Chapter LVI…

Chapter LVI

1855-1858.

Personal Episode in the Class-Meeting Discussion.

I have already referred to the character of the discussion which resulted in Dr. Ryerson's restoration to the Conference. In the heat of that discussion some things may have been said by Dr. Ryerson's friends which were not warranted by the terms of his letter of the 26th of May; or what was said may have been construed (designedly or otherwise) into an admission of assurance on Dr. Ryerson's part that he would cease to agitate the question, or that he would hold his opinions in abeyance.

The discussion on the Class-meeting question was the chief event in the proceedings of the Wesleyan Conference of 1855. Yet not the slightest reference to the subject, or to Dr. Ryerson's return to the Conference was made in the report of the proceedings which were published in the Guardian of the 13th and 20th of June in that year. It was not until some time after the adjournment of the Conference, and the departure of Dr. Ryerson for Europe, that the subject was mentioned in that paper, and what did appear was apparently an afterthought.[143]

After Dr. Ryerson had gone, an editorial appeared in the Guardian of the 27th of June from which the following is an extract:--

We did not notice in our summary account of the proceedings of the Conference the return of Dr. Ryerson to his former position with that body, but as erroneous statements have appeared in the paper respecting it we think proper to give the facts of the case.

A short time previous to the sitting of the Conference Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to the President, in which he stated that his views remained unaltered respecting the points of difference between himself and the Conference; he expressed a desire to resume his ministerial duties in the Church. The communication was accompanied with a verbal assurance that his own peculiar views on the questions at issue would be held in abeyance in deference to the determination of the Conference to maintain inviolate those parts of the Wesleyan Discipline to which his communication referred. This was the position in which the application of Dr. Ryerson was presented to the Conference, and, after a somewhat animated discussion on the subject, the resolution [for his re-admission] was adopted by nearly a two-thirds majority.

Immediately on the publication of this article, I sent it to Dr. Ryerson at Boston, where he was about to take the steamer for England. He at once replied to the Editor, and sent the letter to me for insertion in the Guardian. In his private note to me, dated 3rd July, he said:--

I think the Guardian's statement is the most shameful attack that was ever made upon me--one that I did not expect even from him--one that I would not have believed had I not seen it. What may be the end of this affair, I cannot yet see. But I am satisfied in my own conscience as to the course I have pursued, and as to my present duty. As to rescinding the clause of the Discipline relating to the exclusion of persons for not attending class-meetings, no determination was expressed to enforce it. On the contrary, it was declared to be a dead letter in many places. What I maintained was, that the practice and the rule should be in harmony. You will see what I have said to the Editor of the Guardian in a private note.

Remember me affectionately to all; and may Almighty God prosper you in your educational work during my absence.

The following is a copy of the private letter to Rev. J. Spencer, which accompanied Dr. Ryerson's reply to the editorial:

I was not a little surprised and pained at your unfair and unjust statement respecting me, and especially after what passed on my leaving the Conference, and your careful silence on the subject until I had left home, and would not therefore be likely to have it in my power to furnish an antidote until your injurious statement had accomplished its object as far as possible. But I am thankful that, through the prompt kindness of Mr. Hodgins, and by that means alone, I have been furnished with a copy of the Guardian in time to write a hasty reply before embarking for the other side of the Atlantic. I have requested Mr. Hodgins to take a copy of my communication to you, as I have not time to transcribe it. You can as easily command my letter to the President of the Conference as you did the resolution of the Conference. I ask for no indulgence or favour; I ask for nothing but truth and justice.

I will thank you to inform Mr. Hodgins as early as possible as to whether you intend to perpetuate the wrong you have done me, by refusing to insert my letter to the President of the Conference, and the note I have this evening addressed to you in reference to your statement. I wish Mr. Hodgins to inform me of the result by the next mail to England, and also to act otherwise by me as I would by him in like circumstances.[144]

Having got Dr. Ryerson's reply to the Guardian's attack of 27th June, inserted in the Toronto city papers, I wrote to him to that effect. His reply is dated, London (Eng.,) 3rd August:--I thank you sincerely for the pains you have taken in regard to my letter to the Guardian. I am thankful that, by your zeal and good management, the Methodist body, as well as the public at large, will have an opportunity of learning my own views from my own pen; but considering the intended course of the Guardian, and what he alleges to be the feelings of many others, I have great doubts whether I can be of any use to the Wesleyan body, or of much use to the interests of religion in connection with the Conference, and that I shall rather embarrass, and be a burden to my friends in the Conference, than be a help to them. My only wish and aim as a minister is, to preach the evangelical doctrines I have always proclaimed, and which are preached with power by many clergymen of the Church of England and Presbyterian Churches, and often more forcibly, than by many Methodist ministers.

I confess, from what you state, I see no prospect of effecting the changes in the relation and privileges of baptized children, and the test of membership in the Methodist Church, which I believe to be required by the Scriptures, and by consistency. I apprehend that anything proposed by me on these subjects will be made the occasion of violent attacks and agitation, and that personal hostility to me will be made a sort of test of orthodoxy among a large party in the Conference and in the Church--thus exposing my friends to much unpleasantness and disadvantage on my account, and reducing, if not extinguishing, all opportunities on my part to preach, as I should be (as in times past) wholly dependent upon the invitations of others.

* * * * *

From this incident a private and confidential correspondence on the subject was maintained for months between Dr. Ryerson in Europe and myself, in Canada.

It was clear to my mind at the time that the Editor took an unfair advantage of Dr. Ryerson's absence from the country to injure (as he supposed) his brother in the ministry. In this he was mistaken; and, in his chagrin, he attacked me personally in the Guardian for my zeal on behalf of Dr. Ryerson. Events proved that my interposition was opportune and just; and that, had I not done so, the Methodist people would have been improperly and cruelly misled, and irreparable injustice would have been done to the character and motives of a noble and generous man, who, in this instance, ought not to have been held responsible for the utterances of warm hearts, but of possibly indiscreet tongues.

I speak advisedly when I say that I understood perfectly well the two men with whom I had to deal. Rev. James Spencer was well known to me, when I was a student at Victoria College forty years ago. He was a good man, no doubt; but no student at that College ever thought of comparing him with the Principal of the College. How he ever got to be Editor of the Guardian was always a mystery to me. I never had the slightest difference with him--quite the reverse; but no comparison could be instituted between James Spencer and Egerton Ryerson.

In this matter I had no personal feeling. Both men were Methodists, while I am an Episcopalian, and both have gone to their final account. Moreover, the question was not one of doctrine, or of denominational preference. It was one of simple justice and fair play between man and man. Hence, I took the earliest opportunity of apprising Dr. Ryerson of the unjust and anomalous position in which he had been placed by the Editor of the Guardian.

* * * * *

The following private letters were successively received by me from Dr. Ryerson while he was in Europe:--

Paris, 23rd August.--I enclose my answer to Rev. James Spencer. I wish you would have it inserted in the Globe and Colonist. As you are acquainted with all the circumstances in Canada, being on the spot, if you think it best to abridge, omit, or modify the words of any part of my communication, I would wish you to do so. Whatever course I may think it my duty to pursue in future, I wish in this communication to preserve that tone of remark which can give no offence to any minister or member of the Wesleyan Church. I will not be the offending party, and the responsibility of a wider breach between the Conference and myself will not be with me. What course duty may require me to pursue, I still leave to the direction of Infinite Wisdom, and to future consideration....

The Queen is in Paris this week, during which all business in my way seems to be suspended. She is received with great enthusiasm. We have seen her and the Emperor two or three times.

Paris, 30th August.--Rev. Dr. Wood's denial of my having given him any pledge, or any thing that would be so construed, is full and decided, and if my brother John says anything at all, it will be, I have no doubt, less than I have stated in my letter. But still the main question of my position in the Conference is unaffected by these disclaimers. It appears from Mr. Spencer's statement (in which he seems to be sustained by others) that the terms of my letter were not acted upon or complied with by the Conference, but that the Conference acted upon a verbal assurance that I never made, or authorized. The simplest and most natural way for me to act, is, to withdraw my letter on these grounds, and to decline availing myself of, or recognizing an act of, the Conference based upon what I never proposed or authorized. Thus the responsibility of this irregular and absurd proceeding will rest with others, and I will stand, in the maintenance of all that I have stated and done, with the advantage of having acted a most conciliatory part. But what I shall do must not be decided upon hastily, as I act for life, and finally. If it ultimately appears to me, as it does at present, that there is no consistent or justifiable ground on which I can remain a member of the Conference, it will then be for me to consider whether I can occupy the position of a layman, or enter the ministry of some other section of the Christian Church. I would like to have your own impressions and views on this point, in reference to my future standing and usefulness in Canada.

Paris, 20th September.--In my reply to Mr. Spencer I did not allude to the cases of Montreal and Quebec. Perhaps the disclaimer which has been adopted by quarterly meetings in those places may require from me a remark or two. What I said was founded upon what was told me on reliable authority that no preacher had enforced, or dare enforce, the rule. I understand the same at Quebec. I have been assured, and I have no doubt the enquiry will establish the fact, that there are men, trustees of the Churches, in either or both Montreal or Quebec, who do not meet in class, and whose names are not, and I think whose names never have been, on any class book. But I think the natural and necessary effect of the whole is, to terminate my connection with the Methodist Church. I still remain undecided; but I see no other course on the ground of consistency, propriety, or duty, as well as of religious enjoyment. But this is only to yourself. The remaining question will be whether I should remain a private member of a Church, or enter another Church. On this point I am quite undecided. May I be divinely directed!

In a further letter directed to me from Paris in September, 1855, Dr. Ryerson discussed the whole question at issue. After pointing out the unfair conduct of the Editor of the Guardian in attacking and misrepresenting a member of the Conference, and then saying that his columns were closed against any further discussion of the subject, Dr. Ryerson said:--The Editor of the Guardian and others represent me as hostile to class-meetings. This may do injury, in the estimation of some persons, to a means of religious edification which I regard as one of the most efficient human agencies for promoting spiritual-mindedness among religious people. The responsibility of such a proceeding is with themselves. The Editor of the Guardian represents this as a matter of dispute between the Conference and myself. This is wholly incorrect. The resolution of the Conference is avowedly based upon my letter, and upon that alone. That record cannot be falsified. The variation between the wording of the resolution of the Conference and the latter part of my letter referred to in it, is not of the slightest consequence. The acts of the Conference, as well as of the Legislature, are to be judged of, not by what may have been said by individual members in the course of discussion, but by its attested records and official papers.

Now with the same truth and propriety that my assailants charge me with having written against class-meetings, might I charge them with being opposed to prayer-meetings and love-feasts, and even the Lord's Supper, because they do not make the observance of all or of any one of these institutions (though the latter is expressly instituted by our Lord himself), a condition of membership in the Church of God. Because I have avowed my long-settled conviction that class-meetings ought not to be exalted above all the other ordinances and institutions of religion--giving as an authority the words of John Wesley himself--am I to be charged with having written against class-meeting? So far from having written against these meetings, I have expressed myself in the strongest terms in their favour; and I repeat that, after the public preaching of the Word, and the Lord's Supper, I believe class-meetings have been the most efficient means of promoting personal and vital piety among the members of the Wesleyan Societies.

Yet I am not insensible to the fact that Mr. Wesley found the prototype of this kind of religious exercises, not in any institution or practice of the Primitive Church for fifteen hundred years, but in a society of Monks called La Trappe, whose ardent piety Mr. Wesley greatly admired, the lives of some of whose members (such as the Marquis de Renty, etc.,) he wrote, and whose manual of piety (Imitation of Jesus Christ) he translated and abridged, for the use of his own Societies, and several of whose questions in conducting what may be called their weekly band or class-meetings, Mr. Wesley adopted, translated and modified, for conducting his own meetings of a similar character. These weekly exercises in the Societe de la Trappe were eminently instrumental in reforming, and kindling the name of devotional piety among its members; and Mr. Wesley found them equally useful among the members of his own Societies, and so they have continued till the present time. But will any Wesleyan minister in England or Canada--will any man of intelligence and honesty--venture to assert that Mr. Wesley ever intended that attendance at such weekly exercises should be an essential condition and fundamental test of membership in the visible Church of God? Will any one assert, or can he believe, that Mr. Wesley ever could have anticipated, or supposed, that such an application would, or could, be made of an institution which he expressly stated to be "merely prudential, not essential, not of divine origin?" But I am again met with the charge, on another ground, of having departed from Mr. Wesley. It is said, in substance: "Mr. Wesley has committed class-meeting to us as a trust; it is not for us to inquire into the origin of the institution; it is our duty to maintain inviolably the trust committed to us--which trust Dr. Ryerson has violated." In reply, I remark that the statement of the question itself is fallacious, and the charge groundless. In the first place, the question assumes, what is contrary to fact, that Mr. Wesley instituted and committed the trust of class-meetings as a condition of membership in the visible Church of God, whereas he instituted and transmitted it as a means of grace among the members of a private society in a church. In the next place, the trust of class-meetings was only one part of a system which Mr. Wesley committed as a trust to his followers. The one part of that trust was as sacred as another, and the connection of one part with another is essential to the fulfilment of the obligation. Now one part of Mr. Wesley's trust, and that on which he insists ten times more voluminously and vehemently than he ever spoke of class-meetings, was that his followers should attend the services of the Church of England, should receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in it, should abide in the Church of England, and that whenever they separated from the Church of England they separated from him. These are so many trusts that Mr. Wesley committed to his followers in England, and on which he insisted as tests of membership in his Society; and in connection with these trusts, he committed the trust of class-meetings--"as the observance and practice of members of a private society in the Church of England." Have Dr. Bunting and others, who charge me with being anti-Wesleyan, fulfilled these trusts committed to them by Mr. Wesley? Have they not wholly separated from the Church of England--ordaining their own ministers, administering the ordinances, claiming and exercising all the attributes of a Church, as much as the authorities of the Church of England herself. And while Mr. Wesley disclaimed exercising the office of excommunicating Church members, and denied that admission into or exclusion from his Societies was admission into or exclusion from the visible Church of Christ, my accusers exercise this authority in the highest degree--confessedly and avowedly admitting into and excluding persons from the visible Church, and making the attendance at class-meeting a test of Church-membership--which Mr. Wesley never believed, much less authorized. I leave it, therefore, to the judgment of every man of common sense to say whether there is the shadow of a reason for the pretensions and charges of my assailants. I am not surprised that Dr. Bunting and others should feel sensitive on the class-meeting test of church-membership, as it so enormously increases clerical power--the ruling idea of Dr. Bunting's legislation throughout his whole life. It virtually places the membership of each member in the hands of the minister. The quarterly class ticket, signed by the minister, is the only proof and title of membership for each member. If the minister withholds this (and he may be prompted to do so on many grounds, personal and others, irrespective of any suspicion, much less charge, against the moral or religious character of the member) the member is deprived of his membership, and this I believe has occurred in more than twenty thousand instances, in England, during the last six years, during which period the connection has experienced the lamentable and unprecedented loss of nearly a hundred thousand members, the fruits of the labours of an age.

London, 5th October.--I know that my brother John was not pleased with my letter to Mr. Wood, read in the Conference. He told me so on the way to the Conference; he wished me to write a short letter, couched in general terms, and that the affair might be passed over in the Conference as quietly as possible--believing that to be the best way to accomplish the object I had in view. In this I could not agree with him, and stated that unless received in the terms of my letter, I did not wish to be received at all; nor did I wish the letter read if any opposition were apprehended. What has transpired shows, I think very clearly, that had I not been as explicit as I have, I should have been more grossly misrepresented, and with some degree of plausibility. I am exceedingly glad that I wrote as I did. It has removed all uncertainty on the subject. There can now be no mistake or misunderstanding. I do not think my friends have been frank with me in not telling me all that has transpired in the Conference. But it is not worth while to refer to these things now. The question is settled. I shall write to Dr. Beecham on the subject of the remarks reported to have been made in reference to me by Dr. Bunting and Mr. Methley, in the English Conference, and respecting my settled and avowed convictions and position--affording him an opportunity of stating how far he and others think such views are consistent with the relations I sustain to the Wesleyan Body. I shall also advert to the propriety of such men as Mr. Methley, or any member of the English Conference, assuming to exercise a censorship over the character of any members of the Canada Conference. After receiving Dr. Beecham's answer, I shall finally decide as to my future course. I look upon my connection with the Wesleyan body as virtually terminated. I have not been in one of their chapels, or seen one of their ministers, since I left America. On seeing, at Boston, what Mr. Spencer had written, and what was likely to occur, I thought I would keep myself entirely aloof until the final issue of the whole affair.

London, 10th October.--I wrote you on the 5th inst., under the influence of strong and indignant feelings. But I have since calmly, and with much prayer and many tears, for days considered the whole matter of Church relations. I have resolved to stand my ground in my present position, and fight out the battle with my assailants.

In a letter to me, written a few days afterwards, Dr. Ryerson thus states the conclusion which he had come to in regard to his remaining in the Methodist Church. He said:--Last Sunday I heard a very powerful sermon from Dr. Cumming on, "No man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself;" and I resolved, by meditation and prayer, to come to a conclusion on the subject of my Church relations, and future course. I walked, and wept, and prayed over the subject from seven till twelve o'clock last night, and the conclusion at which I have now arrived is to stand in my present position and relation, and maintain my views, and let my opponents do their worst, and thrust me out if they will or can. If I lived to myself, that is, if I consulted my taste, feelings, personal comforts, and enjoyments, I could not remain in the Methodist Church a week; I have more views and sympathies with the evangelical clergy and members of any Protestant church than I have with such men as Mr. Spencer. But still I have, in the Providence of God, been called to labour in connection with the Methodist Church, and have been prospered in it; and I think, all things considered, I can do more good to stand my ground. If I do nothing else than secure to Methodist children and youth the recognition of their rights and privileges, and the appropriate religious instruction and care, that point alone will involve more good in the end than all I could do in any other section of the Christian Church. If Methodist pulpits should be closed against me, others will be opened to me in abundance.

Paris, 18th October.--I feel very happy in my own mind since I have finally decided upon my future course, and which, I have no doubt you will think with me, is, under all the circumstances, the best that I could take. After the course which has been pursued towards me, I shall be free from all restraints on the matters respecting which they hoped to impose silence. I shall make the James Methleys, and the James Spencers, of both the English and Canadian Conferences, feel very uncomfortable, while I think I shall secure the respect and sympathies of various religious persuasions and parties in Canada, and the ultimate accomplishment of the great and divine end I have had in view. Mr. Spencer's remarks that you enclosed are very weak and flat--more so than I expected. He speaks of a difference between the Conference and me. The difference is between him and his abettors (as individuals) and me, not between the Conference and me. The Conference has avowedly based its proceedings upon my letter--which is all I care for since my letter is published. If the terms of the resolution of the Conference are not in harmony with the terms of my letter, that is of no consequence to me now--it is for the judgment or taste of those who wrote it. I am glad to hear that my remarks on Mr. Spencer are favourably received by all my friends. Mr. Malcolm Cameron has said that if I never wrote another word on the subject I had mooted, or were I even to leave the Body, the subject would not sleep--it would be taken up by others--it could not sleep--and their attacking me, and I defending myself, was, in effect, discussing the question in the most telling manner.

Paris, 8th November.--I am glad to learn that at that period when I was undecided, you entertained the views as to my relations and future course which I have at length decided to maintain and pursue. I will stand my ground and battle the affair with my adversaries, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the last. In order to exclude me from the Conference they must now bring charges against me; and, in attempting this, they will raise a difficulty such as they have never yet encountered, and will invest the whole question with an interest and importance that they little dream of. Indeed, they have done so already.

