favourable to reform than in Upper Canada. We are resolved to double our
diligence; to have general petitions in favour of the abolition of every
kind of religious domination, circulated throughout the Province,
addressed to the Provincial and Imperial Parliaments, and take up the
whole question--decidedly, fully, and warmly. We must be up and doing
while it is called to-day. It is the right time. There is a new and Whig
Parliament in England, and I am sure our own House of Assembly dare not
deny the petitions of the people on this subject.
Nature of the Struggle for Religious Equality.
During this and many succeeding years the chief efforts of Dr. Ryerson
and those who acted with him were directed, as intimated before, against
the efforts put forth to establish a "dominant church" in Upper Canada.
A brief _resumé_ of the question will put the reader in possession of
the facts of the case:--
The late Bishop Strachan, in his speech delivered in the Legislative
Council, March 6th, 1828, devoted several pages of that speech (as
printed) to prove that "the Church of England is by law the Established
Church of this Province." This statement in some form he put forth in
every discussion on the subject.
The grounds upon which this claim was founded were also fully stated by
Rev. Wm Betteridge, B.D. (of Woodstock), who was sent to England to
represent the claims of the Church of England in this controversy. These
claims he put forward in his "Brief History of the Church in Upper
Canada," published in England in 1838. He rests those claims upon what
he considers to have been the intention of the Imperial Parliament in
passing the Clergy Reserve sections of the Act (31 Geo III., c. 31) in
1791, and also on the "King's Instructions" to the Lieutenant-Governor
of Upper Canada in 1818. He further contended that the "Extinction of
the Tithes Act," passed by the Upper Canada Legislature in 1823,
inferentially recognized the dominancy of the Church of England in
Canada as a Church of the Empire. Beyond this alleged inferential right
to be an Established Church in Upper Canada, none in reality existed. It
was, therefore, to prevent this inference,--which was insisted upon as
perfectly clear and irresistible,--from receiving Imperial or Provincial
recognition as an admitted or legal fact, that the persistent efforts of
Dr. Ryerson and others were unceasingly directed during all of those
years.
Few in the present day can realize the magnitude of the task thus
undertaken. Nor do we sufficiently estimate the significance of the
issues involved in that contest--a contest waged for the recognition of
equal denominational rights and the supremacy of religious liberty. All
of these questions are now happily settled "upon the best and surest
foundation." But it might have been far otherwise had not such men as
Dr. Ryerson stepped into the breach at a critical time in our early
history; and if the battle had not been fought and won before the
distasteful yoke of an "establishment" had been imposed upon this young
country, and burdensome vested interests been thereby created, which it
would have taken years of serious and protracted strife to extinguish.
As the fruits of that protracted struggle for religious equality have
been long quietly enjoyed in this province, there is a disposition in
many quarters to undervalue the importance of the contest itself, and
even to question the propriety of reviving the recollection of such
early conflicts. In so far as we may adopt such views we must
necessarily fail to do justice to the heroism and self-sacrifice of
those who, like Dr. Ryerson, encountered the prolonged and determined
opposition, as well as the contemptuous scorn of the dominant party
while battling for the rights which he and others ultimately secured for
us. Those amongst us who would seek to depreciate the importance of that
struggle for civil and religious freedom, must fail also to realize the
importance of the real issues of that contest.
To those who have given any attention to this subject, it is well known
that the maintenance of the views put forth by Dr. Ryerson in this
controversy involved personal odium and the certainty of social
ostracism. It also involved, what is often more fatal to a man's courage
and constancy, the sneer and the personal animosity, as well as
ridicule, of a powerful party whose right to supremacy is questioned,
and whose monopoly of what is common property is in danger of being
destroyed. Although Dr. Ryerson was a gentleman by birth, and the son of
a British officer and U. E. Loyalist, yet the fact that, as one of the
"despised sect" of Methodists, he dared to question the right of "the
Church" to superiority over the "Sectaries," subjected him to a system
of petty and bitter persecution which few men of less nerve and
fortitude could have borne. As it was, there were times when the tender
sensibilities of his noble nature were so deeply wounded by this
injustice, and the scorn and contumely of his opponents, that were it
not that his intrepid courage was of the finest type, and without the
alloy of rancour or bravado in it, it would have failed him. But he
never flinched. And when the odds seemed to be most against him, he
would, with humble dependence upon Divine help, put forth even greater
effort; and, with his courage thus reanimated, would unexpectedly turn
the flank of his enemy; or, by concentrating all his forces on the
vulnerable points of his adversary's case, completely neutralize the
force of his attack.
It must not be understood from this that Dr. Ryerson cherished any
personal animosity to the Church of England as a Divine and Spiritual
power in the land. Far from it. In his first "campaign" against the
Venerable Archdeacon of York (Dr. Strachan), he took care to point out
the difference between the principles maintained by the aggressors in
that contest and the principles of the Church itself. He said:--
Whatever remarks the Doctor's discourse may require me to make, I
wish it to be distinctly understood that I mean no reflection on
the doctrines, liturgy, or discipline of the Church of which he has
the honour to be a minister. Be assured I mean no such thing. I
firmly believe in her doctrines, I admire her liturgy, and I
heartily rejoice in the success of those principles which are
therein continued, and it is for the prosperity of the truths which
they unfold that I shall ever pray and contend. And, with respect
to Church government, I heartily adopt the sentiments of the pious
and the learned Bishop Burnet, that "that form of Church government
is the best which is most suitable to the customs and circumstances
of the people among whom it is established."[26]
Such was Dr. Ryerson's tribute to the Church of England in, 1826. His
disclaimer of personal hostility to that Church (near the close of the
protracted denominational contest in regard to the Clergy Reserves),
will be found in an interesting personal correspondence, in a subsequent
part of this book, with John Kent, Esq., Editor of _The Church_
newspaper in 1841-2.
With a view to enable Canadians of the present day more clearly to
understand the pressing nature of the difficulties with which Dr.
Ryerson had to contend, almost single-handed, fifty years ago, I shall
briefly enumerate the principal ones:--
1. The whole of the official community of those days, which had grown up
as a united and powerful class, were bound together by more than
official ties, and hence, as a "family compact," they were enabled to
act together as one man. This class, with few exceptions, were members
of the Church of England. They regarded her--apart from her inimitable
liturgy and scriptural standards of faith--with the respect and love
which her historical prestige and assured status naturally inspired
them. They maintained, without question, the traditional right of the
Church of England to supremacy everywhere in the Empire. They,
therefore, instinctively repelled all attempts to deprive that Church of
what they believed to be her inalienable right to dominancy in this
Province.
2. Those who had the courage, and who ventured to oppose the Church
claims put forth by the clerical and other leaders of the dominant
party of that time, were sure to be singled out for personal attack.
They were also made to feel the chilling effects of social
exclusiveness. The cry against them was that of ignorance, irreverence,
irreligion, republicanism, disloyalty, etc. These charges were repeated
in every form; and that, too, by a section both of the official and
religious press, a portion of which was edited with singular ability; a
press which prided itself on its intelligence, its unquestioned
churchmanship and exalted respect for sacred things, its firm devotion
to the principle of "Church and State"--the maintenance of which was
held to be the only safeguard for society, if not its invincible
bulwark. An illustration of the profession of this exclusive loyalty is
given by Dr. Ryerson in these pages. He mentions the fact that the plea
to the British Government put forth by the leaders of the dominant
party, as a reason why the Church of England in this Province should be
made supreme and be subsidized, was that she might then be enabled "to
preserve the principles of loyalty to England from being overwhelmed and
destroyed" by the "Yankee Methodists," as represented by the Ryersons
and their friends!
3. The two branches of the Legislature were divided on this subject. The
House of Assembly represented the popular side, as advocated by Dr.
Ryerson and other denominational leaders. The Legislative Council (of
which the Ven. Archdeacon Strachan was an influential member,)
maintained the clerical views so ably put forth by this reverend leader
on the other side.
4. Except by personal visits to England--where grievances could alone be
fully redressed in those days--little hope was entertained by the
non-Episcopal party that their side of the question would (if stated
through official channels), be fairly or fully represented. Even were
their case presented through these channels they were not sure but that
(as strikingly and quaintly put by Dr. Ryerson, on page 94).
In company with some ruthless vagrant--in the shape of a secret
communication from enemies in Canada--it would be slandered,
abused, and tomahawked at the foot of the throne.
As an illustration also of the spirit of the Chief Executive in Upper
Canada in dealing with the questions in dispute, I quote the following
extract from the reply of Sir John Colborne to an address from the
Methodist Conference in 1831.[27] He said:
Your dislike to any church establishment, or to the particular form
of Christianity which is denominated the Church, of England, may be
the natural consequence of the constant success of your own
efficacious and organized system. The small number of our
Church[28] is to be regretted, as well as that the organization of
its ministry is not adapted to supply the present wants of the
dispersed population in this new country; but you will readily
admit that the sober-minded of the province are disgusted with the
accounts of the disgraceful dissensions of the Episcopal Methodist
Church and its separatists, recriminating memorials, and the
warfare of one Church with another. The utility of an Establishment
depends entirely on the piety, assiduity, and devoted zeal of its
ministers, and on their abstaining from a secular interference
which may involve them in political disputes.
The labours of the clergy of established churches in defence of
moral and religious truth will always be remembered by you, who
have access to their writings, and benefit by them in common with
other Christian Societies. You will allow, I have no doubt, on
reflection that it would indeed be imprudent to admit the right of
societies to dictate, on account of their present numerical
strength, in what way the lands set apart as a provision for the
clergy shall be disposed of.
The system of [University] Education which has produced the best
and ablest men in the United Kingdom will not be abandoned here to
suit the limited views of the leaders of Societies who, perhaps,
have neither experience nor judgment to appreciate the value or
advantages of a liberal education....
Such was the spirit in which the Governor in those days replied to the
respectful address of a large and influential body of Christians. He
even went further in another part of his reply, and referred to "the
absurd advice offered by your missionaries to the Indians, and their
officious interference."[29] Such language from the lips of Her
Majesty's Representative, if at all possible in these days, would
provoke a burst of indignation from those to whom it might be addressed,
but it had to be endured fifty years ago, when to question the
prerogative of the Crown, or the policy of the Executive, was taken as
_prima facie_ evidence of disloyalty, and republicanism.
5. Into the discussion of the claims of the Church of England in Upper
Canada, two questions entered, which were important factors in the case.
Both sides thoroughly understood the significance of either question as
an issue in the discussion; and both sides were, therefore, equally on
the alert--the one to maintain the affirmative, and the other the
negative, side of these questions. The first was the claim that it was
the inherent right of the Church of England to be an established church
in every part of the empire, and, therefore, in Upper Canada. Both sides
knew that the admission of such a claim, would be to admit the exclusive
right of that Church to the Clergy Reserves as her heritage. It was
argued, as an unquestionable fact, that the exclusive right of the
Church of England in Upper Canada to such reserves must have been
uppermost in the mind of the royal donor of these lands, when the grant
was first made. The second point was, that the admission of this
inherent right of the Church of England to be an established church in
Upper Canada, would extinguish the right of each one of the
nonconformist bodies to the status of a Church. It can well be
understood that in a contest which involved vital questions like these
(that is, of the exclusive endowment of one Church, and its consequent
superior status as a dominant Church), the struggle would be a
protracted and bitter one. And so it proved to be. But justice and right
at length prevailed. A portion of the Reserves was impartially
distributed, on a common basis among the denominations which desired to
share in them, and the long-contested claims of the Church of England to
the exclusive status of an established church were at length
emphatically repudiated by the Legislature; and, in 1854, the last
semblance of a union between Church and State vanished from our Statute
Book.[30]--J. G. H.
_Dec. 18th, 1830._--In the _Guardian_ of this day, Dr. Ryerson published
a petition to the Imperial Parliament, prepared by a large Committee, of
which he was a member, and of which Dr. W. W. Baldwin was Chairman. In
that petition the writer referred to the historical fact, that, had the
inhabitants of this Province been dependent upon the Church of England
or of Scotland for religious instruction, they would have remained
destitute of it for some years, and also that the pioneer non-Episcopal
ministers were not dissenters, because of the priority of their
existence and labours in Upper Canada. The petition, having pointed out
that there were only five Episcopal clergy in Canada during the war of
1812, and that only one Presbyterian minister was settled in the
Province in 1818, declared that:
The ministers of several other denominations accompanied the first
influx of emigration into Upper Canada, (1783-1790,) and have
shared the hardships, privations, and sufferings incident to
missionaries in a new country. And it is through their unwearied
labours, that the mass of the population have been mainly supplied
with religious instruction. They, therefore, do not stand in the
relation, of Dissenters from either the Church of England or of
Scotland, but are the ministers of distinct and independent
Churches, who had numerous congregations in various parts of the
Province, before the ministerial labours of any ecclesiastical
establishment were, to any considerable extent, known or felt.
