My language may be strong; but strong as it is, it halts far behind the emotions of my mind. Such a measure, I boldly affirm, is not what the people of Upper Canada expected from the members of the present Assembly when they elected them as their representatives; it is not such a measure as, I have reason to believe, a majority of the present members of the Assembly gave their constituents to understand they would vote for when they solicited their suffrages. Honourable gentlemen, if I can be heard by them, ought to remember that they have a character to sustain, more important than the attainment of a particular object; they ought to remember that they act in a delegated capacity; and if they cannot clear their consciences and maintain the views and interests of their constituents, they ought, as many an honest English gentleman has done, to resign their seats in the legislature; they ought to remember to whom and under what expectations they owe their present elevation; above all, they ought to remember what the equal and impartial interests of their whole constituency require at their hands.

If, however, every pledge or honourable understanding should be violated; if every reasonable hope should be disappointed; and if the loyal and deserving inhabitants of Upper Canada should be deceived, and disappointed, and wronged by the passage of this bill into a law, petitions ought to be circulated in every part of the province to Her Majesty the Queen to withhold the royal assent from the bill; and I hereby pledge L50 (if I have to sell my library to obtain the amount) for the promotion of that object. Such an act, under the present circumstances of the country, would be worse than a former alien bill, and ought to be deprecated, resisted, and execrated by every enlightened friend of the peace, happiness, and prosperity of the Province.

In reply to a letter from Rev. Joseph Stinson, urging him to come to Toronto and oppose this bill, Dr. Ryerson said:—

For me to leave Kingston, under present circumstances, and go to Toronto would ruin my ministerial influence and usefulness here and blast all our present hopes of prosperity. You know that by my continued and repeated absence, I have already lost fifty per cent. in the confiding hopes of the people, and consequently in very power of doing them good. You know, likewise, that the financial interests of the Society have so lamentably declined that we are already largely in arrears. I cannot, therefore, leave, unless I am positively required to do so by the Book Committee.

A more serious aspect of the matter, however, was presented to Dr. Ryerson in the extraordinary silence of the Conference organ on the subject. In the same letter he said:—

I cannot but feel deeply grieved at not only the tameness but the profound silence of the Guardian on this bill. Silence on such a measure, and at such a time, and after the course we have pursued hitherto, is acquiescence in it to all intents and purposes, and may be fairly and legitimately construed so by both friends and enemies. Oh, is it so? Can it be so, that the Editor of the Guardian has got so completely into the leading strings of that churchism which is as poisonous in its feelings towards us, and its plans respecting us, as the simoon blast; that he will see measures going forward, which he must know are calculated, nay, intended, to trample us in the dust, and not even say one word, except in praise (as often as possible), of the very men who he sees from day to day plotting our overthrow!

I have also observed, in Dr. Strachan's letters to Hon. Wm. Morris, an attack upon Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary—such a one as would enable us to turn to our account on the clergy reserve question (and against Dr. Strachan's exclusive system) the entire influence of Her Majesty's Government, which would have great weight both in and out of the House of Assembly. How I have heard Dr. Bunting, Mr. Beecham, and other members of the Committee at home, say that Lord Glenelg is one of the best and ablest men of the present day. At all events, after what we have obtained through his Lordship's instrumentality, I think that silence on our part is disgraceful—apart from considerations of local interests in this battle for right and justice.

Two able and moderate advocates of the settlement of the clergy reserve question were sent to England in 1837 to confer with Lord Glenelg on the subject, viz.: Hon. William Morris on behalf of the Church of Scotland, and Hon. W. H. Draper on behalf of the Church of England. In November of that year Dr. Ryerson was requested to draw up a paper embodying the opinions of the leading members of the Conference. This was done, and an elaborate paper on the subject was published in the Guardian of January 17th, 1838.[91] Shortly afterwards Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to Lord Glenelg on the subject. I only insert the narrative part of it, as follows:—

I was favoured with a conversation on the clergy reserve question with Mr. [Sir James] Stephen, in accordance with your Lordship's suggestion, the day before I left London for Canada (27th April, 1837). After my arrival in this Province it was unanimously agreed to support the plan for the adjustment of that important and long agitated question, which had been mentioned by Mr. Stephen, in the interview referred to.

Sir F. B. Head set his face against it from the beginning, and did not wish me to say anything about it publicly. The Attorney-General acknowledged it was equitable, and did not make any serious objection to it.[92]

Recently a meeting of our principal ministers took place in Toronto, in order to consult upon the measures which it was desirable to adopt in order to promote the settlement of the question at the next session of Parliament. At the request of the meeting, another gentleman and myself waited upon the Hon. Mr. Draper (who had taken the most official part in previous sessions), and showed him the resolutions agreed to. We stated that if it would embarrass him in promoting the earliest settlement of the question, we would desist from publishing anything on the subject. He expressed himself as highly gratified at our frankness, courtesy, and general views, and said that if his high-church friends had treated him with the same liberality and courtesy he would have been saved from much difficulty and embarrassment, which he had experienced in his previous exertions; but that he thought there could be no objection to our publishing at large our views on the subject. The preparation of the document was assigned to me. When published, it appeared to meet the views of all parties, except the ultra shade of one party, who want the whole of the reserves; and it is now the most popular plan throughout the Province of settling the question, except that of appropriating the reserves to educational purposes exclusively.

A day or two before the publication of this document, the House of Assembly went into Committee on a Bill to revest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament! Going to Toronto at this time, I did what I could to bring the subject again before the House, and accordingly addressed a letter through the press to Speaker MacNab, of the Assembly, on the importance of an immediate settlement of the question, and also urging the adoption of the plan which had been recently proposed.[93] These papers appeared to create a considerable sensation among the members of the Assembly; it was agreed on all sides that the question ought to be settled forthwith. But the reluctance of the Crown Officers to take up the subject soon became manifest; and it was not for some weeks after, that the subject could be forced upon them.[94] Then all (with very few exceptions) professed that the subject ought not to be postponed any longer. But the Crown Officers had no measure prepared, and differed in opinion on the subject—the Attorney-General consenting to the revesting of the reserves in the Crown, the Solicitor-General contending that they should be divided among four denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Roman Catholics, according to their relative numbers in Great Britain and Ireland!) This proposition had but three or four advocates in the House, including the author of it. Mr. Boulton, seconded by Mr. Cartwright, moved, in substance, that the clergy reserve provision was made for the clergy of the Church of England;—that it does not provide for more than a competent support for them;—that to appropriate it for them would give most satisfaction to the country. This resolution had five votes in favour of it. All these amendments, and several others, having been lost in Committee, the original resolution moved by Mr. Cartwright, to revest the clergy reserves in Her Majesty, for "the support of the Christian religion in this Province," was adopted by a majority of three or four. A bill was then brought in and read a first time, and ordered to a second reading next day, but was never afterwards taken up—the exclusive church party being anxious to keep it out of sight. Thus the question is laid over for another year, to the great disappointment and dissatisfaction of thousands who have promptly come forward to the support of the Government of the country.

As an indication of the determination of the party then in power in Upper Canada to carry their scheme for the re-investment of the Reserves in the Crown, before the close of this friendly Parliament, I quote the following extract from a despatch from Sir George Arthur to Lord Glenelg, dated 11th July, 1838:—

At the first meeting of the Legislature, I propose to cause a bill to be introduced for re-investing the lands reserved for the clergy in the Crown, to be applied for religious purposes, and I have reason to think that it will be carried by a considerable majority.

In June, 1838, Dr. Ryerson became Editor of the Christian Guardian. It was, as I have shown, at a most critical period in our provincial history. He was called to that post by the unanimous voice of his brethren. That call, too, was emphasized by the fact that the object of the dominant party in decrying the loyalty of their opponents was now clearly seen; and that, therefore, none but a man of undaunted courage, unimpeachable loyalty, as well as unquestioned ability, could successfully cope with the powerful combination of talent and influence which the ruling party possessed.

Nor should it be forgotten, that in the unfortunate crisis through which the Province had just passed, the prestige of the party which had always claimed the whole of the reserves as the patrimony of the Church of England, had, from political causes, immensely increased. This gave them a double advantage; while, on the other hand, the prestige of the party which for years had firmly and consistently resisted these claims, had, for the same political reasons, as sensibly and as seriously declined.

These facts were well known to every one in Upper Canada at the time. They imposed a double burthen upon those who had the courage (or, it might be said, audacity) to question the righteousness of claims, which—not to speak of the invaluable services and inviolable loyalty of the claimants themselves in the crisis of the rebellion—were by words of the statute, as interpreted by the law officers of the Crown, so clearly given to those claimants.

