That the proceeds of the clergy reserve lands be applied to the
maintenance of such clergy, and of a bishop to superintend the
same, so that the ministrations of our Holy Religion may be
afforded without charge[106] to the inhabitants of every township
in the Province.
Dr. Ryerson, having with difficulty procured a copy of this petition,
pointed out in the _Guardian_ of July 3rd, 1839: 1st. Its historical
misstatements, and denounced the selfish and exclusive character of its
demands. He showed in effect that the Province was settled in 1783,
whereas the constitutional Act (which was invoked as though it had
existed long before that date), was not passed until 1791--eight years
after "the United Empire Loyalists and their children took refuge in
Upper Canada." 2nd. That for forty years and more, nine-tenths of the
United Empire Loyalists and their descendants, with all their
"impressions," might have perished in heathen ignorance had not some
other than the Episcopal clergy cared for their spiritual interests; and
that after these forty years of slumbering and neglect, and after the
incorporation of the great body of the old Loyalists and their
descendants into other churches, the Episcopal clergy came in, and now
seek, on the strength of these apocryphal "impressions" (which never
could have existed), to claim one-seventh of the lands of the Province
as their heritage.[107] In proof of these facts Dr. Ryerson referred to
the testimony of fifty-two witnesses, given before a select Committee of
the House of Assembly in 1828, and published in full at that time.
I have purposely abstained from making any special reference to
discussions in the clergy reserve question with which Dr. Ryerson had no
connection. An important one, however, took place between Hon. Wm.
Morris and Archdeacon Strachan in 1838-39, chiefly in regard to the
claims of the Church of Scotland. Mr. Morris, however, did good service
in the general discussion.
* * * * *
In November, 1838, Dr. Ryerson received a letter from Thomas Farmer,
Esq., of London, England, in regard to the Centenary Celebration, to
which he replied as follows:--
Our prospects as a country are rather gloomy. We have lately had
the excitement and loss produced by Lord Durham's departure, and
the second rebellion in Lower Canada, followed in a few days by a
brigand invasion of this province to distract and destroy us. You
refer to a Centenary Offering. I cannot say what we shall be able
to do. We have not the slightest provision yet for the education of
preacher's children; nor a contingent fund to aid poor circuits, or
to relieve the distressed preachers' families; and an unpaid for
Book Room, and not an entirely paid for Academy;--all of which
subjects have engaged our most anxious consideration;--but in the
present entirely unsettled state of our public affairs, we scarcely
know what to do in respect to the future. We cannot, therefore, as
yet fix upon the objects of our Centenary Offering.
The Methodist Centenary Year occurred in 1839. The Conference set apart
the 25th October for its celebration,
By holding religious "services in all of our chapels and
congregations, for the purpose of calling to mind the great things
which the Lord has done for us as a people; of solemnly recognizing
our obligations and responsibilities to our Heavenly Father; and of
imploring, on behalf of ourselves and the whole Wesleyan Methodist
family throughout the world, a continuance and increase of
religious happiness, unity and prosperity."
Meetings were held all over the Province during the months of August,
September and October, for the collection of a centenary offering, to be
applied to the Superannuation Fund, Book Room, Parsonages, Missionary,
and other objects. Dr. Ryerson, as one of a deputation, attended a large
number of meetings. Writing from Brockville, he mentions the fact that
he
Stopped at a graveyard, a few miles west of Prescott, to survey the
graves of some of the honoured dead. The remains of Mrs. Heck, the
devoted matron who urged Philip Embury (the first Methodist
preacher in America) to lift up his voice in the city of New York,
in 1766, are deposited here.
FOOTNOTES:
[105] See note on page 224.
[106] This selfish demand--"that the ministrations of our Holy Religion
be afforded without charge to the inhabitants of every township" (in
which members of the Church of England were persistently educated in
those days)--was most unfortunate in its influence on the Church, and
has borne bitter fruit in these later times. Its legitimate effect has
been to dry up the sources of Christian benevolence, paralyze the arm of
Christian effort, and secularize, if not render impossible, any
successful plan of Church extension and missionary work. Witness the
almost complete failure (as compared with other Christian bodies) to
raise sufficient funds to support even the limited number of Home
missions in most of the dioceses, and the nearly hopeless task of
infusing a genuine missionary zeal in behalf of the "regions beyond."
[107] It should be noted, in connection with this petition, that one
most important part of its prayer was granted in that year--viz., the
appointment of the Archdeacon (who went to England to present the
petitions and to receive the appointment) as first Bishop of Toronto.
