In a letter from London, dated 21st July, 1836, Dr. Ryerson narrates the difficulties which he had encountered in obtaining a Charter for the Upper Canada Academy. The correspondence with the Colonial Office embraced twenty-nine letters, and extended over a period of six months. In conducting it, Dr. Ryerson states:—I found those in the Colonial Office, and those who retired from it (during that time) equally favourable to the object of my mission, and equally desirous of promoting the best interests of the Colonies. In his report of the negotiations for the Charter, Dr. Ryerson says:—

The Attorney-General assured me that not only Lord Glenelg, but every member of His Majesty's Government was anxious to accede to my application—that the difficulties were purely legal—that though the doctrines and rules of the Methodist body in Canada were doubtless very sacred, yet they were unknown in law, (in England.) I, therefore, laid before the Crown officers[48] a copy of the statutes of Upper Canada (which I had borrowed from the Colonial office), and showed the grounds on which we professed to be invested with the clerical character by the statutes of the Province, as well as by the formularies of our connexion, and were recognized as ministers by the Courts of Quarter Sessions; that we might be defined as ministers (for the purposes of the Charter) as in the Marriage Statute of U.C., which would be the same thing as being defined according to the Rules of our Discipline. Placing the question before the Crown officers in this simple light, their scruples were at once removed, and they cordially acceded to my proposition to recognize our ministerial character. As I was required to name in the Charter the first trustees and visitors, and as I had no list of those who had been appointed by the Conference, I was obliged to furnish names myself. I was also required to name in the Charter the time and place of the next Annual Meeting (Conference) of Ministers. I inserted the second Wednesday of June as the time of meeting; Cobourg, or Toronto, as the place of meeting.

With the aid of a professional gentleman (whom I could only get for a small portion of each day) the draft of Charter was prepared after a delay of five weeks. This draft was approved, with the exception of the words: Wesleyan Methodist Church, for which the Solicitor-General had substituted the words: Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, as the designation of the Body on whose behalf a Charter was to be granted. In a letter to Sir George Grey I stated my reasons why the word Church should be retained, as the Wesleyan ministers, under whose superintendence the Academy is to be placed, had been licensed (under the Provincial Statute referred to in the Charter) as Ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada. To these reasons the Crown Officers yielded, and thus the Charter was completed.

I then renewed my application for receiving aid from the Casual and Territorial Revenue of Upper Canada. In reply, I was assured that the Lieutenant-Governor would be directed to bring the claims of the Academy before the notice of the Provincial Legislature.

Dr. Ryerson concludes:—

Thus terminated this protracted correspondence of more than six months, during the whole of which time I was enabled to cleave to and maintain my original purpose; though I had to encounter successive, discouraging, and almost insurmountable difficulties. Not having been able to effect any loan from private individuals, on account of the agitated state of the Canadas—being in suspense as to the result of my application to the Government, I was several months pressed down with anxiety and fear by this suspense, and by reason of the failure of my efforts to obtain relief. In this anxiety and fear my own unassisted resolution and fortitude could not sustain me. I had to rely upon the unfailing support of the Lord, my God.

In my negotiations for the Charter, I was uniformly treated with courtesy and kindness in the Colonial office, and by the several members of His Majesty's Government. Praise God!

In a letter written to Dr. Alder, after Dr. Ryerson had returned from England, the latter said:—

We have not yet received a farthing of the Government grant to our Academy. The Governor's reply still is, there is no money in the treasury; but he has given us his written promise, and offered his word to any of the banks, that it shall be paid out of the first money which had not been previously appropriated. But, strange to say, there is not a bank or banker in Upper Canada that will take the Governor's promise for L100. Mr. Receiver-General Dunn kindly lent, out of his own pocket, to my brother John, about L1,200 for the Academy, upon my brother's receipt, remarking at the same time that he did it upon his credit, and out of respect to the Methodists, but that he could place no dependence upon the word of Sir Francis in the matter. We are thus pressed to beg or borrow in relation to the Academy as much as ever, or even worse, for several of us are individually responsible for L2,200, besides Mr. Farmer's loan of L800. At our recent Academy Board Meeting, the damages of Mr. Lord's protested bills came under consideration. The circumstances of the case are briefly as follows:—Mr. Lord's sincere desire and zeal to promote the interests of the Institution and Connexion generally, were admitted and appreciated by all the brethren; but it appears, 1. That a large portion of the debts were incurred in compliance with the advice of Mr. Lord, and in consequence of his influence as the representative of the British Connexion. He assured the Sub-Committee at Cobourg that money should be forthcoming, and if necessary he would go to England and beg it, that John Bull never stopped when he commenced a thing, etc.; that Mr. Lord did that contrary to the recommendation of the Conference Committee, and against the advice and even remonstrance of the Chairman of the District (John Ryerson), who had been appointed by the Conference to see that the Sub-Committee should not exceed the appropriations of the Conference, as they had done in former years. 2. The premises were mortgaged to Mr. Lord as security for the sum of L2500, some of which has not been advanced, and the payments of which he did advance were provided for (with the exception of two or three hundred pounds) by the brethren in this Province. 3. After Mr. Lord received information from the Committee in London that his bills would not be honoured, he called a meeting of the Board—stated his difficulties—got individuals to allow him to draw upon them to meet the bills on their return, and sent me to England. 4. Mr. Lord assured our Conference at Belleville, June, 1836, that the brethren here would never be called upon to pay a farthing of the damages for non-payment of his bills. I believe that no man could feel more earnestly desirous to promote the interests of the Canadian Connexion in every respect than he did. It is also the full conviction of our leading brethren that had I attended the American General Conference, instead of being in England, such an arrangement would have been made as to have secured to our Connexion what was due us from the New York Book Concern—which amounts to more than I obtained in England, besides the mortification and mental suffering which I experienced in my most unpleasant engagements, notwithstanding the sympathy and never-to-be-forgotten kindness of many of my fathers and brethren of the parent Connexion.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] Sir J. Campbell, afterwards Chief Justice, and Sir R. M. Rolfe, afterwards a Baron of the Exchequer.



CHAPTER XVII.

1836.

Publication of The Hume and Roebuck Letters.

In a letter from London, dated 29th April, 1836, Dr. Ryerson said:—

This day week I went to the House of Commons to hear the debates on the motions relative to the Canadas, of which Messrs. Roebuck and Hume had given notice. As Mr. Roebuck was about to bring forward his motion, the House of 202 members thinned to 50 or 60 members. Under these circumstances he postponed it for a week, in the hope that a sufficient number of members would give him an opportunity to make a speech in return for the L1,100 a year paid to him as Agent of "the poor and oppressed Canadians." When Mr. Hume brought forward his motion there were only 43 members present. I thought how much Canada was benefitted by such men who could only command the attention of 50 out of the 658 members of the House of Commons! I know not a man more disliked and despised by all parties in the House than is Mr. Roebuck—a man who has been employed to establish (as he says in one of his letters to Mr. Papineau) a "pure democracy in the Canadas." One of the serious drawbacks to the credit and interests of our country, amongst public and business men of all parties in England, is their supposed connection with such a restless political cynic as Mr. Roebuck, and such an acknowledged and avowed colonial separationist as Mr. Hume.

In regard to these proceedings of Messrs. Hume and Roebuck, Dr. Ryerson writes, in this part of the Story of his Life, as follows:—

It was during the early part of 1836 that I was accosted by almost every gentleman to whom I was introduced in England with words, "You in Canada are going to separate from England, and set up a republic for yourselves!" I denied that there was any such feeling among the people of Canada, who desired certain reforms, and redress of grievances, but were as loyal as any people in England.

After the Canadian elections of 1836, Dr. Charles Duncombe (afterwards leader of the rebels in the County of Oxford) came to England, the bearer of petitions got up by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and his partizans and crammed Mr. Hume to make a formidable assault upon the British Canadian Government. In presenting the Canadian petition Mr. Hume made an elaborate speech, full of exaggerations and mis-statements from beginning to end. I was requested to take a seat under the gallery, and, while Mr. Hume was speaking as the mouth-piece of Dr. C. Duncombe, I furnished Lord Sandon and Mr. W. E. Gladstone with the materials for answers to Mr. Hume's mis-statements. Mr. Gladstone's quick perception, with Lord Sandon's promptings, kept the House in a roar of laughter at Mr. Hume's expense for more than an hour; the wonder being how Mr. Gladstone was so thoroughly informed on Canadian affairs. No member of the House of Commons seemed to be more astonished and confounded than Mr. Hume himself. He made no reply, and, as far as I know, never after spoke on Canadian affairs; and Mr. Roebuck soon ceased to be Agent for the Lower Canada House of Assembly. He has since become an ultra Conservative!