_Jan. 20th, 1831._--As an evidence that the views put forth by Dr.
Ryerson, in the _Guardian_, against an established Church in Upper
Canada, were acceptable outside of his own denomination, I give the
following letter, addressed to him at this date from Perth, by the Rev.
Wm. Bell, Presbyterian:
Though differing from you in many particulars, yet in some we
agree. Your endeavours to advance the cause of civil and religious
liberty have generally met my approbation. Some of your writings
that I have seen discover both good sense and Christian feeling.
The liberality, too, you have discovered, both in regard to myself
and in regard of my brethren, has not escaped my observation. Be
not discouraged by the malice of the enemies of religion. Your
_Guardian_ I have seldom seen, but from this time I intend to take
it regularly. Consider me one of your "constant readers." The
matters in which we differ are nothing in comparison of those in
which we agree.
_Feb. 9th._--Some members of the Church of England in the Province
evinced a good deal of hostility to the Methodists of this period,
chiefly from the fact that they had been connected with the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States, and that the Canada Conference
had formed one of the Annual Conferences of that Church, presided over
by an American Bishop. As an evidence of this hostility, Dr. Ryerson
stated in the _Guardian_ of this date, that Donald Bethune, Esq., and
others, of Kingston, had petitioned the House of Assembly:--
To prohibit any exercise of the functions of a priest, or exhorter,
or elder of any denomination in the Province except by British
subjects; 2nd, to prevent any religious society connected with any
foreign religious body to assemble in Conference; 3rd, to prevent
the raising of money by any religious person or body for objects
which are not strictly British, etc.
The Legislature appointed a Committee on the subject, and Dr. Ryerson,
as representing the Methodists, Rev. Mr Harris the Presbyterians, and
Rev. Mr. Stewart the Baptists, were summoned to attend this Committee
with a view to give evidence on the subject. This Dr. Ryerson did at
length, (as did also these gentlemen). Dr. Ryerson traced the history of
the Methodist body in Canada, and showed that, three years before this
time, the Canada Conference had taken steps to sever its connection with
the American General Conference, and had done so in a friendly
manner.[31]
The petition was aimed at the Methodists, as they alone answered the
description of the parties referred to by the petitioners. The petition
was also a covert re-statement of the often disproved charge of
disloyalty, etc., on the part of the Methodists. The House very properly
came to the conclusion--
"That it was inconsistent with the benign and tolerant principles
of the British Constitution to restrain by penal enactment any
denomination of Christians, whether subjects or foreigners," etc.
This, however, was a sample of the favourite mode of attack, and the
system of persecution to which the early Methodists were exposed in this
Province. At the same session of Parliament in 1831, the Marriage Bill,
which had been before the House each year for six successive years, was
finally passed. This Bill gave to the Methodists and to other
non-Episcopal ministers the right for the first time to solemnize
matrimony in Upper Canada.
_Feb. 19th._--Sir John Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor, having
nominated an Episcopal chaplain to the House of Assembly, the question,
"Is the Church of England an established church in Upper Canada?" was
again debated in the House of Assembly and discussed in the newspapers.
With a view to a calm, dispassionate, and historical refutation of the
claims set up by the Episcopal Church on the subject, Dr. Ryerson
reprinted in the _Guardian_ of this day, the sixth of a series of
letters which he had addressed from Cobourg to Archdeacon Strachan, in
May and June, 1828. It covered the whole ground in dispute.[32]
_Nov. 6th, 1832._--Archdeacon Strachan, in his sermon, preached at the
visitation of the Bishop of Quebec at York, on the 5th of September,
speaking of the Methodists, said that he would--
Speak of them with praise, notwithstanding their departure from the
Apostolic ordinance, and the hostility long manifested against us
by some of their leading members.
In reply to this statement, Dr. Ryerson wrote from St. Catharines to the
Editor of the _Guardian_. He pointed out that:--
It was not until after Archdeacon Strachan's sermon on the death of the
former Bishop of Quebec was published, in 1826, that a single word was
written, and then to refute his slanders. In that sermon, when
accounting for the few who attend the Church of England, the Archdeacon
said that their attendance discouraged the minister, and that--
His influence is frequently broken or injured by numbers of
uneducated, itinerant preachers, who, leaving their steady
employment, betake themselves to preaching the Gospel from
idleness, or a zeal without knowledge ... and to teach what they do
not know, and which from their pride they disdain to learn.[33]
Again, in May, 1827, Archdeacon Strachan sent an "Ecclesiastical Chart"
to the Colonial Office, and in the letter accompanying it stated that:--
The Methodist teachers are subject to the orders of the United
States of America, and it is manifest that the Colonial Government
neither has, nor can have any other control over them, or prevent
them from gradually rendering a large portion of the population, by
their influence and instructions, hostile to our institutions,
civil and religious, than by increasing the number of the
Established Clergy.
Who then [Dr. Ryerson asked] was the author of contention? Who was the
aggressor? Who provoked hostilities? The slanders in the Chart were
published in Canada, and in England, by Dr. Strachan before a single
effort was made by a member of any denomination to counteract his
hostile measures, or a single word was said on the subject.
* * * * *
_Nov. 19th, 1834._--In connection with this subject I insert here the
following reply (containing several historical facts) to a singularly
pretentious letter which Dr. Ryerson had inserted in the _Guardian_ of
this date, denouncing the opposition of a certain "sect called
Methodists" to the claims of the Church of England as an established
church in the Colony. The reply was inserted in order to afford
strangers and new settlers in Upper Canada correct information on the
subject, and to disprove the statement of the writer of the letter, Dr.
Ryerson mentioned the following facts:--
The pretensions of the Episcopal clergy began to be disputed by the
clergy of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was known that the former
had got themselves erected into a corporation. This was, I believe, in
1820.[34] The subject was brought before the House of Assembly in 1824,
and the House in 1824, '25, '26, '27, passed resolutions remonstrating
against the exclusive claims of the Episcopal clergy. From 1822 to 1827
several pamphlets were published on both sides of the question, and much
was said in the House of Assembly; but during this period not one word
was written by any minister or member of the Methodist Church, nor did
the Methodists take any part in it, though their ministers were not even
allowed to solemnize matrimony--a privilege then enjoyed by Calvinistic
ministers--and though individual ministers had been most maliciously and
cruelly persecuted, under the sanction of judicial authority.... But in
the statements drawn up for the Imperial Government by the Episcopal
clergy during the years mentioned, the extirpation of the Methodists was
made one principal ground of appeal by the Episcopal clergy for the
exclusive countenance and patronage of His Majesty's Government. Some of
these documents at length came before the Canadian public; and in 1827 a
defence of the Methodists and other religious denominations was put
forth by the writer of these remarks in the form of a "Review of a
Sermon preached by the Archdeacon of York." Up to this time not one word
was said on "the church question" by the Methodists. But it was so
warmly agitated by others, that in the early part of 1827 Archdeacon
Strachan, an executive and legislative councillor, was sent to London to
support the claims of the Episcopal clergy at the Colonial Office. His
ecclesiastical chart and other communications were printed by order of
the Government, and soon found their way into the provincial newspapers,
and gave rise to such a discussion, and excited such a feeling
throughout the Province as was never before witnessed. The shameful
attack upon the character of the Methodist ministry, whose unparalleled
labours and sufferings, usefulness, and unimpeachable loyalty were known
and appreciated in the Province, and the appeal to the King's
Government to aid in exterminating them from the country excited strong
feelings of indignation and sympathy in the public mind. The House of
Assembly investigated the whole affair, examined fifty-two witnesses,
adopted an elaborate report, and sent home an address to the King
condemning the statements of the agent of the Episcopal clergy, and
remonstrating against the establishment of a dominant church in the
Province.[35] The determination to uproot the Methodists was carried so
far in those by-gone days of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, that
the Indians were told by executive sanction that unless they would
become members of the Church of England, the Government would do nothing
for them! In further support of my statement, I quoted four Episcopal
addresses and sermons, sufficient to show who were the first and real
aggressors in this matter--certainly not the Methodists.
* * * * *
As a sample of Dr. Ryerson's controversial style in 1826, when he wrote
the Review of Archdeacon Strachan's sermon (to which he refers above) I
quote a paragraph from it. In replying to the Archdeacon's "remarks on
the qualifications, motives, and conduct of the Methodist itinerant
preachers," which Dr. Ryerson considered "ungenerous and unfounded," he
proceeded:--
The Methodist preachers do not value themselves upon the wealth,
virtues, or grandeur, of their ancestry; nor do they consider their
former occupation an argument against their present employment or
usefulness. They have learned that the Apostles were once
fishermen; that a Milner could once throw the shuttle; that a
Newton once watched his mother's flock.... They are likewise
charged with "preaching the Gospel out of idleness." Does the
Archdeacon claim the attribute of omniscience? Does he know what is
in man? How does he know that they preach "the Gospel out of
idleness?" ... What does he call idleness?--the reading of one or
two dry discourses every Sabbath ... to one congregation, with an
annual income of £200 or £300?... No; this is hard labour; this is
indefatigable industry!... Who are they then that preach the Gospel
out of idleness?--those indolent, covetous men who travel from two
to three hundred miles, and preach from twenty-five to forty times
every month?--who, in addition to this, visit from house to house,
and teach young and old repentance towards God, and faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ?--those who continue this labour year after year
... at the enormous salary of £25 or £50 per annum?--these are the
men who "preach the Gospel out of idleness!" O bigotry! thou
parent of persecution; O envy! thou fountain of slander; O
covetousness! thou god of injustice! would to heaven ye were
banished from the earth![36]
* * * * *
_Jan. 22nd, 1831._--In the _Guardian_ of this day Dr. Ryerson publishes
a letter from the Rev. Richard Watson to the trustees of the Wesleyan
University, in Connecticut, declining the appointment of Professor of
_Belles Lettres_ and Moral Philosophy. He says:--
To _Belles Lettres_ I have no pretensions; Moral Philosophy I have
studied, and think it a most important department, when kept upon
its true principles, both theological and philosophic. Being,
however, fifty years old, and having a feeble constitution, I do
not think it would be prudent in me to accept.
During this year (1831) Dr. Ryerson engaged in a friendly controversy
with Vicar-General Macdonnell, Editor of the _Catholic_, published in
Kingston. This controversy included six letters from Dr. Ryerson, and
five from the Vicar-General, published in the _Christian Guardian_. It
touched upon the leading questions at issue between Roman Catholics and
Protestants. The correspondence was broken off by the Vicar-General.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] The following is a copy of the document under the authority of
which Dr. Ryerson was deputed to go to New York to procure presses and
types for the proposed _Christian Guardian_ newspaper:--
This is to certify that the Bearer, Rev. Egerton Ryerson, is appointed
agent for procuring a printing establishment for the Canada Conference,
and is hereby commended to the Christian confidence of all on whom he
may have occasion to call for advice and assistance for the above
purpose.
(Signed) William Case, _Superintendent_.
James Richardson, _Secretary_.
Ancaster, Upper Canada,
Sept. 4th, 1829.
[25] These seven papers, taken together, were the first attempt to put
into a connected form the history of the Methodist Church in Canada down
to 1830.--H.
[26] "Claims of Churchmen and Dissenters," &c., 1826, p. 27. (See p.
80.)
[27] For various reasons (apparently prudential at the time) this reply
was never published in the _Christian Guardian_, as were other replies
of the Governor.--H.
[28] This expression, "our Church," illustrates the fact which I have
indicated in first paragraph on page 97.
[29] This charge, preferred by such high authority, was taken up boldly
by the Methodist authorities. Rev. James (afterwards Bishop) Richardson,
Presiding Elder, was commissioned to inquire into its truthfulness. He
made an exhaustive report, proving the entire incorrectness of the
statement, and that the whole difficulty arose from the persistent
efforts of a Mr. Alley (an employé of the Indian Department) to promote
his own interest at the expense of that of the Indians, and to remove
out of the way the only obstacle to the accomplishment of his
purpose--the Methodist Missionary. Dr. Ryerson having pointed out these
facts in the _Guardian_, Capt. Anderson, Superintendent of Indian
affairs at Coldwater, questioned his conclusion "that the advice given
to the Indians was both prudent and loudly called for, and perfectly
respectful to His Excellency." Dr. Ryerson then examined the whole of
the evidence in the Case, and (See _Guardian_, vol. iii., p. 76) came to
the following conclusion:--1. That sometimes the local agents of the
Indian Department are men who have availed themselves of the most public
occasions to procure ardent spirits, and entice the Indians to
drunkenness, and other acts of immorality; being apparently aware that
with the introduction of virtue and knowledge among these people will be
the departure of gain which arises from abuse, fraud, and debauchery. 2.
That these agents are not always men who respect the Sabbath. 3. That
the Missionary's "absurd advice" was in effect that the Indians should
apply to their Great Father to remove such agents from among them. 4.