His patent bears date, 27th July, 1839. The other part of the prayer was
also granted, but not until 1840, when Lord John Russell, then Colonial
Secretary, by an unprecedented and unlooked for stretch of official
authority, but no doubt with the assent of his colleagues, introduced a
bill into the House of Commons to do what even he and other Colonial
Secretaries had deprecated doing--viz., the re-investing of the reserves
in the Crown. Dr. Ryerson, then in England, strongly protested against
this act of provincial spoliation and legislative invasion, but the bill
became law. (See next chapter.)
CHAPTER XXXIII.
1838-1840.
The New Era--Lord Durham and Lord Sydenham.
In the midst of the gloom which overspread the Province, in consequence
of the long continued exercise of irresponsible and arbitrary power on
the part of the local executive, Dr. Ryerson, like many other
loyal-hearted Canadians, rejoiced at the advent of Lord Durham,--a man
possessed of plenary powers to inquire into and report on the grievances
existing in Canada. Those who wished to perpetuate the reign of the
ruling party, strongly deprecated Dr. Ryerson's advocacy of Lord
Durham's schemes of reform. One of the most respectable organs[108] of
that party (Neilson's Quebec _Gazette_) in a complimentary editorial on
Dr. Ryerson (in May, 1839), expressed regret that a man "of his
undoubted talents and great industry" should have endorsed Lord Durham's
system of Responsible Government. In the _Guardian_ of the 5th June, Dr.
Ryerson replied, pointing out the fair and equitable system of
Responsible Government advocated by Lord Durham, as compared with the
crude one put forth by Messrs. W. L. Mackenzie and L. J. Papineau. He
then illustrates the necessity for the reform proposed by Lord Durham,
by referring to the arbitrary and irresponsible acts of Sir Francis
Head. He said:--
The published word of the Representative of Royalty had [until Sir F. B.
Head's time] been sacred and inviolable in Upper Canada; the majority of
the people believed him. In 1836 they elected a House of Assembly in
accordance with his wishes. He fulfilled his pledges by dismissing many
of the magistrates and militia officers, because they voted against his
candidates at the elections, and finished his career by plunging the
country into misery, and thereby insuring its ruin.
Now, where (he asked) was the "responsibility" under which ... such a
Governor acts? He abuses the confidence reposed in him,--where is his
censure? He disobeys the orders given him from England,--where is his
punishment? He ruins men [Bidwell, etc.] whom he was ordered to
appoint,--where is their redress, and his accountability? They are
exiles, and he is made a Baronet! He disgraces and degrades numbers of
persons without colour of reason, or justice, or law--yet they are
without redress, and he is even without reproof. He tramples upon the
orders from Her Majesty's Government, and attacks her ministers in their
places--then returns to England, and boasts of his disobedience.... And
there are those who tell us of the responsibility of our Governors to
the Queen and Parliament!... The history of Sir F. B. Head's
administration is enough to make the veriest bigot a convert to
"Responsible Government."
For these and other important reasons it can be seen how the great
question of the day (in 1839) was that of responsible government for
these provinces. Dr. Ryerson and others had written freely on the
subject, claiming that the government of the country should be
administered, as it was then expressed--"according to the well
understood wishes of the people." This could only be done by men
representing their wishes, and responsible to the legislature for their
exercise of power and for every official act of the Governor.
In October, Dr. Ryerson received a letter on this subject from a
well-known advocate of the principle of responsible government in Nova
Scotia--Hon. Joseph Howe. He said:--
May I beg your acceptance of a little work on responsible
government, the object of which is to advance the good cause in
which you have so heartily and with so much ability embarked. It is
a great satisfaction to the friends of responsible government here,
that the cause has been taken up in Canada by men about whose
intentions and loyalty there can be no mistake. So long as we
deprive the family compact of their only defence, which the folly
of rebels and sympathizers raised for them, and act together
without just cause for suspicion that we are anything but what we
say, there can be little doubt of ultimate success. Should your
electors return a majority favourable to responsibility at the next
election, and all the colonies unite in one demand, it will be
yielded. Our legislature, and any that can be chosen here, will
uphold the principle. So will the majorities in Newfoundland, and
Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick. I cannot speak with
certainty, but hope they will soon understand the question
thoroughly in that province. It may be necessary for all the
provinces to send delegates at the same time to England, to claim
to be heard on the subject at the Bar of the Commons and Lords, and
to diffuse, through every fair channel, correct views of the
question. Think of this, and drop me a line at your leisure.
This Dr. Ryerson did in due time.
The coming of Lord Durham was the first harbinger of better days for
Canada. His mission was one of enquiry, and for the suggestion of
remedial measures. The mission of Mr. Poulett Thompson (who followed
Lord Durham as Governor-General) was hailed with delight by the people
generally. He came to give practical effect to pressing measures of
reform--to unite the provinces, and to introduce a new element of
strength into the administrative system of the country.
