Chapter XXXVI…

Chapter XXXVI

1841.

Dr. Ryerson's attitude toward the Church of England.

The constant references in this volume to Dr. Ryerson's attitude of hostility to the exclusive claims and pretensions put forth on behalf of the Church of England in this province, require some explanation. His opponents sought to neutralize this opposition by endeavouring to make it appear that, because he opposed these claims and ignored these pretensions, he was hostile to the Church of England as a great spiritual power in the land.[114] He had himself often pointed out the fallacy of this reasoning, and drawn so clear a distinction between men and things in the controversy--the Church and her representatives--that I cannot add any thing to what he has written on the subject. In one letter he said:--

I am often charged with hostility to the Church of England. Did I know nothing of the Church of England except what has been exhibited in this province, ... how could I have any partiality for that Church? There is a large and growing branch of the Established Church in England that I venerate, admire, and love; but there is a semi-popish branch of it for which I have no such respect, and that is the branch, with a few individual exceptions, which exists in this province....

Again, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper, on the clergy reserve question, dated October 12th, 1838, he said:--

I would not derogate an iota from the respect claimed by the Church of England on account of the prerogatives to which she is legally entitled [in England]. As the form of religion professed by the Sovereign and rulers of the Empire--as the Established Church of the British realm--as the Church which has nursed some of the greatest statesmen, philosophers, and divines that have enlightened, adorned, and blest the world, she cannot fail to command the respect of all enlightened men, whatever may be thought of the conduct and pretensions of the Canadian branch of that Church--pretensions which have been virtually repudiated in royal charters, and contradicted by the entire civil and ecclesiastical history of the old British colonies.

Dr. Ryerson's attitude to the Church of England was clearly defined in a private and friendly correspondence between him and John Kent, Esq., Editor of The Church newspaper, in 1841-42. (See page 97.) That paper was established in May, 1837, as the organ of the Church of England in Upper Canada. It was at first edited by Rev. Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Bethune, rector of Cobourg. In 1841, John Kent, Esq., became its editor.[115] In the religions controversies of those days The Church, was ably edited. It was a decided champion of the high church, or Puseyite party, and, as such it came into constant conflict with the Wesleyan Methodists and their organ, the Christian Guardian, and especially with its chief editor, Dr. Ryerson. On the 21st December, 1841, Dr. Ryerson wrote a letter for insertion in The Church, and accompanied it with a private note to Mr. Kent. From that letter I make the following extracts:--

I, as well as my friends, have been the subjects of repeated strictures in your pages; during the last two years I have replied not a word, nor published a line in reference to the Church Of England.

I have stated on former occasions--and perhaps my two years' silence may now give some weight to the statement--that my objections had no reference to the existence, or prosperity, of the Church of England as a Church, but simply and solely to its exclusive establishment and endowment in Upper Canada, especially, and indeed entirely, in reference to the clergy reserves. During the discussions which took place, and which were continued for years, I wrote many strong things; but nothing on the Episcopal form of Government, or the formularies, or doctrines of the Church of England. The doctrines of the Church of England, as contained in the Articles and Homilies, I always professed to believe. On the subject of Church Government, I often expressed my views in the language of Dr. Paley, and in accordance with the sentiments of many distinguished dignitaries and divines of the Church of England, that no particular form of Church Government has been enjoined by the Apostles. I have objected to the Episcopal, or any other one form of Church Government, being put forth as essential to the existence of the Church of Christ, and as the only Scriptural form; but no further. I do not think the form of Church, any more than the form of civil government, is settled in the Scriptures; I believe that both are left, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown at large, to times, places, and circumstances, to be determined upon the ground of expediency and utility--a ground on which Dr. Paley has supported the different orders of the Church of England with his accustomed clearness, ability and elegance. I know, on the contrary, that much may be said upon the same ground in favour of itinerancy, of Presbyterianism, and of independency.

On the subject of forms of prayer, I have never written; though I have for many years used forms of prayer in private as helps to, not substitutes for, devotion. I believe the foundation of the Church of Christ is not laid in forms, but in doctrines....

I believe it would be a moral calamity for either the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches to be annihilated in this province. I believe there are fields of labour which may be occupied by any one of those Churches with more efficiency and success than by any of the others. They need not, and I think, ought not, to be aggressors upon each other....

As there were seven Apostolic Churches in Asia, we believe ourselves one of the Apostolic Churches in Canada.... Those persons, who believe that the instruction, and religious advantages and privileges afforded by our Church will more effectually aid them in working out their salvation than those which they can command in any other part of the general fold of Christ, are affectionately received under our watch-care; but not on account of our approximation to, or our dissent from, the Church of England, or any other Church.

With the settlement of the clergy reserve question ended my controversy with the Church of England, as I have again and again intimated that it would. Churches, as well as individuals, may learn wisdom from experience. I therefore, submit, whether the controversies and their characteristic feelings between the Church of England and the Wesleyan Methodist Church in this province ought not to cease, with the removal of the causes which produced them?... Whether both Churches are not likely to accomplish more religious and moral good by directing their energies against prevalent vice and ignorance than by mutual warfare?

Dr. Ryerson concludes his letter in the following truthful and striking language:--

I intend no offence when I express my conviction that the Church of England in this province has vastly greater resources for doing good than for warring with other Protestant Churches. I know her weak points, as well as her strong towers. I am not a stranger to the appropriate weapons for assailing the one, and for neutralizing the strength of the other. And you have not to learn that it is easier to deface than to beautify--to pull down a fair fabric than to rear a common structure; and that a man may injure others without benefitting himself. On the other hand I am equally sensible that the Wesleyan Methodist Church has nothing to gain by controversy; but I am quite sure, from past experience, as well as from present aspects, that she has not so much to fear, to risk, or to lose, as the Church of England. If controversy be perpetuated between your Church and our own, I wash my hands from all responsibility of it--even should the duty of self-defence compel me to draw the sword which I had, in inclination and intention, sheathed for ever. History, and our own experience to some extent, abounds with monitory lessons, that personal disputes may convulse churches, that ecclesiastical controversies may convulse provinces, and lead to the subversion of governments....

In his private note to Mr. Kent, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I have long been impressed with the conviction that Canada could not prosper under the element of agitation. I supported the Union of the Canadas with a view to their civil tranquility. I believe my expectations will be realized. In our new state of things I desire not to be considered as standing in an attitude of hostility to the Church of England, any more than to any other Church. I have wished and resolved to leave civil and ecclesiastical party politics with the former bad state of things. Travelling, observation and experience, have been a useful school to me, and time will do justice to the merits or demerits of my motives and conduct.

On the 22nd of December, Mr. Kent replied to Dr. Ryerson:--

Do not think that I wish to meet you coldly. I would gladly fling away the weapons of strife. The warfare in which I am engaged, and which I dare not decline, is literally embittering my existence, and pressing upon me very severely. I am not aware that I have in any way personally attacked you, or ever by name, since the commencement of my editorial career. I should hail a day of concord with overflowing joy. I should rejoice to see your powerful, acute, and vigorous mind exerting itself in a manner that we should all consider serviceable to the cause of loyalty and the Protestant religion.

From a glance at your letters, I fondly hope that some gleam of light is breaking in upon us all. My firm conviction is that the doctrine of the apostolical succession will be the bond of union and the cementer of differences, now apparently impossible. You must have studied the question--and how can your vivid and clear mind elude its force? Must there not be some one apostolical mode of conferring the ministerial functions, or must it be open to all, and Quakerism be right? I do not think I have been the assailant. The Guardian is outrageously personal and unscrupulous in its misstatements.... I am far from thinking that I am meek and gentle enough; but I have carefully excluded personalities,--though I readily concede that my course of argument, which pervades all I write or select, has been to cut away the ground from under the feet of every denomination in the province, outside of the Church.

The papists, I firmly believe, are meditating some grand movement all over the world; and it would be glorious indeed if Protestants could find a common centre of union. But what can I, in my humble way, do? I dare not drop the necessity of the apostolical succession,--though I might dwell less upon it, and avoid, as much as possible, as I always have done, to mix it up with offence to other denominations. Yet, as I before intimated, the assertion and maintenance of it, in the simplest and least controversial manner, must ever provoke hostility. It is an endless subject to get upon....

I shall be very happy to call on you at an early opportunity, and obtain, or rather revive, the pleasure of your personal acquaintance. It would be the happiest Christmas I ever spent, if it witness the extinction of long theological enmities, and the dawn of an era of Christian concord and love.

On the 29th December, Dr. Ryerson wrote a private note again to Mr. Kent. He said:--I was glad to learn by the last Church that you will give my remarks a place in your columns, and that you cordially and elegantly respond to the general spirit and design of them....

I have had a correspondence with the Editor of the Guardian in reference to the mode of conducting it, in regard to the Church of England, and in some other respects. I am happy to be able to say that he has at length yielded to my reasonings and recommendations, and will, I have no doubt, conduct the Guardian in accordance with the general views expressed in my communications to you.[116] To-day's Guardian, as you see, presents a visible and agreeable improvement in the points referred to.

I blame you not for your strict and high principles as a churchman, but I do not think that you do now make sufficient allowance for difference of forms and ceremonies in the common faith of Protestantism. I think you should allow as much as Archbishop (Lord Keeper) Williams has done, and as much as is involved in the passage quoted by him from Irenaeus. Why should we be "unchurched" any more than the continental churches?

Mr. Kent, in reply to Dr. Ryerson (31st December), said:--

I trust you will think that in the remarks which I have made on your letter in The Church, I have met your overtures in a pacific and cordial spirit. I am sure that my remarks will be much more acceptable to churchmen, so far as such remarks are friendly to you, than they will be to others not belonging to our pale. I have not consulted a soul about what I have written, nor have I shown your pleasing reply to my first note to any one save good and safe Mr. Henry Rowsell; though I should like to show it to Rev. H. J. Grasett, and Bishop Strachan. You need never be afraid of what you say to me in confidence.... It is certainly much more consistent in you (provided only you get rid of Mr. Wesley's authority, and then, by the way, you destroy your genealogy and succession) to call yourselves a Church, than to be of the Church and not in it.... You are said to possess some fine old Divinity works. You cannot have read them without some approximation to our Church.

You are not in the position of the continental Churches. No constraint is upon you. You can get Episcopacy, if you desire it. Neither does the Church of England stand relatively towards you, as the Gallican Church towards the Huguenots. You admit the purity of our doctrine, and do not consider our discipline unscriptural. If you were to read Bishop Stillingfleet on Separation, I think you would open up new trains of thought. I just became so staunch an Episcopalian, from viewing the matter extrinsically of Scripture and history, and was led to conclude, from the nature of things, that there can be but one valid ministry.

You are certainly a Prospero. You have waved your magic wand over the Guardian. I saw it in an instant, and saw that you had done it. I purposely, in my editorial, abstained from all allusions to our confidential intercourse, or I would have thanked you for this exercise of your healing influence.

It is by no means an unpleasing marvel that you and I, on the last day of 1841, should be conversing so pleasantly and amicably. I trust that peace and amity will flourish still more!

Do me the favour to accept a slight New Year's gift at my hands.

Dr. Ryerson wrote a reply to the strictures of The Church newspaper, and on the 26th addressed a private note on the subject to Mr. Kent, in which he said:--

... The great difference between us seems to be that I value what I hold to be the cardinal doctrines, and morals and interests of Christianity, above either Churchism or Methodism. So that those interests are advanced, either through the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or any other Protestant Church, I therein do rejoice and will rejoice. You make the Church of England first of all--essential to all--all in all; and that all who are not in the Church of England are enemies to the Church of Christ, "strangers to the covenants of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." ... It is true you have exempted me by way of compliment; but no intelligent man would wish to hold his religious intercourse and standing on the tenor of a compliment; and that too at the expense of his ecclesiastical connexion and general principles. If I cannot but be viewed as an enemy of the Church of England as a Methodist, it is a poor compliment to tell me that I am friendly to it as a man. I do not understand the hair-splitting casuistry which separates the man from the Christian....

I believe in your perfect sincerity and personal disinterestedness and kindness, but I must say that you do not appear from the last Church to suppose it possible for a man to think in a different channel from yourself without endangering his title to the skies, or to common sense, and without absolutely forfeiting his claim to orthodox Christianity. I refer not all to your maintenance of apostolic succession, but to your unqualified reprobation of the motives, feelings, and character of all who are not of your own fold. How different are the sentiments and spirit of Bishop Onderdonk's essay in support of the "Divine Right of Episcopacy" from those of your articles in the last Church? Now, though we may be without the attributes of what you believe to be a scripturally constituted Church, we are not without the attributes and feelings of men.... The apparatus of the Church of England is surprisingly powerful when spiritually, rightly, and comprehensively applied; but to build your structure like an inverted pyramid, and to rouse every one not of you into warfare against you, does not appear to me to be sound in theory, or wise in practice.

Mr. Kent, in a private reply, dated 3rd February, said:--

I have read your letter over so as to prepare my remarks. In doing this I anticipate no trouble. On the contrary, I hope to strengthen my position and give greater weight to my axioms respecting the duties of Churchmen in withholding aid from all religious societies unconnected with the Church. I find, however, that your tone of remark is excessively warm and indignant; and, deeming from the tenor of your conversation on Thursday last, that you have doubts on your mind respecting church government, and feeling convinced that if ever you are led to subscribe to the indispensable obligations of episcopacy, ... you will admit the validity of my reasons for acting and writing as I do--under all these circumstances I feel bound to ask you to meditate whether you will not withdraw your letter. I give you my sacred honour that I do not dread its effects. But I feel this, that should you ever experience and avow a change of opinion in reference to the matters that are now engaging your attention, it will be brought up against you by your enemies, and may altogether prove a constant embarrassment. Should you withdraw it, I will only mention the matter to Mr. Grasett, who has already seen it. Should you determine on its insertion, it shall appear next Saturday.

Dr. Ryerson did not withdraw his letter, and it appeared in The Church of February 5th. The personal correspondence, however, ended here.

In accounting for his decided opposition to a church establishment in Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:--

Before I was twenty years of age I had read Paley's Political Philosophy, including his chapters on the British Constitution and a Church Establishment; Locke on Government, and especially Blackstone's Commentaries, particularly those parts on the Rights of the Crown and the Rights of the Subject. From Paley I learned that a Church Establishment is no part of Christianity, but a means of supporting it, and a means which should be used only when the majority of the people are of the religion thus supported. From Blackstone I learned that the Church of England is the Established Church of England and Ireland, but not of any colony, except under one or more of three conditions, none of which existed in Upper Canada. Upon the grounds, therefore, furnished by Blackstone and Paley, I opposed the erection of a Church Establishment in Upper Canada, without touching the question of a Church Establishment in England.

Dr. Ryerson in a letter to a friend, thus refers to his early experiences in regard to the Church of England:--

Although I had no opportunity of attending the service of the Church of England until I was nearly twenty years of age, I made the Homilies and Prayer Book, with the Bible, very constant companions of travel and subjects of study. I drew my best pulpit illustrations from them, at the very time that I was controverting the pretensions of the leaders of that Church to exclusive establishment and supremacy in Upper Canada; and, in so doing, I had the sympathies and support of a large portion of the members of the Church of England, in addition to the unanimous support of the members of other religious denominations. I felt that I was preaching the Protestant Reformation doctrines of the Church of England; and throughout life I have loved the Church of England with all its faults, only second to that of my own church. I declined the offer of ordination in the Church of England [page 206] several months after I commenced preaching on a Methodist circuit, simply and solely upon the ground that I was indebted to the Methodists for all the religious instruction and influences I had experienced. I believed that I would be more useful among them, though my life would be, as then appeared, one of privation and labour. During the first four years of my ministry, my salary amounted to less than one hundred dollars per annum, and during the next twelve years (after my marriage) my salary did not exceed six hundred dollars a year, including house rent and fuel.

In a letter written on the 28th October, 1843, to the Editor of the Guardian by Dr. Ryerson, he says:--

It is still, as it has long been, the position with the Editor of The Church and writers of his school to represent the efforts of other Churches to maintain their own equal rights and privileges as hostility to the Church of England.... Who proposed peace, and who has perpetuated war--aggressive war? [page 292.] ... Who is it that proclaims bodies prior to his own in Western Canada as "Dissenters," and seeks by every species of unfair statement and insinuation to injure and degrade them--both politically and religiously--and substantially maintaining that Civil Government itself is an appropriate Providential instrument to put down "dissent." For one, I have as yet been silent under this provocation, insult, and proscription.

