley was very courteous, but equally cautious. I stated that the House of Assembly of Upper Canada had nearly every year since 1825, by very large majorities, decided against the erection of any Church Establishment in that Province, and in favour of the appropriation of the Clergy Reserves to the purposes of General Education; that this might be taken to be the fair and deliberate sense of the people of Upper Canada; that this question was distinct from any question or questions of political reform; that parties and parliaments who differed on other questions of public policy, agreed nearly unanimously in this. He expressed his opinion that the Colonial Legislature had a right to legislate on it, and asked me why our House of Assembly had not done it. I told him it had, but the Legislative Council had rejected the Bill passed by the Assembly on the subject.

July 13th.—In a letter at this date to a friend in Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson further refers to this and a subsequent interview as follows:—

I have had two interviews with Mr. Secretary Stanley, on the subject of the House of Assembly's Address on the Clergy Reserves, and have drawn up a statement of the grounds on which the House of Assembly and the great body of the people in Upper Canada resist the pretensions and claims of the Episcopal clergy. Mr. Solicitor-General Hagerman has been directed to do the same on behalf of the Episcopal clergy. I confess that I was a little surprised to find that the Colonial Secretary was fully impressed at first that Methodist preachers in Canada were generally Americans (Yankees);—that the cause of the great prosperity of Methodism there was the ample support it received from the United States;—that the missionaries in Upper Canada were actually under the United States Conference, and at its disposal. The Colonial Secretary manifested a little surprise also, when I turned to the Journals of the Upper Canada House of Assembly, and produced proof of the reverse, which he pronounced "perfectly conclusive and satisfactory."

August 8th.—Dr. Ryerson received a touching note at this date from Mrs. Marsden, with explanation of her reluctance to let Rev. Geo. Marsden, her husband, go to Canada as President of the Conference. She says:—

At length my rebellious heart is subdued by reason and by grace. I am made willing to give up my excellent husband to what is supposed to be a great work. I am led to hope that, as a new class of feelings are brought into exercise, perhaps some new graces may be elicited in my own character, as well as that of my dear husband; at any rate it is a sacrifice to God, which I trust will be accepted, and, both in a private and a public view, be overruled for the glory of God. I am sure, notwithstanding some repeated attempts to reconcile me to this affair, I must have appeared very unamiable to you; but the fact was simply this, I could not see you or converse with you, without so much emotion as quite unnerved me, therefore I studiously avoided you; but did you know the happiness which dear Mr. Marsden and I have enjoyed in each other's society for so many years, you would not be surprised that I should be unwilling to give up so many months as will be required for this service; but to God and His Church I bow in submission.

This estimable lady did not long survive. She died in six months—just after her husband had returned from America. In a letter from Rev. E. Grindrod, dated March, 1834, he says, Mrs. Marsden died, after a short illness, on 22nd February. She was one of the most amiable and pious of women. Her lite was a bright pattern of every Christian virtue. Her end was delightfully triumphant.

* * * * *

The following is an extract from Dr. Ryerson's diary of this year:—

After many earnest prayers, mature deliberation, and the advice of an elder brother, I have decided within the last few months to enter again into the married state. The lady I have selected, and who has consented to become my second wife, is one whom I have every reason to believe possesses all the natural and Christian excellencies of my late wife. She is the eldest daughter of a pious and wealthy merchant, Mr. James Rogers Armstrong. For her my late wife also entertained a very particular esteem and affection, and, from her good sense, sound judgment, humble piety, and affectionate disposition, I doubt not but that she will make me a most interesting and valuable companion, a judicious house-wife, and an affectionate mother to my two children. Truly I love her with a pure heart fervently I receive her, and hope ever to treat and value her as the special token of my Heavenly Father's kindness after a season of His chastisement. If thou, Lord, see fit to spare us, may our union promote Thy glory and the salvation of sinners!

Dr. Ryerson's marriage with Miss Mary Armstrong, took place at Toronto, on the 8th of November 1833.

FOOTNOTES:

[38] While in England, Dr. Ryerson received the following note from Rev. Dr. J. P. Durbin, in which he said: After I parted with you at my house, I felt a strong inclination to engage your correspondence for our paper, at least once a week, if possible, for the benefit of our people and country, through the Church. Can you not write us by every packet? Information in regard to English Methodism will be particularly interesting, especially their financial arrangements. Do inquire diligently of them, and write us minutely for the good of our Zion.—H.

[39] In Epochs of Canadian Methodism, Dr. Ryerson says:—When the writer of these Essays was appointed a representative of the Canadian Conference to negotiate a union between the two Conferences in 1833, he carried a Petition to the King, signed by upwards of 20,000 inhabitants, against the Clergy Reserve Monopoly and the Establishment of a Dominant Church in Upper Canada. This petition was presented through Lord Stanley, the Colonial Secretary. Page 221.—H.