Such was the position of parties, and the condition of affairs in Upper Canada, when Dr. Ryerson was called to the editorial chair of the leading newspaper in the Province. That he was possessed of the requisite ability and firmness to maintain the rights of a discouraged minority, and resist the then almost unquestioned will of a powerful majority, few doubted. The bold defence of the supposed exiled rebel, Bidwell, proved that neither courage nor talent was wanting. The bitter hatred of the revolutionary party, as expressed in the threat that, should they succeed, their first victim would be Egerton Ryerson, showed that in the new crusade he would have no help (if not covert opposition) from that extreme section of his former friends. Nor, as events proved, could he reckon on any support from the British missionary section of the Methodist community. Indeed, they were hostile to his views, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter.

In entering into this contest, therefore, Dr. Ryerson found that he would have to encounter a threefold enemy—each section of it able, resolute and influential, especially that one practically in possession of the reserves—fighting, as it was, for its very existence, and acting entirely on the defensive.

Soon after Dr. Ryerson entered on his editorial duties he published in the Guardian an elaborate series of letters on "The Clergy Reserve Question, as a matter of History, a Question of Law, and a Subject of Legislation," addressed to Hon. W. H. Draper, Solicitor-General. After reviewing the proceedings of the Government and Legislature on the subject down to the end of the session of 1838, he summed up the leading facts which he had established, in the following words:—

I have stated that the Government has been administered for fourteen years in utter contempt of the wishes of the inhabitants, constitutionally, continuously, and almost unanimously expressed through their representatives and otherwise, on a subject which concerns their highest and best interests, and which, as the history of Great Britain amply shows, has always more deeply interested British subjects than any other. Sir, on the unspeakably important subjects of religion and education our constitutional right of legislation has, by the arbitrary exercise and influence of Executive power, been made a mockery, and our constitutional liberties a deception; and it is to the influence over the public mind of the high religious feelings and principles of those classes of the population who have been so shamefully calumniated by the Episcopal clergy and their party scribes, that the inhabitants of Upper Canada are not doing in 1838, what Englishmen did do in 1688, when their feelings were outraged and their constitutional liberties infringed, and the privileges of Parliament trampled upon, in order to force upon the nation a system of religious domination which the great majority of the people did not desire.

As the session of the Legislature of 1839 approached, a vigorous effort was made by The Church newspaper (the clerical organ), and the Patriot (the lay organ) of the church party to influence public opinion in favour of a re-investment of the clergy reserves in the Crown (for the reasons given on page 225.)

It was well known that Dr. Ryerson had strenuously opposed any reference of the questions to the British Parliament as a pusillanimous, and yet an interested, party abnegation of Canadian rights. He, therefore, prepared and circulated extensively a petition to the House of Assembly on this and kindred subjects. This proceeding called forth a counter petition, urging the Legislature to recognize the principle of an established church, etc. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, lost no time in inserting in the Guardian of 24th October, a stirring appeal, in which he urged the Methodist ministers and members throughout the country to sign the petition which he had prepared without delay. He insisted upon the abolition of the rectories surreptitiously established by Sir John Colborne, on the ground that, although authorized by the Act of 1791, yet that their establishment was not in harmony with the terms of the despatch of Lord Ripon, dated November 8th, 1832, which stated that—

His Majesty has studiously abstained from the exercise of his undoubted prerogative of founding and endowing literary or religious corporations, until he should obtain the advice of the representatives of the people in that respect.

He concluded the appeal with these words:—It becomes every man who properly appreciates his civil and religious rights and privileges, and those of posterity after him, to give his name, his influence, and exertions, in the final effort to place those rights and privileges upon the broad foundation of equal justice to all classes of the inhabitants.

In a subsequent appeal, issued in November, he said:—Let every man who has a head to think, a foot to walk, and a hand to write, do all in his power to circulate the petitions for the entire abolition of high church domination, and the perfect religious and political equality of all denominations of Christians.... The majority of the people of England are willing to have glebes, rectories, tithes, church rates, etc.; but the majority of the people of this Province want nothing of the kind.... The right of the inhabitants of this Province to judge, and to have their wishes granted on everything connected with the disposition of the clergy reserves, and the proceeds of them, has been formally recognized in gracious despatches from the Throne.

Few in the present day can realize the storm which these petitions and appeals provoked. Every effort was made (as will be seen) to silence the voice and stay the hand of Dr. Ryerson, the chief promoter of the petitions, and the able opponent of the establishment of church ascendancy in Upper Canada. Thus matters reached a crisis in the latter part of the year 1838. So intense was the feeling evoked by the ruling party against Dr. Ryerson's proceeding, that in many places the promoters of the petitions were threatened with personal violence, and even with death, as may be seen by letters published in the Guardian at this time. The publication of these letters at the present time would excite feelings of amazement that such a state of things was ever possible in a free country like Canada.

Not only was this policy of intimidation pursued in the rural parts of the country, but the newspapers in Toronto and the larger towns, controlled by his opponents, made a combined assault upon Dr. Ryerson, as the central figure in this movement. On the 19th December, 1838, he inserted an able defence of himself. He said:—

The question of the Clergy Reserves, or in other words, of a dominant ecclesiastical establishment in this Province, embracing one or more Churches, has been a topic of public discussion for nearly twenty years. For thirty years after the creation of Upper Canada (in 1783) there was no ecclesiastical establishment in the country, except in the letter of an Act of Parliament. During that time there was no weakening of the hands of Government by discussing the question of a dominant church.... But from the time that the Episcopal clergy commenced the enterprise of ecclesiastical supremacy in the Province, there has been civil and religious discord. The calumnious and persecuting measures they have pursued from time to time to accomplish their purpose, I need not enumerate. For twelve years I have sought to restore peace to the Province, by putting down their pretensions. I have varied in the means I have employed, but never in the end I have had in view, as I have always avowed to them and their partizans, and to the Colonial and Imperial Governments, on every suitable occasion.

It was a favourite weapon of attack to denounce as rebels and republicans all those who opposed the exclusive claims of the then representatives of the Church of England. And this stigma was, in 1838, a personal and social one which every person to whom it was applied resented. But the more such persons resented the charge of disloyalty the more was the charge reiterated, and they were harassed and denounced as "radicals" and "republicans."

In repelling this unfounded charge, Dr. Ryerson did not descend to vindication or explanation. He became in turn the assailant, and began to "carry the war into Africa." With scorn and invective he replied to the charge, and showed that his opponents, with all their boasting and professions of loyalty, had failed to render the necessary aid in time of need. Thus: It has been said that I prevented the militia from turning out when first called upon.... It is true that I did not exhort any one to volunteer.... One reason ... was that I desired to have the country furnished with a practical illustration of high-church patriotism and loyalty in the hour of need. The Church and the Patriot had boasted of their multitudes; but those multitudes shrivelled into a Falstaff's company in an hour which detected the difference between the loyalty of the lip and the heart.... The elongated countenances in certain quarters for a few days [in December, 1837], will never be forgotten! From the Government House to the poorest cottage the omnipotent power of the Guardian was proclaimed as producing this alarming state of things! Indeed, I received a verbal message from His Excellency on the subject. At this juncture ... the heads of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches formally addressed [their adherents] exhorting them to rally to the standard of their country, and from that hour we have heard nothing but congratulations and boasts in regard to the readiness ... with which the militia came forward in all parts of the Province at the call of the Government. It has been insinuated that I attacked the local Government.... The charge is unfounded. When the local Government was attacked for having pursued a different course from that of Lord Durham towards the political prisoners, I reconciled the course of the two administrations. Several numbers of the Guardian containing that dissertation were requested for the Government House, and ... were sent to England.... But when both my position and myself stand virtually ... impugned by proclamation, I am neither the sycophant nor the renegade to crouch down under unmerited imputations, come from whence they may, even though I should suffer imprisonment and ruin for my temerity.

I am at length exhorted to silence, but not my opponents.... A royal answer was returned to an address of the Episcopal Clergy a few weeks since.[95] Nor is silence imposed upon me until the entire weight of the Chief Magistracy is thrown into the Episcopal scale. If the injunction had been given to all parties ... then we might have felt ourselves in some degree equally protected.... But at the moment when the Province is turned into a camp—when freedom of opinion may be said to exist, but scarcely to live—when unprecedented power is wielded by the Executive, and the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended, for one party in the Province to have free range of denunciation, intimidation, etc., against Methodists and others ... and then for silence to be enjoined on me and those who agree with me ... does excite, I confess, my anxious concern, as the object of it in regard to myself and a large portion of the country cannot be mistaken.

