Chapter XVI
1836-1837.
Dr. Ryerson's Diary of his Second Mission to England
The following is from Dr. Ryerson's diary (which is incomplete) giving the result of his experiences and labours in England, during his second mission there.
London, January 1st, 1836.--I am again in the great metropolis of the Christian world. My wife and I left our native land, and affectionate pastoral charge, on the 20th of November, 1835, and arrived here the 30th of December, after a voyage of tempest and sea-sickness. But to the Ruler of the winds, and the Father of our spirits, we present our grateful acknowledgments for the preservation of our lives. To our Heavenly Father have I, with my dear wife, presented ourselves at the commencement of this new year. O, may we through grace keep our vows, and henceforth abound in every Christian grace and comfort, every good word and work!
We have been most kindly received by the Missionary Secretaries and other brethren; the prospects appear encouraging for the success of our mission: another ground of thankfulness, increased zeal, and faithfulness.
Jan. 2nd.--Called at the Colonial Office to present my note of introduction from Sir John Colborne to Lord Glenelg. We were admitted to an interview with Mr. (afterwards Sir James) Stephen, Assistant Colonial Secretary, who promised to present Sir John Colborne's letter to Lord Glenelg, and inform me when he would receive me. To-day I received a call from my kind and excellent friend, Rev. John Hannah, a thorough scholar, a profound divine, an affectionate, able, and popular preacher. He heartily welcomed us to the country.
Jan. 3rd--Sabbath.--It being the first Sabbath in the year, I attended that most solemn and important service--the renewal of the covenant. It was conducted by Rev. Dr. Bunting, in a manner the most impressive and affecting I ever witnessed. There were but few dry eyes in the chapel. He spoke of the primary design of Methodism as not to oppose anything but sin--not to subvert existing forms of faith, but to infuse the vital spirit of primitive Christianity into them. Dr. Bunting said that the renewal of the covenant was a service peculiar to Methodism, and expatiated on the importance of its being entered upon advisedly, and in humble dependence upon Divine grace. After singing, the whole congregation knelt down, remaining some time in silent prayer. After Dr. Bunting, as their mouthpiece, read the covenant, all then rose and sang "The covenant we this moment make," etc. The Lord's Supper was administered to several hundred persons, and the services concluded with singing and prayer.
Jan. 4th.--I spent the evening at Rev. Mr. Alder's, in company with Dr. Bunting, Rev. John Bowers, and Rev. P. L. Turner. In conversation, the religious and general interests of the Methodist Connexion were introduced. I was no less edified than delighted with the remarks of Dr. Bunting, especially those which related to the former distinction between, and the present confounding of, supernumerary and superannuated preachers, and the desirableness of restoring the ancient distinction. He spoke of the experience requisite to, and evils of general legislation in, Church affairs--introducing matters of legislation into Quarterly Meetings, etc. Dr. Bunting's prayer at parting was deeply spiritual.
Jan. 5th.--Spent the day in writing an article for the Watchman, on the present state of the Canadas; and in drawing up some papers on the Upper Canada Academy. Had a pleasant visit from Rev. John Beecham, one of the Missionary Secretaries.
Jan. 6th.--Met at the Mission House with Rev. Richard Reece, President of the Conference. He is, I believe, the oldest preacher who has filled the presidential chair since the days of Wesley.
Jan. 10th, Sunday.--In the morning heard Rev. Mr. Cubitt, and in the evening endeavoured to preach for him.
Jan. 13th.--Received a note from Lord Glenelg fixing the time when he would receive me.
Jan. 14th.--Spent a delightful evening in company with Rev. John Hannah and wife, Dr. Sandwich (Editor of the Watchman) and wife, and several others. The conversation principally turned upon the learning of the ancients, and the writings of the early Protestant Reformers and their successors. Dr. Sandwich is a very literary man, Mr. Hannah an excellent general scholar.
Jan. 15th.--Spent the evening with Rev. William Jenkins, an old superannuated minister, in company with several friends. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins are a venerable couple about 80 years of age.
Jan. 17th--Sabbath.--Heard the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel. The Church was plain, the congregation large, and very attentive and solemn. A large number of school children were present; the little girls all dressed alike; they all had prayer and hymn books; they read the responses and sung with the utmost correctness. In the afternoon we went to that splendid monument of art and wealth--St. Paul's. The sermon was more evangelical than I expected. In the evening I preached to a very large congregation in St. George's Chapel, Commercial Road. A gracious influence seemed to rest on the congregation.
Jan. 24th--Sabbath.--Preached in the Hinde-street Chapel. In Surrey Chapel I heard Rev. James Parsons, of York, one of the first preachers of the day. Surrey Chapel is the place of the celebrated Rowland Hill's protracted ministry. Its shape is octagon, and it will seat 3,000 persons. The church service was read well by a person of strong, sonorous voice. At the conclusion of the church service Mr. Parsons ascended the pulpit. His prayer was simple, unaffected, and scriptural. His text was Luke xi. 47-48. His manner was by no means pleasing; he stood nearly motionless, and appeared to be reading his sermon. Yet attention was riveted; the current of thought soon began to rise, and continued to swell, until he came to a pause. Then there was a general burst of coughing; after which the preacher proceeded in an ascending scale of argument, until he had his audience entranced, when he would burst forth upon his captives with the combined authority and tenderness of a conqueror and deliverer, and press them into the refuge city of Gospel salvation.
Jan. 25th.--Attended a Missionary-meeting in Southwark Chapel. Mr. Thomas Farmer, presided. Several spake: one a New Zealander, whose wit and oddities amused all, but profited none.
Jan. 26th.--Had an interview with Lord Glenelg, on the subject of my mission. We can get a charter for the Upper Canada Academy, but assistance is uncertain. His Lordship was very courteous and communicative. He thanked me for the information I gave him concerning the Colonies.
Jan. 31st, Sunday.--Preached twice to-day (in City Road and Wilderness Row). The Lord was with me, and I believe I did not labour in vain.
Feb. 13th.--Had an interview with the Rt. Hon. Edward Ellice; was received with great kindness; he promised to use his utmost influence to promote the object of my mission at the Colonial office.
Feb. 18th.--Called at the residences of several of the nobility; found none at home, but Lord Ashburton, who gave me L5.
Feb. 20th.--Made no progress in the way of collecting; much ceremony is necessary. Have obtained some useful information, and written to Sir Robert Peel on the object of my mission.
Feb. 21st, Sunday.--Heard the Rev. Peter McOwan preach. It was the best sermon I have heard from a Methodist pulpit since my arrival in England. I preached in Great Queen-street Chapel in the evening, on the new birth. I think the Lord was present to apply the word.
Feb. 22nd.--Called upon Lord Kenyon. I was very courteously received; but His Lordship declined subscribing on account of the many objects to which he contributed in connection with America. He expressed his good wishes. I next called upon the Earl of Aberdeen--Colonial Secretary under Sir Robert Peel's government. He expressed himself satisfied with my letters from Upper Canada, but said that he would enquire of Mr. Hay, late under Colonial Secretary, and directed me to call again. I was also received by Dr. Blomfield, Lord Bishop of London. Dr. Blomfield is a handsome and very courteous man. He declined subscribing on account of its not having been recommended by the Bishop of the Diocese; was not unfriendly to my object; said he had a high respect for the Wesleyan body, and considered they had done much good; he had expressed this opinion in print.
Feb. 23rd.--Addressed a letter to Lord Glenelg requesting an early answer to our application, stating our pressing circumstances. Called upon Thomas Baring, Esq., M.P., who gave me L5. I find it very hard and very slow work to get money.
Feb. 24th.--Received an answer from Sir Robert Peel in the negative. His reason is non-connection with Upper Canada! A gentleman of the house of Thomas Wilson & Co. gave utterance to a sentiment which singularly contrasted with the selfishness of Sir Robert Peel. He said: Education was the same thing throughout the world, and that was the light in which this institution should be viewed. His house gave me ten guineas, and have kindly engaged to furnish me with names of other gentlemen.
Feb. 25th.--Obtained L21 for the Academy. The sentiments expressed by two of the gentlemen on whom I called deserve to be recorded. Mr. A. Gillespie, jun., who is connected with Lower Canada, after subscribing L10 and furnishing me with a list of names of merchants engaged in trade with the Canadas, said:--"I am a member of the Church of Scotland, but I have a high respect for John Wesley and Dr. Bunting. I admire the principles of John Wesley, and hope you will abide by them, and that they will be taught in this institution. Above all things keep out Socinianism." I then called on a Mr. Brooking, who said:--"I feel happy in the opportunity of contributing to such an object. I have been in the North American provinces and know that nothing is wanted more than good institutions for the education of youth, and especially under the superintendence of the Methodists. From what I have seen I believe they have done more good in the colonies than any other Church. Though I am a member of the Church of England, I feel it my duty as a Protestant, and a friend to religion, to give my utmost mite to the labours of your ministers in the colonies. I believe in those new countries the Methodists are the bulwark of Protestantism against popery and infidelity, and I am glad you are establishing such an institution."
Feb. 27th.--Received the greatest kindness from Mr. E. H. Chapman, who was in Upper Canada last summer, and had seen the institution at Cobourg. He expressed himself happy in the opportunity to subscribe, and said he had travelled two days with Sir John Colborne. Mr. Chapman considered, of all people, the Methodists the most active and successful in imparting religious instruction to the Colonists.
Feb. 28th--Sabbath.--Preached at Islington; then dined with a Mr. Brunskill, who was well versed in the history of Methodism.
From this date until the close of July there is no record in Dr. Ryerson's diary. From letters written by him to Canada, I therefore continue the narrative:--
Birmingham, April 11th.--During a delightful visit here at the missionary anniversaries I had an opportunity of hearing and conversing with two of the most remarkable men of the present day: William (or, as he is called, Billy) Dawson, the Yorkshire farmer, and the venerable Gideon Ousley, the patriarchal Irish missionary. Mr. Dawson excelled in his own characteristic way any man I ever heard. His great strength lies in a matchless power of graphic description, dramatic imitation, and hallowed unction from the Holy One. He is a man of an age. At the missionary breakfast I sat beside the venerable Ousley, and told him of some of his spiritual children in Canada that I knew. He gave God the praise, and desired me to deliver this message to his old friends and spiritual children in Canada: "I am now in my 75th year, labouring as hard as ever; am well, and strong. Be faithful unto death. I will meet you in Heaven."
London, June 8th.--To-day my brethren are assembling in Annual Conference at Belleville. It is the first conference in the proceedings of which, I have not been permitted to take a part since I entered the ministry. A considerable part of the day I spent in imploring the divine blessing upon the deliberations of my brethren. After reckoning the difference of time, I retired at the hour when I knew they would be engaged in the conference prayer-meeting in order to unite with them at the throne of the Heavenly grace; and truly, I found it refreshing indeed to be present in spirit with them in beseeching the continual direction of the Divine Pilot to guide the Wesleyan ship over the tempestuous sea. I long to be with my fellow-labourers in Canada in their toils as well as joys. "If I forget thee," O thou Spiritual Jerusalem of my native land, "let my right hand forget its cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces!"
June 12th.--Although I find that collecting for the Upper Canada Academy is a wearisome work, yet I must not slacken my exertions so long as our friends in Upper Canada are in such straits for funds. Brother John has written me an urgent letter from Hallowell, in which he says:--I hope the Lord will give you good success in collecting for our Seminary. Everything depends on the success of your exertions. L4,000 is the least that will answer. O, how awfully we have got involved in this painful and protracted business! O, if you can help us out of this mire, the Lord reward you! I am greatly at a loss what to do. I had concluded to leave, and go to the States; but thought I had better wait your return and take counsel with you. I hope the Lord may direct me!