Paris, 14th November.--I am happy to learn that you also entirely concur in the course I have decided to pursue. I care not a fig for all that the parties to whom you refer may do or try to do. I have not a shadow of doubt as to the result. It is most strange that rashness should be attributed to you in the matter. It was the course best calculated to defeat the objects they wish to counteract. I do not think my letters would have appeared at all in the Guardian had you not pressed the matter as you did; and had I not taken the course I did at Belleville, the questions could not have been brought before the body as they can and must. I have written a reply to the Guardian--it contains sixteen pages of letter paper. But after your suggestion, I will keep it another week, and may, perhaps, substitute for it a note making my acknowledgements to the daily press of Toronto, and stating my position and intended course of proceedings. I think something of this kind may be best to counteract the misrepresentations which they are no doubt industriously circulating. Possibly I may not say anything at all, as you suggest.

Paris, 29th November.--I cannot but smile at the pamphlet on the Class-meeting question, after it had been declared as the determination of the Conference that the subject of my letters was not to be agitated. I could not be more effectually aided in what I would wish to see accomplished than by such a publication, as it will afford me an opportunity to re-consider the subject, and to say what I please on the general subject, and expose every petty sophism and absurdity of my opponents, and to show what are really the rights of the members of the Church in more senses than one. The strength of the opposite side of the question is silence and Conference authority; the strength of my side is discussion. For one on the opposite side to write and publish a pamphlet is to give up Conference authority, and to come upon the ground of reason and Scripture. It is also an abandonment of the pretence that the question is not a debatable or open one. There being several writers on one side and only one on the other, gives the latter an advantage. He can point out the variations and weak points of the former, illustrating the criteria of error and truth. The whole will afford me an opportunity to deal with general principles, and curiosity and enquiry will be attached to what I can say in reply to such efforts to prove me heretical. I look upon all such occurrences as the ways of Providence to open the way of truth and righteousness.

Dr. Ryerson returned to Canada in time to attend the Conference at Brockville. While there he wrote to me, on the 6th of June, 1856:--Mr. Spencer has given me notice that, as I have denied and repudiated the terms upon which I had been re-admitted into the Conference, when my name comes up in the examination of character, it will be moved that the resolution re-admitting me into the Conference be rescinded. I am glad of this. It will afford me an opportunity of exposing the conduct of my assailants, and of entering into the whole question. To-day the subject of class-meetings came up, by a philippic on the subject by one of the ministers, in connection with the return of members, and the manner of administering the Discipline. I at once accepted the challenge--reiterated my sentiments, and stated when the time came I should be prepared to show that they were founded on the Scriptures, the primitive Church, the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, and such men as Baxter and Howe, down to the present time. What I said seemed to be favourably received by a considerable portion of the Conference. I think the Spencer clique (and it is only a clique) will be disappointed greatly when the affair comes up. I feel that I stand upon the Rock of Truth. I would that my soul were more fully baptized with the Spirit of the Truth, the principles of which I maintain.

On the 9th of June, he also wrote as follows:--This afternoon, on my name being called, Rev. J. Borland moved, seconded by Rev. W. Jeffers, the following resolution:--

Resolved, That as Dr. Ryerson has denied the authority of the verbal assurances given in his behalf at the Conference in London, and repudiated the basis upon which the resolution restoring him to his former standing in the Conference was founded; therefore, all that part of the said resolution which relates to his re-admission be, and is hereby, rescinded.

When the President came to the question as to the examination of character, he observed that that question was always considered with closed doors, and intimated to strangers to withdraw. I arose at once, and said that as far as I was concerned, notice had been given to me of a resolution to exclude me from the Conference, and that upon the ground of what had appeared in the public papers--that I had been misrepresented and maligned in the official organ of the Conference--in professed reports of what had taken place in the Conference, and I demanded, as a matter of right and equity, that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. A discussion then took place in regard to reporting. I at length moved an amendment that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. This was adopted by a large majority, though voted against by the whole clique hostile to me. Several of them made speeches against me. My brother John, Rev. E. Wood, Rev. R. Jones, Dr. Green, as well as others, stated what was said as to my pledge, just what I had supposed and intended; and my brother John made a most powerful speech, and scathed Mr. Spencer and others. His references to me were warmly cheered by an evident majority of the Conference. The cheers to the remarks maligning me seemed to be made by about fifteen or twenty--many less than I had supposed. I have no doubt they will be defeated by a very large majority. When the hour of adjournment arrived, the President asked me if I wished to make any remarks; I stated to the Conference I was willing to give my assailants the advantage of leaving their strong statements and attacks unrefuted and unnoticed until Monday morning. A large number of persons were present, and a strong popular feeling seemed to be excited in my favour. My opponents have themselves in the very position in which I have desired to get them, and I shall now have the best possible opportunity of exposing them.

At the request of the friends here, I have consented to preach to-morrow evening, notwithstanding the opposition of the preachers hostile to me. I feel as if God the Lord would help me on this occasion, notwithstanding my unfaithfulness and unworthiness; He has never failed me in such an extremity.

On the following Monday Dr. Ryerson's case was brought up for discussion. Rev. J. Borland made a strong appeal on behalf of his resolution. The Canadian Independent, of July 16th, in speaking of the debate said:--

Mr. Borland had not spoken long in support of this before he was interrupted by Rev. Dr. Wood, the President, who made this most important declaration, that--

He gave no verbal assurance for, or in behalf of Dr. Ryerson; that he received no such assurance from him; that the document he received from Dr. Ryerson was laid on the table, and read before the Conference, unaccompanied by any verbal statements or assurances of any kind from him.

This he afterwards repeated, when Rev. J. Spencer, the Editor of the Guardian, re-asserted the giving of such assurances. The co-delegate, Rev. J. Ryerson, also said that--

He never thought of pledging Dr. Ryerson to silence on any of these questions, and he was sure the Conference would not ask him to do so, as the Conference never gagged any man.

The Independent then proceeds:--

Dr. Ryerson has been most unfairly treated. He has not denied having made application for re-admission, but only an application with pledges of silence. The resolutions of Conference, in 1854, accepting his resignation and warmly acknowledging his past services, and, in 1855, consenting to his re-admission, were never communicated to him, and were suppressed by the Guardian. This was most unmanly and unjust.[145] The matter now before the Conference was introduced at the Toronto District Meeting in his absence, and without notice being given him.[146]

He uttered some memorable things in his eloquent defence.

I believe the true foundation or test of membership in the Church of Christ is not the acute angle of a Class-meeting attendance, but the broad bases of repentance, faith, and holiness. I can have no sympathy with that narrow and exclusive spirit, the breadth of whose catholicity is that of a goat's track, and the dimensions of whose charity are those of a needle's point, whether inculcated by the Editor of The Church on the one hand, or by the Editor of the Guardian on the other. He would give no pledges, had no concessions or promises to make; would be accountable to the rules of the Church as others, and would stand in that Conference on the same footing as other members, or not at all. While he subscribed to all that had been said as to the utility of Class-meetings, and reiterated the grounds on which he had recommended and maintained them; yet, on the ground of Scripture obligation he demurred, and averred, in the language of Mr. Wesley, with whom they originated and who best knew their true position in the Church, that they are merely prudential, not essential, not of Divine institution.

The Editor of the Independent, in conclusion, said:--

We congratulate Dr. Ryerson on his successful defence.... We should esteem it a dire calamity, could any dishonour be attached to his name. He is one of the most devoted, conscientious, able and successful officers in the public service. In the school system of Upper Canada, he has built for himself an enduring monument, as a benefactor of the Province. He is a brave yet courteous champion for some of our most precious rights. May those who watch for his halting be confounded and put to shame!

After a reference to some personal matters, Dr. Ryerson, in the course of his remarks, showed that he was prepared to sacrifice much for the maintenance of the truth. He said: Shortly after the occurrence to which I have just referred, an act was got through the Legislature at the end of the Session of 1849, which excluded clergymen from visiting the public schools in their official character, and which would have excluded the Bible from the schools. What was my conduct on the occasion? Why, I forthwith placed my office at the disposal of the Head of the Government sooner than administer such a law. The result was the Government authorized the suspension of the Act, and caused its repeal at the next Session of Parliament.

* * * * *

The debate lasted over two days, and was finally closed by the adoption of an amendment by the Rev. A. Hurlburt, recognizing the application of the previous year as admitted by Dr. Ryerson, and as understood by the Conference. The amendment was passed by an immense majority, only 23 out of 150 members present voting against it.

FOOTNOTES:

[143] Dr. Ryerson left Toronto for Quebec immediately after Conference, to confer with the Government there on matters connected with his Department. While there he wrote to me a private letter as follows:--Return to passage

At Mr. Attorney-General Macdonald's suggestion I have been appointed Honorary Commissioner at the Paris exhibition. Mr. Macdonald also endorsed my recommendation for your appointment as Deputy Superintendent with an increased salary. His Excellency appointed you yesterday according to my recommendation, and you will be gazetted on Saturday.... Sir Edmund Head has given me very flattering letters of introduction to Lord Clarendon and Lord John Russell.... I leave here for Boston on my way to England.... I have no doubt but that you will do all things in the best manner, and for the best. I fervently pray Almighty God greatly to prosper you, as well as guide and bless you in your official duties.

[144] The antagonism between Mr. Spencer (now Editor of the Guardian) and Dr. Ryerson was of long standing. Thirteen years before the date of this attack upon Dr. Ryerson, Mr. Spencer was proposed, in 1842, as a candidate for a Mastership in Victoria College. Dr. Ryerson advised him to attend the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn., so as to fit himself for the post. He did so. But the Board of Victoria College refused to appoint him. He was very indignant, and so expressed himself to Dr. Ryerson. He afterwards wrote to him a letter (in 1842) as follows:--You were no doubt surprised at the remarks I made to you, and perhaps you thought they were unnecessarily harsh and severe, and made under the momentary impulse of excited feelings. If so, you are mistaken. I spoke deliberately, though strongly. You know the circumstances under which, at your request, I went to the College, and that the situation, though congenial to my feelings, was not sought for by me. Of the decision of the members of the Board, to give the Principal permission to employ me part of the year, I express my decided disapprobation. Now, Sir, I consider such a resolution a downright insult. Had I come before that Board as a stranger, or under the character of a mercenary hireling, and one concerning whose qualifications you were entirely ignorant, then there would have been some appearance of propriety in making such a proposition, as a safeguard, and against imposition. But I am a member of that Conference under whose direction the affairs of that institution are placed; its interests are closely connected with those of the Church of which I am now, and expect to remain, a member. I believed I could render greater service to the Church in labouring to promote the prosperity of that institution. I trust I have yet too much of public spirit, and too ardent a desire for the prosperity of our College, to wish to remain there if my labours were not conducive to its efficiency. But what is the spirit of that resolution? "Why, we wish to get rid of you, and the easiest way to do it is, to employ you for a specified time, and then we can dismiss you with propriety. But the absurdity of that resolution is its most prominent feature. I intend, at the first opportunity, to express my mind more fully to you personally upon this subject." In one of his letters in this controversy, Dr. Ryerson thus refers to this Victoria College episode. He says: In regard to Mr. Spencer, I am aware of his feelings toward me during these many years; ever since he failed to procure an appointment to the Chair of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in Victoria College, for which he had devoted a year of special preparation. I believe he has attributed his disappointment to me, and that I had not acted toward him in a brotherly way, in not securing his appointment, as he supposed I could have done from my connection with the College. The fact was, I recommended his appointment, at least for a trial, but my recommendation was not concurred in by any other member of the Board, as Dr. Green and others know.Return to passage

[145] Dr. Ryerson, in his speech at the Brockville Conference, referring to this omission, said:--The Conference passed a resolution complimentary and affectionate towards myself, and expressive of its high sense of my long services in defending the rights and advocating the interests of the Connexion. The copy of that resolution has never been communicated to me to this day; Mr. Spencer suppressed the publication of it in the Guardian, and thus defeated the noble and generous intentions of the great majority of the Conference in regard to myself.Return to passage

[146] To this proceeding, Dr. Ryerson also referred in his speech as follows:--How did my opponents bring up their charge against me? Did they inform the defendant of the approaching ordeal, and secure his presence in an ecclesiastical court prior to his attempted execution? No, Sir; the defendant obeys the call of duty, at personal sacrifice, to attend to a meeting of the senate and annual public exercises of the students of Victoria College; and, while absent, these professed advocates of Methodistic rule, arraign him without notice, and seek to get a resolution passed against him. Is that Methodism? Is that old Methodism? If these, my assailants, believe, as they say, that the interests of the Church will be greatly promoted by my expulsion, then let them do it on Methodistic principles. Now, although I was well aware that they were opposed to me personally, yet I thought, though I was absent from the district meeting, they would treat me, at least, honourably. If I had done wrong, let them accuse me--give me a specific charge and due notice of trial, and let me prepare for my defence. This would be the manly course--this would be Methodism; and if I had committed no offence, if no charge could be brought against me, why seek to exclude me from this body without a charge and without a crime? Is not this course opposed to all proceedings of civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, and to every principle of civil and religious liberty--to true Protestant freedom and to genuine Methodism, whether new or old?Return to passage

Chapter LVII

1854-1856.

Dr. Ryerson's Third Educational Tour in Europe.

While in Europe in 1854 and 1856, Dr. Ryerson, under the authority of the Government, commenced the collection of objects of art for the Educational Museum in the Education Department. While there he met Hon. Malcolm Cameron, who after Dr. Ryerson returned to Canada, wrote to him from London on the subject of his mission. In a letter, dated 3rd of January, 1857, Mr. Cameron said:--

I have myself witnessed the result of the labour and reading which you must have gone through with in order to obtain the information and cultivation of judgment necessary to get the things our young Canada can afford; things, too, of such a character and description as shall be useful, not only in elevating the taste of our youth, but of increasing their historical and mythological lore, as well as inform them of the facts of their accuracy in size and form. I was much flattered to find that my humble efforts to begin, in some degree, a Canadian gallery--by securing a few of Paul Kane's pictures in 1851--had been followed up by you in your universally-acknowledged enlightened efforts for education, which (in my bitterest moments of alienation from you, for what I esteemed a sacrifice of Canadian freedom, and right to self-government), I have ever cheerfully admitted.

Your determination to obtain a few works of art and statuary, a few paintings, prints of celebrities, and scientific instruments, has cost you much labour, anxiety and thought, which I never would have conceived of had I not met you, and gone with you, and seen your notes and correspondence.

You have passed through many trials, and in most of them I was with you. The period that presses on my mind (as Lord Elgin said of Montreal), I do not want to remember. God grant that we may see, in all matters for the rest of our few days, eye to eye, as we do now on all the subjects in which you are now engaged, publicly and privately. I think God is with you, and directing you aright in that Conference matter which is nearest to your heart, and I am confident that you will have a signal triumph.

Dr. Ryerson has written the following account of a distinguished physician whom he met at Rome:--

One of the most remarkable men with whom I became acquainted in Italy, in my tour there in 1856-7, was Dr. Pantelioni, a scholar, physician, patriot, and statesman; to whose character and banishment from Rome the London Times' newspaper devoted about three columns.

Prefatory to the circumstances of my acquaintance with this remarkable man, I may observe, that when in England in 1850-1, I had a good deal of correspondence with Earl Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and through whom I was able to procure maps, globes, and essential text-books for Canadian schools, at a discount of forty-three per cent. from the published selling prices. Earl Grey was much pleased in being the instrument of so much good to the cause of public education in Canada; wrote to the English booksellers and got their consent to the arrangement, shewed me much kindness, and invited me to dine at his residence, in company with some distinguished English statesmen, among whom was Sir Charles Wood (afterwards a peer), and the late Marquis of Lansdowne, the Nestor of English statesmen, and beside whom I was seated at dinner. The Countess of Grey shewed me many kind attentions, and the Marquis of Lansdowne invited me to call the next day at Lansdowne House, and explain to him the Canadian system of education, as he was the Chairman of the Privy Council Committee on Education, and wished to know what had been done, and what might be done for the education of the labouring classes. I called at Lansdowne House, as desired, and explained as briefly and clearly as possible the Canadian school system, its popular comprehensiveness and fairness to all parties, its Christian, yet non-sectarian, character. At the conclusion of my remarks, the noble Marquis observed, "I cannot conceive a greater blessing to England than the introduction into it of the Canadian school system; but, from our historical traditions and present state of society, all we can do is to aid by Parliamentary grants the cause of popular education through the agency of voluntary associations and religious denominations."

Five years afterwards, in another educational tour in Europe, myself and daughter spent some months at the Paris Exhibition in 1855. The Earl and Countess of Grey, seeing our names on the Canadian Book of the Exhibition, called and left their cards at our hotel. We returned the call the following day, when the Earl and Countess told us they had an aunt at Rome devoted to the fine arts, who would have great pleasure in assisting us to select copies of great masters for our Canadian Educational Museum; that they would write to her, and, if we left our cards with her on our arrival, she would gladly receive us. We did so, and, in less than an hour after, we received a most friendly letter from Lady Grey, saying that she had been expecting and waiting for us for some time, and writing us to come to her residence that evening, as she had invited a few friends.[147] In the course of the evening, I was introduced to Dr. Pantelioni with this remark, "Dr. Ryerson, if you should become ill, you cannot fall into better hands than those of Dr. Pantelioni." I replied that "I was glad to make his personal acquaintance, but hoped I should not need his professional services." But the very next day I was struck down in the Vatican while examining the celebrated painting of Raphael's Transfiguration and Dominichino's Last Communion of St. Jerome, with a cruel attack of lumbago and sciatica, rendering it necessary for four men to convey me down the long stairway to my carriage, and from thence to my room in the hotel, where I was confined for some three weeks, requiring three men for some days to turn me in bed. Language cannot describe the agony I experienced during that period. Dr. Pantelioni was sent for, and attended me daily for three weeks, and never charged me more than a dollar a visit. After two or three visits, finding that I was otherwise well, and had knowledge of government and civil affairs in Europe and America, he entered into conversation with me on these subjects. I found him to be one of the most generally read and enlightened men that I had met with on the Continent.

He frequently remained from one to three hours conversing with me; and in the course of these frequent and lengthened visits, Dr. Pantelioni related the following facts:

1st. That he was one of the liberal party in Rome that opposed the despotism of the Papal government, and contributed to its overthrow, when Garibaldi for a time became supreme at Rome.

2nd. That he, with many other liberals, became convinced that the government which Garibaldi would inaugurate, would be little better than a mob, and would be neither stable nor safe.

(Garibaldi was a bold and skilful party leader, but no statesman. I witnessed his presence in the Italian Legislature, then held in Florence; he could declaim against government, and find fault, with individual acts; but he seemed to have no system of government in his own mind, and commanded little respect or attention after his first speech.)

3rd. Dr. Pantelioni stated, that under these circumstances, he, with several liberal friends, agreed to go confidentially to the Pope, who was then an exile at Gaeta, and offer their offices and influence to restore him to power at Rome, provided he would establish a constitutional government, and govern as a constitutional ruler. The pope agreed to their propositions, but when they reduced them to writing for his signature, and those of the gentlemen waiting upon him, he declined to sign his name; in consequence of which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends felt they had no sufficient ground upon their own individual word, without a scrap of writing from the pen of the pope, to influence their friends, and risk their lives; they, therefore, retired from the presence of his holiness, disappointed but not dishonored.

4th On my recovery Dr. Pantelioni invited me to visit him at his residence. I did so and found him possessed of the best private library I had seen in Italy, or even on the continent. It filled three, large rooms; one of which contained books (well arranged) of general history and literature, comprising the latest standard works in English (published both in England and America), French, German, Italian and Spanish. The second room was equally filled with shelves and books, beautifully arranged, on medical and scientific subjects of the latest date, and highest authority, in English, French, Italian, German, and Spanish, &c. The third room contained a fine and extensive collection of the latest standard works which had been published in England and the United States, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy, on Civil Government. I was not before aware that the Italian language was so rich in political literature. I selected the titles, and ordered several books in that language for myself.

