It is interesting to note the causes which led Dr. Strachan to cling so

tenaciously to the idea of "Church and State"--a union which he regarded

as sacred, and ordained of God for the maintenance of His cause and

Church on the earth. It is no less interesting to understand the reason

why Dr. Ryerson as strenuously repudiated and resisted the practical

application of the same idea to Canada. The reason in each case may be

stated in a few words.

The one from early associations regarded the idea of Scottish parish

churches and parochial schools, supported by the State, as eminently

Scriptural, if not divinely enjoined from the earliest Jewish times. The

other was brought up in a land where such a state of things had never

existed, and where the pure gospel had been preached from the earliest

times without the aid of a state endowment. He lived in a land, too,

where the command to the Christian Church was felt to be fitly expressed

by John Wesley, to take the "world as a parish" and preach the Gospel to

every creature. The manner in which this command was to be obeyed was

indicated by our Lord's example, when He sent forth His disciples with

this injunction:--

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses ... for

the workman is worthy of his meat. Matt. x. 9, 10.

Members of the Conference, in Dr. Ryerson's early days, unhesitatingly

obeyed the directions of the Conference--many regarding it as the voice

of God in the Church--and went forth, without scrip or purse,

everywhere, even to the remotest corner of the land, bearing the good

tidings, not considering their pecuniary interests,[77] or even their

lives dear unto them, so that they might win souls for the Master.[78]

Dr. Strachan's views on the question of State aid to churches were

clearly, on the other hand, the result of his observations, in Scotland.

They are prominently brought out in his memorable speech, delivered in

the Legislative Council, on the 6th of March, 1828. He says:--

Have not the Methodists in this Province ... ever shown themselves

the enemies of the Established Church? Are they not at this moment

labouring to separate religion from the State, with which it ought

to be firmly united?... Has it not been the primary object of all

enemies to regular government ... to pull down religious

establishments?... If they tell me the Ecclesiastical

establishments are great evils, I bid them look to England and

Scotland, each of which has a religious establishment, and to these

establishments are they mainly indebted for their vast superiority

to other nations. To what but her Established Church, and the

Parochial Schools under her direction, does Scotland owe her high

reputation for moral improvement. (Pages 27 and 28.)

Again, in a remarkable letter to his friend (Rev. Dr. Thomas Chalmers,

of Edinburgh[79]), written in 1832, on the Life and Character of Bishop

Hobart of New York, Dr. Strachan relates a conversation with that Bishop

in which he took him severely to task for extolling the voluntary system

of the American Episcopal Church as compared with the endowed State

Church of England. I make a few extracts:--

Let us look at the Episcopal Church of the United States, and see

what moral effect it can have on the population, as a source of

religious instruction.... The influence of the two Churches as

confined to England and New York (alone) is as one to seventy....

Such influence on the manners and habits of the people [in that

state] is next to nothing, and yet you extol your Church above that

of England, and exclaim against establishment! Add to this, the

dependence of your clergy upon the people for support--a state of

things which is attended with most pernicious consequences ... but

in general, the clergy of all denominations in the United States,

are miserably dependent upon their congregations.... It is the duty

of Christian nations to constitute, within their boundaries,

ecclesiastical establishments.... For it is incumbent upon nations

as upon individuals, to honour the Lord with their substance.

(Pages 41-47.)

Bishop Strachan's early and later writings abound in expressions of

similar views. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that a man of

his strong convictions would seek to give practical effect to them in

dealing, as opportunity offered, with questions of church establishment

and the clergy reserves.

It is true that by his persuasive words and strong personal

influence--when the object was the financial benefit of the

Church--Bishop Strachan rallied around him many of the leading members

of the Church of England in Upper Canada who aided him in his plans for

endowing the Church out of the public domain. Yet it is also true that

many equally sound churchmen were opposed to these schemes, and saw in

them the germ of a fatal canker, which in time would be sure to destroy

the Church's missionary zeal, and paralyze all of those noble and

generous impulses which characterize a living Church in the promotion of

Christian effort in the various departments of Church work.[80]

As time has passed on the little band of loyal churchmen, who incurred

the Bishop's unmerited censure for opposing his exclusive schemes of

Church aggrandisement, has increased to thousands in our day. They

deeply regret the success of those schemes, and deprecate the existence

of clergy reserves and rectory endowments as in themselves fatal to the

healthy development of Church work as an active and aggressive force in

the Christian life.

It is not necessary to refer here to Bishop Strachan's views in regard

to ecclesiastical polity. They are well known. On this matter also many

sound churchmen differed widely (and still differ) from his views. Yet

Bishop Strachan, while holding such strong and exclusive views, was

kindly disposed towards "Sectaries" individually, and lived on terms of

personal friendship with many of those whose opinions were opposed to

his on church questions. In his Legislative Council speech, already

quoted, he says:--

I have been charged with being hostile to the Scotch Church, and

with being an apostate from that communion.... My hostility to the

Kirk of Scotland consists in being on the most intimate terms with

the late Mr. Bethune and Dr. Spark.... To both these excellent men

I willingly ... pay a tribute of respect.... Nor have I ever missed

an opportunity, when in my power, of being useful to the clergy of

the Church of Scotland, or of treating them with respect, kindness,

and hospitality. (Page 22.)

Again, in his sermon on "Church Fellowship," preached in 1832, Dr.

Strachan says:--

Widely as we differ from the Roman Catholics in many religious

points of the greatest importance, we have always lived with them

in the kindest intercourse, and in the cordial exchange of the

charities of social life. The worthy prelate, by whom they are at

present spiritually governed, has been my friend for nearly thirty

years. With the members of the Church of Scotland we associate in

the same manner....[81] The merits of our sister Church cannot be

unknown to you, my brethren. To me they are familiar, and connected

with many of my cherished and early associations.... Of that

popular and increasing class of Christians [the Methodists], who

call themselves a branch of our Church, both at home and abroad, I

would speak with praise. (Pages 23-25.)

As to his relations with Dr. Ryerson, I here insert two notes from the

Bishop to him. The first is dated February 7th, 1838, as follows:--

The Archdeacon of York presents his compliments to the Rev. E.

Ryerson, and begs to acknowledge with satisfaction his courtesy in

sending him a copy of his excellent sermon on the Recent

Conspiracy, which the Archdeacon has read with much pleasure and

profit. Such doctrines, if generally diffused among our people,

cannot fail of producing the most beneficial effects, both

spiritual and temporal.

The second related to the calamity which had befallen the Church of

England congregation of St. James, in the destruction of its church

building by fire early in January, 1839. Dr. Ryerson at once wrote to

the Archdeacon offering him the use of the Newgate (Adelaide Street)

Church. On the 6th January, Dr. Strachan replied as follows:--

I thank you most sincerely for the kind sympathy you express in the

sad calamity that has befallen us, and for your generous offer of

accommodation. Before your note reached me, I had made arrangements

with the Mayor, for the Town Hall, which we can occupy at our

accustomed hours of worship, without disturbing any other

congregation. I and my people are not the less grateful for your

kind offer, which we shall keep in brotherly remembrance.

In his Charge to the Clergy in 1853, and again in 1856, he pays a

personal tribute to Dr. Ryerson. In the later Charge, speaking of the

School system, he says:--

So far as Dr. Ryerson is concerned, I am one of those who

appreciate very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and

his administrative capacity.

Dr. Ryerson's last reference to the Bishop is contained in the "Epochs

of Canadian Methodism," written in 1880, as follows:

Upwards of fifty years have passed away since my criticisms on Dr.

Strachan's "Sermon on the death of the Bishop of Quebec" were

written. On the re-perusal of them, after the lapse of so long a

time, the impression on my own mind is that Dr. Strachan was honest

in his statements and opinions.... He was more moderate and liberal

in his views and feelings in his later years, and became the

personal friend of his old antagonist, "The Reviewer," who, he

said, had "fought fair." (Page 145.)

FOOTNOTES:

[76] My mother (he said) belonged to the Relief denomination.... My

father was attached to the Non-Jurants; and although he went

occasionally with my mother, he was a frequent hearer of Bishop Skinner,

to whose church he was in the habit of carrying me. He died when I was

very young, but not before my mind was impressed in favour of

Episcopacy.... I readily confess, that in respect to Church Government,

my principles were sufficiently vague and unformed; for to this

important subject my attention was never particularly drawn till I came

to this country, when my venerated friend, the late Dr. Stewart, of

Kingston, urged me to enter the Church, and as I had never yet

communicated, that excellent person, whom I loved as a father, admitted

me to the altar a little before I went to Quebec to take holy orders, in

1803. Before I had determined to enter the Church of England, I was

induced by the advice of another friend (the late Mr. Cartwright) ... to

make some inquiries respecting the Presbyterian Church of Montreal, then

vacant. (Dr. Strachan's Speech in the Legislative Council, March 6th,

1828, pages 25, 26.)

[77] The stipends of Methodist ministers in those days were very small.

Rev. Dr. John Carroll tells me that the "quarterage" payable to an

unmarried Methodist minister in America, at first, was only $60 per

annum; then it was increased to $80, at which rate it remained until

1816, when the General Conference fixed it at $100, at which it remained

until 1854. The rule for a married minister was double that for a single

man, and $16 for each child. Besides quarterage, there was an allowance

for travelling and table expenses. Two hundred dollars was the sum for

salary, besides travelling and aid expenses, allowed to a minister up to

1854, and even then this sum was rarely ever paid in full.--H.

[78] Rev. H. Wilkinson in a note to Dr. Ryerson, in 1837, thus describes

the kind of places to which some ministers had to be sent, and their

duties and qualifications when there. He said: I require a man for a

mission which lies about 200 miles from Bytown, up the Grand River

(Ottawa), and which will be difficult of access in the winter. A

suitable person could make his way northwards with some of the rude

lumbermen, who now and then go up in companies. The brother would need

to be strong in mind and body, and fervent in spirit. He would need to

go on foot, and paddle a canoe, or row a boat, as the case might be, and

thus reach his appointments in the best way he can.

[79] While in the vicinity of St. Andrews I contracted several important

friendships, amongst others, with Thomas Duncan, afterwards Professor of

Mathematics, and also with Dr. Chalmers, since then so deservedly

renowned. We were all three very nearly of the same age, and our

friendship only terminated with death, being kept alive by a constant

correspondence during more than sixty years. (Bishop Strachan's Charge

to his Clergy, June, 1860; page 10.)

[80] Speaking of the passage of a Clergy Reserve Bill in 1840, to which

the Bishop of Toronto was strongly opposed, Dr. Ryerson says: A

considerable majority of the members of the Church of England in both

Houses of the Legislature voted for the Bill, and were afterwards

charged by the Bishop with "defection and treachery" for doing so. On

this point, Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated,

5th February, 1840, said: It is notorious to every one here, that of

twenty-two members (being communicants of the Church of England) who

voted upon this bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the

views expressed by the Right Reverend Prelate, whilst, in the

Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those

who gave it their warmest support, are to be found many gentlemen of the

highest character for independence, and for attachment to the Church,

and whose views on general politics differ from those of Her Majesty's

Government. (Dr. Ryerson's Criticism on Bishop Strachan's letter to Lord

John Russell, dated, February 20th, 1851.)

[81] These kindly words the Bishop repeated in substance to the Editor

some years since, when talking with him on the subject.--H.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

1791-1836.

The Clergy Reserves and Rectories Questions.

The discussion of the Clergy Reserve Question enters so largely into the

Story of Dr. Ryerson's Life, that I give in this chapter a short,

condensed sketch of its origin and history down to 1837-38. The

remainder of the sketch will be developed in an account of the contest

preceding the settlement of the question in subsequent chapters.

After the conquest of Canada, in 1760, the right of the Roman Catholic

inhabitants to enjoy their religion was guaranteed to them in the Treaty

of Paris, Feb. 10th, 1763. In 1774, an Act was passed by the British

Parliament (14 Geo. III., ch. 83) by which the right to their accustomed

dues and tithes was secured to the clergy of the Church of Rome in the

then Province of Quebec (including what was afterwards Upper and Lower

Canada). The same Act provided for the encouragement of the Protestant

religion, and, for the support of a Protestant clergy, by other tithes

and dues.[82]

In 1791, the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada,

and, in an Act introduced into the British Parliament by Mr. Pitt,

provision was made for their government. Sections 35-42 of that Act

dealt with the maintenance and support of a Protestant Clergy, and this

provision (1) allotted one-seventh of all lands which might be hereafter

granted by the King for settlement; and (2) gave authority for the

erection of "parsonages or rectories, according to the establishment of

the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted, etc.

(Sec. 38).