[40] Dr. Ryerson has left no record in his "Story" of the negotiations for this Union. His report, however, on the subject will be found on pages 193, 194, Vol. iv. of the Guardian for October 16th, 1833, from which I take the following extracts: On the 5th June, Rev. Messrs. Bunting, Beecham, Alder, and myself, examined the whole question in detail, and prepared an outline of the resolutions to be submitted to the British Conference, and recommended that a grant of L1,000 be appropriated the first year to the promotion of Canadian Missions. On the 2nd August these resolutions were introduced by Rev. John Beecham (Missionary Secretary). They were supported by Rev. Jabez Bunting, Rev. Jas. Wood (now in his 83rd year), and Rev. Robert Newton. A Committee was appointed to consider and report on the whole matter consisting of the President, Secretary, and seven ex-Presidents, the Irish representatives (Messrs. Waugh, Stewart, and Doolittle), and fifteen other ministers. This Committee considered and reported these resolutions, which were adopted and forms the basis of the Articles of Union. Hereafter, the name of our Church will be changed from "The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada," to "The Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America."—H.



CHAPTER XI.

1833-1834.

"Impressions" of England and their Effects.

On my return to Canada, after having negotiated the Union of 1833 with the English Conference, accompanied by Rev. George Marsden, as first President of the Canadian Conference, I was re-elected editor of the Christian Guardian, and continued as such until 1835, when I refused re-election, and was appointed to Kingston; but in November of the same year, the President of the Conference appointed from England (Rev. William Lord) insisted upon my going to England to arrange pecuniary difficulties, which had arisen between him and the London Wesleyan Missionary Committee.

Except the foregoing paragraph, Dr. Ryerson has left no particulars of the events which transpired in his history from the period of his return to Canada in September, 1833, until some time in 1835. I have, therefore, selected what follows in this chapter, from his letters and papers, to illustrate this busy and eventful portion of his active life.

The principal circumstance which occurred at this time was the publication of his somewhat famous "Impressions" of public men and parties in England. This event marked an important epoch in his life, if not in the history of the country.

The publication of these "Impressions" during this year created quite a sensation. Dr. Ryerson was immediately assailed with a storm of invective by the chief leaders of the ultra section of politicians with whom he had generally acted. By the more moderate section and by the public generally he was hailed as the champion, if not the deliverer, of those who were really alarmed at the rapid strides towards disloyalty and revolution, to which these extreme men were impelling the people. This feature of the unlooked for and bitter controversy, which followed the publication of these "impressions," will be developed further on.

October 2d, 1833.—On this day the Upper Canada Conference ratified the articles of union between it and the British Conference, which were agreed upon at the Manchester Conference on the 7th of August. (See note on page 119.)[41] At the Conference held this year in York (Toronto), Dr. Ryerson was again elected editor of the Guardian. He entered on the duties of that office on the 16th October.

October 30th.—In reply to the many questions put to Dr. Ryerson on his return to Canada, such as: "What do you think of England?" "What is your opinion of her public men, her institutions?" etc., etc., he published in the Guardian of this day the first part of "Impressions made by my late visit to England," in regard to public men, religious bodies, and the general state of the nation. He said:—

There are three great political parties in England—Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, and two descriptions of characters constituting each party. Of the first, there is the moderate and the ultra tory. An English ultra tory is what we believe has usually been meant and understood in Canada by the unqualified term tory; that is, a lordling in power, a tyrant in politics, and a bigot in religion. This description of partizans, we believe, is headed by the Duke of Cumberland, and is followed not "afar off" by that powerful party, which presents such a formidable array of numbers, rank, wealth, talent, science, and literature, headed by the hero of Waterloo. This shade of the tory party appears to be headed in the House of Commons by Sir Robert Inglis, member for the Oxford University, and is supported, on most questions, by that most subtle and ingenious politician and fascinating speaker, Sir Robert Peel, with his numerous train of followers and admirers. Among those who support the distinguishing measures of this party are men of the highest Christian virtue and piety; and, our decided impression is, that it embraces the major part of the talent, and wealth, and learning of the British Nation. The acknowledged and leading organs of this party are Blackwood's Magazine and the London Quarterly Review.

The other branch of this great political party is what is called the moderate tory. In political theory he agrees with his high-toned neighbour; but he acts from religious principle, and this governs his private as well as his public life. To this class belongs a considerable portion of the Evangelical Clergy, and, we think, a majority of the Wesleyan Methodists. It evidently includes the great body of the piety, Christian enterprise, and sterling virtue of the nation. It is, in time of party excitement, alike hated and denounced by the ultra Tory, the crabbed Whig, and the Radical leveller. Such was our impression of the true character of what, by the periodical press in England, is termed a moderate Tory. From his theories we in some respects dissent; but his integrity, his honesty, his consistency, his genuine liberality, and religious beneficence, claim respect and imitation.

The second great political and now ruling party in England are the Whigs—a term synonymous with whey, applied, it is said, to this political school, from the sour and peevish temper manifested by its first disciples—though it is now rather popular than otherwise in England. The Whig appears to differ in theory from the Tory in this, that he interprets the constitution, obedience to it, and all measures in regard to its administration, upon the principles of expediency; and is, therefore, always pliant in his professions, and is even ready to suit his measures to "the times"; an indefinite term, that also designates the most extensively circulated daily paper in England, or in the world, which is the leading organ of the Whig party, backed by the formidable power and lofty periods of the Edinburgh Review. The leaders of this party in the House of Lords are Earl Grey and the Lord Chancellor Brougham; at the head of the list in the House of Commons stands the names of Mr. Stanley, Lord Althorp, Lord John Russell, and Mr. T. B. Macaulay. In this class are also included many of the most learned and popular ministers of Dissenting congregations.