5th. In the course of these conversations, Dr. Pantelioni related the efforts of himself and friends to establish a constitutional government, despairing, as they did, of any competence of the Garibaldi party to establish such a government. A deputation (of whom Dr. Pantelioni was one) went from Rome to Florence to consult the Right Honourable Richard Shiel, then the British Ambassador, or representative of the British Government, at Florence, as the British Government had no diplomatic relations with Rome. Mr. Shiel asked them what they wanted? They replied, nothing more than the protection of the British Government for twelve months, during which time they could establish a just and safe government, if protected from the interference of other governments. Mr. Shiel agreed to support their views, and Dr. Pantelioni and one or two others of the deputation took letters from Mr. Shiel on the subject to the late Viscount Palmerston and Lord John Russell, who encouraged their undertaking, entirely agreeing with the recommendations of Mr. Shiel, who, although a Roman Catholic, was a constitutional liberal. But it unfortunately happened that on the very day on which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends, after their mission to England, had intended to carry their plans into operation, the French army landed at Civita Vecchia, and having subdued the Garibaldi party at Rome, restored the Pope to the Vatican, with all his former pretensions and power.

6th. Some time afterwards, when the King of Italy overran the Papal territories, Dr. Pantelioni was nominated to the Italian Legislature for one of the new electoral divisions, but declined at once the acceptance of the nomination, and sent his resignation by the first post, well knowing the effect it might have upon his personal safety and interests at Rome, which was still under the rule of the Pope. But the partiality shown to Dr. Pantelioni by his newly enfranchised fellow-countrymen enraged the Court of Rome, which banished him from his city and country on a notice of only twenty-four hours! The London Times newspaper devoted some two articles to Dr. Pantelioni's history and banishment, eulogizing him in the strongest terms.

7th. Dr. Pantelioni then took up his abode at Nice, in the south of France, and there pursued his profession.

Some years afterward, when making my last educational tour on the Continent in 1867, I stopped a day with my son at Nice, and learned that there was an Italian physician residing there, an exile from Rome. I knew it must be my old physician and friend, and immediately called upon him. We were, of course, both delighted to see each other again; and he invited myself and son to spend the evening at his house, which we did. He had, since I saw him at Rome, married an English lady, who seemed in every respect worthy of him.

When in the course of the evening I expressed my sympathy with him in his exile, privation of his beautiful residence and fine library, he replied with energy, bringing his hand down strongly on the table, "I have such faith in the principles on which I have acted, and in the providence of God, that I shall just as surely go back to Rome, as that I am sure I am now talking to you." Some one or two years afterwards I learned from the newspapers, that Dr. Pantelioni had been recalled to Rome by the King of Italy, and appointed to the head of all the Roman Hospitals.

* * * * *

In a letter from Dr. Ryerson dated London, 30th October, 1857, he said: "On the 28th inst. we witnessed the consecration of Dr. Cronyn as Bishop of Huron, and were afterwards invited to lunch with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Several bishops were present. Afterwards we went with Dr. Cronyn to Woolwich, and dined with him at his son-in-law's (Col. Burrows)."

FOOTNOTES:

[147] These evening parties are conversazioni on a small scale. There were no suppers, but cups of tea and biscuits, chiefly for ladies; the gentlemen did not take off their gloves or sit down, but kept their hats in their hands or under their arms. We were introduced to, and conversed with various parties. Lady Grey seemed to be ubiquitous, and to know everybody, and to make all feel at home. She is the widow of General Grey, and is said to have been in early days a belle and bright star in the highest London society.Return to passage

Chapter LVIII

1859-1862.

Denominational Colleges and the University Controversy.

One of the most memorable controversies in which Dr. Ryerson was engaged was that on behalf of the Denominational Colleges of Upper Canada.

Unfortunately, at various stages of the discussion, the controversy partook largely of a personal character. This prevented that clear, calm, and dispassionate consideration of the whole of this important question to which it was entitled, and hence, in one sense, no good result accrued. Such a question as this was worthy of a better fate. For at that stage of our history it was a momentous one--worthy of a thoughtful, earnest and practical solution--a solution of which it was then capable, had it been taken up by wise, far-seeing and patriotic statesmen. But the opportunity was unfortunately lost; and in the anxiety in some cases to secure a personal triumph, a grand movement to give practical effect to somewhat like the comprehensive university scheme of the Hon. Robert Baldwin, of 1843, failed. Mr. Baldwin's proposal of that year was defeated by the defenders of King's College, as a like scheme of twenty years later was defeated by the champions of the Toronto University. The final result of the painful struggle of 1859-1863 was in effect as follows:--

1. Things were chiefly left in statu quo ante bellum.

2. An impetus was given to the denominational college principle; and that principle was emphasized.

3. Colleges with university powers were multiplied in the province.

4. Life and energy were infused into the denominational colleges.

5. Apathy and indifference prevailed (and, to some extent, still prevails) among the adherents of the Provincial University.

I have already stated that the issues raised in the memorable university contest of 1859-1863 were important. So they were, as after events have proved. The question, however, was unfortunately decided twenty years ago, not by an independent, impartial and disinterested tribunal, but by the parties in possession, whose judgment in the case would naturally be in their own favour. Besides, members of the Government at the time felt no real interest in the question, and were glad, under the shelter of official statements and opinions, to escape collision with such powerful bodies as the Wesleyan Methodists and the Church of Scotland.

This discussion originated in the presentation to the Legislature of a memorial from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, dated November, 1859, to the following effect:--

That the Legislature in passing the Provincial University Act of 1853, clearly proposed and avowed a threefold object. First, the creation of a University for examining candidates, and conferring degrees in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine. Secondly, the establishment of an elevated curriculum of University education, conformable to that of the London University in England. Thirdly, the association with the Provincial University of the several colleges already established, and which might be established, in Upper Canada, with the Provincial University, the same as various colleges of different denominations in Great Britain and Ireland are affiliated to the London University--placed as they are upon equal footing in regard to and aid from the state, and on equal footing in regard to the composition of the Senate, and the appointment of examiners.

In the promotion of these objects the Conference and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church cordially concurred; and at the first meeting after the passing of the University Act, the Senatorial Board of Victoria College adopted the programme of collegiate studies established by the Senate of the London University, and referred to in the Canadian Statute. But it soon appeared that the Senate of the Toronto University, instead of giving effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature, determined to identify the University with one college, in contradistinction and to the exclusion of all others, to establish a monopoly of senatorial power and public revenue for one college alone; so much so, that a majority of the legal quorum of the Senate now consists of the professors of one college, one of whom is invariably one of the two examiners of their own students, candidates for degrees, honors, and scholarships. The curriculum of the University studies, instead of being elevated and conformed to that of the London University, has been revised and changed three times since 1853, and reduced by options and otherwise below what it was formerly, and below what it is in the British Universities, and below what it is in the best colleges in the United States. The effect of this narrow and anti-liberal course is, to build up one College at the expense of all others, and to reduce the standard of a University degree in both Arts and Medicine below what it was before the passing of the University Act in 1853.

Instead of confining the expenditure of funds to what the law prescribed--namely, the "current expenses," and such "permanent improvements or additions to the buildings" as might be necessary for the purposes of the University and University College--new buildings have been erected at an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the current expenses of the College have been increased far beyond what they were in former times of complaint and investigation on this subject.

Your memorialists therefore submit, that in no respect have the liberal and enlightened intentions of the Legislature in passing the University Act been fulfilled--a splendid but unjust monopoly for the city and college of Toronto having been created, instead of a liberal and elevated system, equally fair to all the colleges of the country.

A Provincial University should be what its name imports, and what was clearly intended by the Legislature--a body equally unconnected with, and equally impartial to every college in the country; and every college should be placed on equal footing in regard to public aid according to its works, irrespective of place, sect, or party. It is as unjust to propose, as it is unreasonable to expect, the affiliation of several colleges in one University except on equal terms. There have been ample funds to enable the Senate to submit to the Government a comprehensive and patriotic recommendation to give effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature in the accomplishment of these objects; but the Senate has preferred to become the sole patron of one college to the exclusion of all others, and to absorb and expend the large and increasing funds of the University, instead of allowing any surplus to accumulate for the general promotion of academical education, as contemplated and specifically directed by the statute. Not only has the annual income of the University endowment been reduced some thousands of pounds per annum by vast expenditures for the erection of buildings not contemplated by the Act, but a portion of those expenditures is for the erection of lecture-rooms, &c., for the Faculties of which the Act expressly forbids the establishment!

But whilst your memorialists complain that the very intentions of this Act have thus been disregarded and defeated, we avow our desire to be the same now as it was more than ten years ago, in favour of the establishment of a Provincial University, unconnected with any one college or religious persuasion, but sustaining a relation of equal fairness and impartiality to the several religious persuasions and colleges, with power to prescribe the curriculum, to examine candidates, and confer degrees, in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine.

We also desire that the University College at Toronto should be efficiently maintained; and for that purpose we should not object that the minimum of its income from the University Endowment should be even twice that of any other college; but it is incompatible with the very idea of a national University, intended to embrace the several colleges of the nation, to lavish all the endowment and patronage of the state upon one college, to the exclusion of all others. At the present time, and for years past, the noble University Endowment is virtually expended by parties directly or indirectly connected with but one college; and the scholarships and prizes, the honors and degrees conferred, are virtually the rewards and praises bestowed by professors upon their own students, and not the doings and decisions of a body wholly unconnected with the college. Degrees and distinctions thus conferred, however much they cost the country, cannot possess any higher literary value, as they are of no more legal value, than those conferred by the Senatus Academicus of the other chartered colleges.

It is therefore submitted that if it is desired to have one Provincial University, the corresponding arrangement should be made to place each of the colleges on equal footing according to their works in regard to everything emanating from the state. And if it is refused to place these colleges on equal footing as colleges of one University, it is but just and reasonable that they should be placed upon equal footing in regard to aid from the state, according to their works as separate University colleges.

It is well known that it is the natural tendency, as all experience shows, that any college independent of all inspection, control, or competition in wealth--all its officers securely paid by the state, independent of exertion or success--will in a short time, as a general rule, degenerate into inactivity, indifference, and extravagance. In collegiate institutions, as well as in the higher and elementary schools, and in other public and private affairs of life, competition is an important element of efficiency and success. The best system of collegiate, as of elementary education, is that in which voluntary effort is developed by means of public aid. It is clearly both the interest and duty of the state to prompt and encourage individual effort in regard to collegiate, as in regard to elementary, education and not to discourage it by the creation of a monopoly invidious and unjust on the one side, and on the other deadening to all individual effort and enterprise, and oppressive to the state.

We submit, therefore, that justice and the best interests of liberal education require the several colleges of the country to be placed upon equal footing according to their works. We ask nothing for Victoria College which we do not ask for every collegiate institution in Upper Canada upon the same terms.

We desire also that it may be distinctly understood that we ask no aid towards the support of any theological school or theological chair in Victoria College. There is no such chair in Victoria College; and whenever one shall be established, provision will be made for its support independent of any grant from the state.[148] We claim support for Victoria College according to its works as a literary institution--as teaching those branches which are embraced in the curriculum of a liberal education, irrespective of denominational theology.

We also disclaim any sympathy with the motives and objects which have been attributed by the advocates of Toronto College monopoly, in relation to our National School system. The fact that a member of our own body has been permitted by the annual approbation of the Conference to devote himself to the establishment and extension of our school system, is ample proof of our approval of that system: in addition to which we have from time to time expressed our cordial support of it by formal resolutions, and by the testimony and example of our more than four hundred ministers throughout the Province. No religious community in Upper Canada has, therefore, given so direct and effective support to the National School system as the Wesleyan community, but we have ever maintained, and we submit, that the same interests of general education for all classes which require the maintenance of the elementary school system require a reform in our University system in order to place it on a foundation equally comprehensive and impartial, and not to be the patron and mouthpiece of one college alone; and the same consideration of fitness, economy and patriotism which justify the state in co-operating with each school municipality to support a day school, require it to co-operate with each religious persuasion, according to its own educational works, to support a college. The experience of all Protestant countries shows that it is, and has been, as much the province of a religious persuasion to establish a college as it is for a school municipality to establish a day school; and the same experience shows that, while pastoral and parental care can be exercised for the religious instruction of children residing at home and attending a day school, that care cannot be exercised over youth residing away from home and pursuing their higher education except in a college where the pastoral and parental care can be daily combined. We hold that the highest interests of the country, as of an individual, are its religious and moral interests; and we believe there can be no heavier blow dealt out against those religious and moral interests, than for the youth of a country destined to receive the best literary education, to be placed, during the most eventful years of that educational course, without the pale of daily parental and pastoral instruction and oversight. The results of such a system must, sooner or later, sap the religious and moral foundations of society. For such is the tendency of our nature, that with all the appliances of religious instruction and ceaseless care by the parent and pastor; they are not always successful in counteracting evil propensities and temptations; and therefore, from a system which involves the withdrawal or absence of all such influence for years at a period when youthful passions are strongest, and youthful temptations most powerful, we cannot but entertain painful apprehensions. Many a parent would deem it his duty to leave his son without the advantages of a liberal education, rather than thus expose him to the danger of moral shipwreck in its acquirement.

This danger does not so much apply to that very considerable class of persons whose home is in Toronto; or to those young men whose character and principles are formed, and who, for the most part, are pursuing their studies by means acquired by their own industry and economy; or to the students of theological institutions established in Toronto, and to which the University College answers the convenient purpose of a free Grammar School, in certain secular branches. But such cases form the exceptions, and not the general rule. And if one college at Toronto is liberally endowed for certain classes who have themselves contributed or done nothing to promote liberal education, we submit that in all fairness, apart from moral patriotic considerations, the state ought to aid with corresponding liberality those other classes who for years have contributed largely to erect and sustain collegiate institutions, and who while they endeavour to confer upon youth, as widely as possible, the advantages of a sound liberal education, seek to incorporate with it those moral influences, associations, and habits which give to education its highest value, which form the true basis and cement of civil institutions and national civilization, as well as of individual character and happiness.

The various statements and propositions in this memorial were fully and ably discussed on both sides at the time before a Committee of the Legislature. The discussion itself and voluminous papers and documents on either side were published in pamphlet form and in the newspapers, so that no further reference to them is necessary. The only other point raised in the discussion which is not mentioned in the memorial, is one on which Dr. Ryerson has expressed himself clearly. That is the relations of denominational colleges to the national system of public schools. On that point he says:--

The denominational collegiate system which I advocate is in harmony with the fundamental principles of our Common School system.... The fundamental principle of the school system is two-fold. First, the right of the parent and pastor to provide religious instruction for their children; and to have facilities for that purpose. While the law protects each pupil from compulsory attendance at any religious reading or exercise against the wish of his parent; it also provides that within that limitation "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents and guardians shall desire, according to the general regulations which shall be provided according to law." The general regulations provide that the parent may make discretionary arrangements with the teacher on the subject; and that the clergyman of any Church shall have the right to any school house being within his charge for one hour in the week between four and five, for the religious instruction of the pupils of his own Church. Be it observed, then, the supreme right of the parent, and the corresponding right of the pastor in regard to the religious instruction of youth, even in connexion with day schools, where children are with their parents more than half of each week day, and the whole of each Sunday, is a fundamental principle of the Common School system. The less or greater extent to which the right may be exercised in various places, does not affect the principles or right itself, which is fundamental in the system. The second fundamental principle in the school system is the co-operation and aid of the State with each locality or section of the community as a condition of, and in proportion to local effort. This is a vital principle of the school system, and pervades it throughout, and is a chief element of its success. No public aid is given until a school house is provided, and a legally qualified teacher is employed, when public aid is given in proportion to the work done in the school; that is, in proportion to the number of children taught, and the length of time the school is kept open; and public aid is given for the purpose of school maps and apparatus, the prize books and libraries, in proportion to the amount provided from local sources. To the application of that principle between the State and the inhabitants of localities there is no exception whatever, except in the single case of distributing a sum not exceeding L500 per annum in aid of poor school sections in new townships, and then their local effort must precede the application for a special grant.

Such are the two fundamental principles of the school system, on which I have more than once dwelt at large in official reports.

Now apply these principles to the collegiate system of the country. First, the united right and duty of the parent and pastor. Should that be suspended when the son is away from home, or should it be provided for? Let parental affection and conscience, and not blind or heartless partisanship, reply. If, then, the combined care and duty of the parent and pastor are to be provided for as far as possible when the son is pursuing the higher part of his education, for which he must leave home, can that be done best in a denominational or non-denominational College? But one answer can be given to this question. The religious and moral principles, feelings, and habits of youth are paramount. Scepticism and partisanship may sneer at them as "sectarian," but religion and conscience will hold them as supreme. If the parent has the right to secure the religious instruction and oversight of his son at home, in connection with his school education, has he not a right to do so when his son is abroad? and is not the State in duty bound to afford him the best facilities for that purpose? And how can that be done so effectually--nay, how can it be effectually done at all--except in a college which, while it gives the secular education required by the State, responds to the parent's heart and faith to secure the higher interests which are beyond all human computation, and without the cultivation of which society itself cannot exist? It is a mystery of mysteries, that men of conscience, men of religious principle and feeling, can be so far blinded by sectarian jealousy and partizanship, as to desire for one moment to withhold from youth at the most feeble, most tempted, most eventful period of their educational training, the most potent guards, helps, and influences to resist and escape the snares and seductions of vice, and to acquire and become established in those principles, feelings, and habits which will make them true Christians, at the same time that they are educated men. Even in the interests of civilization itself, what is religious and moral stands far before what is merely scholastic and refined. The Hon. Edward Everett has truly said in a late address, "It is not political nor military power, but moral sentiments, principally under the guidance and influence of religious zeal, that has in all ages civilized the world." What creates civilization can alone preserve and advance it. The great question, after all, in the present discussion, is not which system will teach the most classics, mathematics, etc. (although I shall consider the question in this light presently), but which system will best protect, develop, and establish those higher principles of action, which are vastly more important to a country itself--apart from other and immortal considerations--than any amount of intellectual attainments in certain branches of secular knowledge. Colleges under religious control may fall short of their duty and their power of religious and moral influence; but they must be, as a general rule, vastly better and safer than a College of no religious control or character at all. At all events, one class of citizens have much more valid claims to public aid for a College that will combine the advantages of both secular and religious education, than have another class of citizens to public aid for a College which confers no benefit beyond secular teaching alone. It is not the sect, it is society at large that most profits by the high religious principles and character of its educated men. An efficient religious College must confer a much greater benefit upon the State than a non-religious College can, and must be more the benefactor of the State than the State can be to it by bestowing any ordinary amount of endowment. It is, therefore, in harmony with the first fundamental principle of the Common School system, as well as with the highest interests of society at large, that the best facilities be provided for all that is affectionate in the parent and faithful in the pastor, during the away-from-home education of youth; and that is a College under religious control, whether that control be of the Church of the parent or not.