The alleged reasons which induced George III. to make provision for the

support of religion in the North American Colonies, are set forth, so

far as they related to the Protestant religion, by the late Bishop

Strachan in a pamphlet which he published in England in 1827.[83] He

mentions the fact that Great Britain, of all European nations, had

hitherto made no provision for religious instruction in her colonies. He

further states that:--

The effect of this was that emigrants belonging to the Established

Church who settled in America, not having access to their own

religious ministrations, became frequently dissenters; and when the

Colonies (now the United States) rebelled, there was not, among a

population of nearly 3,000,000, a single prelate, and but very few

Episcopal clergymen.

The folly of this policy was shown in the strongest light during

the rebellion; almost all of the Episcopal clergy and their

congregations remained faithful to the King, demonstrating by their

conduct, that had proper care been taken to promote a religious

establishment in connection with that of England, the revolution

would not have taken place.[84]

Aware of the pernicious effects of this narrow and unchristian

policy, and sensible that the colonial ought to be attached to the

parent state by religious, as well as by political feelings, the

great Mr. Pitt determined (in forming a constitution for the

Canadas) to provide for the religious instruction of the people,

and to lay the foundation of an Ecclesiastical Establishment which

should increase with the settlement.

To accomplish this noble purpose, Mr. Pitt advised that one-seventh

of the lands should be set apart for the maintenance of a

Protestant Clergy. In Upper Canada this appropriation comprises

one-seventh of the whole province: but in Lower Canada, one-seventh

of those parts only which have been granted since 1791 (pages 2,

3).[85]

In a pamphlet published at Kingston, U.C., during the previous year, the

substance of Mr. Pitt's remarks on that part of the Bill which

authorized the setting apart of these lands, is given as follows:--

Mr. Pitt (House of Commons, 12th May, 1791), said that he gave the

Colonial Government and Council power, under the instructions of

His Majesty, to distribute out of a sum arising from the tithes for

land or possessions, and set apart for the maintenance and support

of a Protestant clergy. Another clause (he said) provided, for the

permanent support of the Protestant clergy, a seventh portion of

the lands to be granted in future. He declared that the meaning of

the Act was to enable the Governor to endow and to present the

Protestant clergy of the established church to such parsonage or

rectory as might be constituted or erected within every township or

parish, which now was, or might be formed; and to give to such

Protestant clergyman of the established church, a part, or the

whole, as the Governor thought proper, of the lands appropriated by

the Act. He further explained that this was done to encourage the

established church; and that possibly hereafter it might be

proposed to send a Bishop of the established church to sit in the

Legislative Council. (Parl. Reg., vol. 29, pp. 414, 415.)[86]

Mr. Fox was entirely opposed to these arrangements. He said: By the

Protestant clergy, he supposed to be understood not only the clergy

of the Church of England, but all descriptions of Protestants....

That the clergy should have one-seventh of all grants, he must

confess, appeared to him an absurd doctrine. If they were all of

the Church of England, this would not reconcile him to the measure.

The greater part of these Protestant clergy were not of the Church

of England; they were chiefly Protestant dissenters.... We were, by

this Bill, making a sort of provision for the Protestant clergy of

Canada [of one-seventh of the land] which was unknown to them in

every part of Europe; a provision, in his apprehension, which would

rather tend to corrupt than to benefit them. (Hansard, vol. 29,

1791, page 108.)

I have carefully gone through the whole of the debate on this subject,

but I cannot find one word in it which would indicate that Mr. Pitt, Mr.

Fox, or Mr. Burke (the chief speakers), entertained the idea that

endowing the clergy had any political significance as a precautionary

measure for ensuring the loyalty of the inhabitants. The opinion was

expressed that setting apart these lands was the most feasible way (as

Mr. Pitt said) of providing "for the permanent support of the Protestant

clergy," and of giving "them a competent income."[87]

In a letter to Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated December,

1790, Col. J. Graves Simcoe said:--

I am decidedly of opinion that a regular Episcopal establishment

... is absolutely necessary in any extensive colony which England

means to preserve, etc. The neglect of this principle of

overturning republicanism in former periods, by giving support and

assistance to those causes which are perpetually offering

themselves to affect so necessary an object, is much to be

lamented; but it is my duty to be as solicitous as possible, that

they may now have their due influence, etc.

In a "Memoir" written by Governor Simcoe in 1791, he said:

In regard to the Episcopal establishment ... I firmly believe the

present to be a critical moment, in which that system, so

interwoven and connected with the monarchical foundation of our

government, may be productive of the most permanent and extensive

benefits, in preserving the connection between Great Britain and

her Colonies.

From various sources I gather the following particulars:--

From 1791 to 1819, the Clergy Reserves were in the hands of the

Government, and managed by it alone. For years they yielded

scarcely enough to defray the expenses of management. In 1817 the

House of Assembly objected to such an appropriation for the clergy,

as "beyond all precedent lavish," and complained that the

reservations were an obstacle to improvement and settlement. In

1819, lands were taxed for the construction of roads, and it was

contended that the reservations on the public roads should also be

taxed.

In 1819, the question was first mooted, as to the right of

Presbyterians to share in the reserves. In March, of that year,

thirty-seven Presbyterians of the town of Niagara, petitioned Sir

Peregrine Maitland, to grant to the Presbyterian congregation

there, the annual sum of £100 in aid, out of the clergy reserves,

or out of any other fund at the Governor's disposal. In

transmitting this petition to the Colonial Secretary for

instructions, Sir P. Maitland mentioned that "the actual product of

the clergy reserves is about £700 per annum." In May, 1820, a reply

was received from Lord Bathurst, stating that, in the opinion of

the Crown officers, the provisions of the Act of 1791, "for the

support of the Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the

clergy of the Church of England, but may be extended also to the

clergy of the Church of Scotland," but not to dissenting ministers.

In 1819, on the application of Bishop Mountain, of Quebec, the

clergy in each province were incorporated for the purpose of

leasing and managing the reserves--the proceeds, however, to be

paid over to the Government. On the appearance of a notice to this

effect in the Quebec _Gazette_, dated, 13th June, 1820, the clergy

of the Church of Scotland memorialized the King for a share in

these reserves.

In 1823, the House of Assembly, on motion of Hon. William Morris,

concurred in a series of resolutions, asserting the right of the

Church of Scotland in Canada to a share in the reserves. These

resolutions were rejected by the Legislative Council, by a vote of

6 to 5.

In April, 1824, Dr. Strachan was deputed by the Bishop of Quebec

and Sir P. Maitland, to go to England and get authority from Lord

Bathurst to sell portions of the reserves. In the meantime, the

Canada (Land) Company proposed to purchase all the Crown and Clergy

Reserve Lands at a valuation to be agreed on. The clergy

corporation having desired a voice in this valuation, the Bishop of

Quebec deputed Archdeacon Mountain to press this view on Lord

Bathurst. Some misunderstanding having arisen between Lord Bathurst

and Archdeacon Strachan, and the Canada Land Company, Dr. Strachan

went to England in April, 1826, and was deputed by Lord Bathurst to

arrange the differences with Mr. John Galt, Commissioner of the

Company. This they did by changing the original plan. The clergy

lands were exchanged for 1,000,000 acres in the Huron tract. Out of

the moneys received from the Canada Company the Home Government

appropriated £700 a year to the Church of Scotland clergy,[88] and

the same amount to the clergy of the Church of Rome in Upper

Canada.

In June, 1826, the Home Government, on the memorial of the Church

of Scotland General Assembly, and an address from the House of

Assembly, founded on the resolutions of 1823 (which, as introduced,

had been rejected by the Legislative Council), acknowledged the

rights of the Church of Scotland clergy to a share of the reserves.

In January, 1826, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to

distribute the proceeds of the reserves for the benefit of all

denominations, or failing that to the purposes of education and the

general improvement of the Province. The reply to this memorial was

so unsatisfactory that the House of Assembly (December 22nd, 1826),

adopted a series of eleven resolutions, deprecating the action of

the Home Government in appropriating the clergy reserves to

individuals connected with the Church of England "to the exclusion

of other denominations"--that church bearing "a very small

proportion to the number of other Christians in the province." The

Assembly prayed that the proceeds of the reserves be applied to the

support of district and common schools, a Provincial seminary, and

in aid of erecting places of worship for all denominations of

Christians. These resolutions passed by majorities of from 25 to

30; the nays being 2 and 3 only. The bill founded on these

resolutions was negatived in the Legislative Council (January,

1827). In the year 1826, Dr. Strachan obtained a royal charter for

King's College, with an endowment of 225,000 acres of land, and a

grant of £1,000 for sixteen years. This charter was wholly in

favour of the Church of England, and its obnoxious clauses remained

unchanged until 1835.

In March, 1827, Hon. R. W. Horton introduced a Bill into Parliament

to provide for the sale of the clergy lands, as asked for by the

Bishop of Quebec. This led to a protracted discussion between the

friends in the House of the English and Scotch Churches, and

requests were made for information on the state of these Churches

in Upper Canada. Archdeacon Strachan, then in England, furnished

this information in his famous letter and Chart, dated, May 16th,

1827. Objection to giving the clergy corporation power to sell

these lands having been made, Mr. Horton withdrew his original

bill, and in a new one, which was passed, confined the exercise of

this power to the Executive Government.

In March, 1828, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to

place the proceeds of the reserves at the disposal of the House for

the purposes of education and internal improvement. Mr. Morris'

motion to strike out "internal improvement" was lost. In this year

a committee of the House of Commons reported against continuing the

reservation in mortmain of the clergy lands, as it imposed serious

obstacles to the improvement of the colony.

In 1829, two despatches on the clergy reserve question were sent to

the Colonial Secretary by Sir John Colborne. In one, dated 11th

April, Sir John says: If a more ardent zeal be not shown by the

Established Church, and a very different kind of minister than that

which is generally to be found in this Province sent out from

England, it is obvious that the members of the Established Church

will be inconsiderable, and that it will continue to lose ground.

The Methodists, apparently, exceed the number of the Churches of

England and Scotland.... If the Wesleyan Methodists in England

could be prevailed on to supply this Province with preachers, the

Methodists of this country would become, as a political body, of

less importance than they are at present.

In this year the House of Assembly passed a bill similar to that of

1828. It was rejected, as in the previous year, by the Legislative

Council. In 1830, the same proceedings were repeated with like

result.

In December, 1830 (see page 101), a monster petition was agreed to, and

afterwards signed by 10,000 persons and sent to England, praying that

steps be taken to leave the ministers of all denominations to be

supported by the people among whom they labour and the voluntary

contributions of benevolent Societies in Canada and Great Britain--to do

away with all political distinctions on account of religious faith--to

remove all ministers of religion from seats and places of political

power in the Provincial Government--to grant to the clergy of all

denominations the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges in everything

that appertains to them as British subjects and as ministers of the

Gospel, particularly the right of solemnizing matrimony--to modify the

charter of King's College, so as to exclude all sectarian tests and

preferences--and to appropriate the proceeds of the sale of the lands,

heretofore set apart for the support of a Protestant Clergy, to the

purposes of general education and various internal improvements.

Such was the comprehensive character of the reforms prayed for in this

province upwards of fifty years ago. All of these reforms have been long

since granted; but the enumeration of them shows how far off the mass of

the people and their ministers were then from the enjoyment of the civil

and religious privileges which are now the birthright of every British

subject in Canada.

This "programme of reforms" will also show what were the principles for

which Dr. Ryerson, and other pioneers of religious freedom in Upper

Canada, had to contend half a century ago. Nor was the victory easily

won which they achieved. The struggle was a long and arduous one. Each

step was contested by the dominant party, and every reform was resisted

with a determination worthy of a better cause.

In March 1831, the first attempt was made (on motion of Mr. Hagerman) to

deprive the Canadian Legislature of the power to deal with the clergy

reserve question. His motion was to revest the reserves in the crown for

religious purposes, but it was negatived by a vote of 30 to 7. Although

defeated now, the same proposition was frequently made afterwards, and

at length with success. In 1839 a provision of that kind was passed, but

it failed on technical grounds to receive the royal assent. See chapter

xxxi.

In 1831 and 1832, addresses to the King were adopted by the House of

Assembly praying, as before, that the reserves be applied to educational

purposes. In this year a satisfactory reply from the Home Government, in

regard to the clergy reserve question, was communicated to the

Legislature, and it was invited to consider the desirability of

exercising its power to "vary or repeal" certain provisions for the

support of a Protestant Clergy. In 1832 and in 1833, bills to revest the

clergy reserve lands in the Crown were read a second time, and, in 1834,

one to that effect was finally passed, but was rejected by the

Legislative Council. A bill for the sale of the reserves and the

application of the proceeds to educational purposes, was passed in 1835,

by a vote of 40 to 4, but was again rejected by the Legislative Council.