The despatches of Lord Ripon (Nov. 8th, 1832) and Lord Glenelg (Dec. 15th, 1835) recommended a "comprehensive liberality" in every department, and in all the acts of the Government, they conceded in full the popular demands on the clergy reserve question, and deprecated the establishment of any religious corporations until the advice of the local Legislature had been obtained—these very despatches Sir F. B. Head promised to carry out.... But has that pledge been redeemed by him? Has it not been grossly violated?... In his appointments and dismissals from office, and in the whole tone and spirit of his government, did not Sir F. B. Head become the head of a party instead of the Governor of the Province?... The result of his new system of government already is derangement of the currency—insurrection—bloodshed—loss of property—demoralization, by calling large bodies of men from rural to military employments—decrease of population—cessation of immigration—decrease of credit—decrease of revenue—increase of the public debt—decrease of the value of property—increase of popular dissatisfaction—vast military expenditures from the taxes of an overburthened British population—insecurity of person and property, and general distrust. Under these "Church and King" counsels, for two years more, and this province will be a Paradise!... We have laboured hard to obtain and secure many blessings for our native land, but certainly not such blessings as these!

In connection with this discussion, a Kingston paper stated that Dr. Ryerson was moved by ambitious motives. In reply Dr. Ryerson said:—As to my motives of ambition, etc., my enemies will probably concede to me two or three things. 1. That long before Sir F. B. Head came to Upper Canada I had been honoured by as large a share of popular favour in this province as any individual could reasonably expect or desire.... 2. That the path to royal favour has been opened as widely to me as it is possible for it to be opened to any clerical individual who has laid it down as a rule, and stated it to Ministers of the Crown and Governors, that he never could knowingly receive a farthing from any quarter, or in any way, which was not pointed out and authorized by the discipline of his Church. But as a love of popular favour has not obliterated from my recollection the rightful prerogatives of the Crown, I cannot see why I should thereby be disqualified from a disinterested maintenance of constitutional rights, especially when many more are immediately concerned in the latter than in the former.

FOOTNOTES:

[90] In his despatch to Lord Glenelg, giving an extract of his speech at the opening of the ensuing session of the Legislature, Sir George Arthur puts this idea in an official form. He says:—That such "a tribunal is free from those local influences and excitement which operate too powerfully here." In his seventh letter to Hon. W. H. Draper on the clergy reserve question, dated January, 26th, 1839, Dr. Ryerson argues the whole question of the re-investment of the reserves at length. He also shows that so far from the "tribunal" here spoken of by Sir George Arthur being a desirable one to adjudicate on this question, it would be the very reverse.

It should be remembered that in more than one despatch the Colonial Secretary held that the question was one to be settled by the Provincial, rather than by the Imperial Parliament, and declined to interfere with the rights of the Canadian Legislature in the matter. This will be clearly shown in a subsequent chapter. Lord Glenelg's utterances on this question are very emphatic, especially in his despatch dated 5th December, 1835.

[91] The paper was signed by Rev. Messrs. Harvard, Case, Stinson, J. Ryerson, W. Ryerson, E. Ryerson, Green, Evans, Jones, Wilkinson, Beatty, and Wright. See also Guardian of October 10th, 1838.

[92] In the Guardian of September 12th, 1838, page 180, Dr. Ryerson makes a fuller reference to this matter. Speaking of the Hume and Roebuck letters (page 167), he says: I was indeed—what I never thought of in London—applauded to satiety by the constitutional press of Upper Canada [for these letters], and by many individuals, several of whom, on my landing in Canada last year, gave me no small thanks for the results of the election of 1836. But all that ceased within a week after my return to Canada.... And why? Because I availed myself of the first opportunity after my return to submit and press upon Sir Francis and the Attorney-General and others, the importance and necessity of an early and equitable settlement of the clergy reserve question, in order to satisfy the expectations of thousands who had voted for constitutional candidates.... The very moment it was seen that my views and intentions on that subject remained unchanged, I saw a change in the expression of countenances. Sir Francis, indeed, never thanked me, for [the letters]; he wished me to say nothing about the clergy reserve question; and within four weeks sent a calumniating letter against me to Lord Glenelg; and the Attorney-General, so far from remembering the estimate he professed (on my return from England) to place upon my services to the Province, sought last winter to get a clause inserted in the Report of the Select Committee on the Upper Canada Academy, impugning my motives and exonerating Sir Francis from the allegations contained in my petition (see page 180), without even investigating its merits, etc.

[93] In a letter to a friend, in January, 1838, Dr. Ryerson relates an amusing incident which was characteristic of Sir Allan MacNab's love of a bit of fun. He said:—In conversation one day with Mr. Speaker MacNab, he gravely proposed to me that I should meet Archdeacon Strachan and a clergyman of the Church of Scotland; and for him and other members of the Assembly to hear us put forth our respective claims to the clergy reserves, and for them to say a word now and then if they liked. After having heard the parsons argue the point, some member was to bring such a measure before the Assembly, as we three should propose. This rather amusing way of settling the question was evidently by way of a joke, so I made no objection to it. He is to inform me of the time and place for the argument, after having consulted the other parties concerned; but I shall hear no more of it!

[94] The cause of this apathy will be apparent from the narrative in chapter xxxi., and the note on page 225.

[95] In their address they designated themselves as the Bishop, Archdeacons, and Clergy of the Established Church of Upper Canada; but Sir George Arthur, in his reply, addressed them as the Bishop, Archdeacons, and Clergy of the established Church of England in Upper Canada.



CHAPTER XXX.

1838-1839.

The Ruling Party and the Reserves.—"Divide et Impera."

In dealing with so large and influential a body as the Methodists, made up, as it was years ago, of two distinct elements, somewhat antagonistic to each other, it can easily be understood that the more astute among the high church or "family compact" party clearly saw that their only hope of success in the clergy reserve controversy was by taking advantage of the presence of this antagonistic element in the Methodist body, and to turn it to practical account against Dr. Ryerson, so as to checkmate him in the contest. Queen Elizabeth's motto: Divide et impera, was therefore adopted. And every effort was made to intensify the feelings and widen the breach which already existed between the two sections of the Methodists. This was the more easily done by the appeal which was made to the national prejudices of Methodists of British origin, as against the alleged republican tendency of their colonial brethren.[96] In this effort the ruling party were publicly and privately aided by members of the Missionary Committee in London. To discuss this question now would be practically useless. None but actors in the scenes and conflicts of those times could realize the strong, even bitter, feelings which existed in the chief towns between the two parties at the time. Cherished sentiments of loyalty, strong home feelings, and orthodox Methodist principles, were appealed to, and alternately asserted their influence on opposite sides in the contest.

Added to the difficulty which Dr. Ryerson experienced in conducting the clergy reserve controversy was the fact, that many Methodists of British origin fully sympathized with the claims of the old national and historical Church of England—they held that it was ipso facto the "established" church in every British Colony, as often asserted by the Missionary party.

As the clergy reserve question gradually became the absorbing topic of discussion in the country (with Dr. Ryerson as one of the chief leaders in that discussion), it was natural that so important a matter should receive the attention of Conference. This it did at an early date. In 1837 strong resolutions were passed upon the subject, which excited much uneasiness among the English Missionary party. The Rev. W. H. Harvard, President of the Conference, in writing to Dr. Ryerson on the subject after Conference, said:—

Since I came away from the Conference, I have been greatly concerned as to the anti-church impression likely to be made on the mind of our people by our recent resolutions of Conference; and I would fain engage your interest with Rev. E. Evans, our Editor, to accompany them with some saving paragraph on the general principle of an establishment which may keep our people from the danger of imbibing the principle of dissent, the operation of which will always foster a religious radicalism in our body, and the influence of which our fathers at home strongly deprecate. I think with you, that in the altered circumstances of our Colonial relations, we have reason to plead for concessions of equality of rights and privileges which would never be granted in the Mother Country. In that respect I do not dissent from the spirit of the resolutions. But I more and more think and feel that there is a middle path of respectful deference to the principle of an establishment even in the Colonies, which, so modified, would not be injurious, but rather helpful, to our good cause,—and which is a vantage ground on which none of our enemies could touch us. It is true, that from Wesleyan high quarters you have had encouragement to believe an independent stand against Church domination would not be disapproved; yet even there a denial of the principle of an establishment (or that the Government should profess some one form of Christianity, with equal privileges to other Christians) would meet with reprobation; and if not, who does not see, if we take that anti-Wesleyan ground, it may involve the question of Wesleyan consistency on our part, while at the same time it would be in danger of throwing our people into the arms of the Radical-popish-infidel faction, where they will, bear like, be hugged till the breath of piety is pressed out of them. Of course, it would drive away from our congregations many of those pious or well-disposed Church people who occasionally mingle with and derive good from us. It was Mr. Wesley's conviction that the Methodists were in part raised up to spread scriptural holiness in the Church of England, as well as in the world at large. I must repeat my wish, that you had yielded to my suggestion to admit into the resolution the phrases, "that the principle of an establishment should be so administered in this Province as to secure perfect equality of rights and privileges among all other communities."