That their "craft being endangered," the agents and parties concerned,
"with studied design, sought to injure the missionary in the estimation
of His Excellency, and to destroy all harmony in their operations, in
order, if possible, to compel the Missionary to abandon the Mission
Station." The effect of this controversy was very salutary. His
Excellency, having reconsidered the Case, "gave merited reproof and
suitable instructions to the officers of the Indian Department in regard
to their treatment of the Methodist Missionary." Dr. Ryerson adds:--We
had no trouble thereafter on the subject.
[30] Another disturbing element entered subsequently into this
controversy. And this was especially embarrassing to Dr. Ryerson, as it
proceeded from ministers in the same ecclesiastical fold as himself. I
refer to the adverse views on church establishments, put forth by
members of the British Conference in this country and especially in
England (to which reference is made subsequently in this book). Dr.
Ryerson was, as a matter of course, taunted with maintaining opinions
which had been expressly repudiated by his Methodist "superiors" in
England. He had, therefore, to wage a double warfare. He was assailed
from within as well as from without. Besides, he had to bear the charge
of putting forth heretical views in church politics, even from a
Methodist standpoint. He, however, triumphed over both parties--those
within as well as those without. And his victory over the former was the
more easily won, as the views of the "British Methodists," on this
question were almost unanimously repudiated by the Methodists of Canada.
See "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pp. 330-353.--H.
[31] See pages 63, 64 of the _Christian Guardian_ for 1831; also page
90, _ante_.
[32] See _Christian Guardian_ of Feb. 19th, 1831, and also the pamphlet
containing the whole of this series of eight letters, entitled: "Letters
from the Reverend Egerton Ryerson to the Honourable and Reverend Doctor
Strachan, published originally in the _Upper Canada Herald_; Kingston,
1828," pp. 42, double columns. See page 80.--H.
[33] For reply to this statement see extract from Review given on p.
105.--H.
[34] In "a Pastoral Letter from the Clergy of the Church of Scotland in
the Canadas to their Presbyterian Brethren" issued in 1828, they
say:--"We did, in the year 1820, petition His Majesty's Government for
protection and support to our Church, and claimed, by what we believe to
be our constitutional rights, a participation in the Clergy Reserves."
Montreal, 1828, p. 2. This Pastoral Letter gave rise to a protracted
discussion for and against the Presbyterian side of the question.--H.
[35] The Report was adopted by a vote of 22 to 8. It stated:--The
ministry and instructions [of the Methodist Clergymen] have been
conducive--in a degree which cannot be easily estimated--to the
reformation of their hearers, and to the diffusion of correct
morals--the foundation of all sound loyalty and social order.... No one
doubts that the Methodists are as loyal as any other of His Majesty's
subjects, etc. Full particulars of this controversy will be found in Dr.
Ryerson's "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pp. 165-218.--H.
[36] In "An Apology for the Church of England in Canada, by a Protestant
of the Established Church of England," the writer thus refers to this
controversy:--"Our Methodist brethren have disturbed the peace of their
maternal Church by the clamour of enthusiasm and the madness of
resentment; but they are the wayward children of passion, and we hope
that yet the chastening hand of reason will sober down the wildness of
that ferment," etc. Kingston, U.C., 1826, p. 3.--H.
CHAPTER IX.
1831-1832.
Methodist Affairs in Upper Canada--Proposed Union with the British
Conference.
Of the events transpiring in Upper Canada during 1831 and 1832, in which
Dr. Ryerson was an actor, he has left no record in his "Story." His
letters and papers, however, show that during this period he retired
from the editorship of the _Christian Guardian_, and that plans were
discussed and matured which led to his going to England, in 1833, to
negotiate a union between the British and Upper Canadian Conferences.
His brother George had gone on a second visit to England in March, 1831.
This second visit was for a twofold purpose, viz., to collect money with
the Rev. Peter Jones, for the Indian Missions, and also to present
petitions to the Imperial Parliament on behalf of the non-episcopalians
of the Province. I give extracts from his letters to Dr. Ryerson,
relating his experiences of, and reflections on, Wesleyan matters in
England at that period. Writing from Bristol, on the 6th of August,
1831, Rev. George Ryerson said:--
In my address to the Wesleyan Conference here I stated that we
stood in precisely the same relation to our brethren of the
Methodist Conference in the United States as we do to our brethren
of the Wesleyan Conference in England--independent of
either--agreeing in faith, in religious discipline, in name and
doctrine, and the unity of spirit,--but differing in some
ecclesiastical arrangements, rendered necessary from local
circumstances. I also expressed my firm conviction that the
situation in which we stand is decidedly the best calculated to
spread Methodism and vital religion in Canada. This statement did
not, I think, give so much satisfaction to the Conference as the
others, for what Pope said of Churchmen:
"Is he a Churchman? then he's fond of power,"
may also be literally applied to Wesleyan ministers, and, I may
add, to Englishmen generally. I have reason to know that they would
gladly govern us. I was, therefore, very pointed and explicit on
this subject. I rejoice that our country lies beyond the Atlantic,
and is surrounded by an atmosphere of freedom. A few months'
residence in this country would lead you to value this circumstance
in a degree that you can scarcely conceive of; and you would, with
unknown energy, address this exhortation to the Methodists and to
the people of Canada: "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty
wherewith God's providence hath made you free, and in this abound
more and more." I also assured them of our respect and love for
them as our fathers and elder brethren, and mentioned my reasons
for giving this information to prevent future collision and
misunderstanding.
The Conference or Missionary Society have, however, not given up
their intention of establishing an Indian Mission in Upper Canada,
but, in consequence of my remonstrances, have delayed it. Brother
James Richardson's letter to the Missionary Committee, which I
submitted, and was told by Rev. Dr. Townley, one of the
Secretaries, that they would by no means withdraw their missionary
at Kingston, as it was still their intention to establish a mission
to the Indians in Upper Canada, and this station would be very
necessary to them. I see that they are a little vexed that
emigrants from their Societies should augment our membership.
The whole morning service of the Church of England is now read in
most of the Wesleyan Chapels, and with as much formality as in the
Church. Many of the members, when they become wealthy and rise in
the world, join the Church, and their wealth and influence are lost
to the Society. Organs are also introduced into many of their
Chapels.
In a letter dated London, Feb. 6th, 1832, Rev. Geo. Ryerson writes again
to Dr. Ryerson, and says that he and Peter Jones:
By request, met the Rev. Richard Watson, and some others of the
Missionary Committee. They wished to consult us respecting the
resolutions forwarded to them from your Missionary Committee. They
profess that they will not occupy any station where there is a
mission, as Grand River, Penetanguishene, etc., except St. Clair.
But they declare that as it regards the white population, the
agreement with the American Conference ceased when we became a
separate connexion. I opposed their views, as I have invariably
done, in very strong and plain terms, and explained to them the
character and object of the persons who were alluring them to
commence this schism. They proposed that we should give up the
missions to them. I told them we could no more do so, than they
give up theirs. They finally acquiesced, and voted the £300 as Rev.
Dr. Townley wrote. At the Conference, at Bristol, I explained that
a union of the two Conferences would be inexpedient and
unprofitable, any further than a union of brotherly love and
friendship.
In another letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother George, dated London,
April 6th, 1832, he says:--
I have been detained so long on expenses, and continually advancing
money for the Central Committee at York, that I hope it will be
repaid to Peter Jones. I was a long time attending to the business
of my mission to bring it to the only practicable arrangement, that
is, having it submitted to the Legislature of Upper Canada, with
such recommendations and instructions as would give satisfaction to
the country by consulting the wishes and interests of all parties.
I have never before in my life been shut up to walk in all things
by simple faith more than I have for some months past; yet I was
never kept in greater steadfastness and peace of mind, nor had such
openings of the Spirit and life of Jesus in my soul. The judgments
of God are spreading apace--the cholera is more deadly in London,
and it has now broken out in Ireland, and in the centre of Paris,
where it is said to be very destructive. You need no other evidence
of its being a work of God, than to be informed that it is made the
public mock of the infidel population of this city; a state of
feeling and conduct in regard to this pestilence that never,
perhaps, was witnessed from any country, and that would make a
heathen or Mahommedan ashamed. I have seen gangs of men traversing
the streets and singing songs in ridicule of the cholera, and have
seen caricatures of it in the windows.
_August 29th, 1832._--To-day, in a valedictory editorial, Dr. Ryerson
took leave of the readers of the _Christian Guardian_, having been its
first editor for nearly three years. In that valedictory Dr. Ryerson
said (p. 116):--
I first appeared before the public as a writer, at the age of two and
twenty years. My first feeble effort was a vindication of the
Methodists, and several other Christian denominations against the
uncalled-for attack made upon their principles and character. It also
contained a remonstrance against the introduction into this country of
an endowed political Church, as alike opposed to the statute law of the
Province, political and religious expedience, public rights and
liberties. I believe this was the first article of the kind ever
published in Upper Canada, and, while from that time to this a powerful
combination of talent, learning, indignation, and interest has been
arrayed in the vain attempt to support by the weapons of reason,
Scripture, and argument, a union between the Church and the
world--between earth and heaven; talents, truth, reason, and justice
have alike been arrayed in the defence of insulted and infringed rights,
and the maintenance of a system of public, religious, and educational
instruction, accordant with public rights and interests, the principles
of sound policy, the economy of Providence, and the institutions and
usages of the New Testament.
Dr. Ryerson also published in this number of the _Guardian_ the general
outline of the arrangements proposed at Hallowell (Picton) on behalf of
the Canada Conference to the English Conference, and designed to form
the basis of articles for the proposed union between the two bodies.
Rev. Robert Alder was present at the Conference, and was a consenting
party to the basis of union.
_December 7th, 1832._--The prospects of Union with the British
Conference were not encouraging in various parts of the Connexion, and
chiefly for the reasons mentioned by Rev. George Ryerson in his letters
from England (see pp. 107, 8). Rev. John Ryerson, writing to Dr. Ryerson
from Cobourg, also says:--
The subject of the Union appears to be less and less palatable to
our friends in these parts, so much so, that I think it will not be
safe for you to come to any permanent arrangements with the British
Conference, even should they accede to our proposals. I am of the
opinion that, except we give ourselves entirely into their hands in
some way or another, no Union will take place. I tell the
preachers, and they and I tell the people, that, Union or no Union,
it is very important that you should go home; that you will
endeavour, in every way you can, to convince the British Conference
of the manifest injustice and wickedness of sending missionaries to
this country.
_November 21st, 1832._--The proposed union with the British Conference
excited a good deal of discussion at this time in various parts of Upper
Canada. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, addressed a note on the subject to Rev.
Robert Alder, the English Conference representative. I make a few
extracts:--
At the Hallowell Conference (1832) the question of the union was
principally sustained by my brothers, and was concurred in by the vote
of a large majority of the Conference.... But in some parts of the
country, where Presidential visits have been made, certain local
preachers have found out that the Societies ought to have been
consulted; that they have been sold ("by the Ryersons,") without
consent; that no Canadian will henceforth be admitted into the
Conference; that our whole economy will be changed by arbitrary power,
and all revivals of religion will be stopped, etc. The first of the
objections is the most popular, but they have all failed to produce the
intended effect, to an extent desired by the disaffected few. The object
contemplated is, to produce an excitement that will prevent me going to
England, and induce the Conference to retrace its steps. The merit or
demerit of the measure has been mainly ascribed to me; and on its
result, should I cross the Atlantic, my standing, in a great measure,
depends. If our proposals should meet with a conciliatory reception, and
your Committee would recommend measures, rather than require
concessions, in the future proceedings of our Conference, everything can
be accomplished without difficulty or embarrassment. You know that I am
willing, as an individual, to adopt your whole British economy, _ex
animo_. You also know that my brothers are of the same mind, and that a
majority of the Conference will readily concur. May the Lord direct
aright!
Dr. Alder's reply to Dr. Ryerson in February, 1833, was that:
You must look at the great principles and results involved in this
most important affair, and not shrink from the duties imposed on
you, to avoid a few present unpleasant consequences. It is not for
me to prescribe rules of conduct to be observed by you, but I must
say, that I am surprised that any circumstance should cause you to
waver for a moment in reference to your visit to Europe. If you
were to decline coming, would not the many on the other side, who
are strictly watching your movements, at once say that the whole
arrangements are deceptive, and merely designed to make an
impression on me for a certain purpose. You know they would. Of
course you will act as you please. I neither advise nor persuade,
but say: Be not too soon nor too much alarmed. There are no
jealousies, no evil surmisings, no ambitious designs in the matter,
but a sincere desire to promote the interests of Methodism and the
cause of religion in Upper Canada; and nothing will be desired
from, or recommended to, you, but for this purpose.