I have already given on page 344, Dr. Ryerson's opinions in regard to the provisions of Hon. Robert Baldwin's University Bill of 1843. From the extract there inserted it will be seen that the practical objection which he raised in 1859, to the administration of the University Act of 1853, was in general harmony with the views and opinions on University matters which he had expressed fifteen or sixteen years before. A fuller expression of these opinions was given in a letter which Dr. Ryerson wrote to the British Colonist on the 14th of February, 1846. From that letter I make the following extracts:--

The Board of Victoria College took no part in the University question until after the introduction of a Bill into the Legislature which affected the chartered rights and relations of Victoria College. On that occasion a special meeting of the Board was called, to decide whether it would, under any circumstances, acquiesce in that Bill, and upon what terms. The Board expressed a strong opinion in favour of the general terms of the Bill, but expressed an unfavourable opinion respecting some of its details, especially the project of the "Extra mural Board," and the non-recognition of Christianity. The Board also objected to the smallness of the amount proposed to be given to Victoria College. It stated that Victoria College, having been erected by public subscription, for the purpose of "teaching the various branches of science and literature upon Christian principles," could not cease to be a literary institution, as some supposed the Bill contemplated; it stated the peculiar hardships of the aspect of the Bill to the Methodist institution, under all the circumstances (which it explained), and submitted them to the honourable and generous consideration of the Government.... Mr. Baldwin's Bill proposed to grant the sum of L500 per annum each for several years to no less than four seminaries [besides the University].... It was objected to on the part of both Presbyterians and Methodists, that its application to them was not liberal enough; it was objected to on the part of King's College Council that it gave even a farthing to any of them.

Afterwards King's College Council objected to the Bill, and employed counsel to oppose it, on the ground that the Legislature had no right to interfere with their charter, or to divert any portion of King's College funds in aid of other institutions. To this plea of the King's College Council an individual member of the Victoria College Board offered an argumentative reply, contending that the endowment of King's College was the property of the Province, and upon legal, constitutional, and equitable grounds, came within the limits of Provincial legislation. This principle, I believe, is now generally admitted.

From this summary of well known facts it is evident--1. That Mr. Baldwin's Bill did contemplate giving aid to other institutions than the Toronto University. 2. That the friends of Queen's, Regiopolis, Victoria and King's Colleges did expect to derive assistance from the University funds. 3. That the objections to Mr. Baldwin's Bill on the part of the Presbyterians and Methodists were, not that any portion of the University funds should be applied in aid of their institutions, but that the portion proposed was entirely too small. 4. That those who supported Mr. Baldwin's Bill cannot consistently object to aid being given from the University funds to institutions in connection with the Church of England, Roman Catholics and Methodists. The amount and duration of such aid is a mere prudential consideration; the principle is the same, whether the amount of aid be five hundred or five thousand pounds, whether the duration be five years or five hundred years....

That there should be a Provincial University, furnishing the highest academical and professional education, at least in respect to law and medicine; that there should be a Provincial system of common school education, commensurate with the wants of the entire population; that both the University and the system should be established and conducted upon Christian principles, yet free from sectarian bias or ascendancy; that there should be an intermediate class of seminaries in connection with the different religious persuasions, who have ability and enterprise to establish them, providing on the one hand a theological education for their clergy, and on the other hand a thorough English and scientific education, and elementary classical instruction for those of the youth of their congregations who might seek for more than a common school education, or who might wish to prepare for the University, and who, not having the experience and discretion of University students, required a parental and religious oversight, in their absence from their parents; that it would be economy and patriotic on the part of the Government to grant liberal aid to such seminaries, as well as to provide for the endowment of a University or a common school system;--these are views which I explained and argued at length when the University question was under discussion, from 1828 to 1834; these are the views on which the Methodists asked in establishing the Upper Canada Academy, now Victoria College; these are views, by pressing which, a royal charter and government aid were obtained for that institution; these are the views which received strong confirmation in the recommendation of a despatch from Lord Goderich to Sir John Colborne in 1832, and which greatly encouraged the friends of the Upper Canada Academy in their commencing exertions. That institution was not originally intended to be a University College; nor was it sought to be made so until after the establishment of a Presbyterian University College at Kingston; when, prompted by example and emulation, and encouragement of aid, it was thought that the operations of a University might be grafted upon those of the academy, without interfering with the more extended objects of the latter....

More than a thousand youth have received more or less instruction at the Cobourg Institution; very few of them, apart from other considerations, have gone from it without forming a high standard of education, and a deeper conviction of its importance than they had before entertained; it has prevented hundreds of youth from going out of the country to be educated, upon whom, and upon hundreds of others, it has conferred the benefits of a good practical education. Its buildings present the most remarkable monument of religious effort and patriotic energy which was ever witnessed in any country of the age and population of Upper Canada....

The Wesleyan Methodists have not, like the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome, derived any assistance from the clergy reserve fund, or other public aid to their clergy or churches. It is much easier to figure upon a platform than to establish educational institutions, or to preach the Gospel throughout new countries. Those who have been in Canada twelve months can do the former, and sneer at the latter. The flippant allusions of certain speakers at the late Toronto meeting to the Methodists and to Victoria College ... were as unfounded as they were unbecoming.

The discussions on the University question at Quebec in 1860 were, as I have intimated, bitter and largely personal. Dr. Ryerson, being in the fore front of the University reformers, was singled out for special attack by some of the ablest defenders of the University. I shall not enter into detail, but will give the opening and concluding parts of Dr. Ryerson's great speech, which he made before the Committee of the Legislature on the 25th and 26th of April, 1860:--

I am quite aware of the disadvantage under which I appear before you to-day. I am not insensible of the prejudices which may have been excited in the minds of many individuals by the occurrences of the last few days; ... I am not at all insensible of the fact that the attempt has been made to turn the issue, not on the great question which demands attention, but upon my merits or demerits, my standing as a man, and the course which I have pursued. This subject, of very little importance to the Committee, ... possesses a great deal of importance to myself. No man can stand in the presence of the Representatives of the people; no man can stand, as I feel myself standing this morning, not merely in the presence of a Committee, but, as it were, in the presence of my native country, the land of my birth, affections, labours, hopes, without experiencing the deepest emotion. But how much more is that the case when attempts have been made, of the most unprecedented kind, to deprive me of all that is dear to me as a man, as a parent, as a public officer, as a minister of the Christian Church. More especially do I thus feel because reading and arranging the papers on this subject, to which my attention has been called, occupied me until five o'clock this morning....

Sir, the position of the question which demands our consideration this day, is one altogether peculiar, and, I will venture to say, unparalleled in this or any other country. The individuals connected with myself--the party unconnected with what may be called the National University of the country, stand as the conservators of a high standard of education, and appear before you as the advocates of a thorough course of training that will discipline, in the most effectual manner, the powers of the mind, and prepare the youth of our country for those pursuits and those engagements which demand their attention as men, Christians, and patriots, while the very persons to whom has been allotted this great interest, this important trust, stand before you as the advocates of a reduction, of a puerile system which has never invigorated the mind, or raised up great men in any country; which can never lay deep and broad the foundations of intellectual grandeur and power anywhere, but which is characterized by that superficiality which marks the proceedings of the educational institutions in the new and Western States of the neighbouring Republic. Sir, I feel proud of the position I occupy; that if I have gone to an extreme, I have gone to the proper extreme; that even if I may have pressed my views to an extent beyond the present standing, the present capabilities of the Province, my views have been upward, my course has been onward, my attempt has been to invigorate Canada with an intellect and a power, a science and a literature that will stand unabashed in the presence of any other country, while the very men who should have raised our educational standard to the highest point, who should have been the leaders in adopting a high and thorough course, have confessed during the discussion of this question, that the former standard was too high, and that they have been levelling it down, incorporating with it speculations which have never elevated the institutions of any country, and adopting a course of proceedings which never advanced any nation to the position to which I hope in God my native country will attain.

The resolutions on which these proceedings have taken place, were adopted by the Wesleyan Conference in June, 1860. Now, whatever other changes may have taken place, I still adhere to the people of my youth, who were the early instruments of all the religious instruction I received until I attained manhood. Whether they are a polished and learned or a despised people, I still am not ashamed of them, nor of the humblest of their advocates or professors. I stand before you without a blush, in the immediate connection, and identified with that people. The resolutions that were adopted by the Conference, in pursuance of which the Conference appointed a large Executive Committee, consisting of nearly one hundred of the most experienced members of their body, to prepare the memorial which has been presented to Parliament, are these:--

Resolved. 1st. That it is the conviction of a large proportion, if not a large majority of the inhabitants of Canada, that their sons, in pursuing the higher branches of education (which cannot be acquired in day schools, and rarely without the youth going to a distance from the paternal roof and oversight), should be placed in institutions in which their religious instruction and moral oversight, as well as their literary training, are carefully watched over and duly provided for; a conviction practically evident by the fact that not only the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and other Methodists, but the members of the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome have contributed largely, and exerted themselves to establish colleges and higher seminaries of learning for the superior education of their children.

2nd. That no provision for instruction in secular learning alone, can compensate for the absence of provision, or care, for the religious and moral instruction of youth in the most exposed, critical, and eventful periods of their lives.

3rd. That it is of the highest importance to the best interests of Canada that the Legislative provision for superior education, shall be in harmony with the conscientious convictions and circumstances of the religious persuasions, which virtually constitute the Christianity of the country.

4th. That the exclusive application of the Legislative provision for superior education, to the endowment of a college for the education of the sons of that class of parents alone who wish to educate their sons in a non-denominational institution, irrespective of their religious principles and moral character, to the exclusion of those classes of parents who wish to educate their sons in colleges or seminaries where a paternal care is bestowed upon their moral and religious interests, at the same time that they are carefully and thoroughly taught in secular learning; is grossly illiberal, partial, unjust and unpatriotic, and merits the severest reprobation of every liberal and right-minded man of every religious persuasion and party in the country.

5. That the ministers and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, aided by the liberal co-operation of many other friends of Christian education, have largely and long contributed to establish and maintain Victoria College, in which provision is made for the religious instruction and oversight of students, independent of any Legislative aid--in which there are fifty-nine students in the Faculty of Arts, besides more than two hundred pupils and students in preparatory and special classes--in which no religious test is permitted by the charter in the admission of any student, or pupil, and in which many hundreds of youths of different religious persuasions, have been educated and prepared for professional and other pursuits, many of whom have already honourably distinguished themselves in the clerical, legal and medical professions, as also in mercantile and other branches of business.

6th. That Victoria College is justly entitled to share in the Legislative provision for superior education, according to the number of students in the collegiate and academical courses of instruction.

7th. That we affectionately entreat the members of our Church, to use their influence to elect, as far as possible, public men who are favourable to the views expressed in the foregoing resolutions, and do equal justice to those who wish to give a superior religious education to the youth of the country, as well as those who desire for their sons a non-religious education alone.

Dr. Ryerson concluded his speech on the 26th April. Towards its close he said:--[One of the speakers] thought to amuse the Committee, by a reference to an expression of mine, used in a letter written by me several years since, that I had meditated my system of public instruction for this country--(for I contemplated the whole system from the primary school to the University)--on some of the highest mountains in Europe, and said, using a very elegant expression, it must therefore be rather "windy." ... No one can have read the history of Greece or Scotland, or the Northern and Western parts of England, without knowing that, from elevated and secluded places, some of the finest inspirations of genius have emanated which have ever been conceived by the mind of man. There are mountains in Europe where the recluse may stand and see beneath him curling clouds, and roaring tempests spending their strength, while he is in a calm untroubled atmosphere, on the summit of a mountain of which it may be said,

"Though round his breast the rolling clouds are spread, Eternal sunshine settles on his head."

And I ask whether it was unphilosophical for an individual who had examined the educational systems of various countries, and who was crossing the Alps, to retire to a mountain solitude, and there, in the abode of that "eternal sunshine," and in the presence of Him who is the fountain of light, to contemplate a system which was to diffuse intellectual and moral light throughout his native country, to survey the condition of that country as a whole, apart from its political-religious dissensions, and ask what system could be devised to enable it to take its position among the civilized nations of the world?...

After giving expression to his views on what he conceived to be a proper and suitable University system for the Province, he concluded with these words:--It is perfectly well known to the Committee that its time, for the last four or five days, has been occupied, not in the investigation of these principles, but by attempts to destroy what is dearer to me than life, in order to crush the cause with which I am identified; and a scene has been enacted here, somewhat resembling that which took place in a certain committee room, at Toronto, in regard to a certain Inspector-General. Every single forgetfulness or omission of mine has been magnified and tortured in every possible way, to destroy my reputation for integrity, and my standing in the country. A newspaper in Toronto, whose editor-in-chief is a man of very great notoriety, has said, since the commencement of this inquiry, that, in my early days, I made mercenary approaches to another church, but was indignantly repelled, and hence my present position. I showed the other day that I might have occupied the place of Vice-Chancellor of the University which Mr. Langton now holds, had I desired (and the proposal was made to me after my return from Europe in 1856), and I have similar records to prove that in 1825, after the commencement of my Wesleyan ministry, I had the authoritative offer of admission to the ministry of the Church of England (see pages 41 and 206). My objection, and my sole objections was, that my early religious principles and feelings were wholly owing to the instrumentality of the Methodist people, and I had been providentially called to labour among them; not that I did not love the Church of England. Those were "saddlebag days," and I used to carry in my saddlebags two books, to which I am more indebted than to any other two books in the English language, except the Holy Scriptures, namely, the Prayer Book and the Homilies of the Church of England. At this very day, Sir, though I have often opposed the exclusive assumptions of some members of the Church of England, I only love it less than the Church with which I am immediately associated.

I have been charged with being the leader of the present movement. I am entitled to no such honour. If I have written a line it has been as the amanuensis of my ecclesiastical superiors; if I have done anything, it has been in compliance with the wishes of those whom I love and honour; and my attachment to the Wesleyan body, and the associations and doings of my early years, have been appealed to, as a ground of claim for my humble aid in connection with this movement. Sir, the Wesleyan people, plain and humble as they were, did me good in my youth, and I will not abandon them in my old age.

I have only further to add, that whatever may be my shortcomings, and even sins, I can say with truth that I love my country; that by habit of thought, by association, by every possible sympathy I could awaken in my breast, I have sought to increase my affection for my native land. I have endeavoured to invest it with a sort of personality, to place it before me as an individual, beautiful in its proportions, as well as vigorous in all the elements of its constitution, and losing sight of all distinction of classes, sects, and parties, to ask myself, in the presence of that Being, before whom I shall shortly stand, what I could do most for my country's welfare, how I could contribute most to found a system of education that would give to Canada, when I should be no more, a career of splendour which will make its people proud of it. I may adopt the words of a poet--though they may not be very poetical:--

'Sweet place of my kindred, blest land of my birth, The fairest, the purest, the dearest on earth; Where'er I may roam, where'er I may be, My spirit instinctively turns unto thee.'

Whatever may have been the course of proceeding adopted towards me in this inquiry, I bear enmity to no man; and whatever may be the result of this investigation, and the decision of the committee, I hope that during the few years I have to live, I shall act consistently with the past, and still endeavour to build up a country that will be distinguished in its religious, social, moral, educational, and even political institutions and character; to assist in erecting a structure of intellectual progress and power, on which future ages may look back with respect and gratitude, and thus to help, in some humble degree, to place our beloved Canada among the foremost nations of the earth.

* * * * *

The following private letters, written to me at the time from Quebec and Kingston, by Dr. Ryerson, throw additional light upon the nature of the contest in which he was engaged. They also reveal what the character of his personal feelings and the exercise of his mind during that eventful time were.

On the 20th April, Dr. Ryerson said:--I have had a very painful and laborious week; but I hope to-morrow to be able by divine help, to answer two of my principal opponents effectually. One of these gentlemen made a very plausible speech yesterday in defence of the University, and in reply chiefly to me, but full of fallacies and misquotations.

April 27th.--I finished my defence yesterday in the presence of a densely crowded room--consisting of a large number of Legislative Councillors and members of the House of Assembly--several of whom, I was told, were quite moved when I closed, and cheered me heartily when I sat down. I was congratulated on all sides by them in the afternoon, upon the manner in which I had triumphantly defended myself. I can only say, to God be all the praise. I felt myself as weak as water. I was so depressed and affected the night before, and the morning of commencing my defence, that I could not speak without emotion and tears; but I prayed and relied upon Him who had never failed me in the hour of trial, and my personal friends were also engaged in prayer in my behalf.

As soon as I commenced, I felt as if an army of such assailants were as so many pigmies, and, my friends say, I handled them as such. The remarks of members of both Houses are various, and some of them amusing--all agreeing in the completeness of the defence. All agree also as to the extravagance and defects of the system, and the unquestionable claims of denominational colleges.

I cannot review the great goodness of God to me during this mortifying week without an overflowing heart and tears of gratitude. More conscious and manifold help from above I never experienced. I hope I may never be called to pass through such another conflict. I spoke two hours and forty minutes on the day before yesterday, and one hour and three-quarters yesterday.

May 8th.--I shall be able to send you to-morrow a copy in slips of my reply to my two principal opponents. I know not what will be the result, but I trust in God, who has done better for us than all our fears or our hopes thus far. I hear that the general conviction of members is with me. One of the Senators told me that he had heard but one opinion on the subject. There are some who are satisfied that I have gained in the contest, but who are not in favour of dividing the endowment. All seem to feel that the present system is bad, and that something must be done, and that denominational colleges must be sustained. I think the House will refuse to do anything until the evidence, etc., on the subject is laid before the country. I thank you for your very kind sympathy in my conflicts.

Kingston, June 7th.--The Conference met yesterday, and seems to be in a very good spirit. A Committee was appointed, named by myself, and moved by Rev. Dr. Wood--to arrange for proceedings on the University question. The Committee met last night, and agreed to have a public meeting; and myself and one or two more to draw up resolutions to be submitted to it. I am desired to address the meeting in the evening, when it is expected there will be a great gathering. I find the preachers to be very cordial and grateful.

Kingston June 8th.--The official lay members of the Church in the city of Kingston presented a congratulatory address to the Conference this forenoon, in which they referred with great feeling and force to the University question, also to the representatives of the Conference at Quebec, and especially to myself--requesting that the Guardian might be more and more the medium of furnishing the connexion with facts and information on the subject, and that my Defence should be inserted in it for the information of our people.

Rev. G. R. Sanderson, seconded by Rev. W. Jeffers, moved a vote of thanks to the official members of Kingston for their address. Rev. J. Spencer, Editor of the Guardian, regarded the address as an attack upon himself, and said the lay members had been instigated to make the attack upon him. Dr. Wood showed that the address simply made a request. Mr. Spencer was considered to have made a great mistake for himself.

The feeling of Conference in regard to myself is very cordial and very enthusiastic on the University question. The article in The Canadian Church is much admired. A copy of it has been sent to the Montreal Gazette, also to the Kingston Daily News. It is an able and most scholarly article.

Kingston, June 13th.--Yesterday afternoon, the Conference considered and unanimously and cordially adopted a series of resolutions on the University question--thanking those who were at Quebec, especially myself--endorsing the memorial pamphlet. My name was received with cheers, whenever mentioned in the resolutions. In the evening, a public meeting was held, and it was a perfect ovation to myself. Some of those present thought that that was the object of the meeting. Rev. W. Jeffers, the new editor, made an excellent speech. Rev. Lachlan Taylor read extracts in a most amusing and effective manner from the Hamilton Spectator, Colonist, Echo, and Church Press. The Hon. Mr. Ferrier spoke most happily on the effect of the discussion, and also of the effect of my speech on the members of both branches of the Legislature. I was cheered throughout, and sat down with four long rounds of cheers. There was much laughter, and occasional deep feeling during my criticisms on the variations, and some of the topics of the speeches of my opponents at Quebec, especially the after-dinner speeches at the Toronto University gathering.

FOOTNOTES:

[148] Since established and supported, as is the one in Montreal, by contributions from the Methodist people.Return to passage

Chapter LIX

1861-1866.

Personal Incidents.--Dr. Ryerson's Visits to Norfolk Co.