You may have ulterior views which I am too short-sighted to perceive. But I am fully convinced, that if the Guardian does not save us from identification with dissent from the Church of England at this crisis, the real friends of our Zion will bitterly deplore it another day.[97]

Here was a broad and distinct declaration of principle, as fully in harmony with the views of the dominant party as they were entirely opposed to those held by the Canadian Conference party. They were perfectly sincere, too, and were uttered by one of the most moderate, and yet most thoroughly representative agents of the British Missionary party in this Province. It can be easily seen how tempting an opportunity it was for the ruling party to foster this feeling amongst the English Missionary section of Methodists, by strong appeals to their well-known loyalty—their respect and love for the old mother-church, which John Wesley so venerated. Even condescension and flattery were employed. The Church and other newspapers made appeals with tact and ability[98] (see page 236); the Lieutenant Governor himself took the trouble to address a letter on the subject direct to the Missionary Committee in London, and Archdeacon Strachan never failed to single out for respectful mention and commendation the representatives of the British Missionary party in Canada, as distinguished from the "disloyal and republican section of the Methodists."[99]

Referring to this period, Rev. John Ryerson, in his Historical Recollections of Methodism (as annotated by Dr. Ryerson) informs us that—

After aiding to suppress the rebellion, the Guardian resumed the discussion of the clergy reserve question, and insisted that it should be settled. But nothing was farther from the thoughts of Dr. Strachan and Sir George Arthur. They contended that the mooting of the question at such a time was evidence of disloyalty on the part of those who were endeavouring to despoil the Church of its lawful rights. The Editor of the Guardian (Dr. Ryerson) was threatened with personal violence, with prosecution, and banishment. Yet the Guardian kept on the even tenor of its way; and in proportion to the fury of the monopolists, did the Editor increase his exertions to wrest from them their unjust gains. Then the oppressors of equal rights, seeing that nothing else would do, called into requisition the old craft to divide the Methodists, or, by other influences, to coercively control them.

Sir George Arthur, the amanuensis of Dr. Strachan in these matters, wrote to the Missionary Committee in London of the evil and disturbing doings of the Guardian, and called on them for their interference. This flattering appeal received a very complimentary reply. The Committee also wrote to their missionary agents in Canada, directing them to interpose and arrest the unjustifiable course of the Guardian. The objection was that the paper "had become party-political;" that "its course was disquieting to the country, and disreputable to Wesleyan Methodism," ... etc. It is not denied (adds Rev. J. Ryerson), that the Guardian at this time was very political for a religious journal....

On this Dr. Ryerson remarked—

It is true, as my brother has intimated, that the Guardian was "very political," because the Editor was intensely in earnest on the great object for which he had been elected by the Conference.... The times of his former proposed conciliations and compromises were now past. He felt the awfulness of the crisis and the responsibility of his position. The Reform party had been crushed by the rebellion of 1837, and the Reform press silenced; there was, in fact, no Reform party. The high-church party thought that their day of absolute power and ecclesiastical monopoly had dawned. It had been agreed by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels ... that Egerton Ryerson [should be their first victim]. He alone stood above successful calumny by the high-church party, and backed as he was by his Canadian Methodist brethren, he determined to defend to the last, the citadel of Canadian liberty....

He knew that, as in a final struggle for victory between two armies, when that victory was trembling in the scales, the wavering of a single battalion on either side might animate and decide victory in favour of the enemy; so a compromising sentence or ambiguous word from the Editor might rouse the high-church party to increased confidence and action, and proportionally weaken the cause of civil and religious liberty in Upper Canada. The Editor of the Guardian had no fear, and he evinced none.... I contended that all the political questions then pending had a direct or indirect bearing on this great question; ... that I would not be turned aside from the great object in view until it was obtained; that the real object of the Government and of the Missionary Committee was not so much to prevent the introduction of politics into the Guardian, as the discussion of the clergy reserve question itself, and of the equal religious rights of the people altogether, so that the high-church party might be left in peaceable possession of their exclusive privileges, and their unjust and immense monopolies, without molestation or dispute.

Rev. J. Ryerson adds: Had Dr. Ryerson "yielded to the dictation of Sir George Arthur's government, and the interference of the London Missionary Committee, one-seventh of the land of the Province might now be in the hands of the Church of England. But the course of the Guardian in this matter, however right, brought upon [the Canadian Methodist Church] calamities and sufferings of seven years' continuance."

About a month before the Conference of 1839 met, Sir George Arthur received a reply, by the hands of Dr. Alder, from the Missionary Committee in London (signed by Dr. Bunting and the other Secretaries), which he published in the Patriot newspaper. Dr. Ryerson inserted the letter in the Guardian of the 22nd May, with these remarks:—

We copy from the Patriot a letter, addressed by the Wesleyan Missionary Secretaries in London to Sir George Arthur, disclaiming "all participation in the views expressed in the Guardian on the ecclesiastical questions of this Province."

He then goes on to show that the views expressed in the Guardian were identical with those embodied in the proceedings of the Wesleyan Conference in Upper Canada from the beginning, and that they were explicitly avowed and understood by both parties at the time of the union of the Conferences in 1833.

The object of the publication of the letter was evidently twofold: 1st. To put a weapon into the hands of the friends of a dominant church in Upper Canada. 2nd. To paralyze the efforts of Dr. Ryerson to secure equal rights for all religious bodies, and thus to weaken his powerful influence as a champion of those rights.

It was a noticeable fact that all of the disclaimers from the British party first appeared in the Church of England organs, and were there triumphantly appealed to as the unbiassed expression of Methodist opinion from headquarters in England. In supplementing Rev. John Ryerson's Historical Narrative of events at this period, Dr. Ryerson stated, in substance, that:—

It was soon found that Sir George Arthur had thrown himself into the hands of the oligarchy on the question of the clergy reserves—he would not consent to have them applied to any other purpose than the support of the clergy, and was anxious to have them revested in the Crown. When Sir George's views and plans were brought before the Legislature, I opposed them. The Missionary Committee interposed (at Sir George's own request) and supported him on that question. However, Her Majesty's Government subsequently set aside the proceedings of Sir George Arthur, upon the very same grounds on which I had opposed them; but that made no difference in the feelings towards me of Dr. Alder and his colleagues.

Early in June, 1839, Dr. Alder addressed a letter to the Guardian, explaining and defending his views on church establishments. On the 12th of that month, Dr. Ryerson replied to him at length, and, at the close, put a series of questions to Dr. Alder. From the 2nd and 6th I make the following extracts:—

2. Are you satisfied that you are providentially called of God to attempt to make Methodism an agency in promoting a national establishment of religion in a new country, in the teeth of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants?

6. Are you warranted from any writings or authority of Mr. Wesley to insist that, "under no circumstances," the principle of an establishment shall be abandoned?... Mr. Wesley and his coadjutors have left it on record, in the minutes of their Conference, as their deliberate judgment, that "there is no instance of, or ground at all for, a national church in the New Testament;" that they "apprehended it to be a merely political institution." How can any true Wesleyan convert that into a matter of faith and religious principle for which Mr. Wesley declared there "was no instance or ground at all in the New Testament?" ... I know that the local Executive is most intent to secure the aid of the Missionary Committee to support the recent re-investment act of spoliation; I believe that your letter ... emboldened and encouraged them in the re-investment scheme, and His Excellency stated some months since that he had written for you to come to this country; they think that they can bargain with you upon more advantageous terms than they can with the Methodist Conference in this Province, but I entreat you to pause before you proceed to insist that that which Mr. Wesley declares ... to be "a merely political institution," forms any part of Wesleyan Methodism.[100]

Dr. Ryerson's account of what transpired at the ensuing Conference is in substance as follows:—

Dr. Alder attended the Conference at Hamilton, June, 1839, and introduced resolutions expressive of his views, to which he insisted upon the concurrence of the Conference. The resolutions were discussed for three days. On the last day Dr. Ryerson replied, after which the resolutions were negatived by a vote of 55 to 5.[101]

At the same Conference Dr. Ryerson was appointed secretary, by a vote of 41 to 14. But it was in regard to the election of Editor that the greatest interest was taken, not so much amongst the Canadian section of the Methodist people as amongst the members of other religious bodies. The Guardian stated:—

For the last two months the several provincial journals have renewed their efforts of vehement vituperation against the Editor; ... they have sought and hoped to create a division in the ranks of the Methodist family, and, by thus dividing, to conquer; they even triumphed by anticipation—so much so, that the Editor of The Church oracularly predicted the speedy release of the Editor of the Guardian from his editorial duties.