Circumscribed must his views be who does not perceive that "Puseyism," both in a religious and civil point of view, will soon become a far more important question for the consideration and decision of the inhabitants of Western Canada than that of the seat of Government, or than even that of the University. And the day is hastening apace, when it will be a prime matter of inquiry with them to determine ... whether they will quietly consent to have their civil rights and liberties placed in any form in the hands of men who regard the great majority of their Christian fellow-subjects as unbaptized heathens and aliens in a Christian country. Such is the issue to which The Church is bringing matters in Western Canada.[117]

* * * * *

In a journey from Kingston to Toronto by stage, which Dr. Ryerson made in February, 1842, Bishop Strachan was a fellow passenger. Dr. Ryerson thus speaks of the agreeable intercourse which he had with the Bishop on that occasion:--

For the first time in my life I found myself in company with the Lord Bishop of Toronto. He was accompanied by Mr. T. M. Jones, his son-in-law, and Mr. Jarvis (Indian Department), very pleasant companions, nor could I desire to meet with a more affable, agreeable man than the Bishop himself. It would be unpardonable to introduce remarks ... of one's neighbours ... into travelling notes in any form, but there has been something so peculiar in the relations of "John Toronto" and "Egerton Ryerson," that I must beg, in this instance, to depart from a general rule. Conversation took place on several topics, on scarcely any of which did I see reason to differ from the Bishop. He spoke of the importance to us of getting our College at Cobourg endowed--that an annual grant was an insufficient dependence--that as the clergy reserve question had been settled by law, we had as much right to a portion of the clergy lands as the Church of England--that as we did not desire Government support for our ministers, we ought to get our proportion appropriated to the College, as religious education was clearly within the provisions of the Clergy Reserve Act. Valuable suggestions, for which I thanked his lordship. I took occasion to advert to what had excited the strongest feelings in my own mind, and in the minds of our people generally--namely imputations on our loyalty to the Government and laws of the country. The Bishop, with his characteristic energy, said that what he had written on the subject he could at any time prove--that he never represented or supposed that the Methodist body of people were disaffected; nor had he represented or supposed that those preachers who had been born and brought up in the country were disloyal; but he was satisfied that such was the case with the majority of those who used to come from the United States. I felt that the whole matter was one of history, and not of practical importance in reference to present interests; and I was much gratified in my own mind to find that the real question, as one of history, was the proportion of preachers who formerly came from the United States, and the character and tendency of their feelings and influence; for no preachers have come from the United States to this country these many years, and we have none but British subjects in the Canada Conference.

After parting with the Bishop at Cobourg, in analyzing the exercises of my own mind, I found myself deeply impressed with the following facts and considerations:--

1. That the settlement of the clergy reserve question had annihilated the principal causes of difference between those individuals and bodies in this province who had been most hostile to each other.

2. That how much asperity of feeling, and how much bitter controversy might be prevented, if those most concerned would converse privately with each other before they entered into the arena of public disputation.

3. That how much more numerous and powerful are the reasons for agreement than for hostility in the general affairs of the country, even among those who differ most widely on points of religious doctrine and polity.[118]

FOOTNOTES:

[114] I have already on pages 41 and 206 mentioned the overtures which were made to Dr. Ryerson by the late Bishop Stewart of Quebec to induce him to enter the ministry of the Church of England. See also page 97.Return to passage

[115] "From 1841 to 1843 the editorial management of The Church was assumed by Mr. John Kent, who had been a valuable contributor to its pages from the commencement. The excitement, however, amid the clash and din of party strife was too much for him, and the paper came back to its first editor, who held it again ... for nearly four years.... It gradually lost ground, and died out ... in 1856. Memoir of Bishop Strachan by Bishop Bethune," page 159.Return to passage

[116] From Dr. Ryerson's letter to Rev. J. Scott, Editor of the Guardian, I make the following extracts:--I take the liberty to mention two or three things that I have seen in the Guardian which have caused me some pain and concern. I refer to your mode and style of controversy with "The Church." During, and since my late tour to the West, I have heard several preachers and some others allude to it, and nearly all in terms of regret. I set down the questions as they occur to my own mind.Return to passage

1. We have no controversy with the Church of England as a Church Establishment. We have disclaimed opposing, or doing anything to disparage the Church Establishment in England.... 2. Then on the subject of church polity. Your articles, especially the series entitled "Dissent, etc., No Wonder"--were put forth as a defence.... But which of our institutions did they defend? The burden of them went to prove that the Church of England is unscriptural in its polity, union with the state, etc. Suppose all this were true, would it prove that our own Church is apostolic and Scriptural? To prove that our neighbours are black, does not prove that we are white. We do not profess to build up ourselves upon the ruin of any body else, or to be "foragers" upon others, although we readily accept members of other churches when they offer themselves. To prove that Presbyterian ordination is valid (as did the valuable series of articles copied by you from the Wesleyan Magazine, and Powell, on Apostolic Succession) defends our ordination. To prove that the Church of England is wrong and rotten from beginning to end cannot be a defence of ourselves. It may, indeed, please some of our friends; but it also tends to prove that we are settled enemies to the Church of England in all its forms and features, as well as in its union with the state.

Far be it from me to look upon the things I have mentioned as characteristics of the Guardian; I look upon them as blemishes, and as drawbacks from its usefulness--objects which I know are scarcely less dear to your heart than life itself. If we narrow our own foundations by such sweeping denunciations against the Church of England, and strictures on persons without our communion, ... we multiply our opponents, and reduce the circulation of our journal within the circle of our own members.

I am sensible of my own errors, deficiency and unworthiness; but I have felt that I should not do my duty to you as a brother beloved, and one from whom I have received too many proofs of regard, and so much aid in my labours, without thus telling you what was in my heart.

Rev. Mr. Scott at first felt aggrieved and disappointed on receiving this letter and a personal correspondence between him and Dr. Ryerson ensued, which, however, ended satisfactorily. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, written in 1864--23 years afterwards,--Mr. Scott thus recalls the reminiscence of his career as Editor of the Guardian. He says:--My esteemed friend: You and I have not always thought alike (and what is manliness worth that is not independent enough to disagree?) but as age advances I have an increasing pleasure in recalling to mind the years, when you were Superintendent of old Adelaide street Church, and I was your supplementary helper,--in joint intercession with the humbled at night--in the damp basement, and during the day pursuing the penitents in dirty taverns, and the dens of dirtier March [now Lombard] street, the sainted Mrs. S. E. Taylor praying for us; and Christ won many souls. Since then what progress Scriptural Christianity--Methodism--has made in Canada! I trust that when you repose in the tomb, and I am beneath some quiet sod of loved Canada, we shall meet those again for whose salvation we laboured. In the words of an ancient wish: May your last days be your best days! Mr. Scott entered the ministry in 1834; and died at Brampton, May 5th, 1880, aged 77.

[117] In this connection see the significant conclusion of the note on page 291.Return to passage

[118] This incident might also form a fitting sequel to chapter xxvii, page 213.Return to passage

Chapter XXXVII

1841-1842.

Victoria College.--Hon. W. H. Draper.--Sir Chas. Bagot.

Amongst the last public acts performed by Lord Sydenham was the giving of the Royal assent to a Bill for the erection of the Upper Canada Academy into a College with University powers. This he did on the 27th August, 1841. Dr. Ryerson thus refers to the event, in a letter written from Kingston on that day:--

The establishment of such an institution by the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada attests their estimate of education and science; and the passing of such an act unanimously by both Houses of the Legislature, and the Royal assent to it by His Excellency in Her Majesty's name, is an ample refutation of recent statements and proceedings of the Wesleyan Committee in London ... while the Act itself will advance the paramount interests of literary education amongst Her Majesty's Canadian subjects.... For the accomplishment of this purpose, a grant must be added to the charter--a measure ... honourable to the enlightened liberality of the Government and Legislature. When they are securely laying a broad foundation for popular government, and devising comprehensive schemes for the development of the latent resources of the country, and the improvement of its internal communication, and proposing a liberal system of common school education, free from the domination of every church, and aiding colleges which may have been established by any church, we may rationally and confidently anticipate the arrival of a long-looked for era of civil government and civil liberty, social harmony, and public prosperity.

In October, 1841, Dr. Ryerson was appointed Principal of the newly-chartered College, and on the 21st of that month, he opened its first session by a practical address to the students.

At the close of that address he said:--

His late Most Gracious Majesty William IV., of precious memory, first invested this institution, in 1836, with a corporate charter as an Academy--the first institution of the kind established by Royal Charter, unconnected with the Church of England, throughout the British Colonies. It is a cause of renewed satisfaction and congratulation, that, after five years' operation as an Academy, it has been incorporated as a College, and financially assisted by the unanimous vote of both branches of the Provincial Legislature,--sanctioned by more than an official cordiality, in Her Majesty's name, by the late lamented Lord Sydenham, one of whose last messages to the Legislative Assembly was, a recommendation, to grant L500 as an aid to the Victoria College.... We have buoyant hopes for our country when our rulers and legislators direct their earliest and most liberal attention to its literary institutions and educational interests. A foundation for a common school system in this province has been laid by the Legislature, which I believe will at no distant day, exceed in efficiency any yet established on the American Continent;[119] and I have reason to believe that the attention of Government is earnestly directed to make permanent provision for the support of colleges also, that they may be rendered efficient in their operation, and accessible to as large a number of the enterprising youth of our country as possible.

Dr. Ryerson, although appointed Principal of the newly chartered Victoria College in October, 1841, did not relinquish his pastoral duties as Superintendent of the Toronto City Circuit until the Conference of June, 1842. His appointment as General Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, in 1840, necessitated his constant attendance during the winter season at missionary-meetings. Correspondence, consultation, and committee meetings filled up such time as he could spare from his duties as Superintendent of the Circuit. His was indeed a busy life; and by his untiring energy and industry he was enabled to give more than the usual time to the various departments of the Church's work. His aid and counsel was constantly being sought in these things, and was as freely given as though he had the most abundant leisure at his command. In February, 1842, he went to Kingston to attend its missionary anniversary. While there he says:--

In an interview which I had with Sir Charles Bagot, the new Governor-General, it affords me a satisfaction I cannot express, to be able to say that, in advancing the interests of Victoria College, and in securing the rights and interests of our Church, Sir Charles Bagot will not be second to Lord Sydenham--that while, as a man and a Christian, His Excellency is a strict and conscientious churchman, as a Governor he will know no creed or party in his decisions and administration.... I believe that it is a principle of His Excellency's Government, in public appointments, etc., qualifications and character being equal, to give the preference to native and resident inhabitants of the province--those who have suffered in the privations, have grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength of the country. Sir Charles has the wisdom and experience of sixty-three years, and the buoyant activity of our public men of forty. If I mistake not, the characteristics of his government will be impartiality and energy--not in making further changes, but,--in consolidating and maturing the new institutions which have been established amongst us--in obliterating past differences, in developing the latent resources of the country, and in raising up a "united, happy, and prosperous people."

In March, 1842, the question was raised as to the right of ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, who had been members of the old organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, to solemnize matrimony, or for the Conference legally to hold church property. Dr. Ryerson prepared a case on the subject, and submitted it to Hon. R. S. Jameson, the Attorney-General, for his opinion. The opinion of the Attorney-General was conclusive in favour of these rights, and thus this troublesome question, so often raised by adversaries, was finally set at rest.

The transition period between the death of Lord Sydenham and the arrival of his successor, Sir Charles Bagot, was marked by much uncertainty in political matters. In September, 1842, Dr. Ryerson wrote to his friend, Mr. John P. Roblin, the Liberal M.P.P. for Prince Edward county, on the apparently threatening aspect of affairs. Mr. Roblin, in his reply, dated Kingston, September 16th, said:[120]

The political sea has indeed appeared rough; the clouds were dark and ominous of a dreadful storm. But I am happy to say that they have passed away, and the prospect before us is now favourable. There were in the House quite a large majority against ministers; this they plainly saw, and, therefore, shaped their course to avert the blow. Hon. W. H. Draper stated distinctly that it was, and had been, his opinion, that the Lower Canadians should have a fair proportion of members in the Executive Council, and for that purpose he had no less than three times tendered his resignation; that he was ready to go out, and would do so at any moment. Hon. R. Baldwin certainly occupies a proud position at present, and may continue to do so, if he is not too punctilious. The arrangement, which it is understood has been come to, is that Messrs. Ogden, Draper, and Sherwood go out, and that Mr. L. H. Lafontaine comes in as Attorney East; Mr. Baldwin, Attorney-General West; Mr. T. C. Aylwin, Solicitor-General East; Mr. James E. Small, or some other Liberal, as the third man. This will make a strong Government, for it can command a large majority in the House. It is true that the gentleman you mentioned, and a few others will be dead against it, but they are a small minority, and will form a wholesome check.

No man would regret more than I would to see the country thrown into confusion at this time. I entertain a high opinion of the Governor-General (Sir Charles Bagot.) He certainly has shown a disposition to do everything he consistently could to give satisfaction to the prominent party, and being (as he is) of the Tory school, and appointed by a Tory ministry, he certainly is deserving of much credit for going as far as he did to meet the views of the Reformers.

The following was the only record left by Dr. Ryerson of his principalship of Victoria College:--At the end of two years' labours in the station of Adelaide Street Church (the predecessor of the present Metropolitan Church), I was again wrested from my loved work by an official pressure brought to bear upon me to accept the Presidency of Victoria College, which was raised from Upper Canada Academy to a College, and opened and inaugurated, in 1842, as a University College.

* * * * *

On the 3rd of August, 1842, the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Connecticut, conferred on the Principal of Victoria College the degree of D.D. His old and valued friend Francis Hall, Esq., proprietor of the New York Commercial Advertiser, was the first to convey to him the pleasing intelligence. He said:

Perhaps this will be the first communication from Middletown which announces to Victoria College that its head is Rev. Egerton Ryerson, D.D. May you long live to enjoy the distinguished title! I hope to take you by the hand in a few days, and congratulate you personally.

On the 21st of June, 1842, Dr. Ryerson was, with appropriate ceremonies, formally installed as Principal of Victoria College. The Editor of this volume well remembers what a joyful day it was for the College; and how heartily and kindly the new Principal spoke words of encouragement to each of the students then present. On that occasion he delivered a carefully prepared inaugural address, which was afterwards published in pamphlet form and widely circulated. On the 10th September, he sent a copy of the address to Hon. W. H. Draper. In his note Dr. Ryerson called Mr. Draper's attention to what he conceived to be the defective nature of the provisions for the education of law-students, before their entrance on the study of the law (pages 24 and 25 of the address). To this Mr. Draper replied on the 16th. He also added an explanation in regard to his present position in the Government. He said:--

I have perused your address with much satisfaction. The Law Society of Upper Canada, by appointing a well-qualified examiner last term, will, I think, forward your views as to the education which should precede the study of that profession.

By the recent changes which have taken place, I have no longer the right to visit Victoria College officially; but I hope that I may be favoured with an opportunity of doing so in my private capacity.

You will not, I trust, consider it intrusive in me to briefly state the cause of my retirement from the Cabinet. I have long considered the Government in a false position, while the French Canadians saw in the Council no person acquainted with their wants and wishes--able and willing to look after their interests, and in whom they had confidence. Apprehending from what took place in the beginning of last session that they might refuse to take office with me, I signified several months ago my readiness to retire if that were the case. In July I renewed that offer. And now, when a negotiation was opened on, it appeared that they would not come in without Mr. Baldwin. I again offered my resignation, because, taking the view I do of his conduct when we were last in Council together, I feel I should not be in that body if he were there also. From that moment I ceased to advise or have anything to do with the matter. Had every other part of it been satisfactory to me, or had it been altered so as to make it satisfactory, nevertheless his being brought in inevitably put me out. Should you hear my conduct canvassed and misunderstood, this explanation will, I trust, set it right.

To Mr. Draper's letter Dr. Ryerson replied, and on the 7th October again wrote, asking him to deliver an address to the students at the opening of the session. In his letter Dr. Ryerson said:--

I deeply regret any occurrence which would deprive Canada of the advantage of your official counsels. I have observed your public conduct throughout, and it has been such in my estimation, as I have felt it a pleasurable duty to appreciate and defend, even in the most doubtful and trying circumstances. You now enjoy the proud distinction of advising and assisting, on public grounds, to form a government, from which, on personal grounds, you have felt it your duty to retire. You cannot suppose that I entertain a less exalted opinion of your disinterestedness and high sense of honour, when the strong opinions I have again and again expressed of it, have been more than realized by your present patriotic and noble course of proceeding.

In regard to the address which I have solicited you to deliver at the opening of the next session of our College, I desire to state that you will of course make it long or short, as you like, although I should like it long. It is my intention to get, if possible, some gentleman of high public standing and literary talent to deliver an address at the commencement of each collegiate year. I think that such addresses will have a salutary influence upon the taste and feeling and ambition of the students; and the notices and publication of them in the newspapers will tend to elevate the standard of the public taste, and will, I think, be useful to public men themselves. I shall be gratified, and I am sure good will ensue, from your appearing before the public in a somewhat new character.

To this letter Mr. Draper replied, on the 10th October:--

I find that, consistently with my professional engagements at the different assizes (which are now of paramount importance to me), I cannot prepare an address so as to do justice to your request. If it involved only the attendance on the day, I would cheerfully make some sacrifice to accomplish it; but there is more, for I would wish, if I undertook the task, to perform it well, and try to approximate the favourable expectation of those who were willing to entrust it to me; and for this end I cannot devote time enough out of the short interval between this and the latest day named by you. Accept my assurance that I feel great reluctance in declining your proposal. The compliment it conveyed was highly gratifying to me under existing circumstances, and I should have felt sincere pleasure in exciting my humble abilities in favour of an institution to which, when I had fuller opportunities, I had endeavoured to be of use (page 179). Accept my acknowledgements for the kindness and courtesy of your other remarks in reference to myself.

