You have seen my name kindly mentioned in the public prints. What has been said has been the spontaneous expressions of other persons, quite unknown to me. I am grateful to those persons who have vindicated me against a party, eager to destroy me, and my family. I leave them to a Judge who knows the secrets of all hearts, and before whom we all shall soon appear. I have had my share of afflictions and troubles in this world, and to which I feel little or no attachment whatever. When the heart is sick, the whole body is faint.

Dr. Ryerson (in the Guardian of 22nd January, 1840) thus referred to Mr. Dunn as one of the speakers in the Legislative Council on the popular side of the clergy reserve question:—

I was glad to hear Mr. Dunn speak so well and so forcibly,—universally and affectionately esteemed as he is beyond any other public functionary in Upper Canada.

* * * * *

Some months after the exile of Mr. Bidwell, Mr. James S. Howard was dismissed by Sir F. B. Head from the office of Postmaster of Toronto. The alleged ground of dismissal was that he was a Radical, and had not taken up arms in defence of the country. Dr. Ryerson, with his usual generous sympathy for persons who in those days were made the victims of Governor Head's caprice, at once espoused Mr. Howard's cause. In his first letter in the Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, he said:—

After the insurrection of 1837-8, unfavourable impressions were made far and wide against the late Postmaster of Toronto, and Mr. Bidwell. But subsequent investigations corrected these impressions. The former has been appointed to office, and Sir F. B. Head's proceedings against the latter have been cancelled by Sir Charles Metcalfe. (Page 16.)

Again, in the "Prefatory Address" to the Metcalfe Defence, he said:—

While God gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to write, I will not passively see honourable integrity murdered by grasping faction.... I would not do so in 1838, when an attempt was made to degrade and proscribe, and drive out of the country all naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all Reformers with the brand of rebellion.... I relieved the name of an injured James S. Howard from the obloquy that hung over it, and rescued the character and rights of an exiled Bidwell from ruthless invasion, and the still further effort to cover him with perpetual infamy by expelling him from the Law Society. (Page 7.)

FOOTNOTES:

[61] According to the books of the Law Society, Mr. Bidwell commenced his legal studies in Kingston, the 14th March, 1816, in the office of Mr. Daniel Washburn, 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.

[62] As stated by Dr. Ryerson, in the above note, Mr. Bidwell took no part in politics after his political defeat in May, 1836. In a note to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, dated August 3rd, 1837, Mr. Bidwell said: Having learned from the Constitution of yesterday that I was chosen as a delegate to a Provincial Convention, I think it right without delay to inform you ... that I must be excused from undertaking the duties of that appointment.... I cannot but regret that my name should have been used without my consent, or previous knowledge, by which I am driven to the disagreeable necessity of thus publicly declining [the] appointment, etc. In the Guardian of 27th September, where this letter appears, it is stated that Mr. Mackenzie did not publish it in the Constitution until the 20th September—six weeks after he had received it.

In a letter from Mr. Bidwell, dated, the 30th April, 1837, to Dr. O'Callaghan, of Montreal, he said: Retired from public life, probably for ever; I still look with the deepest sympathy on the efforts of those who are actively contending for the great principles of liberty, and good government, etc.—"Political History of Canada, 1840-1855, by Sir Francis Hincks, 1877, page 7."

[63] Sir Alexander Campbell, now Minister of Justice, in a note to the Editor, thus explains this circumstance:—In the winter of 1837-38, I was a student-at-law, and a resident of Kingston. Dr. Ryerson was then the Methodist minister in charge of the only congregation of that body in town. The rebellion of 1837-8, had led to excited, and very bitter feelings—arrests had been frequent; and it was not prudent for any one to try to palliate the deeds of the rebels, or to seek to lessen the odium which covered their real, or even supposed allies and friends. Dr. Ryerson, however, desired to bring out the facts connected with Mr. Bidwell's banishment, and to change the current of public feeling on the subject—but it was not wise to send letters to the press in his own handwriting, or in any other way suffer it to become known that he was the author of the letters in defence of Mr. Bidwell. Under these circumstances he asked me to copy them, and take them to the Herald office—then the most liberal paper in Upper Canada. I was proud of the confidence placed in me, and copied the several letters, and went with them to the publisher. The letters were signed in words which I have not since seen, but which remain impressed upon my memory, and which were as follows:—

"I am Sir, by parental instruction and example, by personal feeling and exertion,

A United Empire Loyalist"

The letters constituted an eloquent defence of Mr. Bidwell, who certainly took no part in the counsels of those who were afterwards engaged in the rebellion, when it became evident that they intended to push matters to extremes.

The incident made a great impression on me at the time, and was the beginning of a friendship with which Dr. Ryerson honoured me, and which ended only with his life.

A. Campbell.

Ottawa, 29th December, 1882.

[64] The defence was afterwards reprinted in a pamphlet on the 10th of May, 1838, with the following title: "The Cause and Circumstances of Mr. Bidwell's Banishment by Sir F. B. Head, correctly stated and proved by A United Empire Loyalist." Kingston, 1838, pp. 16.

[65] Some time after Sir George Arthur's arrival as Governor, he sent for me, and stated that his object in doing so was to request me, for the sake of the Government and the country, to withdraw the letter I had written in answer to Attorney-General Hagerman; that it greatly weakened the Government; that my power of argumentation was prodigious, but he believed I was mistaken; that Mr. Bidwell had called to pay his respects to him at Albany, on his way to Canada; and that he (Sir George) believed Mr. Bidwell was guilty, as far as a man of his caution and knowledge could be concerned in the rebellion; and though my argument on his behalf seemed to be irresistible, he believed I was wrong, and that the withdrawal of my letter would be a great help to the Government. I replied that my weekly editorials in the Christian Guardian (of which I had consented to be re-elected Editor) showed that I was anxious to suppress the factious and party hatreds of the day, and to place the Government upon a broad foundation of loyalty and justice; that what I had written in the case of Mr. Bidwell had been written by me as an individual and not as the editor of the organ of a religious body, and had been written from the firm conviction of Mr. Bidwell's innocence, and that his case involved the fundamental and essential rights of every British subject; and that, however anxious I was to meet His Excellency's wishes, I could not withdraw my letter. I then bowed myself out from the presence of Sir George, who, from that hour became my enemy, and afterwards warned Lord Sydenham against me as "a dangerous man," as Lord Sydenham laughingly told me the last evening I spent with him in Montreal, at his request, and before his lamented death.

[66] These remarks will be found on page 83 of the Guardian of 2nd April.

[67] This loss of friendship with Dr. Ryerson may be explained by the following reference to Mr. Bidwell, in a letter from Dr. Ryerson, to his brother John, dated, Kingston, 29th May, 1838:—From an intimate religious friend of Mr. Bidwell, I learn that during the last few years he had acted more after a worldly policy, common to politicians, and had, therefore, partly laid himself open to the censure which he has received. I am also sensible of his prejudices against me of late years, and of the great injury which I have thereby sustained. I had some difficulty to overcome my own feelings in the first instance. But as far as individual feelings and interests are concerned, "it is the glory of man to pass over a transgression," generous as well as just, as we have received help from Bidwell himself when we could not help ourselves, and were trampled upon by a desperate party. If others had seen the letters from Bidwell to Mr. Cassidy, which I have been permitted to read, I am sure the noble generosity of their hearts would be excited in all its sympathies. I do not think, however, that he will ever return to this Province to reside. That appears to be altogether out of the question with him; but that does not alter the nature of the case.

I have replied to Mr. Hagerman with calmness, but with deep feeling. My reply will occupy about eight columns in to-morrow's Herald.

[68] Mr. Dunkin afterwards became a noted politician, and member of the Parliament of United Canada, from 1857, until Confederation. He was the promoter of the "Dunkin Act." He was one of the contributors to the Monthly Review, established by Lord Sydenham in 1841. He was subsequently appointed to the Bench, and died a few years since.

[69] The Hon. John Henry Dunn was a native of England. He came to Canada in 1820, having been appointed Receiver-General of Upper Canada, and a member of the Executive and Legislative Council. He held the office of Receiver-General until the union of the Provinces in 1841, when the political exigencies of the times compelled him to resign it. He and Hon. Isaac Buchanan contested the city of Toronto, in the Reform interest, in 1841, and were returned. Mr. Dunn received no compensation for the loss of his office, and soon afterwards returned to England, where he died in 1854. He was a most estimable public officer. His son, Col. Dunn, greatly distinguished himself during the Crimean war, and, on his visiting Canada soon afterwards, was received with great enthusiasm, and a handsome sword was presented to him.—H.



CHAPTER XXV.

1838.

Return to the Editorship of the "Guardian."

The Rebellion of 1837-38 was suppressed by the inherent and spontaneous loyalty of all classes of the Canadian people. Yet, after it was over, the seeds of strife engendered by the effort to prove that one section of the community was more loyal than the other, and that that other section was chiefly responsible for the outbreak, bore bitter fruit in the way of controversy. Dr. Ryerson took little part in such recriminatory warfare. It was too superficial. He felt that it did not touch the underlying points at issue between the dominant, or ruling, party and those who were engaged in a contest for equal civil and religious rights. He, and the other leaders who influenced and moulded public opinion, clearly saw that this recriminatory war was carried on by the dominant party as a mask to cover their ulterior designs—designs which were afterwards developed in the more serious struggle for religious supremacy which that party waged for years afterwards, and which at length issued in the complete triumph of the principles of civil and religious freedom for which Dr. Ryerson and the representatives of other religious bodies had so long and so earnestly contended. (See page 452.)