The chagrin which was felt by these parties can be well imagined when the ballot announced that Dr. Ryerson had been re-elected editor, by a vote of 60 to 13! Speaking of this memorable triumph, Dr. Ryerson declared that:—

Never before did I receive, directly or indirectly, so many unequivocal testimonies of respect and confidence, not merely from the Methodist Church at large, but also from members of other churches.

In the meantime (as Dr. Ryerson stated elsewhere) the discussion on the question of a dominant church monopoly and party ... proscription waxed hotter and hotter; ... rumours prevailed of a change of Governors in Upper Canada; the high church party felt that this was their time, and perhaps their last chance to confirm their absolute power.... Under these circumstances, I stated to the Conference that the moment that the clergy reserve and other questions affecting our constitutional and just rights as British Canadian subjects, and as a religious body, were adjusted, we ought to abstain entirely from any discussions in reference to civil affairs. When Dr. Alder's resolutions were rejected by our Conference, one prepared by myself was agreed to, as follows:—

While this Conference has felt itself bound to express its sentiments on the question of an ecclesiastical establishment in this Province, and our constitutional and religious rights and privileges, and our determination to maintain them, we disclaim any intention to interfere with the merely secular, party-politics of the day.

This resolution, as it afterwards appeared, did not go far enough to meet the wishes and designs of Dr. Alder. He, therefore, brought the matter before the Book Committee, Toronto, in October, 1839. To that Committee he stated at length his decided objection to the course pursued by the Guardian since Conference as "a violation of the known design of the resolution adopted by it." Dr. Ryerson, while fully justifying the course which he had pursued, nevertheless tendered to the Committee his resignation as Editor. The Committee, however, instructed Rev. William Case to write to him as follows:—

By request of the Book Committee, I beg leave to communicate the result of their deliberations on the subject of your proffered resignation of the editorship of the Guardian. "Resolved, That the Committee do not feel themselves at liberty to accept of the resignation of the Editor of the Guardian, and that he be affectionately requested to withdraw it, and to continue his services in accordance with the deliberately framed regulations of the Committee until the ensuing Conference, the regulations to which he objects having been adopted, not for the purpose of reflecting in any way upon the Editor; and that we assure him that we have the utmost confidence in his ability, his integrity, and his anxious desire to promote the best interests of the Connexion."

Dr. Ryerson withdrew his resignation at the time, but resolved to press it at the next Conference. This he did; and peremptorily declined re-election at the Conference of 1840—in fact other and more serious matters were pressed upon him. He thus finally retired from the editorship of the paper which he had established in 1829, and which he had made such a power in Upper Canada. He justly felt that, with the enlarged Methodist constituency which the Guardian at this time represented, it would be impossible for him, while great questions remained unsettled, to harmonize the conflicting opinions on politico-religious matters which were then held by opposite and influential sections of the Methodist Church. He clearly foresaw further conflict on these and other inter-connexional subjects, and was, therefore, the more anxious to free himself from the unwise, official trammels, which a hostile, anti-Canadian and unpatriotic party sought to impose upon him—single-handed as he was. He longed for more congenial work. He also felt that literary freedom was essential to him in his thorough and practical discussion of the all absorbing questions of the day.[102] This it was well known he could do, in dealing with these questions, not only on their own merits, but with the comprehensive grasp which his enlarged experience, intuitive clearness of perception, and naturally statesmanlike views on grave public questions, eminently qualified him for.

As an illustration of the acknowledged ability, fairness, and conclusiveness of argument with which he dealt with questions which touched the sensibilities and even prejudices of leading members of the British Missionary party in Canada, it is a striking fact that when these gentlemen were not under the direct and potent influence of the Mission House, they were Dr. Ryerson's personal friends, and gave him an active support. This was particularly the case with the late Rev. Dr. Stinson, a man of noble and generous impulses; Rev. W. H. Harvard, always kind and courteous; Rev. Dr. Richey, a man of much refinement and culture, and others. In the important crisis of 1838, both Dr. Stinson and Dr. Richey voted for Dr. Ryerson as Editor. The former wrote a strong letter urging his appointment as Editor. (Page 201.) The latter, on his way to Halifax, after the Conference of 1839, wrote from Montreal to Dr. Ryerson, as follows:—

Sir John Colborne, on whom I called, and by whom I was graciously received, is delighted with the continuance of the Union. So are all our Montreal friends, after my explanations. They will immediately order the Guardian. Sir John paid a handsome tribute to your talents, as who with whom I conversed did not? however they might happen to view your course. They all say you commenced admirably,—that the moment the paper passed into your hands, it manifestly improved; and they all approve of your course for the last six months, just about as well as you know I do. Adhere most religiously, my dear brother, to the spirit and letter of the resolutions, by which the Conference has expressed its will that you should be guided. Your friend Joseph Howe[103] begins, I perceive, to mingle with tories, as they are invidiously designated. I do not wish you to be a tory; and I will not insult you by expressing a desire that you were a high conservative.

I do not flatter you in saying, that on no man in Upper Canada does the peace of our Church and of the Province so much depend, as on yourself. May all your powers be employed for good! Guard against the fascination of political fame. It will do no more for you on a dying bed than it did for Cardinal Wolsey. O! that your fine mind were fully concentrated upon the [Greek: politeuma] of Heaven!

FOOTNOTES:

[96] Dr. Ryerson, in the Guardian of October 31, 1838, says:—Five columns of The Church, of the 20th ult., are occupied with an appeal to the old country Methodists, to induce them to oppose the Conference and Connexion in this Province in the clergy reserve question. The Cobourg Star follows in the wake of The Church, in the same pious crusade. The Patriot of the 26th inst. also copies the schismatic appeal of The Church.

[97] Even Rev. J. Stinson (who heartily sympathized in many things with the Canadian Methodists), in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, written in February, 1839, said:—I have read your address to Hon. W. H. Draper, on the clergy reserve question, with considerable attention; and while there is much in it which I admire, I must honestly tell you, en passant, that it contains more against the principle of an establishment in this Colony than I like.

[98] Not satisfied with these strong appeals in the newspapers, resort was had to personal ones, made to leading members of the missionary party. In a kind and yet candid letter which Dr. Ryerson received in November, 1838, Rev. Joseph Stinson says:—I sincerely sympathize with you in your present perplexing and trying circumstances. I heard to-day that some of the dominant church champions are appealing to me to array myself against you. They may save themselves the trouble of making such appeals. Whenever I have differed in opinion with you, I have told you so, and shall do so again,—but shall never, unless you become a revolutionist, either directly or indirectly sanction any factious opposition to you. I think, as Wesleyan Methodists, we ought, openly and fearlessly, to advocate the righteous claims of our own Church; but we ought to do it without detracting from the merits or opposing the interests of that Church which is so closely connected with our Government, as is the Church of England. I know that the exclusive spirit—the arrogant pretentiousness—the priestly insolence—the anti-Christian spirit of certain members of that Church richly deserves chastisement.... I know that your public services have been undervalued; your faults have been shamefully exaggerated; your motives have been misrepresented; your influence (connected as you are with a large and influential body of Christians) is feared, and your enemies are as bitter as Satan can make them; but, if you are conscious that, in the sight of God, you are aiming at the right object, why not leave your cause in His hands? why so frequently appeal to the people? You may not see it; but there is a recklessness in your mode of writing, sometimes, which is really alarming, and for which many of the members of the Conference of our Society do not like to be responsible. I know well, that the acts of the high church party are far more likely to excite rebellion than your writings. There is a strong, a very strong, feeling against a dominant Church; but a majority of the Province would rather have that, and connection with Great Britain, than republicanism.