Sir Charles Bagot did not long hold the office of Governor-General. Like Lord Sydenham, he was unexpectedly stricken by the hand of death, at Kingston, on the 19th May, 1843. A sketch of his life and character was prepared by Dr. Ryerson and published in the Kingston Chronicle. In that sketch he said:--

Sir Charles Bagot has created throughout the length and breadth of United Canada the settled and delightful conviction that its Government is henceforth to be British, as well as Colonial--and, as such, the best on the continent of America; that Canadians are to be governed upon the principle of domestic, and not transatlantic, policy; that they are not to be minified as men and citizens, because they are colonists; that they are (to use the golden words of Sir Robert Peel) "to be treated as an integral portion of the British Empire."

This sketch was very favourably received by the leading public men of Canada, and, after it appeared in the Chronicle, was reprinted by Stewart Derbyshire, Esq., Queen's Printer, who, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson on the subject, said:--

Your letter in the Chronicle has attracted high admiration in the quarters most competent for criticism, and it is felt you have done a real service to the country. Supposing your wish is to diffuse the sentiments of your letter, I have taken the liberty of giving it to our printers of the Canada Gazette to set up in handsome type, 8 octavo pages, and shall strike off 1,000, and send about, giving away a good many, and putting the rest at book-stores at a very small price. The common run of people do not value what they do not pay for. Have I acted in this in accordance with your wishes--or do you interdict the publication? Many extra copies of the Chronicle were struck off, and about forty copies sent to-day to England by the steamer "Great Western." Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Sir Charles Buller had one each.

Dr. Ryerson assented to the republication of his letter.

* * * * *

In the light of after events, the following extract from a letter received by Dr. Ryerson from Hon. R. B. Sullivan, dated Kingston, 21st July, 1843, is somewhat interesting. Mr. Sullivan had placed one of his sons under Dr. Ryerson's care at Victoria College. After referring to matters relating to the education of youth, Mr. Sullivan proceeded:--"I hope that our friendship will be a sufficient inducement to you to teach my boy that upon his own good conduct under Providence his future happiness depends, and to give him that steadfastness of mind which lads naturally want. In asking these things of you, I place myself under no common obligation. There is no man in Canada of whom I would ask the same. My doing so of you arises from a respect and regard for you personally, which has grown as we have been longer acquainted, and which no prejudices on the part of those with whom I have mixed, and no obloquy heaped upon you by others, have ever shaken."

* * * * *

It is pleasant to get a kind word from those who approve of one's course. It is pleasanter to get it from those who have been indifferent, or even hostile. Thus, in a letter from Rev. Matthew Holtby to Dr. Ryerson, written in March, 1842, he said:

Soon after I arrived here from England, I became acquainted with you and your writings, and ever since, I have watched your course, often with painful and prayerful anxiety. It is long since I doubted the propriety of your public conduct, or the justice of your cause; but as I observed the storm gathering around you, and the winds blowing into a hurricane, from all the cardinal points at once, I have had my fears, that you might faint in the apparently unequal conflict. Thank God, he has delivered you--he has enabled you to stand at the helm, and to steer the Old Ship into smoother water. But we may rest assured that our foes are not dead. I only wish you may manifest as much nautical skill in a calm, as you have in the long storm, and I doubt not but all will be well.

FOOTNOTES:

[119] This memorable prophecy as to the future of our educational system was evidently made by Dr. Ryerson under the conviction that the verbal promise made to him by Lord Sydenham in 1841,--that he should have the superintendence of that system--would have been carried out by his successor, Sir Charles Bagot. There was no written promise, however, on the subject, and he and his friends were greatly surprised at the singular appointment made in May, 1842. It was not until 1844 that Dr. Ryerson received the promised appointment--the reward (as was then most unjustly alleged against him) of services rendered to Sir Charles Metcalfe in the crisis of that year. (See, however, chapter xliii. on Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent of Education.)Return to passage

[120] This correspondence illustrates one phase of the political history of the times.Return to passage

Chapter XXXVIII

1843.

Episode in the Case of Hon. Marshall S. Bidwell.

As mentioned in Chapter xxiv., page 188, an effort was made in 1843 to induce Hon. M. S. Bidwell to return to Canada. Copies of the correspondence on the subject were enclosed to Dr. Ryerson, by the Hon. Robert Baldwin, in a letter dated Kingston, 5th June, 1843, as follows:--

I enclose you copies of letters which I am sure will afford you much pleasure. At present this communication of them must be confidential, as you will see by their date that they have not yet reached their object himself. But after the warm interest you have taken in the cause of my friend, at a time when any interference on my part would have been worse than useless, I feel it due to you to make you early acquainted with what has taken place. I have seen, with much pleasure, that you have carried out the intention you hinted to me when I last had the pleasure of seeing you at Kingston. Your admirable letter must have had a good effect. I see that some little popguns were let off at you on the occasion, but they are too puny to excite anything but a smile at their imbecility.

I regret much my inability to have been present at your last annual examination, but hope to be more fortunate another year.

The Hon. Robert Baldwin's letter to Mr. Bidwell, enclosed to Dr. Ryerson, dated Kingston, 2nd June, 1843, was as follows:--

I have great pleasure in being able to transmit to you a copy of a note addressed by me to His Excellency the Governor-General, with a copy of that of Mr. Secretary Harrison, conveying His Excellency's reply, which, I am happy, so distinctly removes every obstacle to your return to what has been in all essentials your native country; and that without the descent on your part, by even a single step, from the high ground which you have always maintained in relation to your unjust expatriation.

I will at present only stop to assure you of the sentiments of unabated affection and respect with which you have ever continued to be regarded in this country, during the whole period of your exile, and to express my conviction of the satisfaction with which your return will be hailed by all your former friends, and by many even of your former political opponents--in which satisfaction, I trust, I need scarcely add that no one will more sincerely participate than myself.

The following is a copy of Mr. Baldwin's note to Sir Charles Metcalfe, the Governor-General, dated 25th May:--

Mr. Robert Baldwin, having been informed by Mr. Secretary Harrison that with reference to the case of Mr. Bidwell, which Mr. Baldwin had the honour of bringing under the notice of the Governor-General shortly after his assumption of the Government, His Excellency only requires a request to be made to him as a foundation for his directing that the pledge taken from that gentleman, in his departure from Upper Canada, should be cancelled, and giving His Excellency's sanction for the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to restore to Mr. Bidwell the political rights of which his residence abroad, under pressure of that pledge, has deprived him, Mr. Baldwin respectfully begs leave to make that request.

The letter in reply, of Mr. Secretary Harrison to Hon. Robert Baldwin, dated 29th May, was as follows:--

I am commanded by the Governor-General to inform you, in reply to your note of the 25th inst., that His Excellency considers it right that whatever pledge may have been given by Mr. Bidwell on his departure from Upper Canada, to preclude his return, should be cancelled. The letter of that gentleman to the then Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Francis Bond Head, supposed to contain such a pledge, is not to be found in the archives of the Secretary's office. I am, therefore, directed to say that the pledge is considered as cancelled, and that the letter, if ever found, may be returned.

I am also further desired to acquaint you that in the event of Mr. Bidwell's proposing to return, His Excellency will give his sanction to the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to restore to that gentleman the political rights of which his residence abroad, under pressure of his pledge, deprived him.

On the 14th August, 1843, Hon. Robert Baldwin wrote the following letter to Dr. Ryerson:--

I send you a copy of a letter from our friend, Mr. Bidwell, in answer to my letters to him. The original I have sent up to my father, but had a copy made for you, knowing the interest you have ever taken in his case.

Hon. M. S. Bidwell's letter to Hon. Robert Baldwin, dated New York, 31st July, 1843, was as follows:--

I hardly know how to commence my answer to your letter after so long a delay which has been unintentional and unexpected, and in a great measure unavoidable. I might, indeed, and ought to have written to you when I first received it, but I then hoped it would be in my power to make you a short visit in compliance with your invitation. On this point I was kept in suspense by the state of Mrs. Bidwell's health, and was besides very laboriously occupied with indispensable professional engagements. With this frank explanation I throw myself upon your indulgence to pardon my delay.

Never, my dear friend, for one moment have I doubted your kind and friendly feelings, or your anxiety that I should be treated with justice and liberality by the Government, and I have never ceased to be gratified that I was honoured with the friendship of one whose wishes and talents have, for many years, commanded my respect. Amidst the dejection of spirits and perplexity of mind that I have suffered, this consideration has afforded me great consolation.

Your communication has now taken me by surprise. You will add to your former obligations if you will make suitable acknowledgements for me to His Excellency for the answer which, by his directions, Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to your letter.

All that I have learned of Sir Charles Metcalfe's character and measures has filled me with the highest respect, and with a confidence that Canada will be governed by him with wisdom, justice, and liberality. Loving that country, this confidence has been a source of great joy to me.

Let me add that, in my judgment, Sir Robert Peel in all his measures, since his last appointment has shown a wise moderation and conciliatory spirit, and an anxious desire for the true welfare of the vast Empire beneath the sway of Her Majesty's sceptre.

I would gladly make you a visit at once if I could, but I should feel great pleasure to see you here. I shall do with great pleasure what I can to make the visit agreeable to you. I have heard with concern of the feeble health of your venerable father. I cannot tell you with what deep interest and great respect I think of him. He has been the consistent friend of constitutional liberty through evil report as well as good report. Amidst perfidy and violence, folly and bigotry and intolerance, he has presented a rare and happy example, which I admire, of an enlightened and cultivated mind supporting the great principles of the British Constitution with discriminating zeal, constancy of purpose, and moderation of temper. I beg that you will do me the favour when you write to him to present my most affectionate and respectful regards.

I perceive that Mr. Secretary Harrison alludes to the possibility of my returning to Canada. I cannot fail to feel, as long as I live, a deep interest in that country, and the most ardent wishes for its prosperity. But I have formed no plans for a change of residence. A constant attention to my business, which is necessary for the support of my family, has left me no time to form plans.

With a gratified sense of your kindness and with great regard and affection, your friend,

Marshall S. Bidwell.

To this letter from Mr. Bidwell, Hon. Robert Baldwin replied on the 12th August, as follows:--

I have, believe me, great pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your letter, as well on account of its relieving me, to a certain extent at least, from apprehensions that Mrs. Bidwell's health was the cause of your silence.

I cannot, however, conceal my disappointment at the last paragraph of your letter, in which, though you do not altogether shut out the hope of our having you again amongst us.... The obligations in regard to Mrs. Bidwell's health which you wrote (as precluding such consideration for the present) are, however, too sacred for even friendship to venture upon more than a repetition of those assurances, which my former letter contained, of the feelings of affection entertained towards you in this country, and the satisfaction which your return would afford. I, however, find it impossible to do otherwise than indulge in the pleasing anticipation of again seeing you amongst us, not as a mere visitor, but as once more a Canadian, in fact as well as in feeling. We have not, and certainly for the generation to which we belong, shall not, have any subjects of equal importance, in a pecuniary point of view, to those which seek the aid, and reward the exertion, of your professional talents where you are. It seems, therefore, to partake somewhat of selfishness to wish to withdraw you from an arena worthy of your great talents, to appropriate those talents to a sphere so much more limited. Be that as it may, I will indulge the hope, so long as you do not forbid it. In the meantime, could you not take a leave of absence for a few weeks during the coming Autumn Assizes, and amuse yourself with holding some briefs on some of them here? We have now five Circuits--the Eastern, Midland, Home, Niagara, and Western. Mr. Justice Jones takes the Eastern, Mr. Justice McLean the Midland, the Chief Justice the Niagara, and Mr. Justice Hagerman the Western. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see you thus renew your relations with our bar; even if you should not do so with a view to a final return to it. Let me know soon, in a post or two, if possible, as well as the circuit you mean to go on.... Now as I have gone on with this scheme, I find myself grow warm on it, so do not throw cold water upon it by a negative.

If I could do so with any propriety, I would avail myself of your kind invitation to visit you at New York for the purpose, not only of seeing you, but of urging this my suit in person. But I assure you it is out of my power to do so. Parliament is called for 2nd September, and I shall not have a moment's leisure from this time till the Session is over. You must recollect that, as a Parliament man, I am comparatively but a young hand, and I have to try and make up for want of experience by hard work; though I find it by no means a sufficient substitute.

I complied in substance with your request to make your acknowledgements to His Excellency for the answer, which by his direction, Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to my letter; but lest I should do so less appropriately than I ought, I took the liberty of letting you speak for yourself, by showing His Excellency your letter.

Your opinions of the Governor-General and of Sir Robert Peel entirely agree with my own. But I regret to say that some of our friends, and of our firm friends too, seem to me to forget what has been accomplished because everything is not done at once, or, because some things are done not exactly as they would have them. This impatience is much to be regretted. If I were one whom it was necessary to keep up to the mark, as it may be called, it might be excusable, but they do not even profess to think that to be the case as respects the points in question. Their display of dissatisfaction, therefore, has only the effect of lessening the weight of the party in Upper Canada in the eyes of both the Head of the government here and the Imperial authorities at home. But I did not mean to make this a letter of complaint; but the fact is, I am just now smarting under an ebullition of violence on the part of our friends in Toronto, on the subject of Mr. Stanton's appointment to the Collectorship there, which almost involuntarily led me into these remarks. You will, I hope, excuse me.

My dear father, I am happy to say, appears by his last letters to be rather better. I fear much, however, that the improvement cannot be considered of a permanent character. As the Governor-General kept your letter till yesterday, I was only able to send it up to him to-day. It will, I am sure, afford him much gratification.

I hope you will excuse the length of this epistle, and rebuke me by the shortness of your reply, which need contain no more than six words, to wit: "I will ride the circuit." I believe "ride" is the professional term; at least used to be so, though it may belong to the era of Mr. Justice Twisden, if not a still more remote one, rather than at present.... You see how inclined I am to run on, so that lest I should transgress beyond endurance, I will conclude at once, with the assurance of my warm and continued regard. Ever your affectionate friend,

R. B.

Chapter XXXIX

1844.

Events Preceding the Defence of Lord Metcalfe.

The defence of Lord Metcalfe, the Governor-General of Canada, who succeeded Sir Charles Bagot in 1843, was unquestionably the most memorable act of Dr. Ryerson's long and eventful life.

His previous training for twenty years in the school of controversy in relation to civil and religious rights; his personal intercourse with leading statesmen in England on Canadian affairs; his contests for denominational equality with successive Governors in Upper Canada, and his counsels and suggestions, (offered at their request), to such notable representatives of Royalty in Canada as Lord Durham, Lord Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot, and Sir Charles Metcalfe, put it beyond the power of even the most captious to question the pre-eminent qualifications of Dr. Ryerson to discuss, in a practical and intelligent manner, the then unsettled question of responsible government as against the prerogative--a question which had arisen between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors. In the chapter which Dr. Ryerson had prepared for this part of the Story of his Life, he thus refers to his intercourse with, and relations to, the distinguished Governors whom I have mentioned. He said:--

In 1839 a Royal Commission was issued to Lord Durham to investigate the affairs of Canada, and report thereon to Her Majesty. While engaged in his important duty he sent for and conferred with me repeatedly, and treated me with such consideration, as that on leaving him he would accompany me to the door and open it for me, shaking hands with me most cordially. After his return to England he sent me a copy of his famous Report (addressed by himself) before it was laid on the table of the House of Lords. On receiving in advance this report of Lord Durham I published in the Guardian, with appropriate headings, extracts from that part of it which related to the establishment of responsible government and its administration in Canada, and then lent the extracts and the type on which they were printed to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Francis Hincks for insertion in the Examiner newspaper, of which he was at that time proprietor and Editor. I afterwards aided Lord Sydenham in every way in my power to allay the party passions and animosities of the past, and to establish responsible government upon liberal principles, irrespective of past party distinctions, comprehending Hon. W. H. Draper and Hon. Robert Baldwin in the same administration--a union or coalition which did not long survive the life of Lord Sydenham--Mr. Baldwin declaring his want of confidence in Mr. Draper, and retiring from the government. Soon afterwards, Mr. Baldwin and his friends succeeded to power under Sir Charles Bagot.

This was the state of things until 1843, when Sir Charles Bagot died, and Sir Charles Metcalfe was appointed to succeed him. I had the melancholy pleasure of offering a tribute (in the form of an obituary notice) to the character and administration of both Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot--papers much noticed and widely circulated at the time as the best specimens of any writing which had ever appeared; but I had a genial theme and good subjects in both cases. Sir Charles Metcalfe was popular with all parties at first: but after a few months a difference arose between him and his Councillors as to the appointment of the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Lanark, and then on the principle of appointments to office; or in other words, the exercise of the patronage of the Crown.