It is a noble object that we have in view. Rev. Richard Watson
takes a statesmanlike view of the whole case, and will, I am
persuaded, as will all concerned here, meet you with the utmost
ingenuousness and liberality, and, if they be met in a similar
manner, all will end well. If you can agree to the following
recommendation, I think everything else will easily be settled,
viz., to constitute two or three districts, to meet annually, as
District Conferences, and to hold a Triennial Conference, to be
composed of all the preachers in the Provinces, under a President,
to be appointed in the way mentioned in the plan of agreement
proposed by your last Conference. Several of your preachers wish
it; Bro. Green, the presiding Elder, is in favour of it.
_January 10th, 1833._--It being necessary to collect funds to defray Dr.
Ryerson's expenses to England, his brother, William, wrote to him from
Brockville at this date, giving an account of his success there as a
collector. He said:--
After the holidays I commenced operations, and having besieged the
doors of several of our gentry, most of whom contributed without
much resistance, on most honourable terms, of course, such as
paying from $3 to $6, with a great many wishes, and hearty ones
too, for your success. More than two-thirds of the sum collected
are given by the gentlemen of the village, most of whom expressed
and appeared to feel a pleasure in giving, and who have never been
known to give anything to the Methodists before on any occasion
whatever. Our congregation has greatly increased, so that we now
have about five hundred, some say more, in the evening. A majority
of the first families in the village attend our chapel. Among many
others, Mr. Jonas Jones, and several of the families in the same
connection; Mr. Sherwood, the High Sheriff, and several others,
most of whom have never been known to attend a Methodist meeting
before. You will be surprised to hear that Mrs. James Sherwood has
become my warm friend, treating me with the greatest attention and
kindness; and also on various occasions speaking most kindly and
respectfully of me and all our family, especially yourself.
* * * * *
_January 31st, 1833._--Under this date, Dr. Ryerson has recorded in his
diary the following tribute to his first wife:--
A year ago this morning, at half-past five o'clock, the wife of my
youth fell asleep in Jesus, leaving a son and daughter (John and
Lucilla Hannah), the former two years and a half old, and the
latter fourteen days. Hannah Aikman (her maiden name) was the
daughter of John and Hannah Aikman, and was the youngest of eleven
children. Hannah was born in Barton, Gore District, on the 4th of
August, 1804. Her natural disposition was most amiable, and her
education was better than is usually afforded to farmer's daughters
in this country. At the age of sixteen she was awakened, converted,
and joined the Methodist Church, of which she remained an exemplary
member until her death. I became intimately acquainted with her in
1824, when she was twenty years of age, and after taking the advice
of an elder brother, who had travelled the circuit on which they
lived, at the strong solicitation of my parents, and the impulse of
my own inclinations, I made her proposals of marriage, which were
accepted. This was before I had any intention of becoming a
preacher in the Methodist Church, either travelling or local.
About this time the Lord laid his afflicting hand upon me;[37] I
was brought to the gate of death, and in that state became
convinced by evidence as satisfactory as that of my existence, that
in disregarding the dictates of my own conscience, and the
important advice of many members of the Church, both preachers and
lay, in regard to labouring in the itinerant field, I had resisted
the Spirit of God; and on that sick, and in the estimation of my
family, dying bed, I vowed to the Lord my God, that if He should
see fit to raise me up and open the way, I would no more disobey
the voice of His Providence and servants. From that hour I began
visibly to recover, and, though the exercises of my mind were
unknown to any but myself and the Searcher of hearts, before I had
sufficiently recovered to walk two miles, I was called upon by the
Presiding Elder, and several official members, and solicited to go
on the Niagara Circuit, which was then partly destitute through the
failure in health of one of the preachers. I could not but view
this unexpected call us the voice of God, and, after a few days'
deliberation and preparation, I obeyed, on the 24th of March, 1825,
the day on which I was twenty-two years of age.
This unanticipated change in the course of my life, while it
involved the sacrifice of pecuniary interests and some very
flattering offers and promises, presented my contemplated marriage
in a somewhat different light; though the possibility of such a
change was mentioned as a condition in my proposals and our
engagement. And I will here record it to the honour of the dead
that she who afterwards became my wife, wrote to me a short time
after I commenced travelling, that if a union between us was in any
respect opposed to my views of duty, or if I thought it would
militate against my usefulness, I was perfectly exonerated by her
from all obligations to such a union; that, whatever her own
feelings might be, she begged that they would not influence
me,--that God would give her grace to subdue them,--that she
shuddered at the thought of standing in the way of my duty and
usefulness.
Knowing, as I did, that her fondness for me was extravagant, I
could not wound the heart which was the seat of such elevated
feelings, or help appreciating more highly than ever the principles
of mind which could give rise to such noble sentiments, and such
martyr-like disinterestedness of soul. In subsequent interviews, we
mutually agreed--should Providence permit--and (at her suggestion)
should neither of us change our minds, we would get married in
three or four years. During this interval, I had at times
agitations of mind as to the advantages of such a step, in regard
to my ministerial labours, but determined to rely on the Divine
promise, "Blessed is the man that sweareth to his own hurt, and
changeth not." This promise has been abundantly fulfilled in me. We
were married on the 10th of September, 1828. A more affectionate
and prudent wife never lived. She was beloved and respected by all
that knew her. I never saw her angry, nor do I recollect that an
angry or unkind word ever passed between us. Her disposition was
sweet, her spirit uniformly kind and cheerful, sociable, and meek.
Her professions were never high, nor her joys rapturous. But in
everything she was invariably faithful, and ready for every good
word and work. In her confidence, peace, and conduct, as far as I
could discover, without intermission, the poet's words were clearly
illustrated:--
"Her soul was ever bright as noon, and calm as summer evenings be."
Though her piety for years excited my respect, and in many
instances my admiration, it was nevertheless greatly quickened and
deepened about six months before her death, during the Conference
held at York. From that time I believe she enjoyed the perfect love
of God. At least, as far as I can judge, the fruits of it were
manifest in her whole life.
Several days previous to her death, when her illness assumed a
mortal aspect, and she became sensible that her earthly pilgrimage
was closing, her usual unruffled confidence rose to the riches of
the full assurance of understanding, faith and hope, and she
expressed herself with a boldness of language, a rapture of hope,
and triumph of faith that I never before witnessed. Passages of
Scripture, and verses of hymns, expressive of the dying Christian's
victories, triumphs, and hopes, were repeated by her with a joy and
energetic fervency that deeply affected all present. Her deathbed
conversations and dying counsels were a rich repast and a valuable
lesson of instruction to many of her Christian friends. The night
before she took her departure, she called me to her and consulted
me about disposing of the family and all her own things, with as
much coolness and judgment as if she had been in perfect health,
and was about leaving home on a few days' visit to her friends. A
little before midnight she requested the babe to be brought to
her--kissed it--blessed it, and returned it. She then called for
the little boy (John), and, embracing and kissing him, bequeathed
to him also the legacy of a pious mother's dying prayer and
blessing. Afterwards she embraced me, and said, "My dear Egerton,
preach the Word; be instant in season and out of season, and God
will take care of you, and give you the victory." She then bid an
affectionate farewell individually to all. She continued in the
perfect possession of her reason, triumphing in the Rock of her
salvation, until the messenger arrived and her spirit took its
departure with the words, "Come, Lord Jesus," lingering upon her
lips. Thus lived and died one of the excellent of the earth,--a
woman of good, plain sense, a guileless heart, and a sanctified
spirit and life. Such is the testimony respecting her, of one who
knew her best.
In his deep sorrow and affliction, at that time, Dr. Ryerson received
many sympathizing letters. I give an extract of one from his brother
George, dated London, Eng., 29th March, 1832. He says:--
I deeply sympathize with you in your affliction. I know how to feel
for you, and you as yet know but a very small part of your trials.
Years will not heal the wound. I am, even now, often quite
overwhelmed when I allow myself to dwell upon the past. I need not
suggest to you the commonplace topics of comfort and resignation,
but I have no doubt you will see the hand of God so manifestly in
it, that you will say "It was well done." I will further add that
the saying of St. Paul was at no time so applicable as at the
present (1 Cor. vii. 29, etc.).
* * * * *
The years 1830-1832 were noted in the history of the Methodist Church in
Upper Canada for two things: 1st. The establishment of the Upper Canada
Academy--the radiating centre of intellectual life in the Connexion.
2nd. The erection of the Adelaide St. Chapel, which for many years was
the seat and source of Church life in the Societies. At the Conference
of 1830 it was agreed to establish the Upper Canada Academy. In the
_Guardian_ of the 23rd of April, 1831, Dr. Ryerson gave an account of
the new institution and made a strong appeal in its favour. On the 7th
June, 1832, the foundation stone of the Academy was laid at Cobourg. On
the 16th June, 1833, the new brick church on Newgate (Adelaide) St. was
opened for Divine Service. In the _Guardian_ of June 19th, Dr. Ryerson
says: "For its size--being 75 by 55 feet--it is judged to be inferior to
very few Methodist Chapels in America." P. 126.
FOOTNOTES:
[37] See note on page 86 and page 28.
CHAPTER X.
1833
Union between the British and Canadian Conferences
I undertook the mission to England to negotiate a Union between the
British and Canadian Conferences with great reluctance. I determined in
the course of the year, from various circumstances, to abandon it; but
was persuaded by letters from Rev. Robert Alder, the London Missionary
Secretary (one of which is given on page 110), and the advice of my
brother John, to resume it.
The account of my voyage and proceedings in England are given in the
following extracts from my journals:--
_March 4th, 1833._--This morning at 6 a.m. I left York _via_
Cobourg, Kingston, and New York, on my first important mission to
England, an undertaking for which I feel myself utterly
incompetent; and in prosecution of which I rely wholly on the
guidance of heavenly wisdom, imploring the special blessing of the
Most High.
_Kingston, March 11th._--I find that considerable excitement, and
in some instances, strong dissatisfaction, exists on the question
of Union, by misrepresentation of the proceedings and intentions of
our Conference respecting it. Full explanations have in every
instance restored confidence, and acquiescence. A correction of
these misrepresentations, and the reply of the Wesleyan Missionary
Committee to the proposals of our Conference have given universal
satisfaction, and elicited a general and strong desire for the
accomplishment of this all-important measure. My interviews with my
brothers (William and John) have been interesting and profitable to
me.
_Watertown, N.Y., March 12._--Came from Kingston here to-day,
twenty-eight miles. This Black River country is very level, and
appears to be fertile, but the people generally do not seem to be
thriving.
_Utica, March 13th._--This is a flourishing town of about 10,000
inhabitants, beautifully situated on the south side of the Mohawk
river. I travelled through a settlement and village called Renson,
consisting principally of Welsh, where the Welsh language is
universally spoken; there is a _Whitefield_ Methodist chapel, but I
was told they retained more of the name, than of the genuine spirit
of their founder. "Because of swearing the land mourneth."
_Hartford, March 16th._--The southern part of Massachusetts and the
northern part of this State, are mountainous and rocky and barren.
The inhabitants are supported by manufactures, grazing and dairies.
They appear to be rather poor but intelligent. In my conversation
to-day with a professed infidel I felt sensibly the importance of
being skilled in wielding any weapon with which theology, history,
science, so abundantly furnishes the believer in the Christian
revelation; and never before did I see and feel the lofty
superiority of the foundation on which natural and revealed truth
is established, over the cob-web and ill-shaped edifice of
infidelity.
_Hartford, March 17th._--I have attended service three times
to-day, and preached twice. Religion seems to be at a low ebb. Yet
I have not heard religion spoken of, or any body of religious
people referred to, in any other way than that of respect.
_New York, March 20th._--I am now about to embark for England, the
reason of my long journey from Canada to New York is the slow
travel by stage, before any railroads, and the Hudson river not
navigable so early.
_New York, March 21st._--[Just on the eve of sailing for England, Dr.
Ryerson wrote from New York to his brother John, at Hallowell. He
said:--
I stayed with the Rev. Dr. Fisk all night and part of two days. I was
much gratified and benefited, and have received from him many valuable
suggestions respecting my mission to England and agency for the Upper
Canada Academy. He was unreserved in his communications, and is in
favour of my Mission, as were Brother Waugh, Drs. Bangs, Durbin[38] and
others. They all seem to approve fully of the proceedings of our
Conference in the affair.--H.]
_New York, March 22nd._--[On the day on which Dr. Ryerson sailed for
England, Mr. Francis Hall, of the New York _Commercial Advertiser_, sent
him a note in which he said:--
I have just received from a friend in Montreal the following
information which I wish you would give to the Rev. Richard Reece,
of London:--The Lord has blessed us abundantly in Montreal. Upwards
of four hundred conversions have taken place in our chapel since
last summer. It is now necessary for us to have a chapel in the St.
Lawrence suburbs, and another in the Quebec suburbs immediately.