Besides, Dr. Ryerson was anxious to fulfil the engagement made with the Kingston Society that he would resume his pastoral charge there, after his return from England in June, 1837. He was, however, repeatedly pressed by his friends to write for the Guardian, or other newspaper, on the vital questions of the day. In reply to his brother John, who had urged him in the matter, he wrote (March, 1838) saying that he was so happily engaged in his pastoral duties at Kingston that he could not then devote the necessary time to the discussion of public questions. His brother, in remonstrating with him on the subject, said:—

Your letter affords me great satisfaction, accompanied with sorrow. I am afflicted to think of the state the Province is in. Never did high-churchism take such rapid strides towards undisputed domination in this country as it is now taking. Never were the prospects of the friends of civil and religious liberty so gloomy and desperate as they are now. You say that you have not time to write on these subjects. I will say, if you had, it would not now, I fear, accomplish much. Indeed, it would, require the undeviating course and the whole weight of the Guardian to accomplish anything at this time, so completely is all moral power in the country enervated and liberty prostrated.

It is a great blessing that Mackenzie and radicalism are down, but we are in imminent danger of being brought under the domination of a military and high-church oligarchy, which would be equally bad, if not infinitely worse. Under the blessing of Providence there is one remedy, and only one; and that is, for you to take the editorship of the Guardian again. Several preachers have spoken to me on this subject lately. One of them said to me (and he could think of nothing else) that that alone would save us and the country from utter ruin, and urged the necessity of the Conference electing you, whether you would consent to serve or not. The truth is, it is absolutely necessary for the sake of the Church and the country that you reside in Toronto, and have direction of affairs here. I wish all of our proceedings to be calm and moderate, but that we be firm, and that the great principles of religious freedom and equality should be uncompromisingly maintained.

In a subsequent letter to Dr. Ryerson his brother John said:

In fact there is no way of escape out of our troubles but for you to take the Guardian. The feeling of dissatisfaction at the present state of things is becoming exceedingly strong among the preachers and people. I participate in their feelings.

Dr. Ryerson yielded to these appeals, and did write for the Guardian. In a letter, dated Kingston, April 4th, he said:—

I have recently written at considerable length to Lord Glenelg respecting the Academy and other local matters. What you say in regard to myself, and my appointment next year, I feel to be a delicate and difficult matter for me to speak on. In regard to myself I have many conflicting thoughts. My feelings, and private interests, are in favour of my remaining where I am, if I remain in the Province. I have been very much cast down, and my mind has been much agitated on the subject. For the present I am somewhat relieved by the conclusion to which I have come, in accordance with Dr. Clarke's "Advice to a Young Preacher," not to choose my own appointment, but after making known any circumstances, which I may feel it necessary to explain, to leave myself in the hands of God and my brethren, as I have done during the former years of my ministry. If the Lord, therefore, will give me grace, I am resolved to stand on the old Methodistic ground in the matter of appointment to the Guardian.

I thank you for Chief Justice Robinson's address at the trial of the prisoners. It is good. My own views are in favour of lenity to these prisoners. Punishments for political offences can never be beneficial, when they are inflicted in opposition to public sentiment and sympathy. In such a case it will defeat the object it is intended to accomplish. It matters not whether that sentiment and sympathy are right or wrong in the abstract; the effect of doing violence to it will be the same. But I would not pander to that feeling, how carefully soever one may be disposed to observe its operations. The fact, however, is, that Sir Francis Head deserves impeachment, just as much as Samuel Lount deserves execution. Morally speaking, I cannot but regard Sir Francis as the more guilty culprit of the two.

I admire, as a whole, Sir George Arthur's reply to the address of the "Constitutional Reformers." There is good in it. They will see the folly of continuing the former party designations, and pretended grounds of complaint. I think, however, that their address will do good, from the large number of names attached to it. I was surprised, and it has created quite a sensation here, that there are so many as 772 in Toronto, who still have the moral courage to designate themselves "Constitutional Reformers." It will teach the other party that they are not so strong, and so absolute in the voice of the country, as they thought themselves to be.

I am satisfied that there never was such a time as from the termination of the trial of the prisoners to the next session of Parliament, for us to stamp upon the public mind at large, our own constitutional, and Scriptural, political, and religious doctrines; and to give the tone to the future Government and Legislation of the Province, and to enlarge vastly a sphere of usefulness. I shall write some papers for the Guardian with this view.

In a letter from Brockville, Rev. William Scott said:—

My humble opinion is, that in order to our safety as a Church—our preservation from high church influence—you must be at Toronto. I assure you that is the opinion of our influential men in this quarter, who understand the state of the province, and the position of Methodism. Permit me to add that the one hour's conversation which I had with you amply repaid me for all the furious battles which I have fought on this circuit in your defence.

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in a letter to Rev. John Ryerson, said:

I am quite of your opinion that your brother Egerton ought to take the Guardian next year. There is a crisis approaching in our affairs which will require a vigorous hand to wield the defensive weapon of our Conference. There can be no two opinions as to whom we should give that weapon. We now stand on fair ground to maintain our own against the encroachments of the oligarchy, and we must do it, or sink into a comparatively uninfluential body—this must not be.

As urged by these letters from his brethren, Dr. Ryerson, early in May, 1838, prepared several articles for the Guardian. His brother John, who was a member of the Book Committee, thus speaks of the series of articles sent to that paper:—

I cannot express to you how much I am gratified and pleased with your article on "Christian Loyalty." It will, no doubt, do immense good. We have had a regular campaign in our Book Committee, in reading and discussing your articles. The one on "Christian Loyalty" occupied nearly the whole time. Your article on "The Church" is one of the most admirable papers I ever read. Not a word of that is to be altered. Your communication on "Indian Affairs," I cannot speak so highly of. I hope you will pardon me for leaving out some of the severe remarks on Sir Francis. I am afraid they will do harm with the present Government.

At the Conference of 1838, Dr. Ryerson was re-elected Editor of the Christian Guardian. In his first editorial, dated 11th July 1838, he said:—

Notwithstanding the almost incredible calumny which has in past years been heaped upon me by antipodes-party-presses, I still adhere to the principles and views upon which I set out in 1826. I believe the endowment of the priesthood of any Church in the Province to be an evil to that Church.... I believe that the appropriation of the proceeds of the clergy reserves to general educational purposes, will be the most satisfactory and advantageous disposal of them that can be made. In nothing is this Province so defective as in the requisite available provisions for, and an efficient system of, general education. Let the distinctive character of that system be the union of public and private effort.... To Government influence will be spontaneously added the various and combined religious influence of the country in the noble, statesmanlike, and divine work of raising up an elevated, intelligent, and moral population.[70]

In combatting the idea that his editorial opinions in the Guardian were necessarily "the opinions of the Methodists" as a body, and that they were responsible for them, Dr. Ryerson, in the Guardian of August 15th, thus defines the rights of an editor:—To be the mere scribe of the opinions of others, and not to write what we think ourselves, is a greater degradation of intellectual and moral character than slavery itself.... In doctrines and opinions we write what we believe to be the truth, leaving to others the exercise of a judgment equally unbiassed and free.

* * * * *

In the exuberance of loyal zeal, and yet in a kindly spirit which was characteristic of him, Rev. W. M. Harvard, President of the Canada Conference, issued a pastoral on the 17th April, 1838, to the ministers of the Church, enjoining them not to recognize as members of the Society those whose loyalty could be impeached. The directions which he gave were:—

Should there be a single individual for whose Christian loyalty the preacher cannot conscientiously answer for to his brethren, in the first place such individual should not be included in the return of membership, and in the second place such individual should be dealt with kindly and compassionately, but firmly, according to the provisions of the Discipline.

No man who is not disposed to be a good subject can be admissible to the Sacraments of the Church....

Should any person apply hereafter for admission into our Church, who may be ill-affected to the Crown ... tell him kindly, but firmly, ... that he has applied at the wrong door.

As soon as this extraordinary pastoral had appeared, Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter of some length to the Guardian, objecting in very temperate, but yet in very strong language to the doctrine laid down in it by the President of the Conference. Before publication, however, he sent it to Mr. Harvard for his information and perusal. He showed from the writings of John Wesley, Richard Watson, and others, and from examples which he cited (John Nelson, "the apostolic fellow-labourer of John Wesley," etc.) that such a doctrine savoured of despotism, and was harsh and inquisitorial in its effects. He concluded thus:—

None of the various political opinions which men hold, and their respectful and constitutional expression of them, is any just cause of excluding from the Lord's Table any human being, provided his religious character is unexceptional. The only condition of membership in our Church is "a desire to flee from the wrath to come,"[71] and none of the opinions mentioned is inconsistent with the fruits by which that desire is evidenced. The Discipline of the Church, or the Scripture itself, does not authorize me to become the judge of another man's political opinions—the Church is not a political association—any man has as good a right, religiously and politically, to his opinions of public matters as I have to mine—and laymen frequently know much more, and are better judges, than ministers in civil and secular affairs.

It can be well understood what would be the effect of the Pastoral, and not less so of Dr. Ryerson's clear and dispassionate disclaimer of the doctrines which it officially laid down.

It required courage and firmness, in the loyal outburst and reaction of those days, to question the propriety or expediency of any reasonable means by which the unimpeachable loyalty of members of the Church could be ascertained. What added to the embarrassment of Dr. Ryerson in discussing such a question was the fact that the Methodists were being constantly taunted with being disloyal. Knowing this, and sensitive as to the disgrace of such a stigma being cast upon the Church, the President felt constrained to take some decisive, and yet, as he thought, kindly and satisfactory means of ridding the Church of members who were the cause, in his estimation, of such a disgrace and reproach to that Church.