To understand the character of this famous and much misrepresented controversy, and how I became involved in it, some preliminary and explanatory remarks are necessary:--

It is to be observed in the first place, that one chief subject of complaint by "Reformers" for many years--nay from the beginning--was the partial exercise of the patronage of the Crown, appointing magistrates, officers of militia, judges, etc., from men of one party only, in whose behalf every kind of executive favour was bestowed for years. This was the purport of their complaints in the various petitions and addresses of "Reformers" to the Earl of Durham, Lord Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot, etc., who necessarily promised that the Governments should henceforth be conducted upon the principles of justice, "according to the well understood wishes of the people," of whom "Reformers" claimed to contribute a large majority, and even of the liberal Conservative members of the Church of England. But singular to say, on the occurrence of the first vacancy, the Reform government urged upon Sir Charles Metcalfe the appointment of one of their own party, irrespective of the superior claims, as the Governor conceived (on the ground of service, experience and fitness), of a deserving widow and her orphan son. The circumstances were as follows:--

Amongst the early gentlemen immigrants in the County of Lanark was a Mr. Powell, a man of wealth and education; but in attempting to clear and cultivate a farm in a new country, he soon expended his means and became reduced in circumstances. He was appointed Clerk of the Peace, and discharged its duties for many years, when he sickened and died. During the two years' sickness which preceded his death, the duties of office were discharged satisfactorily by his son, who was then about twenty or twenty-one years of age. On the death of her husband, the Widow Powell proceeded to Kingston to plead in person before Sir Charles Metcalfe for the appointment of her son to the office vacated by the death of her husband, and as the only means of supporting herself and family. One can easily conceive the effect of such an appeal upon Sir Charles Metcalfe's benevolent feelings. He declined the advice of his Councillors for a party appointment, and determined to appoint the widow's son to the office rendered vacant by the death of her husband, and one which he had successfully discharged for nearly two years. The Council, instead of resigning on the fact of the appointment, sought to obtain from Sir Charles Metcalfe a promise that he would henceforth act upon their advice. He said he would always receive and consider their advice, but would give no promise on the part of the Crown as to how far he would pledge the prerogative in advance and act upon that advice. On this the Councillors resigned, charging Sir Charles Metcalfe with violating the principles of responsible government. This he positively denied. The circumstances of the case were so mystified by the statements made, that general prejudice was excited against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and the Councillors seemed for the time to have the country at their backs.[121]

I was at that time President of Victoria College; and the late Hon. Wm. Hamilton Merritt, returning from Kingston at the sudden close of the Session of Parliament held there, stopped the stage in front of the College, called to see me, and asked me what I thought of the occurrences between the Governor-General and his Councillors. I told him that, from what I had heard, my sympathies were with the Councillors. He answered that I was mistaken; that the Councillors were clearly in the wrong; that they had made a great mistake, and were endangering principles of government for which he had so long contended. He then stated the particulars of what had transpired, and referred me, in confirmation of his statement, to the documents and correspondence which would all be printed in a few days. I replied, that if what he (Mr. Merritt) stated was correct, Sir Charles Metcalfe was an injured man, and that the new system of responsible government was likely to be applied in a way contrary to what had always been professed by its advocates. Mr. Merritt requested me to examine for myself the documents and correspondence to which he had referred, but enjoining secresy as to his conversation with me--and which I never mentioned to any human being during his life.

After Mr. Merritt returned to St. Catharines he wrote to Dr. Ryerson early in January, 1844 on the subject, as follows:--

There can be little doubt that both the Governor and his late administration have erred. A conciliatory spirit would have avoided this crisis; they had an opportunity of placing this Province in a most enviable situation--they have neglected, or did not possess the ability to avail themselves of it; and I am sorry to say, that I am neither satisfied with their measures, nor can I place confidence in their judgment. At the same time I feel so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of having under the control of our Legislature the entire management of our internal concerns--without which any attempt at a thorough reformation would be useless--that I have my apprehensions, that any movement which would have a tendency to check its onward progress, would be injurious--the principle does not appear to be fully understood, or fully conceded. The time has not arrived--nevertheless I feel satisfied the Governor-General would admit it, and act fully up to it with any Cabinet which possessed his confidence, and thus bring it into action much earlier than persisting in the opposite course. On the other hand, you are subject to the imputation of abandoning men who resigned for the maintenance of that principle, and few can doubt the honesty of purpose of Lafontaine and Baldwin.

Being thus placed on the horns of a dilemma, the wisest plan is, perhaps, to let matters take their course--at all events I have made up my mind to do so. I should be most happy to hear from you on the subject, knowing you have given those subjects much attention; and believing that your mind is devoted to promoting the best interests of your fellow countrymen, your opinions are received with attention, and always carry great weight with me.

To this letter from Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson replied on the 20th January, 1844, as follows:--

After you called upon me, I turned my attention to the state of our public affairs, and reflected on them from various points of view. I concluded to state my views to His Excellency, if he requested me to do so, and also to Hon. S. B. Harrison, if I should see him.

Dr. Ryerson having gone to Kingston at the request of Sir Charles Metcalfe, saw Mr. Harrison, who urged him to state his views fully to the Governor-General. In the same letter to Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson said:--The next day, in compliance with His Excellency's expressed wish, I laid before him the result of my reflections on the present state of our affairs, in an interview of three hours and a half. In them His Excellency expressed his full concurrence, and thanked me cordially for the trouble I had taken to wait upon him and state at large what he considered of so much importance. In addition to the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson discussed with him the subject of the reconstruction of his Cabinet. The result he thus states in his letter to Mr. Merritt:--I cannot of course enter into every one of the subjects to which I referred in my conversation with the Governor-General. Mr. Harrison has doubtless written to you on the whole matter. The result was that Mr. Harrison will take office if you will.[122]

As to your superior qualifications for the position offered you, there can be but one opinion in the country. I am satisfied that, without the slightest sacrifice of principle or consistency--upon the broadest principles of responsible government, and in harmony with the best interests of the country--you can accept of office. I think that when the views I have expressed to His Excellency are fairly and fully stated to the country, you would, in office, have a large majority of at least the Upper Canada members of the present House of Assembly to support you; and, in case of a general election, I doubt not but you would have an ample majority in the new Parliament. Should you consent to take office, I think you need not fear the result. I think there is a fair opportunity for you to render a great service to the country, and to establish still more widely and permanently an already honourable reputation of no common order.

I shall be glad, at your earliest convenience, to learn the result of your deliberations. I should also be happy to see you, if you should soon proceed to Kingston. Whatever the Governor-General may have heretofore thought of either the theory or practice of responsible government, he is certainly right on the subject now. And when His Excellency avows what Sir F. Head denied, and offers everything that has been demanded, surely, as far as principles of government are concerned, the country wants, and ought to have, no more. I think it will be a fearful calamity to the country, if we drive Sir Charles Metcalfe away from us. I doubt whether England can produce his like for Canada.

To this letter Mr. Merritt replied, on the 25th January:--

I regret to say that my own private affairs, arising from circumstances which have occurred since I saw you, prevent my assuming any situation under the Government which must necessarily occupy my undivided attention. I have heard from and replied to Mr. Harrison to the same effect. No person can more regret the unfortunate position in which we are placed than I do, and I agree with you that the loss of Sir Charles Metcalfe will be a public calamity. I have no doubt he will honestly carry out the principles of responsible government, and with a competent council, who understand what the country requires, and with competent individuals to carry those measures into effect, he would render more essential service to Canada than any former Governor whatever.

I am under some apprehension that you mistake the feelings of the majority of Upper Canada members. A mere majority would ensure defeat; they must act in a body to give a majority in the present House; and from recent indications, there appears to be a change in the minds of those who were under very different impressions some time since. Although I was under a different impression some time since, I cannot see any chances of a new ministry being sustained, unless by a dissolution. 1. A majority seems indispensable to secure which the Reformers of Upper Canada must unite--and every Conservative must support them also;--the first cannot be relied on, therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the second. Most of the present members will feel themselves committed by their recent vote; they will all be pressing for a new election; and shape their course to the prevailing opinions. No ministry can have time to bring their measures before the public to produce any general impression; and no ministry can have confidence in the ultimate success of the wisest measures. In short, they will have no chance to exercise their ability, with a view of commanding success. Whereas, were a new election to take place (on the declaration by the Governor-General, that from the difficulty he experienced in making up a ministry which would command a majority of the present House, in conformity to the principles he avowed), the Governor-General could appeal to the people to return a representation from which he could select a Council possessing their confidence. Such an appeal would not be inconsistent with his former declarations, which must have been predicated on his obtaining a Council which would command a majority. Under such circumstances members would feel very naturally a much greater anxiety in sustaining any ministry with a chance of four years to test their measures, than as many days, as in the present instance. As far as I am individually concerned, even in that case, I could not accept of office unless I succeeded in arranging my own personal concerns, which I hope to effect during the season.

I hear that in this district a strong feeling prevails in favour of the late ministry, who resigned, as they believe, to support the principle of responsible government; and they cannot understand that the Governor-General adheres to the same. This impression is natural; and it takes a long time to remove error. No man doubts the motives of Mr. Baldwin; none other of the administration is named, or possesses the least weight. I have not moved about or corresponded with a single member of the House, and I shall remain as passive as possible.

I fully agree with you, that with the present Governor-General a fair opportunity offers to carry out useful projects; nay more, I am sure that one half of the present revenue now wasted, could be saved (not less than L100,000) for useful objects; but I cannot at present assist in carrying it into effect, which you cannot regret more than I do.

In a note received from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 10th April, he gave Dr. Ryerson the reasons for the unexpected delay in the formation of a new Cabinet. Hon. S. B. Harrison had also written to him on the same subject, so far as he and the other proposed Upper Canada members were concerned. Mr. Higginson said:--

The formation of a permanent Council has been most vexatiously, but unavoidably, delayed, owing to the extraordinary timidity--I can call it by no more appropriate name--of our friends in Lower Canada--the most eligible of whom have hitherto shrunk from the responsibility they would incur by the acceptance of office. Hon. D. B. Viger, who is still in Montreal, and who ought from long experience, to have a good knowledge of his countrymen, expresses himself confident of the result, and is of opinion that the delay, of which we complain, produces good and strengthens His Excellency's position. It is very evident that it has a different effect in the West; and it is to be hoped that as soon as the Montreal election is over (of which, barring violence, Mr. Molson is certain) immediate steps will be taken to fill up the offices now vacant.

In reply to Mr. Higginson's note, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I do not think that much evil arises at the present time, even in Canada West, from delay. Could the vacancies be filled up two or three months ago, the government would have secured the support of thousands who have since swelled the ranks of the ex-Councillors. But the loss by delay was, I think, incurred to its full extent during the months of January, February, and March. The proceedings of the late meeting of the Leaguers in Toronto have doubtless added something to their strength. But some portions of these very proceedings will meet them in a way they little expect--not, to be sure, before a jury of twelve men, as did the nine months' proceeding of O'Connell and his associates, but before the jury of the whole country, and upon principles sanctioned by the Constitution and history of England, which, I believe more confidently than when I wrote last, will result in a triumphant acquittal and justification of the Vice-Regal defendant.

On the 23rd May, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson, as follows:--

You will be sorry to hear that Hon. Mr. Harrison has failed to make certain private arrangements which he so much hoped for, and that he has declined to take office. He is, therefore, unable to join the Cabinet.

FOOTNOTES:

[121] As an indication of outside opinion on this question, I insert the following note, written by Rev. Anson Green, on the 31st December, 1843, to Dr. Ryerson. Mr. Green said: I cannot see why the Executive Council should resign at the present time, for they stated in the House that both Mr. Stanton, Collector at Toronto, and the Speaker of the Legislative Council were appointed by their advice. I think they should have waited until His Excellency refused to ask or take their advice, and not force him to make pledges. In my opinion both parties have acted indiscreetly. I have reason to believe that a majority of the Reformers from Upper Canada, in Parliament, would be happy to support Hon S. B. Harrison, if he could form a ministry from the majority on the question at issue.Return to passage

[122] In regard to this proposal, Mr. Harrison wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the 17th of January, to say that he had an interview with the Governor-General, and that: His Excellency expressed himself favourably disposed upon all the points touched upon, and was willing to consider the means of carrying out the objects contemplated. It appears, therefore, to me, that the matter may be arranged if our friend Merritt can be persuaded to join. I have written to him in that view. Should that be the case, I am prepared, and a communication should be made to Hon. W. H. Draper, which I will make immediately upon hearing from you and Mr. Merritt. As Mr. Draper will be here by the latter end of this week, it would be better, on hearing from Mr. Merritt, that you should be here yourself.Return to passage

Chapter XL

1844.

Preliminary Correspondence on the Metcalfe Crisis.

With a view to a thorough understanding of the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his Councillors, the following statement by Dr. Ryerson is necessary:--

After the conversation with Hon. W. H. Merritt, in January, 1844, and after subsequent communications with him on the subject, I most carefully and minutely examined the documents and correspondence and other statements of parties, and was satisfied of the correctness of Mr. Merritt's statements and conclusion. The question then arose in my own mind, whether, after I had so much to do in the establishment of responsible government and was morally so largely responsible for it, I should silently witness its misapplication, and see a man stricken down for maintaining, as the representative of his Sovereign, what Reformers had maintained in all previous years--that the patronage of the Crown, like the administration of justice, should be administered impartially according to merit, without respect to religious sect, or political party.

Dr. Ryerson also states (26th February) that:--After a prolonged and interesting interview with the Governor-General, I addressed a letter to him on the subject of that interview. In it I said: In looking over what I have from time to time, during the last eight years, written on the best government for Canada, I find that I have invariably insisted upon precisely the same views which I expressed to your Excellency, and with a frequency and fulness that I had no recollection of when I was honoured with the late interviews by you. These views were then warmly responded to by that portion of the public for whom I wrote. I am, therefore, the more fully (if possible) convinced of their correctness and importance to the best interests of Canada, and that they will be sustained when properly brought before the public--at least in Western Canada.

In reply to a note from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 2nd March, Dr. Ryerson, on the 7th, addressed a reply of some length to His Excellency. In it he said:--

The aspect of things in Western Canada has clearly changed for the worse during the last two months--since my first interview with Your Excellency in January. The party of the opposition have become organized--organized under circumstances more formidable than I have ever witnessed in Canada. Their ranks and influence have been increased by numbers who, two months since, were neutral, and who could have been forthwith brought to the side of constitutional government. Private letters to me (on which I can rely) speak in a very different tone as to the state of public sentiment and feeling. Unless a change to a very considerable extent be affected in the public mind, I think a dissolution would rather strengthen than weaken the ex-Council party. I am confident I do not overrate their strength--and it is a dangerous, though common error, to underrate the strength of an adversary. They are likewise organizing their party, and exciting the public mind to such a degree as to prevent any sentiments or measures from the present administration from being regarded or entertained at all. Such being the case, I have felt that delay has been loss. Whether that loss can be repaired presents to my own mind a problem difficult of solution.

Speaking of his former relations with the Lieutenant-Governors of Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I love liberty, personal and public, as much as any man. I have written much in its defence; but as much as I love liberty, and as ultra liberal as some may have supposed me to be, I have always regarded an infringement of the prerogative of the Crown as a blow at the liberty of the subject, and have, in every instance, resisted and repelled it as such. I did so in support of Sir F. Head in 1836. I did so in support of Sir George Arthur, in the difficult and painful task of administering the criminal law after the insurrection of 1837. I did so in support of the Royal instructions and recommendations of which Lord Sydenham was the bearer and agent; but in each instance, after having been lauded without measure, I was abandoned, or pursued, without protection or mercy. Sir Francis Head took offence at certain communications which Rev. Dr. Alder and Rev. Peter Jones justly made to the Imperial Government respecting his treatment of the Indians, and swore that, "as he had put down the radicals, he would now put down the Methodists;" and the Bishop of Toronto avowed and rejoiced that, radicalism having been extinguished, "the Church" would and should be maintained inviolate in all its (assumed) rights and immunities. Sir George Arthur having got through his many difficulties (in the course of which he gave me many thanks) determined, when the Session of the Legislature came, not to split with the Bishop of Toronto; not to grant, under any circumstances, the Methodists more than a mouse's share of public aid, and none at all except as salaries for their clergy, actually employed. He embodied these views in resolutions, and employed Hon. R. B. Sullivan to advocate them in the Legislative Council.

It was with extreme reluctance that I could at all assent to the measure of Union of the Canadas. The agents of the London Wesleyan Committee vehemently opposed it, and wished me to write against it. I wished to remain neutral. Lord Sydenham most earnestly solicited my aid--promised a just measure on the clergy reserve question, and assured me against any hostility of the agents of the London Committee, of all the protection and assistance that the Government could give. He died,--and I have been left, without the slightest assistance or protection on the part of the Government, to meet alone the hostile proceedings and influence of the London Wesleyan Committee. In order to sustain myself in these reverses, and especially in the last, but most painful one, I have been compelled to put forth physical and intellectual efforts that I am absolutely incapable of repeating.

I have adverted--even at the expense of being tedious and egotistic--to these unpleasant details, that Your Excellency may fully understand and appreciate my present position, and my caution in embarking in another conflict without a reasonable hope that I will not be made a victim of abandonment and of oppression, after I have employed the utmost of my humble efforts in support of the principles of the constitution and prerogatives of the Crown.

In the present crisis, the Government must of course be first placed upon a strong foundation, and then must the youthful mind of Canada be instructed and moulded in the way I have had the honour of stating to Your Excellency, if this country is long to remain an appendage to the British Crown. The former, without the latter, will only be a partial and temporary remedy.