In a letter from London, dated 1st June, Dr. Ryerson says:—

Before Dr. Duncombe arrived in England, and seeing how much injury was being done to the reputation and influence of Canada by these representations, I commenced a series of letters in the London Times, designed to expose the machinations and mis-statements of Messrs. Hume and Roebuck in England, in regard to matters in Upper Canada, showing from their own letters to Messrs. Papineau and Mackenzie that they were the first prompters of the project.[49] To-day I also addressed a letter to Sir George Grey, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, on the political crisis in that Province. After discussing several matters relating to the recent election of a new House of Assembly, I concluded as follows:—As the affairs of the Province will now be taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, there are three subjects on which I would respectfully request an interview with Lord Glenelg, yourself, and Mr. [Sir James] Stephen. 1. The Clergy Reserve question—a plan to meet the circumstances of the Province, and yet not deprive the clergy of the Church of England of an adequate support. 2. The Legislative Council—how it may be rendered more influential and popular, without rendering it elective, or infringing (but rather strengthening) the prerogatives of the Crown. 3. The Executive—how its just authority, influence and popularity may be promoted and established, so as to prevent the occurrence of that embarrassment in which it is now involved, not from improper acts, but from an actual deficiency of the requisite operative means to secure the Royal Prerogative from insult and invasion. I am aware that each of these subjects is surrounded with difficulty, and that no plan proposed will be entirely free from objection, but I should like to state the views which my acquaintance with the Province has impressed on my own mind, and which I have not seen suggested in any official document or public journal, but which have been favourably thought of by two or three respectable gentlemen connected with Canada, to whom I have stated them.

In reply, Lord Glenelg appointed the following Monday for the desired interview. I afterwards embodied the substance of my views in a letter to Sir George Grey.

No further reference is made to this interview by Dr. Ryerson. But in a letter from him, dated 21st July, he says:—

I was applied to, and did, in my individual capacity, communicate to the Colonial Secretary frequently, and in one or two instances at great length, on the posture of Canadian affairs; and the parties and principal questions which have divided and agitated the Canadian public. I repeatedly received the thanks of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the pains which I had taken in these matters; but what influence my communications may have had, or may have, on the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Canadas is not for me to say, as I desired Lord Glenelg not to assume, prima facie, as correct, any of my representations, but to examine my authorities—to weigh my arguments—to hear what could be said by others—as I had no friends to recommend to office, and no personal interests to promote, only the religious and general peace and prosperity of the Canadas, and the maintenance of a firm and mutually beneficial connection between these Colonies and the parent State.

I think I have good reason to believe that much more correct and decided views are entertained by His Majesty's ministers and many public men in England, in respect to the interests and government of the Canadas, than were possessed by them six months ago; and that all of those inhabitants of the Colonies, who patriotically maintain their Christian and constitutional allegiance, will ensure the respect, equal and firm protection, and parental regard of their Sovereign and his government, by whatever party it may be administered.

In a letter from London, dated 26th July (page 154), Dr. Ryerson says:—Mr. William Lunn, of Montreal, has just arrived from Quebec. He informs me that—

My letters to the London Times, on Hume and Roebuck, have produced the most amazing effect upon the public mind of the Province, of anything that I ever wrote. To the Lord be all the praise for his great goodness, after all our toil and suffering. There is nothing like integrity of principle and faithfulness in duty, in humble dependence upon the Lord, and with an eye to His glory!

FOOTNOTES:

[49] The British North American Association of Merchants had these letters reprinted from The Times newspaper, and a copy sent to each member of Parliament, both of the Lords and Commons. They were signed, "A Canadian."



CHAPTER XVIII.

1836-1837.

Important Events Transpiring in Upper Canada.

Dr. Ryerson was absent in England from 20th November, 1835, to 12th June, 1837. On the 15th of January, 1836, Sir John Colborne, by order in Council, endowed fifty-seven Rectories in Upper Canada out of the Clergy Reserve Lands. On the 23rd of that month Sir F. B. Head, the new Governor, arrived in Toronto. On the 14th of January following, he opened the Session of the Legislature. What followed was reported to Dr. Ryerson by his friend, Mr. S. S. Junkin, in a letter, dated, Toronto, 1st May:—

Our Parliament was prorogued on the 20th April, after such a session as was never before known in Upper Canada. You will form some idea of the state of affairs when I tell you that it "stopped the supplies," and the Governor reserved all of the money bills, (twelve)—including that for the contingences of the House,—for the King's pleasure.

The immediate cause of the rupture between the new Governor (Sir F. B. Head) and the House of Assembly—

Arose out of the resignation of the Executive Council. On the 20th February, the Governor (as directed by Lord Glenelg) added three Reformers to his Council, viz.: Messrs. Robert Baldwin, John Rolph, and John Henry Dunn. On the 4th March, these gentlemen and the Conservative members, (Messrs. Peter Robinson, George H. Markland, and Joseph Wells) resigned. They complained that they were held responsible for measures which they never advised, and for a policy to which they were strangers. In reply the Governor stated in substance that he alone was responsible for the acts of his government, and was at liberty to have resource to their advice only when he required it; but that to consult them on all questions would be "utterly impossible." This answer was referred to a Committee of the House of Assembly, which brought in a report censuring the Governor in the strongest terms. On the 14th March, Sir F. B. Head appointed Messrs. R. B. Sullivan, William Allan, Augustus Baldwin, and John Elmsley, as his new Executive Council. On the 17th the House declared its entire want of confidence in the new Council, and stated that in retaining them the Governor violated the instructions of the Colonial Secretary to the Governor, to appoint Councillors who possessed the confidence of the people. Much recrimination followed; at length Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House, and directed that a new election be held.

In regard to this election, Dr. Ryerson, in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism" (page 226) says:—

Sir F. B. Head adroitly turned the issue, not on the question of the Clergy Reserves, or of other practical questions, but on the question of connection with the mother country, and of Republicanism vs. Monarchy, as had been recommended by Messrs. Hume and Roebuck, and advocated by Messrs. Mackenzie and Papineau. This was successful, inasmuch as those Reformers who would not disavow their connection with Messrs. Mackenzie, Hume and Roebuck, lost their election; for though not more than half a dozen had any sympathy with the sentiments of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Papineau, and Mackenzie, they did not wish to break the unity of the Reform party by repudiating them, and suffered defeat in consequence at the elections. The successful candidates, generally, while they repudiated Republican separation from the mother country, promised fidelity to the oft-expressed and well-known wishes of the people in the settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, which, however, they failed to fulfil.

In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Hallowell, his brother William said:—

Our loyal address, a very moderate one, to the Governor, was carried unanimously—all the young Preachers on trial being allowed to vote on that occasion. This is equally gratifying and surprising to all the friends of British supremacy. A gentleman from Montreal, who was present, was so surprised, and I may say, delighted, that he could hardly contain himself. I did not know for a short time, but he would be constrained from the violence of his feeling to jump up and shout. The Conference also adopted a very good address to the King. (See page 162.)

We are on the eve of a new election. The excitement through the country at large exceeds anything I have ever known. There would be very little cause for doubt or fear as to the results, were it not for one of the last acts of Sir John Colborne's administration, in establishing and endowing nearly sixty Rectories. Knowing, as I do, that the public mind is strongly opposed to any measure of that sort, or any step towards legalizing a church establishment, yet I could not believe the feeling was so strong as it actually is. If the elections should turn out disastrously to the best interest of the country, the result can only be attributed to that unjust and most unpolitic act. We are willing to do all that we consistently can, but everywhere the rectory question meets us. While I am compelled to believe that a vast majority are devotedly loyal to our gracious Sovereign, yet the best and most affectionate subjects of the King would almost prefer revolution to the establishment of a dominant Church thus sought to be imposed on us.

In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Toronto, his brother John says:—

The late elections agitated the Societies very much in some places, but they are now settling down to "quietness and assurance." I hope that the worst of the storm is over. The Governor is a talented man, but very little magisterial dignity about him. He takes good care to let every one know that he esteems every day alike, travelling on Sabbaths the same as other days. Indeed he seems to have no idea of religion at all, but is purely a man of pleasure. His popularity will soon be upon the wane if he does not mend in these respects.

The friends in Kingston are very anxiously looking for your return, and are becoming quite discontented and out of patience. They complained bitterly to me of your long absence, and were anxious to have me stay with them until you return.



CHAPTER XIX.

1837-1839.

Return to Canada.—The Chapel Property Cases.

In this part of the "Story" of his life, Dr. Ryerson has only left the following sentence:—At the Conference held after my return to Canada, in June, I declined re-election as Editor of the Christian Guardian, having promised my Kingston brethren, from whom I had been suddenly removed in November, 1835, that I would remain with them at least one year on my return from England.

After Conference, Dr. Ryerson (with Rev. E. Healy) attended as a deputation to the Black River Conference. He said:—

The Conference was presided over by Bishop Hedding, who, in strong and affecting language, expressed his feelings of respect and love for our Connexion in Canada. In reply, I reiterated the expression of our profound respect and affection for our honoured friend and father in the Gospel; by the imposition of whose hands, I, and several other brethren in Canada, have been set apart to the Holy Ministry. After my return to Kingston, brother Healy and I received from the Black River Conference a complimentary resolution in regard to our visit. In enclosing it to me, Rev. Jesse T. Peck, the Secretary [afterwards Bishop], said:—Allow me humbly, but earnestly, to beg a continuance of that friendship with you, which in its commencement has afforded me so much pleasure.