During the years of 1861-1866, Dr. Ryerson was chiefly engaged in his official duties, and part of the time with the University question. There is, therefore, little to record during these years except personal matters. The following letters from two of his brothers indicate how strong was their attachment to him:--

Brantford, 4th October, 1861.--Rev. John Ryerson writes: I have derived more benefit from reading Milner's History this time than I ever did before; especially the experience, writings, &c., of St. Augustine, Cyprian, Bernard, Luther and Zwingle. St. Augustine's conversion and "confessions" have been much blessed to me. I have been led to examine with more care and prayerful attention than ever before, the power, influence, and fruits of vital godliness, as experienced and manifested in the hearts and lives of both the Greek and Latin Fathers; and also the principal instruments of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. O! the power, wisdom, and goodness of God; displayed in all these scenes, matters and lives!

Kingston, May 8th, 1862.--The Rev. Geo. Ryerson writes: We arrived here safely this morning. I write this by the first mail because I feel anxious concerning you. I fear that if you undertake a journey to Quebec in your present state of weakness and disease, that it will be fatal to you. You are providentially unable to bear the bodily and mental exertion. God does not send a sick man to labour in any good work, and he requires us to use ourselves tenderly, when he weakens us.

Brantford, May 9th.--Rev. John Ryerson writes: I had no idea that you had been so seriously ill. It is, however, gratifying now to learn that you are convalescent, and the loss of a little of your "fleshly substance" may prove no great calamity. Were I to lose "forty pounds," as you have, there would be very little of me left!

Brantford, December 22nd.--Rev. John Ryerson writes: During my long missionary tour I preached about ten times, always with liberty and freedom. Since I returned home I have resumed all of my domestic and private devotional exercises, and after my missionary labours realize the return of quiet peace and spiritual communion. Recently, after much prayer, I received a great blessing to my soul, the peace of God coming down upon my heart and going all over me, and I still have peace. God is my portion, my righteousness, and my salvation all the day long.

In September, 1864, Dr. Ryerson wrote the following account of visits which he made to his native county of Norfolk:--

In compliance with many requests, I have thought it would not be improper, and might be acceptable to my Norfolk friends, for me to give an account of my visits during the last two years to my native place, and to the Island within Long Point, which my father obtained from the Crown, and which now belongs to me--marked on old maps as Pottahawk Point, but designated on later maps, and more generally known, as "Ryerson's Island."

I may remark, by way of preface, that for more than thirty-five years of my public life my constitution and brain seemed to be equal to any amount of labour which I might impose on them; but of late years, the latter has been the seat of alarming attacks and severe pain, under any protracted or intense labour; and the former has been impaired by labour and disease. Change of scene and out-door exercise have proved the most effectual remedy for both. My first adoption of this course (apart from foreign travel) was two years since, when a month's daily sea-bathing, boating and walking, at Cape Elizabeth, near Portland, State of Maine, contributed greatly to the improvement of my health and strength. After again resuming my usual work for several weeks, I found that my relief, if not safety, required a further suspension of ordinary mental labour, and diversion of my thought by new objects. I determined to visit the place of my birth and the scenes of my youth. At Port Ryerse I made myself a little skiff after the model of one I had seen at the sea-side, and in which I rowed myself to and from Ryerson's Island, a distance of some thirteen miles from Port Ryerse, and about four miles from the nearest mainland--the end of Turkey Point.

Last autumn I lodged two weeks on the farm on which I was born, with the family of Mr. Joseph Duncan, where the meals were taken daily in a room the wood-work of which I, as an amateur carpenter, had finished more than forty years ago, while recovering from a long and serious illness.

When invited to meet and address the common schools of the county of Norfolk, at a county school picnic held in a grove near Simcoe, the 24th of last June, I determined to proceed thither, not by railroad and stage, as usual, but in a skiff fifteen feet and a half long, in which I had been accustomed for some months to row in Toronto Harbour, between six and eight o'clock in the morning.

Providing, as far as possible, against the double danger of swamping and capsizing, by a canvas deck, proper ballast, and fittings of the sail, I crossed Lake Ontario alone from Toronto to Port Dalhousie in nine hours; had my skiff conveyed thence to Port Colborne on a Canadian vessel, through the Welland Canal, and proceeded along the north shore of Lake Erie, rowing in one day, half-way against head wind, from the mouth of Grand River to Port Dover, a distance of forty miles, taking refreshments and rest at farm houses, and bathing three times during the day. The following day scarcely conscious of fatigue, I delivered two addresses; the one to a vast assemblage of school pupils and their friends, in a grove; the other a lecture to teachers and trustees in the evening.

After visiting my island and witnessing the productive and excellent garden of the family that occupies it, I returned to Toronto in my skiff, by the way of Niagara river, sailing in one day between sun-rise and sun-set (stopping for three hours at Port Colborne) from Grand River to Chippewa, within two miles of the Falls. I had my skiff conveyed on a waggon over the portage from Chippewa to Queenstown (ten miles), and started from Niagara to Toronto about noon of the first Friday in July. When a little more than half way across the lake, I encountered a heavy north-east storm of rain and wind, and a fog so thick as to completely obscure the Toronto light-house, which was within a mile of me. When it became so dark that I could not see my compass, I laid my course, with the sail reefed, by the wind and waves, reaching (a mile west of my due course) the east side of the Humber Bay, between ten and eleven in the evening, and making my way, by a hard pull, to the Toronto Yacht Club House a little before midnight.

About four weeks since my son and myself made the voyage in the same skiff from Toronto to Long Point, but proceeding by railroad from Port Dalhousie to Port Colborne, intending to spend a week or two on the farm, and two or three days on the Island.

I conclude this epitomised sketch with three remarks. I am satisfied of the truth of what I have long believed, that a small boat is as safe, if not safer, than a large one, if properly constructed, fitted out, trimmed, and managed. I believe that many a large open boat, if not capsized by the wind, would have been swamped by the waves over which my little craft rode in safety.

I have never experienced the benefit of out-door exertion and the comfort of retirement to the same degree as during these excursions, besides daily riding on horseback and preparing all the wood consumed at my cottage. Between two and three years ago I found it painful labour to walk one mile, I have since walked twelve miles in a day, besides attending to other duties--an improvement of my general system, which is already acting sensibly and encouragingly on the seat of thought and nervous influence. In my lonely voyage from Toronto to Port Ryerse, the scene was often enchanting, and the solitude sweet beyond expression. I have witnessed the setting sun amidst the Swiss and Tyrolese Alps, from lofty elevations, on the plains of Lombardy, from the highest eminence of the Appenines, between Bologna and Florence, and from the crater summit of Vesuvius, but I never was more delighted and impressed (owing, perhaps, in part to the susceptible state of my feelings) with the beauty, effulgence, and even sublimity of atmospheric phenomena, and the softened magnificence of surrounding objects, than in witnessing the setting sun the 23rd of June, from the unruffled bosom of Lake Erie, a few miles east of Port Dover, and about a mile from the thickly wooded shore, with its deepening and variously reflected shadows. And when the silent darkness enveloped all this beauty, and grandeur, and magnificence in undistinguishable gloom, my mind experienced that wonderful sense of freedom and relief which come from all that suggests the idea of boundlessness--the deep sky, the dark night, the endless circle, the illimitable waters. The world with its tumult of cares seemed to have retired, and God and His works appeared all in all, suggesting the enquiry which faith and experience promptly answered in the affirmative--

With glorious clouds encompassed round Whom angels dimly see; Will the unsearchable be found; Will God appear to me?

My last remark is the vivifying influence and unspeakable pleasure of visiting scenes endeared to me by many tender, and comparatively few painful recollections. Amid the fields, woods, out-door exercises, and associations of the first twenty years of my life, I have seemed to forget the sorrows, labours and burdens of more than two score years, and to be transported back to what was youthful, simple, healthy, active, and happy. I can heartily sympathise with the feelings of Sir Walter Scott when, in reply to Washington Irving, who had expressed disapprobation in the scenery of the Tweed, immortalized by the genius of the Border Minstrel, he said,--

It may be partiality, but to my eyes these gray hills and all this wild border country have beauties peculiar to themselves. I like the very nakedness of the land. It has something bold, and stern, and solitary about it. When I have been for some time in the rich scenery of Edinburgh, which is ornamented garden land, I begin to wish myself back again among my honest gray hills, and if I did not see the heather at least once a year I think I should die.

Dr. Ryerson was very bold and skilful in the management of a sail boat, as may be inferred from the foregoing incidents. On one occasion, a few years ago, while sailing on the Toronto bay in his skiff, he was overtaken by a gale, during which the steeple of Zion Church was blown down, but, through God's goodness, he reached terra firma in safety.

He frequently sailed his little craft, as he has mentioned, from Port Ryerse and Port Rowan to his Long Point cottage--a distance of thirteen and nine miles respectively--and that, too, in all sorts of weather, and sometimes when much larger boats would not venture outside of the harbour.

For many years Dr. Ryerson was considered one of the best shots at Long Point. When over seventy years of age, he killed from seventy to eighty duck in one day in his punt and with his own gun. In the spring of 1880, when in his seventy-eighth year, he was overtaken by darkness, and, not being able to reach his cottage, was compelled to remain all night in the marsh. Rolling himself up in his blankets, in his boat, he quietly went to sleep. In the early morning he was rewarded by capturing nine wild geese.

He crossed Lake Ontario, between Toronto and Port Dalhousie, four times alone in his skiff (only sixteen feet long), and three times accompanied by his son. Fear was unknown to him, and he never lost his presence of mind, even in the most perilous circumstances.

Another favourite recreation of his was riding. He was often seen before six o'clock in the morning enjoying a canter in the suburbs of Toronto.

* * * * *

Writing to me from Ridgeway in August, 1866, he said:--

To-day I left Toronto in my little skiff for Port Dalhousie. The lake was as smooth as glass the greater part of the day, and the latter part of the day there was not a breath of wind, so that I had to row. I got into Port Dalhousie in the evening. I was at the Queen's Own camp at Thorold yesterday. I visited a large number of tents, and examined the whole mode of living, and especially of cooking. It was amusing, among other cases of the same kind, to see several young gentlemen of Toronto cooking, and others assisting. I saw them cutting their meat, etc. They have the reputation of being the best cooks in the battalion. I go to Port Colborne in the rail cars, and will proceed in my skiff to Port Ryerse, or rather to Port Dover first. I hope to get there to-morrow. I went over the battle-ground here last evening.

* * * * *

As many people were curious to know how Dr. Ryerson spent his time at his Long Point cottage, the following letter, written to his cousin, Major Ryerse, in April, 1873, will supply the information. It relates to one day's experience, and was about the average of these experiences there:--On leaving the island cottage, I paddled and pushed my boat about six miles in the marsh, Monday forenoon. I rowed all the way to Port Ryerse against a head wind, one part of the way so strong that I shipped a good deal of water, and got wet. I was from two to eight o'clock rowing from my cottage to Port Ryerse. I was too wet and fatigued to walk to your house, but went to bed at nine, got up at five, and started for Simcoe at six. I walked eight miles out of ten on the ice, from Port Rowan over--going the other two miles by water, in a skiff which we took with us on a hand-sled. During the first eight days I did not go out in the marsh at all, but devoted myself wholly to my papers and books. The second week I went out three times, about three hours each, got a little game, but not enough to leave any on the way, except to a few friends. I am now beginning to enjoy rest more than exertion; and am not certain when I shall come again, or whether I shall come at all again.

* * * * *

While on his educational tour in 1866, Dr. Ryerson wrote to me from Napanee, and said:--There was a very large meeting in Picton on Saturday and another here to-day, and both went with me in everything, with showers of compliments and almost enthusiastic feeling.

A large number of the oldest settlers and Methodists were invited to meet me last night at Mr. Dorland's, in Adolphustown. The service in the evening was to them a feast of fat things, and some of them spoke of it as the happiest occasion of their lives. I felt very happy with them. They said it reminded them of "old times."

Chapter LX

1867.

Last Educational Visit to Europe.--Rev. Dr. Punshon.

In 1867 Dr. Ryerson made his last educational tour to Europe. On his return he prepared two elaborate reports--one on Systems of Education in Europe, and the other on the Education of the Deaf and Dumb. He also went to Paris as an Honorary Commissioner to the International Exhibition held in that city in 1867. While absent he constantly wrote to me. From his letters I make the following selections:--

Paris, January 22nd, 1867.--The pretended concessions of the Emperor of France to the French nation was not much thought of in Paris, as it is regarded here of little value. His announcement of his concessions, as being final, will do him more harm, than the concessions themselves will do good.

The Attorney-General told me to-day that I had won the the heart of Mr. Adderly, M.P., Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is an able man. The Attorney-General gave me a note of introduction to him (in the absence of Lord Carnarvon) in order to introduce me to Lord Stanley, which Mr. Adderly did. He asked me many questions about our school system, and told the Attorney-General I had given him an immense deal of information in a short time.

Nice, February 25.--We left Paris Wednesday evening, and reached Marseilles Thursday noon--passing Lyons, Vienne, Avignon, etc., in the valley of the Rhone, by daylight. The scenery was very beautiful, vine-yards on the hillsides, cultivated fields, trees and shrubs green, almonds in blossom. In the afternoon we "did" Marseilles, visiting the Exchange, the Palais de Justice, the ancient and modern port with its thousands of ships,--28,000 entering it per year--ascended the lofty mount, with garden walls on its sides, to the Notre Dame church which surmounts it--a small church of the sailors hung with innumerable characteristic mementoes of their escapes from shipwreck, through the intercession of their Mother-protector! The view of the city and surrounding country, all dotted with villas, is magnificent. Next morning we started for Nice. Toulon, the Mediterranean naval station of France, is about thirty-six miles this side of Marseilles--about one-third of the way to Nice. It is strongly fortified; its port, which is admirable, contains many French ships of war. The population is about 50,000. Between Toulon and Nice lies the town of Cannes--a rival to Nice as a resort for invalids. The scenery from Marseilles to Nice is beautiful, and sometimes grand--the sea on one side, and the gardens, fields, olive and orange orchards, hillsides and mountain slopes, dotted with hamlets and villas, on the other. In the back-ground of Nice are seen the maritime Alps. Oranges are here seen on the trees; and the trees, shrubs and flowers are green, and some of them in blossom. The breezes gentle, the sun bright and warm, the sky clear, and the atmosphere soft and balmy, one seems to inhale healthful vigour with every breath, and to behold cheerful beauty on every side.

I have here met my old friend, Dr. Pantelioni, who attended me when I was ill in Rome, who was employed by Count Cavour to negotiate with Prince Napoleon and the Emperor the treaty of the 15th September, by which the French troops have evacuated Rome; but he is now an exile from Rome, but hopes soon to return thither. He has the first medical practice here, as he had at Rome.

Florence, March 19th.--Since I wrote to you from Rome, we went to Naples, in ten hours, by railway; spent three days there, and returned, the fourth, here--in 23 hours from Naples--arriving here Sunday morning, in time to dress, get breakfast, and go to church, where we heard the liturgy read evangelically, and a good evangelical sermon. The Church at Rome is High Church; that at Florence is evangelical. But I heard an excellent service from the Dean of Ely (Mr. Goodwin), at Rome. I can give you no particulars of our tour. I do not enjoy it. I have wished a good many times that you were in my place, and that I had a week's quiet on my Island. Rome was dirty, as well as almost wholly given to superstition, though there is a strong and widespread hostility among the masses to the temporal power of the Pope. Naples was dirty, but evinced much business activity. Florence is clean, industrious, and all the people cleanly and well-dressed, except some beggars--an old legacy. But the general hostility to the priesthood is remarkable, though not surprising. The Government had gained in the recent elections, but has a difficult part to play, between the Church and Anti-Church parties, and keeping up a large army, and imposing heavy taxes, of which all complain.

Venice, March 28th.--At Florence, the British Minister introduced me to Count Usedon, the Prussian Minister at Florence, formerly at Paris, a most delightful and variously learned man, who invited me to go to his villa, but I had not time, and who told me all about the working of the Prussian System of Public Instruction, in each neighbourhood--saying that the law had not been changed at all since I was in Prussia; that the Government did nothing but inspect, and see that each locality had a school of a certain kind, and that each person educated his children; but that each locality taxed itself for the support of its school. He told me I could find nothing suitable to my purpose in Prussia, in respect to the militia organization in connection with the school system, as there was no connection between the one and the other, and that the military system was expensive, and much interfered with the ordinary employments; but that Switzerland was the place for me to learn and study the blending of the school system with military training, in consequence of which every Swiss had a good education, understood the use of arms and military drill, and was yet practical, industrious, and sober, while the whole system was very inexpensive. He gave me a letter of introduction to a friend of his in Switzerland, who could give me every information I might desire, and all needful documents.

Lake Como, April 1st.--This is the first place of rest and retirement that we have had since we came to Europe. We are inhaling fresh country air every day. We are in the centre of a natural magnificence, beauty, and grandeur such as I have never witnessed--before us the little, deep, Y-shaped lake, abounding in fish, dotted with skiffs, skirted with flower gardens, walks, shrubs, and villas, and overhung on either side by snow-capped mountains--roses and plants and green flowers at the bottom of the mountains--craggy rocks and deep snow at the top, and all apparently within a mile's distance. Here where we stop is the villa of the Duke of Meiningen, and the palace-residence of the late Queen Caroline of England (now an hotel), and the villa of the King of the Belgians--a favourite place of retirement of the late King. What I have witnessed here, in the quiet Sabbath of yesterday, has given me more impressive views of the varied beauty and magnificence of the works of God than I ever had before, though I had travelled much, and finished my sixty-fourth year the Sabbath before.

London, 30th April.--I was present two hours at the anniversary of the Church Missionary Society--heard the report (a very good one) read, and heard Lord Chichester (President), the Lord Bishop of Norwich, Dean of Carlisle, and the Lord Bishop of Cork. The speaking was evangelical--Methodistically experimental, but nothing like so able and effective as that at the Wesleyan Missionary meeting yesterday.

I attended a meeting this afternoon at City Road Chapel, to hear an address from Lord Shaftesbury on Ragged Schools, and to witness the laying of the corner-stone of a chapel school-house in an alley about six minutes' walk from City Road Wesleyan Chapel--one of the most wretched neighbourhoods in London. I never knew before what the ragged poor of London, in the lanes and alleys, were. I never witnessed such a sight of squalid wretchedness--the neighbourhood literally swarming with children--every window of the houses around full of heads--all indicating that lowest degradation, but many of the children had good features and bright eyes sparkling through the encrustation of dirt. We have no such class in Canada, and I hope we never may.

Lord Shaftesbury's remarks were of the highest type of Scriptural and experimental truth--eminently practical and suggestive. His address to the poor creatures, at the laying of the corner-stone of the edifice, was full of kindness and affection--adopting even the very style of address common among the class whom he addressed. As a specimen, his Lordship said:--"I just heard a boy say behind me, 'which is him?' Now, I am him; you want to see him; and I want to see you, and to talk to you, and to do you good. We have all come here to do you good, because we love you, and the poorer you are, and the more you suffer, the more we wish to help you, and to do you good." He reminded me of the Saviour going about doing good, and of the words of Job (chap. 29), "When the ear heard me, then it blessed me, and when the eye saw me it gave witness to me, because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him," etc. (verses 11, 13, 15, and 16). It was to me an impressive, affecting, and, I trust, a useful lesson.