This (said Mr. Hall) for those who know Montreal, is great news
indeed. It is equal to an increase of as many thousands in the city
of New York; the whole population being only a little more than
thirty thousand, a great portion of which are Roman Catholics.--H.]
Dr. Ryerson's journal then proceeds:--
_At Sea, April 10th._--On the 22nd ult., I embarked on the sailing
ship "York," Capt. Uree, New York. I was sick for fourteen days,
ate nothing, thought little, and enjoyed nothing. Feeling better, I
was able to read a little.
_April 12th._--After twenty days' sail we landed at Portsmouth.
Thanks be to the God of heaven, earth, and sea for His protection,
blessing, and prosperity! I was greatly struck with the extensive
fortifications, and vast dockyards, together with the wonderful
machinery in this place; such indications of national wealth, and
specimens of human genius and industry.
_April 13th._--This morning I arrived in London, and was cordially
received by the Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and
kindly invited to take up my lodgings at the Mission House.
_April 14th--Sabbath._--Heard the Rev. G. Marsden preach. In the
afternoon this holy man addressed about four hundred Sunday-school
children, after which I spoke a few words to them. We then attended
a prayer-meeting, where many found peace with God. In the evening I
heard the Rev. Theophilus Lessey preach a superior sermon, and I
felt blessed.
_April 16th._--This evening I preached my first sermon in England,
in City Road Chapel, from John iii. 8. This is called Mr. Wesley's
Chapel, having been built by him, and left under peculiar
regulations. Alongside is Mr. Wesley's dwelling-house, and in the
rear of it rest his bones, also those of Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke and
Rev. Richard Watson; three of the greatest men the world ever saw.
In the front of this chapel, on the opposite side of the street,
are the celebrated Bunhill Field's burying ground, among whose
memorable dead rests the dust of the venerable Isaac Watts, John
Wesley's mother, John Bunyan, Daniel Defoe, etc.
_April 21st--Sunday._--To-day I went to hear the celebrated Edward
Irving. His preaching, for the most part, I considered commonplace;
his manner, eccentric; his pretensions to revelations, authority,
and prophetic indications, overweening. I was disappointed in his
talents, and surprised at the apparent want of feeling manifested
throughout his whole discourse.
_April 20th._--This morning I attended the funeral of the great and
eminently pious Rev. Rowland Hill, who died in the 89th year of his
age. Lord Hill, his nephew, was chief mourner. There was a large
attendance of ministers of all denominations, and a great concourse
of people. Rev. Wm. Jay, of Bath, preached an admirable sermon from
Zech. ii. 2. "Howl fir tree, for the cedar hath fallen." The
venerable remains were interred beneath the pulpit.
_April 26th._--To-day I heard Rev. Richard Winter Hamilton, of
Leeds, an Independent, preach a missionary sermon for the Wesleyan
Society. His text was Col. i. 16. It was the most splendid sermon I
ever heard.
_April 28th._--Heard the Rev. Robert Newton in the morning. In the
afternoon I preached a missionary sermon in Westminster Chapel, and
in the evening another at Chelsea.
_April 29th._--This day was held the Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan
Missionary Society, in Exeter Hall, Lord Morpeth in the chair. He
is a young man, serious and dignified in his manners. The speeches
generally were able and to the point. Collection was £231.
_May 1st._--The Annual Meeting of the British and Foreign Bible
Society was held in Exeter Hall. Lord Bexley presided. The Bishops
of Winchester and Chester, brothers, addressed the meeting. They
are eloquent speakers, but the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel was the
speaker of the day.
_May 3rd._--This morning I attended the Annual Breakfast Meeting of
the preachers' children, at the City Road Morning Chapel; nearly
200 preachers and their families were present. Rev. Joseph
Entwistle spoke, as did Mr. James Wood, of Bristol, myself and one
or two others.
_May 5th., Exeter._--Left London at 5 a.m. and arrived here at 10
p.m., within a minute of the time specified by the coachman. We
passed over the scene of that inimitable tract, "The Shepherd of
Salisbury Plain." We were shown the tree under which the shepherd
was sheltered.
_May 6th._--Rev. Wm. Naylor preached this morning in Exeter, and I
preached in the evening.
_Taunton, May 7th._--At a Missionary Tea Meeting to-day, deep
interest was excited in the cause of the British North American
Missions. Taunton is a very ancient town. It existed in the time of
the Romans. It was in this town that King Ina held the first
Legislative Assembly or Parliament ever held in Britain. It
consisted of ecclesiastics and noblemen and enacted certain laws
for the better government of the Heptarchy. It was near this town
King Alfred concealed himself, and was discovered in the capacity
of a cook. Here also stands the Church of St. Mary, a most splendid
and ancient gothic building, where that venerable and holy man of
God, Joseph Alleine, author of the "Alarm to the Unconverted,"
preached.
In a letter to a friend in Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson at this date
writes:--
_Nottingham, May 29th._--I this morning called upon Mrs. Watson,
mother of the late distinguished Richard Watson. She is nearly
eighty years of age, and in rather humble circumstances. She is in
the possession of a naturally strong and unimpaired intellect, and
has apparently not the least vanity on account of the unrivalled
talents, high attainments, and great popularity of her son. In
conversation she stated the following particulars: That her husband
was a saddler, that he formerly lived and followed his business in
Boston-on-the-Humber in Lincolnshire, where Richard was born; that
her husband was the only Methodist in the town, and was the means
of introducing Methodism into that town; that his business was
taken from him, and he was obliged to leave and remove to another
place on account of it; that Richard was very weakly, and so poorly
that she carried him when a child on a pillow in her arms; that
when he began to talk and run about he was unusually stupid and
sleepy, would drop asleep anywhere; that he was very tall of his
age, and made such advancement in learning, that he read the Latin
Testament at five years of age, and had read a considerable part of
it before his parents knew that he had been put to the study of
Latin; the clergyman, his tutor, thought him older, from his size
and mind, or, as he said, he would not have put him to Latin so
young; that Richard had a very great taste for reading; when he was
a very small boy, he read the History of England (when not eight
years of age), and recollected and related with the utmost
correctness all its leading facts; that he would frequently remain
at school after school hours, doing difficult questions in
arithmetic for older boys; that he was bound out, according to his
request, to the trade of a house-joiner; that he was most diligent
and faithful at his work, and made such rapid advancement in
learning the trade, that at the end of two years, his master told
his father that he had already learned as much as he could teach
him, and that he was willing to give him up if he desired--the best
hand in his shop; that Richard began to go out and exhort when he
was fourteen years of age, and that he preached when he was
fifteen, and was received on trial by the Conference as a
travelling preacher about a month after he was sixteen; that he was
frequently pelted with eggs, and even trodden under foot; that his
own uncle on one occasion encouraged it, saying, "My kinsman does
it pretty well, give him a few more eggs, lad" (addressing one of
the mob), and that Richard came home frequently with his clothes
completely besmeared with eggs and dirt.
I attended the Wesleyan Missionary meeting here and spoke at it.
The meeting was highly interesting. It was addressed by Rev. Mr.
Edwards, (Baptist) and by the Messrs. Bunting, Atherton, and
Bakewell. In this town the noted Kilham made his first Methodist
division, and here suddenly ended his life. Here Bramwell got the
ground for a chapel in answer to prayer. Near the town runs the
River Trent. From Nottingham I went fourteen miles to Mansfield and
attended a missionary meeting. I was in the house which was the
birth-place of the great Chesterfield, and passed through Mansfield
forest, the scene of Robin Hood's predatory exploits.
In his journal Dr. Ryerson says:--
_London, June 24th._--I had an interview with Rt. Hon. Edward
Ellice, on Canadian affairs; a man of noble spirit, liberal mind,
and benevolent heart. He condemned Dr. Strachan's measures, and
manifested an earnest, desire to promote the welfare of Upper
Canada. I gave him an account of the political and religious
affairs in Upper Canada with which he expressed himself pleased,
and gave me £50 for the Upper Canada Academy.
_June 16th._--This day was dedicated, by Rev. Wm. Ryerson, the new
brick chapel on Newgate (Adelaide) Street, Toronto. (See subsequent
chapter.)
_June 24th._--Writing to-day to a valued friend in Upper Canada in
regard to his mission in London, Dr. Ryerson told him that he had no
doubt of its advantageous results in promoting harmony and peace. He
then said:--
I apprehend that Mr. Stanley's appointment to the Secretaryship of
the Colonies will not be very beneficial to us. The reason of Lord
Goderich and Lord Howick (Earl Grey's son) retiring from that
office was that they would not bring any other Bill on slavery into
Parliament, but one for its immediate and entire abolition. I
understand that Lords Goderich and Howick are sadly annoyed at Mr.
Stanley's course.
It will only be for the friends of good government to pray for the
re-appointment of Lord Goderich, or insist upon a change in the
Colonial policy towards Upper Canada. This part, however, belongs
to political men. But I am afraid it may have an unfavourable
bearing upon our religious rights and interests.
In Rev. J. Richardson's letter to me, he mentions that the
petitions were sent in the care of Mr. Joseph Hume. He is not the
person to present a petition to His Majesty on religious liberty in
the Colonies, and especially after the part he has taken in
opposing the Bill for emancipating the slaves in the West Indies.
It has incensed the religious part of the nation against him. He is
connected with the West India interest by his wife, and his
abandoning all his principles of liberty in such a heart-stirring
question, destroys confidence in the disinterestedness of his
general conduct, and his sincere regard for the great interests of
religion. I leave London this afternoon for Ireland. My return here
depends upon whether I can do anything in this petition
business.[39]
It is difficult to get a moment for retirement, excepting very
early in the morning, or after twelve at night. It is not the way
for me to live I had, however, a very profitable and good day
yesterday. I preached, and superintended a love-feast in City Road
Chapel last evening. It was a very good one, only the people were a
little bashful in speaking at first, like some of our York friends
who are always so very timid, such as Dr. Morrison, Mr. Howard, and
others.
In his journal Dr. Ryerson says:--
_June 26th._--According to appointment, I called upon the Earl of
Ripon, and was most kindly received. I wished to enquire about the
medal promised by His Majesty, William IV., to Peter Jones, and to
solicit a donation towards our Academy at Cobourg. His Lordship
gave me £5. He expressed his disapprobation of Sir John Colborne's
reply to the Methodist Conference in 1831, (see page 98). He stated
that he was anxious for the Union between the British and Canadian
Conferences, and was gratified at the prospect of its success.[40]
His Lordship stated that, while in the Colonial Department, he had
only received Mr. W. L. Mackenzie as a private individual, and had
done no more than justice to him.
_June 28th._--I called at the Colonial office, and laid before Mr.
Stanley statements and documents relative to the Clergy Reserve
Question. Mr. Stanley was very courteous, but equally cautious. I
stated that the House of Assembly of Upper Canada had nearly every
year since 1825, by very large majorities, decided against the
erection of any Church Establishment in that Province, and in
favour of the appropriation of the Clergy Reserves to the purposes
of General Education; that this might be taken to be the fair and
deliberate sense of the people of Upper Canada; that this question
was distinct from any question or questions of political reform;
that parties and parliaments who differed on other questions of
public policy, agreed nearly unanimously in this. He expressed his
opinion that the Colonial Legislature had a right to legislate on
it, and asked me why our House of Assembly had not done it. I told
him it had, but the Legislative Council had rejected the Bill
passed by the Assembly on the subject.
_July 13th._--In a letter at this date to a friend in Upper Canada, Dr.
Ryerson further refers to this and a subsequent interview as follows:--
I have had two interviews with Mr. Secretary Stanley, on the subject of
the House of Assembly's Address on the Clergy Reserves, and have drawn
up a statement of the grounds on which the House of Assembly and the
great body of the people in Upper Canada resist the pretensions and
claims of the Episcopal clergy. Mr. Solicitor-General Hagerman has been
directed to do the same on behalf of the Episcopal clergy. I confess
that I was a little surprised to find that the Colonial Secretary was
fully impressed at first that Methodist preachers in Canada were
generally Americans (Yankees);--that the cause of the great prosperity
of Methodism there was the ample support it received from the United
States;--that the missionaries in Upper Canada were actually under the
United States Conference, and at its disposal. The Colonial Secretary
manifested a little surprise also, when I turned to the Journals of the
Upper Canada House of Assembly, and produced proof of the reverse,
which he pronounced "perfectly conclusive and satisfactory."
_August 8th._--Dr. Ryerson received a touching note at this date from
Mrs. Marsden, with explanation of her reluctance to let Rev. Geo.