Dublin, July 2nd.--I have just come over here to the Irish Conference, and was affectionately received by the Irish preachers. While in Dublin I stayed with a very intelligent and kind family. I attended the Irish Conference, which was held in Whitefriar's Street Chapel--a building rented for a preaching-place by the venerable Wesley himself. Here in the midst of the sallies of Irish wit and humour, mingled with evident piety and kindness, I sat down and wrote a letter to the dear friends in Canada.
From this letter I make an extract:--
The preachers are warm-hearted, pious men, some of them very clever; warm in their discussions, abounding in wit; talk much in doing their business; several are sometimes up at a time. They are certainly a body of excellent men. In their financial reports it appears that many of them are really examples of self-denial, suffering, and devotion.
The following are extracts from Dr. Ryerson's diary:--
July 26th.--Attended the Conference at Birmingham. When Dr. Fisk was introduced, the address of the American General Conference was read. Silence and attention were marked until the words "negro slavery" were mentioned, when there was a general cry of "hear, hear," and "no, no, no."
During the Conference a Mr. Robinson was called upon to explain his reason for preaching to a secret society called "Odd Fellows." Dr. Bunting and Dr. Newton had always refused to preach to such societies. Dr. Fisk made some remarks on Masonry in the United States, and the evil of the Methodist preachers being connected with, or countenancing, such societies.
Sept. 2nd.--Presented to Lord Glenelg the Address, to the King, of the Canadian Conference. He read it carefully, and expressed himself pleased with it. He enquired as to the charges against Sir Francis Head, and the appointment of those persons only to office who are truly attached to the British Constitution. I answered his lordship on each of these points mentioned, and assured him of the loyal British feelings of the inhabitants of Upper Canada. I pressed upon him the importance of an early settlement of the Clergy Reserve question. His lordship thanked me for the communications which I had from time to time made to him on Canadian affairs. He requested me to write to him on any matter, relative to the Canadas, I thought proper.
Sept. 4th--Sunday.--Attended the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel's Church at 8 a.m., when he administered the Lord's Supper to such as could not attend at any other hour. I communed for the first time in the Established Church. I heard this evangelical minister preach at 11 a.m. Preached myself in Spitalfields in the evening.
Sept. 6th.--Came here (Birmingham) from London on a collecting tour. Have been kindly received by my Quaker friends, the Sturges. In commemoration of the first Wesleyan Conference being held in Birmingham, gold medals were presented to Dr. Bunting and Dr. Newton, and silver medals to representatives of other Conferences--the Irish and American. My name as representative not having been received in time for a presentation at Conference, a medal was subsequently presented to me as Canadian representative, and to Rev. Richard Reece, ex-President, by the ladies of the Society in Birmingham. The addresses on the occasion were made by the President and Secretary--that to Mr. Reece in a few choice words by Dr. Bunting; and to me, in a kindly manner, by Dr. Newton. In reply I acknowledged the unexpected compliment, not as paid to me, but to the country and connexion which I represented.
Sept. 7th.--Have been kindly received by the preachers in Birmingham. Spent a pleasant evening at Mr. Oldham's (son-in-law of Rev. John Ryland), where I met no less than six clergymen of the Established Church; the conversation was wholly of a religious character, perfectly free and social. I was informed that all the clergymen in Birmingham, except one, were truly evangelical. Mr. Ryland told me that Rev. J. A. James had expressed his conviction that there is decidedly more piety amongst the mass of the Established Clergy than among the Dissenting Clergy. It was altogether the most unaffectedly genteel, and truly religious party I have met with in England.
Sept. 9th.--Busy and successful. Very kindly received by the following Church of England ministers, viz., Rev. Mr. Mosely, Rector, Rev. Dr. Jeune [afterwards Master of Pembroke College], and Rev. William Marsh, who is frequently called the model of the Apostle John, on account of the depth and sweetness of his piety, the purity of his life, and the heavenly expression of his countenance. [His daughter is a noted evangelist and writer, 1883.]
Sept. 10th.--Took tea with Mr. Meredith, a Swedenborgian, upwards of 80, perfectly sincere in his belief, and sweet in his spirit. Also met the celebrated Dr. Philip, of South Africa, and the more celebrated John Angel James, of Birmingham. The conversation of the evening was principally turned upon the means by which the great measure of emancipation was carried--the conduct of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Buxton. I was struck with Mr. Sturge's remark, that he "believed such men as Sir A. Agnew, Sir Harry Inglis, and Lord Ashley [now, in 1883, Lord Shaftesbury], were the most honest men in the House of Commons."
Sheffield, Sept. 17th.--Here I met with my old friends, Revs. Messrs. Marsden, Grindrod, and Moss.
Sept. 18th--Sunday.--Preached in Craven street Chapel in the morning, and at Brunswick Chapel in the evening.
Sept. 20th.--Attended the Financial District Meeting. It was stated that 900 persons had seceded in Sheffield in the Kilhamite schism, and yet the finances were better at the end of the quarter than they had been the preceding one. Kind references were made to myself, and the object of my mission.
Dr. Ryerson's Diary ends here. From his letters to Canada I make the following extracts:--
Sheffield, Oct. 5th.--I was in Barnsley on Friday and Saturday; went to Wakefield on Saturday, and preached there on Sunday. Addressed about 40 circulars to gentlemen in Wakefield on Monday morning. Returned to Sheffield and spoke at the Missionary Meeting; begged yesterday; spoke at the adjourned meeting last evening; have been begging to-day. Spent Friday and Saturday in Wakefield; go to Leeds on Saturday evening, and so on. The preachers and friends shew me all possible kindness and attention. The Yorkshire people are very warm-hearted and social. Methodism there presents an aspect different in several respects from that which it presents in London, or in any other part of England I have visited; more warm, energetic, and unaffected--something like Hallowell Methodism in Upper Canada. Oh! I long to get home to my circuit work. Amidst all the kindness and interest that it is possible for piety, intelligence, Yorkshire generosity and wit to impart, I feel like an exiled captive here in England.
Bradford, Oct. 10th.--The time I am here appears very dreary, as I am from morning until midnight in public labours or society of some kind. I have collected L83 last week, and for much of it I have begged very hard--though some think that I do not beg hard enough. It is, however, only one who has been a stranger and had to beg, that can fully appreciate the feelings and embarrassments of a stranger in such circumstances. This work and sacrifice have not been of my own seeking--but against my seeking. I was comfortably settled amongst kind friends in Kingston, but am now cast forth in this distant land, and engaged in the most disagreeable of all employments,--and for what? Oh! it is for the sake of Him to whose cause and glory I have consecrated my life and all. I shall love, honour, and value my pastoral labours more than ever. I hope that they may be more useful. During the past week I have been enabled more fully than for a year past to adopt the language of St. Paul. Gal. ii. 20.
Oct. 11th.--While here I was truly gratified to receive a letter from Miss Clarissa Izard, of Boulogne (France), in which she says:--I trust you will pardon me, sir, for this expression of my gratitude. If it had not been for a sermon preached by you on the 21st of February last, I might have been where hope never cometh; but, blessed be God, now I have a hope--a hope which lifts me above this world, and which, I trust, I shall retain until I obtain the crown of righteousness which fadeth not away.
Among the many pleasing incidents in Dr. Ryerson's otherwise unpleasant duty of collecting funds for the Upper Canada Academy, was the note written from Kensington Palace by command of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. It was as follows:--
I am commanded by the Duchess of Kent to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd inst., and accompanying statement of "The Upper Canada Academy, for the education of Canadian youth, and the most promising youth of converted Indian tribes--to prepare them for school-masters." Her Royal Highness is most happy in patronizing, as you request, so useful and benevolent an Institution, and calculated especially to promote the best interests of the native population, the British emigrants, and the aboriginal tribes of that valuable and important British Province. Her Royal Highness desires that her name be placed on the subscription list for L10.
Referring to the great importance of the Upper Canada Academy, and to the services rendered by Dr. Ryerson in connection with its establishment, Rev. William Lord said:--
There have been many circumstances and occurrences connected with this institution which, to my mind, are indicative of Providential interference. The bitterness manifested against it by the enemies of Methodism and of the peace of the country; the difficulties which stood in the way of its completion; the distressing, overwhelming, and unforseen embarrassments of its funds, which forced the Committee to send you to this country to seek relief, just at a time when the affairs of the Province had arrived at a crisis, and at a time when you could render special service, by communicating with the Home Government--service, allow me to say, greater than any other man could render, or than you could have rendered at any other time or place--the favourable turn which public affairs have recently taken, and, I know, in some degree through your instrumentality; the perplexing and most painful disappointments experienced in obtaining suitable teachers, now happily overcome; the share of public favour which the Academy has obtained on the commencement of its operations; and, lastly, the great services you have rendered the Missionary Society, in the advantage you have secured to our Indian Missionaries by your representations and applications to the Government, are to me reasons for believing God is in this business. You may, I think, take courage, and go on in the name of the Lord. I can sympathize with you; I have also suffered in this cause. I would not endure the anxiety and mental agony I have experienced on account of this institution for any earthly consideration. But if it flourish, I have my reward. And now the reflection that, at much personal risk, I have more than once saved innocent and deserving men from imprisonment, and Methodism from indelible reproach, is cheering and consoling. I will still stand by your side and share in your difficulties. My honour in this matter is united with yours, and the ruin of this institution will be mine.
In a letter from London, dated 21st July, 1836, Dr. Ryerson narrates the difficulties which he had encountered in obtaining a Charter for the Upper Canada Academy. The correspondence with the Colonial Office embraced twenty-nine letters, and extended over a period of six months. In conducting it, Dr. Ryerson states:--I found those in the Colonial Office, and those who retired from it (during that time) equally favourable to the object of my mission, and equally desirous of promoting the best interests of the Colonies. In his report of the negotiations for the Charter, Dr. Ryerson says:--
The Attorney-General assured me that not only Lord Glenelg, but every member of His Majesty's Government was anxious to accede to my application--that the difficulties were purely legal--that though the doctrines and rules of the Methodist body in Canada were doubtless very sacred, yet they were unknown in law, (in England.) I, therefore, laid before the Crown officers[48] a copy of the statutes of Upper Canada (which I had borrowed from the Colonial office), and showed the grounds on which we professed to be invested with the clerical character by the statutes of the Province, as well as by the formularies of our connexion, and were recognized as ministers by the Courts of Quarter Sessions; that we might be defined as ministers (for the purposes of the Charter) as in the Marriage Statute of U.C., which would be the same thing as being defined according to the Rules of our Discipline. Placing the question before the Crown officers in this simple light, their scruples were at once removed, and they cordially acceded to my proposition to recognize our ministerial character. As I was required to name in the Charter the first trustees and visitors, and as I had no list of those who had been appointed by the Conference, I was obliged to furnish names myself. I was also required to name in the Charter the time and place of the next Annual Meeting (Conference) of Ministers. I inserted the second Wednesday of June as the time of meeting; Cobourg, or Toronto, as the place of meeting.
With the aid of a professional gentleman (whom I could only get for a small portion of each day) the draft of Charter was prepared after a delay of five weeks. This draft was approved, with the exception of the words: Wesleyan Methodist Church, for which the Solicitor-General had substituted the words: Wesleyan Methodist Connexion, as the designation of the Body on whose behalf a Charter was to be granted. In a letter to Sir George Grey I stated my reasons why the word Church should be retained, as the Wesleyan ministers, under whose superintendence the Academy is to be placed, had been licensed (under the Provincial Statute referred to in the Charter) as Ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada. To these reasons the Crown Officers yielded, and thus the Charter was completed.
I then renewed my application for receiving aid from the Casual and Territorial Revenue of Upper Canada. In reply, I was assured that the Lieutenant-Governor would be directed to bring the claims of the Academy before the notice of the Provincial Legislature.