The third political sect is called Radicals, apparently headed by Messrs. Joseph Hume and Thomas Attwood; the former of whom, though acute, indefatigable, persevering, popular on financial questions, and always to the point, and heard with respect and attention in the House of Commons, has no influence as a religious man; has never been known to promote any religious measure or object as such, and has opposed every measure for the better observance of the Sabbath, and even introduced a motion to defeat the bill for the abolition of colonial slavery; and Mr. Attwood, the head of the celebrated Birmingham political Union, is a conceited, boisterous, hollow-headed declaimer.

Radicalism in England appeared to me to be but another word for Republicanism, with the name of King instead of President. The notorious infidel character of the majority of the political leaders and periodical publications of their party, deterred the virtuous part of the nation from associating with them, though some of the brightest ornaments of the English pulpit and nation have leaned to their leading doctrines in theory. It is not a little remarkable that that very description of the public press, which in England advocates the lowest radicalism, is the foremost in opposing and slandering the Methodists in this Province. Hence the fact that some of these editors have been amongst the lowest of the English radicals previous to their egress from the mother country.

Upon the whole, our impressions of the religious and moral character, and influence, of the several political parties into which the British nation is unhappily divided, were materially different in some respects, from personal observation, from what they had been by hear-say and reading.

On the very evening of the day in which the foregoing appeared, Mr. W. L. Mackenzie (in the Colonial Advocate of Oct. 30th), denounced the writer of these "Impressions" in no measured terms. His denunciation proved that he clearly perceived what would be the effect on the public mind of Dr. Ryerson's candid and outspoken criticisms on men and things in England—especially his adverse opinion of the English idols of (what subsequently proved to be) the disloyal section of the public men of the day in Upper Canada and their followers.

Mr. Mackenzie's vehement attack upon the writer of these "Impressions" had its effect at the time. In some minds a belief in the truth of that attack lingered long afterwards—but not in the minds of those who could distinguish between honest conviction, based upon actual knowledge, and pre-conceived opinions, based upon hearsay and a superficial acquaintance with men and things.

As the troubled period of 1837 approached, hundreds had reason to be thankful to Dr. Ryerson that the publication of his "Impressions" had, without design on his part, led to the disruption of a party which was being hurried to the brink of a precipice, over which so many well meaning, but misguided, men fell in the winter of 1837, never to rise again.

It was a proud boast of Dr. Ryerson (as he states in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," page 385), that in these disastrous times not a single member of the Methodist Church was implicated in the disloyal rebellion of 1837-8. He attributed this gratifying state of things to the fact that he had uttered the notes of warning in sufficient time to enable the readers of the Guardian to pause and think; and that, with a just appreciation of their danger, members of the Society had separated themselves from all connection with projects and opinions which logically would have placed them in a position of defiant hostility to the Queen and constitution.

But, to return. The outburst of Mr. Mackenzie's wrath, which immediately followed (on the evening of the same day) the publication of Dr. Ryerson's "Impressions," was as follows:—

The Christian Guardian, under the management of Egerton Ryerson, has gone over to the enemy,—press, types, and all,—and hoisted the colours of a cruel, vindictive, Tory priesthood.... The contents of the Guardian of to-night tells us in language too plain, too intelligible to be misunderstood, that a deadly blow has been struck in England at the liberties of the people of Upper Canada, by as subtle and ungrateful an adversary, in the guise of an old and familiar friend, as ever crossed the Atlantic.

In his "Almanac," issued on the same day, Mr. Mackenzie also used similar language. He said:—

The arch-apostate Egerton, alias Arnold, Ryerson, and the Christian Guardian goes over to Strachan and the Tories.

Nov. 6th.—In the Guardian of this day Dr. Ryerson inserted an extended reply to Mr. Mackenzie, and, in calm and dignified language, gave the reasons which induced him to publish his "Impressions." He said:—

We did so,—1st, As a subject of useful information; 2nd, To correct an erroneous impression that had been industriously created, that we were identified in our feelings and purposes with some one political party; 3rd, To furnish an instructive moral to the Christian reader, not to be a passive or active tool, or the blind, thorough-going follower of any political party as such. We considered this called for at the present time on both religious and patriotic grounds. We designed this expression of our sentiments, and this means of removing groundless prejudice and hostility in the least objectionable and offensive way, and without coming in contact with any political party in Canada, or giving offence to any, except those who had shown an inveterate and unprincipled hostility to Methodism. We therefore associated the Canadian ultra tory with the English radical, because we were convinced of their identity in moral essence, and that the only essential difference between them is, that the one is top and the other bottom. We therefore said, "that very description of the public press which in England advocates the lowest radicalism, is the foremost in opposing and slandering the Methodists in this Province."