This body in the same year proposed that both Houses should abdicate

their functions in regard to the reserves (as they were unable to concur

in any measure on the subject), and request the Imperial Parliament to

legislate on the subject! The House of Assembly peremptorily refused, by

a vote of two to one, to concur in such a proposition, and read a

dignified lecture to the Council on its refusal to pass their measures,

or to originate one of its own. The members of the Assembly felt that

the influence of the Governor and the members of the Council would be so

potent in England, that by it the wishes of the people of Upper Canada,

as repeatedly expressed by that House, would be frustrated.[89] In 1836,

the bill of the previous year was passed by the Assembly by a majority

of 35 to 5. The Legislative Council amended it so as to leave the matter

as before with the British Parliament. This amendment was defeated by

the House of Assembly by a vote of 27 to 1, and so the matter ended. In

1837-38 the rebellion took place, leaving the clergy reserve question in

abeyance for some time.

On the 15th January, 1836, Sir John Colborne, by order in council,

established fifty-seven rectories in Upper Canada, and endowed them out

of the clergy reserve lands. This was done at the last moment, and while

the successor of Sir John Colborne (Sir F. B. Head) was on his way from

New York to Toronto. So great was the haste in which this act was done,

that only 44 out of the 57 patents were signed by the retiring Governor;

so that only that number of rectories were actually endowed. There is no

doubt but that the Constitutional Act of 1791 authorized not only the

setting apart of the clergy reserves, but also the erection of

"parsonages and rectories according to the establishment of the Church

of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted. (Sec. 38). But,

in Lord Glenelg's opinion, the subject was never submitted for the

signification of the King's pleasure thereon. Certain ambiguous words,

in Lord Ripon's reply to a private communication from Sir John Colborne,

was the authority relied upon for the hasty and unpopular act of the

retiring Governor. The legality of the act was frequently questioned,

but it was finally affirmed by the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada in

1856. The judgment in the case of the Attorney-General _vs._ Grasett was

that--

Under the statute 31, Geo. III., ch. 31, and the Royal Commission,

Sir John Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, had

authority to create and endow rectories without further

instructions.

FOOTNOTES:

[82] These tithes continued to be collected for the support of a

Protestant Clergy until February, 1823, when a declaratory Act, passed

by the Legislature of Upper Canada in 1821, was sanctioned by the King

to the effect that hereafter "no tithes shall be claimed, demanded, or

received by any ecclesiastical parson, rector or vicar, of the

Protestant Church within this Province."

[83] Observations on the Provision made for the Maintenance of a

Protestant Clergy in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, under the

31st Geo. III., cap. 31. By John Strachan, D.D., Archdeacon of York,

Upper Canada, pp. 44. London, 1827.

[84] In a letter written by Dr. Ryerson in 1851, he criticised a similar

statement then made by Bishop Strachan. He pointed out that Washington

and other leaders of the revolution were staunch churchmen.

[85] In no part of Mr. Pitt's remarks on the Bill setting apart land for

the Protestant Clergy do I find any intimation of the kind mentioned by

Bishop Strachan. Governor Simcoe, however, held these views, which by

mistake the Bishop may have attributed to Mr. Pitt. (See next page.)--H.

[86] An Apology for the Church of England in the Canadas, etc. By a

Protestant of the Established Church of England. Kingston, U.C., 1826,

page 11.

[87] It was in the discussion on this Bill that the long personal

friendship which had existed between Fox and Burke was brought to an

abrupt termination.--H.

[88] In 1830, Presbyterian ministers not of the Church of Scotland,

were, on petition to that effect (signed by Rev. W. Smart, Moderator,

and Rev. W. Bell, Presbytery Clerk), placed on the same footing as the

ministers of the Kirk.--H.

[89] This was abundantly proved afterwards. In the following Parliament

an amended bill was carried, by a majority of one vote, in the House of

Assembly to place the proceeds of the reserves at the disposal of the

British Parliament. Petitions were at once sent to the Queen to induce

her to assent to this bill, and the Bishop went to England to present

them. Sir George Arthur also lent his aid for the same object. The

scheme failed, however, on technical grounds, but was successfully

revived the next year. (See _Guardian_ 1st January, 1840, and page

249.)--H.

CHAPTER XXIX.

1838.

The Clergy Reserve Controversy Renewed.

The question at issue, when the House of Assembly was elected in 1836

for the parliamentary term ending in 1839, was adroitly narrowed by Sir

F. B. Head to the simple one of loyalty to the Crown, or--as Dr.

Ryerson, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper (September, 1838), expressed

it--"Whether or not ... this Province would remain an integral part of

the British Empire." Lord Durham pointed out that Sir F. B. Head led the

people to believe "that they were called upon to decide the question of

separation [from Great Britain] by their votes."

Under such circumstances the clergy reserve question was subordinated to

those of graver moment. Besides, even if pledges had been given by

members before the election on the subject, they were not felt, as the

event proved, to be very sacred. Speaking of this Parliament, Dr.

Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Draper, (already mentioned), said:--

The present Assembly at its first session adopted a resolution in

favour of appropriating the reserves for "the religious and moral

instruction of the Province." But its proceedings during the second

session were so vacillating that it is now difficult to say what

the opinions of the members are.

One explanation of this state of feeling was, that the political views

of a majority of the members were in harmony with those of the ruling

party in the country, and yet were at variance with the views of their

constituents on the clergy reserve question. Advantage was taken of the

existence of this political sympathy by the leaders of the dominant

party, with a view to secure the removal of the clergy reserve question

from the hostile arena of the Upper Canada Legislature to the friendly

atmosphere of the English House of Commons, and the still more friendly

tribunal of the House of Lords--where the bench of bishops would be sure

to defend the claims of the Church to this royal patrimony.[90]

Accordingly, at the third session of this Parliament, Mr. Cartwright, of

Kingston, introduced a bill "to revest the Clergy Reserves in Her

Majesty"--the first reading of which was carried by a vote of 24 to 5,

and passed through Committee of the whole by a vote of 29 to 12. As soon

as Dr. Ryerson, then in Kingston, got a copy of this bill he wrote the

following letter, on the 13th January, 1838, to the _Guardian_:--

The professed object of this bill is described by its title, but the

real object, and the necessary effect of it, from the very nature of its

provisions, is to apply the reserves to those exclusive and partial

purposes against which the great majority of the inhabitants of this

province, both by petition and through their representatives, have

protested in every variety of language during the last twelve years--and

that without any variation or the shadow of change. The bill even

proposes to transfer future legislation on this subject from the

Provincial to the Imperial Parliament! The authors of this bill are, it

seems, afraid to trust the inhabitants of Upper Canada to legislate on a

subject in which they themselves are solely concerned; nay, they will

environ themselves and the interests they wish to promote behind the

Imperial Parliament! The measure itself, containing the provisions it

does, is a shameful deception upon the Canadian public--is a wanton

betrayal of Canadian rights--is a disgraceful sacrifice of Canadian, to

selfish party interests--is a covert assassination of a vital principle

of Canadian constitutional and free government--is a base political and

religious fraud which ought to excite the deep concern and rouse the

indignant and vigorous exertion of every friend of justice, and freedom,

and good government in the country.

My language may be strong; but strong as it is, it halts far behind the

emotions of my mind. Such a measure, I boldly affirm, is not what the

people of Upper Canada expected from the members of the present Assembly

when they elected them as their representatives; it is not such a

measure as, I have reason to believe, a majority of the present members

of the Assembly gave their constituents to understand they would vote

for when they solicited their suffrages. Honourable gentlemen, if I can

be heard by them, ought to remember that they have a character to

sustain, more important than the attainment of a particular object;

they ought to remember that they act in a delegated capacity; and if

they cannot clear their consciences and maintain the views and interests

of their constituents, they ought, as many an honest English gentleman

has done, to resign their seats in the legislature; they ought to

remember to whom and under what expectations they owe their present

elevation; above all, they ought to remember what the equal and

impartial interests of their whole constituency require at their hands.

If, however, every pledge or honourable understanding should be

violated; if every reasonable hope should be disappointed; and if the

loyal and deserving inhabitants of Upper Canada should be deceived, and

disappointed, and wronged by the passage of this bill into a law,

petitions ought to be circulated in every part of the province to Her

Majesty the Queen to withhold the royal assent from the bill; and I

hereby pledge £50 (if I have to sell my library to obtain the amount)

for the promotion of that object. Such an act, under the present

circumstances of the country, would be worse than a former alien bill,

and ought to be deprecated, resisted, and execrated by every enlightened

friend of the peace, happiness, and prosperity of the Province.

In reply to a letter from Rev. Joseph Stinson, urging him to come to

Toronto and oppose this bill, Dr. Ryerson said:--

For me to leave Kingston, under present circumstances, and go to

Toronto would ruin my ministerial influence and usefulness here and

blast all our present hopes of prosperity. You know that by my

continued and repeated absence, I have already lost fifty per cent.

in the confiding hopes of the people, and consequently in very

power of doing them good. You know, likewise, that the financial

interests of the Society have so lamentably declined that we are

already largely in arrears. I cannot, therefore, leave, unless I am

positively required to do so by the Book Committee.

A more serious aspect of the matter, however, was presented to Dr.

Ryerson in the extraordinary silence of the Conference organ on the

subject. In the same letter he said:--

I cannot but feel deeply grieved at not only the tameness but the

profound silence of the _Guardian_ on this bill. Silence on such a

measure, and at such a time, and after the course we have pursued

hitherto, is acquiescence in it to all intents and purposes, and

may be fairly and legitimately construed so by both friends and

enemies. Oh, is it so? Can it be so, that the Editor of the

_Guardian_ has got so completely into the leading strings of that

churchism which is as poisonous in its feelings towards us, and its

plans respecting us, as the simoon blast; that he will see measures

going forward, which he must know are calculated, nay, intended, to

trample us in the dust, and not even say one word, except in praise

(as often as possible), of the very men who he sees from day to day

plotting our overthrow!

I have also observed, in Dr. Strachan's letters to Hon. Wm. Morris,

an attack upon Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary--such a one as

would enable us to turn to our account on the clergy reserve

question (and against Dr. Strachan's exclusive system) the entire

influence of Her Majesty's Government, which would have great

weight both in and out of the House of Assembly. How I have heard

Dr. Bunting, Mr. Beecham, and other members of the Committee at

home, say that Lord Glenelg is one of the best and ablest men of

the present day. At all events, after what we have obtained through

his Lordship's instrumentality, I think that silence on our part is

disgraceful--apart from considerations of local interests in this

battle for right and justice.

Two able and moderate advocates of the settlement of the clergy reserve

question were sent to England in 1837 to confer with Lord Glenelg on the

subject, viz.: Hon. William Morris on behalf of the Church of Scotland,

and Hon. W. H. Draper on behalf of the Church of England. In November of

that year Dr. Ryerson was requested to draw up a paper embodying the

opinions of the leading members of the Conference. This was done, and an

elaborate paper on the subject was published in the _Guardian_ of

January 17th, 1838.[91] Shortly afterwards Dr. Ryerson addressed a

letter to Lord Glenelg on the subject. I only insert the narrative part

of it, as follows:--

I was favoured with a conversation on the clergy reserve question

with Mr. [Sir James] Stephen, in accordance with your Lordship's

suggestion, the day before I left London for Canada (27th April,

1837). After my arrival in this Province it was unanimously agreed

to support the plan for the adjustment of that important and long

agitated question, which had been mentioned by Mr. Stephen, in the

interview referred to.

Sir F. B. Head set his face against it from the beginning, and did

not wish me to say anything about it publicly. The Attorney-General

acknowledged it was equitable, and did not make any serious

objection to it.[92]

Recently a meeting of our principal ministers took place in

Toronto, in order to consult upon the measures which it was

desirable to adopt in order to promote the settlement of the

question at the next session of Parliament. At the request of the

meeting, another gentleman and myself waited upon the Hon. Mr.

Draper (who had taken the most official part in previous sessions),

and showed him the resolutions agreed to. We stated that if it

would embarrass him in promoting the earliest settlement of the

question, we would desist from publishing anything on the subject.

He expressed himself as highly gratified at our frankness,

courtesy, and general views, and said that if his high-church

friends had treated him with the same liberality and courtesy he

would have been saved from much difficulty and embarrassment, which

he had experienced in his previous exertions; but that he thought

there could be no objection to our publishing at large our views on

the subject. The preparation of the document was assigned to me.

When published, it appeared to meet the views of all parties,

except the ultra shade of one party, who want the whole of the

reserves; and it is now the most popular plan throughout the

Province of settling the question, except that of appropriating the

reserves to educational purposes exclusively.