In August of this year, 1837, the celebrated trial of the Waterloo Chapel case[50] took place before Mr. Justice Macaulay, at the Kingston Assizes, and a verdict was given against the Wesleyan Methodists. It was subsequently appealed to the Court of King's Bench, at Toronto. Three elaborate judgments were delivered on the case. Rev. John Ryerson was a good deal exercised as to the ill effects, upon the connexional church property, of Judge Macaulay's adverse decision. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, he said:—

We are much troubled and perplexed, here in Toronto, about the Waterloo Chapel case. I saw the Attorney-General on the subject to-day. When Judge Macaulay's judgment is published, I hope you will carefully review the whole matter, and lay the thing before the public in such a way as to produce conviction. Everybody is inquiring whether or not you will take up the subject.

An appeal was made to the King's Bench at Toronto. This Court—

Set aside the verdict of the lower Court, and ordered a new trial.... At this second trial, as also that respecting the Belleville Church property case, [November, 1837], ... the whole matter was "ventilated," and the result was that the legal decision of the highest judicial tribunal of the land confirmed the Wesleyan Methodist Church as the rightful owner of the Church property, it being the true representative and successor of the original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These litigations extended over more than two years, and the friends of Zion and of peace greatly rejoiced when they were brought to a just and final settlement. (Epochs of Canadian Methodism, pages 278, 279.)

In regard to these three judgments on the case, Dr. Ryerson said:—

During the latter part of this month I have devoted such time as I could spare to a lengthened review for the Guardian, of the elaborate judgments of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices Macaulay and Sherwood, on the Waterloo Chapel case.[51] The opinion of the Chief Justice displays profound research, acute discrimination, and sound judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Macaulay indicates great labour and strict religious scrupulosity. The opinion of Mr. Justice Sherwood betrays great want of acquaintance with the discipline, usages, and general history of Methodism. To the Methodist Connexion the conflict of opinion and confusion of reasoning of these learned judges are most prejudicial and disastrous. I have therefore sought, in the "review," to set forth the true facts of this abstruse case—facts connected with the history of Methodism—facts, with the most material of which I am personally acquainted, and in the progress of which I have been called to act a conspicuous part.

In regard to this "review," Rev. E. Healy wrote to Dr. Ryerson, from Brockville, and said:—

I have read your review of the opinion of the judges, and am happy to see it. What the judges will do with you, I do not know. You are considered, I believe, by some in this part of the country, as part man and part demon. This is one reason, doubtless, why I am also so bad a man, as I have said so much in your favour.

Rev. Hannibal Mulkins,[52] writing from Whitby on this subject, said:—

The agitation which was anticipated by some of the preachers at the last Conference, and which has existed in some degree has happily subsided, notwithstanding the most vigorous efforts have been made, and all the arts of calumny and misrepresentation, employed to harrass, to worry, and devour.

I was very glad to see your "review" of the opinions of the Judges in the Chapel case. I have read it with much satisfaction. On this circuit, notwithstanding the prejudices of some individuals, it has been perused with general delight, and to our friends in particular it has been highly satisfactory.

Dr. Ryerson, in a letter from New York, dated November, 1837, says:—

I have just returned from an extended tour of about 500 miles in the Middle and Southern States, in order to obtain information and evidence relative to the organization of the Methodist Church in America, the character of its Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference—points which involve the issue of our chapel property case. From the mass of testimony and information I have been able to collect, by seeing every preacher in this continent who was in the work in 1784, relative to the character of Methodist Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference, I feel no doubt as to the result.[53]

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in making his report on the same subject, said:—

I spent a whole day with Bishop Hedding, and had much conversation with him about our affairs generally. He told me that the American Methodist Church had never regarded Episcopacy as a Divine ordinance—nor as an essential doctrine of the Church—but as an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, which could be modified by the General Conference, or even dispensed with without violating the great principles of Methodism. The Bishop is of the opinion, however, that if our Courts decide against us, we shall have to return to Episcopacy, and that the first Bishop should be ordained by the Bishops of the American Church.

Dr. Ryerson, in the same November letter, says:—

I have also accompanied Mr. Stinson to render him what assistance I could, in examining Manual Labour Schools, with a view to establishing one for the benefit of our Indian youth—an object of the very greatest importance, both to the religious and civil interests of our aboriginal fellow countrymen. Also to get from the New York Missionary Board a sum of money for the Indian work which was expected from them before our Union with the English Conference.

In a letter to Dr. Alder, written from New York in the same month, Dr. Ryerson said:—

The concern of our preachers and friends on the Chapel case is deep and truly affecting. As I took so responsible a part in the Union, I cannot describe my feelings on this question. At the request of our brethren I have undertaken to do what I could to secure our Church property from the party claiming it. I have travelled nearly 500 miles this week for that purpose. But it is cheering amidst all our difficulties, and the commotions of the political elements, that our preachers, I believe, without exception, are of one heart—that our societies are in peace—that the work of our blessed Lord is reviving in many of the circuits, although the cause in Kingston suffers, and my dear brethren there complain, in consequence of my connexional engagements and absence from them.

FOOTNOTES:

[50] Between the Episcopal and Wesleyan Methodists for the possession of the Church property. Waterloo was four miles north of Kingston.

[51] The Review is inserted in the Guardian, vol. viii., pages 169-178. The Belleville case was published in pamphlet form.

[52] This gentleman entered the Wesleyan ministry in 1835, but joined the Church of England in 1840. He was for many years Chaplain to the Penitentiary, at Kingston, and always retained a warm regard for Dr. Ryerson. He died in 1877, aged 65 years.

[53] The particulars here referred to are given in detail in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 279-281.



CHAPTER XX.

1837.

The Coming Crisis.—Rebellion of 1837.

As Dr. Ryerson had anticipated, the combined effects of the publication of his "impressions," in 1833; his letters exposing the designs of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Mackenzie in 1837; the secession of a section of the Methodist Church, and the disputes consequent thereon (culminating in the Waterloo and Belleville Chapel suits)—in which he took a leading part—provoked the parties concerned to active hostility against him. He had, however, many warm friends, especially among his ministerial brethren. One of these was Rev. John Black, in the Bay of Quinte District,—a quaint, but true and warm-hearted man. In inviting him to take part in the Quarterly Meeting services, at Napanee, Mr. Black indulges in a little playful satire, as follows:—

It appears that there are some amongst us here whom we dare not number amongst your friends, and who prophesied that you would never return from England—that you dare not, etc. Now we wish to afford them living proof of their vanity in prophesying, by your presence amongst them. Besides, on the other hand, the good-hearted brethren amongst us greatly rejoiced on hearing of your successful mission to England, and they wish to see and hear you once more.

Somewhat in Rev. John Black's spirit of kindly raillery, Rev. John C. Davidson, of Hallowell, in inviting Dr. Ryerson to take part in a Camp-meeting (and after mentioning several inducements), said:—

I would mention another inducement for you to come, viz.: the multiplicity of warm friends and virulent enemies you have on this circuit. Your presence and preaching will afford pleasure and profit to your friends, and will very much tend, in my opinion, to disarm the groundless prejudice entertained by many others against you.

In a more serious letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated Cobourg, 16th November, 1837, Rev. Anson Green gives expression to a general feeling of uneasiness and distrust which prevailed everywhere in the country at that time:—

I pity you most sincerely. You have a storm about your ears that you must bear, if you do not bow before it. In these perilous times a man scarcely knows what to advise. I fear that destruction awaits us on either hand. With the Radicals we are Tories; and with the Tories we are Rebels. It is said by the Rebels here that they have money enough, and men enough, and guns enough, and that the plans are so laid that there can be no mistake. The Government appears to be in possession of these facts. Thus far the proceedings of the Rebels do not show much wisdom, or skill, in laying plans, or in executing them. I am mistaken if they stop short of a civil war.

I very much regret that you should be under the necessity of coming in contact with Governor Head in any one thing. I could not be a rebel; my conscience and religion forbid it; and, on the other hand, I could not fight for the Rectories and Church domination. I think them both to be great evils, and I have resolved to choose neither. I believe that in Haldimand and Cramahe townships there are twenty rebels to one sincere loyalist. Brother Wilson, (son of old Father Wilson), says that his life has been threatened for circulating the petition which you sent down, and others are in a similar condition. What will be the effect of all this I cannot say, but I have thought from the beginning that either the Rectories must be abolished, and a suitable disposition made of the Reserves, or a change of Government will ensue. And if the Church party have it all in their own hands to make peace, by allowing other Churches to enjoy equal privileges with themselves, and do not do so, they must bear the responsibility of all the bloodshed and carnage that may ensue. I fear that they are so perfectly infatuated that they will suffer utter destruction, and choose it rather than equal and impartial justice.

On the 5th December, 1837, Dr. Ryerson reached Cobourg on his way to Toronto. When he arrived there, Elders Case and Green, and other friends, thought that as his life had been threatened it would be unsafe for him to proceed to Toronto.[54] He, therefore, waited there for further news, and, in the meantime, wrote to a friend in Kingston, on the 6th, as follows:—

You will recollect my mentioning that I pressed upon Sir Francis the propriety and importance of making some prudent provision for the defence of the city, in case any party should be urged on in the madness of rebellion so far as to attack it. He is much blamed here on account of his overweening confidence, and foolish and culpable negligence in this respect. There was great excitement in this town and neighbourhood last night. To-day all is anxiety and hurry. The militia is called out to put down the rebellion of the very man whose seditious paper many of them have supported, and whom they have countenanced.