Marsden, her husband, go to Canada as President of the Conference. She
says:--
At length my rebellious heart is subdued by reason and by grace. I
am made willing to give up my excellent husband to what is supposed
to be a great work. I am led to hope that, as a new class of
feelings are brought into exercise, perhaps some new graces may be
elicited in my own character, as well as that of my dear husband;
at any rate it is a sacrifice to God, which I trust will be
accepted, and, both in a private and a public view, be overruled
for the glory of God. I am sure, notwithstanding some repeated
attempts to reconcile me to this affair, I must have appeared very
unamiable to you; but the fact was simply this, I could not see you
or converse with you, without so much emotion as quite unnerved me,
therefore I studiously avoided you; but did you know the happiness
which dear Mr. Marsden and I have enjoyed in each other's society
for so many years, you would not be surprised that I should be
unwilling to give up so many months as will be required for this
service; but to God and His Church I bow in submission.
This estimable lady did not long survive. She died in six months--just
after her husband had returned from America. In a letter from Rev. E.
Grindrod, dated March, 1834, he says, Mrs. Marsden died, after a short
illness, on 22nd February. She was one of the most amiable and pious of
women. Her lite was a bright pattern of every Christian virtue. Her end
was delightfully triumphant.
* * * * *
The following is an extract from Dr. Ryerson's diary of this year:--
After many earnest prayers, mature deliberation, and the advice of
an elder brother, I have decided within the last few months to
enter again into the married state. The lady I have selected, and
who has consented to become my second wife, is one whom I have
every reason to believe possesses all the natural and Christian
excellencies of my late wife. She is the eldest daughter of a pious
and wealthy merchant, Mr. James Rogers Armstrong. For her my late
wife also entertained a very particular esteem and affection, and,
from her good sense, sound judgment, humble piety, and affectionate
disposition, I doubt not but that she will make me a most
interesting and valuable companion, a judicious house-wife, and an
affectionate mother to my two children. Truly I love her with a
pure heart fervently I receive her, and hope ever to treat and
value her as the special token of my Heavenly Father's kindness
after a season of His chastisement. If thou, Lord, see fit to spare
us, may our union promote Thy glory and the salvation of sinners!
Dr. Ryerson's marriage with Miss Mary Armstrong, took place at Toronto,
on the 8th of November 1833.
FOOTNOTES:
[38] While in England, Dr. Ryerson received the following note from Rev.
Dr. J. P. Durbin, in which he said: After I parted with you at my house,
I felt a strong inclination to engage your correspondence for our paper,
at least once a week, if possible, for the benefit of our people and
country, through the Church. Can you not write us by every packet?
Information in regard to English Methodism will be particularly
interesting, especially their financial arrangements. Do inquire
diligently of them, and write us minutely for the good of our Zion.--H.
[39] In Epochs of Canadian Methodism, Dr. Ryerson says:--When the writer
of these Essays was appointed a representative of the Canadian
Conference to negotiate a union between the two Conferences in 1833, he
carried a Petition to the King, signed by upwards of 20,000 inhabitants,
against the Clergy Reserve Monopoly and the Establishment of a Dominant
Church in Upper Canada. This petition was presented through Lord
Stanley, the Colonial Secretary. Page 221.--H.
[40] Dr. Ryerson has left no record in his "Story" of the negotiations
for this Union. His report, however, on the subject will be found on
pages 193, 194, Vol. iv. of the _Guardian_ for October 16th, 1833, from
which I take the following extracts: On the 5th June, Rev. Messrs.
Bunting, Beecham, Alder, and myself, examined the whole question in
detail, and prepared an outline of the resolutions to be submitted to
the British Conference, and recommended that a grant of £1,000 be
appropriated the first year to the promotion of Canadian Missions. On
the 2nd August these resolutions were introduced by Rev. John Beecham
(Missionary Secretary). They were supported by Rev. Jabez Bunting, Rev.
Jas. Wood (now in his 83rd year), and Rev. Robert Newton. A Committee
was appointed to consider and report on the whole matter consisting of
the President, Secretary, and seven ex-Presidents, the Irish
representatives (Messrs. Waugh, Stewart, and Doolittle), and fifteen
other ministers. This Committee considered and reported these
resolutions, which were adopted and forms the basis of the Articles of
Union. Hereafter, the name of our Church will be changed from "The
Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada," to "The Wesleyan Methodist Church
in British North America."--H.
CHAPTER XI.
1833-1834.
"Impressions" of England and their Effects.
On my return to Canada, after having negotiated the Union of 1833 with
the English Conference, accompanied by Rev. George Marsden, as first
President of the Canadian Conference, I was re-elected editor of the
_Christian Guardian_, and continued as such until 1835, when I refused
re-election, and was appointed to Kingston; but in November of the same
year, the President of the Conference appointed from England (Rev.
William Lord) insisted upon my going to England to arrange pecuniary
difficulties, which had arisen between him and the London Wesleyan
Missionary Committee.
Except the foregoing paragraph, Dr. Ryerson has left no particulars of
the events which transpired in his history from the period of his return
to Canada in September, 1833, until some time in 1835. I have,
therefore, selected what follows in this chapter, from his letters and
papers, to illustrate this busy and eventful portion of his active life.
The principal circumstance which occurred at this time was the
publication of his somewhat famous "Impressions" of public men and
parties in England. This event marked an important epoch in his life, if
not in the history of the country.
The publication of these "Impressions" during this year created quite a
sensation. Dr. Ryerson was immediately assailed with a storm of
invective by the chief leaders of the ultra section of politicians with
whom he had generally acted. By the more moderate section and by the
public generally he was hailed as the champion, if not the deliverer, of
those who were really alarmed at the rapid strides towards disloyalty
and revolution, to which these extreme men were impelling the people.
This feature of the unlooked for and bitter controversy, which followed
the publication of these "impressions," will be developed further on.
_October 2d, 1833._--On this day the Upper Canada Conference ratified
the articles of union between it and the British Conference, which were
agreed upon at the Manchester Conference on the 7th of August. (See
note on page 119.)[41] At the Conference held this year in York
(Toronto), Dr. Ryerson was again elected editor of the _Guardian_. He
entered on the duties of that office on the 16th October.
_October 30th._--In reply to the many questions put to Dr. Ryerson on
his return to Canada, such as: "What do you think of England?" "What is
your opinion of her public men, her institutions?" etc., etc., he
published in the _Guardian_ of this day the first part of "Impressions
made by my late visit to England," in regard to public men, religious
bodies, and the general state of the nation. He said:--
There are three great political parties in England--Tories, Whigs, and
Radicals, and two descriptions of characters constituting each party. Of
the first, there is the moderate and the ultra tory. An English ultra
tory is what we believe has usually been meant and understood in Canada
by the unqualified term tory; that is, a lordling in power, a tyrant in
politics, and a bigot in religion. This description of partizans, we
believe, is headed by the Duke of Cumberland, and is followed not "afar
off" by that powerful party, which presents such a formidable array of
numbers, rank, wealth, talent, science, and literature, headed by the
hero of Waterloo. This shade of the tory party appears to be headed in
the House of Commons by Sir Robert Inglis, member for the Oxford
University, and is supported, on most questions, by that most subtle and
ingenious politician and fascinating speaker, Sir Robert Peel, with his
numerous train of followers and admirers. Among those who support the
distinguishing measures of this party are men of the highest Christian
virtue and piety; and, our decided impression is, that it embraces the
major part of the talent, and wealth, and learning of the British
Nation. The acknowledged and leading organs of this party are
_Blackwood's Magazine_ and the _London Quarterly Review_.
The other branch of this great political party is what is called the
moderate tory. In political theory he agrees with his high-toned
neighbour; but he acts from religious principle, and this governs his
private as well as his public life. To this class belongs a considerable
portion of the Evangelical Clergy, and, we think, a majority of the
Wesleyan Methodists. It evidently includes the great body of the piety,
Christian enterprise, and sterling virtue of the nation. It is, in time
of party excitement, alike hated and denounced by the ultra Tory, the
crabbed Whig, and the Radical leveller. Such was our impression of the
true character of what, by the periodical press in England, is termed a
moderate Tory. From his theories we in some respects dissent; but his
integrity, his honesty, his consistency, his genuine liberality, and
religious beneficence, claim respect and imitation.
The second great political and now ruling party in England are the
Whigs--a term synonymous with whey, applied, it is said, to this
political school, from the sour and peevish temper manifested by its
first disciples--though it is now rather popular than otherwise in
England. The Whig appears to differ in theory from the Tory in this,
that he interprets the constitution, obedience to it, and all measures
in regard to its administration, upon the principles of expediency; and
is, therefore, always pliant in his professions, and is even ready to
suit his measures to "the times"; an indefinite term, that also
designates the most extensively circulated daily paper in England, or in
the world, which is the leading organ of the Whig party, backed by the
formidable power and lofty periods of the _Edinburgh Review_. The
leaders of this party in the House of Lords are Earl Grey and the Lord
Chancellor Brougham; at the head of the list in the House of Commons
stands the names of Mr. Stanley, Lord Althorp, Lord John Russell, and
Mr. T. B. Macaulay. In this class are also included many of the most
learned and popular ministers of Dissenting congregations.
The third political sect is called Radicals, apparently headed by
Messrs. Joseph Hume and Thomas Attwood; the former of whom, though
acute, indefatigable, persevering, popular on financial questions, and
always to the point, and heard with respect and attention in the House
of Commons, has no influence as a religious man; has never been known to
promote any religious measure or object as such, and has opposed every
measure for the better observance of the Sabbath, and even introduced a
motion to defeat the bill for the abolition of colonial slavery; and Mr.
Attwood, the head of the celebrated Birmingham political Union, is a
conceited, boisterous, hollow-headed declaimer.
Radicalism in England appeared to me to be but another word for
Republicanism, with the name of King instead of President. The notorious
infidel character of the majority of the political leaders and
periodical publications of their party, deterred the virtuous part of
the nation from associating with them, though some of the brightest
ornaments of the English pulpit and nation have leaned to their leading
doctrines in theory. It is not a little remarkable that that very
description of the public press, which in England advocates the lowest
radicalism, is the foremost in opposing and slandering the Methodists in
this Province. Hence the fact that some of these editors have been
amongst the lowest of the English radicals previous to their egress from
the mother country.
Upon the whole, our impressions of the religious and moral character,
and influence, of the several political parties into which the British
nation is unhappily divided, were materially different in some respects,
from personal observation, from what they had been by hear-say and
reading.
On the very evening of the day in which the foregoing appeared, Mr. W.
L. Mackenzie (in the _Colonial Advocate_ of Oct. 30th), denounced the
writer of these "Impressions" in no measured terms. His denunciation
proved that he clearly perceived what would be the effect on the public
mind of Dr. Ryerson's candid and outspoken criticisms on men and things
in England--especially his adverse opinion of the English idols of (what
subsequently proved to be) the disloyal section of the public men of the
day in Upper Canada and their followers.
Mr. Mackenzie's vehement attack upon the writer of these "Impressions"
had its effect at the time. In some minds a belief in the truth of that
attack lingered long afterwards--but not in the minds of those who could
distinguish between honest conviction, based upon actual knowledge, and
pre-conceived opinions, based upon hearsay and a superficial
acquaintance with men and things.
As the troubled period of 1837 approached, hundreds had reason to be
thankful to Dr. Ryerson that the publication of his "Impressions" had,
without design on his part, led to the disruption of a party which was
being hurried to the brink of a precipice, over which so many well
meaning, but misguided, men fell in the winter of 1837, never to rise
again.
It was a proud boast of Dr. Ryerson (as he states in the "Epochs of
Canadian Methodism," page 385), that in these disastrous times not a
single member of the Methodist Church was implicated in the disloyal
rebellion of 1837-8. He attributed this gratifying state of things to
the fact that he had uttered the notes of warning in sufficient time to
enable the readers of the _Guardian_ to pause and think; and that, with
a just appreciation of their danger, members of the Society had
separated themselves from all connection with projects and opinions
which logically would have placed them in a position of defiant
hostility to the Queen and constitution.
But, to return. The outburst of Mr. Mackenzie's wrath, which immediately
followed (on the evening of the same day) the publication of Dr.
Ryerson's "Impressions," was as follows:--
The _Christian Guardian_, under the management of Egerton Ryerson,
has gone over to the enemy,--press, types, and all,--and hoisted
the colours of a cruel, vindictive, Tory priesthood.... The
contents of the _Guardian_ of to-night tells us in language too
plain, too intelligible to be misunderstood, that a deadly blow has
been struck in England at the liberties of the people of Upper
Canada, by as subtle and ungrateful an adversary, in the guise of
an old and familiar friend, as ever crossed the Atlantic.
In his "Almanac," issued on the same day, Mr. Mackenzie also used
similar language. He said:--
The arch-apostate Egerton, alias _Arnold_, Ryerson, and the
_Christian Guardian_ goes over to Strachan and the Tories.