A day or two before the publication of this document, the House of

Assembly went into Committee on a Bill to revest the reserves in

the Imperial Parliament! Going to Toronto at this time, I did what

I could to bring the subject again before the House, and

accordingly addressed a letter through the press to Speaker MacNab,

of the Assembly, on the importance of an immediate settlement of

the question, and also urging the adoption of the plan which had

been recently proposed.[93] These papers appeared to create a

considerable sensation among the members of the Assembly; it was

agreed on all sides that the question ought to be settled

forthwith. But the reluctance of the Crown Officers to take up the

subject soon became manifest; and it was not for some weeks after,

that the subject could be forced upon them.[94] Then all (with very

few exceptions) professed that the subject ought not to be

postponed any longer. But the Crown Officers had no measure

prepared, and differed in opinion on the subject--the

Attorney-General consenting to the revesting of the reserves in the

Crown, the Solicitor-General contending that they should be divided

among four denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists,

and Roman Catholics, according to their relative numbers in Great

Britain and Ireland!) This proposition had but three or four

advocates in the House, including the author of it. Mr. Boulton,

seconded by Mr. Cartwright, moved, in substance, that the clergy

reserve provision was made for the clergy of the Church of

England;--that it does not provide for more than a competent

support for them;--that to appropriate it for them would give most

satisfaction to the country. This resolution had five votes in

favour of it. All these amendments, and several others, having been

lost in Committee, the original resolution moved by Mr. Cartwright,

to revest the clergy reserves in Her Majesty, for "the support of

the Christian religion in this Province," was adopted by a

majority of three or four. A bill was then brought in and read a

first time, and ordered to a second reading next day, but was never

afterwards taken up--the exclusive church party being anxious to

keep it out of sight. Thus the question is laid over for another

year, to the great disappointment and dissatisfaction of thousands

who have promptly come forward to the support of the Government of

the country.

As an indication of the determination of the party then in power in

Upper Canada to carry their scheme for the re-investment of the Reserves

in the Crown, before the close of this friendly Parliament, I quote the

following extract from a despatch from Sir George Arthur to Lord

Glenelg, dated 11th July, 1838:--

At the first meeting of the Legislature, I propose to cause a bill

to be introduced for re-investing the lands reserved for the clergy

in the Crown, to be applied for religious purposes, and I have

reason to think that it will be carried by a considerable majority.

In June, 1838, Dr. Ryerson became Editor of the _Christian Guardian_. It

was, as I have shown, at a most critical period in our provincial

history. He was called to that post by the unanimous voice of his

brethren. That call, too, was emphasized by the fact that the object of

the dominant party in decrying the loyalty of their opponents was now

clearly seen; and that, therefore, none but a man of undaunted courage,

unimpeachable loyalty, as well as unquestioned ability, could

successfully cope with the powerful combination of talent and influence

which the ruling party possessed.

Nor should it be forgotten, that in the unfortunate crisis through which

the Province had just passed, the prestige of the party which had always

claimed the whole of the reserves as the patrimony of the Church of

England, had, from political causes, immensely increased. This gave them

a double advantage; while, on the other hand, the prestige of the party

which for years had firmly and consistently resisted these claims, had,

for the same political reasons, as sensibly and as seriously declined.

These facts were well known to every one in Upper Canada at the time.

They imposed a double burthen upon those who had the courage (or, it

might be said, audacity) to question the righteousness of claims,

which--not to speak of the invaluable services and inviolable loyalty of

the claimants themselves in the crisis of the rebellion--were by words

of the statute, as interpreted by the law officers of the Crown, so

clearly given to those claimants.

Such was the position of parties, and the condition of affairs in Upper

Canada, when Dr. Ryerson was called to the editorial chair of the

leading newspaper in the Province. That he was possessed of the

requisite ability and firmness to maintain the rights of a discouraged

minority, and resist the then almost unquestioned will of a powerful

majority, few doubted. The bold defence of the supposed exiled rebel,

Bidwell, proved that neither courage nor talent was wanting. The bitter

hatred of the revolutionary party, as expressed in the threat that,

should they succeed, their first victim would be Egerton Ryerson, showed

that in the new crusade he would have no help (if not covert opposition)

from that extreme section of his former friends. Nor, as events proved,

could he reckon on any support from the British missionary section of

the Methodist community. Indeed, they were hostile to his views, as will

be seen in a subsequent chapter.

In entering into this contest, therefore, Dr. Ryerson found that he

would have to encounter a threefold enemy--each section of it able,

resolute and influential, especially that one practically in possession

of the reserves--fighting, as it was, for its very existence, and acting

entirely on the defensive.

Soon after Dr. Ryerson entered on his editorial duties he published in

the _Guardian_ an elaborate series of letters on "The Clergy Reserve

Question, as a matter of History, a Question of Law, and a Subject of

Legislation," addressed to Hon. W. H. Draper, Solicitor-General. After

reviewing the proceedings of the Government and Legislature on the

subject down to the end of the session of 1838, he summed up the leading

facts which he had established, in the following words:--

I have stated that the Government has been administered for

fourteen years in utter contempt of the wishes of the inhabitants,

constitutionally, continuously, and almost unanimously expressed

through their representatives and otherwise, on a subject which

concerns their highest and best interests, and which, as the

history of Great Britain amply shows, has always more deeply

interested British subjects than any other. Sir, on the unspeakably

important subjects of religion and education our constitutional

right of legislation has, by the arbitrary exercise and influence

of Executive power, been made a mockery, and our constitutional

liberties a deception; and it is to the influence over the public

mind of the high religious feelings and principles of those classes

of the population who have been so shamefully calumniated by the

Episcopal clergy and their party scribes, that the inhabitants of

Upper Canada are not doing in 1838, what Englishmen did do in 1688,

when their feelings were outraged and their constitutional

liberties infringed, and the privileges of Parliament trampled

upon, in order to force upon the nation a system of religious

domination which the great majority of the people did not desire.

As the session of the Legislature of 1839 approached, a vigorous effort

was made by _The Church_ newspaper (the clerical organ), and the

_Patriot_ (the lay organ) of the church party to influence public

opinion in favour of a re-investment of the clergy reserves in the Crown

(for the reasons given on page 225.)

It was well known that Dr. Ryerson had strenuously opposed any

reference of the questions to the British Parliament as a pusillanimous,

and yet an interested, party abnegation of Canadian rights. He,

therefore, prepared and circulated extensively a petition to the House

of Assembly on this and kindred subjects. This proceeding called forth a

counter petition, urging the Legislature to recognize the principle of

an established church, etc. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, lost no time in

inserting in the _Guardian_ of 24th October, a stirring appeal, in which

he urged the Methodist ministers and members throughout the country to

sign the petition which he had prepared without delay. He insisted upon

the abolition of the rectories surreptitiously established by Sir John

Colborne, on the ground that, although authorized by the Act of 1791,

yet that their establishment was not in harmony with the terms of the

despatch of Lord Ripon, dated November 8th, 1832, which stated that--

His Majesty has studiously abstained from the exercise of his

undoubted prerogative of founding and endowing literary or

religious corporations, until he should obtain the advice of the

representatives of the people in that respect.

He concluded the appeal with these words:--It becomes every man who

properly appreciates his civil and religious rights and privileges, and

those of posterity after him, to give his name, his influence, and

exertions, in the final effort to place those rights and privileges upon

the broad foundation of equal justice to all classes of the inhabitants.

In a subsequent appeal, issued in November, he said:--Let every man who

has a head to think, a foot to walk, and a hand to write, do all in his

power to circulate the petitions for the entire abolition of high church

domination, and the perfect religious and political equality of all

denominations of Christians.... The majority of the people of England

are willing to have glebes, rectories, tithes, church rates, etc.; but

the majority of the people of this Province want nothing of the kind....

The right of the inhabitants of this Province to judge, and to have

their wishes granted on everything connected with the disposition of the

clergy reserves, and the proceeds of them, has been formally recognized

in gracious despatches from the Throne.

Few in the present day can realize the storm which these petitions and

appeals provoked. Every effort was made (as will be seen) to silence the

voice and stay the hand of Dr. Ryerson, the chief promoter of the

petitions, and the able opponent of the establishment of church

ascendancy in Upper Canada. Thus matters reached a crisis in the latter

part of the year 1838. So intense was the feeling evoked by the ruling

party against Dr. Ryerson's proceeding, that in many places the

promoters of the petitions were threatened with personal violence, and

even with death, as may be seen by letters published in the _Guardian_

at this time. The publication of these letters at the present time would

excite feelings of amazement that such a state of things was ever

possible in a free country like Canada.

Not only was this policy of intimidation pursued in the rural parts of

the country, but the newspapers in Toronto and the larger towns,

controlled by his opponents, made a combined assault upon Dr. Ryerson,

as the central figure in this movement. On the 19th December, 1838, he

inserted an able defence of himself. He said:--

The question of the Clergy Reserves, or in other words, of a

dominant ecclesiastical establishment in this Province, embracing

one or more Churches, has been a topic of public discussion for

nearly twenty years. For thirty years after the creation of Upper

Canada (in 1783) there was no ecclesiastical establishment in the

country, except in the letter of an Act of Parliament. During that

time there was no weakening of the hands of Government by

discussing the question of a dominant church.... But from the time

that the Episcopal clergy commenced the enterprise of

ecclesiastical supremacy in the Province, there has been civil and

religious discord. The calumnious and persecuting measures they

have pursued from time to time to accomplish their purpose, I need

not enumerate. For twelve years I have sought to restore peace to

the Province, by putting down their pretensions. I have varied in

the means I have employed, but never in the end I have had in view,

as I have always avowed to them and their partizans, and to the

Colonial and Imperial Governments, on every suitable occasion.

It was a favourite weapon of attack to denounce as rebels and

republicans all those who opposed the exclusive claims of the then

representatives of the Church of England. And this stigma was, in 1838,

a personal and social one which every person to whom it was applied

resented. But the more such persons resented the charge of disloyalty

the more was the charge reiterated, and they were harassed and denounced

as "radicals" and "republicans."

In repelling this unfounded charge, Dr. Ryerson did not descend to

vindication or explanation. He became in turn the assailant, and began

to "carry the war into Africa." With scorn and invective he replied to

the charge, and showed that his opponents, with all their boasting and

professions of loyalty, had failed to render the necessary aid in time

of need. Thus: It has been said that I prevented the militia from

turning out when first called upon.... It is true that I did not exhort

any one to volunteer.... One reason ... was that I desired to have the

country furnished with a practical illustration of high-church

patriotism and loyalty in the hour of need. The _Church_ and the

_Patriot_ had boasted of their multitudes; but those multitudes

shrivelled into a Falstaff's company in an hour which detected the

difference between the loyalty of the lip and the heart.... The

elongated countenances in certain quarters for a few days [in December,

1837], will never be forgotten! From the Government House to the poorest

cottage the omnipotent power of the _Guardian_ was proclaimed as

producing this alarming state of things! Indeed, I received a verbal

message from His Excellency on the subject. At this juncture ... the

heads of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches formally addressed

[their adherents] exhorting them to rally to the standard of their

country, and from that hour we have heard nothing but congratulations

and boasts in regard to the readiness ... with which the militia came

forward in all parts of the Province at the call of the Government. It

has been insinuated that I attacked the local Government.... The charge

is unfounded. When the local Government was attacked for having pursued

a different course from that of Lord Durham towards the political

prisoners, I reconciled the course of the two administrations. Several

numbers of the _Guardian_ containing that dissertation were requested

for the Government House, and ... were sent to England.... But when both

my position and myself stand virtually ... impugned by proclamation, I

am neither the sycophant nor the renegade to crouch down under unmerited

imputations, come from whence they may, even though I should suffer

imprisonment and ruin for my temerity.

I am at length exhorted to silence, but not my opponents.... A royal

answer was returned to an address of the Episcopal Clergy a few weeks

since.[95] Nor is silence imposed upon me until the entire weight of the

Chief Magistracy is thrown into the Episcopal scale. If the injunction

had been given to _all_ parties ... then we might have felt ourselves in

some degree equally protected.... But at the moment when the Province is

turned into a camp--when freedom of opinion may be said to exist, but

scarcely to live--when unprecedented power is wielded by the Executive,

and the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended, for one party in the Province to

have free range of denunciation, intimidation, etc., against Methodists

and others ... and then for silence to be enjoined on me and those who

agree with me ... does excite, I confess, my anxious concern, as the

object of it in regard to myself and a large portion of the country

cannot be mistaken.

The despatches of Lord Ripon (Nov. 8th, 1832) and Lord Glenelg (Dec.