That our Christian brethren throughout the Province, and every sincere friend to Methodism, do not wish us to be an organized political party, we are fully assured—that it is inconsistent with our profession and duty to become such. Out of scores of expressions to the same effect we might quote quite abundantly from the Guardian, but our readers are aware of them.

That the decided part we have felt it our duty to take in obtaining and securing our rights in regard of the Clergy Reserve Question, has had a remote or indirect tendency to promote Mr. Mackenzie's political measures, we readily admit; but that we have ever supported a measure, or given publicity to any documents from Mr. Mackenzie, or any other political man in Canada, on any other grounds than this, we totally deny.

Mr. Mackenzie's attack rests on four grounds: 1. That our language was so explicit as to remove every doubt and hope of our encouraging a "thick and thin" partizanship with him, or any man or set of men in Canada; or, 2. That we did not speak in opprobrious, but rather favourable terms, of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor; or, 3. That we expressed our approbation of the principles and colonial policy of Lord Goderich (now Earl Ripon), and those who agree with him; or 4. That we alluded to Mr. Hume in terms not sufficiently complimentary. If Mr. Mackenzie's wishes are crossed and his wrath inflamed, because we have not entered our protest against His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, we could not do so after we had learned the views of His Majesty's Government, in a reply of His Excellency to an address of our Conference about two years ago,[42] when every unfavourable impression had been removed, and when good-will was expressed towards the Methodists as a people; we have not so learned to forgive injuries—we have not so learned to "honour and obey magistrates,"—we have not so learned our duty as a minister, and as a Christian. We, as a religious body, and as the organ of a religious body, have only to do with Sir John Colborne's administration, as far as it concerns our character and rights as British subjects; His Excellency's measures and administration in merely secular matters lie within the peculiar province of the political journalists and politicians of the day. If our offering a tribute of grateful respect to Lord Goderich, who had declared in his despatches to Canada his earnest desire to remove every bishop and priest from our Legislature, to secure the right of petitioning the King to the meanest subject in the realm, to extend the blessings of full religious liberty and the advantages of education to every class of British subjects in Canada, without distinction or partiality, and in every way to advance the interests of the Province;—if honouring such men and such principles be "hoisting the colours (as Mr. Mackenzie says), of a cruel, vindictive, Tory priesthood," then has Mr. Mackenzie the merit of a new discovery of vindictive cruelty, and with his own definition of liberty, and his own example of liberality, will he adopt his own honourable means to attain it, and breathe out death and destruction against all who do not incorporate themselves into a strait-jacket battalion under his political sword, and vow allegiance and responsibility to everything done by his "press, types, and all?"

Mr. Mackenzie did not reply to Dr. Ryerson in the spirit of his rejoinder. He was a master of personal invective, and he indulged in it in this instance, rather than discuss the questions raised on their merits. He, therefore, turned on Dr. Ryerson, and, over his shoulders, struck a blow at his venerable Father and his eldest Brother. He said:—

The Father of the Editor of the Guardian lifted his sword against the throats of his own countrymen struggling for freedom from established churches, stamp acts, military domination, Scotch governors, and Irish government; and his brother George figured on the frontier in the war of 1812, and got wounded and pensioned for fighting to preserve crown and clergy reserves, and all the other strongholds of corruption, in the hands of the locusts who infest and disturb this Province.

Dr. Ryerson's simple rejoinder to this attack on his Father and Brother was as follows:—

The man who could hold up the brave defenders of our homes and firesides to the scorn and contempt of their countrymen, must be lost to all patriotic and loyal feelings of humanity for those who took their lives in their hands in perilous times.

Nov. 14th.—As to the effect of the "impressions" upon the country generally, the following letter from Hallowell (Picton) written to Dr. Ryerson by his brother John, may be safely taken as an example of the feeling which they at first evoked. It is characterized by strong and vigorous language, indicative of the state of public opinion at the time. It is valuable from the fact that while it is outspoken in its criticism of Dr. Ryerson's views, it touches upon the point to which I have already referred, viz: the separation into two sections of the powerful party which was then noted as the champion of popular rights. Mr. Ryerson says:—

Your article on the Political Parties of England has created much excitement throughout these parts. The only good that can result from it is, the breaking up of the union which has hitherto existed between us and the radicals. Were it not for this, I should much regret its appearance. But we had got so closely linked with those extreme men, in one way or another, that we cannot expect to get rid of them without feeling the shock, and, perhaps, it may as well come now as anytime. It is our duty and interest to support the Government. Although there may be some abuses which have crept in, yet, I believe that we enjoy as many political and religious advantages as any people. Our public affairs are as well managed as in any other country. As it respects the Reformers, so called, take Baldwin, Bidwell, Rolph, and such men from their ranks, and there is scarcely one man of character or honour among them. I am sorry to say it, but it is so. The best way for the present is for us to have nothing to say about politics, but treat the Government with respect. Radcliffe, of the Cobourg Reformer, and Dr. Barker, of the Kingston Whig, have come out in their true character. Radcliffe is preparing a heavy charge against you. But let them come; fear them not! I hope they will show themselves now. I thought that you, in your reply to W. L. Mackenzie, did not speak in a sufficiently decided manner. You say you have not changed your views; but I hope you have in some respects. Although you never were a Radical, yet have not we all leaned too much towards them, and will we not now smart for it a little? But, the sooner it comes on, the sooner it will be over.