[99] On the other hand, the Editor of The Church thus sketched Dr. Ryerson:—As The promoter, if not originator, of prejudices of indigenous growth, against the Church of England, and as the thoughtless scatterer of the seeds of political error and of antipathy to the national church. Notwithstanding these counteracting influences, the Editor does not despair of seeing the day when Methodists in Canada will join with Churchmen in vindicating the Church's right to the property of the reserves, which will enable them to plant the established church in every corner of these Provinces. And this they will do, not upon the ground merely of filial partiality, but on the most rational security for the permanence and purity of our Protestant faith, etc. Under these circumstances, Dr. Ryerson said:—

I have felt it due to the Guardian connexion to enter my protest against the claims of the Episcopal Church, and to combat and explain the opinion of my English brethren as not those prevalent in this Province.

A lengthened communication, embodying those views, appearing on page 109 of the Guardian of May 16th, 1838.

[100] With a view to increase the clamour against the Editor of the Guardian on this subject, Mr. Alex. Davidson, writing to Dr. Ryerson from Niagara, said:—Dr. Alder's letter to you had been printed and circulated there in the form of a hand-bill. Mr. E. C. Griffin, of Waterdown, writing from Hamilton on the same subject, said: I have learned from brother Edward Jackson what are the feelings of the Society in Hamilton, respecting the letter of Dr. Alder. He says, that if the leaders' meeting is any index of the views of the entire Society here, they are a "unit" to a man (except the preacher) in their determination to support you in your principles and proceedings.

[101] The following incident in connection with this vote is mentioned by Dr. Ryerson: Dr. Alder (he said) appeared disappointed and depressed; and, after the close of the Conference I said to him: Dr. Alder, you see how entirely you have mistaken the state of Canadian society, and the views and feelings of the Methodist people. Now, I do not wish that you should return to England a defeated and disgraced man. I purpose to write a short editorial for the Guardian, stating that the differences and misunderstandings which had arisen, after having been carefully considered and fully discussed, were adjusted in an amicable spirit, and the unity of the Church maintained inviolate. Dr. Alder appeared delighted and thankful beyond expression. I prepared the editorial. Dr. Alder used and interpreted this editorial on his return to England, to show that the Canadian Conference and its Editor had acceded to all of his demands, and that he had been completely successful in his mission to Canada! The English Committee adopted resolutions complimentary to Dr. Alder in consequence; but I did not imagine that Dr. Alder's fictitious representation of the results of his mission would afterwards be made the ground of charges against myself!

[102] Dr. Ryerson gave full expression to these views in a letter addressed to the Governor-General in April, 1840. (See chapter xxxiii., page 266.)

[103] See letter from Mr. Howe to Dr. Ryerson on page 258.



CHAPTER XXXI.

1839.

Strategy in the Clergy Reserve Controversy.

The year 1839 was somewhat noted for the prolonged and animated discussions which took place in and out of the Legislature on the clergy reserve question. There were some new features in the discussion of the preceding year which had their effect on the clergy reserve legislation of that year. And while they partially ceased to be influential in the discussions of 1839, yet the legislation of that year was practically brought to the same issue as that of 1838, only that it was more decisive. It may be interesting, therefore, to refer to these special features in the discussion of 1838-9.

The first was the final change of tactics on the part of the leaders of the Church of England party in the contest. The second was the persistent and personal efforts which Lieutenant Governor Arthur put forth in behalf of that party, so as to enable them to accomplish their object, and, at the same time, to counteract the efforts of those who were seeking to uphold Canadian and popular rights. The third was (as shown in the last chapter) the plan adopted to foment discord in the Methodist body—which was by far the most formidable opponent of the scheme of monopoly and aggrandisement which the ruling party was seeking to promote.

At this distance of time it is easy to survey the whole field of conflict, and to note the plans and strategies of the combatants. Although efforts had hitherto been made to shift the battle-ground from Upper Canada to England, yet, as the Colonial Secretary had discouraged such efforts as unwise, and as an unnecessary interference with the rights of the Provincial Legislature, the matter was not openly pressed in 1839. Nor was it pressed at all to a conclusion in 1838. For, by a singular coincidence, the very day (29th December, 1837) on which Mr. Cartwright had moved to bring a bill into the House of Assembly to revest the clergy reserve in Her Majesty, Sir George Grey penned a despatch to Sir George Arthur, in which he disclaimed, on behalf of the Imperial Government, any wish or intention to interfere, in the settlement of the clergy reserve question, with the functions of the Provincial Legislature, on the ground that—

Such interference would tend to create a not unreasonable suspicion of the sincerity with which the Legislature have been invited to the exercise of the power [to vary or repeal] reserved to them on this subject by the Constitutional Act of 1791.

It is likely that the publication of this despatch prevented the House of Assembly from proceeding any farther with Mr. Cartwright's bill, than ordering it to a second reading on the 26th February, 1838. In this dilemma the ruling party were evidently at a loss how to act. It required much tact and skill to break the ranks of the chief forces arrayed against the scheme to revest the reserves in the Crown—a scheme distasteful to Canadians generally, and subversive of the legislative independence of Upper Canada. Two methods were therefore adopted: The first was to divide the Methodists (as shown in the last chapter). The second and more astute one was to appeal to the professed loyalty of that class which hitherto had been held up to scorn as disloyal, and denounced as republican in its tendencies, as well as seditious in their conduct. The appeal was varied in form, but it was in substance that as those who made it were not themselves afraid to trust their interests in the hands of the Sovereign, their opponents should be equally trustful in the equal and entire justice which would be meted out to all of her Canadian subjects.[104] This appeal, from its very speciousness, and the skill with which it was pressed, had its effect in many cases. But, as a general rule, it failed. The object of the decisive change of tactics was too transparent to deceive the more sensible and thoughtful men to whom the appeal was addressed.

The two other methods adopted (already referred to) were only partially successful; but the three combined, no doubt, strengthened the hands of the advocates of the scheme for the re-investment of the reserves in the Crown. They, however, ceased to press the matter upon public attention, being determined to bide their time, and (as events proved), to carry their point in another and more skilful way.

In the meantime, and early in 1839, Dr. Ryerson was deputed by several important circuits to present loyal addresses to Sir George Arthur. This he did on the 2nd February; and in enclosing them to the Governor's secretary, used language which sounds strange in these days of religious equality. He said:—

I feel myself fully authorized, by various communications and my official position, to assure His Excellency that the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church will not be contented with subordinate civil standing to any other church, any more than the members of the Church of Scotland. They do not, and never have asked for any peculiar advantages; but they feel that upon the principles of justice, by labours, by usefulness, by character, by numbers, and by the principles laid down in royal despatches, they are entitled, in the eye of the law, and in the administration of an impartial government, to equal consideration, and equal advantages with any other church. I am confident that I but state a simple fact, when I express our belief that the Methodist Church, in its doctrines, ministry, and institutions, furnishes as formidable a barrier against the irreligion and infidelity of the times as any other section of Protestantism. Nor is it possible for us—notwithstanding our unfeigned respect for His Excellency—to feel ourselves under any obligations to tender our support to another section of the Protestant Church, whose clergy, in this Province, collectively, officially, and individually (with solitary exceptions), have resisted the attainment of every civil and religious privilege we now enjoy—have twice impeached our character and principles before the Imperial Government—who deny the legitimacy of our ministry, who, in their doctrines respecting Church polity, and several points of faith, do not represent the doctrines of the Church of England, or of the established clergy in England as a body, but that section only of the established clergy that have associated with all arbitrary measures of government against various classes of Protestant non-conformists which have darkened the page of British history, and also the dark ages, notions of rites and ceremonies, and the conductor of whose official organ in this Province has recently represented the Methodist ministry as the guilty cause of those divine chastisements under the influence of which our land droops and mourns. I am sure my brethren, as well as myself, freely forgive the great wrongs thus perpetrated against us; but we feel ourselves equally bound in duty to ourselves, to our country, and to our common Christianity, to employ all lawful means to prevent such exclusive, repulsive, and proscriptive sentiments from acquiring anything more than equal protection in the Province.

I might appeal to circumstances within His Excellency's knowledge, to show that from 1836 to the close of the last session of our Provincial Parliament, I have spared no pains—without the remotest view to personal or even Methodistic advantage—to second, to the utmost of my humble ability, any plan to which the Province might, under all circumstances, be induced to concur, in order to settle the protracted controversy on the clergy reserve question; and that it has not been, until I have had indubitable proofs that there was no disposition or intention on the side of the Episcopal clergy to yield a single iota any further than they were compelled. It was not until all these circumstances had transpired, that we reluctantly determined to appeal against the exclusive and unjust pretensions of the Episcopal clergy, to the bar of public opinion—a power recognized by our free constitution, and which no party or administration can successfully resist many years.