Anything like a tolerable defence of Your Excellency's position--anything approaching to an effective exposure of the proceedings of the late Council in their demands, the grounds of their resignation, their explanation, their tribunal of appeal, their variations of position, the principles and consequences involved in each step of their course, and the spirit and doctrines they now exhibit, appears to me to be a desideratum. They could be convicted out of their own mouths on every count of the charges they have brought against the Governor-General, and from the same source might evidence be adduced that they advocate sentiments and sanction proceedings which are unknown to the British Constitution, and which appertain only to an independent state. Yet, in place of exposition, and arguments and illustrations that would tell upon the public mind, we have nothing but puerile effusions, thread-bare assertions, and party criminations--nothing that would convince adversaries and make friends of enemies. Your Excellency's replies, and a few passages in the Montreal Gazette, and in a pamphlet which lately appeared in the Kingston Chronicle, are all that I have seen which are calculated to produce practical effect upon the public mind. Hon. D. B. Viger's pamphlet is too limited in its range of topics, and too speculative and refined to be effective upon any other than well-educated statesmen.

The desideratum required I would attempt to supply, and then devise measures, put forth publications, and employ efforts to direct the public mind into new channels of thinking, and furnish the youthful mind with instruction and materials for reading that would render this country British in domestic feeling, as I think it now is intentionally in loyalty. To do anything effectual toward the accomplishment of such a task, my position should be made as strong as possible. At best my qualifications for a work so difficult and varied are extremely limited, but more especially under present circumstances.

After weighing the matter carefully, and pondering (in comparing small things with great) upon the part which Bishop Burnet took in settling the disordered elements of British intellect after the revolution of 1688, I have resolved to do as he did--place my humble services at the disposal of my Sovereign--and in whatever situation Your Excellency is of opinion I can render most service to the government and the country under existing circumstances. I will hazard the enterprise, and stand or fall with the Governor-General in the present crisis, notwithstanding the increased cloudiness of our political atmosphere. I would rather aid as a private individual, and as an independent volunteer in the service of the Crown and country--as I have been on former occasions--than be placed in any official situation.

To this letter Dr. Ryerson received the following reply from Mr. Secretary Higginson, dated 12th March:--I am directed to convey to you the expression of the Governor-General's cordial thanks for the public spirited offer of your able and valuable services in the present crisis of public affairs; an offer which His Excellency accepts with a high degree of satisfaction, feeling confident that you will bring most efficient aid to the Government.

On March 18th Dr. Ryerson replied to this note from Mr. Higginson. He said:--I think there will be but little difficulty in disentangling the question from the perplexing confusion in which it has been involved, and placing it upon the true issue as to a government of party, or of justice. If, in elucidating and applying it, I can incorporate some of Lord Brougham's fulminations on the evil of party with my own conceptions, I may be able to add the occasional discharge of a cannon, or the bursting of a bombshell, to the running fire of ordinary musketry. Though I am no stranger to contests, I cannot divest myself of palpitations at the approach of an engagement. When once the fire has commenced, I feel but little concern except to keep cool and good-natured, and to have an ample supply of ammunition for all exigencies--satisfied of the righteousness of the cause and the government of an over-ruling Providence.

In February the Rev. John Ryerson wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the Metcalfe crisis, and said:--

While I believe that the late Executive Council, in the main, and in principle, was right, and Sir Charles wrong, yet I am very far from endorsing all that the Council did as right. I think that they should not have resigned when they did. I think they were guilty of a breach of trust in throwing up office in the midst of a session of Parliament, and when many important measures were pending. I think, as the "antagonism" which caused the resignation of the late Council existed before the Parliament was convened, that they should then have resigned, or remained in office until the prorogation....

You are not to suppose from these remarks that I have turned politician, or that I am intermeddling with things which do not belong to me. I have been endeavouring to attend to my appropriate work; and though continually pressed with questions, soliciting my opinions respecting passing events, I have said as little on all these matters as possible, and I am identified with no party. Indeed, the state of my health is such as to admonish me to think about other things than worldly politics, and I blush to think that I have written so much respecting them. Powerfully convincing reasoning, with truth on your side, might produce a great effect among our people; but at the present more than nine-tenths of them, in these western parts, are the supporters of the late Executive Council.

In reply to a letter from his brother John, asking his opinion on the pending dispute between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson wrote on April 3rd, and said:--

Of the general measures of the late Council I cordially approve. I cannot say so of their dispute with the Governor-General. Of the policy which he or they had pursued, I have nothing to say. In that they might have been right, and he wrong. But, according to British practice, they ought to have resigned on what he had done, and not on what he would not promise to do. If the Crown intended to do just as they desired the Governor-General to do, still the promise ought not to be given, nor ought it to have been asked. The moment a man promises to do a thing he ceases to be as free as he was before he made the promise. It is essential principle that in the British Constitution that the Crown should be free--should be undefined in its prerogative. The exercise in that prerogative may be checked in various ways; but to bind it by promises is to infringe its constitutional liberty. If the Queen were to bind herself by promise, or declaration, that she would not appoint any person contrary to Sir Robert Peel's advice, how could she refuse to make O'Connell a peer, or appoint him Lord Chancellor of England if Sir Robert were to insist upon it? How could she ever get clear of Sir Robert by differing with him on a question of policy, if she were to bind herself before-hand to act according to his advice? Would it not be virtually giving the regal power into his hands?

Dr. Ryerson then proceeded to illustrate the views which he held on this subject:--

I can find examples in English History since 1688, of British Sovereigns having done just as Sir Charles Metcalfe is alleged to have done; I can also find examples of ministers resigning on account of what such Sovereigns had done; but I can find no example of any minister resigning on account of what the Sovereign would not promise to do on the subject of consultation and possible appointments.

I have seen it alleged, that the Governor-General was not bound to act upon the advice of his Council, only to ask it before he made any appointment. But the Governor-General did take the advice of the Council, in regard to the appointments of the Clerks of the Peace, both in the Bathurst and Dalhousie districts. Yet he is blamed as much for not acting upon it as if he had acted without taking it. But in Mr. Hincks' writings, and in all the papers advocating the same sentiments, I observe that it is contended that the Governor-General should act upon, as well as take, the advice of his Council. If so, what is he but their amanuensis--the recorder of their decrees?--the office which Sir Charles Bagot sustained on account of his illness; but whose example, in such circumstances, can not be laid down as a general rule.

Responsible government was a mere theory with the late Council, or until they came into office under Sir Charles Bagot. They had thought and reasoned about it, but they had never acted upon it, until then; what they learned under the government of a sick and dying man was not adapted to make them perfect practitioners. So they were about as wise and as raw in the business practically, as was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had doubtless thought, and read, and reasoned upon the subject also. The unskilfulness of inexperience, with good intentions, seems to me to have been evinced in the whole proceeding.

Of course it was considered, on the impulse of the moment, good policy to take a stand upon the principle of responsible government, and not upon the propriety, or policy, of certain appointments. By taking the latter ground, all might be lost; by taking the former ground, all would be gained, and a great deal of glory too, in the course of a few days, or a few weeks at most. But it has turned out otherwise. The question of prerogative has been brought up--a constitutional and imperial question. As such the British Government have decided upon it.... It is now no longer a question between the late Councillors and Sir Charles Metcalfe, but between them and Her Majesty's Government. I see, therefore, nothing in prospect but a renewal of the scenes of 1837, and 1838, only on a larger scale. Whether the point contended for is worth that price, or will be even obtained at that price, is problematical. I see no alternative, unless some enlightening, healing agency interpose. I pray for the safety of our Zion and people, especially, while I implore Divine interposition in behalf of our beloved country.

I am no party man--I have never judged--I cannot judge questions according to party, but according to constitutional principles and history. On the first blush I was favourably impressed with the position and resignation of the late council; but when I came to examine their position, as I had done Hon. Mr. Draper's speech on the University question by the light of history (it being a new question), I came to the conclusions that I have stated above. I think the most general impression in the country, and perhaps amongst the members of our Church, is that which first struck my own mind; but I think it is contrary to the principles and practice of the British Constitution.

During one of his visits to Kingston, early in 1844, Dr. Ryerson called at the office of his old friend, Hon. J. H. Dunn (one of the late Councillors), who had desired to see him. Mr. Dunn was not in when he called. He therefore, on his return to Cobourg addressed him as follows:--My brother John told me that you had asked him what I thought of the late differences between the Governor-General and his Council. After all that I have read and learned, I think very much of them as I did of the differences between the late Lord Sydenham and Hon. Robert Baldwin. You then asked me (at the Lambton House) whether I approved of your remaining in office, or of Mr. Baldwin's resigning. You will recollect my reply, that I thought Mr. Baldwin ought to have waited until an actual difference arose between him and other members of the Council on some measure, or measures; and that he ought not to have resigned on account of an alleged want of confidence, or theoretical difference of opinion. So I think in the present case. After stating your views to Sir Charles Metcalfe, you ought to have waited until some act, or acts, had taken place in contravention of these views, and which act, or acts, you were not disposed to justify; or if you thought it your duty to resign, then it appears to me you should have resigned on some acts which had been performed, and which you would not justify, and on the policy involved in which you were prepared to appeal to the country. But to resign upon a conversation, and not upon specific administrative acts, appears to me to be without precedent. It has brought up the question of prerogative, the constitutional decision of which, rests of course, with the supreme tribunals of the Empire. I think Mr. Baldwin's conscientious theoretical rigidness has led to an error, praiseworthy in its motives, but not the less an error--an error which in private life would have attracted no attention, but in public life makes a great noise, and may lead to serious consequences. I could wish with all my heart that you were in your late office, which you have so long and so faithfully filled.

In a note to Dr. Ryerson, on various matters, dated April 10th, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson said:--

The Reform League in Toronto are making unusual exertions, and as you may have seen by their late resolutions, no longer conceal their real object, but in defiance of all their machinations, and they are not over scrupulous as to their means, truth and honesty of purpose, backed by loyal hearts and liberal measures, must and will prevail.

To this note Dr. Ryerson thus replied on the 12th April:--

I think the public feeling in Canada West is now stationary; or since the rumour of my appointment as Superintendent of Education (and how it got afloat I cannot imagine) is rather turning in favour of the Governor-General. The reason seems to be this: The opponents of His Excellency represent him as weak--as supported by nobody but a weak ultra-party. It has been alleged by both my friends and enemies, that whether the best or worst man in Canada, I have not hesitated to face in succession the united press and councils of each of the two ultra-parties in Canada, and succeeded in each instance to reduce them from a large majority to a small minority--deriving no advantage from the victories, except as some suppose, the pleasure of humbling my enemies. It is the impression of great numbers of persons, and to an extent and degree which has often amused me, that whatever cause I espouse, be it good or bad, will succeed; and that I never undertake a thing, however apparently impracticable, without a certainty of success. Though such a feeling increases the difficulty of every step of a man's career, it furnishes him with capital to begin with. My life having been bound up with the two great principles of constitutional monarchy on the one hand, and equal civil and religious principles in Canada on the other, all who really desire such a government, without regard to the domination of a party, ... seem to think the Governor-General will succeed if I have resolved to espouse his government....

From this state of mind in the case of many Reformers, and from what I have learned from other sources, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the efforts to inflame party spirit--to produce party blindness, and create party organizations--there is still a spirit of candour and enquiry (all I ask) amongst a large portion of the Liberal party which will furnish an ample fulcrum for a lever that will overthrow the enemy. I think that June will probably be the best time for the application of such a lever. The opposition can do nothing more at present. June is rather a leisure month for reading--the hay and wheat harvest will come on in July, August and September,--during which time agitators can do but little, and then I suppose will come the session of the Legislature. I hope to produce a vindication of His Excellency that will do no discredit to him, and shake, if not confound, his enemies, and exhibit such a platform of government as will appeal to every candid, common sense, sound British subject, best adapted to promote the best interests and greatest happiness of Canada....

To vindicate injured worth, either in high or humble life, has on different occasions, afforded me peculiar pleasure, and I contemplate, even as a pleasing task (though painful from the occasion) the purpose and opportunity of doing so in respect to so noble a subject and so good a cause as that with which His Excellency is identified. When the Government once assumes the attitude of strength, many who are now neutral, or perhaps professedly leaning to the apparently stronger party, will come over avowedly to the Crown. The timidity of the secret friends of the government in Lower Canada is an infirmity (I think of a majority of mankind) which requires as much pity as it deserves censure. All Greeks are not Spartans. Ten men seem to be made for work, where one is constituted for war. I have found it so in the hour of peril; when I have been left almost alone, though I found abundance of helping and co-operating friends as soon as the tide of victory began to turn in my favour. I think it will be so with the government in less than twelve months--at least in Upper Canada. The League organization in Toronto is the most formidable affair that has ever been formed in western Canada. I am told that its funds are large also,--several thousand pounds--but I think its power can be broken.

In a note to Dr. Ryerson from Mr. Higginson, dated 23rd of May, he said:--You will of course have seen the manifesto just hatched and brought forth by the League, jesuitically and cleverly enough put we must admit; it will no doubt be widely circulated, and it is very desirable that an antidote to the poison should be as extensively communicated to the people; and who in the province is so capable as yourself for such a task? If you would take up the arguments seriatim--you could prove their fallacy without much difficulty. The fabric being founded upon misapprehension and falsehood, must go with a run. I confess I long to see these ambitious party-men unmasked.

Chapter XLI

1844.

Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended against his Councillors

On the 27th May, 1844, Dr. Ryerson issued the first part of his memorable Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, not only against the attacks of his late Councillors, but also against those of the all-powerful League which had been formed against him on the 24th March, under the auspices of the Toronto Reform Association. The Manifesto of that famous League was dated on the 16th May. Its issue at once decided Dr. Ryerson to enter the lists in defence of Sir Charles, and the prefatory note to his rejoinder was written on the 27th May. From the introductory portion of it I make the following extract:--

Rev. Egerton Ryerson ... proposes ... to prove [from the] testimony of his late Advisers ... that His Excellency is entitled to the verdict of the country on every count of the indictment got up against him.

Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the people of Canada, as Themistocles said to the Athenians who were incensed against him, "Strike, but hear me!"

... If Leonidas,[123] with three hundred Spartans, could throw themselves into the Thermopylae of death for the salvation of their country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex, which, he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in calamities more serious than those which followed the events of 1837.

The following account of this memorable controversy was written by Dr. Ryerson himself. It has been slightly abridged and a few explanatory notes added:--

After much consideration, but without consulting any human being, I determined to enter the arena of public discussion to set forth and vindicate the true principles of responsible government, and to defend Sir Charles Metcalfe, as I had before defended Mr. Bidwell, from the unjust attacks made upon him; and I published an introductory paper avowing my purpose. My friends generally and the country at large were against me. My elder brother, John, a life-long Conservative, on first meeting me after the publication of that introductory paper, said, "Egerton, you have ruined yourself, for nine-tenths of the people are opposed to the Governor-General." I answered, "I know it; but I believe that nine-tenths of the people are mistaken, and that if they will read what I am about to write they will think as I do."

The contest was severe; the ablest and most meritorious public men in the province were arrayed on the opposite side; but I felt that truth and justice did not rest on numbers--that there was a public, as well as an individual, conscience, and to that conscience I appealed, supporting my appeal by reference to the past professions of Reformers, the best illustrations from Greek, Roman, and English history, and the authority of the best writers on constitutional government, and moral and political philosophy, and the highest interests, civil and social, of all classes of society in Upper Canada. For months I was certainly the "best abused man" in Canada; but I am not aware that I lost my temper, or evinced personal animosity (which I never felt), but wrote with all the clearness, energy, and fire that I could command.

The general elections took place in October, 1844, and in all Upper Canada (according to the Globe's own statement) only eight candidates were elected in opposition to Sir Charles Metcalfe! Such a result of a general election was never before, or since, witnessed in Upper Canada.

It has been alleged again and again, that Sir Charles Metcalfe was opposed to responsible government and that I supported him in it. The only pretext for this was, that in the contest with Sir Charles Metcalfe his opponents introduced party appointments as an essential element of responsible government, which they themselves had disavowed in previous years when advocating that system of government. The doctrine of making appointments according to party (however common now, with its degenerating influences) was then an innovation upon all previously professed doctrines of reformers, as I proved to a demonstration in my letters in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe.

Sir Francis Hincks, in an historical lecture delivered at Montreal, in 1877, has revived this charge against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has attempted to create the impression that there was a sort of conspiracy between the late Earl of Derby and Lord Metcalfe to extinguish responsible government in Canada. For such an insinuation there is not a shadow of reason, though the author may have thought so, from his strong personal feelings and former party views, as one of the actors in the struggle.

I was in England during the latter part of 1844 and 1845, when the Earl of Derby was Colonial Secretary, and had more than one conversation with him on Canadian affairs; and I know that the Earl of Derby had no more intention or desire to abolish responsible government in Canada than had Sir Francis Hincks himself. The Earl of Derby had, indeed, fears lest the party in power, under the new system, should act upon the narrow and prescriptive principles and spirit of the old tory party, and wished to see that with the new system an enlarged policy would extinguish the hatreds, as well as the proscriptions, of the past, and unite all classes in the good government and for the advancement of the country. This was the view of Lord Metcalfe; and this was the view advocated in my letters in his defence, which may be appealed to in proof that the essence of that contest was not responsible government, but as to whether or not the distribution of the patronage of the Crown should be dispensed upon the principles of party, or on those of justice and morality.