Dr. Ryerson concludes:--
Thus terminated this protracted correspondence of more than six months, during the whole of which time I was enabled to cleave to and maintain my original purpose; though I had to encounter successive, discouraging, and almost insurmountable difficulties. Not having been able to effect any loan from private individuals, on account of the agitated state of the Canadas--being in suspense as to the result of my application to the Government, I was several months pressed down with anxiety and fear by this suspense, and by reason of the failure of my efforts to obtain relief. In this anxiety and fear my own unassisted resolution and fortitude could not sustain me. I had to rely upon the unfailing support of the Lord, my God.
In my negotiations for the Charter, I was uniformly treated with courtesy and kindness in the Colonial office, and by the several members of His Majesty's Government. Praise God!
In a letter written to Dr. Alder, after Dr. Ryerson had returned from England, the latter said:--
We have not yet received a farthing of the Government grant to our Academy. The Governor's reply still is, there is no money in the treasury; but he has given us his written promise, and offered his word to any of the banks, that it shall be paid out of the first money which had not been previously appropriated. But, strange to say, there is not a bank or banker in Upper Canada that will take the Governor's promise for L100. Mr. Receiver-General Dunn kindly lent, out of his own pocket, to my brother John, about L1,200 for the Academy, upon my brother's receipt, remarking at the same time that he did it upon his credit, and out of respect to the Methodists, but that he could place no dependence upon the word of Sir Francis in the matter. We are thus pressed to beg or borrow in relation to the Academy as much as ever, or even worse, for several of us are individually responsible for L2,200, besides Mr. Farmer's loan of L800. At our recent Academy Board Meeting, the damages of Mr. Lord's protested bills came under consideration. The circumstances of the case are briefly as follows:--Mr. Lord's sincere desire and zeal to promote the interests of the Institution and Connexion generally, were admitted and appreciated by all the brethren; but it appears, 1. That a large portion of the debts were incurred in compliance with the advice of Mr. Lord, and in consequence of his influence as the representative of the British Connexion. He assured the Sub-Committee at Cobourg that money should be forthcoming, and if necessary he would go to England and beg it, that John Bull never stopped when he commenced a thing, etc.; that Mr. Lord did that contrary to the recommendation of the Conference Committee, and against the advice and even remonstrance of the Chairman of the District (John Ryerson), who had been appointed by the Conference to see that the Sub-Committee should not exceed the appropriations of the Conference, as they had done in former years. 2. The premises were mortgaged to Mr. Lord as security for the sum of L2500, some of which has not been advanced, and the payments of which he did advance were provided for (with the exception of two or three hundred pounds) by the brethren in this Province. 3. After Mr. Lord received information from the Committee in London that his bills would not be honoured, he called a meeting of the Board--stated his difficulties--got individuals to allow him to draw upon them to meet the bills on their return, and sent me to England. 4. Mr. Lord assured our Conference at Belleville, June, 1836, that the brethren here would never be called upon to pay a farthing of the damages for non-payment of his bills. I believe that no man could feel more earnestly desirous to promote the interests of the Canadian Connexion in every respect than he did. It is also the full conviction of our leading brethren that had I attended the American General Conference, instead of being in England, such an arrangement would have been made as to have secured to our Connexion what was due us from the New York Book Concern--which amounts to more than I obtained in England, besides the mortification and mental suffering which I experienced in my most unpleasant engagements, notwithstanding the sympathy and never-to-be-forgotten kindness of many of my fathers and brethren of the parent Connexion.
FOOTNOTES:
[48] Sir J. Campbell, afterwards Chief Justice, and Sir R. M. Rolfe, afterwards a Baron of the Exchequer.Return to passage
Chapter XVII
1836.
Publication of The Hume and Roebuck Letters.
In a letter from London, dated 29th April, 1836, Dr. Ryerson said:--
This day week I went to the House of Commons to hear the debates on the motions relative to the Canadas, of which Messrs. Roebuck and Hume had given notice. As Mr. Roebuck was about to bring forward his motion, the House of 202 members thinned to 50 or 60 members. Under these circumstances he postponed it for a week, in the hope that a sufficient number of members would give him an opportunity to make a speech in return for the L1,100 a year paid to him as Agent of "the poor and oppressed Canadians." When Mr. Hume brought forward his motion there were only 43 members present. I thought how much Canada was benefitted by such men who could only command the attention of 50 out of the 658 members of the House of Commons! I know not a man more disliked and despised by all parties in the House than is Mr. Roebuck--a man who has been employed to establish (as he says in one of his letters to Mr. Papineau) a "pure democracy in the Canadas." One of the serious drawbacks to the credit and interests of our country, amongst public and business men of all parties in England, is their supposed connection with such a restless political cynic as Mr. Roebuck, and such an acknowledged and avowed colonial separationist as Mr. Hume.
In regard to these proceedings of Messrs. Hume and Roebuck, Dr. Ryerson writes, in this part of the Story of his Life, as follows:--
It was during the early part of 1836 that I was accosted by almost every gentleman to whom I was introduced in England with words, "You in Canada are going to separate from England, and set up a republic for yourselves!" I denied that there was any such feeling among the people of Canada, who desired certain reforms, and redress of grievances, but were as loyal as any people in England.
After the Canadian elections of 1836, Dr. Charles Duncombe (afterwards leader of the rebels in the County of Oxford) came to England, the bearer of petitions got up by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and his partizans and crammed Mr. Hume to make a formidable assault upon the British Canadian Government. In presenting the Canadian petition Mr. Hume made an elaborate speech, full of exaggerations and mis-statements from beginning to end. I was requested to take a seat under the gallery, and, while Mr. Hume was speaking as the mouth-piece of Dr. C. Duncombe, I furnished Lord Sandon and Mr. W. E. Gladstone with the materials for answers to Mr. Hume's mis-statements. Mr. Gladstone's quick perception, with Lord Sandon's promptings, kept the House in a roar of laughter at Mr. Hume's expense for more than an hour; the wonder being how Mr. Gladstone was so thoroughly informed on Canadian affairs. No member of the House of Commons seemed to be more astonished and confounded than Mr. Hume himself. He made no reply, and, as far as I know, never after spoke on Canadian affairs; and Mr. Roebuck soon ceased to be Agent for the Lower Canada House of Assembly. He has since become an ultra Conservative!
In a letter from London, dated 1st June, Dr. Ryerson says:--
Before Dr. Duncombe arrived in England, and seeing how much injury was being done to the reputation and influence of Canada by these representations, I commenced a series of letters in the London Times, designed to expose the machinations and mis-statements of Messrs. Hume and Roebuck in England, in regard to matters in Upper Canada, showing from their own letters to Messrs. Papineau and Mackenzie that they were the first prompters of the project.[49] To-day I also addressed a letter to Sir George Grey, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, on the political crisis in that Province. After discussing several matters relating to the recent election of a new House of Assembly, I concluded as follows:--As the affairs of the Province will now be taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, there are three subjects on which I would respectfully request an interview with Lord Glenelg, yourself, and Mr. [Sir James] Stephen. 1. The Clergy Reserve question--a plan to meet the circumstances of the Province, and yet not deprive the clergy of the Church of England of an adequate support. 2. The Legislative Council--how it may be rendered more influential and popular, without rendering it elective, or infringing (but rather strengthening) the prerogatives of the Crown. 3. The Executive--how its just authority, influence and popularity may be promoted and established, so as to prevent the occurrence of that embarrassment in which it is now involved, not from improper acts, but from an actual deficiency of the requisite operative means to secure the Royal Prerogative from insult and invasion. I am aware that each of these subjects is surrounded with difficulty, and that no plan proposed will be entirely free from objection, but I should like to state the views which my acquaintance with the Province has impressed on my own mind, and which I have not seen suggested in any official document or public journal, but which have been favourably thought of by two or three respectable gentlemen connected with Canada, to whom I have stated them.
In reply, Lord Glenelg appointed the following Monday for the desired interview. I afterwards embodied the substance of my views in a letter to Sir George Grey.
No further reference is made to this interview by Dr. Ryerson. But in a letter from him, dated 21st July, he says:--
I was applied to, and did, in my individual capacity, communicate to the Colonial Secretary frequently, and in one or two instances at great length, on the posture of Canadian affairs; and the parties and principal questions which have divided and agitated the Canadian public. I repeatedly received the thanks of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the pains which I had taken in these matters; but what influence my communications may have had, or may have, on the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Canadas is not for me to say, as I desired Lord Glenelg not to assume, prima facie, as correct, any of my representations, but to examine my authorities--to weigh my arguments--to hear what could be said by others--as I had no friends to recommend to office, and no personal interests to promote, only the religious and general peace and prosperity of the Canadas, and the maintenance of a firm and mutually beneficial connection between these Colonies and the parent State.
I think I have good reason to believe that much more correct and decided views are entertained by His Majesty's ministers and many public men in England, in respect to the interests and government of the Canadas, than were possessed by them six months ago; and that all of those inhabitants of the Colonies, who patriotically maintain their Christian and constitutional allegiance, will ensure the respect, equal and firm protection, and parental regard of their Sovereign and his government, by whatever party it may be administered.
In a letter from London, dated 26th July (page 154), Dr. Ryerson says:--Mr. William Lunn, of Montreal, has just arrived from Quebec. He informs me that--
My letters to the London Times, on Hume and Roebuck, have produced the most amazing effect upon the public mind of the Province, of anything that I ever wrote. To the Lord be all the praise for his great goodness, after all our toil and suffering. There is nothing like integrity of principle and faithfulness in duty, in humble dependence upon the Lord, and with an eye to His glory!
FOOTNOTES:
[49] The British North American Association of Merchants had these letters reprinted from The Times newspaper, and a copy sent to each member of Parliament, both of the Lords and Commons. They were signed, "A Canadian."Return to passage
Chapter XVIII
1836-1837.
Important Events Transpiring in Upper Canada.
Dr. Ryerson was absent in England from 20th November, 1835, to 12th June, 1837. On the 15th of January, 1836, Sir John Colborne, by order in Council, endowed fifty-seven Rectories in Upper Canada out of the Clergy Reserve Lands. On the 23rd of that month Sir F. B. Head, the new Governor, arrived in Toronto. On the 14th of January following, he opened the Session of the Legislature. What followed was reported to Dr. Ryerson by his friend, Mr. S. S. Junkin, in a letter, dated, Toronto, 1st May:--
Our Parliament was prorogued on the 20th April, after such a session as was never before known in Upper Canada. You will form some idea of the state of affairs when I tell you that it "stopped the supplies," and the Governor reserved all of the money bills, (twelve)--including that for the contingences of the House,--for the King's pleasure.
The immediate cause of the rupture between the new Governor (Sir F. B. Head) and the House of Assembly--
Arose out of the resignation of the Executive Council. On the 20th February, the Governor (as directed by Lord Glenelg) added three Reformers to his Council, viz.: Messrs. Robert Baldwin, John Rolph, and John Henry Dunn. On the 4th March, these gentlemen and the Conservative members, (Messrs. Peter Robinson, George H. Markland, and Joseph Wells) resigned. They complained that they were held responsible for measures which they never advised, and for a policy to which they were strangers. In reply the Governor stated in substance that he alone was responsible for the acts of his government, and was at liberty to have resource to their advice only when he required it; but that to consult them on all questions would be "utterly impossible." This answer was referred to a Committee of the House of Assembly, which brought in a report censuring the Governor in the strongest terms. On the 14th March, Sir F. B. Head appointed Messrs. R. B. Sullivan, William Allan, Augustus Baldwin, and John Elmsley, as his new Executive Council. On the 17th the House declared its entire want of confidence in the new Council, and stated that in retaining them the Governor violated the instructions of the Colonial Secretary to the Governor, to appoint Councillors who possessed the confidence of the people. Much recrimination followed; at length Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House, and directed that a new election be held.