The reply of the Governor was friendly and conciliatory; but in it he expresses his

Surprise to find that his appeal on a late occasion to the Wesleyan Methodists, to give the Church of England their most cordial support, had been misunderstood and construed into an expression of sectarian preference. By inviting the Methodists to such a course of conduct, His Excellency thought that he was only appealing to a feeling of attachment for the Church of England, which he had always been induced to consider—especially from personal observation—as a badge of "legitimate Wesleyan Methodists" all over the world.

Dr. Ryerson in his remarks on this reply, said:—

The questions at issue about the clergy reserves do not involve the principle of "attachment for the Church of England" from the well known fact that many respectable members of that Church, in every district throughout the Province, concur in the views advocated in the Guardian on that question—therefore an appeal to "attachment for the Church of England" as the rule of judgment in this controversy, much less as a "badge of legitimate Wesleyan Methodists," is the very climax of absurdity.

The discussions on the clergy reserve question up to the time when the House reassembled (27th February, 1839), must have convinced the dominant party that it was, and ever would be, hopeless, in the face of the determined opposition which their schemes encountered, to obtain that which they wanted from the local legislature. They could not again openly bring in a bill (as they did last year) to revest the reserves in the Crown, in the face of the declarations of the Colonial Secretary, that—

Imperial Parliamentary Legislation on any subject of exclusively internal concern, in any British colony possessing a representative assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional. It is a right of which the exercise is reserved for extreme cases, in which necessity at once creates and justifies the exception. (Lord Glenelg to Sir F. B. Head, 5th December, 1835.)

They therefore adopted what events proved to be a ruse, to accomplish their object. It is true that Sir George Arthur, in his opening speech, urged that—

The settlement of this vitally important question ought not to be longer delayed.... I confidently hope, that if the claims of contending parties be advanced ... in a spirit of moderation and Christian charity, the adjustment of them by you will not prove insuperably difficult.

The Governor then adroitly added—

But, should all your efforts for the purpose unhappily fail, it will then only remain for you to re-invest the reserves in the hands of the Crown, and to refer the appropriation of them to the Imperial Parliament, as a tribunal free from those local influences and excitements which may operate too powerfully here.

Both Houses, in apparent good faith, sought to carry out the wishes of the Governor as expressed in the first part of his speech. The managers of the scheme indicated in the latter part of the speech initiated a totally different bill in each House, apparently liberal and comprehensive in character, but yet objectionable in detail. Dr. Ryerson felt this so strongly that he petitioned to be heard at the Bar of the House of Assembly against the bill which had been introduced into it. His request was at first granted on the 7th April, by a vote of 24 to 22, but afterwards refused by a vote of 21 to 17. After protracted debates in the House of Assembly and about forty-four divisions, that House sent up its bill to the Legislative Council for concurrence. The Council struck out the whole of the bill after the word "whereas," and substituted one of its own, and in turn sent it down to the House of Assembly for concurrence. That House, not to be outdone by the other, struck out the whole of the Legislative Council bill, and substituted a bill of its own, totally different from the one first sent up to the Legislative Council, the last clause of which read as follows:—

The moneys to arise, and to be procured and henceforth received for any sale or sales [of clergy reserve lands] shall be paid into the hands of Her Majesty's Receiver-General of this Province, to be appropriated by the Provincial Legislature for religion and education.

The bill thus constructed needed but the alteration of the last five words to adapt it admirably to the object and purpose of the Church party. The Legislative Council, therefore, changed the concluding words in the last clause into the words "Imperial Parliament for religious purposes." In this apparently simple way, but in reality, fundamental manner—and without any attempt at a conference between the Houses, with a view to adjust differences—the Legislative Council, taking advantage of a comparatively thin House of Assembly, made the desired change on the last day of the session. By adroit manoeuvring the agents of the Church party carried the bill in the House of Assembly thus altered. In this way they succeeded in destroying the whole object of the bill, as passed by the House of Assembly. Sir George Arthur, in his despatch to the Colonial Secretary, virtually admitted that the passage of the altered bill was due to the fact that it was carried in the House of Assembly by a majority of one vote [22 to 21], in a House of 44 members, and at a late hour on the night preceding the prorogation!

Such were the discreditable circumstances under which the bill re-investing the clergy reserves in the Crown was passed. It, however, required the assent of the Queen before it became law. This it was destined never to receive, owing to a technical objection raised in England in the following October, that such a delegation to the Imperial Parliament could not be made by a subordinate authority. This defeat, however, proved to be a moral victory for the vanquished, as it gave them time for farther deliberation; it incited them to greater caution in their mode of warfare, and induced them to adopt tactics of a more secret and, as it proved, effective character.

FOOTNOTES:

[104] In the Guardian of September 19th, 1838, the question is put in this form and discussed: "Why do you not appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council, or to the High Court of Parliament instead of appealing to the public here?" The answer was conclusive.



CHAPTER XXXII.

1839.

Sir G. Arthur's Partizanship.—State of the Province.

The bill for revesting the clergy reserves in the Crown barely escaped defeat (as just mentioned) in the House of Assembly, on 11th May, 1839. On the 14th Sir George Arthur sent the bill to Lord Normanby (successor to Lord Glenelg) for Her Majesty's assent, with an elaborate despatch. On the 15th, Dr. Ryerson also addressed to Lord Normanby a long letter on the same subject. In it he called the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the following facts, which he discussed at length in his letter:—

1. That the great majority of the House of Assembly in four successive parliaments had remonstrated against the exclusive pretensions of the Church of England in Upper Canada; and that the claims of the Church of England to be the established Church of the Province had from the beginning been steadily denied by such representatives, and elsewhere.

2. That the ground of dissatisfaction in the Province was not merely between the Churches of England and Scotland, but between the high-church party, and the religious denominations and the inhabitants of the Province generally.

3. That from the beginning the House of Assembly had protested against any appropriation of the clergy reserves being made to the Church of England, not granted equally [for educational purposes] to the other Christian denominations.

4. That notwithstanding the annual remonstrances of the House of Assembly, large grants had been paid since 1827, to the Episcopal Clergy, exclusive of grants by the Imperial Parliament and the Propagation Society.

5. That under these circumstances it was not surprising that there should be a widespread and deeply seated dissatisfaction. It is rather surprising that a vestige of British power exists in the Province.

6. That Sir George Arthur has for the last five months endeavoured—by official proclamations and other published communications through public offices, and by military influences in various parts of the Province—to prevent any expression of opinion on this subject, even by petition to the Legislature.

7. That the Lieutenant-Governor has been induced to make himself a partizan with the Episcopal Church in the clergy reserve discussion; the entire influence of the Executive has been thrown into that scale; the representation of impartial sovereignty has been made the watchword of party.

8. That under the pretense of resisting brigand invasion, large militia forces have been raised; violent penniless partizans have been put on pay in preference to respectable and loyal men; and these forces have not been placed on the frontier where invasion might have been expected, but have been scattered in parties over many parts of the interior, in order to exterminate discontent by silencing complaint.

These, with a reference to the embarrassed financial condition of the Province, were the chief points to which Dr. Ryerson called the attention of the Colonial Secretary in this elaborate letter.

On the 22nd of the same month (May) Dr. Ryerson addressed another vigorous letter to Lord Normanby, on the clergy reserves and kindred questions. "That letter," he says, he writes "with feelings which he has no language to express."

The main points of the letter were as follows:—

1. For thirty years (up to 1820) nothing was heard of an ecclesiastical establishment in the Province: all classes felt themselves equally free, and were, therefore, equally contented and happy.

2. From the first open and unequivocal pretensions to a state establishment being made, the inhabitants of Upper Canada, in every constitutional way, have resisted and remonstrated against it.

3. Every appropriation and grant to the Episcopal clergy out of the lands and funds of the Province has been made in the very teeth of the country's remonstrance.

4. The utter powerlessness of the representative branch of the Legislature has rendered the officers and dependents and partizans of the Executive more and more despotic, overbearing, and reckless of the feelings of the country.

5 This most blighting of all partizanship has been carried into every department of the Executive Government—the magistracy, militia, and even into the administration of justice. Its poison is working throughout the whole body politic; it destroys the peace of the country; rouses neighbour against neighbour; weakens the best social affections of the human heart, and awakens its worst passions; and converts a healthy and fertile province into a pandemonium of strife, discontent, and civil commotion.