I may add an illustrative and curious incident on this subject:--On the passing of the Imperial Act for confederating the British North American Colonies into the Dominion of Canada, and its proclamation, I wrote and published an address to the people of Upper Canada in 1868, suggesting to them to forget the differences of the past, and the principles and spirit in which they should introduce the new system of government, and build up for themselves a united and prosperous nation. A few days after the publication of this address, I met in the street, an honourable gentleman, who had been one of the party opposed to Sir Charles Metcalfe, a member of a Liberal government, a life-long Reformer. He complimented me on my recent address to the people of Upper Canada; but added, "The great mistake of your life was the letters you wrote in defence of Lord Metcalfe." I answered, "Do you think so?" "Yes," said he, "that was the great mistake of your life." "And," said I, "you approve of my recent public address?" "Yes," he answered, "I think it is the best thing you ever wrote." "Well," said I, "do you know that that address with the exception of the introductory and concluding paragraphs, is a reproduction, word for word, of my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe, counselling my fellow-countrymen as to the principles and spirit in which they should act in carrying into effect the then new system of responsible government!" He exclaimed, "It cannot be! I have these letters." I said, "It can be; and it is so; and if you will compare my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe with my recent address, you will find that I have not omitted an illustration from Greek, or Roman, or English history, or an authority from standard writers, on political or moral science, or a petition or address from Reformers from the rebellion of 1837 to the establishment of responsible government under Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot in 1840-42; that I have not added to, or omitted, a word, but have repeated verbatim et literatim in 1868, in regard to confederate government, what I advised the people of Canada in 1844 in regard to responsible government." And now, I continued, "who has changed? you or I?" "Oh," he said, "circumstances alter cases." "Truly," I said, "circumstances alter cases; but circumstances don't change principles; I wrote on the principles and spirit of government irrespective of party." On such principles I have endeavoured to act throughout my more than half a century of public life--principles, the maintenance of which has sometimes brought me into collision with the leaders of one party, and sometimes in opposition to those of another party; but principles which I have found higher and stronger than party.

* * * * *

A day or two after the issue of Dr. Ryerson's first paper in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, Hon. Isaac Buchanan sent to him copies of letters which he had written to Hon. Joseph Howe, Halifax, and to Civil Secretary Higginson, Kingston, on the Metcalfe controversy. In this letter he said:--

It is with infinite pleasure that I see you have publicly come out to tell the truth as to politics and public men. The fact is, politics in a new country are either the essential principles of society or parish business. In both cases every man is interested, and to a less extent than in an old state of things, where in a hereditary educated class, there are natural guardians of the public virtue. Is it objectionable that clergymen interfere in the arrangement of detail for the happiness of the country? But it is, as I have always maintained, their most imperative duty to hold and express an opinion on constitutional politics. The priests in Lower Canada, from not doing so, permitted the rebellion of 1837. I, myself, care nothing, and never did care anything, for party politics in Canada; and, in my mind, the distinction has always been more marked between these and constitutional politics than I have been able to explain.

Dr. Ryerson did not attend the opening of Conference at Kingston, in June, 1844. Mr. Higginson wrote to him on the 12th to express his disappointment at not seeing him there, and added:--

Of your letters--your admirable letters--I only hear one opinion, that they are most powerful, unassailable; and this the opposition press appears to find them, for I can perceive no attempt to answer the convincing arguments adduced by you. They merely abuse you and impugn your motives: lying and misrepresentation are their favourite weapons.

You will have heard of the discovery of the Orange Plot, the conspiracy between Sir C. Metcalfe and Ogle R. Gowan to upset the Government!

We had a very satisfactory communication from Lord Stanley, by the last packet, entirely approving of the "dignified and temperate" conduct of the Governor, and assuring him of the strenuous support of Her Majesty's Government, in resisting the "unreasonable and exorbitant pretensions of the late Cabinet." Shall we see you again before we move to Montreal? Sir Charles goes to the Falls, and then returns to Kingston, which he leaves on the 20th for Montreal.

From Mr. Higginson Dr. Ryerson received the following interesting letter, dated Montreal, 20th July:--

As you will no doubt think it right, after you complete the series of your admirable and unanswerable letters, to expose the fallacy and falsehood with which Hon. R. B. Sullivan, as "Legion," endeavours to bolster up his arguments in reply to them, I think the enclosed precis of a conversation that took place between the leader of the French party in the late Council and myself, early in May last, will convince you that His Excellency did not write his despatch of the 23rd of that month, quoted in the debate by Lord Stanley, upon insufficient grounds, or in ignorance of the real sentiments and inclinations of his then advisers. Letter No. 5 of "Legion," in referring to this despatch, charges His Excellency with what he calls paraphrasing, or, in other words, misrepresentation, as no men in their senses could have made such demands as the late Council are stated to have urged. The words made use of by His Excellency are not theirs, it is true; but did not the opinions expressed by Mr. Lafontaine, their leader, bear out the assertion? I regret that Lord Stanley did not quote what followed. I have given the meaning, rather than the words, of the dictatorial Councillor; but I have not in the slightest degree exaggerated the substance of his discourse. I ought to add that the conversation originated in a rumour of His Excellency's intending to appoint a Provincial Aide-de-camp, of whom Mr. Lafontaine did not approve; and that, although addressed to me, I could only suppose that it was intended for the ears of His Excellency. You will, of course, not believe the newspaper statements of Sir Charles having sent for Mr. Lafontaine. Ever since our arrival here the French party have been urging that the only way of getting out of our difficulties is by allowing Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin to resume their places--as the French people believe that they cannot enjoy responsible government without them. To this His Excellency cannot consent. What the result may be is not quite clear; our future plans have been delayed by this negotiation, which, though still pending, must terminate in a day or two. I hope that under any circumstances we shall be able to meet the present Parliament, if not with a majority, at least with a strong minority.

The following is the Precis to which I refer:--

Mr. Lafontaine said: Your attempts to carry on the government on principles of conciliation must fail. Responsible government has been conceded, and when we lose our majority we are prepared to retire; to strengthen us we must have the entire confidence of the Governor-General exhibited most unequivocally--and also his patronage--to be bestowed exclusively on our political adherents. We feel that His Excellency has kept aloof from us. The opposition pronounce that his sentiments are with them. There must be some acts of his, some public declaration in favour of responsible government, and of confidence in the Cabinet, to convince them of their error. This has been studiously avoided. Charges have been brought against members of the Council, in addresses, and no notice given to them, viz.: Mr. B. was even mentioned by name, or at least by office, and will declare on the first day of the session that it is only as a member of responsible government that he for one would consent to act. If he supposed for a moment that Sir Charles could introduce a different system, he would resign. In fact, the Governor ought to stand in the same position towards his Cabinet as Her Majesty does. They cannot be prepared to defend his acts in Parliament if done without their advice--instance the case of the Collector of Customs' intended dismissal. No new-comers ought to be appointed to office. Declares his disinterestedness, as his party--i.e. the French Canadians--must carry the day. The Conservatives would be just as ready to join them as those that have--has no desire for office for office's sake. If the Governor does not take some steps to denounce and show his disapprobation of Orangeism, his not doing so will be construed into the reverse, and the system will extend, and bloodshed will follow. The other party will organize--and they would be great fools if they did not--no Orangemen to be included in Commissions of the Peace--no justice at present for Catholics in Upper Canada. A law for the suppression of illegal societies does exist, but very difficult to discover members of them and to execute the law. Conciliation is only an attempt to revert to the old system of government--viz: the will of the Governor. It must fail. Lord Stanley decidedly adverse to the Lower Canadians; does not forget their expunging one of his despatches from their journals--it was so impudent. Trusts the Home Government will accept the proposed civil list; they will never have so large a one offered again. In conclusion, Sir Charles Metcalfe's great reputation places him in an eminently favourable position for carrying out Sir Charles Bagot's policy, by which alone the Province can be satisfactorily governed. A declaration by Government to this effect would put a stop to political agitation which the opposition keep alive as long as they have the slightest hopes of office--all they care for. Let them know that the game was up, and all would go right, and many come round. The differences of religion in Upper Canada will always prevent amalgamation; you must make them all of the same, like ourselves in Lower Canada. French language clause in Union Bill must be expunged.

On the 26th July Dr. Ryerson replied to Mr. Higginson--

I shall make use of the enclosure Precis in substance when I come to reply to "Legion"--which will, of course, not be until he shall have got through his series.

The "Defence" of Sir Charles Metcalfe consisted of nine papers, in which the whole question at issue was fully discussed. In concluding the ninth, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I have written these papers ... as a man who has no temporal interest whatever, except in common with that of his native country--the field of his life's labours--the seat of his best affections--the home of his earthly hopes;--up to the present time I have never received one farthing of its revenue. I know something of the kinds and extent of the sacrifices which are involved in my thus coming before the public. If others have resigned office, I have declined it, and under circumstances very far less propitious than those under which the late Councillors stepped out.... I have no interest in the appointment of one set of men to office, or in the exclusion of any other man, or set of men, from office. I know but one chief end of civil government--the public good; and I have one rule of judging the acts and sentiments of all public men--their tendency to promote the public good.... I am as independent of Messrs. Viger, Draper and Daly, as I am of Messrs. Baldwin, Sullivan and Hincks.... I might appeal to more than one instance in which the authority and patronage of the Governor did not prevent me from defending the constitutional rights of my fellow-subjects and native country.... The independent and impartial judgment which I myself endeavour to exercise, I desire to see exercised by every man in Canada. I believe it comports best with constitutional safety, with civil liberty, with personal dignity, with public duty, with national greatness. With the politics of party--involving the confederacy, the enslavement, the selfishness, the exclusion, the trickery, the antipathies, the crimination of party, no good man ought to be identified.... With the politics of government--involving its objects, its principles, its balanced powers, its operations--even against the encroachments of any party--every British subject has much to do. Civil government, as St. Paul says, "is an ordinance of God." Every Christian ... is to see it not abused, or trampled under foot, or perverted to party or sectional purposes; but he is to seek its application to the beneficent ends for which it was designed by our common Creator and Governor. Such have been the ends for which the people of Canada have long sought its application; such have been the ends sought by the Governor-General.

Dr. Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Higginson (26th July) said:

I have now concluded my defence of His Excellency against the attacks of his late councillors. I have done the best I could. As to its influence upon the public mind, I am, of course, not responsible. I cannot compel persons to read, think, or reason, however I may do so for them. In some places, I am told, a most essential change has taken place in the public mind, in consequence of the perusal of my letters. In other places, passion has prevented the perusal of them, and numbers of persons have just become calm enough to desire to peruse them, and are anxiously waiting for the pamphlet edition.

I have not yet heard of any one who has read them all, who has not become convinced of the correctness of my reasoning. But it is the opinion of persons who have far better means of judging than I have, that the effect of them the next two months will be much greater than during the last two months. The violent feelings which the whole party of the Leaguers sought to excite against myself have, to a great extent, subsided, and a spirit of inquiry and reflection is returning to the public mind. I believe nothing has been done to circulate my articles among the mass of the people--beyond the ordinary newspaper agency. I believe that were my ninth number itself printed and widely circulated in Upper Canada in tract form, it would prepare the way for the success of a just administration, consisting of any persons whom His Excellency might select--at least so far as the great majority of the people of Western Canada is concerned. I think the decision of the Imperial Government on the whole question should be laid before the Legislature in a despatch. The matter would be thus brought to a single issue, and I doubt not but the prerogative would be placed upon the true foundation.

To proceed again to legislation, without a distinct settlement of this question, appears to me derogatory to the dignity of the Crown itself (both in England and Canada) and unsafe in every respect; and unjust to both His Excellency and to all who have supported him. I think also that the Hon. Mr. Draper ought (if necessary) to be supported as strongly as ever George III. supported Mr. Pitt. Mr. Draper has thrown himself into the breach, and defended and supported the Government in no less than three emergencies, when others have abandoned, and even sought to overthrow it. I think that Mr. Draper ought not to be made a sacrifice, without an appeal to the people. Much prejudice and passion have, of course, been excited by the Leaguers since last January, and they have formed a regular and extensive organization; but a reaction has already commenced; the backbone of their power is broken. They can form branches, associations, and threaten us as they did a few months ago; but not a few amongst themselves are wavering. If the Government will act with liberality and energy, and the Home Government transmit an official decision on the question at issue, to be first submitted to the Legislature and then to the people, I believe His Excellency's exertions will be crowned with a glorious victory, to his own credit, the honour of the British Crown, the strengthening of our connection with the Mother Country, and the great future benefit of Canada.

As to myself: when I commenced this discussion I did not know what might be my own fate in respect to it. I wished, at least, to do my duty to my family; to quiet their apprehension, and not embarrass and distrust my own mind, while undertaking a task of so great magnitude.

In regard to the past: I have completed my task to the best of my humble ability. The satisfaction of having done my duty is all the acknowledgment or commendation I desire, or can receive. With my present experience, I might perform the task in a manner more worthy of the subject, and more to my own satisfaction. I hope, however, an occasion for such a discussion may not occur again in Canada. The hostile personal feelings excited against me in some quarters will, I hope, be lived down in time. The disclosures which have been made of the alleged sins of my public, and even private life, have not, I trust, brought to light one dishonourable act, one republican or unconstitutional sentiment, even under the severest provocations, and grossest abuse.

Dr. Ryerson had written to the Governor-General early in August on several matters. He received a reply from Mr. Secretary Higginson on the 15th of that month. In it he says:--

The Governor-General looks forward to the pleasure of seeing you soon, when he will have an opportunity of personally expressing his warmest thanks for your admirable and unanswerable letters in defence of the Queen's Government. His Excellency feels very much indebted to you for the zeal and ability that enabled you to perform, in so truly an efficient manner, the arduous task which your patriotism and public spirit induced you to undertake. Upon other important subjects adverted to in your letter, His Excellency will be very happy to have personal communication with you when you come down. Our object now is to complete the Council, as far as may be practicable, without the body of the French party, who doggedly refused to take part in any Administration of which Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin are not members. Mr. William Smith, of the Montreal Bar, accepts the Attorney-Generalship, for the duties of which he is said to be well qualified. He is a Liberal in politics, and has always been looked on as a friend of the French party. The Hon. Mr. Morris is willing to take the Receiver-Generalship, and I hope that Mr. W. H. Merritt will now find himself at liberty to join the Council. The Crown Lands Department will still remain unfilled; and perhaps it is well that that door should be still kept open.

Mr. Billa [now Hon. Senator] Flint, of Belleville, in a letter dated 14th August, in correcting an error in one of Dr. Ryerson's Metcalfe letters on a matter of fact, adds:--

I hope soon to read your pamphlet, but in not reading your letters heretofore, I have been enabled to answer the attacks of your enemies, not on the grounds of a consent, but upon other, and I trust better ground, that of not condemning a man unheard, as is the case in this part of the community, and as I have stated that you must be near right from the fact that your enemies dare not publish your productions.

With a view to aid Dr. Ryerson in his personal defence, Hon. Isaac Buchanan wrote to him on the 22nd August, and said:--

As I think you may feel called on to answer the personal attacks made upon you, or, at all events, to defend the ministerial character from those who deprive it of all manliness and independence, I send you Hetherington's "History of the Church of Scotland." On one page, and in the note referred to, you will find the methods and conduct of Knox explained. It will be the best, as well as the most truthful policy on your part, to show your agreement with this great character. The effect will be great, not only on the Methodist Scotch, but all other Scotch in the Colony, for we are all for national, instead of party, freedom; we prefer our country to our party.

It may be my fondness for my country; but I think no other country, or people, have ever shown that indomitable love of equal justice and rational, because national freedom, as opposed to party supremacy, as we have done in Scotland.

I feel sure that you may make some happy illustrations from Hetherington's History to enlighten the public on the present state of affairs, when we are about to be enthralled by party tyranny, and do much to revive the spirit:

"Ne'er will I quail with down-cast eye Beneath the frown of tyranny; In freedom I have lived, in freedom I will die."

The history of our Church is not only the history of Scotland, but the history of the world's freedom from the tyranny of men, or parties.

Dr. Ryerson had written to His Excellency in regard to the issue of his letters in a pamphlet with a full index. To this letter Mr. Higginson replied on the 19th August:--

I am desired by His Excellency to repeat his thanks for your continued exertions in support of Her Majesty's Government.

Your index to the pamphlet will be exceedingly useful. I should like very much to have the pamphlet translated into French, for the benefit of the Lower Canadians, and perhaps I shall be able to accomplish it. I should be obliged by your ordering a few hundred copies to be sent to me for distribution in the Eastern Townships.

FOOTNOTES:

[123] By a singular popular error, which this sentence may have suggested, it was stated and generally believed that the Defence of Lord Metcalfe by Dr. Ryerson was written and published under the nom de plume of "Leonidas."Return to passage

Chapter XLII

1844-1845.

After the Contest.--Reaction and Reconstruction.