The precepts of the Bible and the example of the early Christians, leave me no occasion for second thoughts as to my duty, namely, to pray for and support the "powers that be," whether I admire them or not, and to implore the defeat of "fiery conspiracy and rebellion." And I doubt not that the sequel will in this, as in other cases, show that the path of duty is that of wisdom, if not of safety. I am aware that my head would be regarded as something of a prize by the rebels; but I feel not in the least degree agitated. I trust implicitly in that God whom I have endeavoured—though imperfectly and unfaithfully—to serve; being assured nothing will harm us, but that all things, whether life or death, will work together for our good if we be followers of that which is good. Let us trust in the Lord, and do good, and He will never leave nor forsake us!

About 700 armed men have left this district to-day for Toronto, in order to put down the rebels. There is an unanimity and determination among the people to quash rebellion and support the law that I hardly expected. The country is safe, but it is a "gone day with the rebel party."

In a graphic letter to Dr. Ryerson, written on the 5th December, by his brother William, at Toronto, the scenes at the emeute in that city are thus described:—

Last night, about 12 or 1 o'clock, the bells rang with great violence; we all thought it was an alarm of fire, but being unable to see any light, we thought it was a false alarm, and we remained quiet until this morning, when, on visiting the market-place, I found a large number of persons serving out arms to others as fast as they possibly could. Among many others we saw the Lieutenant-Governor, in his every-day suit, with one double-barrelled gun in his hand, another leaning against his breast, and a brace of pistols in his leather belt. Also, Chief Justice Robinson, Judges Macaulay, Jones, and McLean, the Attorney-General, and Solicitor-General, with their muskets, cartridge boxes and bayonets, all standing in the ranks as private soldiers, under the command of Colonel Fitzgibbon. I assure you it is impossible for me to describe my feelings. I enquired of Judge McLean, who informed me that an express had arrived at the Government House late last night, giving intelligence that the Radicals had assembled in great force at Montgomery's, on Yonge Street, and were in full march for the city; that the Governor had sent out two persons, Mr. A. McDonell and Ald. J. Powell, to obtain information (both of whom had been made prisoners, but escaped).

Dr. Horne's house is now in flames. I feel very calm and composed in my own mind. Brother John thinks it will not be wise for you to come through all the way from Kingston. You would not be safe in visiting this wretched part of the country at the present. You know the feelings that are entertained against you. Your life would doubtless be industriously sought. My dear brother, farewell. May God mercifully bless and keep you from all the difficulties and dangers we are in!

Rev. William Ryerson further writes, on the 8th December:

About 10 o'clock to-day about 2,000 men, headed by the Lieut.-Governor, with Judge Jones, the Attorney-General and Capt. Halkett, as his aides-de-camp, and commanded by Cols. Fitzgibbon and Allan N. Macnab, Speaker of the House, left the city to attack the rebels at Montgomery's. After a little skirmishing in which we had three men wounded but none killed, the main body commenced a very spirited attack on their headquarters at Montgomery's large house. After a few shots from two six-pounders, and a few volleys of musketry, the most of the party fled and made their escape. The rest of them were taken prisoners. There were also three or four killed and several wounded. After which His Excellency ordered the buildings to be burnt to the ground, and the whole force returned to the city. All the leaders succeeded in making their escape. A royal proclamation has just been issued offering L1,000 for the apprehension of Mackenzie, and L500 for that of Samuel Lount, David Gibson, Silas Fletcher, and Jesse Lloyd; so that now, through the mercy of God, we have peace, and feel safe again, for which we desire to feel sincerely thankful.

Dr. Ryerson, having reached Toronto safely, and knowing how anxious his parents would be to know something definite as to the state of affairs, wrote a letter to his Father on the 18th December, as follows:—

I have been trying to get time to make you and Mother a visit of at least one night; but I find it quite out of my power to secure the enjoyment of so precious a privilege.

It is remarkable that every man, with very few exceptions, who has left our Church and joined in the unprincipled crusade which has been made against us, has either been an active promoter of this plot, or so far connected with it as to be ruined in his character and prospects by the timely discovery and defeat of it! I have been deeply affected at hearing of some unhappy examples, among old acquaintances, of this description. I feel thankful that I have been enabled to do my duty from the beginning in this matter. Four years ago, I perceived and began to warn the public of the revolutionary tendency and spirit of Mackenzie's proceedings. Perhaps you may recollect that in a long article in the Guardian, four years ago this winter, headed "Revolutionary Symptoms," I pointed out, to the great displeasure of even some of my friends, what has come to pass.

It is also a matter of thankfulness that every one of our family and marriage connections, near and remote, is on the side of law, reason, and religion in this affair. Such indications of the Divine goodness are a fresh encouragement to me to renew my covenant engagement with my gracious Redeemer, to serve Him and His cause with greater zeal and faithfulness.

I hope, my dear Father, you are employing your last days in preparing for your approaching change, and for standing before the bar of God. My poor prayers are daily offered up in your behalf. Much travelling and other engagements have hitherto prevented me from writing to you as I would; but, hereafter, the first Monday in each month shall be considered as belonging to my dear aged Parents, in praying for or writing to them. My dutiful respects and love to my dear Mother. I would esteem it a great favour and privilege to receive a few lines from you or her.

FOOTNOTES:

[54] Dr. Ryerson in his "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," page 314, says:—It had been agreed by W. L. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels, in 1837, to hang Egerton Ryerson on the first tree they met with, could they apprehend him.



CHAPTER XXI.

1837-1838.

Sir F. B. Head and the Upper Canada Academy.

Lord Glenelg, as agreed, when Dr. Ryerson was in England, (page 165,) directed Lieutenant-Governor Sir F. B. Head to bring the pecuniary claims of the Upper Canada Academy before the Legislature. This he did in February, 1837. A committee (of which Hon. W. H. Draper was chairman)[55] brought in an excellent report on the subject. The House of Assembly by a vote of 31 to 10 agreed to advance $16,400 to the Academy. The Legislative Council, on motion of Hon. J. Elmsley, made such onerous conditions as virtually defeated the bill, and no relief was granted.[56] Dr. Ryerson, then in England, pressed the matter most urgently upon Lord Glenelg, who in April 1837, sent directions to Sir F. B. Head to advance the money without delay. This, on various pretexts, he refused to do; but when the Legislature opened in January, 1838, he sent a message to the House, which Dr. Ryerson, then in Toronto, thus describes, in a letter to a friend at Kingston, dated February 3rd, 1838. He said:—

Instead of giving us the promised money for the Upper Canada Academy, Sir Francis Head has sent a part of the correspondence with Lord Glenelg and with me down to the House of Assembly, with a message in which he implicates me, as also a letter to Lord Glenelg, written a few weeks after my return from England, in which he impeaches me. I have, in consequence, drawn up a petition to the House, filling six large sheets, exposing the whole of his conduct towards us, vindicating myself from the charges contained in his despatches, and proposing to establish every fact which I have stated before a select Committee of the House of Assembly. My petition was presented this morning. According to rule, a petition has to lie on the table for twenty-four hours before it is read. But a motion was made and agreed to, to dispense with the rule, and read my petition. It was then read, and created a great sensation. It was then moved that 200 copies of it be printed, together with all the documents sent down by the Governor, to which the petition referred. After discussion the motion was carried by a vote of 33 to 4. This was, of course, very gratifying to my feelings, as it must be extremely mortifying to the Governor. This is the first petition that has been ordered to be printed by the present—Sir Francis' own—Parliament. The dispensing with the rule, and giving such a petition the preference, was the highest mark of respect which the House could have shown me. I have not felt so much agitated with anything for years, as with this matter. I am now greatly relieved. I feel as if the Lord God of Hosts was on our side. The Governor clearly thought that as he was so greatly lauded and had become so famous a conqueror, we would not dare to come out against him before the public, or meet him face to face before the Assembly.

On the 16th, Dr. Ryerson again writes to Kingston:—

This Academy business is a most painful one to me. The Legislative Council and the House of Assembly have each appointed a select Committee on the subject. But I am afraid we will get nothing until we hear from Lord Glenelg.

My mind has been, and is, in a great degree depressed beyond expression, in regard to our circumstances. My only trust is in Him who has thus far brought us through, and turned the designs of our enemies to our account. For the last two days I have been as low as I was at my lowest in London.

In addition to Dr. Ryerson's petition to both Houses, he made a separate Appeal to members of the Assembly. In it he stated in substance that Sir Francis Head—

Had already issued his warrant for $8,200; that he was informed in December, 1837, not merely verbally, but in writing, by Hon. J. H. Dunn, Receiver-General, that he had funds with which to pay the balance ($8,200), yet the Governor refused to issue the requisite warrant for it, on the plea of much business; but said that Mr. Dunn had all the warrant that was necessary. In January he again declined to issue the warrant, and excused himself by saying that Mr. Dunn required no further authority. When, later in the month, Dr. Ryerson had not only removed every variety of objection and excuse, but sent a note from Mr. Dunn saying that he had the necessary funds, Sir F. B. Head stated that he "must see one or two of his councillors." After he had done so, he wrote a note to Dr. Ryerson to say that he had misled him, as to the advance being a grant instead of a loan, etc.