Rev. John Ryerson then gives the first intimation of the existence of that germ of hostility to the recently consummated Union on the part of the British Wesleyan Missionaries in this country—a hostility which became at length so deep and widespread as to destroy the Union itself—a union which was not fully restored until 1847. Mr. Ryerson points out the political animus of the movement, and proceeds:—

You see that the Missionaries are making great efforts to have Kingston and York made exceptions to the general arrangements. Should the English Committee listen to them, confidence will be entirely destroyed. Their object is to make the British Conference believe that we have supported Radical politics to an unlimited extent, and that, therefore, the people will not submit to the Union with such people; they (the Missionaries) are, however, the authors of the whole trouble. Rev. Mr. Hetherington told me that they were getting the back numbers of the Guardian to prove that we had been political intimidators! They say that Mr. Marsden, the President, told the members at Kingston that it they could make it appear that we had done this, they should be exempted from the Union, and be supplied with Missionaries from home.

In a subsequent letter from Rev. John Ryerson, he discusses his brother's "Impressions of Public Men in England," and utters a word of warning to the Methodist people who have allied themselves too closely with the disloyal party. He says:

What will be the result of your remarks in the Guardian on Political Parties in England, I cannot say. They will occasion much speculation, some jealousy, and bad feeling. I have sometimes thought you had better not have written them, particularly at this time, yet I have long been of the opinion (both with regard to measures and men) that we leaned too much towards Radicalism, and that it would be absolutely necessary to disengage ourselves from them entirely. You can see plainly that it is not Reform, but Revolution they are after. We should fare sumptuously, should we not, with W. L. Mackenzie, of Toronto, and Radcliffe, of Cobourg, for our rulers! I have also felt very unpleasant in noticing the endeavours of these men (aided by some of our members) to introduce their republican leaven into our Ecclesiastical polity. Is it not a little remarkable that not one of our members, who have entered into their politics, but has become a furious leveller in matters of Church Government, and these very men are the most regardless of our reputation, and the most ready to impugn our motives, and defame our character, when we, in any way, cross their path. There are some things in your remarks I don't like; but, on the whole, I am glad of their appearance, and I hope, whenever you have occasion to speak of the Government, you will do it in terms of respect. I am anxious that we should obtain the confidence of the Government, and entirely disconnect ourselves from that tribe of levellers, with whom we have been too intimate, and who are, at any time, ready to turn around and sell us when we fail to please them.

Nov. 20th.—In another letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother John, at this date, he says:—

I deeply feel for you in the present state of agitation and trial. My own heart aches and sickens within me at times; I have no doubt, however much of a philosopher you may be, that you at times participate in the same feelings; but, pursuing a conscientious course, I hope you will at times be able to say:

"Courage, my soul! thou need'st not fear, Thy great Provider still is near."

The following sympathetic letter from Dr. Ryerson's friend, Mr. E. C. Griffin, of Waterdown, written at the same time, gives another proof of the unreasoning prejudice of those whose knowledge of the outer world was circumscribed and superficial. In England, Dr. Ryerson saw things as they were. He was, therefore, not prepared for the burst of wrath that followed the plain recital of his "impressions" of men and things in England. Mr. Griffin writes:—

The respect I have for you and yours should at all times deter me from bearing evil tidings, yet the same consideration would make it a duty under peculiar circumstances. You have already learned that the public mind has been much agitated in consequence of your remarks in the Guardian on Mr. Joseph Hume, M.P., and Mr. Thomas Attwood, M.P. (see page 123). On this Circuit it is truly alarming—some of our most respectable Methodists are threatening to leave the Church. The general impression has obtained (however unjustly) that you have "turned downright Tory," which, in this country, whether moderate or ultra, seems to have but one meaning among the bulk of Reformers, and that is, as being an enemy to all reform and the correction of acknowledged abuses. This general impression among the people has created a feverish discontent among the Methodists. The excitement is so high that your subsequent explanation has seemed to be without its desired effect. I should be glad if you would state distinctly in the Guardian what you meant in your correspondence with the Colonial Secretary, when you said you had no desire to interfere with the present emoluments of the Church clergy (or words to that effect); and also of the term "equal protection to the different denominations." You are, doubtless, aware of the use made of these expressions by some of the journals, and, I am sorry to say, with too much effect. These remarks, taken in connection with those against Mr. Hume, is the pivot on which everything is turned against you, against the Guardian, and against the Methodists.