Dr. Ryerson naturally took a deep interest in political affairs at this time, and Sir Charles Metcalfe kept him fully informed of events transpiring at the seat of Government. In a letter, dated 19th August, 1844, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson said to him:--

You will be glad to hear that Hon. D. B. Papineau accepts a seat in the Council. The Inspector-General and Solicitor-General of Lower Canada are the only offices unprovided for. As to Mr. W. H. Merritt, the state of his private affairs may operate in his case, as in that of Mr. Harrison. If it should prove so, the Hon. James Morris may be induced to join the Council, and a very worthy representative of the Upper Canada Constitutional Reformers he would be. Whether the present Parliament is to be met again, or to be dissolved, remains for discussion. Sir Charles inclines to meet them, and I think we can do with a majority, albeit a small one, to support the Government.

Mr. Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson, Sept. 8th, and said:

Dissolution or no dissolution, still undetermined. Thorburn declines office. We must have an Inspector-General, and from the Upper Canada Liberals. Where are we to find one fit for the duties?

Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter, on the 10th September, to Hon. W. H. Draper, in reply to Mr. Higginson's note--

I need scarcely say that I congratulate you most heartily on your formal appointment as Attorney-General, and on the important additions which have been made to your strength in the Council. Would not Mr. Scobie make a good Inspector-General? He is said to be a good financier. His private character, sound principles, and moderate feelings, are all that you could desire. After much reflection, and conversation with some judicious persons who have travelled more than I have throughout the country, and have better opportunities of forming an opinion than I have, I am inclined to think that you will gain much more than you can lose, by meeting the present Parliament, and declaring your views, and taking your stand upon the true principles of responsible government. I make these remarks, because I spoke rather in favour of a dissolution when I saw you last.

To this letter Hon. W. H. Draper replied, on the 17th:--

I acknowledge the force of your arguments against a dissolution, but at the same time it appears to me you have not weighed the arguments on the other side. These may be concisely stated. 1st. That the ensuing session will be one certainly preceding a general election, and therefore, one in which popular doctrines have their fullest force. 2nd. That members having committed themselves by the vote of last session would fear to retrace their steps and brave the charge of inconsistency at such a time. 3rd. That the ex-ministers would have an opportunity, which they would not neglect, of presenting a new question for the country. You have sickened them of the first question; they would like a second, better selected, if they could get it. For example, if they moved a committee to inquire how the Government has been administered during the last ten months, would they not be very likely to carry it? Information can do no harm; enquiry is a right of the House, etc., etc. Who would venture to oppose when the committee was granted? No business would be done till it had reported. Whatever the report--and if they got a majority on the committee, we may judge its character--their point would be gained, and they would have a new issue to try before the country; a new topic of inflammatory harangue, and studious misrepresentation. Whether this would be their move I cannot say, but they would do something tending to a similar end. The experience of 1836 will teach them not to make a dead set against doing business, or granting supplies, etc. They will make that a consequence, and if possible force the Government to a dissolution, thus casting the onus of doing no public business on the Government. Again, although not meeting the present House may be considered as an admission of inferiority there, I think this less injurious than that the new Administration should be beaten there; and I cannot in any way anticipate a different result. After going over the list in every way I see no just ground for hoping for victory there. Again, of those in whom we might place some hope of a vote in a crisis, there are some who will not be in their places. Col. Prince certainly will not, and I doubt much if Hon. W. H. Merritt, or Mr. Thorburn can. Does no other Upper Canadian Reformer suggest himself? I confess that I am at a great loss. Neither Harrison nor Merritt can take office, as they say, because of their private affairs. Hon. James Morris has given up politics. I have not failed to note your observation respecting Mr. Scobie, and have brought the matter before the Council.

To this letter Dr. Ryerson replied on the 19th September:--

You will observe that my remarks had reference almost exclusively to the best means of augmenting the elective suffrage in favour of the Government. The facilities for circulating knowledge amongst the mass of the people are so very imperfect, that it takes a long time, and great exertions, even out of the ordinary channel, to inform the great body of the people on any subject.

In the present instance, the Tory party, although they approve of my letters, do not take pains to circulate them gratuitously. It is amongst the persons opposed to the Governor-General, that the reading of them is the most important. That class of persons cannot be supposed to be very solicitous to procure publications against their own sentiments and feelings, although they--at least very many of them--would readily read them if they were put into their hands. I have scarcely heard of an individual who has read all my letters who does not adopt the sentiments of them--how strong soever his feelings might be against the Governor-General. It was with a view, therefore, of gaining over to the Government a larger portion of the electors, that I proposed delay, and the intermediate means of fully informing the public mind.

From the considerations which you assign, I do not see that you can do otherwise than dissolve the House. I can easily conceive how some persons can absent themselves from a short session, and thus weaken the Government more than others could strengthen it by their presence and support; and that popular movements may be devised to shift the question and embarrass you. You will probably not gain as many elections now as you would six months or three months hence; but what you may not gain in numbers you may gain in the moderation of new members, or in a new House; especially if you can reduce the majorities of opposition members who may be returned, and hold before them in a new House the possibility of a second dissolution.

Dr. Ryerson then sums up his suggestions as follows:--

The great question then is, How can you come before the country forthwith to the best advantage? I would take the liberty of offering the following suggestions, which have probably occurred to yourself, with others that I shall not mention: 1. Ought not the views of the Government, on the great questions, be put forth in some more authoritative, or formal and imposing way, than has yet been adopted? I know not whether it would be in order for the Governor-General to issue a proclamation in some such form as Lord Durham adopted, when he made his extraordinary appeal to the inhabitants of British North America. In such a document, whatever ought to be the form of its promulgation, the question and doctrine of responsible government should be stated with an explicitness that will leave the ex-Council party no room to cavil, or justify further resistance on that subject. You have this advantage, that you can state your case as you please, and as fully as you please, to the country. 2. Ought there not to be more effective means used than have yet been employed to circulate the refutations of the ex-Council's publications amongst their own supporters? Every one you gain from that side counts two, in more ways than one. And from what I have understood, I am persuaded the chief desideratum is to furnish them with the refutations of the attacks of the late Councillors. A proper improvement of means for nearly two months might accomplish a great deal, and would soon reduce them to a minority, in a large majority of the counties in Upper Canada.

On the 18th September, Mr. Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson:

The question of meeting the present Parliament, or of going to the people, has at last been decided in favour of the latter measure. There was so much to be said, pro and con, that it was a most difficult point to decide. If the Government could have reckoned with any degree of certainty upon a majority in the House, which they unfortunately could not, there would have been the strongest reasons, as your brother so forcibly put them, for not dissolving. Your suggestion to Hon. Mr. Draper as to Mr. Scobie filling the Inspector-Generalship, engages the attention of His Excellency and the Council. Can the gentleman referred to command a seat? I fear not.

They complain of a great want of information in the Colborne District. I mean Dr. Gilchrist's portion of it, where they see nothing but the Peterborough Chronicle. Mr. Hickson may be depended on as far as he can be of use in circulating some of your wholesome truths. As there will now be no opportunity of speaking to the people from the Throne previous to the elections, some other mode must be taken to ensure our not coming before the country upon a wrong issue, and such language used as the masses can readily comprehend. It is to the electors we must look for victory, and that Sir Charles Metcalfe will triumph I entertain no doubt.

In acknowledging an official letter to His Excellency, Mr. Higgins on (October 10th) informed Dr. Ryerson that he should receive an official reply through Mr. Daly. He then added:--

I doubt not that you will outlive all the abuse that foul-mouthed radicalism can heap upon you.

It is, as you know, impossible to calculate with any degree of certainty upon the results of the elections until the polls are tested; but, I think I may assert with safety that our prospects in Lower Canada are by no means so discouraging as our enemies, and, I believe, some of our friends, would make it appear. Of the latter, there is a class that stand still with their arms folded, fancying that there must be a majority against the Government, and that it will be taken by the Home authorities as an evidence of the impossibility of working responsible government.

In sending letters of introduction to friends in England, Hon. George Moffatt, of Montreal, wrote to Dr. Ryerson in October to say:--

As to the result of the Metcalfe contest, returns have been received from more than half of the constituencies in the two sections of the Province, and it is gratifying to find that the Governor-General is assured of having a good working majority in the Assembly. I have no fears about him, and my only anxiety now is that things may not be again grossly mismanaged at the Colonial Office. Unfortunately, however, Sir Charles Metcalfe's health is very precarious, and should he resign, it will be of the utmost importance that a statesman of ability and character should be sent out to succeed him.

I drew your attention to the ungrateful conduct of the returned exiles, generally; and if proof were wanting of the entire failure of the conciliation system in this section of the Province, it would only be necessary to refer to the active part taken by these men in the late contest.

Hon. Peter McGill, of Montreal, in his letter of introduction to Sir Randolph Routh, thus referred to Dr. Ryerson:--

The Rev. Egerton Ryerson, with whose name you, and every one connected with Canada, must be familiar, has recently been doing the State some service, by his eloquent writings in defence and vindication of Sir Charles Metcalfe's Government, and in support of law, order, and British Connection.

Having applied to His Excellency for letters of introduction to parties in England, Mr. Secretary Higginson writes:--

I have the pleasure to enclose an introduction from His Excellency to Lord Stanley, and letters to old friends of his and mine, Mr. Trevelyan, of the Treasury, and Mr. Mangles, M.P.

How nobly and strongly Upper Canada has come out! She will send us at least thirty good men and true, who will not be overawed by a French faction. From this section of the Province we shall have, on the lowest calculation, thirteen or fourteen, which gives us a majority of five or six to commence with, and that will doubtless increase.

From no one did Dr. Ryerson receive during the Metcalfe contest more faithful and loving counsel than from his old friend, Rev. George Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson had been a brave soldier before he entered the ministry, in 1816, and he was, up to the time of his death, in 1857, a valiant soldier of the cross. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, in September, 1844, he said:--

My esteemed friend, beloved brother, (and may I add) dear son: These epithets you know come from a warm heart; a heart of friendship, affection, and love, without dissimulation. If you have a friend in this little wicked and deceitful world it is George Ferguson. I have watched you in all your movements from first to last with great anxiety and deep concern. Your welfare and prosperity I have, do, and will rejoice in; and when you are touched in character, or otherwise, I feel it acutely. When I understood what you intended to undertake, and hearing the clamour among the people, I felt awful, not that I feared that any production or argument coming from your pen would be controverted successfully. I believe that your last production is unanswerable on logical, constitutional, and fair, honest principles, but I was afraid that it would not accomplish the end for which it was designed; for the people, generally, had run mad, formerly by the word "reform," and now they are insane by the word "responsible." I fear that the Governor will lose the elections in Canada West. Your pamphlet may, it is true, be a text book to the next Parliament, and keep them right from fear. I was not afraid that you had committed yourself with the Conference and the Church after all the fuss preachers and people made in this respect, (and I am of opinion many would have been glad of it) but I had my serious fears that it would injure your enjoyments in religion, and be a source of temptation that would cause you to leave the ministry. But I hope and pray that one who has stood against all the bribes, baits, and offers made to buy him, when but a boy, will be upheld. Oh! no, no; having Christ in the soul, walking with God, having secret communion and fellowship with the Deity continually, with your talents and qualifications what a treasure to the Church! and the good you would be made the happy instrument of doing! This is true honour, real dignity, true popularity, and eternal wealth. I would rather go to the grave with you dying well, than ever hear that my beloved Egerton was lost to the Church. But, my dear son, you have need to watch, to stand fast, to be strong, and acquit thyself as a man; to have an eye single to the glory of the Lord, to keep the munition, to watch the way. You never will be out of danger till you get to heaven. Be much in secret prayer and communion with your Maker. These simple truths come from a father in his 29th year of his ministry--one that is, in every sense of the word, superannuated, and one that will shortly be known no more.

* * * * *

Hon. R. B. Sullivan (under the nom de plume of "Legion") in a series of thirteen letters, with appendix, extending to 232 pages of a pamphlet, replied to Dr. Ryerson's Defence of Lord Metcalfe. These letters were afterwards reviewed by Dr. Ryerson in a series of ten letters, extending to 63 pages of a pamphlet. This review was in the form of a rejoinder, but in it no new principles of government were discussed. Dr. Ryerson's "Defence" proper, was originally published, as was his review of "Legion's" letters, in the British Colonist, then edited by the late Hugh Scobie, Esq. The Defence was afterwards published in pamphlet form, and extended to 186 pages.

Chapter XLIII

1841-1844.

Dr. Ryerson Appointed Superintendent of Education.

The alleged "reward" which Dr. Ryerson was positively asserted to have received from Lord Metcalfe for his memorable Defence of that nobleman, was long a favourite topic on which Dr. Ryerson's enemies loved to dilate. Beyond the fact that the appointment was finally made by the administration of Sir Charles Metcalfe, upon the recommendation of Hon. W. H. Draper, there was nothing on which to base the charge of such a quid pro quo having been received by Dr. Ryerson for his notable Defence of the Governor-General.

In point of fact, the appointment was first spoken of to Dr. Ryerson by Lord Sydenham himself, in the autumn of 1841. The particulars of that circumstance are mentioned in detail in a letter written by Dr. Ryerson to T. W. C. Murdoch, Esq., Private Secretary to Sir Charles Bagot, on the 14th January, 1842. Dr. Ryerson said:--

In the last interview with which I was honoured by [Lord Sydenham], he intimated that he thought I might be more usefully employed for this country than in my present limited sphere; and whether there was not some position in which I could more advantageously serve the country at large. I remarked that I could not resign my present official position in the Church, with the advocacy of whose interests I had been entrusted, until their final and satisfactory adjustment by the Government, as I might thereby be represented as having abandoned or sacrificed their interests; but that after such adjustment I should feel myself very differently situated, and free to do anything which might be beneficial to the country, and which involved no compromise of my professional character; that I knew of no such position likely to be at the disposal of the Government except the Superintendency of Common Schools (provided for in the Bill then before the Legislature), which office would afford the incumbent a most favorable opportunity, by his communications, preparation and recommendation of books for libraries, etc., to abolish differences and jealousies on minor points; to promote agreement on great principles and interests; to introduce the best kind of reading for the youth of the country; and the not onerous duties of which office would also afford him leisure to prepare publications calculated to teach the people at large to appreciate, upon high moral and social considerations, the institutions established amongst them; and to furnish, from time to time, such expositions of great principles and measures of the administration as would secure the proper appreciation and support of them on the part of the people at large. Lord Sydenham expressed himself as highly gratified at this expression of my views and feelings; but the passing of the Bill was then doubtful, although His Lordship expressed his determination to get it passed if possible, and give effect to what he had proposed to me, and which was then contemplated by him.

Apart from this statement of the intentions of Lord Sydenham, it is also clear that the determination of Sir Charles Metcalfe to appoint Dr. Ryerson to a position in which he could carry out a comprehensive scheme of Public School Education, in Upper Canada, was come to some time before the question of the difference between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors had engaged Dr. Ryerson's attention, and even at a time when his impressions on the subject were against the Governor-General. This conclusion was arrived at by Sir Charles Metcalfe, after full and frequent conversations with Dr. Ryerson on the subject of the University Bill. With a view to avail himself of Dr. Ryerson's knowledge and judgment on that subject, he directed his Private Secretary to address the following note to him on the 18th of December, 1843:--

One of the many important subjects that at present engages the attention of the Governor-General your Church is particularly interested in, and His Excellency is, therefore, desirous of having the benefit of your opinion upon it. I mean the consideration of the arrangements that are now necessary in consequence of the failure of the University Bill introduced last session. I beg to add that His Excellency will be happy to have some conversation with you on the question to which I allude, the first time you may visit this part of the province.

Not having been able to go at once to Kingston, Dr. Ryerson wrote to the Governor-General in regard to the University Bill. His Secretary replied early in January, saying:--

When it suits your convenience to come this way, His Excellency will have an opportunity of fully discussing the subject touched upon in your letter.

Dr. Ryerson soon afterwards went to Kingston and saw Sir Charles Metcalfe on the subject. In a letter written to Hon. W. H. Merritt shortly after this interview, Dr. Ryerson said:--

His Excellency's object in desiring me to wait upon him had reference to the University question, on which he intends, with the aid of Mr. Draper, etc., to have a measure brought into the Legislature, which I think will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. I took a day to consider the questions he had proposed. In the meantime I saw Mr. S. B. Harrison and stated to him the opinions I had formed. Of their correctness and importance, and practicability he seemed to be fully satisfied, and urged me to state them to His Excellency.

In a letter from Dr. Ryerson, published in the Guardian, and dated 28th October, 1843, the character of Mr. Baldwin's University Bill is thus described:--

It is a measure worthy of the most enlightened government; and is, I have reason to know, entirely the production of Hon. Attorney-General Baldwin.... In the discussion [on the University question] the authorities of Victoria College have taken no part. We have remained perfectly silent and neutral, not because we had no opinion as to the policy which has been recently pursued in converting a Provincial ministry into a Church of England one[124] ... because we, as a body, had more to lose than to gain by any proposed plan to remedy the abuse and evil complained of. As a body, we gain nothing by the University Bill, should it become a law; it only provides for the continuance of the small annual aid which the Parliament has already granted; whilst, of course, it takes away the University powers and privileges of Victoria College--making it a College of the University of Toronto. Our omission, therefore, from the Bill would be preferable, as far as we, as a party, are concerned, were it consistent with the general and important objects of the measure. But such an omission would destroy the very character and object of the Bill. As a Provincial measure, it cannot fail to confer unspeakable benefits upon the country. Viewing the measure in this light, the Board of Victoria College have consented to resign certain of their rights and privileges for the accomplishment of general objects so comprehensive and important.