_Nov. 6th._--In the _Guardian_ of this day Dr. Ryerson inserted an
extended reply to Mr. Mackenzie, and, in calm and dignified language,
gave the reasons which induced him to publish his "Impressions." He
said:--
We did so,--1st, As a subject of useful information; 2nd, To correct an
erroneous impression that had been industriously created, that we were
identified in our feelings and purposes with some one political party;
3rd, To furnish an instructive moral to the Christian reader, not to be
a passive or active tool, or the blind, thorough-going follower of any
political party as such. We considered this called for at the present
time on both religious and patriotic grounds. We designed this
expression of our sentiments, and this means of removing groundless
prejudice and hostility in the least objectionable and offensive way,
and without coming in contact with any political party in Canada, or
giving offence to any, except those who had shown an inveterate and
unprincipled hostility to Methodism. We therefore associated the
Canadian _ultra_ tory with the English radical, because we were
convinced of their identity in moral essence, and that the only
essential difference between them is, that the one is top and the other
bottom. We therefore said, "that very description of the public press
which in England advocates the lowest radicalism, is the foremost in
opposing and slandering the Methodists in this Province."
That our Christian brethren throughout the Province, and every sincere
friend to Methodism, do not wish us to be an organized political party,
we are fully assured--that it is inconsistent with our profession and
duty to become such. Out of scores of expressions to the same effect we
might quote quite abundantly from the _Guardian_, but our readers are
aware of them.
That the decided part we have felt it our duty to take in obtaining and
securing our rights in regard of the Clergy Reserve Question, has had a
remote or indirect tendency to promote Mr. Mackenzie's political
measures, we readily admit; but that we have ever supported a measure,
or given publicity to any documents from Mr. Mackenzie, or any other
political man in Canada, on any other grounds than this, we totally
deny.
Mr. Mackenzie's attack rests on four grounds: 1. That our language was
so explicit as to remove every doubt and hope of our encouraging a
"thick and thin" partizanship with him, or any man or set of men in
Canada; or, 2. That we did not speak in opprobrious, but rather
favourable terms, of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor; or, 3. That
we expressed our approbation of the principles and colonial policy of
Lord Goderich (now Earl Ripon), and those who agree with him; or 4. That
we alluded to Mr. Hume in terms not sufficiently complimentary. If Mr.
Mackenzie's wishes are crossed and his wrath inflamed, because we have
not entered our protest against His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor,
we could not do so after we had learned the views of His Majesty's
Government, in a reply of His Excellency to an address of our Conference
about two years ago,[42] when every unfavourable impression had been
removed, and when good-will was expressed towards the Methodists as a
people; we have not so learned to forgive injuries--we have not so
learned to "honour and obey magistrates,"--we have not so learned our
duty as a minister, and as a Christian. We, as a religious body, and as
the organ of a religious body, have only to do with Sir John Colborne's
administration, as far as it concerns our character and rights as
British subjects; His Excellency's measures and administration in merely
secular matters lie within the peculiar province of the political
journalists and politicians of the day. If our offering a tribute of
grateful respect to Lord Goderich, who had declared in his despatches to
Canada his earnest desire to remove every bishop and priest from our
Legislature, to secure the right of petitioning the King to the meanest
subject in the realm, to extend the blessings of full religious liberty
and the advantages of education to every class of British subjects in
Canada, without distinction or partiality, and in every way to advance
the interests of the Province;--if honouring such men and such
principles be "hoisting the colours (as Mr. Mackenzie says), of a cruel,
vindictive, Tory priesthood," then has Mr. Mackenzie the merit of a new
discovery of vindictive cruelty, and with his own definition of liberty,
and his own example of liberality, will he adopt his own honourable
means to attain it, and breathe out death and destruction against all
who do not incorporate themselves into a strait-jacket battalion under
his political sword, and vow allegiance and responsibility to everything
done by his "press, types, and all?"
Mr. Mackenzie did not reply to Dr. Ryerson in the spirit of his
rejoinder. He was a master of personal invective, and he indulged in it
in this instance, rather than discuss the questions raised on their
merits. He, therefore, turned on Dr. Ryerson, and, over his shoulders,
struck a blow at his venerable Father and his eldest Brother. He said:--
The Father of the Editor of the _Guardian_ lifted his sword against
the throats of his own countrymen struggling for freedom from
established churches, stamp acts, military domination, Scotch
governors, and Irish government; and his brother George figured on
the frontier in the war of 1812, and got wounded and pensioned for
fighting to preserve crown and clergy reserves, and all the other
strongholds of corruption, in the hands of the locusts who infest
and disturb this Province.
Dr. Ryerson's simple rejoinder to this attack on his Father and Brother
was as follows:--
The man who could hold up the brave defenders of our homes and firesides
to the scorn and contempt of their countrymen, must be lost to all
patriotic and loyal feelings of humanity for those who took their lives
in their hands in perilous times.
_Nov. 14th._--As to the effect of the "impressions" upon the country
generally, the following letter from Hallowell (Picton) written to Dr.
Ryerson by his brother John, may be safely taken as an example of the
feeling which they at first evoked. It is characterized by strong and
vigorous language, indicative of the state of public opinion at the
time. It is valuable from the fact that while it is outspoken in its
criticism of Dr. Ryerson's views, it touches upon the point to which I
have already referred, viz: the separation into two sections of the
powerful party which was then noted as the champion of popular rights.
Mr. Ryerson says:--
Your article on the Political Parties of England has created much
excitement throughout these parts. The only good that can result
from it is, the breaking up of the union which has hitherto existed
between us and the radicals. Were it not for this, I should much
regret its appearance. But we had got so closely linked with those
extreme men, in one way or another, that we cannot expect to get
rid of them without feeling the shock, and, perhaps, it may as well
come now as anytime. It is our duty and interest to support the
Government. Although there may be some abuses which have crept in,
yet, I believe that we enjoy as many political and religious
advantages as any people. Our public affairs are as well managed as
in any other country. As it respects the Reformers, so called, take
Baldwin, Bidwell, Rolph, and such men from their ranks, and there
is scarcely one man of character or honour among them. I am sorry
to say it, but it is so. The best way for the present is for us to
have nothing to say about politics, but treat the Government with
respect. Radcliffe, of the Cobourg _Reformer_, and Dr. Barker, of
the Kingston _Whig_, have come out in their true character.
Radcliffe is preparing a heavy charge against you. But let them
come; fear them not! I hope they will show themselves _now_. I
thought that you, in your reply to W. L. Mackenzie, did not speak
in a sufficiently decided manner. You say you have not changed
your views; but I hope you have in some respects. Although you
never were a Radical, yet have not we all leaned too much towards
them, and will we not now smart for it a little? But, the sooner it
comes on, the sooner it will be over.
Rev. John Ryerson then gives the first intimation of the existence of
that germ of hostility to the recently consummated Union on the part of
the British Wesleyan Missionaries in this country--a hostility which
became at length so deep and widespread as to destroy the Union
itself--a union which was not fully restored until 1847. Mr. Ryerson
points out the political animus of the movement, and proceeds:--
You see that the Missionaries are making great efforts to have
Kingston and York made exceptions to the general arrangements.
Should the English Committee listen to them, confidence will be
entirely destroyed. Their object is to make the British Conference
believe that we have supported Radical politics to an unlimited
extent, and that, therefore, the people will not submit to the
Union with such people; they (the Missionaries) are, however, the
authors of the whole trouble. Rev. Mr. Hetherington told me that
they were getting the back numbers of the _Guardian_ to prove that
we had been political intimidators! They say that Mr. Marsden, the
President, told the members at Kingston that it they could make it
appear that we had done this, they should be exempted from the
Union, and be supplied with Missionaries from home.
In a subsequent letter from Rev. John Ryerson, he discusses his
brother's "Impressions of Public Men in England," and utters a word of
warning to the Methodist people who have allied themselves too closely
with the disloyal party. He says:
What will be the result of your remarks in the _Guardian_ on
Political Parties in England, I cannot say. They will occasion much
speculation, some jealousy, and bad feeling. I have sometimes
thought you had better not have written them, particularly at this
time, yet I have long been of the opinion (both with regard to
measures and men) that we leaned too much towards Radicalism, and
that it would be absolutely necessary to disengage ourselves from
them entirely. You can see plainly that it is not Reform, but
Revolution they are after. We should fare sumptuously, should we
not, with W. L. Mackenzie, of Toronto, and Radcliffe, of Cobourg,
for our rulers! I have also felt very unpleasant in noticing the
endeavours of these men (aided by some of our members) to introduce
their republican leaven into our Ecclesiastical polity. Is it not a
little remarkable that not one of our members, who have entered
into their politics, but has become a furious leveller in matters
of Church Government, and these very men are the most regardless of
our reputation, and the most ready to impugn our motives, and
defame our character, when we, in any way, cross their path. There
are some things in your remarks I don't like; but, on the whole, I
am glad of their appearance, and I hope, whenever you have occasion
to speak of the Government, you will do it in terms of respect. I
am anxious that we should obtain the confidence of the Government,
and entirely disconnect ourselves from that tribe of levellers,
with whom we have been too intimate, and who are, at any time,
ready to turn around and sell us when we fail to please them.
_Nov. 20th._--In another letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother John, at
this date, he says:--
I deeply feel for you in the present state of agitation and trial.
My own heart aches and sickens within me at times; I have no doubt,
however much of a philosopher you may be, that you at times
participate in the same feelings; but, pursuing a conscientious
course, I hope you will at times be able to say:
"Courage, my soul! thou need'st not fear,
Thy great Provider still is near."
The following sympathetic letter from Dr. Ryerson's friend, Mr. E. C.
Griffin, of Waterdown, written at the same time, gives another proof of
the unreasoning prejudice of those whose knowledge of the outer world
was circumscribed and superficial. In England, Dr. Ryerson saw things as
they were. He was, therefore, not prepared for the burst of wrath that
followed the plain recital of his "impressions" of men and things in
England. Mr. Griffin writes:--
The respect I have for you and yours should at all times deter me
from bearing evil tidings, yet the same consideration would make it
a duty under peculiar circumstances. You have already learned that
the public mind has been much agitated in consequence of your
remarks in the _Guardian_ on Mr. Joseph Hume, M.P., and Mr. Thomas
Attwood, M.P. (see page 123). On this Circuit it is truly
alarming--some of our most respectable Methodists are threatening
to leave the Church. The general impression has obtained (however
unjustly) that you have "turned downright Tory," which, in this
country, whether moderate or ultra, seems to have but one meaning
among the bulk of Reformers, and that is, as being an enemy to all
reform and the correction of acknowledged abuses. This general
impression among the people has created a feverish discontent among
the Methodists. The excitement is so high that your subsequent
explanation has seemed to be without its desired effect. I should
be glad if you would state distinctly in the _Guardian_ what you
meant in your correspondence with the Colonial Secretary, when you
said you had no desire to interfere with the present emoluments of
the Church clergy (or words to that effect); and also of the term
"equal protection to the different denominations." You are,
doubtless, aware of the use made of these expressions by some of
the journals, and, I am sorry to say, with too much effect. These
remarks, taken in connection with those against Mr. Hume, is the
pivot on which everything is turned against you, against the
_Guardian_, and against the Methodists.
A few days later Dr. Ryerson received another letter from Mr. Griffin,
in which he truthfully says:--
Perhaps there have not been many instances in which sophistry has
been applied more effectually to injure an individual, or a body of
Christians, as in the present instance. Whigs, tories, and radicals
have all united to crush, I may say at a blow, the Methodists, and
none have tried to do so more effectually than Mr. W. L. Mackenzie.
He persisted in it so as to make his friends generally believe that
the cause of reform was ruined by you. His abuse of you and your
friends, and the Methodists, is more than I can stand. He has
certainly manifested a great want of discernment, or he has acted
from design. I see that the Hamilton _Free Press_ has called in the
aid of Mr. F. Collins, of the _Canadian Freeman_, to assist in
abusing you and your whole family.
From Augusta, Rev. Anson Green wrote about the same time, and in a
similar strain, but not so sympathetically. He says:--
I fear your impressions are bad ones. Our people are all in an
uproar about them.
_Nov. 22nd._--Rev. William Ryerson writing from Kingston at this time,
reports the state of feeling there. He says:--
As to the _Guardian_, I am sorry to inform you that it is becoming
less popular than formerly. If your English "impressions" are not
more acceptable and useful in other parts than they are here, it
will add little to your credit, or to the usefulness of your paper
to publish any more of them. I know that you have been shamefully
abused, and treated in a most base manner, and by no one so much so
as by Mr. Radcliffe of the Cobourg _Reformer_. I hope you will
expose the statements and figures of the _Reformer_ to our friends.
It is rather unfortunate that if you did intend, as is said, to
conciliate the Tory party in this country, you should have
expressed yourself in such a way as to be so much misunderstood.