A few days later Dr. Ryerson received another letter from Mr. Griffin, in which he truthfully says:—

Perhaps there have not been many instances in which sophistry has been applied more effectually to injure an individual, or a body of Christians, as in the present instance. Whigs, tories, and radicals have all united to crush, I may say at a blow, the Methodists, and none have tried to do so more effectually than Mr. W. L. Mackenzie. He persisted in it so as to make his friends generally believe that the cause of reform was ruined by you. His abuse of you and your friends, and the Methodists, is more than I can stand. He has certainly manifested a great want of discernment, or he has acted from design. I see that the Hamilton Free Press has called in the aid of Mr. F. Collins, of the Canadian Freeman, to assist in abusing you and your whole family.

From Augusta, Rev. Anson Green wrote about the same time, and in a similar strain, but not so sympathetically. He says:—

I fear your impressions are bad ones. Our people are all in an uproar about them.

Nov. 22nd.—Rev. William Ryerson writing from Kingston at this time, reports the state of feeling there. He says:—

As to the Guardian, I am sorry to inform you that it is becoming less popular than formerly. If your English "impressions" are not more acceptable and useful in other parts than they are here, it will add little to your credit, or to the usefulness of your paper to publish any more of them. I know that you have been shamefully abused, and treated in a most base manner, and by no one so much so as by Mr. Radcliffe of the Cobourg Reformer. I hope you will expose the statements and figures of the Reformer to our friends. It is rather unfortunate that if you did intend, as is said, to conciliate the Tory party in this country, you should have expressed yourself in such a way as to be so much misunderstood.

Nov. 23rd.—Rev. Alvah A. Adams, writing from Prescott, says:—

There are a few disturbances in our Zion. Some are bent on making mischief. You need not be surprised that the Grenville Gazette speaks so contemptuously of you and the cause in which you have been, and are still, engaged. There are reasons why you need not marvel at the great torrent of scurrilous invectives with which his useless columns have of late abounded.

Nov. 23rd.—Although not so intended by Dr. Ryerson, yet the publication of his "impressions," had the effect of developing the plans of Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, and those who acted with him, much more rapidly and fully than they could have anticipated. In the second supplement to his Colonial Advocate, published November 23rd, Mr. Mackenzie used this unmistakeable language:—

The local authorities have no means to protect themselves against an injured people, if they persist in their unconstitutional career.... There are not military enough to uphold a bad government for an hour, if the Rubicon has been passed; and well does Sir John Colborne know that although he may hire regiments of priests here, he may expect no more red-coats from Europe in those days of economy.... He also knows that if we are to take examples from the Mother Country, the arbitrary proceedings of the officers of his government are such as would warrant the people to an open and armed resistance.

Dec. 6th.—Dr. Ryerson having received a protest from five of his ministerial brethren in the Niagara District,[43] against his "impressions" he wrote a remonstrance to each of them, but this did not appease them. Rev. David Wright said:—

As an individual I am not at all satisfied either with the course you have taken or the explanation given. Could you witness the confused state of our Church on Stamford Circuit; the insults we receive, both from many of our members and others of good standing, you would at once see the propriety of the steps we have taken for our defence. Hardly a tea-party or meeting of any kind, but the Guardian is the topic of conversation, and the conversion of its editor and all the preachers to Toryism. The Ranters and the Ryanites are very busy, and are doing us much harm. I am more and more convinced of the imprudence of the course you have taken, especially at this trying time in our Church. In Queenston, Drummondville, Chippewa, Erie, St. Davids, the Lane, and Lyons' Creek the preachers are hooted at as they ride by. This is rather trying. I assure you.

Rev. James Evans said:—

You request me not to solicit any to continue the Guardian who are dissatisfied, and who wish to discontinue. This is worse than all beside. And do you suppose that, in opposition to the wish of the Conference, and interest of the Church, I shall pay attention to your request? No, my brother, I cannot; I will not. It shall be my endeavour to obtain and continue subscribers by allaying as far as practicable, their fears, rather than by telling them that they may discontinue and you will abide the consequences. I am astonished! I can only account for your strange and, I am sure, un-Ryersonian conduct and advice on one principle—that there is something ahead which you, through your superior political spyglass, have discovered and thus shape your course, while we land-lubbers, short-sighted as we are, have not even heard of it.

Dr. Ryerson, therefore, challenged these five ministers to proceed against him as provided by the Discipline of the Church. In his reply to them, he lays down some important principles in regard to the rights of an editor, and the duty of his ministerial accusers. He said:—