In regard to this election, Dr. Ryerson, in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism" (page 226) says:--
Sir F. B. Head adroitly turned the issue, not on the question of the Clergy Reserves, or of other practical questions, but on the question of connection with the mother country, and of Republicanism vs. Monarchy, as had been recommended by Messrs. Hume and Roebuck, and advocated by Messrs. Mackenzie and Papineau. This was successful, inasmuch as those Reformers who would not disavow their connection with Messrs. Mackenzie, Hume and Roebuck, lost their election; for though not more than half a dozen had any sympathy with the sentiments of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Papineau, and Mackenzie, they did not wish to break the unity of the Reform party by repudiating them, and suffered defeat in consequence at the elections. The successful candidates, generally, while they repudiated Republican separation from the mother country, promised fidelity to the oft-expressed and well-known wishes of the people in the settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, which, however, they failed to fulfil.
In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Hallowell, his brother William said:--
Our loyal address, a very moderate one, to the Governor, was carried unanimously--all the young Preachers on trial being allowed to vote on that occasion. This is equally gratifying and surprising to all the friends of British supremacy. A gentleman from Montreal, who was present, was so surprised, and I may say, delighted, that he could hardly contain himself. I did not know for a short time, but he would be constrained from the violence of his feeling to jump up and shout. The Conference also adopted a very good address to the King. (See page 162.)
We are on the eve of a new election. The excitement through the country at large exceeds anything I have ever known. There would be very little cause for doubt or fear as to the results, were it not for one of the last acts of Sir John Colborne's administration, in establishing and endowing nearly sixty Rectories. Knowing, as I do, that the public mind is strongly opposed to any measure of that sort, or any step towards legalizing a church establishment, yet I could not believe the feeling was so strong as it actually is. If the elections should turn out disastrously to the best interest of the country, the result can only be attributed to that unjust and most unpolitic act. We are willing to do all that we consistently can, but everywhere the rectory question meets us. While I am compelled to believe that a vast majority are devotedly loyal to our gracious Sovereign, yet the best and most affectionate subjects of the King would almost prefer revolution to the establishment of a dominant Church thus sought to be imposed on us.
In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Toronto, his brother John says:--
The late elections agitated the Societies very much in some places, but they are now settling down to "quietness and assurance." I hope that the worst of the storm is over. The Governor is a talented man, but very little magisterial dignity about him. He takes good care to let every one know that he esteems every day alike, travelling on Sabbaths the same as other days. Indeed he seems to have no idea of religion at all, but is purely a man of pleasure. His popularity will soon be upon the wane if he does not mend in these respects.
The friends in Kingston are very anxiously looking for your return, and are becoming quite discontented and out of patience. They complained bitterly to me of your long absence, and were anxious to have me stay with them until you return.
Chapter XIX
1837-1839.
Return to Canada.--The Chapel Property Cases.
In this part of the "Story" of his life, Dr. Ryerson has only left the following sentence:--At the Conference held after my return to Canada, in June, I declined re-election as Editor of the Christian Guardian, having promised my Kingston brethren, from whom I had been suddenly removed in November, 1835, that I would remain with them at least one year on my return from England.
After Conference, Dr. Ryerson (with Rev. E. Healy) attended as a deputation to the Black River Conference. He said:--
The Conference was presided over by Bishop Hedding, who, in strong and affecting language, expressed his feelings of respect and love for our Connexion in Canada. In reply, I reiterated the expression of our profound respect and affection for our honoured friend and father in the Gospel; by the imposition of whose hands, I, and several other brethren in Canada, have been set apart to the Holy Ministry. After my return to Kingston, brother Healy and I received from the Black River Conference a complimentary resolution in regard to our visit. In enclosing it to me, Rev. Jesse T. Peck, the Secretary [afterwards Bishop], said:--Allow me humbly, but earnestly, to beg a continuance of that friendship with you, which in its commencement has afforded me so much pleasure.
In August of this year, 1837, the celebrated trial of the Waterloo Chapel case[50] took place before Mr. Justice Macaulay, at the Kingston Assizes, and a verdict was given against the Wesleyan Methodists. It was subsequently appealed to the Court of King's Bench, at Toronto. Three elaborate judgments were delivered on the case. Rev. John Ryerson was a good deal exercised as to the ill effects, upon the connexional church property, of Judge Macaulay's adverse decision. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, he said:--
We are much troubled and perplexed, here in Toronto, about the Waterloo Chapel case. I saw the Attorney-General on the subject to-day. When Judge Macaulay's judgment is published, I hope you will carefully review the whole matter, and lay the thing before the public in such a way as to produce conviction. Everybody is inquiring whether or not you will take up the subject.
An appeal was made to the King's Bench at Toronto. This Court--
Set aside the verdict of the lower Court, and ordered a new trial.... At this second trial, as also that respecting the Belleville Church property case, [November, 1837], ... the whole matter was "ventilated," and the result was that the legal decision of the highest judicial tribunal of the land confirmed the Wesleyan Methodist Church as the rightful owner of the Church property, it being the true representative and successor of the original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These litigations extended over more than two years, and the friends of Zion and of peace greatly rejoiced when they were brought to a just and final settlement. (Epochs of Canadian Methodism, pages 278, 279.)
In regard to these three judgments on the case, Dr. Ryerson said:--
During the latter part of this month I have devoted such time as I could spare to a lengthened review for the Guardian, of the elaborate judgments of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices Macaulay and Sherwood, on the Waterloo Chapel case.[51] The opinion of the Chief Justice displays profound research, acute discrimination, and sound judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Macaulay indicates great labour and strict religious scrupulosity. The opinion of Mr. Justice Sherwood betrays great want of acquaintance with the discipline, usages, and general history of Methodism. To the Methodist Connexion the conflict of opinion and confusion of reasoning of these learned judges are most prejudicial and disastrous. I have therefore sought, in the "review," to set forth the true facts of this abstruse case--facts connected with the history of Methodism--facts, with the most material of which I am personally acquainted, and in the progress of which I have been called to act a conspicuous part.
In regard to this "review," Rev. E. Healy wrote to Dr. Ryerson, from Brockville, and said:--
I have read your review of the opinion of the judges, and am happy to see it. What the judges will do with you, I do not know. You are considered, I believe, by some in this part of the country, as part man and part demon. This is one reason, doubtless, why I am also so bad a man, as I have said so much in your favour.
Rev. Hannibal Mulkins,[52] writing from Whitby on this subject, said:--
The agitation which was anticipated by some of the preachers at the last Conference, and which has existed in some degree has happily subsided, notwithstanding the most vigorous efforts have been made, and all the arts of calumny and misrepresentation, employed to harrass, to worry, and devour.
I was very glad to see your "review" of the opinions of the Judges in the Chapel case. I have read it with much satisfaction. On this circuit, notwithstanding the prejudices of some individuals, it has been perused with general delight, and to our friends in particular it has been highly satisfactory.
Dr. Ryerson, in a letter from New York, dated November, 1837, says:--
I have just returned from an extended tour of about 500 miles in the Middle and Southern States, in order to obtain information and evidence relative to the organization of the Methodist Church in America, the character of its Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference--points which involve the issue of our chapel property case. From the mass of testimony and information I have been able to collect, by seeing every preacher in this continent who was in the work in 1784, relative to the character of Methodist Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference, I feel no doubt as to the result.[53]
Rev. Joseph Stinson, in making his report on the same subject, said:--
I spent a whole day with Bishop Hedding, and had much conversation with him about our affairs generally. He told me that the American Methodist Church had never regarded Episcopacy as a Divine ordinance--nor as an essential doctrine of the Church--but as an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, which could be modified by the General Conference, or even dispensed with without violating the great principles of Methodism. The Bishop is of the opinion, however, that if our Courts decide against us, we shall have to return to Episcopacy, and that the first Bishop should be ordained by the Bishops of the American Church.
Dr. Ryerson, in the same November letter, says:--
I have also accompanied Mr. Stinson to render him what assistance I could, in examining Manual Labour Schools, with a view to establishing one for the benefit of our Indian youth--an object of the very greatest importance, both to the religious and civil interests of our aboriginal fellow countrymen. Also to get from the New York Missionary Board a sum of money for the Indian work which was expected from them before our Union with the English Conference.
In a letter to Dr. Alder, written from New York in the same month, Dr. Ryerson said:--
The concern of our preachers and friends on the Chapel case is deep and truly affecting. As I took so responsible a part in the Union, I cannot describe my feelings on this question. At the request of our brethren I have undertaken to do what I could to secure our Church property from the party claiming it. I have travelled nearly 500 miles this week for that purpose. But it is cheering amidst all our difficulties, and the commotions of the political elements, that our preachers, I believe, without exception, are of one heart--that our societies are in peace--that the work of our blessed Lord is reviving in many of the circuits, although the cause in Kingston suffers, and my dear brethren there complain, in consequence of my connexional engagements and absence from them.
FOOTNOTES:
[50] Between the Episcopal and Wesleyan Methodists for the possession of the Church property. Waterloo was four miles north of Kingston.Return to passage
[51] The Review is inserted in the Guardian, vol. viii., pages 169-178. The Belleville case was published in pamphlet form.Return to passage
[52] This gentleman entered the Wesleyan ministry in 1835, but joined the Church of England in 1840. He was for many years Chaplain to the Penitentiary, at Kingston, and always retained a warm regard for Dr. Ryerson. He died in 1877, aged 65 years.Return to passage
[53] The particulars here referred to are given in detail in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 279-281.Return to passage
Chapter XX
1837.
The Coming Crisis.--Rebellion of 1837.
As Dr. Ryerson had anticipated, the combined effects of the publication of his "impressions," in 1833; his letters exposing the designs of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Mackenzie in 1837; the secession of a section of the Methodist Church, and the disputes consequent thereon (culminating in the Waterloo and Belleville Chapel suits)--in which he took a leading part--provoked the parties concerned to active hostility against him. He had, however, many warm friends, especially among his ministerial brethren. One of these was Rev. John Black, in the Bay of Quinte District,--a quaint, but true and warm-hearted man. In inviting him to take part in the Quarterly Meeting services, at Napanee, Mr. Black indulges in a little playful satire, as follows:--
It appears that there are some amongst us here whom we dare not number amongst your friends, and who prophesied that you would never return from England--that you dare not, etc. Now we wish to afford them living proof of their vanity in prophesying, by your presence amongst them. Besides, on the other hand, the good-hearted brethren amongst us greatly rejoiced on hearing of your successful mission to England, and they wish to see and hear you once more.
Somewhat in Rev. John Black's spirit of kindly raillery, Rev. John C. Davidson, of Hallowell, in inviting Dr. Ryerson to take part in a Camp-meeting (and after mentioning several inducements), said:--
I would mention another inducement for you to come, viz.: the multiplicity of warm friends and virulent enemies you have on this circuit. Your presence and preaching will afford pleasure and profit to your friends, and will very much tend, in my opinion, to disarm the groundless prejudice entertained by many others against you.
In a more serious letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated Cobourg, 16th November, 1837, Rev. Anson Green gives expression to a general feeling of uneasiness and distrust which prevailed everywhere in the country at that time:--
I pity you most sincerely. You have a storm about your ears that you must bear, if you do not bow before it. In these perilous times a man scarcely knows what to advise. I fear that destruction awaits us on either hand. With the Radicals we are Tories; and with the Tories we are Rebels. It is said by the Rebels here that they have money enough, and men enough, and guns enough, and that the plans are so laid that there can be no mistake. The Government appears to be in possession of these facts. Thus far the proceedings of the Rebels do not show much wisdom, or skill, in laying plans, or in executing them. I am mistaken if they stop short of a civil war.