London, 1st May.--We attended to-day the annual meeting of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Report was admirably read, and was most gratifying and encouraging. The speeches were excellent, and some parts of them produced a wonderful effect. The Lord Bishop of Carlisle spoke nobly and scripturally; the Dean of Carlisle spoke fervently and affectingly; the Rev. Dr. Miller spoke very ably and effectively; but Mr. Calvert (of Fiji mission), spoke irresistibly to the heart; and Dr. Phillips spoke with surpassing beauty, and charming power. The latter two are both Welshmen, and Methodists--the former a Wesleyan, and the latter a Whitfield Welsh Methodist. The Rev. Mr. Nolan spoke with great excellence; Lord Shaftesbury speaks as a matter of business, naturally, simply, but with dignity, and great force.

But the speeches of clergymen to-day, as well as yesterday, painfully impressed me with the divided, and deplorable state of the Church of England. Indeed, I thought to-day that it was hardly in good taste, or even politic, for clergymen to give such prominence to the internal heresies and divisions of the Church, at a non-denominational meeting, and before their brethren of other denominations, and before the world. But they feel that the evil and danger is so great that they should speak out, and do so on all occasions. There have been disputes and divisions among the Methodists, on personal and political quasi-ecclesiastical grounds, but never of the grave character of those which agitate the Church of England. It is the opinion of many of the clergymen and laymen of the Church, that a formal and great separation will ere long take place between the opposing parties. But, still, I think that the heart of the Church is sound--that neither the ritualists nor the neologists touch the masses of the labouring and middle classes--only some speculative minds, and imaginary spirits, seeking for excitement in religion, as they do in reading novels, and at the theatre. But, after all, I believe, as I hope, the Church will come out of this fiery trial, better, stronger, and more qualified to do good, and with a deeper baptism of the Divine Spirit for its promotion. So far as I have had opportunity to mingle with the ministers and members, and to witness services and meetings, I think I never saw the Wesleyan body in so good a state; so perfectly at peace and united, and so devoted to their one great work; and with a fervour and depth of spirituality not excelled even in Mr. Wesley's day. The personal example and influence of the most eloquent and leading men in the Connexion is highly spiritual and practical.

London, 5th May.--During my present visit to England I have been so deeply impressed with the vast benefit to my native land by a visit to it of Rev. William Morley Punshon that I have written to him on the subject, and have got others to speak to him about it. I was rejoiced, therefore, to get from him a note to-day, dated Bristol, 4th May, as follows:--The more I think about your proposition the more I am impressed that it is in the order of Providence that I should accept it. I have always hoped that I might some day see your great continent and have the opportunity of acquainting myself with the capabilities of your country, and with the work which has been done in it; and on many accounts the present seems to be the most favourable time. If, therefore, you should honour me with an invitation, and the British Conference shall see good to appoint me, I shall place no hindrance in the way, but shall endeavour to regard it as the wish of the Lord.

London, 6th May.--I have gratefully replied to Mr. Punshon, and shall now return to Canada, satisfied that I have, with God's help, accomplished a great work for her, and that we shall reap a rich reward from the services of this honoured minister of Christ.

London, 15th May.--In a kind parting note from Rev. Dr. Elijah Hoole to Dr. Ryerson, dated Mission House, May 15th, the former says: I have written to Dr. Wood to-day, and have informed him how grateful it has been to us to renew our personal intercourse with you. When you have once taken your departure we may hardly hope to meet again, but I shall always thankfully retain the impression of the ability and purity, and Christian love, and missionary zeal, which have always distinguished your personal intercourse with us.

London, 19th June.--This day I had the pleasure of writing to Rev. William Morley Punshon, inviting him to my house when he comes to Toronto. I said to him,--You have probably learned, ere this reaches you, that the Canadian Conference, (now consisting of altogether 612 ministers and preachers), has most cordially and warmly solicited your appointment as its next President, with the request that you will visit and travel through Canada the current year. I assume that you will accept this appointment, and I understood from Rev. Gervase Smith that you would probably come to Canada, in September or October next. As Toronto is the centre of Methodism in Canada, as well as the largest city, and capital of Canada West, I assume, for reasons I have stated in a letter this day addressed to your friend, Mr. Gervase Smith, that you will make Toronto your home. I shall be most happy to entertain you and yours, on your arrival there. I shall be happy to do all in my power to consult your wishes, and promote your comfort, as well as usefulness, in Canada. I pray that the Lord will direct your steps, and prosper your way, to us in this country.

London, July 17th.--In a note from Rev. Gervase Smith to Rev. Dr. Ryerson, dated July 17th, he says:--We all seemed to feel from your first call at our house, that we were adding another valuable friendship to our list, and we followed you over the water with many kind feelings and remembrances. I am very glad to hear so cheering an account of your Conference. As far as I can see, the way is opening out for Mr. Punshon's visit to Canada, as clearly as you or his friends in this country could wish. His removal from us, even for a space, will be a great loss to us; and on grounds of friendship, especially so to myself; but I hope it is all right. It is our earnest prayer that he, and the Conference in his case, may be guided rightly. I should very much like to accompany him. I do not give up the hope of seeing you and the Canadian world, during his residence among you. I have formed a secret resolution to steal away for a few weeks within the next year or two. But perhaps it is wrong to anticipate. "Ye know not what shall be on the morrow."

Toronto, 24th July.--I was thankful this day to receive from Rev. Wm. Morley Punshon a letter dated Bristol, 10th July, acknowledging mine to him of the 19th June. He says:--It brought me the only intimation which I have yet received of the request of the Canadian Conference that I should be appointed to preside over its next session. I feel humbled and thankful for this mark of the confidence of my brethren over the water, and, if Providence opens my way, shall regard myself as favoured with no mean opportunity of getting and doing good. No step in this whole matter has been of my own motion. I am simply passive in the hands of God and of His Church. You have very truly interpreted my wishes and feelings in what you have said to some of my brethren. All our affairs are in higher hands than our own; and if by God's overruling providence, I shall be assured of welcome in Canada, and enabled to work for Christ upon that continent, which I have so often longed to see, I shall regard the disruption of all older ties, and the sacrifice of present position in this country, as a small price to pay--the more, if I can aid in the establishment of a grand Methodist confederacy which shall be one of the great spiritual powers of the New World.

Dr. Ryerson adds, With a grateful heart at God's goodness in this matter, I replied to the letter on the 1st of August, 1867.

While I was in England in 1867, Dr. Ryerson wrote to me (Toronto, August 1st,) to say that:--The Rev. W. M. Punshon, M.A., is coming out to Canada, in October, with his family. He has addressed me several inquiries, which I answer by this mail; but I wrote him to say who you were, what your address was in London, and that you could give him every needful information and suggestion as to his best mode of proceedings. I told him I would write you, and request you to write him a line--also telling him your address, and where you could see him, if he came to London, and offering him every information in your power, that he might desire. All things go on as usual in the Office.

Rev. Gervase Smith, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated at the Bristol Conference, 4th August said:--We have had many important conversations and decisions. Some of which will be interesting to you, and the Canadian friends. Mr. Punshon's appointment to Canada was made by the Conference. I need not say that we are all sorely grieved at even the temporary loss of his presence and service. But the call from Canada was loud, and Providence seemed to indicate the way thither. I need not say that you will take care of him, and let us have him back again as soon as practicable. I am sure that his sojourn among you will be made a great blessing to multitudes, and I doubt not that the future of Methodism in Canada will be influenced by it. He is also heartily appointed as our Representative to the General Conference in America. I judge that the Conference now being held here will be regarded in the future as a very important one.

Chapter LXI

1867.

Dr. Ryerson's Address on the New Dominion of Canada.

While I was in England, in 1867, Dr. Ryerson wrote to me late in July, to say:--Some of our leading public men were anxious that I should do something to assist in placing government upon the right foundation in our new civil state. But before communicating with them I determined to write boldly, an Address to the people of Upper Canada. These friends were delighted when they learned my determination, after I had written about half my address. It was printed last evening. It will, of course, draw upon me a great deal of abuse. But I have counted the cost, and thought I ought to issue it under the circumstances. I think a reaction is already beginning. I have thought it my duty to make one more special effort to save the country from future wretchedness, if not ruin, caused by the bitter party spirit of the press, whatever it might cost me.... I am wonderfully well; but take some exercise every day, and do not work very long at a time.

The Address was issued in pamphlet form in July, 1867, and under the title of "The New Canadian Dominion: Dangers and Duties of the People in regard to their Government." From it I make the following extracts:

While I heartily unite in your rejoicings over our new birth as a nation, I beg to address you some words on our national duties and interests. I do so because my opinions and advices have been requested by many persons deeply interested in the public welfare; because I am approaching the close of a public life of more than forty years, during which I have carefully observed the hindrances and aids of our social progress, and have taken part, since 1825, in the discussion of all those constitutional questions which involved the rights and relations of religious denominations and citizens, and which have resulted in our present system of free government and of equal rights among all religious persuasions; because my heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the new Dominion of Canada may become prosperous and happy, by beginning well, by avoiding those errors which have in time past been injurious to ourselves, and which have impeded the progress and marred the peace of other peoples, and by adopting those maxims of both feeling and conduct which the best and most experienced public men of Europe and America have enjoined as essential to the strength and happiness, the advancement and grandeur of a nation....

We are passing from an old into a new state of political existence. The alleged evils of former civil relations have induced the creation of new ones; and the denounced evils of a former system of government have led to the establishment of a new system.... We have been raised from a state of colonial subordination to one of affectionate alliance with the mother country. Then the first act of wisdom and duty is, to note and avoid the evils which marred our peace and prosperity in our former state, and cultivate those feelings and develop those principles of legislation and government which have contributed most to the promotion of our own happiness and interests as well as those of other nations.

If you will call up to your recollection the events of our country's history for the last twenty years, I am sure you will agree with me that personal hostilities and party strife have been the most fatal obstacles to our happiness and progress as a people--an immense loss of time and waste of public money in party debates and struggles--a most fruitful source of partiality and corruption in legislation and government.... During the last two years that there has been a cessation of party hostilities and a union of able men of heretofore differing parties for the welfare of the country, there has been an economy, intelligence and impartiality in legislation, and in the whole administration of government, not equalled for many years past, a corresponding improvement in the social feelings and general progress of the country, as well as an elevation of our reputation and character abroad, in both Europe and America....

In no respect is the education of a people more important than in respect to the principles of their government, their rights and duties as citizens. This does not come within the range of elementary school teaching; but I have sought to introduce, as much as possible, expositions on the principles, spirit and philosophy of government, in my annual reports, and other school addresses and documents, during the last twenty years, and so to frame the whole school system as to make its local administration an instrument of practical education to the people, in the election of representatives, and the corporate management of their affairs--embracing most of the elementary principles and practice of civil government, and doing so to a greater extent than is done in the school system of any country in Europe, or of any State in America. And the strength and success of the school system in any municipality have been in proportion to the absence of party spirit, and the union of all parties for its promotion.... What is true in school polity is true in civil polity; and what is true in the educational branch of the public service, is true in every branch of the public service.

I am aware that many good and intelligent men, of different views and associations, regard partyism as a necessity, a normal element, in the operations of free civil government.... I think they are in error, at least in the Canadian sense of the term party; and that this error has been at the bottom of most of our civil discords and executive abuses. I think that partyism is a clog in the machinery of civil government, as in that of school or municipal government; in which there is free discussion of measures, and of the conduct of Trustees and Councillors; and there have been elections and changes of men as well as of measures.... When party assumptions and intolerance have gone so far as to interfere with the proper functions of government, with the constitutional rights of citizens, or of the Crown, I have, at different times, in former years, being trammelled by or dependent upon no party, endeavoured to check these party excesses, and oppressions, sometimes to the offence of one party, and sometimes to the offence of another, just as one or the other might be the transgressor. I was, of course, much assailed by the parties rebuked; but no consideration of that kind should prevent the public instructor--whether educator or preacher--from ... teaching what he believes to be true and essential to the advancement of society, please or offend whom it may, or however it may affect him personally.

I have rejoiced to observe, that many who have heretofore been men of party and of party government have resolved to inaugurate the new system of government, not upon the acute angle of party, but, upon the broad base of equal and impartial justice to all parties, the only moral and patriotic principle of government, according to my convictions, and the only principle of government to make good and great men, and make a progressive and happy country....

Thankful to find that the new system of civil government was to be established upon the same principles as those on which our school system has been founded and developed to the satisfaction of the country, and to the admiration of all foreign visitors; and believing that the present was the juncture of time for commencing a new and brighter era in the history of Canada--I have felt that it had a claim to the result, in epitome at least, of my fifty years reading and meditation, and more than forty years occasional discussion, respecting these first principles of government, for the freedom, unity, happiness, advancement and prosperity of a people....

I believe there is a judgment, a conscience, a heart in the bosom of a people, as well as in that of an individual, not wholly corrupted--at least, so I have in time past found it in the people of Upper Canada--and to that judgment, and conscience, and heart, I appeal. If what I have written is true, and if what I have suggested is wise, just, and patriotic, I am not concerned as to what any deceptive or dishonest art can do to the contrary; for, as Robert Hall beautifully said, on a similar occasion, "Wisdom and truth, the offspring of the sky, are immortal; but cunning and deception, the meteors of the earth, after glittering for a moment, must pass away."

After devoting several pages to illustrate the evils of partyism in government, Dr. Ryerson proceeds:--This partyism in government is contrary to the avowed principles and objects of reformers in the true heroic age of Canadian reform. "Equal rights and privileges among all classes, without regard to sect or party," was the motto of the reformers of those days, and was repeated and placed upon their banners in almost every variety of style and form. And what was understood and meant by that expressive motto, in the whole administration of government, will be seen from the following facts:--The reformers and reform press of Upper Canada, hailed and rejoiced in the principles of the government of Lord Durham, Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot. The Earl of Durham, in his reply to the address of the citizens of Toronto, July, 1838, said:

On my part, I promise you an impartial administration of government. Determined not to recognize the existence of parties, provincial or imperial, classes or races, I shall hope to receive from all Her Majesty's subjects those public services, the efficiency of which must ever mainly depend upon their comprehensiveness. Extend the veil of oblivion over the past, direct to the future your best energies, and the consequences cannot be doubted.

The favourite phrase and avowed doctrine of Lord Sydenham was "equal and impartial justice to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects." After the union of the Canadas, Lord Sydenham appointed Mr. Draper Attorney-General, and the late Mr. R. Baldwin, Solicitor-General--the first "coalition" in Upper Canada. He also intimated at the time that he attached equal importance to the return of Mr. Draper and Mr. Baldwin; and that opposition to the one as well as to the other, under whatever pretence it may be got up, is equally opposition to the Governor-General's administration. Parties and party spirit have nearly ruined the country; the object of the Governor-General is to abolish parties and party feelings by uniting what is good in both parties....

Lord Sydenham's two years administration of the Canadian government proved the greatest boon to Upper Canada, and the principles and policy of it were highly approved by Reformers and the Reform press generally....

Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, says:--

The best talents and the best virtues are driven from office by intrigue and corruption, or by the violence of the press or of party.

In harmony with the statement of the great Judge Story, the famous French writer, M. de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, observes:--

It is a well authenticated fact that, at the present day, the most talented men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs, and it must be acknowledged that such has been the result in proportion as democracy has outstripped its former limits. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years.

These remarks of M. de Tocqueville apply to some extent to Canada where there has been a manifest decline in the standing and ability of our public men. There are exceptions, but what instances have we now of the representatives or equals of the Robinsons, the Macaulays, the Bidwells, the Jones', the Lafontaines, the Hagermans, the Baldwins, the Drapers, the Willsons, and many other political men of forty and twenty years ago?[149] To what is this decline in public men, in an otherwise advancing country, to be ascribed but to the unscrupulous partizanship of the press and politics, which blacken character instead of discussing principles, which fight for office instead of for the public good, and that by a barbarous system of moral assassination, instead of public men respecting and protecting each other's standing, and rivalling each other's deeds of greatness and usefulness. In England, the character of public men is regarded as the most precious property of the nation; and if the personal character of any member of Parliament, or other public man, is assailed by the public press or otherwise, you will see opponents as well as friends rallying round the assailed, and sustaining and shielding him by their testimony, as a matter of common or national concern. When Sir Robert Peel, in the last great debate of his life, objected to Lord Palmerston's Grecian policy, he referred to Lord Palmerston's character and abilities--not to depreciate and calumniate his great rival, but to exclaim, amid the applause of the House of Commons, "We are proud of the man! And England is proud of the man!" But in Canada, the language of a partizan press and politician is "down with the man; execrate and execute the man as a corruptionist and traitor!"

It is with a view to the best interests of our whole country, that I have thus addressed my fellow countrymen, contributing the results of my best thoughts and experience to your beginning well, that you may do well and be well under our new Dominion, though I cannot expect long to enjoy it. My nearly half a century of public life is approaching its close. I am soon to account for both my words and my deeds. I have little to hope or fear from man. But I wish before I go hence to see my fellow citizens of all sects and parties unite in commencing a new system of government for our country and posterity,

That all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.

On the publication of this Address, Dr. Ryerson received commendatory letters from various gentlemen throughout the Province. I select three. The first is from Mr. Jasper J. Gilkison, Brantford, dated August 10th:--

As a Canadian and British subject, permit me to thank you for the admirable pamphlet which you have had published, as it is the one thing wanted for the instruction and guidance of the people of the Dominion, aye, and for the world. It should be circulated free throughout the land. Never in the history of any country did a more favourable opportunity arise to test the fallacy that good government can alone emanate from that of party. We have, in fact, had an illustration of no-party government during the past few years productive of peace and quiet among us, and it could be continued indefinitely, were it not for bad-hearted men.

Were men actuated solely for the welfare and progress of our country, the Government could most successfully be carried on, much in the same way as a great company; the Executive and Parliament being somewhat analagous to a board of directors and shareholders.

Your pamphlet cannot fail to be productive of immense good, for it will cause reflection on a subject but little thought of by many with a vast amount of ignorance as to the true form of government calculated to confer the greatest benefits and happiness on a people, and which, I think, you have clearly pointed out. In our present position, were the Government to try the experiment, and take Parliament into its counsels, I fancy it would succeed, by all uniting for the common good.

The second was from Mr. Wm. (now Judge) Elliot, dated London, August 20th:--

Allow me to express to you a sense of gratitude, which I feel in common, I trust, with all reasonable people, on the occasion of your address on the political aspect of the Dominion of Canada.

I have had some limited connection with political contests in this part of the Province, and what I have seen and learned impels me to offer you my humble thanks for this contribution to our political treasury.

Whether we have arrived at such a condition of society as entirely to discard party political conflict may, I suppose, admit of serious doubt. But that at this juncture your admonitions are most valuable, all who reflect on the future will, I think, acknowledge. In more than one electoral contest already, I have referred, I believe with good effect, to your remarks, and I beg of you to allow me the pleasure of thus acknowledging the value of your counsel. That you may long be spared to advance the educational interests of the country, and to allay the discord and acrimony of faction, is the sincere prayer of yours faithfully,

William Elliot.

The third from a gentleman in Matilda:--

Permit me to thank you for the seasonable pamphlet you have issued on the Dominion, and the sound advice it contains, addressed to the people of this country. I have read it with pleasure, and am of opinion that it should be scattered broadcast, for the consideration of electors at this very important juncture.

FOOTNOTES:

[149] It affords me pleasure to remark, and I do so without any reference to the political opinions or relations of the gentlemen concerned, that some of our rising Canadians have entered, and others are seeking an entrance into Parliamentary life upon the ground of their own avowed principles, personal character and merit, as free men, and to exercise their talents as such, and not as the articled confederates, or proteges, or joints in the tail of partizanship. Free and independent men in the Legislature, as in the country, are the best counterpoise to faction, and the mainspring to a nation's progress and greatness. Faction dreads independent men; patriotism requires them.Return to passage

Chapter LXII

1868-1869.