15th, 1835) recommended a "comprehensive liberality" in every

department, and in all the acts of the Government, they conceded in full

the popular demands on the clergy reserve question, and deprecated the

establishment of any religious corporations until the advice of the

local Legislature had been obtained--these very despatches Sir F. B.

Head promised to carry out.... But has that pledge been redeemed by him?

Has it not been grossly violated?... In his appointments and dismissals

from office, and in the whole tone and spirit of his government, did not

Sir F. B. Head become the head of a party instead of the Governor of the

Province?... The result of his new system of government already is

derangement of the currency--insurrection--bloodshed--loss of

property--demoralization, by calling large bodies of men from rural to

military employments--decrease of population--cessation of

immigration--decrease of credit--decrease of revenue--increase of the

public debt--decrease of the value of property--increase of popular

dissatisfaction--vast military expenditures from the taxes of an

overburthened British population--insecurity of person and property, and

general distrust. Under these "Church and King" counsels, for two years

more, and this province will be a Paradise!... We have laboured hard to

obtain and secure many blessings for our native land, but certainly not

such blessings as these!

In connection with this discussion, a Kingston paper stated that Dr.

Ryerson was moved by ambitious motives. In reply Dr. Ryerson said:--As

to my motives of ambition, etc., my enemies will probably concede to me

two or three things. 1. That long before Sir F. B. Head came to Upper

Canada I had been honoured by as large a share of popular favour in this

province as any individual could reasonably expect or desire.... 2. That

the path to royal favour has been opened as widely to me as it is

possible for it to be opened to any clerical individual who has laid it

down as a rule, and stated it to Ministers of the Crown and Governors,

that he never could knowingly receive a farthing from any quarter, or in

any way, which was not pointed out and authorized by the discipline of

his Church. But as a love of popular favour has not obliterated from my

recollection the rightful prerogatives of the Crown, I cannot see why I

should thereby be disqualified from a disinterested maintenance of

constitutional rights, especially when many more are immediately

concerned in the latter than in the former.

FOOTNOTES:

[90] In his despatch to Lord Glenelg, giving an extract of his speech at

the opening of the ensuing session of the Legislature, Sir George Arthur

puts this idea in an official form. He says:--That such "a tribunal is

free from those local influences and excitement which operate too

powerfully here." In his seventh letter to Hon. W. H. Draper on the

clergy reserve question, dated January, 26th, 1839, Dr. Ryerson argues

the whole question of the re-investment of the reserves at length. He

also shows that so far from the "tribunal" here spoken of by Sir George

Arthur being a desirable one to adjudicate on this question, it would be

the very reverse.

It should be remembered that in more than one despatch the Colonial

Secretary held that the question was one to be settled by the

Provincial, rather than by the Imperial Parliament, and declined to

interfere with the rights of the Canadian Legislature in the matter.

This will be clearly shown in a subsequent chapter. Lord Glenelg's

utterances on this question are very emphatic, especially in his

despatch dated 5th December, 1835.

[91] The paper was signed by Rev. Messrs. Harvard, Case, Stinson, J.

Ryerson, W. Ryerson, E. Ryerson, Green, Evans, Jones, Wilkinson, Beatty,

and Wright. See also _Guardian_ of October 10th, 1838.

[92] In the _Guardian_ of September 12th, 1838, page 180, Dr. Ryerson

makes a fuller reference to this matter. Speaking of the Hume and

Roebuck letters (page 167), he says: I was indeed--what I never thought

of in London--applauded to satiety by the constitutional press of Upper

Canada [for these letters], and by many individuals, several of whom, on

my landing in Canada last year, gave me no small thanks for the results

of the election of 1836. But all that ceased within a week after my

return to Canada.... And why? Because I availed myself of the first

opportunity after my return to submit and press upon Sir Francis and the

Attorney-General and others, the importance and necessity of an early

and equitable settlement of the clergy reserve question, in order to

satisfy the expectations of thousands who had voted for constitutional

candidates.... The very moment it was seen that my views and intentions

on that subject remained unchanged, I saw a change in the expression of

countenances. Sir Francis, indeed, _never_ thanked me, for [the

letters]; he wished me to say nothing about the clergy reserve question;

and within four weeks sent a calumniating letter against me to Lord

Glenelg; and the Attorney-General, so far from remembering the estimate

he professed (on my return from England) to place upon my services to

the Province, sought last winter to get a clause inserted in the Report

of the Select Committee on the Upper Canada Academy, impugning my

motives and exonerating Sir Francis from the allegations contained in my

petition (see page 180), without even investigating its merits, etc.

[93] In a letter to a friend, in January, 1838, Dr. Ryerson relates an

amusing incident which was characteristic of Sir Allan MacNab's love of

a bit of fun. He said:--In conversation one day with Mr. Speaker MacNab,

he gravely proposed to me that I should meet Archdeacon Strachan and a

clergyman of the Church of Scotland; and for him and other members of

the Assembly to hear us put forth our respective claims to the clergy

reserves, and for them to say a word now and then if they liked. After

having heard the parsons argue the point, some member was to bring such

a measure before the Assembly, as we three should propose. This rather

amusing way of settling the question was evidently by way of a joke, so

I made no objection to it. He is to inform me of the time and place for

the argument, after having consulted the other parties concerned; but I

shall hear no more of it!

[94] The cause of this apathy will be apparent from the narrative in

chapter xxxi., and the note on page 225.

[95] In their address they designated themselves as the Bishop,

Archdeacons, and Clergy of the Established Church _of Upper Canada_; but

Sir George Arthur, in his reply, addressed them as the Bishop,

Archdeacons, and Clergy of the established Church _of England_ in Upper

Canada.

CHAPTER XXX.

1838-1839.

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

In dealing with so large and influential a body as the Methodists, made

up, as it was years ago, of two distinct elements, somewhat antagonistic

to each other, it can easily be understood that the more astute among

the high church or "family compact" party clearly saw that their only

hope of success in the clergy reserve controversy was by taking

advantage of the presence of this antagonistic element in the Methodist

body, and to turn it to practical account against Dr. Ryerson, so as to

checkmate him in the contest. Queen Elizabeth's motto: _Divide et

impera_, was therefore adopted. And every effort was made to intensify

the feelings and widen the breach which already existed between the two

sections of the Methodists. This was the more easily done by the appeal

which was made to the national prejudices of Methodists of British

origin, as against the alleged republican tendency of their colonial

brethren.[96] In this effort the ruling party were publicly and

privately aided by members of the Missionary Committee in London. To

discuss this question now would be practically useless. None but actors

in the scenes and conflicts of those times could realize the strong,

even bitter, feelings which existed in the chief towns between the two

parties at the time. Cherished sentiments of loyalty, strong home

feelings, and orthodox Methodist principles, were appealed to, and

alternately asserted their influence on opposite sides in the contest.

Added to the difficulty which Dr. Ryerson experienced in conducting the

clergy reserve controversy was the fact, that many Methodists of British

origin fully sympathized with the claims of the old national and

historical Church of England--they held that it was _ipso facto_ the

"established" church in every British Colony, as often asserted by the

Missionary party.

As the clergy reserve question gradually became the absorbing topic of

discussion in the country (with Dr. Ryerson as one of the chief leaders

in that discussion), it was natural that so important a matter should

receive the attention of Conference. This it did at an early date. In

1837 strong resolutions were passed upon the subject, which excited much

uneasiness among the English Missionary party. The Rev. W. H. Harvard,

President of the Conference, in writing to Dr. Ryerson on the subject

after Conference, said:--

Since I came away from the Conference, I have been greatly

concerned as to the anti-church impression likely to be made on the

mind of our people by our recent resolutions of Conference; and I

would fain engage your interest with Rev. E. Evans, our Editor, to

accompany them with some saving paragraph on the general principle

of an establishment which may keep our people from the danger of

imbibing the principle of dissent, the operation of which will

always foster a religious radicalism in our body, and the influence

of which our fathers at home strongly deprecate. I think with you,

that in the altered circumstances of our Colonial relations, we

have reason to plead for concessions of equality of rights and

privileges which would never be granted in the Mother Country. In

that respect I do not dissent from the spirit of the resolutions.

But I more and more think and feel that there is a middle path of

respectful deference to the principle of an establishment even in

the Colonies, which, so modified, would not be injurious, but

rather helpful, to our good cause,--and which is a vantage ground

on which none of our enemies could touch us. It is true, that from

Wesleyan high quarters you have had encouragement to believe an

independent stand against Church domination would not be

disapproved; yet even there a denial of the principle of an

establishment (or that the Government should profess some one form

of Christianity, with equal privileges to other Christians) would

meet with reprobation; and if not, who does not see, if we take

that anti-Wesleyan ground, it may involve the question of Wesleyan

consistency on our part, while at the same time it would be in

danger of throwing our people into the arms of the

Radical-popish-infidel faction, where they will, bear like, be

hugged till the breath of piety is pressed out of them. Of course,

it would drive away from our congregations many of those pious or

well-disposed Church people who occasionally mingle with and derive

good from us. It was Mr. Wesley's conviction that the Methodists

were in part raised up to spread scriptural holiness in the Church

of England, as well as in the world at large. I must repeat my

wish, that you had yielded to my suggestion to admit into the

resolution the phrases, "that the principle of an establishment

should be so administered in this Province as to secure perfect

equality of rights and privileges among all other communities."

You may have ulterior views which I am too short-sighted to

perceive. But I am fully convinced, that if the _Guardian_ does not

save us from identification with dissent from the Church of England

at this crisis, the real friends of our Zion will bitterly deplore

it another day.[97]

Here was a broad and distinct declaration of principle, as fully in

harmony with the views of the dominant party as they were entirely

opposed to those held by the Canadian Conference party. They were

perfectly sincere, too, and were uttered by one of the most moderate,

and yet most thoroughly representative agents of the British Missionary

party in this Province. It can be easily seen how tempting an

opportunity it was for the ruling party to foster this feeling amongst

the English Missionary section of Methodists, by strong appeals to their

well-known loyalty--their respect and love for the old mother-church,

which John Wesley so venerated. Even condescension and flattery were

employed. _The Church_ and other newspapers made appeals with tact and

ability[98] (see page 236); the Lieutenant Governor himself took the

trouble to address a letter on the subject direct to the Missionary

Committee in London, and Archdeacon Strachan never failed to single out

for respectful mention and commendation the representatives of the

British Missionary party in Canada, as distinguished from the "disloyal

and republican section of the Methodists."[99]

Referring to this period, Rev. John Ryerson, in his Historical

Recollections of Methodism (as annotated by Dr. Ryerson) informs us

that--

After aiding to suppress the rebellion, the _Guardian_ resumed the

discussion of the clergy reserve question, and insisted that it

should be settled. But nothing was farther from the thoughts of Dr.

Strachan and Sir George Arthur. They contended that the mooting of

the question at such a time was evidence of disloyalty on the part

of those who were endeavouring to despoil the Church of its lawful

rights. The Editor of the _Guardian_ (Dr. Ryerson) was threatened

with personal violence, with prosecution, and banishment. Yet the

_Guardian_ kept on the even tenor of its way; and in proportion to

the fury of the monopolists, did the Editor increase his exertions

to wrest from them their unjust gains. Then the oppressors of equal

rights, seeing that nothing else would do, called into requisition

the old craft to divide the Methodists, or, by other influences, to

coercively control them.

Sir George Arthur, the amanuensis of Dr. Strachan in these matters,

wrote to the Missionary Committee in London of the evil and

disturbing doings of the _Guardian_, and called on them for their

interference. This flattering appeal received a very complimentary

reply. The Committee also wrote to their missionary agents in

Canada, directing them to interpose and arrest the unjustifiable

course of the _Guardian_. The objection was that the paper "had

become party-political;" that "its course was disquieting to the

country, and disreputable to Wesleyan Methodism," ... etc. It is

not denied (adds Rev. J. Ryerson), that the _Guardian_ at this time

was very political for a religious journal....

On this Dr. Ryerson remarked--

It is true, as my brother has intimated, that the _Guardian_ was "very

political," because the Editor was intensely in earnest on the great

object for which he had been elected by the Conference.... The times of

his former proposed conciliations and compromises were now past. He felt

the awfulness of the crisis and the responsibility of his position. The

Reform party had been crushed by the rebellion of 1837, and the Reform

press silenced; there was, in fact, no Reform party. The high-church

party thought that their day of absolute power and ecclesiastical

monopoly had dawned. It had been agreed by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and his

fellow rebels ... that Egerton Ryerson [should be their first victim].

He alone stood above successful calumny by the high-church party, and

backed as he was by his Canadian Methodist brethren, he determined to

defend to the last, the citadel of Canadian liberty....