I very much regret that you should be under the necessity of coming in contact with Governor Head in any one thing. I could not be a rebel; my conscience and religion forbid it; and, on the other hand, I could not fight for the Rectories and Church domination. I think them both to be great evils, and I have resolved to choose neither. I believe that in Haldimand and Cramahe townships there are twenty rebels to one sincere loyalist. Brother Wilson, (son of old Father Wilson), says that his life has been threatened for circulating the petition which you sent down, and others are in a similar condition. What will be the effect of all this I cannot say, but I have thought from the beginning that either the Rectories must be abolished, and a suitable disposition made of the Reserves, or a change of Government will ensue. And if the Church party have it all in their own hands to make peace, by allowing other Churches to enjoy equal privileges with themselves, and do not do so, they must bear the responsibility of all the bloodshed and carnage that may ensue. I fear that they are so perfectly infatuated that they will suffer utter destruction, and choose it rather than equal and impartial justice.
On the 5th December, 1837, Dr. Ryerson reached Cobourg on his way to Toronto. When he arrived there, Elders Case and Green, and other friends, thought that as his life had been threatened it would be unsafe for him to proceed to Toronto.[54] He, therefore, waited there for further news, and, in the meantime, wrote to a friend in Kingston, on the 6th, as follows:--
You will recollect my mentioning that I pressed upon Sir Francis the propriety and importance of making some prudent provision for the defence of the city, in case any party should be urged on in the madness of rebellion so far as to attack it. He is much blamed here on account of his overweening confidence, and foolish and culpable negligence in this respect. There was great excitement in this town and neighbourhood last night. To-day all is anxiety and hurry. The militia is called out to put down the rebellion of the very man whose seditious paper many of them have supported, and whom they have countenanced.
The precepts of the Bible and the example of the early Christians, leave me no occasion for second thoughts as to my duty, namely, to pray for and support the "powers that be," whether I admire them or not, and to implore the defeat of "fiery conspiracy and rebellion." And I doubt not that the sequel will in this, as in other cases, show that the path of duty is that of wisdom, if not of safety. I am aware that my head would be regarded as something of a prize by the rebels; but I feel not in the least degree agitated. I trust implicitly in that God whom I have endeavoured--though imperfectly and unfaithfully--to serve; being assured nothing will harm us, but that all things, whether life or death, will work together for our good if we be followers of that which is good. Let us trust in the Lord, and do good, and He will never leave nor forsake us!
About 700 armed men have left this district to-day for Toronto, in order to put down the rebels. There is an unanimity and determination among the people to quash rebellion and support the law that I hardly expected. The country is safe, but it is a "gone day with the rebel party."
In a graphic letter to Dr. Ryerson, written on the 5th December, by his brother William, at Toronto, the scenes at the emeute in that city are thus described:--
Last night, about 12 or 1 o'clock, the bells rang with great violence; we all thought it was an alarm of fire, but being unable to see any light, we thought it was a false alarm, and we remained quiet until this morning, when, on visiting the market-place, I found a large number of persons serving out arms to others as fast as they possibly could. Among many others we saw the Lieutenant-Governor, in his every-day suit, with one double-barrelled gun in his hand, another leaning against his breast, and a brace of pistols in his leather belt. Also, Chief Justice Robinson, Judges Macaulay, Jones, and McLean, the Attorney-General, and Solicitor-General, with their muskets, cartridge boxes and bayonets, all standing in the ranks as private soldiers, under the command of Colonel Fitzgibbon. I assure you it is impossible for me to describe my feelings. I enquired of Judge McLean, who informed me that an express had arrived at the Government House late last night, giving intelligence that the Radicals had assembled in great force at Montgomery's, on Yonge Street, and were in full march for the city; that the Governor had sent out two persons, Mr. A. McDonell and Ald. J. Powell, to obtain information (both of whom had been made prisoners, but escaped).
Dr. Horne's house is now in flames. I feel very calm and composed in my own mind. Brother John thinks it will not be wise for you to come through all the way from Kingston. You would not be safe in visiting this wretched part of the country at the present. You know the feelings that are entertained against you. Your life would doubtless be industriously sought. My dear brother, farewell. May God mercifully bless and keep you from all the difficulties and dangers we are in!
Rev. William Ryerson further writes, on the 8th December:
About 10 o'clock to-day about 2,000 men, headed by the Lieut.-Governor, with Judge Jones, the Attorney-General and Capt. Halkett, as his aides-de-camp, and commanded by Cols. Fitzgibbon and Allan N. Macnab, Speaker of the House, left the city to attack the rebels at Montgomery's. After a little skirmishing in which we had three men wounded but none killed, the main body commenced a very spirited attack on their headquarters at Montgomery's large house. After a few shots from two six-pounders, and a few volleys of musketry, the most of the party fled and made their escape. The rest of them were taken prisoners. There were also three or four killed and several wounded. After which His Excellency ordered the buildings to be burnt to the ground, and the whole force returned to the city. All the leaders succeeded in making their escape. A royal proclamation has just been issued offering L1,000 for the apprehension of Mackenzie, and L500 for that of Samuel Lount, David Gibson, Silas Fletcher, and Jesse Lloyd; so that now, through the mercy of God, we have peace, and feel safe again, for which we desire to feel sincerely thankful.
Dr. Ryerson, having reached Toronto safely, and knowing how anxious his parents would be to know something definite as to the state of affairs, wrote a letter to his Father on the 18th December, as follows:--
I have been trying to get time to make you and Mother a visit of at least one night; but I find it quite out of my power to secure the enjoyment of so precious a privilege.
It is remarkable that every man, with very few exceptions, who has left our Church and joined in the unprincipled crusade which has been made against us, has either been an active promoter of this plot, or so far connected with it as to be ruined in his character and prospects by the timely discovery and defeat of it! I have been deeply affected at hearing of some unhappy examples, among old acquaintances, of this description. I feel thankful that I have been enabled to do my duty from the beginning in this matter. Four years ago, I perceived and began to warn the public of the revolutionary tendency and spirit of Mackenzie's proceedings. Perhaps you may recollect that in a long article in the Guardian, four years ago this winter, headed "Revolutionary Symptoms," I pointed out, to the great displeasure of even some of my friends, what has come to pass.
It is also a matter of thankfulness that every one of our family and marriage connections, near and remote, is on the side of law, reason, and religion in this affair. Such indications of the Divine goodness are a fresh encouragement to me to renew my covenant engagement with my gracious Redeemer, to serve Him and His cause with greater zeal and faithfulness.
I hope, my dear Father, you are employing your last days in preparing for your approaching change, and for standing before the bar of God. My poor prayers are daily offered up in your behalf. Much travelling and other engagements have hitherto prevented me from writing to you as I would; but, hereafter, the first Monday in each month shall be considered as belonging to my dear aged Parents, in praying for or writing to them. My dutiful respects and love to my dear Mother. I would esteem it a great favour and privilege to receive a few lines from you or her.
FOOTNOTES:
[54] Dr. Ryerson in his "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," page 314, says:--It had been agreed by W. L. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels, in 1837, to hang Egerton Ryerson on the first tree they met with, could they apprehend him.Return to passage
Chapter XXI
1837-1838.
Sir F. B. Head and the Upper Canada Academy.
Lord Glenelg, as agreed, when Dr. Ryerson was in England, (page 165,) directed Lieutenant-Governor Sir F. B. Head to bring the pecuniary claims of the Upper Canada Academy before the Legislature. This he did in February, 1837. A committee (of which Hon. W. H. Draper was chairman)[55] brought in an excellent report on the subject. The House of Assembly by a vote of 31 to 10 agreed to advance $16,400 to the Academy. The Legislative Council, on motion of Hon. J. Elmsley, made such onerous conditions as virtually defeated the bill, and no relief was granted.[56] Dr. Ryerson, then in England, pressed the matter most urgently upon Lord Glenelg, who in April 1837, sent directions to Sir F. B. Head to advance the money without delay. This, on various pretexts, he refused to do; but when the Legislature opened in January, 1838, he sent a message to the House, which Dr. Ryerson, then in Toronto, thus describes, in a letter to a friend at Kingston, dated February 3rd, 1838. He said:--
Instead of giving us the promised money for the Upper Canada Academy, Sir Francis Head has sent a part of the correspondence with Lord Glenelg and with me down to the House of Assembly, with a message in which he implicates me, as also a letter to Lord Glenelg, written a few weeks after my return from England, in which he impeaches me. I have, in consequence, drawn up a petition to the House, filling six large sheets, exposing the whole of his conduct towards us, vindicating myself from the charges contained in his despatches, and proposing to establish every fact which I have stated before a select Committee of the House of Assembly. My petition was presented this morning. According to rule, a petition has to lie on the table for twenty-four hours before it is read. But a motion was made and agreed to, to dispense with the rule, and read my petition. It was then read, and created a great sensation. It was then moved that 200 copies of it be printed, together with all the documents sent down by the Governor, to which the petition referred. After discussion the motion was carried by a vote of 33 to 4. This was, of course, very gratifying to my feelings, as it must be extremely mortifying to the Governor. This is the first petition that has been ordered to be printed by the present--Sir Francis' own--Parliament. The dispensing with the rule, and giving such a petition the preference, was the highest mark of respect which the House could have shown me. I have not felt so much agitated with anything for years, as with this matter. I am now greatly relieved. I feel as if the Lord God of Hosts was on our side. The Governor clearly thought that as he was so greatly lauded and had become so famous a conqueror, we would not dare to come out against him before the public, or meet him face to face before the Assembly.
On the 16th, Dr. Ryerson again writes to Kingston:--
This Academy business is a most painful one to me. The Legislative Council and the House of Assembly have each appointed a select Committee on the subject. But I am afraid we will get nothing until we hear from Lord Glenelg.
My mind has been, and is, in a great degree depressed beyond expression, in regard to our circumstances. My only trust is in Him who has thus far brought us through, and turned the designs of our enemies to our account. For the last two days I have been as low as I was at my lowest in London.
In addition to Dr. Ryerson's petition to both Houses, he made a separate Appeal to members of the Assembly. In it he stated in substance that Sir Francis Head--
Had already issued his warrant for $8,200; that he was informed in December, 1837, not merely verbally, but in writing, by Hon. J. H. Dunn, Receiver-General, that he had funds with which to pay the balance ($8,200), yet the Governor refused to issue the requisite warrant for it, on the plea of much business; but said that Mr. Dunn had all the warrant that was necessary. In January he again declined to issue the warrant, and excused himself by saying that Mr. Dunn required no further authority. When, later in the month, Dr. Ryerson had not only removed every variety of objection and excuse, but sent a note from Mr. Dunn saying that he had the necessary funds, Sir F. B. Head stated that he "must see one or two of his councillors." After he had done so, he wrote a note to Dr. Ryerson to say that he had misled him, as to the advance being a grant instead of a loan, etc.
On 21st February, the House of Assembly recommended that the balance be paid over at once. It pointed out that Dr. Ryerson had become personally liable to the banks for $3,400, and Revs. John Ryerson and E. Evans for $2,000 of the balance due; that although grants were constantly being made by the House, yet there was no precedent for a loan; and that as to whether the advance was to be a grant or a loan they would abstain from offering an opinion. This report had the desired effect. The money was paid.
On the 22nd February, Dr. Ryerson was, therefore, enabled to write to his friend in Kingston, to say that
The prayer of my petition has been this day complied with by a unanimous vote of the House of Assembly; and the Hon. Mr. Draper told Brother Evans that His Excellency would issue his warrant for the money as soon as the Address of the Assembly is presented. Not a man in the Assembly would risk his reputation in defence of the conduct of the Governor in this affair. The Report of the Committee was received, and the Address passed two readings last night and one this morning, and without one word from any member of the Assembly in the way of comment or remark. The Committee of the Legislative Council has actually declined entering into the investigation of the subject at all, as had been desired by His Excellency. Thus has Sir Francis Head not only disgraced himself, but helped us.
I thank the Lord for His blessing thus far. We will still trust in Him, and not be afraid. Tories, Radicals, and the Governor, have each had their turn at us. I hope we may now be allowed to live in peace. The result of this affair has in some measure compensated me for the anxiety of mind I have endured.