Among many other strong letters of commendations of his reply to Mr. Harvard, which Dr. Ryerson received, were two,—one from a representative minister of the Canadian section of the Church, and the other from an equally excellent representative of the British missionaries. Thus:

Rev. Anson Green, writing from Picton, said:—

I was sorry, though not surprised, to hear that you were very much perplexed. I could easily understand your feelings, and quite sympathize with you. Your recent efforts for the peace and prosperity of the Church have very much endeared you to my heart. I am fully prepared to believe the assertion which you made while in England, "that you love Jerusalem above your chief joy." This you have fully proved by your untiring efforts on behalf of the Academy, the Chapels, and on the Church question; but in nothing more, allow me to say, than in the firm, manly, and Christian spirit, in which you have come out, publicly, in defence of the membership of the Church, and of sound principles. I had resolved when Rev. Mr. Harvard wrote to me to carry out the principles of his instructions and Pastoral in this district, to write him a letter respectfully and yet firmly declining to do so. But when I saw the storm gathering in every quarter, I could only exclaim in the despondency of my soul:—When will our brethren cease to destroy us, and when will the Church again have rest from internal commotion and strife! And just at this crisis (a memorable crisis to thousands of our Canadian friends) your excellent rejoinder to Mr. Harvard's Pastoral came out in the Guardian. It was a balm to the afflicted heart. It was a precious cordial poured forth. Your letter was sent from house to house, from cottage to cottage, and met with unequivical applause from all. The lowering sky began to clear up, and we are encouraged once more to hope for clear sunshine. You have had the courage to speak the truth in opposition to men in high authority. Your letter was in every respect just what it should have been, and thousands do most sincerely thank you for it.

Rev. Joseph Stinson, writing from Simcoe, said:—

As far as I can ascertain, your appointment as Editor of the Guardian next year will give general satisfaction. The President's Pastoral and your reply are producing quite a sensation. Most people give Mr. Harvard credit for purity of intention, but regret that the subject of politics has been adverted to by him in such a form. Your remarks on the Pastoral have hushed the fears of many who were greatly disturbed; but some think that your statement of abstract right is carried too far, and may at a future day be appealed to in support of measures which you would utterly condemn.

Some of your old tory friends think that there is design in all you write on these questions, and do not hesitate to designate you by the amiable title of a "jesuit," etc. You can bear all this and much more in carrying out your design, to show them that their tactics are understood, and their proceedings are closely watched, so as to prevent them from obtaining those objects which would be alike unjust to us as a Church, and ungenerous to themselves. It is well that in all of the "burnings which your fingers" have had, you have not yet lost your nails; for I expect that you will need them before long. The high church party have the will, if they can muster the courage, to make a renewed and desperate attack upon you. Fear not; while you advocate the truth, you can defy their rage.

The public mind seems to me to be in a state of painful suspense. The people hate and dread rebellion. They are not satisfied with the present leading political party. They hope to see a new man rise up with sufficient talent and influence to collect around him a respectable party to act as a balance between oppression and destruction. Some talk of a new election; some talk of leaving the country; all seem to think that something must be done; none know what to do. How ought we in this awful crisis (for an awful crisis it is), to pray for the Divine interposition in behalf of our distracted province.... I saw your venerable father last night. He very much wishes you to write to him.

On the 7th of November, 1838, the first number of the 10th volume of the Guardian was issued. In it there is an elaborate article signed by Dr. Ryerson (although he was then Editor), on the state of public affairs in Upper Canada. In his introductory remarks he said:—

From the part I have usually taken in questions which affect the foundations of our Government, and our relations with the Mother Country,—and from the position I at present occupy in respect to public affairs, and in relation to the Province generally, it will be expected that I should take a more than passing notice of the eventful crisis at which we have arrived. In conclusion, he says: Having faithfully laid before the Government and the country the present posture of affairs, and the causes of our present dissatisfaction and dangers, I advert to the remedies: (1. Military defence.) 2. Let the Government be administered as much in accordance with the general wishes of this country, as it is in England. 3. Abolish high-church domination, and provide perfect religious and political equality. 4. Let them be at equal fidelity to obey the authorities when called upon.... He who does most to bring about this happy state of things in the Province will be the greatest benefactor of his country.

FOOTNOTES:

[70] Even at this early date, Dr. Ryerson indicated the comprehensive character of the system of education which he was afterwards destined to found in Upper Canada.

[71] These words as to membership are identical with those which Dr. Ryerson uttered fifteen years afterwards in his discussion on the Class-meeting question.



CHAPTER XXVI.

1838-1840.

Enemies and Friends Within and Without.

Any controversialist, whose honest belief in his own doctrines makes him terribly in earnest, may count on a life embittered by the anger of those on whom he has forced the disagreeable task of reconsidering their own assumptions.—Canon Farrar.

All through his public career, Dr. Ryerson had many bitter enemies and many warm and devoted friends. This was not to be wondered at. No man with such strongly marked individuality of will and purpose, and with such an instinctive dislike to injustice and oppression, could fail to come in contact with those whose views and proceedings were opposed to his sense of right. The enmity which he excited in discussing public questions was rarely disarmed (except in the case of men of generous impulses or noble natures) by the fact that he and those who acted with him were battling for great principles—those of truth, and justice, and freedom.

When these principles could not be successfully assailed, the usual plan was to attack the character, and wound the tender sensibilities of their chief defender. This was a mistake; but it was the common error with most of Dr. Ryerson's assailants. And yet those who did so in his presence, and in the arena of debate, rarely repeated the mistake. With all his kindness of heart and warmth of friendship, there was, when aroused, much of the lion in his nature. Few who assailed him in Conference, or made a personal attack upon him in other places of public discussion, could stand before the glitter of his eye when that lion-nature was aroused; and fewer still would care to endure the effect of its fire a second time.

Most of the personal attacks made upon Dr. Ryerson were in writing, and often anonymously. He had, therefore, to defend himself chiefly with his pen. This he rarely failed to do, and with good effect.[72] On such occasions he used strong and vigorous language, of which he was an acknowledged master. Very many of these attacks were ephemeral, and not worthy of note. Others were more serious and affected character, and these were more or less bitter and violent. They, of course, called forth a good deal of feeling at the time, but are only referred to now as part of the story of a life, then singularly active and stormy.

* * * * *

The Editor of the Toronto Patriot having published extracts from a pamphlet issued in the Newcastle District (County of Northumberland), in 1832, in which attacks were made upon Dr. Ryerson's character, he replied to them in the columns of that paper. In 1828, his circuit was in the Newcastle district, and the person who made these attacks resided in Haldimand, about eight miles east of Cobourg. Among other things, this man said that Dr. Ryerson "read seditious newspapers at his house, on the Sabbath day!" In reply, Dr. Ryerson said:—

As my plan of labour prevented me from reaching this person's locality until Sunday evening, and then preach in the Church there, it would be impossible for me to do as he has alleged. Were I to have done so, I would be unworthy of the society of Christian men. But the author of this libel, which was published by him four years after the alleged circumstance took place, was defeated as a candidate for the House of Assembly, on account of a personal attack which he made upon me at the hustings! Hinc illae lucrymae. This person also said that I "hoped yet to see the walls of the Church of England levelled to the dust." In my reply to this I said:—I solemnly declare that I never uttered such a sentiment, nor have I cherished any hostility to the Church of England. Some of my friends desired me to take orders in the Church of England [see page 41]; and a gentleman (now an Episcopal clergyman) was authorized by the late Bishop of Quebec to request me to make an appointment to see him on his then contemplated tour through the Niagara District, where I was travelling. After mature, and I trust, prayerful deliberation, I replied by letter declining the proposals made, at the same time appreciating the kindness and partiality of my friends. A short time afterwards, I met the friend who had been the medium of this communication from the late Dr. Stewart. He was deeply affected at my decision. When I assigned my religious obligation to the Methodists as a reason for declining the offer, he replied that all of his own religious feelings had also been derived from them, but he thought the Church required our labours.

Some person having written, professedly from Kingston, a diatribe against Dr. Ryerson, in the London (Eng.) Standard, Rev. Robert Alder replied to it, and apprised him of the fact:—

An attack having been made on you in a letter from Kingston, and inserted in the Standard, I have been stirred up to write in your defence. I expect also to have a battle to fight with Sir Francis Head, for "I guess" he knows something of your Kingston friend.

From Mr. Alder's reply, I make the following extracts:—

There is no man, either in the Canadas or at home, better acquainted with the former and present state of these fine provinces than Mr. Ryerson, as his letters in the Times, signed "A Canadian," testify. Even his Kingston slanderer admits that the facts stated in these letters were, in the main exceedingly correct, indisputably true, and for the publication of which he is entitled to the grateful thanks of every loyal subject throughout British North America. But the malice of an adversary is too often swifter than the gratitude of those who have derived benefit from our services. This is proved in the case of Mr. Ryerson; for while every radical and republican journal in the province has teemed with communications vilifying his character and motives in the strongest terms, a stinted meed of praise has been doled out to him....

No wonder that persons in this country deeply interested in Canada frequently consulted him; no wonder that the British North American Land Company re-published his letters from the Times at their own expense. And it is to the honour of the noble lord at the head of the Colonial Department, that he did obtain from so intelligent and influential an individual as Mr. Ryerson, information respecting the state of parties in a country so well-known to him. If his information and advice, and that of another "Methodist Parson" in Canada, had been received and acted upon elsewhere, there is reason to believe that Mackenzie and his traitorous associates would not have been permitted to unfurl the standard of rebellion in the midst of a peaceful and loyal people. (See pages 176 and 183.)