_Nov. 23rd._--Rev. Alvah A. Adams, writing from Prescott, says:--
There are a few disturbances in our Zion. Some are bent on making
mischief. You need not be surprised that the Grenville _Gazette_
speaks so contemptuously of you and the cause in which you have
been, and are still, engaged. There are reasons why you need not
marvel at the great torrent of scurrilous invectives with which his
useless columns have of late abounded.
_Nov. 23rd._--Although not so intended by Dr. Ryerson, yet the
publication of his "impressions," had the effect of developing the plans
of Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, and those who acted with him, much more rapidly
and fully than they could have anticipated. In the second supplement to
his _Colonial Advocate_, published November 23rd, Mr. Mackenzie used
this unmistakeable language:--
The local authorities have no means to protect themselves against
an injured people, if they persist in their unconstitutional
career.... There are not military enough to uphold a bad government
for an hour, if the Rubicon has been passed; and well does Sir John
Colborne know that although he may hire regiments of priests here,
he may expect no more red-coats from Europe in those days of
economy.... He also knows that if we are to take examples from the
Mother Country, the arbitrary proceedings of the officers of his
government _are such_ as would warrant the people to an open and
_armed resistance_.
_Dec. 6th._--Dr. Ryerson having received a protest from five of his
ministerial brethren in the Niagara District,[43] against his
"impressions" he wrote a remonstrance to each of them, but this did not
appease them. Rev. David Wright said:--
As an individual I am not at all satisfied either with the course
you have taken or the explanation given. Could you witness the
confused state of our Church on Stamford Circuit; the insults we
receive, both from many of our members and others of good standing,
you would at once see the propriety of the steps we have taken for
our defence. Hardly a tea-party or meeting of any kind, but the
_Guardian_ is the topic of conversation, and the conversion of its
editor and all the preachers to Toryism. The Ranters and the
Ryanites are very busy, and are doing us much harm. I am more and
more convinced of the imprudence of the course you have taken,
especially at this trying time in our Church. In Queenston,
Drummondville, Chippewa, Erie, St. Davids, the Lane, and Lyons'
Creek the preachers are hooted at as they ride by. This is rather
trying. I assure you.
Rev. James Evans said:--
You request me not to solicit any to continue the _Guardian_ who
are dissatisfied, and who wish to discontinue. This is worse than
all beside. And do you suppose that, in opposition to the wish of
the Conference, and interest of the Church, I shall pay attention
to your request? No, my brother, I cannot; I will not. It shall be
my endeavour to obtain and continue subscribers by allaying as far
as practicable, their fears, rather than by telling them that they
may discontinue and you will abide the consequences. I am
astonished! I can only account for your strange and, I am sure,
un-Ryersonian conduct and advice on one principle--that there is
something ahead which you, through your superior political
spyglass, have discovered and thus shape your course, while we
land-lubbers, short-sighted as we are, have not even heard of it.
Dr. Ryerson, therefore, challenged these five ministers to proceed
against him as provided by the Discipline of the Church. In his reply to
them, he lays down some important principles in regard to the rights of
an editor, and the duty of his ministerial accusers. He said:--
I beg to say that I cannot publish the criminating declaration of which
you speak. You will therefore act your pleasure in publishing it
elsewhere. The charges against me are either true or false. If they are
true, are you proceeding in the disciplinary way against me? Though I am
editor for the Conference, yet I have individual rights as well as you;
and the increased responsibility of my situation should, under those
rights, if possible, be still more sacred. And if our Conference will
place a watchman upon the wall of our Zion, and then allow its members
to plunge their swords into him whenever they think he has departed from
his duty, without even giving him a court-martial trial, then they are a
different description of men from what I think they are. If, as you say,
I have been guilty of imprudent conduct, or even "misrepresented my
brethren," make your complaint to my Presiding Elder, according to
discipline, and then may the decision of the Committee be published in
the _Guardian_, or anywhere else that they may say. So much for the
disciplinary course. Again, if "the clamour," as you call it, against
the _Guardian_ be well founded, are you helping the _Guardian_ by
corroborating the statement of that clamour? Can Brother James Evans
consistently or conscientiously ask an individual to take, or continue
to take the _Guardian_, when he or you publish to the world the belief
that its principles are changed? Will this quiet the "clamour?" Will
this reconcile the members? Will this unite the preachers? Will this
promote the harmony of the Church? Will it not be a fire-brand rather
than the "seeds of commotion?" One or two others here got a meeting of
the male members of the York Society, and proposed resolutions similar
in substance to yours, which were opposed and reprobated by brother
Richardson, on the very disciplinary and prudential ground of which I
speak, and rejected by the Society. In your declaration you say (not on
account of "clamour," or accusations of editors or others, but on
account of editorial remarks in the _Guardian_), "you express your
sentiments to save your character from aspersion." In this you imply
that the editor of the _Guardian_ has misrepresented your sentiments,
and aspersed your character; and, if so, has he not changed his
principles? And, if he has changed his principles, is he not guilty of
falsehood, since he has positively declared to the reverse? You
therefore virtually charge him with inconsistency, misrepresentation,
and deliberate falsehood. Is this the fruit of brotherly love? Again,
you say that "our political sentiments are the same as before the visit
of the editor of the _Guardian_ to England." Is not this equal to
asserting that the editor's sentiments are not the same? You therefore
say that you love me; that you desire the peace of the Church, and the
interests of the _Guardian_, yet you propose a course which will confirm
the slanders of my enemies--to implicate me with inconsistency and
falsehood--to injure the _Guardian_, and deprive yourselves of the
power, as men of honour and truth, to recommend it--to kindle and
sanction dissatisfaction among our Church members--to arm preacher
against preacher--and to criminate a brother before the public, without
a disciplinary trial. You say "our friends are looking out for it." Is
this the way, my brother, that you have quieted their minds, by telling
them that you also were going to criminate the editor? If this be so, I
am not surprised that there is dissatisfaction on your circuit. Brother
Evans said that nothing but a denial of having changed my opinions, and
an explicit statement of them, would satisfy our friends. I did so, and
did so plainly and conscientiously. Yet you do not even allude to this
expression of my sentiments, but still insist upon doing what is far
more than taking my life--stabbing my principles and integrity. I ask
if this is my reward for endangering my life and enduring unparalleled
labours, to save the Societies heretofore from being rent to the very
centre, and enduring ceaseless storms of slander and persecution for
years past in defending the abused character of my brethren? Are they
the first to lift up their heel against me? Will they join in the hue
and cry against me, rather than endure a "hoot," when I am unjustly
treated and basely slandered? I hope I have not fallen into such hands.
Dr. Ryerson received at this time a candid and kindly characteristic
letter from his youngest brother, Edwy, at Stamford, which indicated
that a reaction was taking place in regard to the much discussed
"impressions." He says:--
The present agitated state of the Societies, partly from the Union,
and, in a greater degree, from your "impressions" (which would have
been a blessing to our Societies, had they never been published)
make it very unpleasant to ask even for subscriptions to the
_Guardian_. We are here in a state of commotion; politics run high,
and religion low. "The _Guardian_ has turned Tory," is the hue and
cry, and many appear to be under greater concern about it, than
they ever were about the salvation of their souls. Many again, have
got wonderfully wise, and pretend to reveal (as a friend, but in
reality as an enemy) the secrets of your policy. Under these
unpleasant circumstances, the Ranters have availed themselves of
the opportunity of planting themselves at nearly all our posts, and
sowing tares in our Societies.
You have received a protest, signed by several preachers, and my
name among them. Those were my impressions at the time. Therefore I
thought it my duty, in connection with my brethren, to make my
protest. I have, however (since seeing the _Guardian_), been led to
believe you had not changed from what you were. Many of the
preachers are rejoiced that you were put in the editorial chair,
and feel strongly disposed to exert their influence that you may
not be displaced.
_Dec. 2nd._--On this day Dr. Ryerson received a kind word of
encouragement from Mr. Alex. Davidson, a literary friend in Port Hope,
afterwards of Niagara. He said:--
I have had an opportunity of seeing most of the provincial papers.
They exhibit a miserable picture of the state of the press. The
conduct of the editors ought, I think, to be exposed. I have been
afraid that from such unmerited abuse, you would quit the
_Guardian_ in disgust, and I am glad to see that, though your mind
may be as sensitive as that of any other person, you remain firm.
Another indication of the reaction in regard to the "impressions" is
mentioned in a note received from Rev. Ephraim Evans, Trafalgar. He
says:--
Mr. Thos. Cartwright, of Streetsville, who had given up the
_Guardian_, has ordered it to be sent to him again so that he may
not seem to countenance the clamour that has been raised against
you. Mr. Evans adds: "I am happy to find that the agitation
produced by the unwarrantable conduct of the press generally, is
rapidly subsiding; and, I trust, nay, am certain, that the late
avowal of your sentiments, will be perfectly satisfactory to every
sensible and ingenuous mind. I am, upon the whole, led to believe
that Methodism will weather out this storm also, and lose not a
spar."
_Dec. 6th._--Among the many letters of sympathy received by Dr. Ryerson
at this time, was one from his Father, in which he says:--
I perceive by the papers that you have met with tempestuous
weather. I devoutly hope that the Great Pilot will conduct you
safely through the rocks and quicksands on either side.
_Jan. 6th, 1834._--In a letter from Rev. Anson Green, at Augusta, it was
apparent that the tide of popular opinion against Dr. Ryerson had
turned. He said:--
I have been very much pleased indeed with the _Guardian_ during the
last few months. There is a very great improvement in it. In this
opinion I am not alone. Your remarks on the Clergy Reserve question
were very timely and highly satisfactory. A number of our brethren
have wished me to express to you the pleasure they feel in the
course which you have pursued as editor. There has been very great
prejudice against you in these parts, among preachers and people,
but I think they are dying out and will, I trust, shortly entirely
disappear. I hope we shall soon see "eye to eye."
_March 5th._--In the _Guardian_ of this day, Dr. Ryerson intimated
that:--
Among many schemes resorted to by the abbettors of Mr. Mackenzie to
injure me, was the circulation of all kinds of rumours against my
character and standing as a minister. For proof, it was represented that
I was denied access to the Wesleyan pulpit in this town. When these
statements were made early in the year, the stewards and leaders of the
York Society met on the 11th of last January, and passed a resolution to
the effect
That being anxious, lest, under exciting circumstances, you might
be tempted to withhold your ministrations from the York
congregation, they desire their Secretary to inform you that it is
their wish, and they believe it a duty you owe to the Church of
Christ, to favour it with your views on His unsearchable riches as
often as an opportunity may present itself.
As these rumours have now been revived, I published this resolution in
the _Guardian_ of to-day.
The capital offence charged against Dr. Ryerson in publishing his
"impressions" was his exposure of Joseph Hume, M.P., the friend and
patron of Mr. Mackenzie. (See pages 118 and 123.) In the _Guardian_ of
December 11th, Dr. Ryerson fully met that charge. Among other things he
pointed out:--
1st. That, having voted for a Church establishment in India, Mr. Hume
was the last man who should have been entrusted with petitions from
Upper Canada, against a Church establishment in Upper Canada. 2nd. That
Methodists emigrating to this country, when they learn that Mr. Hume is
regarded as a sort of representative of the principles of the Methodists
in Upper Canada, immediately imbibe strong prejudices against them,
refusing to unite with them, and even strongly opposing them, saying
that such Methodists are Radicals--a term which, in England, conveys
precisely the same idea that the term Republican does in this Province.
Thus the prejudices which exist between a portion of the Canadian and
British Methodists here, are heightened, and the breach widened. 3rd.
That even adherents of the Church of England here who were Reformers in
England join the ranks of those opposed to us when they know that Mr.
Hume is a chosen representative of our views in England; for the
personal animosity between the Whigs and Reformers and Radicals in
England is more bitter, if possible, than between the Radicals and
Tories, and far more rancorous than between the Whigs and Tories. There
is just as much difference between an English Reformer and an avowed
English Radical as there is between a Canadian Reformer and an avowed
Canadian Republican. In the interests of the Methodists, therefore,
religiously and politically, the allusion to Mr. Hume was justifiable
and necessary. Dr. Ryerson continues:--
I may mention that so strongly impressed was I with these views, that in
an interview which I had with Mr. Secretary Stanley, a few days before
the Clergy Reserve petitions were presented by Mr. Hume, I remarked that
the people of Upper Canada, not being acquainted with public men in
England, had sent them to the care of a gentleman of influence in the
financial affairs of Great Britain, but that I was apprehensive that he
was not the best qualified to advocate a purely legal and religious
question. Mr. Secretary Stanley smilingly interrupted me by asking "Is
it Hume?" I replied, "It is, but I hope this circumstance will not have
the least influence upon your mind, Mr. Secretary Stanley, in giving the
subject that important and full consideration which its great importance
demands." Mr. Stanley replied: "No, Mr. Ryerson, be assured that the
subject will not be in the least prejudiced in my mind by any
circumstance of that kind; but I shall give it the most important and
grave consideration."