After this unpleasant controversy with Sir F. B. Head was over, Rev. Anson Green wrote to Dr. Ryerson as follows:--
How do you feel after your brush with Sir Francis? You need not feel very downcast, having attained so triumphant a victory. I doubt not but Sir Francis would willingly pay double the amount claimed by us, if he could have prevented the result which has happened. It is too late, however, to recall it now. I hope he will learn wisdom from the past, and not be so self-willed and headstrong in future. No one seems pleased with him but those whose praise is a reproach.
Rev. W. H. Harvard, in a letter from Kingston, said:--
I am truly pained at the conduct of the Lieutenant-Governor, and sympathize with you in thus being brought into such an unavoidable collision with him. I am more than grieved that he should use us so ungenerously.
I am glad that you are the warrior, for you will combine caution and courage, and will come off more than conqueror. You are at present the centre of our solicitude. I pray that your heart may be comforted and controlled from above. We are the Lord's covenanted, consecrated servants. In His work we are employed. By His Holy Spirit may we ever be actuated and aided!
FOOTNOTES:
[55] At the Conference of this year resolutions of thanks were passed to Mr. Draper, and were sent to him by Dr. Ryerson, the Secretary. Mr. Draper's reply was as follows:--Return to passage
I feel deeply indebted to the Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church for the honour conferred upon me in deeming my humble exertions in the cause of Christian education worthy of their approbation, and I trust I shall never forget their good opinion. I cannot, at the same time, pass by the opportunity of thanking you for the terms in which you have communicated that resolution to me, and of expressing my satisfaction that I have in any degree contributed to the success of your unwearied exertions in behalf of the Upper Canada Academy in England. I sincerely rejoice that you were enabled to obtain that aid for its completion, which was so necessary and so well deserved.
[56] In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, his brother William thus accounts for the failure to get the grant: To the miserable Missionary grant of L900 to the English Conference we are chiefly indebted for the loss of the Bill for the relief of the Upper Canada Academy, as we are positively informed by our best friends in the House of Assembly. It has also been the means of depriving many of the preachers of a considerable part of their small salary, and in one or two instances, of the whole of it. It has, and still does more to weaken our hands, and to embarrass our labours, and also to strengthen the hands and to increase the number of our enemies, than almost any or all other causes put together.Return to passage
Chapter XXII
1838.
Victims of the Rebellion.--State of the Country.
Early in 1838 the trials for treason took place. Messrs. Lount and Matthews were found guilty and sentenced to death. Other parties were also tried: among them was Dr. Thomas D. Morrison, a prominent Methodist in Toronto.[57] In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, at Kingston, his brother John mentions that Dr. Morrison was triumphantly acquitted. He also mentions (as an amusing incident at the trial) the success of the two counsel for Dr. Morrison, in showing that statements entirely contradictory to each other could be fully proved from Sir F. B. Head's own speeches and dispatches. He said:--
Mr. Macdonald, of St. Catharines, stated that Sir Francis had declared in his speech at the opening of the Parliament, that he knew of the rebellion long before it occurred, and that he was the cause of it. Mr. Boswell, of Cobourg, admitted that Sir Francis had said he knew a good deal. But the Governor was very fond of a fine style; he liked rounded periods, or, as Lord Melbourne had expressed it, "epigrammic" flights, so well, that he could hardly make his pen write the words of truth and soberness on such occasions. Mr. Boswell read several extracts from Sir Francis' despatches to Lord Glenelg, which were in direct opposition to the extracts read by Mr. Macdonald. A gentleman whispered to me that anything (no matter what) could be proved from Sir Francis' writings and sayings. In reply to the Attorney-General, Mr. Macdonald said:--That if the suspicion of treasonable motives and doings in others, and not informing or using prompt measures to correct or prevent what might follow, was treason, then Sir Francis was the greatest traitor in the country, for he said he knew all about the proposed outbreak. Mr. Boswell said, that after Sir Francis had seen the "Declaration," and had taken the advice of the Attorney-General, he had sent a despatch to the Colonial Secretary declaring that there was nothing treasonable in the country; that everything was as it should be! To demonstrate this, he had sent away all the troops. Thus, you see, the two lawyers made poor Sir Francis prove everything.
The jury returned with a verdict of "not guilty," which caused great cheering, and which could not be suppressed for some time. Several of the jury were warm Tories, but they acquitted the Doctor.
In another letter to Dr. Ryerson, his brother John gives an account of the efforts made to induce Sir George Arthur, the new Governor, to commute the sentence of Lount and Mathews. He says:--
I have signed a petition for the mitigation of Lount and Mathews' punishment, as did Brother William. I have just seen Rev. James Richardson, who has been with Lount and Mathews. Mathews professed to have found peace. Lount is earnestly seeking. A good deal of feeling has been excited respecting the execution of these unfortunate men. A petition signed by 4,000 persons in their behalf was presented to His Excellency. It was agreed that Rev. Mr. Brough (Church of England minister from Newmarket) and I should go and present the Toronto petition, and that we should seek a private interview with him. Instead of having a private interview, we were called into the Council Chamber in the presence of the Executive Council. This was rather embarrassing to me, as I did not wish to say what I had intended to say in the presence of Sir Francis' old Executive Council. After presenting the petition, Mr. Brough introduced the conversation and referred Sir George to me. I told him that I was extensively acquainted with the country,--that I had travelled lately through the Niagara, Gore, Home, Newcastle, Prince Edward, and part of the Midland Districts,--had conversed with a great many persons, many of whom, even persons of high respectability, and were strongly attached to the interests of His Majesty's Government, and the pervading feeling was that the severe penalty of the law should not be executed on those victims of deception and sin. I also read an extract of your last letter to His Excellency [p. 188]--relating to the inexpediency of inflicting severe punishment "in opposition to public sentiment and policy, for political offences," etc. After having listened to me very attentively, His Excellency said, that after the fullest consultation with his Executive, and the most serious and prayerful consideration of this painful matter, he had come to the conclusion that Lount and Mathews must be executed.
I also mentioned to the Governor that you and Rev. J. Stinson had waited on Sir Francis about four weeks previous to the insurrection,--that you informed him of insurrectionary movements about Lloydtown and other places, which you had learned from me,--that you had strongly urged Sir Francis to raise volunteers, and put the city and other places in a state of defence,--that you and I had waited on the Attorney-General next day, and that we had urged these things on him in a similar manner;--but that these statements and advice had been disregarded, if not disbelieved.
In a subsequent letter he thus related the closing scene:--
At eight o'clock to-day, Thursday, 12th April, Lount and Mathews were executed. The general feeling is in total opposition to the execution of those men. Sheriff Jarvis burst into tears when he entered the room to prepare them for execution. They said to him very calmly, "Mr. Jarvis, do your duty; we are prepared to meet death and our Judge." They then, both of them, put their arms around his neck and kissed him. They were then prepared for execution. They walked to the gallows with entire composure and firmness of step. Rev. J. Richardson walked alongside of Lount, and Rev. J. Beatty alongside of Mathews. They ascended the scaffold and knelt down on the drop. The ropes were adjusted while they were on their knees. Mr. Richardson engaged in prayer; and when he came to that part of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us," the drop fell!
In a letter written to Dr. Ryerson the next day, his brother John mentioned a sad incident connected with Lount's trial:
Lount's daughter, a young woman, was present when her father was condemned. It had such an effect on her, that she went home and died almost immediately afterwards. These are indeed melancholy times!
The evil effects upon the country of the arbitrary conduct of Sir F. B. Head, are thus described in a letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother William, dated Toronto, 22nd April:--
The very painful excitement caused by the execution of Lount and Matthews has in some degree subsided, but dissatisfaction with the state of things is, I fear, increasing from day to day. Emigration to the States is the fear of the hour. It is indeed going on to an extent truly alarming and astonishing. A deputation has been sent from this city to Washington to negotiate with the American Government for a tract of land on which to form a settlement or colony. They have returned, and say that they met with a most gracious reception, encouragement and success beyond their most sanguine expectations. An emigration society has been formed, embracing some of the leading citizens. Its object is to commence a colony in the Iowa Territory, on the Mississippi River.[58] A very large class are becoming uneasy, and many of the best inhabitants of the country, as to industry and enterprise, are preparing to leave. My own spirit is almost broken down. I feel, I assure you, like leaving Canada too, and I am not alone in those feelings; some of our friends whom you would not suspect, often feel quite as much down in the throat as I do. If ever I felt the need of faith, and wisdom, and patience, it is at the present. I have just returned from visiting the prisoners. After all, we know but little of the calamities and miseries with which our once happy land is now afflicted, and yet Sir Francis, the most guilty author of this misery, escapes without punishment; yes, with honour and praise! How mysterious are the ways of Providence--how dark, crooked, and perverse the ways of man.
FOOTNOTES:
[57] Dr. Morrison had been a clerk in the Surveyor-General's office,--had, indeed, while there, collected materials for Dr. Strachan's Ecclesiastical Chart,--but, without any charge, or the slightest deficiency in faithfulness and efficiency, was dismissed, for the simple reason that he had become a Methodist! He then devoted himself to the medical profession. He was once elected to the House of Assembly for York, defeating the Attorney-General. He was also once elected Mayor of Toronto. He was the writer's [and the editor's] physician during life; died in great peace, strong in faith, giving glory to God.--"Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 188, 189.--H.Return to passage
[58] This disposition to remove from Upper Canada to Iowa was not confined to Toronto and its vicinity. In the following chapter the case of a Mr. John Campbell, M.P.P. for Frontenac county, is mentioned. He was on his way to Iowa when he saw and read Dr. Ryerson's defence of Mr. Bidwell. The reading of that defence changed his plans, and he remained in Canada. (See page 192.)Return to passage
Chapter XXIII
1795-1861.
Sketch of Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie.
The story of Dr. Ryerson's life would scarcely be complete without giving some information in regard to the chief opponents whom he encountered in the earlier part of his career--men well known at the time, but whose names and memories are now passing away.
With the exception of Bishop Strachan, no man came so immediately in contact with Dr. Ryerson in the first years of his public life as did Mr. W. L. Mackenzie.
Mr. Mackenzie was born in Scotland, in March, 1795. He died in Toronto, on the 28th August, 1861, in the 67th year of his age. He came to Canada in 1820, and until 1824 was engaged in mercantile pursuits. In May of that year he entered public life, and commenced the publication of the Colonial Advocate at Queenston. From that time until near the close of his life, he maintained his connection, more or less, with the press; but he was always on the stormy sea of politics, even when not a journalist. The reasons which induced him to enter public life are thus given in Mr. Charles Lindsey's "Life and Times of Mackenzie," page 40. They are in Mr. Mackenzie's own words, and were written some time after the rebellion of 1837-8:--
I had long seen the country in the hands of a few shrewd, crafty, covetous men, under whose management one of the most lovely, desirable sections of America remained a comparative desert. The most obvious public improvements were stayed; dissension was created among classes; citizens were banished and imprisoned [Gourley, Beardsley, etc.] in defiance of all law; the people had been forbidden, under severe pains and penalties, from meeting anywhere to petition for justice; large estates were wrested from their owners in utter contempt of even the forms of the courts; the Church of England, the adherents of which were few, monopolized as much of the lands of the Colony as all the religious houses and dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church had had the control of in Scotland at the era of the Reformation. Other sects were treated with contempt, and scarcely tolerated; a sordid band of land-jobbers grasped the soil as their patrimony, and with a few leading officials, who divided the public revenue among themselves, formed "the family compact," and were the avowed enemies of common schools, of civil and religious liberty, of all legislative or other checks to their own will. Other men had opposed and been converted by them. At nine-and-twenty I might have united with them, but chose rather to join the oppressed; nor have I ever regretted that choice, or wavered from the object of my early pursuit. So far as I, or any other professed reformer, was concerned in inviting citizens of [the United States] to interfere in Canadian affairs, there was culpable error. So far as any of us, at any time, may have supposed that the cause of freedom would be advanced by adding the Canadas to [that] confederation, we were under the merest delusion. Mr. Lindsey adds:--In some respects the condition of the Province was worse than Mr. Mackenzie described it. He dealt only with its political condition.