He knew that, as in a final struggle for victory between two armies,

when that victory was trembling in the scales, the wavering of a single

battalion on either side might animate and decide victory in favour of

the enemy; so a compromising sentence or ambiguous word from the Editor

might rouse the high-church party to increased confidence and action,

and proportionally weaken the cause of civil and religious liberty in

Upper Canada. The Editor of the _Guardian_ had no fear, and he evinced

none.... I contended that all the political questions then pending had a

direct or indirect bearing on this great question; ... that I would not

be turned aside from the great object in view until it was obtained;

that the real object of the Government and of the Missionary Committee

was not so much to prevent the introduction of politics into the

_Guardian_, as the discussion of the clergy reserve question itself, and

of the equal religious rights of the people altogether, so that the

high-church party might be left in peaceable possession of their

exclusive privileges, and their unjust and immense monopolies, without

molestation or dispute.

Rev. J. Ryerson adds: Had Dr. Ryerson "yielded to the dictation of Sir

George Arthur's government, and the interference of the London

Missionary Committee, one-seventh of the land of the Province might now

be in the hands of the Church of England. But the course of the

_Guardian_ in this matter, however right, brought upon [the Canadian

Methodist Church] calamities and sufferings of seven years'

continuance."

About a month before the Conference of 1839 met, Sir George Arthur

received a reply, by the hands of Dr. Alder, from the Missionary

Committee in London (signed by Dr. Bunting and the other Secretaries),

which he published in the _Patriot_ newspaper. Dr. Ryerson inserted the

letter in the _Guardian_ of the 22nd May, with these remarks:--

We copy from the _Patriot_ a letter, addressed by the Wesleyan

Missionary Secretaries in London to Sir George Arthur, disclaiming

"all participation in the views expressed in the _Guardian_ on the

ecclesiastical questions of this Province."

He then goes on to show that the views expressed in the _Guardian_ were

identical with those embodied in the proceedings of the Wesleyan

Conference in Upper Canada from the beginning, and that they were

explicitly avowed and understood by both parties at the time of the

union of the Conferences in 1833.

The object of the publication of the letter was evidently twofold: 1st.

To put a weapon into the hands of the friends of a dominant church in

Upper Canada. 2nd. To paralyze the efforts of Dr. Ryerson to secure

equal rights for all religious bodies, and thus to weaken his powerful

influence as a champion of those rights.

It was a noticeable fact that all of the disclaimers from the British

party first appeared in the Church of England organs, and were there

triumphantly appealed to as the unbiassed expression of Methodist

opinion from headquarters in England. In supplementing Rev. John

Ryerson's Historical Narrative of events at this period, Dr. Ryerson

stated, in substance, that:--

It was soon found that Sir George Arthur had thrown himself into

the hands of the oligarchy on the question of the clergy

reserves--he would not consent to have them applied to any other

purpose than the support of the clergy, and was anxious to have

them revested in the Crown. When Sir George's views and plans were

brought before the Legislature, I opposed them. The Missionary

Committee interposed (at Sir George's own request) and supported

him on that question. However, Her Majesty's Government

subsequently set aside the proceedings of Sir George Arthur, upon

the very same grounds on which I had opposed them; but that made no

difference in the feelings towards me of Dr. Alder and his

colleagues.

Early in June, 1839, Dr. Alder addressed a letter to the _Guardian_,

explaining and defending his views on church establishments. On the 12th

of that month, Dr. Ryerson replied to him at length, and, at the close,

put a series of questions to Dr. Alder. From the 2nd and 6th I make the

following extracts:--

2. Are you satisfied that you are providentially called of God to

attempt to make Methodism an agency in promoting a national

establishment of religion in a new country, in the teeth of an

overwhelming majority of the inhabitants?

6. Are you warranted from any writings or authority of Mr. Wesley

to insist that, "under _no_ circumstances," the principle of an

establishment shall be abandoned?... Mr. Wesley and his coadjutors

have left it on record, in the minutes of their Conference, as

their deliberate judgment, that "there is no instance of, or ground

at all for, a national church in the New Testament;" that they

"apprehended it to be a merely political institution." How can any

true Wesleyan convert that into a matter of faith and religious

principle for which Mr. Wesley declared there "was no instance or

ground at all in the New Testament?" ... I know that the local

Executive is most intent to secure the aid of the Missionary

Committee to support the recent re-investment act of spoliation; I

believe that your letter ... emboldened and encouraged them in the

re-investment scheme, and His Excellency stated some months since

that he had written for you to come to this country; they think

that they can bargain with you upon more advantageous terms than

they can with the Methodist Conference in this Province, but I

entreat you to pause before you proceed to insist that that which

Mr. Wesley declares ... to be "a merely political institution,"

forms any part of Wesleyan Methodism.[100]

Dr. Ryerson's account of what transpired at the ensuing Conference is in

substance as follows:--

Dr. Alder attended the Conference at Hamilton, June, 1839, and

introduced resolutions expressive of his views, to which he

insisted upon the concurrence of the Conference. The resolutions

were discussed for three days. On the last day Dr. Ryerson replied,

after which the resolutions were negatived by a vote of 55 to

5.[101]

At the same Conference Dr. Ryerson was appointed secretary, by a vote of

41 to 14. But it was in regard to the election of Editor that the

greatest interest was taken, not so much amongst the Canadian section of

the Methodist people as amongst the members of other religious bodies.

The _Guardian_ stated:--

For the last two months the several provincial journals have

renewed their efforts of vehement vituperation against the Editor;

... they have sought and hoped to create a division in the ranks of

the Methodist family, and, by thus dividing, to conquer; they even

triumphed by anticipation--so much so, that the Editor of _The

Church_ oracularly predicted the speedy release of the Editor of

the _Guardian_ from his editorial duties.

The chagrin which was felt by these parties can be well imagined when

the ballot announced that Dr. Ryerson had been re-elected editor, by a

vote of 60 to 13! Speaking of this memorable triumph, Dr. Ryerson

declared that:--

Never before did I receive, directly or indirectly, so many

unequivocal testimonies of respect and confidence, not merely from

the Methodist Church at large, but also from members of other

churches.

In the meantime (as Dr. Ryerson stated elsewhere) the discussion on the

question of a dominant church monopoly and party ... proscription waxed

hotter and hotter; ... rumours prevailed of a change of Governors in

Upper Canada; the high church party felt that this was their time, and

perhaps their last chance to confirm their absolute power.... Under

these circumstances, I stated to the Conference that the moment that

the clergy reserve and other questions affecting our constitutional and

just rights as British Canadian subjects, and as a religious body, were

adjusted, we ought to abstain entirely from any discussions in reference

to civil affairs. When Dr. Alder's resolutions were rejected by our

Conference, one prepared by myself was agreed to, as follows:--

While this Conference has felt itself bound to express its

sentiments on the question of an ecclesiastical establishment in

this Province, and our constitutional and religious rights and

privileges, and our determination to maintain them, we disclaim any

intention to interfere with the merely secular, party-politics of

the day.

This resolution, as it afterwards appeared, did not go far enough to

meet the wishes and designs of Dr. Alder. He, therefore, brought the

matter before the Book Committee, Toronto, in October, 1839. To that

Committee he stated at length his decided objection to the course

pursued by the _Guardian_ since Conference as "a violation of the known

design of the resolution adopted by it." Dr. Ryerson, while fully

justifying the course which he had pursued, nevertheless tendered to the

Committee his resignation as Editor. The Committee, however, instructed

Rev. William Case to write to him as follows:--

By request of the Book Committee, I beg leave to communicate the

result of their deliberations on the subject of your proffered

resignation of the editorship of the _Guardian_. "_Resolved_, That

the Committee do not feel themselves at liberty to accept of the

resignation of the Editor of the _Guardian_, and that he be

affectionately requested to withdraw it, and to continue his

services in accordance with the deliberately framed regulations of

the Committee until the ensuing Conference, the regulations to

which he objects having been adopted, not for the purpose of

reflecting in any way upon the Editor; and that we assure him that

we have the utmost confidence in his ability, his integrity, and

his anxious desire to promote the best interests of the Connexion."

Dr. Ryerson withdrew his resignation at the time, but resolved to press

it at the next Conference. This he did; and peremptorily declined

re-election at the Conference of 1840--in fact other and more serious

matters were pressed upon him. He thus finally retired from the

editorship of the paper which he had established in 1829, and which he

had made such a power in Upper Canada. He justly felt that, with the

enlarged Methodist constituency which the _Guardian_ at this time

represented, it would be impossible for him, while great questions

remained unsettled, to harmonize the conflicting opinions on

politico-religious matters which were then held by opposite and

influential sections of the Methodist Church. He clearly foresaw further

conflict on these and other inter-connexional subjects, and was,

therefore, the more anxious to free himself from the unwise, official

trammels, which a hostile, anti-Canadian and unpatriotic party sought

to impose upon him--single-handed as he was. He longed for more

congenial work. He also felt that literary freedom was essential to him

in his thorough and practical discussion of the all absorbing questions

of the day.[102] This it was well known he could do, in dealing with

these questions, not only on their own merits, but with the

comprehensive grasp which his enlarged experience, intuitive clearness

of perception, and naturally statesmanlike views on grave public

questions, eminently qualified him for.

As an illustration of the acknowledged ability, fairness, and

conclusiveness of argument with which he dealt with questions which

touched the sensibilities and even prejudices of leading members of the

British Missionary party in Canada, it is a striking fact that when

these gentlemen were not under the direct and potent influence of the

Mission House, they were Dr. Ryerson's personal friends, and gave him an

active support. This was particularly the case with the late Rev. Dr.

Stinson, a man of noble and generous impulses; Rev. W. H. Harvard,

always kind and courteous; Rev. Dr. Richey, a man of much refinement and

culture, and others. In the important crisis of 1838, both Dr. Stinson

and Dr. Richey voted for Dr. Ryerson as Editor. The former wrote a

strong letter urging his appointment as Editor. (Page 201.) The latter,

on his way to Halifax, after the Conference of 1839, wrote from Montreal

to Dr. Ryerson, as follows:--

Sir John Colborne, on whom I called, and by whom I was graciously

received, is delighted with the continuance of the Union. So are

all our Montreal friends, after my explanations. They will

immediately order the _Guardian_. Sir John paid a handsome tribute

to your talents, as who with whom I conversed did not? however they

might happen to view your course. They all say you commenced

admirably,--that the moment the paper passed into your hands, it

manifestly improved; and they all approve of your course for the

last six months, just about as well as you know I do. Adhere most

religiously, my dear brother, to the spirit and letter of the

resolutions, by which the Conference has expressed its will that

you should be guided. Your friend Joseph Howe[103] begins, I

perceive, to mingle with tories, as they are invidiously

designated. I do not wish you to be a tory; and I will not insult

you by expressing a desire that you were a high conservative.

I do not flatter you in saying, that on no man in Upper Canada does

the peace of our Church and of the Province so much depend, as on

yourself. May all your powers be employed for good! Guard against

the fascination of political fame. It will do no more for you on a

dying bed than it did for Cardinal Wolsey. O! that your fine mind

were fully concentrated upon the [Greek: politeuma] of Heaven!

FOOTNOTES:

[96] Dr. Ryerson, in the _Guardian_ of October 31, 1838, says:--Five

columns of _The Church_, of the 20th ult., are occupied with an appeal

to the old country Methodists, to induce them to oppose the Conference

and Connexion in this Province in the clergy reserve question. The

Cobourg _Star_ follows in the wake of _The Church_, in the same pious

crusade. The _Patriot_ of the 26th inst. also copies the schismatic

appeal of _The Church_.

[97] Even Rev. J. Stinson (who heartily sympathized in many things with

the Canadian Methodists), in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, written in

February, 1839, said:--I have read your address to Hon. W. H. Draper, on

the clergy reserve question, with considerable attention; and while

there is much in it which I admire, I must honestly tell you, _en

passant_, that it contains more against the principle of an

establishment in this Colony than I like.