The inspired truth that "A man's foes shall be they of his own household" received many a painful illustration in Dr. Ryerson's history. In 1838, it was reduced to a system. The assailant was often "A Wesleyan," or, "A True Wesleyan," and under the friendly aegis of four or five papers, which were usually hostile to Methodism itself, the attack would be made. From numerous examples noted in the Guardian, I select a specimen:—

The rebellious Guardian is shut against us; its cry is war, havoc, and bloodshed, with Wesley on the lips, but implacable hatred to him in the heart of its editor and his friends.... One of two things remain for us, either to expel the Ryerson family and their friends from our Society, who are the root of all our misfortunes, or ... for all true Wesleyans to withdraw from them and their wicked adherents, as the Israelites did from Egypt, or a leper.

In Dr. Ryerson's effort to protect individuals who were oppressed, and who had no means of defence, except in the columns of the Guardian, he was often virulently assailed, and even his life threatened. On the 22nd December, 1838, he received a letter of this kind from an influential gentleman in Toronto, who threatened legal proceedings unless the name of a writer in the Guardian was given to him. He said:—

In reply to your letter of last evening, I have to say that the writer of the communication in the Guardian, to which you refer, is one of the "peaceable members of the Methodist Society," whose character had been gratuitously and basely assailed by the Editor of the Patriot and his associate. He is a poor man, whose living depends upon his daily industry. Were he a rich man, I might consult with him on the subject of your letter; but being in those circumstances of life which disable him from sustaining himself against your wealth, and relentless persecution, I at once determine to shield him from your power. I will not, therefore, furnish you with his name.

In the published paragraph of his communication, the writer has asserted that certain things were published some time since in the Patriot, respecting the associate of its Editor, and an attempt was made to blast the character and prospects of several unoffending members of the Methodist Society—men, the daily bread for whose families must be taken out of their mouths, if the political or private character of their protectors is, in times like the present, believed to be what this associate has represented it to be. These men do not, like you, get rich upon "wars and rumours of wars;" their high church zeal would not, like yours, treble their business, and bring them into possession of a tolerable fortune in a few years. It is to blunt the assassinating dagger of a marked, and hitherto privileged slanderer, against the character of such men that I admitted the paragraph in question into the Guardian. If you are not the associate of the city Editor in this "crusade against the character of peaceable members of the Methodist Society," then you are exonerated from the remarks in the letters, and the columns of the Guardian are open to you for any reparation you can desire. Notwithstanding your attacks upon both my public and private character for years past; notwithstanding your late unprovoked attack upon my private character in a city newspaper; notwithstanding your late indirect threats upon my life, and the Guardian office in the event of an invasion; notwithstanding all this, and much more, I am still ready to open the columns of the Guardian to you, if you think that any kind of injustice has been done you. The letter to which you refer, mentions no name, but adverts to an already published portrait of a certain character who is, upon good grounds, believed to be figuring behind the scenes in this high church warfare against Methodists and others, and who is known to be indiscriminately scattering "firebrands, arrows and death," amongst all of Her Majesty's subjects who will not contribute to the profits of his newspaper craft in crying up his golden idol of a dominant church. It is amusing to see you, sir, who have availed yourself so lavishly, in all time past, of the freedom of the press to assail others, so sensitive at the mere suspicion of a mere report against causeless attacks upon private individuals, having been intended for yourself.

Dr. Ryerson concluded in the following vigorous language:—

Sir,—After having exhausted the resources of a free, I may add a licentious press to destroy me, with a view of extinguishing the principles of civil and religious liberty which I advocate, you and your party now seek to have recourse to the "glorious uncertainty of the law" to accomplish what you cannot effect by free discussion before an intelligent public; but I am not concerned at your threats. I know the malice of the party of which you are a convenient, active, and useful tool; I know its resources; I know its power; but I also know the ground on which I stand. I know the country for whose welfare I am labouring; above all, I rely upon the wisdom and efficiency of that Providence, whose administration, I believe, if I can judge of the signs of the times, has better things in store for the inhabitants of Upper Canada (my native land) than the despotism of a dominant oligarchy, upheld and promoted by the persecuting, the anti-British, and anti-patriotic spirit of such partizans as yourself.

Rev. Matthew Richey wrote to Dr. Ryerson from Cobourg, in January, 1839, stating that some of the leading Methodists in Montreal were inducing subscribers to give up the Guardian, on the alleged ground of some disloyal sentiments contained in that paper of the 12th December.[73] Mr. Richey adds:—

I have written to a leading friend in Montreal, earnestly expostulating with him upon the precipitancy of such a course. I have not failed to apprise him of the bitter hostility of the Kingston Chronicle, the Toronto Patriot, the Cobourg Star, and The Church, to Methodism, and to say that, did they read these papers, they would not be surprised at the pungency with which you express yourself on the questions at issue between the arrayed parties of the Province.

To intimate that the faithful discharge of your duty may expose you to gaol or gibbet ... is not very complimentary to the freedom of the Government under whose protection you are placed. Situated as you are in the burning centre of excitement, and aware of the high hopes, as well as high-handed measures of your opponents, you have great need of patience, and forbearance.

The leading Methodists in Montreal to whom Rev. Matthew Richey refers in the foregoing letter, having written to Dr. Ryerson on the subject of their complaint, he replied to them, on the 7th January, as follows:—

Your letter of the 24th ult. being rather unusual, both in matter and form, seems to demand more than a silent acknowledgment. I shall have much pleasure in complying with your request; but I should despise myself, were I capable of making any reply to the allegation contained in your letter.

Not a few of you impugned both my motives and principles in former years, I have lived to furnish a practical commentary on your candour and justice, by being the first to excite in the Colonial Office in England a determination to protect British interests in Lower Canada against French ambition and prejudice. I may yet have an opportunity of furnishing a second similar commentary upon your second similar imputation.

It is true that I am not of the high church school of politics, nor of the Montreal Herald school of bloodshed and French extermination; but I, nevertheless, think there still remains another basis of Scripture, justice, and humanity, on which may rest the principles of a loyalty that will sacrifice life itself in the maintenance of British supremacy, in perfect harmony with a vigorous support of the constitutional rights of the subject,—unmoved at one time by the fierce denunciations of revolutionists, and unshaken at another time by the imputations of ultra-sycophantic partizanship.

Twice have the leading members of the Methodist Society in Montreal had the opportunity of insulting (and if their influence could have done it, of injuring) me—and twice have they improved it,—in May, 1834 [see page 148], when I was in Montreal; and in December, 1838—a juncture when a stain might be inflicted upon the character and reputation of any vulnerable minister of the Church that would tarnish his very grave. It is a pleasing as well as singular circumstance, and one that will be engraved upon the tablet of my heart while memory holds her seat, that when in 1834 I was insulted in Montreal, I was invited to preach in Quebec; and now that I am honoured from Montreal a second time in a similar way, I have this day received from Quebec a second token of "respect for my character and love to Methodism" of ten new subscribers to the Guardian, with a promise "ere long of from ten to twenty more."[74]

On the other hand, Dr. Ryerson, in the Guardian of October 17th, 1838, exposes the kind of warfare which was carried on against him by the high church party:—

I have been informed, upon the authority of creditable eye witnesses, that the number of the Patriot which contained four or five columns of attacks on the Editor of the Guardian in his private and public relations, has been carried from house to house for the edification of Methodists; that in one instance the wife of a rector had carried and read the Patriot to members of the Methodist Church and friends of the Editor, and then asked if they could be led by such a man as Egerton Ryerson?

In the Guardian of the 31st October, Dr. Ryerson says:—

Another example of this vicious and disgraceful mode of warfare is contained in a pamphlet published at the Kingston Chronicle office, with a view of preventing the soldiers from deserting to the United States.... I copy the following infamous passages, purporting to be written by a deserter [name and regiment not given]:—Well, I deserted. Ryerson never rested till he worked me up to the deed. I was like a child in his hands—he led me as he pleased.... It was only to get clear off, and then the road to all that I ever wished for was open before me—so said Ryerson, etc.... Ryerson has two or three more on hand, etc.

Dr. Ryerson adds:—

I had marked other passages of a like character, from the Patriot, the Cobourg Star, and the Statesman.... Such are the barbarous weapons used to pull down the religious liberties of the people of this Province, and to establish a church domination.

While Dr. Ryerson was at the Conference at Hamilton, in 1839, Rev. D. McMullen, of Hillier, in a letter to him, said:—

I have read the Guardian with some attention during the past year. I believe the general principles of political, civil, and ecclesiastical policy advocated in it are such as must be supported and ultimately prevail, or our country will be ruined. Yet, while I admire the talent displayed by you, it is still a question with me whether you, as a Methodist minister, in conducting a religious journal, are justifiable in going the lengths you do in discussions of a political character. I know that your ability and your intimate acquaintance with the state of things in the country, with parties, and all the questions at issue, etc., render you a very competent person (perhaps the most so of any other in the country) to write on these subjects; nor do I think that you ought to bury this talent, but that through some other medium than the Guardian, you should employ it for the country's good, and in a way that would occasion less dissatisfaction among our people, and excite and stir up less bad feeling against us and you from without.