With a Scotchman's idea of justice and freedom, he felt a longing desire to right the wrongs which he saw everywhere around him. This, therefore, constituted, as he believed, his mission as a public man in Canada, and it furnishes the key to his life and character.
Mr. Mackenzie was a political pessimist. He looked upon every abuse which he attacked, with a somewhat severe, if not a jaundiced, eye. Every evil which he discovered was, in his estimation, truly an evil; and all evils were about of equal magnitude. Besides, in attacking an evil or an abuse, he did not fail to attack the perpetrator or upholder of it also, and that, too, with a strength of invective, or of cutting sarcasm, which brought every foible, and weakness of his, and even those of his father before him, vividly into view. This was the baleful secret of his strength as an assailant; but this, too, caused him to be regarded by his victims with intense dislike, bordering on hatred. This style of attack, on the part of Mr. Mackenzie, did not necessarily arise from anything like vindictiveness, but rather from a keen sense of dislike to what he conceived to be wrong in the thing he was attacking.
In 1849 (12 years after the rebellion), Mr. Mackenzie, in a letter to Earl Grey, used the following remarkable language:--
A course of careful observation during the last eleven years has fully satisfied me that, had the violent movements in which I and many others were engaged on both sides of the Niagara proved successful, that success would have deeply injured the people of Canada, whom I then believed I was serving at great risks.... I have long been sensible of the errors committed during that period.... No punishment that power could inflict or nature sustain, would have equalled the regrets I have felt on account of much that I did, said, wrote, and published; but the past cannot be recalled.... There is not a living man on the continent who more sincerely desires that British Government in Canada may long continue, etc. Page 291, 292.
No man was more unselfish than Mr. Mackenzie. He would rather suffer extreme hardship than accept a doubtful favour. Even in regard to kindly and reasonable offers of help, he was morbidly sensitive (as mentioned on page 298 of his "Life and Times"); and yet, looking at the conduct of many men in like circumstances, he deserved commendation rather than censure for his extreme conscientiousness.
Mr. Mackenzie did the State good service in many things. His investigations into the affairs of the Welland Canal were highly valuable to the country, greatly aided as he was by Mr. (now, Sir) Francis Hincks as chief accountant. His inquiries in regard to the Post Office and Prison management were also useful. Besides, he advocated many important reforms which were afterwards carried out. Mr. Mackenzie was the first Mayor of Toronto.
Towards the close of his life he and Dr. Ryerson were not on unfriendly terms; and when in 1852, as a member of the Legislature he instituted an inquiry into the management of the Educational Depository, he expressed himself satisfied with its usefulness.[59] At a later period when Mr. John C. Geikie[60]--then a bookseller in Toronto--commenced his attack upon the Depository in 1858, Mr. Mackenzie thus rebuked him in his Weekly Message of April 9th, of that year:--
At one time we thought with the redoubtable Geikie that Dr. Ryerson's book concern was a monopoly, but a more thorough inquiry induced us to change that opinion. We found that great benefits were obtained for the townships, the country schools, and general education through Dr. Ryerson's plan which could in no other way be conferred upon them, etc.
Dr. Ryerson, on his part, felt kindly towards Mr. Mackenzie. He mentioned to the Editor of this book near the close of the year 1860, that on the ensuing New Year's day he (Dr. Ryerson) would call upon and shake hands with his old antagonist, and wish him a "Happy New Year."
FOOTNOTES:
[59] Mr. Mackenzie frequently visited the Educational Depository to make inquiries, etc. The Editor of this book had frequent conversations with him on the subject, and explained to him the details of management. He was pleased to know that through the agency of the Depository thousands of volumes of good books were being yearly sent out to the schools.Return to passage
[60] Now the Rev. Dr. Cunningham Geikie, of England, and author of the "Life and Words of Christ," and other valuable books. He declined the use of the title of reverend in his controversy with Dr. Ryerson.Return to passage
Chapter XXIV
1838.
Defence of the Hon. Marshall Spring Bidwell.
From various papers and letters left by Dr. Ryerson, I have compiled the following statement in regard to his memorable defence of the Hon. M. S. Bidwell, in 1838. I have used Dr. Ryerson's own words throughout, only varying them when the sense, or the construction, or condensation of a sentence, required it. He said:--
On Dr. Duncombe's return to Canada, I believe the conspiracy was commenced by him, Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, and others, sought to accomplish their objects by rebellion; but in this the great body of Reformers took no part except to surpress it. I had warned them that Mr. Mackenzie's proceedings would result in rebellion. I afterwards received the thanks of great numbers of Reformers for having by my warnings and counsels saved them and their families from being involved in the consequences of the rebellion. I was so odious to Mr. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels, that they determined to hang me on the first tree could they get hold of me. Of this, I had proof from one of themselves; yet I afterwards succeeded by my representations and appeals, to get several of them out of prison. My brother John, who was then in Toronto, presented to Governor Arthur and advocated a largely signed petition against the execution of Lount and Matthews. He also read a letter from me (then a stationed minister in Kingston) against their execution, and on the impolicy of capital punishment for political offences.
After the suppression of the rebellion--in the putting down of which the great body of the Reformers joined--the leaders of the dominant party sought, nevertheless, to hold the entire party of the Reformers responsible for that rebellion, and to proscribe and put them down accordingly. The first step in this process of proscription was the ostracism of Mr. M. S. Bidwell, an able and prudent politician, and a gentleman who took a high place in the legal profession.[61] and completed them in the office of Mr. Daniel Hagerman, of Ernestown. He was admitted as a barrister-at-law in April, 1821.
Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1824; re-elected and chosen Speaker in 1828. On the death of George IV., in 1830, a new general election took place, when the Reform party were reduced to a minority, and Mr. Bidwell was not re-elected Speaker; but he greatly distinguished himself in the debates of the House. In 1834, a new general election took place; a large majority of Reformers were returned, and Mr. Bidwell was again elected Speaker. In May, 1836, Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House of Assembly, and Mr. Bidwell and his colleague, the late Peter Perry, were defeated in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, which Mr. Bidwell had represented in Parliament during twelve years. From that time (May, 1836) Mr. Bidwell never attended a political meeting, or took any part in politics.
During my stay in England, from December, 1835, to April, 1837, I had many conversations with Lord Glenelg, Sir George Grey, and Sir James Stephen (Under Secretaries), on the Government of Canada, shewing them that the foundation of our Government was too narrow, like an inverted pyramid, conferring the appointments to all offices, civil, military, judicial, to one party--excluding all others, however respectable and competent, as if they were enemies, and even aliens. I mentioned that not one member of the Reform party, (which had commanded for years a majority in the House of Assembly) had ever been appointed to the Bench, though there were several of them able lawyers, such as Bidwell, Rolph, etc. (Page 169.)
Lord Glenelg, in a despatch, directed Sir F. B. Head to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship on the first vacancy. Sir F. Head refused to do so, for which he was recalled, and Sir George Arthur was appointed in his place. In the meantime the House of Assembly was dissolved by Sir Francis, and a general election ordered. I had warned the public against Mr. Mackenzie's doings in converting constitutional reform into republican revolution, in consequence of which he attacked me furiously. Peter Perry, in the parliamentary session of 1836, attacked me also, and defended Mr. Mackenzie in a long speech. This speech reached me in England. I sat down and wrote a letter in reply, which reached Canada, and was published there on the eve of the elections, of which I then knew nothing. The constitutional party in Lennox and Addington had my letter printed by thousands, in the form of a large hand-bill headed: "Peter Perry Picked to Pieces by Egerton Ryerson." Although Mr. Bidwell took no part in the controversy, he was on the same electoral ticket with Mr. Perry, and both were defeated.[62]
The Radical party being defeated at the polls, its leaders: Mr. Wm. L. Mackenzie, Dr. Charles Duncombe, and many others, sought to accomplish by force of arms what they had failed to accomplish by popular elections; the rebellion of 1836-7 was the result. As Mr. Bidwell was known to be the intimate friend of Dr. Rolph, and as Dr. Rolph was thought to be implicated in the rebellion, it was assumed by Sir F. Head that Mr. Bidwell was concerned in it also. But this was perfectly untrue. Besides, Mr. Bidwell entertained the strongest views that not a drop of blood should be shed to obtain the civil freedom of a country--that only moral suasion and public opinion should be employed for such purposes.
Sir F. Head thought that now was the opportunity to revenge himself alike upon Lord Glenelg and the Whig Government, which had ordered him to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship, and also upon Mr. Bidwell as a former leader of the Reform party who had opposed him. Mr. Bidwell's letters having reached the Governor, he sent for that gentleman. What transpired is thus related by Mr. Bidwell, in a letter written to me some time afterwards:--
Sir Francis assured me that the letters had been sent to him without his orders, and that he never would allow my letters to be opened. I asked him to open them, as I did not wish to have any suspicions about them indulged afterwards; but he refused to do it, and said he had too much respect for me to allow it. Indeed, on the Wednesday previously, I expressly informed the Attorney-General of my own anxiety, (and that I was willing) to undergo the most full and unreserved examination, and to let all my papers be examined.
The terms of my note of the 8th December--the evening of the day of the interview--were dictated, or at least, suggested to me by Sir Francis, and referred particularly to his expressions of personal regard. The object of drawing such a note from me is now apparent--but I was not then aware that he had received orders from Lord Glenelg to make me a Judge.
Before leaving Toronto (as he intimates), and after his arrival at Lewiston, Mr. Bidwell wrote to Sir F. Head (December 11th, 1837), protesting his innocence and against the injustice of the means used to compel him to leave his country.
The conclusion of Mr. Bidwell's note from Toronto is as follows:
I am confident ... that the investigations, which will now of course be made, will fully remove those suspicions from the mind of your Excellency, and will prove that I had also no knowledge or expectation that any such attempt [i.e. insurrectionary movement] was in contemplation.
To accomplish his revengeful purpose, however, Sir F. Head wrote or inspired an editorial to the Toronto Patriot newspaper (then the organ of his Government) stating that as Mr. Bidwell had left the country, under circumstances that proved his consciousness of guilt, it was therefore the duty of the Benchers of the Law Society to erase his name from their rolls.
I was then stationed at Kingston. When I saw the editorial in the Patriot, I at once recognized Sir F. Head's hand in it, and was horror-struck at the idea of a man being exiled from his country, and then deprived of his professional character and privileges without a trial! I passed a sleepless night.
The late Mr. Henry Cassidy was then mayor of Kingston; a staunch Churchman and Conservative. His wife was a relative of mine, so a sort of family intimacy existed between us. Mr. Cassidy had been a student in Mr. Bidwell's law-office and was now his law agent. Mr. Bidwell enclosed to Mr. Cassidy the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Sir F. Head and Attorney-General Hagerman, and Mr. Cassidy had shown it to me. The morning after I saw the article in the Patriot, proposing the erasure of Mr. Bidwell's name from the books of the Law Society, I went to Mr. Cassidy, saying that I had not closed my eyes all night, in consequence of Sir F. Head's article in the Patriot; that I was the only person besides himself who knew the facts of the case, and though I had been assailed by the newspapers of the party with which Mr. Bidwell had been connected, I felt it in my heart to prevent a gross act of injustice and cruelty being inflicted upon a man, in his absence and helplessness, who had introduced and carried through our Legislature the laws by which the different religious denominations held their Church property, and their ministers solemnized matrimony. I asked Mr. Cassidy if he would allow me the use of the letters which Mr. Bidwell had enclosed to him, justifying his own innocence, and showing the injustice done him by the misstatements of Sir F. Head. After some hours of deliberation, Mr. Cassidy consented. I sat down, and over the signature of "A United Empire Loyalist," I detailed the case, introducing as proofs of Mr. Bidwell's innocence the injustice proposed to be inflicted upon him, referring to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman's own letter, and appealing to the Law Society, and the country at large, against such injustice and against such violation of the rights of a British subject. I got a friend to copy my communication, so as not to excite suspicion.[63] It was the first article that had appeared in the public press after the rebellion, breathing the spirit of freedom, and advocating British constitutional rights against illegal oppression.[64]
The effect of this article upon the public mind was very remarkable. As an example, Mr. John Campbell, member of the Legislative Assembly for the County of Frontenac, despairing of the liberties of the country under the "tory" oppression of the day, determined to sell his property for whatever it might bring, and remove to the States. He was on a steamboat on Lake Ontario, on his way to the Territory of Iowa to buy land and settle there, when the newspaper containing my communication fell into his hands; he read it, rose up and said that as long as there was a man in Canada who could write in that way there was hope for the country. He returned home, resumed his business, and lived and died in Canada.