I beg to say that I cannot publish the criminating declaration of which you speak. You will therefore act your pleasure in publishing it elsewhere. The charges against me are either true or false. If they are true, are you proceeding in the disciplinary way against me? Though I am editor for the Conference, yet I have individual rights as well as you; and the increased responsibility of my situation should, under those rights, if possible, be still more sacred. And if our Conference will place a watchman upon the wall of our Zion, and then allow its members to plunge their swords into him whenever they think he has departed from his duty, without even giving him a court-martial trial, then they are a different description of men from what I think they are. If, as you say, I have been guilty of imprudent conduct, or even "misrepresented my brethren," make your complaint to my Presiding Elder, according to discipline, and then may the decision of the Committee be published in the Guardian, or anywhere else that they may say. So much for the disciplinary course. Again, if "the clamour," as you call it, against the Guardian be well founded, are you helping the Guardian by corroborating the statement of that clamour? Can Brother James Evans consistently or conscientiously ask an individual to take, or continue to take the Guardian, when he or you publish to the world the belief that its principles are changed? Will this quiet the "clamour?" Will this reconcile the members? Will this unite the preachers? Will this promote the harmony of the Church? Will it not be a fire-brand rather than the "seeds of commotion?" One or two others here got a meeting of the male members of the York Society, and proposed resolutions similar in substance to yours, which were opposed and reprobated by brother Richardson, on the very disciplinary and prudential ground of which I speak, and rejected by the Society. In your declaration you say (not on account of "clamour," or accusations of editors or others, but on account of editorial remarks in the Guardian), "you express your sentiments to save your character from aspersion." In this you imply that the editor of the Guardian has misrepresented your sentiments, and aspersed your character; and, if so, has he not changed his principles? And, if he has changed his principles, is he not guilty of falsehood, since he has positively declared to the reverse? You therefore virtually charge him with inconsistency, misrepresentation, and deliberate falsehood. Is this the fruit of brotherly love? Again, you say that "our political sentiments are the same as before the visit of the editor of the Guardian to England." Is not this equal to asserting that the editor's sentiments are not the same? You therefore say that you love me; that you desire the peace of the Church, and the interests of the Guardian, yet you propose a course which will confirm the slanders of my enemies—to implicate me with inconsistency and falsehood—to injure the Guardian, and deprive yourselves of the power, as men of honour and truth, to recommend it—to kindle and sanction dissatisfaction among our Church members—to arm preacher against preacher—and to criminate a brother before the public, without a disciplinary trial. You say "our friends are looking out for it." Is this the way, my brother, that you have quieted their minds, by telling them that you also were going to criminate the editor? If this be so, I am not surprised that there is dissatisfaction on your circuit. Brother Evans said that nothing but a denial of having changed my opinions, and an explicit statement of them, would satisfy our friends. I did so, and did so plainly and conscientiously. Yet you do not even allude to this expression of my sentiments, but still insist upon doing what is far more than taking my life—stabbing my principles and integrity. I ask if this is my reward for endangering my life and enduring unparalleled labours, to save the Societies heretofore from being rent to the very centre, and enduring ceaseless storms of slander and persecution for years past in defending the abused character of my brethren? Are they the first to lift up their heel against me? Will they join in the hue and cry against me, rather than endure a "hoot," when I am unjustly treated and basely slandered? I hope I have not fallen into such hands.

Dr. Ryerson received at this time a candid and kindly characteristic letter from his youngest brother, Edwy, at Stamford, which indicated that a reaction was taking place in regard to the much discussed "impressions." He says:—

The present agitated state of the Societies, partly from the Union, and, in a greater degree, from your "impressions" (which would have been a blessing to our Societies, had they never been published) make it very unpleasant to ask even for subscriptions to the Guardian. We are here in a state of commotion; politics run high, and religion low. "The Guardian has turned Tory," is the hue and cry, and many appear to be under greater concern about it, than they ever were about the salvation of their souls. Many again, have got wonderfully wise, and pretend to reveal (as a friend, but in reality as an enemy) the secrets of your policy. Under these unpleasant circumstances, the Ranters have availed themselves of the opportunity of planting themselves at nearly all our posts, and sowing tares in our Societies.

You have received a protest, signed by several preachers, and my name among them. Those were my impressions at the time. Therefore I thought it my duty, in connection with my brethren, to make my protest. I have, however (since seeing the Guardian), been led to believe you had not changed from what you were. Many of the preachers are rejoiced that you were put in the editorial chair, and feel strongly disposed to exert their influence that you may not be displaced.

Dec. 2nd.—On this day Dr. Ryerson received a kind word of encouragement from Mr. Alex. Davidson, a literary friend in Port Hope, afterwards of Niagara. He said:—

I have had an opportunity of seeing most of the provincial papers. They exhibit a miserable picture of the state of the press. The conduct of the editors ought, I think, to be exposed. I have been afraid that from such unmerited abuse, you would quit the Guardian in disgust, and I am glad to see that, though your mind may be as sensitive as that of any other person, you remain firm.

Another indication of the reaction in regard to the "impressions" is mentioned in a note received from Rev. Ephraim Evans, Trafalgar. He says:—

Mr. Thos. Cartwright, of Streetsville, who had given up the Guardian, has ordered it to be sent to him again so that he may not seem to countenance the clamour that has been raised against you. Mr. Evans adds: "I am happy to find that the agitation produced by the unwarrantable conduct of the press generally, is rapidly subsiding; and, I trust, nay, am certain, that the late avowal of your sentiments, will be perfectly satisfactory to every sensible and ingenuous mind. I am, upon the whole, led to believe that Methodism will weather out this storm also, and lose not a spar."

Dec. 6th.—Among the many letters of sympathy received by Dr. Ryerson at this time, was one from his Father, in which he says:—

I perceive by the papers that you have met with tempestuous weather. I devoutly hope that the Great Pilot will conduct you safely through the rocks and quicksands on either side.