On 21st February, the House of Assembly recommended that the balance be paid over at once. It pointed out that Dr. Ryerson had become personally liable to the banks for $3,400, and Revs. John Ryerson and E. Evans for $2,000 of the balance due; that although grants were constantly being made by the House, yet there was no precedent for a loan; and that as to whether the advance was to be a grant or a loan they would abstain from offering an opinion. This report had the desired effect. The money was paid.

On the 22nd February, Dr. Ryerson was, therefore, enabled to write to his friend in Kingston, to say that

The prayer of my petition has been this day complied with by a unanimous vote of the House of Assembly; and the Hon. Mr. Draper told Brother Evans that His Excellency would issue his warrant for the money as soon as the Address of the Assembly is presented. Not a man in the Assembly would risk his reputation in defence of the conduct of the Governor in this affair. The Report of the Committee was received, and the Address passed two readings last night and one this morning, and without one word from any member of the Assembly in the way of comment or remark. The Committee of the Legislative Council has actually declined entering into the investigation of the subject at all, as had been desired by His Excellency. Thus has Sir Francis Head not only disgraced himself, but helped us.

I thank the Lord for His blessing thus far. We will still trust in Him, and not be afraid. Tories, Radicals, and the Governor, have each had their turn at us. I hope we may now be allowed to live in peace. The result of this affair has in some measure compensated me for the anxiety of mind I have endured.

After this unpleasant controversy with Sir F. B. Head was over, Rev. Anson Green wrote to Dr. Ryerson as follows:—

How do you feel after your brush with Sir Francis? You need not feel very downcast, having attained so triumphant a victory. I doubt not but Sir Francis would willingly pay double the amount claimed by us, if he could have prevented the result which has happened. It is too late, however, to recall it now. I hope he will learn wisdom from the past, and not be so self-willed and headstrong in future. No one seems pleased with him but those whose praise is a reproach.

Rev. W. H. Harvard, in a letter from Kingston, said:—

I am truly pained at the conduct of the Lieutenant-Governor, and sympathize with you in thus being brought into such an unavoidable collision with him. I am more than grieved that he should use us so ungenerously.

I am glad that you are the warrior, for you will combine caution and courage, and will come off more than conqueror. You are at present the centre of our solicitude. I pray that your heart may be comforted and controlled from above. We are the Lord's covenanted, consecrated servants. In His work we are employed. By His Holy Spirit may we ever be actuated and aided!

FOOTNOTES:

[55] At the Conference of this year resolutions of thanks were passed to Mr. Draper, and were sent to him by Dr. Ryerson, the Secretary. Mr. Draper's reply was as follows:—

I feel deeply indebted to the Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church for the honour conferred upon me in deeming my humble exertions in the cause of Christian education worthy of their approbation, and I trust I shall never forget their good opinion. I cannot, at the same time, pass by the opportunity of thanking you for the terms in which you have communicated that resolution to me, and of expressing my satisfaction that I have in any degree contributed to the success of your unwearied exertions in behalf of the Upper Canada Academy in England. I sincerely rejoice that you were enabled to obtain that aid for its completion, which was so necessary and so well deserved.

[56] In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, his brother William thus accounts for the failure to get the grant: To the miserable Missionary grant of L900 to the English Conference we are chiefly indebted for the loss of the Bill for the relief of the Upper Canada Academy, as we are positively informed by our best friends in the House of Assembly. It has also been the means of depriving many of the preachers of a considerable part of their small salary, and in one or two instances, of the whole of it. It has, and still does more to weaken our hands, and to embarrass our labours, and also to strengthen the hands and to increase the number of our enemies, than almost any or all other causes put together.



CHAPTER XXII.

1838.

Victims of the Rebellion.—State of the Country.

Early in 1838 the trials for treason took place. Messrs. Lount and Matthews were found guilty and sentenced to death. Other parties were also tried: among them was Dr. Thomas D. Morrison, a prominent Methodist in Toronto.[57] In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, at Kingston, his brother John mentions that Dr. Morrison was triumphantly acquitted. He also mentions (as an amusing incident at the trial) the success of the two counsel for Dr. Morrison, in showing that statements entirely contradictory to each other could be fully proved from Sir F. B. Head's own speeches and dispatches. He said:—

Mr. Macdonald, of St. Catharines, stated that Sir Francis had declared in his speech at the opening of the Parliament, that he knew of the rebellion long before it occurred, and that he was the cause of it. Mr. Boswell, of Cobourg, admitted that Sir Francis had said he knew a good deal. But the Governor was very fond of a fine style; he liked rounded periods, or, as Lord Melbourne had expressed it, "epigrammic" flights, so well, that he could hardly make his pen write the words of truth and soberness on such occasions. Mr. Boswell read several extracts from Sir Francis' despatches to Lord Glenelg, which were in direct opposition to the extracts read by Mr. Macdonald. A gentleman whispered to me that anything (no matter what) could be proved from Sir Francis' writings and sayings. In reply to the Attorney-General, Mr. Macdonald said:—That if the suspicion of treasonable motives and doings in others, and not informing or using prompt measures to correct or prevent what might follow, was treason, then Sir Francis was the greatest traitor in the country, for he said he knew all about the proposed outbreak. Mr. Boswell said, that after Sir Francis had seen the "Declaration," and had taken the advice of the Attorney-General, he had sent a despatch to the Colonial Secretary declaring that there was nothing treasonable in the country; that everything was as it should be! To demonstrate this, he had sent away all the troops. Thus, you see, the two lawyers made poor Sir Francis prove everything.

The jury returned with a verdict of "not guilty," which caused great cheering, and which could not be suppressed for some time. Several of the jury were warm Tories, but they acquitted the Doctor.

In another letter to Dr. Ryerson, his brother John gives an account of the efforts made to induce Sir George Arthur, the new Governor, to commute the sentence of Lount and Mathews. He says:—

I have signed a petition for the mitigation of Lount and Mathews' punishment, as did Brother William. I have just seen Rev. James Richardson, who has been with Lount and Mathews. Mathews professed to have found peace. Lount is earnestly seeking. A good deal of feeling has been excited respecting the execution of these unfortunate men. A petition signed by 4,000 persons in their behalf was presented to His Excellency. It was agreed that Rev. Mr. Brough (Church of England minister from Newmarket) and I should go and present the Toronto petition, and that we should seek a private interview with him. Instead of having a private interview, we were called into the Council Chamber in the presence of the Executive Council. This was rather embarrassing to me, as I did not wish to say what I had intended to say in the presence of Sir Francis' old Executive Council. After presenting the petition, Mr. Brough introduced the conversation and referred Sir George to me. I told him that I was extensively acquainted with the country,—that I had travelled lately through the Niagara, Gore, Home, Newcastle, Prince Edward, and part of the Midland Districts,—had conversed with a great many persons, many of whom, even persons of high respectability, and were strongly attached to the interests of His Majesty's Government, and the pervading feeling was that the severe penalty of the law should not be executed on those victims of deception and sin. I also read an extract of your last letter to His Excellency [p. 188]—relating to the inexpediency of inflicting severe punishment "in opposition to public sentiment and policy, for political offences," etc. After having listened to me very attentively, His Excellency said, that after the fullest consultation with his Executive, and the most serious and prayerful consideration of this painful matter, he had come to the conclusion that Lount and Mathews must be executed.

I also mentioned to the Governor that you and Rev. J. Stinson had waited on Sir Francis about four weeks previous to the insurrection,—that you informed him of insurrectionary movements about Lloydtown and other places, which you had learned from me,—that you had strongly urged Sir Francis to raise volunteers, and put the city and other places in a state of defence,—that you and I had waited on the Attorney-General next day, and that we had urged these things on him in a similar manner;—but that these statements and advice had been disregarded, if not disbelieved.

In a subsequent letter he thus related the closing scene:—

At eight o'clock to-day, Thursday, 12th April, Lount and Mathews were executed. The general feeling is in total opposition to the execution of those men. Sheriff Jarvis burst into tears when he entered the room to prepare them for execution. They said to him very calmly, "Mr. Jarvis, do your duty; we are prepared to meet death and our Judge." They then, both of them, put their arms around his neck and kissed him. They were then prepared for execution. They walked to the gallows with entire composure and firmness of step. Rev. J. Richardson walked alongside of Lount, and Rev. J. Beatty alongside of Mathews. They ascended the scaffold and knelt down on the drop. The ropes were adjusted while they were on their knees. Mr. Richardson engaged in prayer; and when he came to that part of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us," the drop fell!

In a letter written to Dr. Ryerson the next day, his brother John mentioned a sad incident connected with Lount's trial:

Lount's daughter, a young woman, was present when her father was condemned. It had such an effect on her, that she went home and died almost immediately afterwards. These are indeed melancholy times!