The Attorney-General was annoyed at the publication of his letter to Mr. Bidwell, and attempted a justification of his conduct. At the conclusion of a letter to me, he said that I had concealed my name for fear of the legal consequences of my seditious paper. I at once sat down and wrote the most argumentative paper that I ever penned (and for the recovery of which I afterwards offered five pounds, but without success), reducing the questions to a series of mathematical propositions, and demonstrating in each case from the Attorney-General's own data, that my conclusions were true, and his absurd. I concluded by defying his legal threat of prosecution, and signed my name to the letter.
The effect of my reply to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman was marvellous in weakening the influence of the first law adviser of the Crown, and in reviving the confidence of the friends of liberal constitutional government.[65]
Subsequently, (in June, 1838), I received a letter from Mr. Hagerman, in which he stated that in my observations on Mr. Bidwell's case I had made assertions that impeached his character, and desired me to inform him on what evidence I had based my statements. He said:--
The first assertion is that I was the author of certain remarks published under the editorial head of the Patriot newspaper of this city, injurious to the reputation of Mr. Bidwell.... The second statement is that I desired to procure his expulsion from the Province, because he had been preferred to me for the office of judge.
My reply to Mr. Hagerman was brief and to the point:
I beg to say, in reply to your letter, that I am not conscious of having made either of the assertions which you have been pleased to attribute to me.
I think it only just to the late Mr. Hagerman to add, that the sharp discussions between him and me did not chill the friendliness, and even pleasantness, of our personal intercourse afterwards; and I believe few men would have more heartily welcomed Mr. Bidwell's return to Canada than Mr. Justice Hagerman himself. Mr. Hagerman was a man of generous impulses. He was a variable speaker, but at times his every gesture was eloquent, his intonations of voice were truly musical, and almost every sentence was a gem of beauty.
The discussion ended there; but no proposal was ever made to, much less entertained by, the Law Society to erase Mr. Bidwell's name from its rolls.
Mr. Bidwell's case did not, however, end here. In 1842, on the recommendation of Hon. Robert Baldwin, any promise given by Mr. Bidwell not to return to Canada--of which no record was found in any of the Government offices--was revoked, in 1843, by the Governor-General (Lord Metcalfe). Mr. Bidwell was also strongly urged to come back, and a promise was given to him by the authority of the Governor-General that all of his former rights and privileges would be restored to him, with a view to his elevation to the Bench. He, however, declined to return. Again, some years afterwards, when Sir W. B. Richards was Attorney-General, he was authorized to offer Mr. Bidwell the position of Commissioner to revise our Statute Law. He declined that offer also.
In conversation, in 1872, with Sir John Macdonald in relation to Mr. Bidwell's early life, Sir John informed me that some years before, he himself had, while in New York, solicited Mr. Bidwell to return to Canada, but without success. Sir John said that he had done so, not merely on his own account (as he had always loved Mr. Bidwell, and did not believe that he had any connection whatever with the rebellion), but because he believed that he represented the wishes of his political friends, as well as those of the people of Canada generally.
Mr. Bidwell was an earnest Christian. He was also a charming companion. A few weeks before his lamented decease, he visited his relatives and friends in Canada, spent a Sabbath in Toronto, occupying a seat in my pew in the Metropolitan Church. While here he presented me with a beautiful likeness of himself on ivory. I have placed it in the Canadian room of our Departmental Museum. I little thought it was my last meeting with him, as I had long anticipated and often intended to visit him in New York, where he promised to narrate to me many incidents of men and things in the Canada of former years, which had not come to my knowledge, or which I had forgotten. A suitable monument would be an appropriate tribute to his memory by our Legislature and country.
* * * * *
The following are extracts of letters written to Dr. Ryerson, by Mr. Bidwell, at the dates mentioned:
May 21st, 1828--Kingston.--I admire and fully approved of your plan (as I advised Mr. H. C. Thompson) of striking off a large number of copies, in pamphlet form, of your Review of Archdeacon Strachan's Sermon. (See page 68.) I have no doubt it will be really a great service to the country to do so. Indeed, I sincerely think that you could not in any other way be instrumental in promoting so much the cause of Christ, as in the labours which you have undertaken. The concerns of this Colony, as you see in the newspapers, are attracting the attention of the British Parliament; and the decided expression of public opinion here at present will outweigh all that Dr. Strachan and his junto can say and do. My father and I will shortly give the subject of Church Establishment in this Province, contended for by Dr. Strachan, a full and careful examination, and communicate to you the result.
January 19th, 1829--York.--I rejoice once more to receive a letter from you.... I sincerely thank you for your congratulations on my elevation to the Speakership. I am sensible how much I need the prayers and counsels of my friends in discharging the duties of my station. I wish Christians would reflect what important consequences may follow from every step taken by those in public life, and especially in the Legislature.... I send you a copy of Wilbur's Reference Bible, which I beg you will accept as a testimony of my respect and friendship.
March 10th, 1829--York.--The Marriage Bill has been passed, with amendments made by the Legislative Council. The House is about equally divided on trying questions, so that we often forbear attempting measures which we would wish to pass. This unpleasant state of things produces anxiety, uncertainty, and (worst of all) violent party spirit. I can with great truth declare that I have received but little satisfaction in my public life.
To you and your brother the Province owes a large debt of gratitude. For one, I feel it sensibly, and wish most sincerely that we could have the benefit of your counsel in our House. Two or three such men would be a comfort, a relief, a support, and an assistance, beyond what you have any idea of.
April 6th, 1831--Kingston.--I am very glad to see your commendations of the Attorney-General.[A] I think they are just. They are certainly politic and seasonable. Indeed, I had thought of hinting to you the propriety of some such notice of his liberality, etc. I was afraid otherwise the coldness of the courtiers towards him might make him repent of such liberality. But I think that your remarks have come at the right time, and are exactly of the right sort.[66]
June 14th, 1833--York.--We have heard with pleasure of your safe arrival in England: and pleasing indeed this has been to your many friends in the Province, whose prayers, good wishes, and friendly recollections, have accompanied you across the Atlantic.... Mr. John Willson, M.P.P., of Saltfleet, has, within a day or two, obtained from the Receiver-General, on the warrant of the Lieutenant-Governor, L600 of the public money, to aid in building chapels, I suppose, for the Ryanites. (See page 87). The fact was mentioned to me privately this morning, but I deem it so important as to justify and require me to inform you confidentially of it, leaving it to your judgment to use the intelligence in the most discreet manner that may be consistent with the duty you owe to liberty and religion.
It excites surprise, pain, mortification, indignation, and contempt, to see the Executive Government here making unjust and invidious distinctions between His Majesty's subjects in the appropriations of the Clergy Reserves, thereby endeavouring to secure an unconstitutional and corrupt influence, especially after Lord Goderich's declaration in his despatch (which he directed to be published), that if any preference was shown to one denomination of Christians more than another, it was contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government, and against repeated instructions sent to the Government here.
As a Presbyterian I lament the grant to the Presbytery, and will do all I can to get it repealed, for I am convinced it will do injury to liberty and religion, and to the very persons who may wish, or wicked enough, to receive it. I suppose the Province is indebted to Sir John Colborne for these grants. If it is the Government at home, it ought to be known: if it is not, they ought not only to remove Sir John, but also reform this abuse. Have the Government ever given your Society sixpence, or even a foot of land for your chapels?--although it is the oldest and most numerous body of the kind in the Province; is not wealthy, and has rendered the most valuable services, and at a time when no other Church evinced the least interest for the religious instruction or the welfare of the people.
April 12th, 1838--New York.--Your letter of the 23rd ult. and its enclosure [the defence], I need not say, have effected me deeply, too much, indeed, for me to describe my feelings. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this instance of your kindness; not less valued, certainly, because it was unexpected, not to say undeserved. If my misfortunes shall be the means of recovering a friendship which I formerly enjoyed and always prized, I shall feel not a little reconciled.[67]
I took the precaution some time ago, to send to England a plain, distinct statement of all that had occurred between Sir Francis Head and myself. This was transmitted to a friend to show to Lord Glenelg. My only object was the vindication of my character. I have never had the least expectation of obtaining justice or redress from the Colonial office. There seems in that department utter incapacity. The very persons they select for the Government of Upper Canada are enough to prove this. And yet I believe that Lord Glenelg is an able, as well as amiable, devout, good man.
May 15th, 1838--New York.--I have received a letter from the gentleman in England, to whom I had written. He had seen Lord Durham, and shown him my letter. He expressed no opinion; but the gentleman thinks that the matter stands favourably before him. He has not yet seen Lord Glenelg.
August 10th, 1839--New York.--Mr. Christopher Dunkin[68] is very anxious to have the honour of an introduction to you. I am very happy to be the means of gratifying him. Mr. Dunkin was editor of the Montreal Courier, in the latter part of 1837, and beginning of 1838. He was afterwards appointed by Lord Durham on the Commission relating to education, and has latterly resided in the United States.
About the time of Mr. Bidwell's defence, Dr. Ryerson also wrote an explanatory letter to the Colonial Office in regard to his excellent friend, Hon. John H. Dunn, the Receiver-General, whose generous conduct towards the Upper Canada Academy is mentioned on page 166[69]. In a letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Dunn to Dr. Ryerson, he said:--
I am very glad to learn from your letter that you have written to Lord Glenelg. It is but just to put His Lordship in possession of facts which may counteract the influence of misrepresentation, and enable His Lordship to exercise his own humane disposition in putting matters right, which have been so wrong and arbitrary towards the individual Mr. Bidwell, whom you have taken the interest in, and trouble, to restore to his position and his country.
I feel exceedingly obliged for the kind feeling which you entertain towards me. Believe me, that you have only done me justice by mentioning my name to Lord Glenelg. I have laboured hard since I have been in the Province to discharge my duty to my God and my Government. I have entertained different opinions at times of the "Powers here," but they have been the dictates of an honest heart. I cannot guide my opinions to the service of any party. Whatever they may be, I shall lament if they should result in any other than for the best interests and welfare of the Province of Upper Canada.
You were so good as to read me your letter to Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the late execution of Lount and Matthews. Your version too, of the real meaning of the representation which caused Sir Francis Head to compel us to retire from the Executive Council, is so correct, that I cannot suggest any amendment; besides, I am bound by my oath not to divulge any transaction arising at the Council Board. I shall be very happy to see the letter published. (See page 170.)
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.Return to passage
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.Return to passage
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:--Return to passage
"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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[66] These remarks will be found on page 83 of the Guardian of 2nd April.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
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!Return to passage
[75] This gentlemen entered the Methodist ministry in 1835, and joined the Church of England in 1841. He died some years since.Return to passage
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.)Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.)Return to passage
[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.)Return to passage
[81] These kindly words the Bishop repeated in substance to the Editor some years since, when talking with him on the subject.--H.Return to passage
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."Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage
[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.Return to passage