At the same Conference, Dr. Ryerson received a strong letter of approval and encouragement from Mr. Hugh Moore, a highly respected and active member of the Church in Dundas. Mr. Moore said:—

I came to Hamilton this morning (13th June) to see you and to strengthen your hands in the course that you have taken, and are taking, in the Guardian. I could not get an opportunity of seeing you, so I take this way of assuring you of our hearty approbation and support,—as it is deemed necessary at this time to speak out. Go on; you speak the language of our hearts. I should have seen you at Toronto on my way from Montreal, and have told you of the opinion and feelings of our community here, but time would not permit. It is worthy of note that the people are determined to support you. May God aid and direct you and all that are with you!

Equally hearty was a letter which Dr. Ryerson received from Rev. John McIntyre, in September, 1839,[75] inviting him to come and preach for him in Perth. In urging him to comply with the request, Mr. McIntyre said:—

If the day is favourable, the people will assemble from all quarters. I know myself of persons who intend to come about 20 miles to hear you. You can have no idea of your popularity in this district, although principally a military settlement. Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and moderate Churchmen, consider you, as some Presbyterians were pleased some time ago to style you, "The Saviour of Upper Canada." Now, to disappoint their just expectation would be almost unpardonable. The people entertain so high an opinion of your abilities, that (as some have lately said) you could speak with five minutes' notice on any subject. I should be extremely sorry that they should ever hold any other opinion; but, at your departure from Perth, the people may say, as the Queen of Sheba did on her visit to Solomon, "It was a true report we heard of his acts, and of his wisdom, and behold the half was not told us."

Rev. G. R. Sanderson, also writing to Dr. Ryerson, said:—

I greatly regret these constant attacks upon you, who have laboured so arduously and struggled so perseveringly for the good of our country, and the settlement of the Clergy Reserves. I am sure, however, that you will have the warmest thanks of all true friends of their country; and that posterity will not withhold that praise which is due you for your indefatigable exertions.

I have already, on page 101, inserted a kindly letter to Dr. Ryerson from Rev. William Bell, Presbyterian minister, expressive of his sympathy with the course pursued by the Guardian on the Clergy Reserve and other questions. The following letters of the same character were from parties outside of Dr. Ryerson's own Church. Thus in 1839, the Congregational Association of Upper Canada passed resolutions approving of Dr. Ryerson's course—the last one of which was as follows:—

We express to the Rev. Egerton Ryerson our thanks for his able and persevering exertions to effect a settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, and our determination to afford him any and every support in his endeavours that it may be in our power to render.

Rev. James Noll in enclosing the resolutions said:—

I feel myself happy, Sir, to be the medium of communicating to you the sentiments and feelings of my brethren at a time when you are insulted and abused as a public disturber, a rebel, and a political demagogue, by those who are willing to sacrifice the peace, and even risk the safety of the Colony.... Allow me to assure you of my admiration of the fair, spirited, and able manner in which you have conducted this important and painful controversy.... The cause you are advocating is closely identified with the cause of God. Your object is not only the temporal but spiritual welfare of your country, and your friends are the great bulk of its loyal and well-disposed inhabitants.

Rev. John Roaf (Congregational), of Toronto, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated December, 1838, said:—

I am desirous of not omitting one of my duties in relation to the "Church question," and looking to you as the Leader of the non-established parties, am anxious to understand your views upon the rectory question. Should you also think of any other measure by which I and my immediate brethren can support the cause which you are so zealously and efficiently promoting, or can assist in weakening the opposition to which you are subject, I shall be happy in attending to your suggestions.

Mr. William Greig (Baptist), Bookseller, Montreal, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated June, 1839, says:—

As an ardent friend to civil and religious liberty, and an admirer of the course pursued by yourself as Editor of the Christian Guardian, I cannot but express my regret at seeing you assailed on all sides, and especially by those for whose good you have been exerting yourself. As a native of Great Britain, I am fondly attached to her civil institutions, and will yield in loyalty to no one. I cannot, therefore, but approve of any lawful and fair measures which will tend to bring all denominations to that level, that every one provide for itself. I therefore say, go on in your present course; keep up the fire, brisk and hot on the enemy, till they are routed. As I see several are withdrawing their subscriptions to the Guardian, the friends of civil and religious liberty, of whatever denomination, ought to come in and take their places. Although not a Methodist, please put me down as a subscriber to the Guardian.

FOOTNOTES:

[72] Dr. Ryerson, early in his controversial career, adopted Lord Macaulay's motto: No misrepresentation should be suffered to pass unrefuted. We must remember that misstatements constantly reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly be believed.

[73] The article in the Guardian to which reference is made, is the reply of Dr. Ryerson to several Methodists in Toronto who had signed the Address of the British Missionary party to the Governor; and who, in a letter to him, had repudiated the construction put upon the Address by the Patriot. Among other things the Editor said: The manly firmness with which the signers of this Address have resisted the cunning wiles of Egerton Ryerson, is a solemn pledge of their love and veneration for the glorious institution of the Empire.... Thus ever thought we of British Wesleyans; and thus thinking was our impelling motive for persevering for the first three years of our editorial career, in one incessant battering of the pernicious, seditious principles of Egerton Ryerson; the very first number of whose paper betrayed him to us, flagrante delicto, a pestilent and dangerous demagogue.... If his ambition were as legitimate and praiseworthy as his talents are commanding, he would be a far more valuable member of society than he can ever hope to be while hankering to return to the flesh pots of Yankee Episcopal Methodism, etc.

Dr. Ryerson's reply was an elaborate defence of his opposition to the efforts of the Patriot party to create a dominant Church, the application of the reserves to high church uses, and the establishment of the fifty-seven rectories.

[74] In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated Montreal, 1st February, 1836, Rev. William Lord said:—Rev. Anson Green was here last week and preached. An Upper Canada Presiding Elder preaching with acceptance in Montreal! Who would have thought of such a thing when brother Egerton Ryerson and even brother Joseph Stinson were denied the pulpit!

[75] This gentlemen entered the Methodist ministry in 1835, and joined the Church of England in 1841. He died some years since.



CHAPTER XXVII.

1778-1867.

The Honourable and Right Reverend Bishop Strachan.

The Venerable John Strachan, D.D., LL.D., Archdeacon of York, and subsequently (1839-1867) first Bishop of Toronto, was the chief clerical opponent which Dr. Ryerson encountered in the contest for religious freedom and denominational equality during nearly twenty years.

Dr. Strachan was born in Scotland, in April, 1778, and died at Toronto, in November 1867, in the 90th year of his age.

It was a singular coincidence that Dr. Strachan entered the ministry of the Church of England in May, 1803, just two months after Dr. Ryerson was born. Who could then have foreseen the respective careers of these two remarkable men! The one, the virtual founder and administrative head of the Church of England in Upper Canada for upwards of 60 years; and the other, although not the founder, yet the controlling head and leader of the Methodist Church in the Province for nearly the same period.

Dr. Strachan was an uncompromising high churchman. His exclusive views on the "priestly authority, and the catholic and apostolic character of the Church of England," were those of a church optimist, but they were not based upon any profound study of the subject, as his own statement will attest.[76]

It is interesting to note the causes which led Dr. Strachan to cling so tenaciously to the idea of "Church and State"—a union which he regarded as sacred, and ordained of God for the maintenance of His cause and Church on the earth. It is no less interesting to understand the reason why Dr. Ryerson as strenuously repudiated and resisted the practical application of the same idea to Canada. The reason in each case may be stated in a few words.

The one from early associations regarded the idea of Scottish parish churches and parochial schools, supported by the State, as eminently Scriptural, if not divinely enjoined from the earliest Jewish times. The other was brought up in a land where such a state of things had never existed, and where the pure gospel had been preached from the earliest times without the aid of a state endowment. He lived in a land, too, where the command to the Christian Church was felt to be fitly expressed by John Wesley, to take the "world as a parish" and preach the Gospel to every creature. The manner in which this command was to be obeyed was indicated by our Lord's example, when He sent forth His disciples with this injunction:—

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses ... for the workman is worthy of his meat. Matt. x. 9, 10.

Members of the Conference, in Dr. Ryerson's early days, unhesitatingly obeyed the directions of the Conference—many regarding it as the voice of God in the Church—and went forth, without scrip or purse, everywhere, even to the remotest corner of the land, bearing the good tidings, not considering their pecuniary interests,[77] or even their lives dear unto them, so that they might win souls for the Master.[78]

Dr. Strachan's views on the question of State aid to churches were clearly, on the other hand, the result of his observations, in Scotland. They are prominently brought out in his memorable speech, delivered in the Legislative Council, on the 6th of March, 1828. He says:—

Have not the Methodists in this Province ... ever shown themselves the enemies of the Established Church? Are they not at this moment labouring to separate religion from the State, with which it ought to be firmly united?... Has it not been the primary object of all enemies to regular government ... to pull down religious establishments?... If they tell me the Ecclesiastical establishments are great evils, I bid them look to England and Scotland, each of which has a religious establishment, and to these establishments are they mainly indebted for their vast superiority to other nations. To what but her Established Church, and the Parochial Schools under her direction, does Scotland owe her high reputation for moral improvement. (Pages 27 and 28.)