Correspondence with Hon. George Brown.--Dr. Punshon.

On the 24th of March, Dr. Ryerson addressed the following letter to the Hon. George Brown:--

I desire, on this the 65th anniversary of my birth, to assure you of my hearty forgiveness of the personal wrongs which, I think, you have done me in past years, and of my forgetfulness of them so far, at least, as involves the least unkindness and unfriendliness of feeling.

To express free and independent opinions on the public acts of public men, to animadvert severely upon them when considered censurable, is both the right and duty of the press; nor have I ever been discourteous, or felt any animosity towards those who have censured my official acts, or denounced my opinions. Had I considered that you had done nothing more in regard to myself, I should have felt and acted differently from what I have done in regard to you--the only public man in Canada with whom I have not been on speaking and personally friendly terms. But while I wish in no way to influence your judgment and proceedings in relation to myself, I beg to say that I cherish no other than feelings of good will, with which I hope to (as I soon must) stand before the Judge of all the earth--imploring, as well as granting forgiveness for all the wrong deeds done in the body.

On the same day Mr. Brown replied as follows:--

I have received your letter of this day, and note its contents.

I am entirely unconscious of any "personal wrong" ever done you by me, and had no thought of receiving "forgiveness" at your hands.

What I have said or written of your public conduct or writings has been dictated solely by a sense of public duty, and has never, I feel confident, exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism, in view of all attendant circumstances. What has been written of you in the columns of the Globe newspaper, so far as I have observed, has been always restrained within the limits of fair criticism toward one holding a position of public trust.

As to your personal attacks on myself--those who pursue the fearless course as a politician and public journalist that I have done for a quarter of a century, cannot expect to escape abuse and misrepresentation; and assuredly your assaults have never affected my course toward you in the slightest degree. Your series of letters printed in the Leader newspaper some years ago, were not, I am told, conceived in a very Christian spirit, but I was ill at the time they were published, and have never read them. Your dragging my name into your controversy with the Messrs. Campbell--on a matter with which I had no personal concern whatever--was one of those devices unhappily too often resorted to in political squabbles to be capable of exciting more than momentary indignation.

The following letter from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. Brown, dated Toronto, April 13th, closed the correspondence:--Your note of the 24th ult., did not reach me until Saturday evening--night before last.

I wrote my note of that date with the view of forgetting, rather than reviving, the recollection of past discussions.

I never objected to the severest criticisms of my "public conduct or writings." My remarks had sole reference to your "personal attacks" and "assaults," made over your own name, and involving all that was dear to me as a man, and a father, and a Christian--"personal attacks" and "assaults" to which my letters in the Leader referred to by you, and which you had engaged to insert in the Globe, but afterwards refused, were a reply; in the course of which I convicted you not only of many misstatements, but of seven distinct forgeries--you, by additions, professing to quote from me in seven instances the very reverse of what I had written, and your having done all this to sustain "personal attacks" and "assaults" upon me.

Besides this, on at least two subsequent occasions, you charged me with what involved an imputation of dishonesty; and when I transmitted to you copies of official correspondence relating to the subject of your allegations, and refuting them, you refused to insert it in the Globe, and left your false accusations unretracted to this day.

It was to such "personal attacks" and "assaults" on your part against me, and not to any legitimate criticisms upon my "public conduct or writings," that I referred in my letter of the 24th ult.

I admit the general fairness of the Globe towards me during the last few months; but that does not alter the character of your former "personal attacks" and "assaults" upon me, and to which alone what you call my "personal attacks" and "assaults" upon you were but defensive replies and rejoinders.

I certainly have no reason to be dissatisfied with the results of such "personal attacks" and replies, notwithstanding your great advantage in having a powerful press at your disposal; and I am prepared for the future, as I have been for the past, though I wish, if possible, to live peaceably with all men.

* * * * *

Dr. Ryerson having been appointed delegate (with Dr. Punshon) to the American General Conference of 1868, at Chicago, he wrote to me from that city on the 14th of May:--

On our way here we stopped at London, where Mr. Punshon lectured nobly. We reached here Tuesday evening, and were most heartily welcomed by Bishop Janes, and by our hosts.

We were introduced to the Conference to-day, and were most cordially received. Mr. Punshon was introduced by Bishop Janes, and made a touching and noble address, which won the hearts of the Conference, and vast audience, and was frequently and loudly cheered.

I was introduced heartily and eulogistically by Bishop Simpson, and addressed the Conference. The latter part of my address was warmly cheered.

Rev. Dr. Richey, President, and Representative of the Eastern Conference of British America, was introduced by Bishop Simpson, and made a very excellent address to the Conference.

Mr. Punshon preached powerfully and gloriously before the Conference and an immense crowd to-day; all were delighted, and seemed deeply affected.

On the 18th of May, Dr. Ryerson wrote again to me:--

Mr. Punshon has made a wonderful impression here by his addresses and discourses, beyond any thing they have ever heard from the pulpit and the platform. He is to lecture to-morrow evening in the Opera House--the largest room in Chicago--and there is a great rage to get tickets. He preached there yesterday afternoon to several thousand persons, a great part of whom were affected to tears several times. I trust that many sinners were awakened, while believers were greatly comforted and encouraged.

We went out on Saturday on an excursion train to Clinton, in Iowa, 145 miles west of this, crossing the Mississippi there, by railroad, and crossing the prairies. The people of Clinton--Presbyterians, etc., and Methodists--united, and prepared an excellent dinner for three hundred and six persons, after which speeches were delivered. The North-West Railroad Company prepared the excursion gratuitously for the General Conference.

Dr. Ryerson having addressed a request to the British Conference for the re-appointment of Rev. W. M. Punshon to Canada, Rev. Gervase Smith replied on the 17th of August:--

Your first request was complied with without much debate. Mr. Punshon is transferred to you for a term. The second request raised a long discussion; the result of which was that you should be left to elect your own President next year. Mr. Arthur, Drs. Waddy and Rigg, and others, pleaded for Mr. Punshon's appointment on the ground that the preceding vote placed him under Canadian jurisdiction. But there were others who were influenced by the consideration that to leave you to elect your own President, would doubtless lead to Mr. Punshon's election. I pray that you all may be guided rightly at this important juncture.

Dr. Punshon's continued residence in Canada was a source of great delight to Dr. Ryerson. Of the wonderfully beneficial effects upon Canadian Methodism of that memorable visit, it is not necessary that I should speak. The hallowed memories of those days are engraven on thousands of hearts on both sides of the lines.

Rev. Dr. R. F. Burns, of the Fort Massey Presbyterian Church, Halifax, in a letter to the Presbyterian Witness, gives the following graphic account of the visit of Drs. Ryerson, Punshon, and Richey to the General Conference at Chicago. The Wesleyan, of Halifax, speaking of Dr. Burns' letter, says:--The reminiscence is of special interest to the editor of this paper, as he was one of the party who lunched with Dr. Ryerson at Dr. Burns' on the occasion mentioned. Dr. Burns says:--

A memory of the worthy man comes up which you will excuse me for jotting down. In the summer of 1868, during my residence in Chicago, the Quadrennial Convention of the Methodist Episcopal Church was held. It was then that I first made the acquaintance of Dr. Punshon, who came out as delegate from the English Conference to that great gathering. Dr. Matthew Richey was there representing the Methodism of Eastern, and Dr. Ryerson of Western Canada. Quite a colony of Canadian Methodists came over, including my old friend Rev. A. F. Bland, to whom the celebrated Robert Collyer expressed himself more indebted than to any other living man.

I invited several of the Methodist brethren to luncheon--Drs. Ryerson and Richey of the number--(Punshon had a prior engagement). Ryerson had given his speech that forenoon, and Richey too, with characteristic ability, representing the two Canadian Conferences. Dr. Richey had, a little before, met with the accident, but yet though he had aged and failed considerably since the days when I counted him the beau-ideal of elegance in manner and style in pulpit and on platform, he bore himself with much of his former stately demeanour and fine felicity of diction. Ryerson was hale and hearty as of yore, and with perhaps less of the old tendency to tremble while speaking which surprised me so much when I first witnessed it, for, under the influence of strong feeling, and a sort of constitutional timidity, linked in him with indomitable pluck, his limbs--indeed often his whole massive frame--so shook that I have felt the platform quiver. The Rev. George Goodson told me in an undertone of an unkind remark made by a distinguished member of the Conference to his neighbour as Dr. Ryerson got up to speak, and that he had rebuked him for it, not knowing at the time who he was. This gentleman, it came out in course of conversation, was closely related to Elder Henry Ryan, a well-known minister in the old Canada Methodist Church, with whom Dr. Ryerson, in his early days, carried on a keen warfare. The Ryan-Ryerson controversy is one with which the older Canadian Methodists are familiar. Without hinting at the rudeness of his relative, I alluded to Elder Ryan when conversing with Dr. Ryerson, and got from him in graphic detail, the history of that ancient controversy in which he was a principal party. It was very keen while it lasted, but there was no bitter animus in the recital--though the old war horse pricked up his ears and seemed to "hear the sound of battle from afar." I then discovered a reason for the sharp tone of the gentleman's remarks, aforesaid, which drew forth Brother Goodson's rebuke. Though but four years of age when he left Canada, he had imbibed a dislike to his old relative's chief antagonist, and to the very people amongst whom the Ryerson party had proved victorious. Hence his remark on another occasion to a lady friend of mine, with reference to his early connection with Canada, to the effect that he was "ashamed of being born there," which so roused her patriotic spirit that she promptly retorted: "Well, I am ashamed of you for saying so." The gentleman was then one of the rising hopes of that great denomination, and has since risen to a foremost rank in it. When this little incident was mentioned to Dr. Ryerson, he richly enjoyed it, and before leaving the house, with his native gallantry, he expressed a desire to use the privileges of an old man towards the fair defendress of her country's honour, saying, naively, as we all stood, before parting in the hall, "I would like to kiss you for your patriotism?" (See chapter vii.)

While at Peake's Island, near Portland, Maine, in 1869, Dr. Ryerson met with a serious accident, which nearly proved fatal. In a letter to me, he said:--

On Monday a plank from the wharf to a vessel, on the outside of which lay our boat, fell and precipitated me some feet on the deck of the vessel; I falling on my head, shoulder, and side. I was stunned and much injured, and have suffered much from my side; but I am now getting better and am able to dress myself, and to use my right arm. My head came within six inches of the band which surrounds the hatchway. There was thus but six inches between me and sudden death! I am truly thankful for my deliverance, and for my blessings.

Chapter LXIII

1870-1875.

Miscellaneous Closing Events and Correspondence.

On the 23rd of April, 1870, Rev. Drs. Punshon, Wood and Taylor, Chairman and Secretaries of the Central Board of Wesleyan Missions, addressed a letter to Sir George Cartier, Minister of Militia, on the subject of sending a Methodist chaplain with the Red River expedition under General Lindsay and the present Lord Wolseley. In their letter they said:--

Believing that many who will volunteer to complete this enterprize will be members of our own church, we are desirous of securing your official sanction to the appointment of a Wesleyan Minister as Chaplain to that portion of the military expedition who are professedly attached to our doctrines and ordinances, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, affecting personal rights and military operations and duties.

This letter was merely acknowledged, and no action was taken upon it. In the following June Conference, the subject was brought up, and much feeling was evoked at Sir George Cartier's apparent want of courtesy to the Missionary Board. Sir Alexander Campbell, on seeing a report of the Conference proceedings on the subject, wrote a very kind note to Dr. Ryerson, in which he expressed his opinion that some mistake must have occurred in the matter, and that he was sure no discourtesy was thought of on the part of Sir George Cartier. To this note Dr. Ryerson replied on the 18th of June:--

I yesterday received your very kind letter of the 13th inst. I think you know too well my high respect, and even affection for you, and my expectations long since formed of your success and usefulness to the country, as a public man, to doubt my implicit confidence in any statement made by you, and my desire to meet your views as far as possible.

In the matter as relating to Sir George E. Cartier, I may remark, that the President of the Wesleyan Conference stated to me the week before its annual meeting, that a communication had been addressed by himself, and the Missionary Secretaries, to Sir George Cartier respecting our sending a Wesleyan Minister with the Red River expedition, to supply the spiritual wants of many members of our own congregations, and proposing to confer with him (Sir G. C.) as to the arrangement; that he regarded the treatment of their letter by Sir George as discourteous, and that he thought the Conference should be informed of it, and that it should take some action on the subject. The Rev. Dr. Wood, senior Missionary Secretary, read to the Conference the correspondence and the draft of four resolutions, on the subject of which he gave notice. I was not in the Conference when this took place. On reading Dr. Wood's resolutions, I suggested some modifications of them, and prepared resolutions which he preferred to his own, and which I proposed for adoption the day after giving notice of them.

As to Sir George's courtesy, I may observe that the letter addressed to him, proposed a conference with him on the subject: that his Deputy, in reply, by direction of Sir George Cartier, as he says, acknowledged the receipt of the letter addressed to him, but though that letter was dated at Toronto, and signed officially, the answer to it was addressed simply to the "Rev. Mr. Punshon, Montreal," and no further notice taken of it to this day. And it seems that Sir George did not think it worth his while even to mention, much less submit the letter, to you and your colleagues from Upper Canada.

In regard to the question of chaplain, our view is, and the proposal contemplated by our President and Missionary Secretaries was, that the Government should not pay any salary to the chaplain, but simply provide his rations and accommodations. It is our view that the Government should not pay or appoint any chaplain, but leave to each denomination the right of doing so, if it should think proper. Each chaplain thus nominated and paid, to be recognized by the military authorities, and be subject, of course, to the military regulations. In such circumstances, it is probable there would have been three Protestant chaplains--Church of England, Presbyterian, and Methodist. I infer or assume this on the ground of experience. In our Normal School of one hundred and fifty students, each is asked his religious persuasion, and the chief minister of that persuasion is furnished with a list of the names of students adhering to or professing his Church, and the day, and hour, and place where he can give them religious instruction. The result is, that by mutual consultation and agreement of ministers, all the Presbyterians, including even the Congregationalists and Baptists, meet in one class, and receive religious instruction from one minister, the ministers agreeing to take the labour in successive sessions--one minister performing all the duty one session. The arrangement voluntarily exists among the different classes of Methodists--though Wesleyan ministers do all the work. A Church of England minister attends to the instruction and religious oversight of the Church of England students, and the chief Roman Catholic priest does the same in regard to the Roman Catholic students. Nothing can be more fair, practical, and satisfactory than a similar arrangement in regard to the Red River expedition. What may be the peculiar views, habits, etc. of the Church of England chaplain appointed and salaried by the Government, I know not; but you know as well as I do that a man being a clergyman of the Church of England is no longer a guarantee that he does not entertain and teach views and practices more subversive of unsophisticated Protestant principles and feelings than could be as successfully done by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides, as a general rule, men, especially young men, do not regard, and are not controlled, as to their own worship and pastorate, except by the services and pastoral oversight to which they are accustomed and attached; and without such influence and aid to the preservation and strengthening of moral principles, habits, and feelings, more young men are liable to be demoralized and ruined in military expeditions, such as that of the Red River, than are likely to be killed in battle or die of disease.

This is the view for which the Methodist body will contend, whatever may be the result. The Secretaries of the Bible Society went among the volunteers, while at Toronto, and proffered a Bible to each one that would accept of it, and found on inquiry, that four-fifths of the volunteers, even from Lower Canada, were Protestants, and a much larger proportion of the volunteers of Upper Canada, and a large number of them not members of the Church of England but Methodists and Presbyterians. Of course, it answers the Roman Catholic purpose, and will doubtless be acceptable to many members of the Church of England, for the Government to appoint and pay chaplains of those persuasions; but I am persuaded there will be little difference of a contrary opinion on the subject among the ministers and members of the excluded persuasions. I wish I could share with you in your expressed confidence in Sir George Cartier, but I have no such confidence in him, and especially in the ecclesiastical influence under the dictation of which he acts. Wherein I may have been misinformed, and may not have stated matters correctly, I shall be prepared to correct any such errors, when I come to reply to the various attacks which have been made upon me, in vindication of myself, and the Wesleyan Conference in regard to the complaint made, and the position assumed in respect to Sir George E. Cartier, and the Red River business.

On the 30th June, Mr. James Wallace, of Whitby, addressed Dr. Ryerson a letter on the subject, in which he said:--

A stranger to you personally, although not so to your many able, pungent, and truthful letters, connected with public matters, that have from time to time appeared in the public press: I trust you will excuse this liberty, and accept my congratulations on your last effort in that connection as published in the Globe.

I have some knowledge of the Red River matter, having been there during the first stages of the rebellion, and had, therefore, chances of becoming acquainted with its origin and progress that few men had; and when I see one in your position come forward so bravely and lay bare the origin of that infamous revolt, I must say that I feel proud of you as a Canadian, and not only of you, but of the body with which you are connected, who so nobly sustained you.

On the 24th August, 1870, the corner stone of the Metropolitan Church, Toronto, was laid. Dr. Ryerson felt that it was a memorable day in the annals of Methodism in Toronto. I was honoured (he said) by being selected to lay the corner stone of the Metropolitan Church. Rev. Dr. Punshon, President of the Conference was present, and delivered an admirable address. He also read one which I had prepared, but which I was unable to deliver myself. The auspicious event of the day amply repaid me for the anxiety which I had so long felt in regard to the success of the enterprise, and for the responsibility which, with other devoted brethren, I had personally assumed to secure the site, and carry to a successful issue the erection of a building which would be an honour to Methodism, and a credit to the cause in Toronto.

* * * * *

On the 17th March, 1871, Dr. Ryerson received a letter from the venerable Rev. Dr. James Dixon, dated Bradford, Eng., 2nd inst. In it he says:--In my eighty-third year, blind, deaf, and so paralyzed as to be unable to walk without assistance, I feel that the world is fast receding. Having sense and affection remaining, I feel desirous of holding a little fellowship once more with you, my dear old friend. The world to me looks like one of your forests with the trees cut down, except here and there one a little stronger than the rest. I look upon you as one of those, vigorous forest trees still remaining. And may you long remain, a blessing to your country and the Church! After referring to his own religious life and experiences, he concludes:--As long as I live my affection for you will never vary. I also remember other Canadian friends with great interest and affection. Farewell! my dear old friend. We shall meet again before long in a brighter world. If you can find time, I shall be most happy to receive a line from you.

Dr. Ryerson did find time to respond to the letter of his dear and valued friend Dr. Dixon. His venerable aspect was well remembered, when, as President of the Canada Conference in 1848, he did good and valued service for the Methodist Church in Canada.

* * * * *

On the 29th of June, 1871, Mr. John Macdonald and Rev. Dr. Evans having asked Dr. Ryerson to enclose to Rev. W. M. Punshon a letter urging him to continue his noble work in Canada, he did so most heartily, as the letter to be enclosed expressed the real sentiments not only of the ministers and members of the Church generally, but those of the country at large. Dr. Ryerson accompanied the letter with a note from himself, in which he said to Mr. Punshon:--To have the power, as God has given you, to mould, to a large extent, the energies and labours of six hundred ministers, and developments of the Canadian Church, and to control largely the public mind in religious and benevolent enterprises--looking at the future of our country--appears to me to present a field of usefulness that Mr. Wesley himself might have coveted in his day. All that God has enabled you to do already in this country is but the foundation and beginning of what there is the prospect of your doing hereafter by the Divine blessing. You know this is the old ground on which I first proposed to you to come to this country, and which I am sure you have no reason to regret. This is the only ground on which I ought to desire your continued connection with it.