[98] Not satisfied with these strong appeals in the newspapers, resort

was had to personal ones, made to leading members of the missionary

party. In a kind and yet candid letter which Dr. Ryerson received in

November, 1838, Rev. Joseph Stinson says:--I sincerely sympathize with

you in your present perplexing and trying circumstances. I heard to-day

that some of the dominant church champions are appealing to me to array

myself against you. They may save themselves the trouble of making such

appeals. Whenever I have differed in opinion with you, I have told you

so, and shall do so again,--but shall never, unless you become a

revolutionist, either directly or indirectly sanction any factious

opposition to you. I think, as Wesleyan Methodists, we ought, openly and

fearlessly, to advocate the righteous claims of our own Church; but we

ought to do it without detracting from the merits or opposing the

interests of that Church which is so closely connected with our

Government, as is the Church of England. I know that the exclusive

spirit--the arrogant pretentiousness--the priestly insolence--the

anti-Christian spirit of certain members of that Church richly deserves

chastisement.... I know that your public services have been undervalued;

your faults have been shamefully exaggerated; your motives have been

misrepresented; your influence (connected as you are with a large and

influential body of Christians) is feared, and your enemies are as

bitter as Satan can make them; but, if you are conscious that, in the

sight of God, you are aiming at the right object, why not leave your

cause in His hands? why so frequently appeal to the people? You may not

see it; but there is a recklessness in your mode of writing, sometimes,

which is really alarming, and for which many of the members of the

Conference of our Society do not like to be responsible. I know well,

that the acts of the high church party are far more likely to excite

rebellion than your writings. There is a strong, a very strong, feeling

against a dominant Church; but a majority of the Province would rather

have that, and connection with Great Britain, than republicanism.

[99] On the other hand, the Editor of _The Church_ thus sketched Dr.

Ryerson:--As The promoter, if not originator, of prejudices of

indigenous growth, against the Church of England, and as the thoughtless

scatterer of the seeds of political error and of antipathy to the

national church. Notwithstanding these counteracting influences, the

Editor does not despair of seeing the day when Methodists in Canada will

join with Churchmen in vindicating the Church's right to the property of

the reserves, which will enable them to plant the established church in

every corner of these Provinces. And this they will do, not upon the

ground merely of filial partiality, but on the most rational security

for the permanence and purity of our Protestant faith, etc. Under these

circumstances, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I have felt it due to the _Guardian_ connexion to enter my protest

against the claims of the Episcopal Church, and to combat and explain

the opinion of my English brethren as not those prevalent in this

Province.

A lengthened communication, embodying those views, appearing on page 109

of the _Guardian_ of May 16th, 1838.

[100] With a view to increase the clamour against the Editor of the

_Guardian_ on this subject, Mr. Alex. Davidson, writing to Dr. Ryerson

from Niagara, said:--Dr. Alder's letter to you had been printed and

circulated there in the form of a hand-bill. Mr. E. C. Griffin, of

Waterdown, writing from Hamilton on the same subject, said: I have

learned from brother Edward Jackson what are the feelings of the Society

in Hamilton, respecting the letter of Dr. Alder. He says, that if the

leaders' meeting is any index of the views of the entire Society here,

they are a "unit" to a man (except the preacher) in their determination

to support you in your principles and proceedings.

[101] The following incident in connection with this vote is mentioned

by Dr. Ryerson: Dr. Alder (he said) appeared disappointed and depressed;

and, after the close of the Conference I said to him: Dr. Alder, you see

how entirely you have mistaken the state of Canadian society, and the

views and feelings of the Methodist people. Now, I do not wish that you

should return to England a defeated and disgraced man. I purpose to

write a short editorial for the _Guardian_, stating that the differences

and misunderstandings which had arisen, after having been carefully

considered and fully discussed, were adjusted in an amicable spirit, and

the unity of the Church maintained inviolate. Dr. Alder appeared

delighted and thankful beyond expression. I prepared the editorial. Dr.

Alder used and interpreted this editorial on his return to England, to

show that the Canadian Conference and its Editor had acceded to all of

his demands, and that he had been completely successful in his mission

to Canada! The English Committee adopted resolutions complimentary to

Dr. Alder in consequence; but I did not imagine that Dr. Alder's

fictitious representation of the results of his mission would afterwards

be made the ground of charges against myself!

[102] Dr. Ryerson gave full expression to these views in a letter

addressed to the Governor-General in April, 1840. (See chapter xxxiii.,

page 266.)

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

CHAPTER XXXI.

1839.

Strategy in the Clergy Reserve Controversy.

The year 1839 was somewhat noted for the prolonged and animated

discussions which took place in and out of the Legislature on the clergy

reserve question. There were some new features in the discussion of the

preceding year which had their effect on the clergy reserve legislation

of that year. And while they partially ceased to be influential in the

discussions of 1839, yet the legislation of that year was practically

brought to the same issue as that of 1838, only that it was more

decisive. It may be interesting, therefore, to refer to these special

features in the discussion of 1838-9.

The first was the final change of tactics on the part of the leaders of

the Church of England party in the contest. The second was the

persistent and personal efforts which Lieutenant Governor Arthur put

forth in behalf of that party, so as to enable them to accomplish their

object, and, at the same time, to counteract the efforts of those who

were seeking to uphold Canadian and popular rights. The third was (as

shown in the last chapter) the plan adopted to foment discord in the

Methodist body--which was by far the most formidable opponent of the

scheme of monopoly and aggrandisement which the ruling party was seeking

to promote.

At this distance of time it is easy to survey the whole field of

conflict, and to note the plans and strategies of the combatants.

Although efforts had hitherto been made to shift the battle-ground from

Upper Canada to England, yet, as the Colonial Secretary had discouraged

such efforts as unwise, and as an unnecessary interference with the

rights of the Provincial Legislature, the matter was not openly pressed

in 1839. Nor was it pressed at all to a conclusion in 1838. For, by a

singular coincidence, the very day (29th December, 1837) on which Mr.

Cartwright had moved to bring a bill into the House of Assembly to

revest the clergy reserve in Her Majesty, Sir George Grey penned a

despatch to Sir George Arthur, in which he disclaimed, on behalf of the

Imperial Government, any wish or intention to interfere, in the

settlement of the clergy reserve question, with the functions of the

Provincial Legislature, on the ground that--

Such interference would tend to create a not unreasonable suspicion

of the sincerity with which the Legislature have been invited to

the exercise of the power [to vary or repeal] reserved to them on

this subject by the Constitutional Act of 1791.

It is likely that the publication of this despatch prevented the House

of Assembly from proceeding any farther with Mr. Cartwright's bill, than

ordering it to a second reading on the 26th February, 1838. In this

dilemma the ruling party were evidently at a loss how to act. It

required much tact and skill to break the ranks of the chief forces

arrayed against the scheme to revest the reserves in the Crown--a scheme

distasteful to Canadians generally, and subversive of the legislative

independence of Upper Canada. Two methods were therefore adopted: The

first was to divide the Methodists (as shown in the last chapter). The

second and more astute one was to appeal to the professed loyalty of

that class which hitherto had been held up to scorn as disloyal, and

denounced as republican in its tendencies, as well as seditious in their

conduct. The appeal was varied in form, but it was in substance that as

those who made it were not themselves afraid to trust their interests in

the hands of the Sovereign, their opponents should be equally trustful

in the equal and entire justice which would be meted out to all of her

Canadian subjects.[104] This appeal, from its very speciousness, and the

skill with which it was pressed, had its effect in many cases. But, as a

general rule, it failed. The object of the decisive change of tactics

was too transparent to deceive the more sensible and thoughtful men to

whom the appeal was addressed.

The two other methods adopted (already referred to) were only partially

successful; but the three combined, no doubt, strengthened the hands of

the advocates of the scheme for the re-investment of the reserves in the

Crown. They, however, ceased to press the matter upon public attention,

being determined to bide their time, and (as events proved), to carry

their point in another and more skilful way.

In the meantime, and early in 1839, Dr. Ryerson was deputed by several

important circuits to present loyal addresses to Sir George Arthur. This

he did on the 2nd February; and in enclosing them to the Governor's

secretary, used language which sounds strange in these days of religious

equality. He said:--

I feel myself fully authorized, by various communications and my

official position, to assure His Excellency that the members of the

Wesleyan Methodist Church will not be contented with subordinate

civil standing to any other church, any more than the members of

the Church of Scotland. They do not, and never have asked for any

peculiar advantages; but they feel that upon the principles of

justice, by labours, by usefulness, by character, by numbers, and

by the principles laid down in royal despatches, they are entitled,

in the eye of the law, and in the administration of an impartial

government, to equal consideration, and equal advantages with any

other church. I am confident that I but state a simple fact, when I

express our belief that the Methodist Church, in its doctrines,

ministry, and institutions, furnishes as formidable a barrier

against the irreligion and infidelity of the times as any other

section of Protestantism. Nor is it possible for

us--notwithstanding our unfeigned respect for His Excellency--to

feel ourselves under any obligations to tender our support to

another section of the Protestant Church, whose clergy, in this

Province, collectively, officially, and individually (with solitary

exceptions), have resisted the attainment of every civil and

religious privilege we now enjoy--have twice impeached our

character and principles before the Imperial Government--who deny

the legitimacy of our ministry, who, in their doctrines respecting

Church polity, and several points of faith, do not represent the

doctrines of the Church of England, or of the established clergy in

England as a body, but that section only of the established clergy

that have associated with all arbitrary measures of government

against various classes of Protestant non-conformists which have

darkened the page of British history, and also the dark ages,

notions of rites and ceremonies, and the conductor of whose

official organ in this Province has recently represented the

Methodist ministry as the guilty cause of those divine

chastisements under the influence of which our land droops and

mourns. I am sure my brethren, as well as myself, freely forgive

the great wrongs thus perpetrated against us; but we feel ourselves

equally bound in duty to ourselves, to our country, and to our

common Christianity, to employ all lawful means to prevent such

exclusive, repulsive, and proscriptive sentiments from acquiring

anything more than equal protection in the Province.

I might appeal to circumstances within His Excellency's knowledge,

to show that from 1836 to the close of the last session of our

Provincial Parliament, I have spared no pains--without the remotest

view to personal or even Methodistic advantage--to second, to the

utmost of my humble ability, any plan to which the Province might,

under all circumstances, be induced to concur, in order to settle

the protracted controversy on the clergy reserve question; and that

it has not been, until I have had indubitable proofs that there was

no disposition or intention on the side of the Episcopal clergy to

yield a single iota any further than they were compelled. It was

not until all these circumstances had transpired, that we

reluctantly determined to appeal against the exclusive and unjust

pretensions of the Episcopal clergy, to the bar of public

opinion--a power recognized by our free constitution, and which no

party or administration can successfully resist many years.

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

expresses his

Surprise to find that his appeal on a late occasion to the Wesleyan

Methodists, to give the Church of England their most cordial

support, had been misunderstood and construed into an expression of

sectarian preference. By inviting the Methodists to such a course

of conduct, His Excellency thought that he was only appealing to a

feeling of attachment for the Church of England, which he had

always been induced to consider--especially from personal

observation--as a badge of "legitimate Wesleyan Methodists" all

over the world.

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

The questions at issue about the clergy reserves do not involve the

principle of "attachment for the Church of England" from the well

known fact that many respectable members of that Church, in every

district throughout the Province, concur in the views advocated in

the _Guardian_ on that question--therefore an appeal to "attachment

for the Church of England" as the rule of judgment in this

controversy, much less as a "badge of legitimate Wesleyan

Methodists," is the very climax of absurdity.

The discussions on the clergy reserve question up to the time when the

House reassembled (27th February, 1839), must have convinced the

dominant party that it was, and ever would be, hopeless, in the face of

the determined opposition which their schemes encountered, to obtain

that which they wanted from the local legislature. They could not again

openly bring in a bill (as they did last year) to revest the reserves in

the Crown, in the face of the declarations of the Colonial Secretary,

that--

Imperial Parliamentary Legislation on any subject of exclusively

internal concern, in any British colony possessing a representative

assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional. It is a right of

which the exercise is reserved for extreme cases, in which

necessity at once creates and justifies the exception. (Lord

Glenelg to Sir F. B. Head, 5th December, 1835.)

They therefore adopted what events proved to be a ruse, to accomplish

their object. It is true that Sir George Arthur, in his opening speech,

urged that--

The settlement of this vitally important question ought not to be

longer delayed.... I confidently hope, that if the claims of

contending parties be advanced ... in a spirit of moderation and

Christian charity, the adjustment of them by you will not prove

insuperably difficult.

The Governor then adroitly added--

But, should all your efforts for the purpose unhappily fail, it

will then only remain for you to re-invest the reserves in the

hands of the Crown, and to refer the appropriation of them to the

Imperial Parliament, as a tribunal free from those local influences

and excitements which may operate too powerfully here.

Both Houses, in apparent good faith, sought to carry out the wishes of

the Governor as expressed in the first part of his speech. The managers

of the scheme indicated in the latter part of the speech initiated a

totally different bill in each House, apparently liberal and

comprehensive in character, but yet objectionable in detail. Dr. Ryerson

felt this so strongly that he petitioned to be heard at the Bar of the

House of Assembly against the bill which had been introduced into it.