The evil effects upon the country of the arbitrary conduct of Sir F. B. Head, are thus described in a letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother William, dated Toronto, 22nd April:—

The very painful excitement caused by the execution of Lount and Matthews has in some degree subsided, but dissatisfaction with the state of things is, I fear, increasing from day to day. Emigration to the States is the fear of the hour. It is indeed going on to an extent truly alarming and astonishing. A deputation has been sent from this city to Washington to negotiate with the American Government for a tract of land on which to form a settlement or colony. They have returned, and say that they met with a most gracious reception, encouragement and success beyond their most sanguine expectations. An emigration society has been formed, embracing some of the leading citizens. Its object is to commence a colony in the Iowa Territory, on the Mississippi River.[58] A very large class are becoming uneasy, and many of the best inhabitants of the country, as to industry and enterprise, are preparing to leave. My own spirit is almost broken down. I feel, I assure you, like leaving Canada too, and I am not alone in those feelings; some of our friends whom you would not suspect, often feel quite as much down in the throat as I do. If ever I felt the need of faith, and wisdom, and patience, it is at the present. I have just returned from visiting the prisoners. After all, we know but little of the calamities and miseries with which our once happy land is now afflicted, and yet Sir Francis, the most guilty author of this misery, escapes without punishment; yes, with honour and praise! How mysterious are the ways of Providence—how dark, crooked, and perverse the ways of man.

FOOTNOTES:

[57] Dr. Morrison had been a clerk in the Surveyor-General's office,—had, indeed, while there, collected materials for Dr. Strachan's Ecclesiastical Chart,—but, without any charge, or the slightest deficiency in faithfulness and efficiency, was dismissed, for the simple reason that he had become a Methodist! He then devoted himself to the medical profession. He was once elected to the House of Assembly for York, defeating the Attorney-General. He was also once elected Mayor of Toronto. He was the writer's [and the editor's] physician during life; died in great peace, strong in faith, giving glory to God.—"Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 188, 189.—H.

[58] This disposition to remove from Upper Canada to Iowa was not confined to Toronto and its vicinity. In the following chapter the case of a Mr. John Campbell, M.P.P. for Frontenac county, is mentioned. He was on his way to Iowa when he saw and read Dr. Ryerson's defence of Mr. Bidwell. The reading of that defence changed his plans, and he remained in Canada. (See page 192.)



CHAPTER XXIII.

1795-1861.

Sketch of Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie.

The story of Dr. Ryerson's life would scarcely be complete without giving some information in regard to the chief opponents whom he encountered in the earlier part of his career—men well known at the time, but whose names and memories are now passing away.

With the exception of Bishop Strachan, no man came so immediately in contact with Dr. Ryerson in the first years of his public life as did Mr. W. L. Mackenzie.

Mr. Mackenzie was born in Scotland, in March, 1795. He died in Toronto, on the 28th August, 1861, in the 67th year of his age. He came to Canada in 1820, and until 1824 was engaged in mercantile pursuits. In May of that year he entered public life, and commenced the publication of the Colonial Advocate at Queenston. From that time until near the close of his life, he maintained his connection, more or less, with the press; but he was always on the stormy sea of politics, even when not a journalist. The reasons which induced him to enter public life are thus given in Mr. Charles Lindsey's "Life and Times of Mackenzie," page 40. They are in Mr. Mackenzie's own words, and were written some time after the rebellion of 1837-8:—

I had long seen the country in the hands of a few shrewd, crafty, covetous men, under whose management one of the most lovely, desirable sections of America remained a comparative desert. The most obvious public improvements were stayed; dissension was created among classes; citizens were banished and imprisoned [Gourley, Beardsley, etc.] in defiance of all law; the people had been forbidden, under severe pains and penalties, from meeting anywhere to petition for justice; large estates were wrested from their owners in utter contempt of even the forms of the courts; the Church of England, the adherents of which were few, monopolized as much of the lands of the Colony as all the religious houses and dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church had had the control of in Scotland at the era of the Reformation. Other sects were treated with contempt, and scarcely tolerated; a sordid band of land-jobbers grasped the soil as their patrimony, and with a few leading officials, who divided the public revenue among themselves, formed "the family compact," and were the avowed enemies of common schools, of civil and religious liberty, of all legislative or other checks to their own will. Other men had opposed and been converted by them. At nine-and-twenty I might have united with them, but chose rather to join the oppressed; nor have I ever regretted that choice, or wavered from the object of my early pursuit. So far as I, or any other professed reformer, was concerned in inviting citizens of [the United States] to interfere in Canadian affairs, there was culpable error. So far as any of us, at any time, may have supposed that the cause of freedom would be advanced by adding the Canadas to [that] confederation, we were under the merest delusion. Mr. Lindsey adds:—In some respects the condition of the Province was worse than Mr. Mackenzie described it. He dealt only with its political condition.

With a Scotchman's idea of justice and freedom, he felt a longing desire to right the wrongs which he saw everywhere around him. This, therefore, constituted, as he believed, his mission as a public man in Canada, and it furnishes the key to his life and character.

Mr. Mackenzie was a political pessimist. He looked upon every abuse which he attacked, with a somewhat severe, if not a jaundiced, eye. Every evil which he discovered was, in his estimation, truly an evil; and all evils were about of equal magnitude. Besides, in attacking an evil or an abuse, he did not fail to attack the perpetrator or upholder of it also, and that, too, with a strength of invective, or of cutting sarcasm, which brought every foible, and weakness of his, and even those of his father before him, vividly into view. This was the baleful secret of his strength as an assailant; but this, too, caused him to be regarded by his victims with intense dislike, bordering on hatred. This style of attack, on the part of Mr. Mackenzie, did not necessarily arise from anything like vindictiveness, but rather from a keen sense of dislike to what he conceived to be wrong in the thing he was attacking.

In 1849 (12 years after the rebellion), Mr. Mackenzie, in a letter to Earl Grey, used the following remarkable language:—

A course of careful observation during the last eleven years has fully satisfied me that, had the violent movements in which I and many others were engaged on both sides of the Niagara proved successful, that success would have deeply injured the people of Canada, whom I then believed I was serving at great risks.... I have long been sensible of the errors committed during that period.... No punishment that power could inflict or nature sustain, would have equalled the regrets I have felt on account of much that I did, said, wrote, and published; but the past cannot be recalled.... There is not a living man on the continent who more sincerely desires that British Government in Canada may long continue, etc. Page 291, 292.

No man was more unselfish than Mr. Mackenzie. He would rather suffer extreme hardship than accept a doubtful favour. Even in regard to kindly and reasonable offers of help, he was morbidly sensitive (as mentioned on page 298 of his "Life and Times"); and yet, looking at the conduct of many men in like circumstances, he deserved commendation rather than censure for his extreme conscientiousness.

Mr. Mackenzie did the State good service in many things. His investigations into the affairs of the Welland Canal were highly valuable to the country, greatly aided as he was by Mr. (now, Sir) Francis Hincks as chief accountant. His inquiries in regard to the Post Office and Prison management were also useful. Besides, he advocated many important reforms which were afterwards carried out. Mr. Mackenzie was the first Mayor of Toronto.

Towards the close of his life he and Dr. Ryerson were not on unfriendly terms; and when in 1852, as a member of the Legislature he instituted an inquiry into the management of the Educational Depository, he expressed himself satisfied with its usefulness.[59] At a later period when Mr. John C. Geikie[60]—then a bookseller in Toronto—commenced his attack upon the Depository in 1858, Mr. Mackenzie thus rebuked him in his Weekly Message of April 9th, of that year:—

At one time we thought with the redoubtable Geikie that Dr. Ryerson's book concern was a monopoly, but a more thorough inquiry induced us to change that opinion. We found that great benefits were obtained for the townships, the country schools, and general education through Dr. Ryerson's plan which could in no other way be conferred upon them, etc.

Dr. Ryerson, on his part, felt kindly towards Mr. Mackenzie. He mentioned to the Editor of this book near the close of the year 1860, that on the ensuing New Year's day he (Dr. Ryerson) would call upon and shake hands with his old antagonist, and wish him a "Happy New Year."

FOOTNOTES:

[59] Mr. Mackenzie frequently visited the Educational Depository to make inquiries, etc. The Editor of this book had frequent conversations with him on the subject, and explained to him the details of management. He was pleased to know that through the agency of the Depository thousands of volumes of good books were being yearly sent out to the schools.

[60] Now the Rev. Dr. Cunningham Geikie, of England, and author of the "Life and Words of Christ," and other valuable books. He declined the use of the title of reverend in his controversy with Dr. Ryerson.



CHAPTER XXIV.

1838.

Defence of the Hon. Marshall Spring Bidwell.

From various papers and letters left by Dr. Ryerson, I have compiled the following statement in regard to his memorable defence of the Hon. M. S. Bidwell, in 1838. I have used Dr. Ryerson's own words throughout, only varying them when the sense, or the construction, or condensation of a sentence, required it. He said:—

On Dr. Duncombe's return to Canada, I believe the conspiracy was commenced by him, Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, and others, sought to accomplish their objects by rebellion; but in this the great body of Reformers took no part except to surpress it. I had warned them that Mr. Mackenzie's proceedings would result in rebellion. I afterwards received the thanks of great numbers of Reformers for having by my warnings and counsels saved them and their families from being involved in the consequences of the rebellion. I was so odious to Mr. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels, that they determined to hang me on the first tree could they get hold of me. Of this, I had proof from one of themselves; yet I afterwards succeeded by my representations and appeals, to get several of them out of prison. My brother John, who was then in Toronto, presented to Governor Arthur and advocated a largely signed petition against the execution of Lount and Matthews. He also read a letter from me (then a stationed minister in Kingston) against their execution, and on the impolicy of capital punishment for political offences.