In a written statement on this subject prepared by Dr. Ryerson for this volume he says:--

Towards the close of 1843, Sir Charles Metcalfe determined to prepare and give effect to a liberal measure on the University question--on which subject Hon. Robert Baldwin had proposed elaborate and comprehensive resolutions. Sir Charles Metcalfe sent for me to consult with me on the University question, as I was then connected with one of the colleges. I explained to His Excellency my views, and added that the educational condition of the country at large was deplorable, and should be considered in a system of public instruction, commencing with the Common School and terminating with the University; being connected and harmonious throughout, and equally embracing all classes without respect to religious sect or political party. Sir Charles was much impressed and pleased with my views, and expressed a wish that I could be induced to give them public effect.

Dr. Ryerson then goes on to say:--I remarked to Sir Charles that Lord Sydenham, a few days before his sudden death, had proposed the same thing to me, and that had he survived a few weeks, I would likely have been appointed, with a view of organizing a system of Elementary Education; but that as Lord Sydenham died suddenly, and as I scorned to be an applicant to Government for any office, I mentioned the fact to no member of the Government. In May, 1842, another gentleman was appointed Assistant to the Provincial Secretary as Superintendent of Education. He was treated as a clerk in the office of the Provincial Secretary, having no clerk himself, and having to submit his drafts of letters, etc., to the Provincial Secretary for approval. [For particulars of this appointment, see p. 347.]

After this interview Dr. Ryerson, on the 26th February, wrote to the Governor-General on the University Question. Mr. Secretary Higginson replied, and at the conclusion of his letter repeated the offer which Sir Charles Metcalfe had made at the close of the year:--The Governor-General is so sensible of the great value of the aid you would bring to the Government in the intellectual improvement of the country, that he anxiously hopes, as suggested, that some arrangement may be devised satisfactory to you to obtain your co-operation; and His Excellency will keep his mind bent on that object, and will be happy to hear any further suggestion from you with a view to its accomplishment.

Early in this month (February, 1844), Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent of Education has been talked of. His brother John wrote to him on the 6th of March, recalling the fact of that appointment having been the subject of conversation with Sir Charles Bagot and some members of the Cabinet in 1842. Rev. John Ryerson then went on to say:--

You know that when your appointment to the office of Superintendent of Education was talked of in Toronto, in 1842, I was in favour of your accepting the appointment. The appointment that was made I thought a most unwise one, and the late Executive greatly lowered themselves in making it. Whenever I have thought of the thing since, I have felt disgusted with the late Government, that they should have been guilty of such a shameful dereliction of duty and honour as not, at least, to have offered the appointment to you.

In reply to this letter, Dr. Ryerson said:--

As liberal as the Council of Sir Charles Bagot were in many things, they rejected the application of every Methodist candidate for office. Making appointments upon the principles of party, they must be given only to one of the party; a system of appointment which holds out a poor prospect to the Methodist who makes religion first, and party not more than second--especially when he may have as a rival candidate one who makes party everything, and religion nothing.

To this letter Rev. John Ryerson replied:--

I am very well pleased with the idea of your being appointed to the office of Superintendent of Education--an office for which, I think, you are better qualified than any other person in the Province, and an office in which you can be of more service to the Church, and the country generally, than in any other way.... You say the appointment is not political.... Yet, is it true, in point of fact, that the appointment is not political?... Would any person be continued in the office who would not support the Government for the time being?... Did not Lord Sydenham create this office for the very purpose of connecting the incumbent with the Government, and did he not have you in his mind's eye when he influenced this part of the enactment?... There is no doubt, however, that in case of the Baldwin Ministry again coming into power, the stool will be knocked from under you. And we should not forget that the success of the Governor-General, in carrying out his contemplated measures, respecting the University, Colleges, etc., depends upon the Parliament; and I have very little expectation of his being able to secure the support of the present Parliament, in connection with every other Ministry but the late ones; and what will be the result of another election, who can tell?

In corroboration of the foregoing statements, Hon. Isaac Buchanan, in a letter to the Editor of this volume dated 24th March, 1883, says:--

Being on the other side of the Atlantic from the fall of 1841 to that of 1843, I was not in circumstances to know to what extent the name of Dr. Ryerson was discussed prior to the appointment of Mr. Murray [in May, 1842]; but I cannot believe that the minds of many who knew him to be the fittest man, could have been otherwise than on Dr. Ryerson. On the contrary, I believe that nothing prevented him being gladly offered the originating of an educational system for Upper Canada--a Province which he knew so well and loved so much--but the most unworthy church prejudices of parties who had influence with the Government of the day, for it was known to be a herculean task which no one could do the same justice to as Dr. Ryerson, and which few men (however great as scholars themselves) could have carried through at all.

Thus from the foregoing statements of Dr. Ryerson, Rev. John Ryerson, and Hon. Isaac Buchanan, the following facts clearly appear:--

1. That Dr. Ryerson was offered the appointment of Superintendent of Education by Lord Sydenham in 1841, and "had he survived a few weeks [Dr. Ryerson] would likely have been appointed, with a view of organizing a system of Elementary Education" for Upper Canada.

2. That Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent was "the subject of conversation with Sir Charles Bagot and some members of his Cabinet in 1842."

3. That the failure to appoint Dr. Ryerson was due to the fact that the Cabinet of Sir Charles Bagot--the Governor himself being unable to act--"rejected," as Dr. Ryerson himself stated, "the application of every Methodist candidate for office;" or, as Hon. Isaac Buchanan states: "Nothing prevented [Dr. Ryerson] being gladly offered the originating of an educational system for Upper Canada, but the most unworthy church prejudices of parties who had influence with the Government of the day."

4. That the appointment of Dr. Ryerson by Sir Charles Metcalfe was due to the discussion on the comprehensive scheme of education which took place between Dr. Ryerson and Sir Charles Metcalfe, on the University question, late in 1843.

It may be proper to state that the appointment of Rev. Robert Murray in May, 1842, was a surprise to the public, as the Editor of this volume well remembers, and was, as Rev. John Ryerson states, "a most unwise one." Mr. Murray was a minister of the Church of Scotland at Oakville. He was chiefly known at the time as an anti-temperance writer[125]; but had never been known to have taken any special interest in education. He was intimate with Hon. S. B. Harrison, who owned mills at Bronte, a few miles west of Oakville, where Mr. Harrison resided for some years. To Mr. Harrison, the then leader of the Government, Mr. Murray was indebted, as was then understood, for the appointment.

Rev. John Ryerson having written to his brother Egerton, asking if the rumour of his appointment as Superintendent of Education was true, Dr. Ryerson replied, on the 3rd April:--

As to the appointment to which you allude, it is but a rumour. No appointment has yet been made. Should it take place, it will not require my removal from Cobourg. Whatever has been proposed to me on that subject, has been proposed with a view of giving body, form, practical character and efficiency, to a system of general education, upon these non-sectarian principles of equal justice which have characterized my life. Nothing political is involved in the appointment--although it was at first proposed to give me a seat in the Council! The education of the people has nothing to do with the dispute with Lord Metcalfe, of which you speak. I do not think it would become me to refuse to occupy the most splendid field of usefulness that could engage the energies of man, because of the dispute which has arisen.

On the 12th April, Dr. Ryerson replied to a letter from Mr. Secretary Higginson, in which he said:--

Dr. Bethune, the Editor of The Church, has indeed protested against my proposed appointment;[126] but I understand that a majority of the members of his own congregation at Cobourg approve of the appointment. Mr. Boswell, M.P.P., and Mr. Sheriff Rultan (the most influential churchmen in the District), have expressed themselves in favour of it in the strongest and warmest terms; as have Mr. Keefer, of Thorold (who is a magistrate of wealth, leisure and benevolence,--was foreman of the Grand Jury at the late assizes in the Niagara District, and has, at the request of the District Council, consented to superintend the schools in that district); also Dr. Beadle, who is an old resident, and I believe, an American Presbyterian.

Up to this time (April), Dr. Ryerson had decided to take no part in the controversy between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his Councillors, but to devote his energies to the great work of founding a system of education for his native country. Much to the surprise of his friends, and (as he says in his prefatory paper) "without consulting a human being," he felt that it was his duty--after the issue of the manifesto of the Toronto League--to relinquish the work assigned to him, and once more to take up his pen in defence of one whom he believed to be in the right, and yet who was left single-handed to meet the storm of popular clamour which had been excited against him by combined and powerful enemies. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, determined to decline the appointment offered to him, and to abide the issue of the impending contest in which he proposed to take a prominent part. In the opening remarks of this memorable "Defence," he said:--

I was about entering upon the peaceful work--a work extensive and varied beyond the powers of the most untiring and vigorous intellect--a work down to this time almost entirely neglected--of devising and constructing (by the concurrence of the people, through their District Councils) a fabric of Provincial common school education--of endeavouring to stud the land with appropriate school-houses--of supplying them with appropriate books and teachers--of raising a wretched employment to an honourable profession--of giving uniformity, simplicity, and efficiency to a general system of elementary educational instruction--of bringing appropriate books for the improvement of his profession within the reach of every school-master, and increased facilities for the attainment of his stipulated remuneration--of establishing a library in every district, and extending branches of it into every township--of striving to develop by writing and discourses, in towns, villages and neighbourhoods, the latent intellect, the most precious wealth of the country--and of leaving no effort unemployed within the limited range of my humble abilities, to make Western Canada what she is capable of being made, the brightest gem in the crown of Her Britannic Majesty. Such was the work about to be assigned to me; and such was the work I was resolving, in humble dependence upon the divine aid, to undertake; and no heart bounds more than mine with desire, and hope, and joy, at the prospect of seeing, at no distant day, every child of my native land in the school-going way; and every intellect provided with the appropriate elements of sustenance and enjoyment; and of witnessing one comprehensive and unique system of education, from the a, b, c, of the child, up to the matriculation of the youth into the Provincial University, which, like the vaulted arch of heaven, would exhibit an identity of character throughout, and present an aspect of equal benignity to every sect, and every party upon the broad basis of our common Christianity.

But I arrest myself from such a work--leave it perhaps for other hands, and the glory of its accomplishment to deck another's brow; and, if need be, to resign every other official situation; and, unsolicited, unadvised by any human being--inwardly impelled by a conviction of what is due to my Sovereign, to my country, to a fellow-man--I take up the pen of vindication, of reasoning, of warning and appeal, against criminations and proceedings of impending evil, which, if they be not checked and arrested, will accomplish more than the infamous ostracism of an Aristides, render every other effort to improve and elevate Canada abortive, and strew in wide-spread desolation over the land the ruins of the throne and its government.

From the date of Mr. Higginson's letter (12th April) until the 7th of September nothing was done in regard to the appointment of a Superintendent of Education. On the latter day, however, Mr. Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson as follows:--

We find a great difficulty in making a provisional arrangement for the Educational duties. The University authorities require the immediate services of a mathematical professor, and His Excellency proposes Mr. Murray for the office, which will, it is hoped, be a satisfactory arrangement to all parties; but Mr. Murray cannot hold both positions, even for a time. Under these circumstances it appears to be worthy of consideration, whether your appointment ought not to take place at once, which would not, of course, interfere with your projected visit to Europe in November, when it might be easier to make some proper temporary provision for the performance of your duties during your absence. His Excellency is aware that you were in favour of deferring your nomination until after your return from Europe; and if you should adhere to this opinion, you may, perhaps, be able to suggest some means of meeting the apparent difficulty.

On the 18th September, Mr. Higginson addressed another note to Dr. Ryerson, in reply to one from him, in which he said:

You will have learned from my last note that Sir Charles approved of all your suggestions, except the non-announcement of your appointment. As you see reason to alter your opinion on this point, the difficulty is removed, and you shall be gazetted in the last week of the month, as you propose. I wish, with you, that the College question could be settled in England, if we could only prevail on the contending parties to agree to a case of facts. This might be accomplished, and I am not without hope that some scheme may be devised to which no party will have just ground of objection. I shall write to you upon this subject as soon as anything is determined on.

At this point I resume the narrative which Dr. Ryerson had prepared for this volume in regard to his appointment:--In September, 1844, a vacancy occurred in the Professorship of Mathematics in the University of Toronto, by the resignation and return to England of Mr. Potter; and, as the gentleman who had been appointed to the Education branch of the Secretary's Office, was reputed to be an excellent mathematician, and had high testimonials of his qualification, he applied for the professorship; evidently feeling the anomalousness of his position, and his inability and powerlessness to establish a system of Public School Education.[127]

The Governor-General appointed him to the Mathematical Professorship, and formally offered the Education Office to me. I laid the official letter containing the offer before the executive authority (a large committee) of my Church, and was advised to accept it. But as I had determined to abide by the decision of the country as to the principles of its future government, on which I was then appealing to it, I determined not to accept of office until I should know the result of that appeal.

After the endorsement of my views by all the constituencies of Upper Canada, with eight exceptions, I felt no hesitation, in accepting an office which had been some months before offered to me. The draft of my official instructions, stating the scope and design of my appointment and of the task assigned to me, was written by myself, at the request of Mr. Secretary Daly, afterwards Governor in Australia.

During my connection with the Education Department--from 1844 to 1876--I made five educational tours of inspection and enquiry to educating countries in Europe and the United States. I made an official tour through each county in Upper Canada, once in every five years, to hold a County Convention of municipal councillors, clergy, school-trustees, teachers and local superintendents, and thus developed the School system as the result of repeated inquiries in foreign countries, and the freest consultation with my fellow-citizens of all classes, in the several County Conventions, as well as on many other occasions.

During the nearly thirty-two years of my administration of the Education Department, I met with strong opposition at first from individuals--some on personal, others on religious and political grounds; but that opposition was, for most part, partial and evanescent. During these years I had the support of each successive administration of Government, whether of one party or the other, and, at length, the co-operation of all religious persuasions; so that in 1876 I was allowed to retire, with the good-will of all political parties and religious denominations, and without diminution of my public means of subsistence.

I leave to Dr. J. George Hodgins, my devoted friend of over forty years, and my able colleague for over thirty of these years, the duty of filling up the details of our united labours in founding a system of education for my native Province which is spoken of in terms of strong commendation, not only within, but by people outside of the Dominion.

* * * * *

Note.--It is the purpose of the Editor of this book (in accordance with Dr. Ryerson's oft expressed wish) to prepare another volume, giving, from private letters, memoranda, and various documents, a personal history of the founding and vicissitudes of our educational system from 1844 to 1876 inclusive.

FOOTNOTES:

[124] The second resolution adopted by the Victoria College Board, on the 24th October, 1843, says:--the noble and comprehensive objects of the amended Charter have been entirely defeated; and the abrogated, sectarian Charter has been virtually restored, by the partial and exclusive manner in which appointments to that institution have been made, and its affairs managed; apart from the misappropriations of large portions of its funds.Return to passage

[125] In September, 1839, Rev. Robert Murray, of Oakville, published a series of lectures on "Absolute Abstinence." From a review of these lectures, by Dr. Ryerson in the Guardian of the 18th of that month, I make the following extracts:--Return to passage

We confess we have seldom read anything so illiberal and sweeping.... The principle of total abstinence is wholly repudiated, and temperance societies are forbidden an existence.... But such a work ... shall not by us be allowed to go forth without the accompaniment of our decided reprobation. This is not the day for encouragement to be given to the drunkard, nor this the time when a Minister of the Gospel is ... to fill the cup of death and present it to his fellows without an attempt being made to dash it to the ground.

The following extract from the second lecture, relating to the fulfilment of a certain prophecy in the book of Jeremiah, is given by Dr. Ryerson:--

"Many of you, I am persuaded, have witnessed this prophecy fulfilled to the very letter. Have you never seen young men making themselves cheerful with malt liquors, while the young maids were producing the same effect with the blood of the grape? Nor is there the slightest doubt on my mind, that the prophet hailed this event as a special manifestation of the great goodness of God."

It was in reference to the author of such opinions, and the advocate of such views, that Rev. John Ryerson used the language quoted on the preceding page.

[126] On the 19th October, 1844, Dr. Ryerson was appointed Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada. Of his appointment, Rev. Dr. Bethune, Editor of The Church, on the 25th October, said:--It was an impolitic and a heartless step, as regards the Church of England in this colony, to raise to the office of Superintendent an individual who has thriven upon his political obliquities, and who owes his fame, or rather his notoriety, to his unquenchable dislike to the National Church. In a moment of danger we can forget the injury; but it must not be thought that we shall sit quietly beneath the wrong.Return to passage

Rev. Dr. Bethune subsequently changed his opinion of Dr. Ryerson, and, when Bishop of Toronto, referred to him in some of his public utterances in very kind and complimentary terms.

[127] In regard to this appointment, the Hon. Isaac Buchanan, in a letter to the Editor of this volume, dated March, 1883, said:--I was one of the first to see the necessity of our getting Dr. Ryerson to take hold of our Educational system, and I shared the somewhat delicate duty of getting our esteemed friend, Rev. Robert Murray (whom we had got appointed Assistant-Superintendent of Education), to accept a professorship at the Toronto University, when Rev. Dr. Ryerson succeeded to the vacant post in 1844.Return to passage