Again, in a remarkable letter to his friend (Rev. Dr. Thomas Chalmers, of Edinburgh[79]), written in 1832, on the Life and Character of Bishop Hobart of New York, Dr. Strachan relates a conversation with that Bishop in which he took him severely to task for extolling the voluntary system of the American Episcopal Church as compared with the endowed State Church of England. I make a few extracts:—

Let us look at the Episcopal Church of the United States, and see what moral effect it can have on the population, as a source of religious instruction.... The influence of the two Churches as confined to England and New York (alone) is as one to seventy.... Such influence on the manners and habits of the people [in that state] is next to nothing, and yet you extol your Church above that of England, and exclaim against establishment! Add to this, the dependence of your clergy upon the people for support—a state of things which is attended with most pernicious consequences ... but in general, the clergy of all denominations in the United States, are miserably dependent upon their congregations.... It is the duty of Christian nations to constitute, within their boundaries, ecclesiastical establishments.... For it is incumbent upon nations as upon individuals, to honour the Lord with their substance. (Pages 41-47.)

Bishop Strachan's early and later writings abound in expressions of similar views. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that a man of his strong convictions would seek to give practical effect to them in dealing, as opportunity offered, with questions of church establishment and the clergy reserves.

It is true that by his persuasive words and strong personal influence—when the object was the financial benefit of the Church—Bishop Strachan rallied around him many of the leading members of the Church of England in Upper Canada who aided him in his plans for endowing the Church out of the public domain. Yet it is also true that many equally sound churchmen were opposed to these schemes, and saw in them the germ of a fatal canker, which in time would be sure to destroy the Church's missionary zeal, and paralyze all of those noble and generous impulses which characterize a living Church in the promotion of Christian effort in the various departments of Church work.[80]

As time has passed on the little band of loyal churchmen, who incurred the Bishop's unmerited censure for opposing his exclusive schemes of Church aggrandisement, has increased to thousands in our day. They deeply regret the success of those schemes, and deprecate the existence of clergy reserves and rectory endowments as in themselves fatal to the healthy development of Church work as an active and aggressive force in the Christian life.

It is not necessary to refer here to Bishop Strachan's views in regard to ecclesiastical polity. They are well known. On this matter also many sound churchmen differed widely (and still differ) from his views. Yet Bishop Strachan, while holding such strong and exclusive views, was kindly disposed towards "Sectaries" individually, and lived on terms of personal friendship with many of those whose opinions were opposed to his on church questions. In his Legislative Council speech, already quoted, he says:—

I have been charged with being hostile to the Scotch Church, and with being an apostate from that communion.... My hostility to the Kirk of Scotland consists in being on the most intimate terms with the late Mr. Bethune and Dr. Spark.... To both these excellent men I willingly ... pay a tribute of respect.... Nor have I ever missed an opportunity, when in my power, of being useful to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, or of treating them with respect, kindness, and hospitality. (Page 22.)

Again, in his sermon on "Church Fellowship," preached in 1832, Dr. Strachan says:—

Widely as we differ from the Roman Catholics in many religious points of the greatest importance, we have always lived with them in the kindest intercourse, and in the cordial exchange of the charities of social life. The worthy prelate, by whom they are at present spiritually governed, has been my friend for nearly thirty years. With the members of the Church of Scotland we associate in the same manner....[81] The merits of our sister Church cannot be unknown to you, my brethren. To me they are familiar, and connected with many of my cherished and early associations.... Of that popular and increasing class of Christians [the Methodists], who call themselves a branch of our Church, both at home and abroad, I would speak with praise. (Pages 23-25.)

As to his relations with Dr. Ryerson, I here insert two notes from the Bishop to him. The first is dated February 7th, 1838, as follows:—

The Archdeacon of York presents his compliments to the Rev. E. Ryerson, and begs to acknowledge with satisfaction his courtesy in sending him a copy of his excellent sermon on the Recent Conspiracy, which the Archdeacon has read with much pleasure and profit. Such doctrines, if generally diffused among our people, cannot fail of producing the most beneficial effects, both spiritual and temporal.

The second related to the calamity which had befallen the Church of England congregation of St. James, in the destruction of its church building by fire early in January, 1839. Dr. Ryerson at once wrote to the Archdeacon offering him the use of the Newgate (Adelaide Street) Church. On the 6th January, Dr. Strachan replied as follows:—

I thank you most sincerely for the kind sympathy you express in the sad calamity that has befallen us, and for your generous offer of accommodation. Before your note reached me, I had made arrangements with the Mayor, for the Town Hall, which we can occupy at our accustomed hours of worship, without disturbing any other congregation. I and my people are not the less grateful for your kind offer, which we shall keep in brotherly remembrance.

In his Charge to the Clergy in 1853, and again in 1856, he pays a personal tribute to Dr. Ryerson. In the later Charge, speaking of the School system, he says:—

So far as Dr. Ryerson is concerned, I am one of those who appreciate very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and his administrative capacity.

Dr. Ryerson's last reference to the Bishop is contained in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," written in 1880, as follows:

Upwards of fifty years have passed away since my criticisms on Dr. Strachan's "Sermon on the death of the Bishop of Quebec" were written. On the re-perusal of them, after the lapse of so long a time, the impression on my own mind is that Dr. Strachan was honest in his statements and opinions.... He was more moderate and liberal in his views and feelings in his later years, and became the personal friend of his old antagonist, "The Reviewer," who, he said, had "fought fair." (Page 145.)

FOOTNOTES:

[76] My mother (he said) belonged to the Relief denomination.... My father was attached to the Non-Jurants; and although he went occasionally with my mother, he was a frequent hearer of Bishop Skinner, to whose church he was in the habit of carrying me. He died when I was very young, but not before my mind was impressed in favour of Episcopacy.... I readily confess, that in respect to Church Government, my principles were sufficiently vague and unformed; for to this important subject my attention was never particularly drawn till I came to this country, when my venerated friend, the late Dr. Stewart, of Kingston, urged me to enter the Church, and as I had never yet communicated, that excellent person, whom I loved as a father, admitted me to the altar a little before I went to Quebec to take holy orders, in 1803. Before I had determined to enter the Church of England, I was induced by the advice of another friend (the late Mr. Cartwright) ... to make some inquiries respecting the Presbyterian Church of Montreal, then vacant. (Dr. Strachan's Speech in the Legislative Council, March 6th, 1828, pages 25, 26.)

[77] The stipends of Methodist ministers in those days were very small. Rev. Dr. John Carroll tells me that the "quarterage" payable to an unmarried Methodist minister in America, at first, was only $60 per annum; then it was increased to $80, at which rate it remained until 1816, when the General Conference fixed it at $100, at which it remained until 1854. The rule for a married minister was double that for a single man, and $16 for each child. Besides quarterage, there was an allowance for travelling and table expenses. Two hundred dollars was the sum for salary, besides travelling and aid expenses, allowed to a minister up to 1854, and even then this sum was rarely ever paid in full.—H.

[78] Rev. H. Wilkinson in a note to Dr. Ryerson, in 1837, thus describes the kind of places to which some ministers had to be sent, and their duties and qualifications when there. He said: I require a man for a mission which lies about 200 miles from Bytown, up the Grand River (Ottawa), and which will be difficult of access in the winter. A suitable person could make his way northwards with some of the rude lumbermen, who now and then go up in companies. The brother would need to be strong in mind and body, and fervent in spirit. He would need to go on foot, and paddle a canoe, or row a boat, as the case might be, and thus reach his appointments in the best way he can.

[79] While in the vicinity of St. Andrews I contracted several important friendships, amongst others, with Thomas Duncan, afterwards Professor of Mathematics, and also with Dr. Chalmers, since then so deservedly renowned. We were all three very nearly of the same age, and our friendship only terminated with death, being kept alive by a constant correspondence during more than sixty years. (Bishop Strachan's Charge to his Clergy, June, 1860; page 10.)

[80] Speaking of the passage of a Clergy Reserve Bill in 1840, to which the Bishop of Toronto was strongly opposed, Dr. Ryerson says: A considerable majority of the members of the Church of England in both Houses of the Legislature voted for the Bill, and were afterwards charged by the Bishop with "defection and treachery" for doing so. On this point, Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated, 5th February, 1840, said: It is notorious to every one here, that of twenty-two members (being communicants of the Church of England) who voted upon this bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the views expressed by the Right Reverend Prelate, whilst, in the Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those who gave it their warmest support, are to be found many gentlemen of the highest character for independence, and for attachment to the Church, and whose views on general politics differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. (Dr. Ryerson's Criticism on Bishop Strachan's letter to Lord John Russell, dated, February 20th, 1851.)

[81] These kindly words the Bishop repeated in substance to the Editor some years since, when talking with him on the subject.—H.



CHAPTER XXVIII.

1791-1836.

The Clergy Reserves and Rectories Questions.

The discussion of the Clergy Reserve Question enters so largely into the Story of Dr. Ryerson's Life, that I give in this chapter a short, condensed sketch of its origin and history down to 1837-38. The remainder of the sketch will be developed in an account of the contest preceding the settlement of the question in subsequent chapters.

After the conquest of Canada, in 1760, the right of the Roman Catholic inhabitants to enjoy their religion was guaranteed to them in the Treaty of Paris, Feb. 10th, 1763. In 1774, an Act was passed by the British Parliament (14 Geo. III., ch. 83) by which the right to their accustomed dues and tithes was secured to the clergy of the Church of Rome in the then Province of Quebec (including what was afterwards Upper and Lower Canada). The same Act provided for the encouragement of the Protestant religion, and, for the support of a Protestant clergy, by other tithes and dues.[82]

In 1791, the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada, and, in an Act introduced into the British Parliament by Mr. Pitt, provision was made for their government. Sections 35-42 of that Act dealt with the maintenance and support of a Protestant Clergy, and this provision (1) allotted one-seventh of all lands which might be hereafter granted by the King for settlement; and (2) gave authority for the erection of "parsonages or rectories, according to the establishment of the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted, etc. (Sec. 38).