* * * * *

A pleasing episode in the Globe controversy respecting Dr. Ryerson's "First Lessons on Christian Morals," occurred in June, 1872. Bishop Bethune, in his address to the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, spoke of the increasing spread of evil, and of the duty of the Church, under her Divine Master, to cope with it. He said:

Her work is, confessedly, to lead fallen man to the true source of pardon, and to teach him to aim at the recovery of the moral image in which he was at first created. If the passions, and prejudices, and divisions of professing Christians themselves are a distressing hindrance to the attainment of this noble and dutiful aspiration, we have much in the condition of the world around us to warn and rouse us to a vigorous and united effort to arrest the increasing tide of sin and crime. The developments of a grossly evil spirit at the present day fill us with horror and alarm; the profligacy and wanton cruelty of which we hear so many instances, make us tremble for our social peace and safety.

It is but right to enquire to what all this enormity of wickedness is traceable, that we may come, if possible, to the remedy. That is largely to be ascribed, as all must be persuaded, to the neglect of religious instruction in early life; to the contentment of peoples and governments to afford a shallow secular education, without the learning of religious truth, or the moral obligations that it teaches. The child taught and trained for this world's vocations only, without a deep inculcation of the love and fear of God, and the penalty hereafter of an irreligious and wicked life, will have but one leading idea--self-aggrandizement and self-indulgence, and will be checked by no restraint of conscience in the way and means of securing them. Gigantic frauds will be perpetrated, if riches can thus be acquired; atrocious murders will be committed, if these will remove the barrier to unholy and polluting connections, or cast out of sight the objects of jealousy and hatred.

I have no disposition to reprobate this defect in the system of education, prevailing with the authority and support of Government among ourselves. I know the difficulty, the almost impossibility, of securing the temporal boon with the addition of the spiritual; how hard it must prove in a divided religious community to introduce among the secular lessons which are meant for usefulness and advancement in this world, that lofty and holy teaching which trains the soul for heaven. The irreverent and fierce assaults recently made upon a praiseworthy effort of the Superintendent of Education in this Province to introduce a special work for moral and religious instruction amongst our common school pupils, testify too plainly the difficulty of supplying that want.

I have confidence in the good intentions and righteous efforts of that venerable gentleman to do what he can for the amelioration of the evils which the absence of systematic religious teaching of the young must induce; so that we may have a hope that, from his tried zeal and unquestionable ability, a way may be devised by which such essential instruction shall be imparted, and the terrible evils we deplore to some extent corrected.

In response to this portion of his address, Dr. Ryerson addressed the following note to the Bishop on the 1st of July.

I feel it my bounden, at the same time most pleasurable duty, to thank you with all my heart for your more than kind reference to myself in your official charge at the opening of the recent Synod of the Diocese of Toronto; and especially do I feel grateful and gratified for your formal and hearty recognition of the Christian character of our Public School System, and of the efforts which have been made to render that character a practical reality, and not a mere dead and heartless form.

It has also been peculiarly gratifying to me to learn that your Lordship's allusions to myself and the school system were very generally and cordially cheered by the members of the Synod.

My own humble efforts to invest our school system with a Christian character and spirit have been seconded from the beginning by the cordial and unanimous co-operation of the Council of Public Instruction; and without that co-operation my own individual efforts would have availed but little.

Since the settlement of the common relationship of all religious persuasions to the State, there is a common patriotic ground for the exertions of all, without the slightest reasonable pretext for political jealousy or hostility on the part of any. On such ground of comprehensiveness, and of avowed Christian principles, I have endeavoured to construct our Public School System; such, and such only has been my aim in the teachings of my little book on Christian Morals; and such only was the aim and spirit of the Council of Public Instruction in the recommendation of it,--a recommendation to which the Council inflexibly adheres, and which it has cordially and decidedly vindicated.

The Bishop replied on the 3rd of July, thus:--I have to thank you for your letter of the 1st instant, received last evening, and to express my gratification that I had the opportunity to bear my humble testimony to your zealous and righteous efforts to promote the sound education of the youth of this Province.

I believe that in the endeavours to give this a moral and religious direction, you have done all that, in the circumstances of the country, it was in your power to accomplish. I was glad, too, to give utterance to my protest against the shameless endeavours to hold up to public scorn the valuable little work by which you desired to give a moral and religious tone to the instruction communicated in our Common Schools. If more can be done in this direction, I feel assured you would assume any allowable amount of responsibility in the endeavour to effect it.

Wishing you many years of health and usefulness, I remain, dear Dr. Ryerson, very faithfully yours,

A. N. Toronto.

This correspondence affords a striking instance of the fact that the very earnest discussions between the writers of these notes in past years, had not diminished in any way the personal respect and kindly feeling which happily existed between them. And it was so with the late venerable Bishop Strachan, with whom Dr. Ryerson more than once measured swords in days gone by. Among his very latest utterances on the Separate School Question in the Synod of 1856, he thus referred to the Head of the Education Department and his labours:--

One new feature, which I consider of great value, and for which I believe we are altogether indebted to the able Superintendent, deserves special notice: it is the introduction of daily prayers. We find that 454 schools open and close with prayer. This is an important step in the right direction, and only requires a reasonable extension to render the system in its interior, as it is already in its exterior, nearly complete. But till it receives this necessary extension, the whole system, in a religious and spiritual view, may be considered almost entirely dead.

I do not say that this is the opinion of Dr. Ryerson, who no doubt believes his system very nearly perfect; and so far as he is concerned, I am one of those who appreciate very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and his administrative capacity. I am also most willing to admit that he has carried out the meagre provisions of the several enactments that have any leaning to religion, as far as seems consistent with a just interpretation of the law.--Charge of 1856, pp. 15, 16.

* * * * *

In a note dated Toronto, 2nd October, 1872, Hon. W. B. Robinson sent to Dr. Ryerson an extract from the Barrie Northern Advance containing an obituary notice of Dr. Ryerson. In enclosing it, Mr. Robinson said:--

I send you a Barrie paper that I think will amuse you. It is not often we are permitted to "see ourselves as others see us" when once we go "hence and are no more seen,"--but you are an exception, and I congratulate you on such being the fact; and hope the Editor will be satisfied that he is in "advance" of the times, and may have cause to give you credit for much more good work in the position you have so long held, with so much benefit to the country. I observed the death of your brother William in the papers a short time ago, which I suppose accounts for the mistake.

The extract from the Barrie paper is as follows:--

Most of our readers are aware of the fact that the great champion of education in Upper Canada has gone to his rest. Coming generations, so long as time lasts, will owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Ryerson, as the only real founder of a comprehensive school system in Ontario. Through evil report and through good report he has steadily worked on his way; neither daunted by the abuse he has received, nor unduly elated by the unmeasured tribute of praise paid to his efforts in the department to which his whole life was devoted. He kept the even tenor of his way, and we think most people, unblinded by partisan prejudice, will acknowledge that his life purpose has, more than that of most men, been accomplished. He leaves behind him a structure so nearly completed that men with a tithe of his enthusiasm, and infinitely less knowledge of the educational requirements of the Province, can lay the capstone, and declare the work complete.

Hon. Marshall S. Bidwell died in New York shortly after his visit to Canada in 1872. Hon. Judge Neilson, his friend, wrote to Dr. Ryerson for particulars of Mr. Bidwell's early life, with a view to publish it in a memorial volume. This information Dr. Ryerson obtained from Sir W. B. Richards, Clarke Gamble, Esq., Q.C., and Rev. Dr. Givens, and, with his own, embodied it in a communication to Judge Neilson. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated 30th April, 1873, the late Rev. Dr. Saltern Givens said:--

A short time since, Hon. W. B. Robinson informed me that a letter of condolence was written by the late Mr. Bidwell to Lady Robinson and her family, on the death of Sir John, and that he thought it would answer your purpose.... I am sure that you will peruse it with as much pleasure as I have done.

It ought to be a matter of devout thankfulness and congratulation with us Canadians, that two of our most distinguished statesmen and jurists have left behind them such unequivocal and delightful testimonies of their faith in Christ, and of their experience of the power of His Gospel, in extracting the sting from death and in comforting the bereaved.

I am sure that Sir John's letters to Mr. Bidwell, under his similar trial, if you could obtain them, would be read with a thrill of delight and profit by their many friends throughout Canada.

When witnessing--as we have done, some forty years ago--those fierce political contests in which our departed friends were involved, how little did we think that in the evening of their days they would have been united in the bonds of Christian love and sympathy, as this interchange of friendship evinces.

The following is Mr. Bidwell's letter to Hon. W. B. Robinson, dated 24th February, 1863:--

I thank you for your kind and friendly letter, and for the particular account of the closing scenes of the life of your honoured and lamented brother. The wound inflicted by his death can never be altogether healed. The grief which it produces is natural and rational, and is not inconsistent with any of the precepts, or with the spirit of the Gospel. It is a duty, however, to keep it within bounds, and not to allow murmurs in our heart against Divine Providence. The language of our hearts should be that of the Patriarch, "The Lord gave, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord." Gratitude for the gift should be mingled with our deep sorrow for the loss of it. In my own case, a consideration of the unspeakable goodness of God in having bestowed upon me such an inestimable blessing has been continually present to my mind, and trust such feelings will abound in the bosom of Lady Robinson, her family, and yourself. He, whose removal from earthly scenes your hearts deplore, was all that you could have desired, in his public and private character, and in the homage of universal veneration and esteem. Where will you find one like him? Was there not great and peculiar goodness in God's bestowing him upon you? Was he not the joy and pride of your hearts continually? Did not his presence irradiate his home, and make it like an earthly Paradise? Every pang which you may suffer attests the value of the blessing which you have so long had. Your gratitude to God, the author of every good and perfect gift, ought to be in proportion to your grief. It is to be remembered, also, that he was not cut down prematurely in the midst of his days, but had passed the period which Moses, the man of God, in his sublime and pathetic prayer (Psalm xc.) considers as the ordinary boundary of human life, and retained all his powers and faculties to the last; and that during this long life he had not been absent from his family, at least not from Lady Robinson (if I am not mistaken) except during the transient separation when he was on the circuit. It is natural that your hearts should yearn for him, should long to see him again, and enjoy the pleasure of his company; yet death must sooner or later have separated you, and longer life might have been a scene of suffering. Would it not have been inexpressibly painful to you all to have seen his mental and bodily powers decay and fade away? Such a spectacle would have been distressing and mortifying. Now his memory is associated with no humiliating recollections; but you remember him as one always admired, respected and loved. Death has set his seal upon him, and although he is removed from you to return no more to earthly scenes, you know that it is only a removal, and that he is now in a state of exalted and perfect, though ever progressive, felicity. I trust you have the most consolatory evidence that this is now his present and unalterable state, and that you constantly think as David thought and said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." In the meantime you have the consolation of knowing that while you remember him with the tenderest affection and interest, he has not forgotten you, but has a more distinct and perfect recollection of you than you have of him. That this is literally true is the conviction of my understanding, founded not only upon reason and analogy, but upon the irrefragable testimony of divine revelation. There surely is nothing in such a thought that is improbable. We have daily experience of the revival in our minds of past events long forgotten; they lived there, though dormant. Then how many well authenticated and well known instances, where persons recovered from drowning have stated that before they lost consciousness, all the scenes and incidents of their lives flashed instantaneously, as it were, upon their minds, and appeared to be present to their view. They had been treasured up there, though latent. Death does not extinguish the mental faculties, thought does not cease, but the conscious and thinking being passes from scenes present to scenes eternal. "Mortality is swallowed up of life." There would be good ground for this conviction, if revelation gave us no higher proof; but it is explicit. "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." This necessarily implies a perfect recollection of our lives. We are to answer for all the deeds done in the body; for every idle word, for every secret and sinful thought and feeling. This requires a perfect recollection of every event, sentiment, and emotion of our lives. The soul, therefore, must carry into the unseen world a perfect recollection of its associates and friends; and as there will be no decay then of mental powers, this will be an abiding, ever-present recollection. Every holy feeling will also continue after death--conjugal, parental, filial, fraternal affections are holy; they are expressly enjoined upon us by divine authority. Love, indeed, pure, fervent affection, is the characteristic element of Heaven. It is impossible, therefore, that the holy affections should cease at death. I have, therefore, a conviction that our departed friends, whose death we mourn, remember us distinctly and with tender affection. I have dwelt upon this subject because it has afforded me in my great affliction much consolation, and if I had time, I might expatiate more fully upon it, and adduce further evidence in support of its truth.

Yes! it is a truth, and therefore it is full of consolation. While we are thinking of our departed friends with grief, they, too, are thinking of us, with at least equal affection, and this they will continue to do until we meet. In the meantime we may comfort ourselves with the thought that, to use the language of a sober and judicious commentator on the sacred Scriptures, "The separation will be short, the re-union rapturous, and the subsequent felicity uninterrupted, unalloyed, and eternal."

I have felt peculiar sympathy for Lady Robinson. I am sure her affliction must be extreme. I hope the Son of God is with her in the furnace, and that she has a consciousness of His presence. He can give both support and consolation, and both she must greatly need. He can gently, and imperceptibly, bind up and heal her wounded and bleeding heart.

I wish that I could furnish reminiscences that would be interesting to you, for I should be glad to testify my respect for the memory of your brother, but I cannot tell you anything with which you are not familiar. I remember distinctly his appearance the first time I saw him. He had just returned to Canada, after his first visit to England. I was a student at law, and had gone from Bath to Toronto, to attend the Court of King's Bench at Michaelmas Term. He, and Lady Robinson, came from Kingston in the steamer "Frontenac." I think that Mr. Hagerman was on board also. From another passenger, I heard that on the voyage they were overtaken at night by a storm, which stove in the dead-lights, and poured a flood of water into the cabin. It was a time of alarm, probably of danger; your brother was perfectly composed. He came into court on his arrival, and upon that occasion I saw him. His appearance was striking. His features were classically and singularly beautiful; his countenance was luminous with intelligence and animation; his whole appearance that of a man of genius and a polished gentleman, equally dignified and graceful. Altogether his features, figure and manners filled my youthful imagination with admiration, which subsequent acquaintance, and opportunities to hear him at the Bar and in Parliament, only strengthened, and which was not diminished by the difference between us in our views and opinions on public affairs. I heard him frequently at the Bar, and upon some occasions, I had the honour to be junior counsel with him.

He was a consummate advocate, as well as a profound and accurate lawyer. He had extraordinary powers for a speech impromptu, and needed as little time for preparation for an address to a jury, or an argument to the Court, as any one I have ever known. But he was never induced by this readiness to neglect a patient and careful attention to his client's case.

No one could be more faithful. He studied every case thoroughly, examined all the particular circumstances, made himself master of its details, and considered it carefully, in all its aspects and relations. I do not think he ever delivered a speech from memory. He was self-possessed in the trial, his mind was vigilant, his thoughts flowed rapidly, he had rapid association of ideas, great quickness of apprehension, as well as great sagacity, and a power of arranging anything in his mind, luminously and instantaneously; his fluency was unsurpassed.

I was present upon those occasions in Parliament which aroused him to great exertions.

He was at all times a correct, elegant, interesting speaker, but upon those occasions he spoke with great force and effect.

The fire of his eye, the animation of his countenance and the elegance of his manner, combined with dignity, cannot be appreciated by any one who did not hear him. No report of his speeches, no description of his manner and appearance, can convey to others a just and adequate idea. To report him verbatim was impossible. His ideas flowed so rapidly, and he had such fluency of language, that no reporter could have kept pace with his delivery. He was an admirable parliamentary leader. He never exposed himself by any incautious speech or act, and never failed to detect and expose one on the other side. He was sincere and earnest in his opinions, uncompromising, frank and fearless in the expression of them. He never attempted to make a display of himself, or indulged in useless declamation; but spoke earnestly and for the purpose of producing an immediate effect. I heard that when he was in England in 1823 (I think that was the year), the ministry had under consideration introducing him through one of their boroughs into Parliament. If it had been done, I have no doubt he would have become a distinguished member of the House of Commons, and I think it probable that he would have attained to the highest honours of the land. During two years I had the honour to be Speaker of the House of Assembly, while he was Speaker of the Legislative Council; our official stations rendered it necessary for us to confer together concerning the business before Parliament. He was always courteous, communicative and obliging. The difference between us on political questions while I was in Parliament precluded intimate or confidential relations, but he was always pleasant and candid, and more than once did I share in that elegant hospitality which was dispensed so cordially and so gracefully by him and Lady Robinson.

I have had the honor to receive friendly letters from him occasionally since I have been here, and after my great affliction last spring he wrote to me two very kind letters for which I shall ever be grateful.

I should be sincerely glad to evince my respect for his memory. I have not space left to add anything respecting his judicial character and career, but this is unimportant. Every one in Canada knows it.

Writing to me after the Conference at London, in June, 1873, Dr. Ryerson said:--The proceedings of the Conference were very harmonious, and the discussions very able and courteous upon the whole. I received many thanks for my labours in connection with the scheme for Methodist Confederation and for union with the New Connexion Methodists. I trust I have been able, through Divine goodness, to render some service to the good cause.

* * * * *

In a letter to Dr. Ryerson from Rev. Dr. Punshon, dated 2nd December, the latter expressed some fears as to one or two points in the future of the General Conference arrangement. He says:--

I am looking with some solicitude to the result of the Appeal to the Quarterly Meetings on the Union question. I hope it will be carried, though your modifications of the scheme do not quite meet my approval, as one who would like to see a statesman's view taken of things. I do not see the bond of cohesion twenty years hence, when those who are now personally known to, and therefore interested in, each other, have passed off the stage. Then the General Conference will meet as perfect strangers, having hardly a common interest but that of a common name; and as there are no General Superintendents, who know all the Conferences, there will not be, as in the States, any link to bind them together. I trust some remedy will be found for this, or the lack of such link will be disastrous.

We are losing our prominent men. You will have seen that Mr. Heald has passed away--also Mr. Marshall, another Stockport "pillar." I am greatly concerned about my dear friend, Gervase Smith, the Secretary of the Conference. He has overtaxed himself, and is very ill. Absolute rest is enjoined for some time. It would be a sad day for me, if dear Gervase were to pass from my side. We have just heard of the loss of the "Ville du Havre," with 226 lives. Emile Cook, from Paris, was on board, and injured by the collision. How terrible! Now, my dear Dr. Ryerson, the good Lord be with you, and make you always as happy in His love as you desire to be, and spare you yet for many years, to counsel and to plan for His glory and the benefit of Canada.

Writing from his Long Point Cottage to me on the 12th of April, 1873, Dr. Ryerson said:--Some days I have felt quite young; but upon the whole, I doubt whether the means which have been so successful in the past in renewing my strength, can be of much use any longer to "stave off" old age. A medical gentleman here from Port Rowan said yesterday, I looked the perfection of health at my age; but my strength I feel already to be "labour and sorrow." So true are the words of inspiration to practical life.

* * * * *

The union question having been carried, and the General Conference established, that body met in Toronto in September, 1874. Speaking of it Dr. Ryerson said:--In 1874 I was elected the first President of the first General Conference of the Methodist Church of Canada; consisting of an equal number of ministers and laymen, and representing the several Annual Conferences of the Dominion of Canada.

On his return home from the General Conference held in Toronto in 1874, Hon. L. A. Wilmot, a former Judge, and late Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, wrote to Dr. Ryerson a note, in which he said:--How can we ever repay you and your dear family for the warm-hearted hospitality and the intellectual repast we so much enjoyed while with you? To me it is much more than a sunny memory, as you have so enriched me with treasures of thought, and words of wisdom. Really, I long to see you again, and I cannot express to you the pleasure it will afford us to welcome you all to our suburban home. We have room enough for you all, and sincerely do we pray that we may all be spared to meet again. [Mr. Wilmot has since then gone home to his reward.]