After the suppression of the rebellion—in the putting down of which the great body of the Reformers joined—the leaders of the dominant party sought, nevertheless, to hold the entire party of the Reformers responsible for that rebellion, and to proscribe and put them down accordingly. The first step in this process of proscription was the ostracism of Mr. M. S. Bidwell, an able and prudent politician, and a gentleman who took a high place in the legal profession.[61] and completed them in the office of Mr. Daniel Hagerman, of Ernestown. He was admitted as a barrister-at-law in April, 1821.

Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1824; re-elected and chosen Speaker in 1828. On the death of George IV., in 1830, a new general election took place, when the Reform party were reduced to a minority, and Mr. Bidwell was not re-elected Speaker; but he greatly distinguished himself in the debates of the House. In 1834, a new general election took place; a large majority of Reformers were returned, and Mr. Bidwell was again elected Speaker. In May, 1836, Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House of Assembly, and Mr. Bidwell and his colleague, the late Peter Perry, were defeated in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, which Mr. Bidwell had represented in Parliament during twelve years. From that time (May, 1836) Mr. Bidwell never attended a political meeting, or took any part in politics.

During my stay in England, from December, 1835, to April, 1837, I had many conversations with Lord Glenelg, Sir George Grey, and Sir James Stephen (Under Secretaries), on the Government of Canada, shewing them that the foundation of our Government was too narrow, like an inverted pyramid, conferring the appointments to all offices, civil, military, judicial, to one party—excluding all others, however respectable and competent, as if they were enemies, and even aliens. I mentioned that not one member of the Reform party, (which had commanded for years a majority in the House of Assembly) had ever been appointed to the Bench, though there were several of them able lawyers, such as Bidwell, Rolph, etc. (Page 169.)

Lord Glenelg, in a despatch, directed Sir F. B. Head to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship on the first vacancy. Sir F. Head refused to do so, for which he was recalled, and Sir George Arthur was appointed in his place. In the meantime the House of Assembly was dissolved by Sir Francis, and a general election ordered. I had warned the public against Mr. Mackenzie's doings in converting constitutional reform into republican revolution, in consequence of which he attacked me furiously. Peter Perry, in the parliamentary session of 1836, attacked me also, and defended Mr. Mackenzie in a long speech. This speech reached me in England. I sat down and wrote a letter in reply, which reached Canada, and was published there on the eve of the elections, of which I then knew nothing. The constitutional party in Lennox and Addington had my letter printed by thousands, in the form of a large hand-bill headed: "Peter Perry Picked to Pieces by Egerton Ryerson." Although Mr. Bidwell took no part in the controversy, he was on the same electoral ticket with Mr. Perry, and both were defeated.[62]

The Radical party being defeated at the polls, its leaders: Mr. Wm. L. Mackenzie, Dr. Charles Duncombe, and many others, sought to accomplish by force of arms what they had failed to accomplish by popular elections; the rebellion of 1836-7 was the result. As Mr. Bidwell was known to be the intimate friend of Dr. Rolph, and as Dr. Rolph was thought to be implicated in the rebellion, it was assumed by Sir F. Head that Mr. Bidwell was concerned in it also. But this was perfectly untrue. Besides, Mr. Bidwell entertained the strongest views that not a drop of blood should be shed to obtain the civil freedom of a country—that only moral suasion and public opinion should be employed for such purposes.

Sir F. Head thought that now was the opportunity to revenge himself alike upon Lord Glenelg and the Whig Government, which had ordered him to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship, and also upon Mr. Bidwell as a former leader of the Reform party who had opposed him. Mr. Bidwell's letters having reached the Governor, he sent for that gentleman. What transpired is thus related by Mr. Bidwell, in a letter written to me some time afterwards:—

Sir Francis assured me that the letters had been sent to him without his orders, and that he never would allow my letters to be opened. I asked him to open them, as I did not wish to have any suspicions about them indulged afterwards; but he refused to do it, and said he had too much respect for me to allow it. Indeed, on the Wednesday previously, I expressly informed the Attorney-General of my own anxiety, (and that I was willing) to undergo the most full and unreserved examination, and to let all my papers be examined.

The terms of my note of the 8th December—the evening of the day of the interview—were dictated, or at least, suggested to me by Sir Francis, and referred particularly to his expressions of personal regard. The object of drawing such a note from me is now apparent—but I was not then aware that he had received orders from Lord Glenelg to make me a Judge.

Before leaving Toronto (as he intimates), and after his arrival at Lewiston, Mr. Bidwell wrote to Sir F. Head (December 11th, 1837), protesting his innocence and against the injustice of the means used to compel him to leave his country.

The conclusion of Mr. Bidwell's note from Toronto is as follows:

I am confident ... that the investigations, which will now of course be made, will fully remove those suspicions from the mind of your Excellency, and will prove that I had also no knowledge or expectation that any such attempt [i.e. insurrectionary movement] was in contemplation.

To accomplish his revengeful purpose, however, Sir F. Head wrote or inspired an editorial to the Toronto Patriot newspaper (then the organ of his Government) stating that as Mr. Bidwell had left the country, under circumstances that proved his consciousness of guilt, it was therefore the duty of the Benchers of the Law Society to erase his name from their rolls.

I was then stationed at Kingston. When I saw the editorial in the Patriot, I at once recognized Sir F. Head's hand in it, and was horror-struck at the idea of a man being exiled from his country, and then deprived of his professional character and privileges without a trial! I passed a sleepless night.

The late Mr. Henry Cassidy was then mayor of Kingston; a staunch Churchman and Conservative. His wife was a relative of mine, so a sort of family intimacy existed between us. Mr. Cassidy had been a student in Mr. Bidwell's law-office and was now his law agent. Mr. Bidwell enclosed to Mr. Cassidy the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Sir F. Head and Attorney-General Hagerman, and Mr. Cassidy had shown it to me. The morning after I saw the article in the Patriot, proposing the erasure of Mr. Bidwell's name from the books of the Law Society, I went to Mr. Cassidy, saying that I had not closed my eyes all night, in consequence of Sir F. Head's article in the Patriot; that I was the only person besides himself who knew the facts of the case, and though I had been assailed by the newspapers of the party with which Mr. Bidwell had been connected, I felt it in my heart to prevent a gross act of injustice and cruelty being inflicted upon a man, in his absence and helplessness, who had introduced and carried through our Legislature the laws by which the different religious denominations held their Church property, and their ministers solemnized matrimony. I asked Mr. Cassidy if he would allow me the use of the letters which Mr. Bidwell had enclosed to him, justifying his own innocence, and showing the injustice done him by the misstatements of Sir F. Head. After some hours of deliberation, Mr. Cassidy consented. I sat down, and over the signature of "A United Empire Loyalist," I detailed the case, introducing as proofs of Mr. Bidwell's innocence the injustice proposed to be inflicted upon him, referring to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman's own letter, and appealing to the Law Society, and the country at large, against such injustice and against such violation of the rights of a British subject. I got a friend to copy my communication, so as not to excite suspicion.[63] It was the first article that had appeared in the public press after the rebellion, breathing the spirit of freedom, and advocating British constitutional rights against illegal oppression.[64]

The effect of this article upon the public mind was very remarkable. As an example, Mr. John Campbell, member of the Legislative Assembly for the County of Frontenac, despairing of the liberties of the country under the "tory" oppression of the day, determined to sell his property for whatever it might bring, and remove to the States. He was on a steamboat on Lake Ontario, on his way to the Territory of Iowa to buy land and settle there, when the newspaper containing my communication fell into his hands; he read it, rose up and said that as long as there was a man in Canada who could write in that way there was hope for the country. He returned home, resumed his business, and lived and died in Canada.

The Attorney-General was annoyed at the publication of his letter to Mr. Bidwell, and attempted a justification of his conduct. At the conclusion of a letter to me, he said that I had concealed my name for fear of the legal consequences of my seditious paper. I at once sat down and wrote the most argumentative paper that I ever penned (and for the recovery of which I afterwards offered five pounds, but without success), reducing the questions to a series of mathematical propositions, and demonstrating in each case from the Attorney-General's own data, that my conclusions were true, and his absurd. I concluded by defying his legal threat of prosecution, and signed my name to the letter.

The effect of my reply to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman was marvellous in weakening the influence of the first law adviser of the Crown, and in reviving the confidence of the friends of liberal constitutional government.[65]

Subsequently, (in June, 1838), I received a letter from Mr. Hagerman, in which he stated that in my observations on Mr. Bidwell's case I had made assertions that impeached his character, and desired me to inform him on what evidence I had based my statements. He said:—

The first assertion is that I was the author of certain remarks published under the editorial head of the Patriot newspaper of this city, injurious to the reputation of Mr. Bidwell.... The second statement is that I desired to procure his expulsion from the Province, because he had been preferred to me for the office of judge.