The alleged reasons which induced George III. to make provision for the support of religion in the North American Colonies, are set forth, so far as they related to the Protestant religion, by the late Bishop Strachan in a pamphlet which he published in England in 1827.[83] He mentions the fact that Great Britain, of all European nations, had hitherto made no provision for religious instruction in her colonies. He further states that:—

The effect of this was that emigrants belonging to the Established Church who settled in America, not having access to their own religious ministrations, became frequently dissenters; and when the Colonies (now the United States) rebelled, there was not, among a population of nearly 3,000,000, a single prelate, and but very few Episcopal clergymen.

The folly of this policy was shown in the strongest light during the rebellion; almost all of the Episcopal clergy and their congregations remained faithful to the King, demonstrating by their conduct, that had proper care been taken to promote a religious establishment in connection with that of England, the revolution would not have taken place.[84]

Aware of the pernicious effects of this narrow and unchristian policy, and sensible that the colonial ought to be attached to the parent state by religious, as well as by political feelings, the great Mr. Pitt determined (in forming a constitution for the Canadas) to provide for the religious instruction of the people, and to lay the foundation of an Ecclesiastical Establishment which should increase with the settlement.

To accomplish this noble purpose, Mr. Pitt advised that one-seventh of the lands should be set apart for the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy. In Upper Canada this appropriation comprises one-seventh of the whole province: but in Lower Canada, one-seventh of those parts only which have been granted since 1791 (pages 2, 3).[85]

In a pamphlet published at Kingston, U.C., during the previous year, the substance of Mr. Pitt's remarks on that part of the Bill which authorized the setting apart of these lands, is given as follows:—

Mr. Pitt (House of Commons, 12th May, 1791), said that he gave the Colonial Government and Council power, under the instructions of His Majesty, to distribute out of a sum arising from the tithes for land or possessions, and set apart for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy. Another clause (he said) provided, for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy, a seventh portion of the lands to be granted in future. He declared that the meaning of the Act was to enable the Governor to endow and to present the Protestant clergy of the established church to such parsonage or rectory as might be constituted or erected within every township or parish, which now was, or might be formed; and to give to such Protestant clergyman of the established church, a part, or the whole, as the Governor thought proper, of the lands appropriated by the Act. He further explained that this was done to encourage the established church; and that possibly hereafter it might be proposed to send a Bishop of the established church to sit in the Legislative Council. (Parl. Reg., vol. 29, pp. 414, 415.)[86]

Mr. Fox was entirely opposed to these arrangements. He said: By the Protestant clergy, he supposed to be understood not only the clergy of the Church of England, but all descriptions of Protestants.... That the clergy should have one-seventh of all grants, he must confess, appeared to him an absurd doctrine. If they were all of the Church of England, this would not reconcile him to the measure. The greater part of these Protestant clergy were not of the Church of England; they were chiefly Protestant dissenters.... We were, by this Bill, making a sort of provision for the Protestant clergy of Canada [of one-seventh of the land] which was unknown to them in every part of Europe; a provision, in his apprehension, which would rather tend to corrupt than to benefit them. (Hansard, vol. 29, 1791, page 108.)

I have carefully gone through the whole of the debate on this subject, but I cannot find one word in it which would indicate that Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, or Mr. Burke (the chief speakers), entertained the idea that endowing the clergy had any political significance as a precautionary measure for ensuring the loyalty of the inhabitants. The opinion was expressed that setting apart these lands was the most feasible way (as Mr. Pitt said) of providing "for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy," and of giving "them a competent income."[87]

In a letter to Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated December, 1790, Col. J. Graves Simcoe said:—

I am decidedly of opinion that a regular Episcopal establishment ... is absolutely necessary in any extensive colony which England means to preserve, etc. The neglect of this principle of overturning republicanism in former periods, by giving support and assistance to those causes which are perpetually offering themselves to affect so necessary an object, is much to be lamented; but it is my duty to be as solicitous as possible, that they may now have their due influence, etc.

In a "Memoir" written by Governor Simcoe in 1791, he said:

In regard to the Episcopal establishment ... I firmly believe the present to be a critical moment, in which that system, so interwoven and connected with the monarchical foundation of our government, may be productive of the most permanent and extensive benefits, in preserving the connection between Great Britain and her Colonies.

From various sources I gather the following particulars:—

From 1791 to 1819, the Clergy Reserves were in the hands of the Government, and managed by it alone. For years they yielded scarcely enough to defray the expenses of management. In 1817 the House of Assembly objected to such an appropriation for the clergy, as "beyond all precedent lavish," and complained that the reservations were an obstacle to improvement and settlement. In 1819, lands were taxed for the construction of roads, and it was contended that the reservations on the public roads should also be taxed.

In 1819, the question was first mooted, as to the right of Presbyterians to share in the reserves. In March, of that year, thirty-seven Presbyterians of the town of Niagara, petitioned Sir Peregrine Maitland, to grant to the Presbyterian congregation there, the annual sum of L100 in aid, out of the clergy reserves, or out of any other fund at the Governor's disposal. In transmitting this petition to the Colonial Secretary for instructions, Sir P. Maitland mentioned that "the actual product of the clergy reserves is about L700 per annum." In May, 1820, a reply was received from Lord Bathurst, stating that, in the opinion of the Crown officers, the provisions of the Act of 1791, "for the support of the Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the clergy of the Church of England, but may be extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland," but not to dissenting ministers.

In 1819, on the application of Bishop Mountain, of Quebec, the clergy in each province were incorporated for the purpose of leasing and managing the reserves—the proceeds, however, to be paid over to the Government. On the appearance of a notice to this effect in the Quebec Gazette, dated, 13th June, 1820, the clergy of the Church of Scotland memorialized the King for a share in these reserves.

In 1823, the House of Assembly, on motion of Hon. William Morris, concurred in a series of resolutions, asserting the right of the Church of Scotland in Canada to a share in the reserves. These resolutions were rejected by the Legislative Council, by a vote of 6 to 5.

In April, 1824, Dr. Strachan was deputed by the Bishop of Quebec and Sir P. Maitland, to go to England and get authority from Lord Bathurst to sell portions of the reserves. In the meantime, the Canada (Land) Company proposed to purchase all the Crown and Clergy Reserve Lands at a valuation to be agreed on. The clergy corporation having desired a voice in this valuation, the Bishop of Quebec deputed Archdeacon Mountain to press this view on Lord Bathurst. Some misunderstanding having arisen between Lord Bathurst and Archdeacon Strachan, and the Canada Land Company, Dr. Strachan went to England in April, 1826, and was deputed by Lord Bathurst to arrange the differences with Mr. John Galt, Commissioner of the Company. This they did by changing the original plan. The clergy lands were exchanged for 1,000,000 acres in the Huron tract. Out of the moneys received from the Canada Company the Home Government appropriated L700 a year to the Church of Scotland clergy,[88] and the same amount to the clergy of the Church of Rome in Upper Canada.

In June, 1826, the Home Government, on the memorial of the Church of Scotland General Assembly, and an address from the House of Assembly, founded on the resolutions of 1823 (which, as introduced, had been rejected by the Legislative Council), acknowledged the rights of the Church of Scotland clergy to a share of the reserves. In January, 1826, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to distribute the proceeds of the reserves for the benefit of all denominations, or failing that to the purposes of education and the general improvement of the Province. The reply to this memorial was so unsatisfactory that the House of Assembly (December 22nd, 1826), adopted a series of eleven resolutions, deprecating the action of the Home Government in appropriating the clergy reserves to individuals connected with the Church of England "to the exclusion of other denominations"—that church bearing "a very small proportion to the number of other Christians in the province." The Assembly prayed that the proceeds of the reserves be applied to the support of district and common schools, a Provincial seminary, and in aid of erecting places of worship for all denominations of Christians. These resolutions passed by majorities of from 25 to 30; the nays being 2 and 3 only. The bill founded on these resolutions was negatived in the Legislative Council (January, 1827). In the year 1826, Dr. Strachan obtained a royal charter for King's College, with an endowment of 225,000 acres of land, and a grant of L1,000 for sixteen years. This charter was wholly in favour of the Church of England, and its obnoxious clauses remained unchanged until 1835.

In March, 1827, Hon. R. W. Horton introduced a Bill into Parliament to provide for the sale of the clergy lands, as asked for by the Bishop of Quebec. This led to a protracted discussion between the friends in the House of the English and Scotch Churches, and requests were made for information on the state of these Churches in Upper Canada. Archdeacon Strachan, then in England, furnished this information in his famous letter and Chart, dated, May 16th, 1827. Objection to giving the clergy corporation power to sell these lands having been made, Mr. Horton withdrew his original bill, and in a new one, which was passed, confined the exercise of this power to the Executive Government.

In March, 1828, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to place the proceeds of the reserves at the disposal of the House for the purposes of education and internal improvement. Mr. Morris' motion to strike out "internal improvement" was lost. In this year a committee of the House of Commons reported against continuing the reservation in mortmain of the clergy lands, as it imposed serious obstacles to the improvement of the colony.

In 1829, two despatches on the clergy reserve question were sent to the Colonial Secretary by Sir John Colborne. In one, dated 11th April, Sir John says: If a more ardent zeal be not shown by the Established Church, and a very different kind of minister than that which is generally to be found in this Province sent out from England, it is obvious that the members of the Established Church will be inconsiderable, and that it will continue to lose ground. The Methodists, apparently, exceed the number of the Churches of England and Scotland.... If the Wesleyan Methodists in England could be prevailed on to supply this Province with preachers, the Methodists of this country would become, as a political body, of less importance than they are at present.