6. While upwards of $220,000 (besides lands) have been given to the Episcopal clergy since 1827, the grants made by the Imperial Parliament to the clergy of Upper Canada amount to over $400,000, being over $620,000 in all.

7. A very large sum has been expended in the erection of Upper Canada College, on the grounds of King's College, and with an endowment of $8,000 or $10,000 a year. This institution is wholly under the management of Episcopal clergymen, while the Upper Canada Academy, which has been built at Cobourg by the Methodists at a cost of about $40,000, could not without a severe struggle get even the $16,000 which were directed to be paid over to it by Lord Glenelg. The matter had to be contested with Sir F. B. Head on the floor of the House of Assembly before he could be induced to obey the Royal instructions. (Page 179.)

8. In the recent legislation on the clergy reserve question, the high church party resisted every measure by which the Methodist Church might obtain a farthing's aid to the Upper Canada Academy. And, to add insult to injury, the high church people denounce Methodists as republicans, rebels, traitors, and use every possible epithet and insinuation of contumely because they complain, reason, and remonstrate against such barefaced oppression and injustice—notwithstanding that not a single member of that church has been convicted of complicity with the late unhappy troubles in the Province.

9. A perpetuation of the past and present obnoxious and withering system, will not only continue to drive thousands of industrious farmers and tradesmen from the country, but will prompt thousands more, before they will sacrifice their property and expatriate themselves, to advocate constitutionally, openly, and decidedly, the erection of an "independent kingdom," as has been suggested by the Attorney-General, as best both for this province and Great Britain.

10. It rests with Her Majesty's Government to decide whether or not the inhabitants shall be treated as strangers and helots; whether the blighted hopes of this province shall wither and die, or revive, and bloom, and flourish; whether Her Majesty's Canadian subjects shall be allowed the legitimate constitutional control of their own earnings, or whether the property sufficient to pay off the large provincial debt shall be wrested from them; whether honour, loyalty, free and responsible government are to be established in this province, or whether our resources are to be absorbed in support of pretensions which have proved the bane of religion in the country; have fomented discord; emboldened, if not prompted, rebellion; turned the tide of capital and emigration to other shores; impaired public credit; arrested trade and commerce, and caused Upper Canada to stand "like a girdled tree," its drooping branches mournfully betraying that its natural nourishment has been deliberately cut off.

In a third and concluding letter to Lord Normanby, Dr. Ryerson uses this language:—

The great body of the inhabitants of this province will not likely again petition on the question of the clergy reserves and a church establishment in this province. They will express their sentiments at the hustings with a vengeance, to the confusion of the men who have deceived, and misrepresented, and wronged them; ... A petition would acknowledge the right of the Imperial Parliament to interfere—which ought not to be admitted. If past expressions of public sentiment will not satisfy Her Majesty's Government, none other can do it; and more efficient means (such as the coming elections), must and ought to be adopted, instead of the fruitless method of asking by petition for what has been guaranteed to the constituencies of the country as a right.

The validity of the recent Act of the Legislature, revesting the reserves in the Crown, never will be acknowledged, or recognized by the electors of this province. Any Ministers of the Crown in England would more than lose their places, who should press through the House of Commons, on the last night of the session, in a thin house, a great public measure which had not only been repealed by four successive parliaments, but had been negatived from six to twelve times during the same session of the existing parliament. Nor would the British nation ever submit to any public measure (much less to loss of the control of one-seventh of their lands, and the infliction upon them of an uncongenial ecclesiastical system) which had been forced upon them.

The declarations of the Representative of Royalty have heretofore been regarded in this province as sacred and inviolable; but the reliance of the Canadian electors upon those declarations from the lips of Sir Francis Head has cost them bloodshed, bankruptcy, and misery.... The electors will employ the elective franchise to redress their accumulated wrongs to the last farthing.

It is, of course, my good or bad fortune to be assailed from week to week, whether I write or not.... I am no theorist. I advocate no change in the Constitution of the Province. I have never written a paragraph the principles of which could not be carried out in accordance with the letter and spirit of the established Constitution. I desire nothing more than the free and impartial administration of that Constitution for the benefit of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I only oppose or support men, or measures, for the attainment of that object.

Entertaining such strong feelings in regard to the personal conduct of Sir George Arthur in respect to the passage of the clergy reserve bill, Dr. Ryerson felt that he could not accept any social courtesy at his hands. In reply, therefore, to an invitation from Sir George, for Her Majesty's birthday, he felt constrained to decline it. In his letter to the A.D.C., he said:—

After the most mature deliberation up to the last moment in which it is proper to reply, I feel it my duty respectfully to decline the honour of His Excellency's invitation. I most firmly believe that the office of impartial sovereignty has been employed by His Excellency for partial purposes; that an undue and an unconstitutional exercise of the office of royalty has been employed by His Excellency to influence the public mind, and the decisions of our constitutional tribunals on pending and debatable questions between equally loyal and deserving classes of Her Majesty's subjects in this Province; that His Excellency has also employed the influence of the high office of the Queen's representative to procure and afterwards express his cordial satisfaction at the passing of a Bill, in a thin House, on the very last night of the session, the provisions of which had been repeatedly negatived by a considerable majority of the people's representatives, and which deprive the faithful but embarrassed inhabitants of this Province of the control of a revenue and lands sufficient in value to pay off the whole public debt—a proceeding at complete variance with the fair and constitutional administration of a free monarchical government, and the imperial usages since the accession of the present Royal Family to the throne of Great Britain; and, finally, that His Excellency has employed the influence of his high office to the disparagement of the large section of the religious community whose views, rights, and interests, I have been elected to my present offices to advocate and promote.

I beg that my declining the honour proposed by His Excellency may not be construed into any disrespect to His Excellency personally, or to the high office His Excellency holds—for the inviolableness and dignity of which I feel the jealous veneration of a loyal subject—but I beg that it may be attributed solely to a fixed determination not to do anything that may in the slightest degree tend to weaken, but on the contrary, to use every lawful means, on all occasions, to advance those civil and religious interests which I am most fully convinced are essential to the happy preservation of a prosperous British Government in this country, and to the happiness and welfare of the great body of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects.

In order to insure the assent of Her Majesty to the Bill which had been sent to the Colonial Secretary by Sir George Arthur, the authorities of the Church of England in the Province circulated a petition for presentation to the Queen and the British Parliament[105] containing the following statement and request:—

"Your petitioners, consisting of the United Empire Loyalists and their children, took refuge in this Province after the American Revolution, under the impression that they possessed the same constitution as that of the Mother Country, which includes a decent provision for the administration of the Word and Sacraments according to the forms of the Church of England."

The prayer of the petition was—

That the proceeds of the clergy reserve lands be applied to the maintenance of such clergy, and of a bishop to superintend the same, so that the ministrations of our Holy Religion may be afforded without charge[106] to the inhabitants of every township in the Province.

Dr. Ryerson, having with difficulty procured a copy of this petition, pointed out in the Guardian of July 3rd, 1839: 1st. Its historical misstatements, and denounced the selfish and exclusive character of its demands. He showed in effect that the Province was settled in 1783, whereas the constitutional Act (which was invoked as though it had existed long before that date), was not passed until 1791—eight years after "the United Empire Loyalists and their children took refuge in Upper Canada." 2nd. That for forty years and more, nine-tenths of the United Empire Loyalists and their descendants, with all their "impressions," might have perished in heathen ignorance had not some other than the Episcopal clergy cared for their spiritual interests; and that after these forty years of slumbering and neglect, and after the incorporation of the great body of the old Loyalists and their descendants into other churches, the Episcopal clergy came in, and now seek, on the strength of these apocryphal "impressions" (which never could have existed), to claim one-seventh of the lands of the Province as their heritage.[107] In proof of these facts Dr. Ryerson referred to the testimony of fifty-two witnesses, given before a select Committee of the House of Assembly in 1828, and published in full at that time.

I have purposely abstained from making any special reference to discussions in the clergy reserve question with which Dr. Ryerson had no connection. An important one, however, took place between Hon. Wm. Morris and Archdeacon Strachan in 1838-39, chiefly in regard to the claims of the Church of Scotland. Mr. Morris, however, did good service in the general discussion.

* * * * *

In November, 1838, Dr. Ryerson received a letter from Thomas Farmer, Esq., of London, England, in regard to the Centenary Celebration, to which he replied as follows:—