My reply to Mr. Hagerman was brief and to the point:

I beg to say, in reply to your letter, that I am not conscious of having made either of the assertions which you have been pleased to attribute to me.

I think it only just to the late Mr. Hagerman to add, that the sharp discussions between him and me did not chill the friendliness, and even pleasantness, of our personal intercourse afterwards; and I believe few men would have more heartily welcomed Mr. Bidwell's return to Canada than Mr. Justice Hagerman himself. Mr. Hagerman was a man of generous impulses. He was a variable speaker, but at times his every gesture was eloquent, his intonations of voice were truly musical, and almost every sentence was a gem of beauty.

The discussion ended there; but no proposal was ever made to, much less entertained by, the Law Society to erase Mr. Bidwell's name from its rolls.

Mr. Bidwell's case did not, however, end here. In 1842, on the recommendation of Hon. Robert Baldwin, any promise given by Mr. Bidwell not to return to Canada—of which no record was found in any of the Government offices—was revoked, in 1843, by the Governor-General (Lord Metcalfe). Mr. Bidwell was also strongly urged to come back, and a promise was given to him by the authority of the Governor-General that all of his former rights and privileges would be restored to him, with a view to his elevation to the Bench. He, however, declined to return. Again, some years afterwards, when Sir W. B. Richards was Attorney-General, he was authorized to offer Mr. Bidwell the position of Commissioner to revise our Statute Law. He declined that offer also.

In conversation, in 1872, with Sir John Macdonald in relation to Mr. Bidwell's early life, Sir John informed me that some years before, he himself had, while in New York, solicited Mr. Bidwell to return to Canada, but without success. Sir John said that he had done so, not merely on his own account (as he had always loved Mr. Bidwell, and did not believe that he had any connection whatever with the rebellion), but because he believed that he represented the wishes of his political friends, as well as those of the people of Canada generally.

Mr. Bidwell was an earnest Christian. He was also a charming companion. A few weeks before his lamented decease, he visited his relatives and friends in Canada, spent a Sabbath in Toronto, occupying a seat in my pew in the Metropolitan Church. While here he presented me with a beautiful likeness of himself on ivory. I have placed it in the Canadian room of our Departmental Museum. I little thought it was my last meeting with him, as I had long anticipated and often intended to visit him in New York, where he promised to narrate to me many incidents of men and things in the Canada of former years, which had not come to my knowledge, or which I had forgotten. A suitable monument would be an appropriate tribute to his memory by our Legislature and country.

* * * * *

The following are extracts of letters written to Dr. Ryerson, by Mr. Bidwell, at the dates mentioned:

May 21st, 1828—Kingston.—I admire and fully approved of your plan (as I advised Mr. H. C. Thompson) of striking off a large number of copies, in pamphlet form, of your Review of Archdeacon Strachan's Sermon. (See page 68.) I have no doubt it will be really a great service to the country to do so. Indeed, I sincerely think that you could not in any other way be instrumental in promoting so much the cause of Christ, as in the labours which you have undertaken. The concerns of this Colony, as you see in the newspapers, are attracting the attention of the British Parliament; and the decided expression of public opinion here at present will outweigh all that Dr. Strachan and his junto can say and do. My father and I will shortly give the subject of Church Establishment in this Province, contended for by Dr. Strachan, a full and careful examination, and communicate to you the result.

January 19th, 1829—York.—I rejoice once more to receive a letter from you.... I sincerely thank you for your congratulations on my elevation to the Speakership. I am sensible how much I need the prayers and counsels of my friends in discharging the duties of my station. I wish Christians would reflect what important consequences may follow from every step taken by those in public life, and especially in the Legislature.... I send you a copy of Wilbur's Reference Bible, which I beg you will accept as a testimony of my respect and friendship.

March 10th, 1829—York.—The Marriage Bill has been passed, with amendments made by the Legislative Council. The House is about equally divided on trying questions, so that we often forbear attempting measures which we would wish to pass. This unpleasant state of things produces anxiety, uncertainty, and (worst of all) violent party spirit. I can with great truth declare that I have received but little satisfaction in my public life.

To you and your brother the Province owes a large debt of gratitude. For one, I feel it sensibly, and wish most sincerely that we could have the benefit of your counsel in our House. Two or three such men would be a comfort, a relief, a support, and an assistance, beyond what you have any idea of.

April 6th, 1831—Kingston.—I am very glad to see your commendations of the Attorney-General.[A] I think they are just. They are certainly politic and seasonable. Indeed, I had thought of hinting to you the propriety of some such notice of his liberality, etc. I was afraid otherwise the coldness of the courtiers towards him might make him repent of such liberality. But I think that your remarks have come at the right time, and are exactly of the right sort.[66]

June 14th, 1833—York.—We have heard with pleasure of your safe arrival in England: and pleasing indeed this has been to your many friends in the Province, whose prayers, good wishes, and friendly recollections, have accompanied you across the Atlantic.... Mr. John Willson, M.P.P., of Saltfleet, has, within a day or two, obtained from the Receiver-General, on the warrant of the Lieutenant-Governor, L600 of the public money, to aid in building chapels, I suppose, for the Ryanites. (See page 87). The fact was mentioned to me privately this morning, but I deem it so important as to justify and require me to inform you confidentially of it, leaving it to your judgment to use the intelligence in the most discreet manner that may be consistent with the duty you owe to liberty and religion.

It excites surprise, pain, mortification, indignation, and contempt, to see the Executive Government here making unjust and invidious distinctions between His Majesty's subjects in the appropriations of the Clergy Reserves, thereby endeavouring to secure an unconstitutional and corrupt influence, especially after Lord Goderich's declaration in his despatch (which he directed to be published), that if any preference was shown to one denomination of Christians more than another, it was contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government, and against repeated instructions sent to the Government here.

As a Presbyterian I lament the grant to the Presbytery, and will do all I can to get it repealed, for I am convinced it will do injury to liberty and religion, and to the very persons who may wish, or wicked enough, to receive it. I suppose the Province is indebted to Sir John Colborne for these grants. If it is the Government at home, it ought to be known: if it is not, they ought not only to remove Sir John, but also reform this abuse. Have the Government ever given your Society sixpence, or even a foot of land for your chapels?—although it is the oldest and most numerous body of the kind in the Province; is not wealthy, and has rendered the most valuable services, and at a time when no other Church evinced the least interest for the religious instruction or the welfare of the people.

April 12th, 1838—New York.—Your letter of the 23rd ult. and its enclosure [the defence], I need not say, have effected me deeply, too much, indeed, for me to describe my feelings. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this instance of your kindness; not less valued, certainly, because it was unexpected, not to say undeserved. If my misfortunes shall be the means of recovering a friendship which I formerly enjoyed and always prized, I shall feel not a little reconciled.[67]

I took the precaution some time ago, to send to England a plain, distinct statement of all that had occurred between Sir Francis Head and myself. This was transmitted to a friend to show to Lord Glenelg. My only object was the vindication of my character. I have never had the least expectation of obtaining justice or redress from the Colonial office. There seems in that department utter incapacity. The very persons they select for the Government of Upper Canada are enough to prove this. And yet I believe that Lord Glenelg is an able, as well as amiable, devout, good man.

May 15th, 1838—New York.—I have received a letter from the gentleman in England, to whom I had written. He had seen Lord Durham, and shown him my letter. He expressed no opinion; but the gentleman thinks that the matter stands favourably before him. He has not yet seen Lord Glenelg.

August 10th, 1839—New York.—Mr. Christopher Dunkin[68] is very anxious to have the honour of an introduction to you. I am very happy to be the means of gratifying him. Mr. Dunkin was editor of the Montreal Courier, in the latter part of 1837, and beginning of 1838. He was afterwards appointed by Lord Durham on the Commission relating to education, and has latterly resided in the United States.

About the time of Mr. Bidwell's defence, Dr. Ryerson also wrote an explanatory letter to the Colonial Office in regard to his excellent friend, Hon. John H. Dunn, the Receiver-General, whose generous conduct towards the Upper Canada Academy is mentioned on page 166[69]. In a letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Dunn to Dr. Ryerson, he said:—

I am very glad to learn from your letter that you have written to Lord Glenelg. It is but just to put His Lordship in possession of facts which may counteract the influence of misrepresentation, and enable His Lordship to exercise his own humane disposition in putting matters right, which have been so wrong and arbitrary towards the individual Mr. Bidwell, whom you have taken the interest in, and trouble, to restore to his position and his country.

I feel exceedingly obliged for the kind feeling which you entertain towards me. Believe me, that you have only done me justice by mentioning my name to Lord Glenelg. I have laboured hard since I have been in the Province to discharge my duty to my God and my Government. I have entertained different opinions at times of the "Powers here," but they have been the dictates of an honest heart. I cannot guide my opinions to the service of any party. Whatever they may be, I shall lament if they should result in any other than for the best interests and welfare of the Province of Upper Canada.

You were so good as to read me your letter to Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the late execution of Lount and Matthews. Your version too, of the real meaning of the representation which caused Sir Francis Head to compel us to retire from the Executive Council, is so correct, that I cannot suggest any amendment; besides, I am bound by my oath not to divulge any transaction arising at the Council Board. I shall be very happy to see the letter published. (See page 170.)