In this year the House of Assembly passed a bill similar to that of 1828. It was rejected, as in the previous year, by the Legislative Council. In 1830, the same proceedings were repeated with like result.

In December, 1830 (see page 101), a monster petition was agreed to, and afterwards signed by 10,000 persons and sent to England, praying that steps be taken to leave the ministers of all denominations to be supported by the people among whom they labour and the voluntary contributions of benevolent Societies in Canada and Great Britain—to do away with all political distinctions on account of religious faith—to remove all ministers of religion from seats and places of political power in the Provincial Government—to grant to the clergy of all denominations the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges in everything that appertains to them as British subjects and as ministers of the Gospel, particularly the right of solemnizing matrimony—to modify the charter of King's College, so as to exclude all sectarian tests and preferences—and to appropriate the proceeds of the sale of the lands, heretofore set apart for the support of a Protestant Clergy, to the purposes of general education and various internal improvements.

Such was the comprehensive character of the reforms prayed for in this province upwards of fifty years ago. All of these reforms have been long since granted; but the enumeration of them shows how far off the mass of the people and their ministers were then from the enjoyment of the civil and religious privileges which are now the birthright of every British subject in Canada.

This "programme of reforms" will also show what were the principles for which Dr. Ryerson, and other pioneers of religious freedom in Upper Canada, had to contend half a century ago. Nor was the victory easily won which they achieved. The struggle was a long and arduous one. Each step was contested by the dominant party, and every reform was resisted with a determination worthy of a better cause.

In March 1831, the first attempt was made (on motion of Mr. Hagerman) to deprive the Canadian Legislature of the power to deal with the clergy reserve question. His motion was to revest the reserves in the crown for religious purposes, but it was negatived by a vote of 30 to 7. Although defeated now, the same proposition was frequently made afterwards, and at length with success. In 1839 a provision of that kind was passed, but it failed on technical grounds to receive the royal assent. See chapter xxxi.

In 1831 and 1832, addresses to the King were adopted by the House of Assembly praying, as before, that the reserves be applied to educational purposes. In this year a satisfactory reply from the Home Government, in regard to the clergy reserve question, was communicated to the Legislature, and it was invited to consider the desirability of exercising its power to "vary or repeal" certain provisions for the support of a Protestant Clergy. In 1832 and in 1833, bills to revest the clergy reserve lands in the Crown were read a second time, and, in 1834, one to that effect was finally passed, but was rejected by the Legislative Council. A bill for the sale of the reserves and the application of the proceeds to educational purposes, was passed in 1835, by a vote of 40 to 4, but was again rejected by the Legislative Council. This body in the same year proposed that both Houses should abdicate their functions in regard to the reserves (as they were unable to concur in any measure on the subject), and request the Imperial Parliament to legislate on the subject! The House of Assembly peremptorily refused, by a vote of two to one, to concur in such a proposition, and read a dignified lecture to the Council on its refusal to pass their measures, or to originate one of its own. The members of the Assembly felt that the influence of the Governor and the members of the Council would be so potent in England, that by it the wishes of the people of Upper Canada, as repeatedly expressed by that House, would be frustrated.[89] In 1836, the bill of the previous year was passed by the Assembly by a majority of 35 to 5. The Legislative Council amended it so as to leave the matter as before with the British Parliament. This amendment was defeated by the House of Assembly by a vote of 27 to 1, and so the matter ended. In 1837-38 the rebellion took place, leaving the clergy reserve question in abeyance for some time.

On the 15th January, 1836, Sir John Colborne, by order in council, established fifty-seven rectories in Upper Canada, and endowed them out of the clergy reserve lands. This was done at the last moment, and while the successor of Sir John Colborne (Sir F. B. Head) was on his way from New York to Toronto. So great was the haste in which this act was done, that only 44 out of the 57 patents were signed by the retiring Governor; so that only that number of rectories were actually endowed. There is no doubt but that the Constitutional Act of 1791 authorized not only the setting apart of the clergy reserves, but also the erection of "parsonages and rectories according to the establishment of the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted. (Sec. 38). But, in Lord Glenelg's opinion, the subject was never submitted for the signification of the King's pleasure thereon. Certain ambiguous words, in Lord Ripon's reply to a private communication from Sir John Colborne, was the authority relied upon for the hasty and unpopular act of the retiring Governor. The legality of the act was frequently questioned, but it was finally affirmed by the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada in 1856. The judgment in the case of the Attorney-General vs. Grasett was that—

Under the statute 31, Geo. III., ch. 31, and the Royal Commission, Sir John Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, had authority to create and endow rectories without further instructions.

FOOTNOTES:

[82] These tithes continued to be collected for the support of a Protestant Clergy until February, 1823, when a declaratory Act, passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada in 1821, was sanctioned by the King to the effect that hereafter "no tithes shall be claimed, demanded, or received by any ecclesiastical parson, rector or vicar, of the Protestant Church within this Province."

[83] Observations on the Provision made for the Maintenance of a Protestant Clergy in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, under the 31st Geo. III., cap. 31. By John Strachan, D.D., Archdeacon of York, Upper Canada, pp. 44. London, 1827.

[84] In a letter written by Dr. Ryerson in 1851, he criticised a similar statement then made by Bishop Strachan. He pointed out that Washington and other leaders of the revolution were staunch churchmen.

[85] In no part of Mr. Pitt's remarks on the Bill setting apart land for the Protestant Clergy do I find any intimation of the kind mentioned by Bishop Strachan. Governor Simcoe, however, held these views, which by mistake the Bishop may have attributed to Mr. Pitt. (See next page.)—H.

[86] An Apology for the Church of England in the Canadas, etc. By a Protestant of the Established Church of England. Kingston, U.C., 1826, page 11.

[87] It was in the discussion on this Bill that the long personal friendship which had existed between Fox and Burke was brought to an abrupt termination.—H.

[88] In 1830, Presbyterian ministers not of the Church of Scotland, were, on petition to that effect (signed by Rev. W. Smart, Moderator, and Rev. W. Bell, Presbytery Clerk), placed on the same footing as the ministers of the Kirk.—H.

[89] This was abundantly proved afterwards. In the following Parliament an amended bill was carried, by a majority of one vote, in the House of Assembly to place the proceeds of the reserves at the disposal of the British Parliament. Petitions were at once sent to the Queen to induce her to assent to this bill, and the Bishop went to England to present them. Sir George Arthur also lent his aid for the same object. The scheme failed, however, on technical grounds, but was successfully revived the next year. (See Guardian 1st January, 1840, and page 249.)—H.



CHAPTER XXIX.

1838.

The Clergy Reserve Controversy Renewed.

The question at issue, when the House of Assembly was elected in 1836 for the parliamentary term ending in 1839, was adroitly narrowed by Sir F. B. Head to the simple one of loyalty to the Crown, or—as Dr. Ryerson, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper (September, 1838), expressed it—"Whether or not ... this Province would remain an integral part of the British Empire." Lord Durham pointed out that Sir F. B. Head led the people to believe "that they were called upon to decide the question of separation [from Great Britain] by their votes."

Under such circumstances the clergy reserve question was subordinated to those of graver moment. Besides, even if pledges had been given by members before the election on the subject, they were not felt, as the event proved, to be very sacred. Speaking of this Parliament, Dr. Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Draper, (already mentioned), said:—

The present Assembly at its first session adopted a resolution in favour of appropriating the reserves for "the religious and moral instruction of the Province." But its proceedings during the second session were so vacillating that it is now difficult to say what the opinions of the members are.

One explanation of this state of feeling was, that the political views of a majority of the members were in harmony with those of the ruling party in the country, and yet were at variance with the views of their constituents on the clergy reserve question. Advantage was taken of the existence of this political sympathy by the leaders of the dominant party, with a view to secure the removal of the clergy reserve question from the hostile arena of the Upper Canada Legislature to the friendly atmosphere of the English House of Commons, and the still more friendly tribunal of the House of Lords—where the bench of bishops would be sure to defend the claims of the Church to this royal patrimony.[90]

Accordingly, at the third session of this Parliament, Mr. Cartwright, of Kingston, introduced a bill "to revest the Clergy Reserves in Her Majesty"—the first reading of which was carried by a vote of 24 to 5, and passed through Committee of the whole by a vote of 29 to 12. As soon as Dr. Ryerson, then in Kingston, got a copy of this bill he wrote the following letter, on the 13th January, 1838, to the Guardian:—

The professed object of this bill is described by its title, but the real object, and the necessary effect of it, from the very nature of its provisions, is to apply the reserves to those exclusive and partial purposes against which the great majority of the inhabitants of this province, both by petition and through their representatives, have protested in every variety of language during the last twelve years—and that without any variation or the shadow of change. The bill even proposes to transfer future legislation on this subject from the Provincial to the Imperial Parliament! The authors of this bill are, it seems, afraid to trust the inhabitants of Upper Canada to legislate on a subject in which they themselves are solely concerned; nay, they will environ themselves and the interests they wish to promote behind the Imperial Parliament! The measure itself, containing the provisions it does, is a shameful deception upon the Canadian public—is a wanton betrayal of Canadian rights—is a disgraceful sacrifice of Canadian, to selfish party interests—is a covert assassination of a vital principle of Canadian constitutional and free government—is a base political and religious fraud which ought to excite the deep concern and rouse the indignant and vigorous exertion of every friend of justice, and freedom, and good government in the country.