Jan. 6th, 1834.—In a letter from Rev. Anson Green, at Augusta, it was apparent that the tide of popular opinion against Dr. Ryerson had turned. He said:—

I have been very much pleased indeed with the Guardian during the last few months. There is a very great improvement in it. In this opinion I am not alone. Your remarks on the Clergy Reserve question were very timely and highly satisfactory. A number of our brethren have wished me to express to you the pleasure they feel in the course which you have pursued as editor. There has been very great prejudice against you in these parts, among preachers and people, but I think they are dying out and will, I trust, shortly entirely disappear. I hope we shall soon see "eye to eye."

March 5th.—In the Guardian of this day, Dr. Ryerson intimated that:—

Among many schemes resorted to by the abbettors of Mr. Mackenzie to injure me, was the circulation of all kinds of rumours against my character and standing as a minister. For proof, it was represented that I was denied access to the Wesleyan pulpit in this town. When these statements were made early in the year, the stewards and leaders of the York Society met on the 11th of last January, and passed a resolution to the effect

That being anxious, lest, under exciting circumstances, you might be tempted to withhold your ministrations from the York congregation, they desire their Secretary to inform you that it is their wish, and they believe it a duty you owe to the Church of Christ, to favour it with your views on His unsearchable riches as often as an opportunity may present itself.

As these rumours have now been revived, I published this resolution in the Guardian of to-day.

The capital offence charged against Dr. Ryerson in publishing his "impressions" was his exposure of Joseph Hume, M.P., the friend and patron of Mr. Mackenzie. (See pages 118 and 123.) In the Guardian of December 11th, Dr. Ryerson fully met that charge. Among other things he pointed out:—

1st. That, having voted for a Church establishment in India, Mr. Hume was the last man who should have been entrusted with petitions from Upper Canada, against a Church establishment in Upper Canada. 2nd. That Methodists emigrating to this country, when they learn that Mr. Hume is regarded as a sort of representative of the principles of the Methodists in Upper Canada, immediately imbibe strong prejudices against them, refusing to unite with them, and even strongly opposing them, saying that such Methodists are Radicals—a term which, in England, conveys precisely the same idea that the term Republican does in this Province. Thus the prejudices which exist between a portion of the Canadian and British Methodists here, are heightened, and the breach widened. 3rd. That even adherents of the Church of England here who were Reformers in England join the ranks of those opposed to us when they know that Mr. Hume is a chosen representative of our views in England; for the personal animosity between the Whigs and Reformers and Radicals in England is more bitter, if possible, than between the Radicals and Tories, and far more rancorous than between the Whigs and Tories. There is just as much difference between an English Reformer and an avowed English Radical as there is between a Canadian Reformer and an avowed Canadian Republican. In the interests of the Methodists, therefore, religiously and politically, the allusion to Mr. Hume was justifiable and necessary. Dr. Ryerson continues:—

I may mention that so strongly impressed was I with these views, that in an interview which I had with Mr. Secretary Stanley, a few days before the Clergy Reserve petitions were presented by Mr. Hume, I remarked that the people of Upper Canada, not being acquainted with public men in England, had sent them to the care of a gentleman of influence in the financial affairs of Great Britain, but that I was apprehensive that he was not the best qualified to advocate a purely legal and religious question. Mr. Secretary Stanley smilingly interrupted me by asking "Is it Hume?" I replied, "It is, but I hope this circumstance will not have the least influence upon your mind, Mr. Secretary Stanley, in giving the subject that important and full consideration which its great importance demands." Mr. Stanley replied: "No, Mr. Ryerson, be assured that the subject will not be in the least prejudiced in my mind by any circumstance of that kind; but I shall give it the most important and grave consideration."

May 24th.—Within three months after Dr. Ryerson had stated these facts in regard to Mr. Hume, overwhelming evidence of the correctness of his statement that Mr. Hume was unfit to act as a representative, in the British Parliament, of the people of Upper Canada, was given by Mr. Hume himself in a letter addressed to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, dated 29th March, 1834. In that letter Mr. Hume stated that Mr. Mackenzie's

Election to, and subsequent ejection from the Legislature, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, and which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country.

He also advised that

The proceedings between 1772 and 1782 in America ought not to be forgotten; and to the honour of the Americans, for the interests of the civilized world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view.

Dr. Ryerson added: There is no mistaking the revolutionary and treasonable character of this advice given to Canadians through Mr. W. L. Mackenzie. Yet I have been denounced for exposing the designs of such revolutionary advisers!

The following is an extract from Mr. W. L. Mackenzie's remarks in the Colonial Advocate on Mr. Hume's letter:—

The indignant feeling of the honest old Reformer (Hume), when he became acquainted with the heartless slanders of the unprincipled ingrate Ryerson, may be easily conceived from the tone of his letter.... Mr. Mackenzie will be prepared to hand the original letter to the Methodist Conference.

June 4th.—In the Guardian of this date, Dr. Ryerson replied at length to Mr. Hume's letter, pointing out how utterly and totally false were Mr. Hume's statements in regard to himself. He, in June, 1832, expressed his opinion of Mr. Hume (pages 118 and 123). He then said:—