His request was at first granted on the 7th April, by a vote of 24 to

22, but afterwards refused by a vote of 21 to 17. After protracted

debates in the House of Assembly and about forty-four divisions, that

House sent up its bill to the Legislative Council for concurrence. The

Council struck out the whole of the bill after the word "whereas," and

substituted one of its own, and in turn sent it down to the House of

Assembly for concurrence. That House, not to be outdone by the other,

struck out the whole of the Legislative Council bill, and substituted a

bill of its own, totally different from the one first sent up to the

Legislative Council, the last clause of which read as follows:--

The moneys to arise, and to be procured and henceforth received for

any sale or sales [of clergy reserve lands] shall be paid into the

hands of Her Majesty's Receiver-General of this Province, to be

appropriated by the Provincial Legislature for religion and

education.

The bill thus constructed needed but the alteration of the last five

words to adapt it admirably to the object and purpose of the Church

party. The Legislative Council, therefore, changed the concluding words

in the last clause into the words "Imperial Parliament for religious

purposes." In this apparently simple way, but in reality, fundamental

manner--and without any attempt at a conference between the Houses, with

a view to adjust differences--the Legislative Council, taking advantage

of a comparatively thin House of Assembly, made the desired change on

the last day of the session. By adroit manoeuvring the agents of the

Church party carried the bill in the House of Assembly thus altered. In

this way they succeeded in destroying the whole object of the bill, as

passed by the House of Assembly. Sir George Arthur, in his despatch to

the Colonial Secretary, virtually admitted that the passage of the

altered bill was due to the fact that it was carried in the House of

Assembly by a majority of one vote [22 to 21], in a House of 44 members,

and at a late hour on the night preceding the prorogation!

Such were the discreditable circumstances under which the bill

re-investing the clergy reserves in the Crown was passed. It, however,

required the assent of the Queen before it became law. This it was

destined never to receive, owing to a technical objection raised in

England in the following October, that such a delegation to the Imperial

Parliament could not be made by a subordinate authority. This defeat,

however, proved to be a moral victory for the vanquished, as it gave

them time for farther deliberation; it incited them to greater caution

in their mode of warfare, and induced them to adopt tactics of a more

secret and, as it proved, effective character.

FOOTNOTES:

[104] In the _Guardian_ of September 19th, 1838, the question is put in

this form and discussed: "Why do you not appeal to Her Majesty's Privy

Council, or to the High Court of Parliament instead of appealing to the

public here?" The answer was conclusive.

CHAPTER XXXII.

1839.

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

The bill for revesting the clergy reserves in the Crown barely escaped

defeat (as just mentioned) in the House of Assembly, on 11th May, 1839.

On the 14th Sir George Arthur sent the bill to Lord Normanby (successor

to Lord Glenelg) for Her Majesty's assent, with an elaborate despatch.

On the 15th, Dr. Ryerson also addressed to Lord Normanby a long letter

on the same subject. In it he called the attention of the Colonial

Secretary to the following facts, which he discussed at length in his

letter:--

1. That the great majority of the House of Assembly in four successive

parliaments had remonstrated against the exclusive pretensions of the

Church of England in Upper Canada; and that the claims of the Church of

England to be the established Church of the Province had from the

beginning been steadily denied by such representatives, and elsewhere.

2. That the ground of dissatisfaction in the Province was not merely

between the Churches of England and Scotland, but between the

high-church party, and the religious denominations and the inhabitants

of the Province generally.

3. That from the beginning the House of Assembly had protested against

any appropriation of the clergy reserves being made to the Church of

England, not granted equally [for educational purposes] to the other

Christian denominations.

4. That notwithstanding the annual remonstrances of the House of

Assembly, large grants had been paid since 1827, to the Episcopal

Clergy, exclusive of grants by the Imperial Parliament and the

Propagation Society.

5. That under these circumstances it was not surprising that there

should be a widespread and deeply seated dissatisfaction. It is rather

surprising that a vestige of British power exists in the Province.

6. That Sir George Arthur has for the last five months endeavoured--by

official proclamations and other published communications through

public offices, and by military influences in various parts of the

Province--to prevent any expression of opinion on this subject, even by

petition to the Legislature.

7. That the Lieutenant-Governor has been induced to make himself a

partizan with the Episcopal Church in the clergy reserve discussion; the

entire influence of the Executive has been thrown into that scale; the

representation of impartial sovereignty has been made the watchword of

party.

8. That under the pretense of resisting brigand invasion, large militia

forces have been raised; violent penniless partizans have been put on

pay in preference to respectable and loyal men; and these forces have

not been placed on the frontier where invasion might have been expected,

but have been scattered in parties over many parts of the interior, in

order to exterminate discontent by silencing complaint.

These, with a reference to the embarrassed financial condition of the

Province, were the chief points to which Dr. Ryerson called the

attention of the Colonial Secretary in this elaborate letter.

On the 22nd of the same month (May) Dr. Ryerson addressed another

vigorous letter to Lord Normanby, on the clergy reserves and kindred

questions. "That letter," he says, he writes "with feelings which he has

no language to express."

The main points of the letter were as follows:--

1. For thirty years (up to 1820) nothing was heard of an ecclesiastical

establishment in the Province: all classes felt themselves equally free,

and were, therefore, equally contented and happy.

2. From the first open and unequivocal pretensions to a state

establishment being made, the inhabitants of Upper Canada, in every

constitutional way, have resisted and remonstrated against it.

3. Every appropriation and grant to the Episcopal clergy out of the

lands and funds of the Province has been made in the very teeth of the

country's remonstrance.

4. The utter powerlessness of the representative branch of the

Legislature has rendered the officers and dependents and partizans of

the Executive more and more despotic, overbearing, and reckless of the

feelings of the country.

5 This most blighting of all partizanship has been carried into every

department of the Executive Government--the magistracy, militia, and

even into the administration of justice. Its poison is working

throughout the whole body politic; it destroys the peace of the country;

rouses neighbour against neighbour; weakens the best social affections

of the human heart, and awakens its worst passions; and converts a

healthy and fertile province into a pandemonium of strife, discontent,

and civil commotion.

6. While upwards of $220,000 (besides lands) have been given to the

Episcopal clergy since 1827, the grants made by the Imperial Parliament

to the clergy of Upper Canada amount to over $400,000, being over

$620,000 in all.

7. A very large sum has been expended in the erection of Upper Canada

College, on the grounds of King's College, and with an endowment of

$8,000 or $10,000 a year. This institution is wholly under the

management of Episcopal clergymen, while the Upper Canada Academy, which

has been built at Cobourg by the Methodists at a cost of about $40,000,

could not without a severe struggle get even the $16,000 which were

directed to be paid over to it by Lord Glenelg. The matter had to be

contested with Sir F. B. Head on the floor of the House of Assembly

before he could be induced to obey the Royal instructions. (Page 179.)

8. In the recent legislation on the clergy reserve question, the high

church party resisted every measure by which the Methodist Church might

obtain a farthing's aid to the Upper Canada Academy. And, to add insult

to injury, the high church people denounce Methodists as republicans,

rebels, traitors, and use every possible epithet and insinuation of

contumely because they complain, reason, and remonstrate against such

barefaced oppression and injustice--notwithstanding that not a single

member of that church has been convicted of complicity with the late

unhappy troubles in the Province.

9. A perpetuation of the past and present obnoxious and withering

system, will not only continue to drive thousands of industrious farmers

and tradesmen from the country, but will prompt thousands more, before

they will sacrifice their property and expatriate themselves, to

advocate constitutionally, openly, and decidedly, the erection of an

"independent kingdom," as has been suggested by the Attorney-General, as

best both for this province and Great Britain.

10. It rests with Her Majesty's Government to decide whether or not the

inhabitants shall be treated as strangers and helots; whether the

blighted hopes of this province shall wither and die, or revive, and

bloom, and flourish; whether Her Majesty's Canadian subjects shall be

allowed the legitimate constitutional control of their own earnings, or

whether the property sufficient to pay off the large provincial debt

shall be wrested from them; whether honour, loyalty, free and

responsible government are to be established in this province, or

whether our resources are to be absorbed in support of pretensions

which have proved the bane of religion in the country; have fomented

discord; emboldened, if not prompted, rebellion; turned the tide of

capital and emigration to other shores; impaired public credit; arrested

trade and commerce, and caused Upper Canada to stand "like a girdled

tree," its drooping branches mournfully betraying that its natural

nourishment has been deliberately cut off.

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

language:--

The great body of the inhabitants of this province will not likely again

petition on the question of the clergy reserves and a church

establishment in this province. They will express their sentiments at

the hustings with a vengeance, to the confusion of the men who have

deceived, and misrepresented, and wronged them; ... A petition would

acknowledge the right of the Imperial Parliament to interfere--which

ought not to be admitted. If past expressions of public sentiment will

not satisfy Her Majesty's Government, none other can do it; and more

efficient means (such as the coming elections), must and ought to be

adopted, instead of the fruitless method of asking by petition for what

has been guaranteed to the constituencies of the country as a right.

The validity of the recent Act of the Legislature, revesting the

reserves in the Crown, never will be acknowledged, or recognized by the

electors of this province. Any Ministers of the Crown in England would

more than lose their places, who should press through the House of

Commons, on the last night of the session, in a thin house, a great

public measure which had not only been repealed by four successive

parliaments, but had been negatived from six to twelve times during the

same session of the existing parliament. Nor would the British nation

ever submit to any public measure (much less to loss of the control of

one-seventh of their lands, and the infliction upon them of an

uncongenial ecclesiastical system) which had been forced upon them.

The declarations of the Representative of Royalty have heretofore been

regarded in this province as sacred and inviolable; but the reliance of

the Canadian electors upon those declarations from the lips of Sir

Francis Head has cost them bloodshed, bankruptcy, and misery.... The

electors will employ the elective franchise to redress their accumulated

wrongs to the last farthing.

It is, of course, my good or bad fortune to be assailed from week to

week, whether I write or not.... I am no theorist. I advocate no change

in the Constitution of the Province. I have never written a paragraph

the principles of which could not be carried out in accordance with the

letter and spirit of the established Constitution. I desire nothing

more than the free and impartial administration of that Constitution for

the benefit of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I only oppose or

support men, or measures, for the attainment of that object.

Entertaining such strong feelings in regard to the personal conduct of

Sir George Arthur in respect to the passage of the clergy reserve bill,

Dr. Ryerson felt that he could not accept any social courtesy at his

hands. In reply, therefore, to an invitation from Sir George, for Her

Majesty's birthday, he felt constrained to decline it. In his letter to

the A.D.C., he said:--

After the most mature deliberation up to the last moment in which

it is proper to reply, I feel it my duty respectfully to decline

the honour of His Excellency's invitation. I most firmly believe

that the office of impartial sovereignty has been employed by His

Excellency for partial purposes; that an undue and an

unconstitutional exercise of the office of royalty has been

employed by His Excellency to influence the public mind, and the

decisions of our constitutional tribunals on pending and debatable

questions between equally loyal and deserving classes of Her

Majesty's subjects in this Province; that His Excellency has also

employed the influence of the high office of the Queen's

representative to procure and afterwards express his cordial

satisfaction at the passing of a Bill, in a thin House, on the very

last night of the session, the provisions of which had been

repeatedly negatived by a considerable majority of the people's

representatives, and which deprive the faithful but embarrassed

inhabitants of this Province of the control of a revenue and lands

sufficient in value to pay off the whole public debt--a proceeding

at complete variance with the fair and constitutional

administration of a free monarchical government, and the imperial

usages since the accession of the present Royal Family to the

throne of Great Britain; and, finally, that His Excellency has

employed the influence of his high office to the disparagement of

the large section of the religious community whose views, rights,

and interests, I have been elected to my present offices to

advocate and promote.

I beg that my declining the honour proposed by His Excellency may

not be construed into any disrespect to His Excellency personally,

or to the high office His Excellency holds--for the inviolableness

and dignity of which I feel the jealous veneration of a loyal

subject--but I beg that it may be attributed solely to a fixed

determination not to do anything that may in the slightest degree

tend to weaken, but on the contrary, to use every lawful means, on

all occasions, to advance those civil and religious interests which

I am most fully convinced are essential to the happy preservation

of a prosperous British Government in this country, and to the

happiness and welfare of the great body of Her Majesty's Canadian

subjects.

In order to insure the assent of Her Majesty to the Bill which had been

sent to the Colonial Secretary by Sir George Arthur, the authorities of

the Church of England in the Province circulated a petition for

presentation to the Queen and the British Parliament[105] containing the

following statement and request:--

"Your petitioners, consisting of the United Empire Loyalists and

their children, took refuge in this Province after the American

Revolution, under the impression that they possessed the same

constitution as that of the Mother Country, which includes a

decent provision for the administration of the Word and Sacraments

according to the forms of the Church of England."