* * * * *
The year 1839 was noted for the enthusiasm with which "Durham Meetings"
were held throughout Upper Canada. These meetings were for the purpose
of endorsing the famous report of Lord Durham, and for approving of the
many valuable reforms which that report suggested. Much opposition and
even violence characterized these meetings; but they revived and again
inaugurated the right of free speech on public questions. The only
record which Dr. Ryerson has left of this period of his history is as
follows:--
In 1838 I yielded to persuasion and remonstrances, and was again
re-elected Editor, and continued as such until June, 1840, when I
relinquished finally all connection with the Editorship of the
_Christian Guardian_.
It was during this period, from 1833 to 1840, that the most important
events transpired in Upper Canada; the controversy respecting the clergy
reserves, and a church establishment, was steadily and earnestly
maintained.
The constitution of Lower Canada was suspended for two years, and an
Executive Council Government was established in its place. The dominant
party in Upper Canada by liberal professions succeeded in the elections,
in 1836; but, instead of adopting a just and liberal policy, they sought
to exclude all Reformers from a share in the Government as virtual
rebels, and set themselves to promote a high-church establishment
policy, to the exclusion of the Methodists and members of other
religious denominations.
This unwise, unjust, and inverted-pyramid policy laid the foundation for
a new agitation. The Methodists were the only party capable of coping
with the revived high-church policy to crush out the rights of other
denominations and the liberties of the country, and to paralyze their
influence. The Presbyterians being divided, the Canadian Conference was
not to be deterred, or moved from its principles, avowed and maintained
for more than ten years; the result was a contest between the English
and Canadian Conferences, which culminated in 1840 in a separation of
the two bodies, and a conflict of seven years--wholly political--for
London Wesleyan, English superiority, and tory ascendancy on the one
side, and Canadian Methodist and Canadian liberty on the other side.
* * * * *
It is not my purpose to enter into detail, except in so far as Dr.
Ryerson became an actor in the new scenes and events which followed the
appointment of Mr. Charles Poulett Thompson as Governor-General.
Mr. Poulett Thompson arrived in Quebec on the 19th October, 1839, and in
Toronto on the 21st November. As Governor-General, he superseded both
Sir John Colborne at Quebec and Sir George Arthur at Toronto.
On the 3rd December, the Governor-General opened the Upper Canada
Legislature; and on that very day Dr. Ryerson addressed to him an
elaborate letter on the chief object of his mission. In referring to the
clergy reserve question, he said:--
For sixteen years this question has been a topic of ceaseless
discussion; and one on which the sentiments and feelings of a very large
majority of the inhabitants have been without variation expressed;
notwithstanding that Governor has succeeded Governor, and party has
succeeded party.... From the time when, at the elections of 1824, the
sentiments of the country were first called forth to the present moment,
its collective voice has demanded, what your Excellency has avowed on
another subject, "equal justice to all of Her Majesty's subjects." This
question is the parent of social discord in Upper Canada; all the other
party questions have originated in this. The elevation of one class
above all others in a community where there is little diversity of rank
or intelligence, begets a necessity for special means to support that
elevation. Hence partizan appointments to office; hence partizan
administration of offices; hence party animosities, embittered by the
jealousies of conscious weakness on one side, and a deep sense of
unmerited exclusion and provocation on the other.... Hence on the one
side a selfish, insolent, baseless ecclesiastical and political
oligarchy, and, on the other side, an abused, an injured, and
dissatisfied country.
* * * * *
The bill providing for the vesting of the proceeds of the reserves in
the Imperial Parliament, to which I have referred in the preceeding
chapter, was not sanctioned by Her Majesty. This was "a sore blow and a
heavy discouragement" to those who had laboured so assiduously to carry
such a bill through the local Legislature. The objection raised to it by
Lord John Russell was twofold. The chief reason, however, was thus
expressed:--
It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that strong objections
existed to this delegation to Parliament by a subordinate authority
of the power of legislation. The proceeding should have been by
address to the three estates of the Realm, asking them to undertake
the decision of the question.
Thus by a stroke of Lord John Russell's pen, the whole of the pet scheme
of the ruling party, devised after three months' anxious local
legislation, was irrecoverably lost. And yet it was not lost, for by the
after careful manipulation of Lord John and his colleagues by Bishop
Strachan, Lord Seaton (Sir John Colborne) and Sir George Arthur, that
bill afterwards proved to be, for ten years, the basis of a far more
sweeping and unjust measure than even the most reckless and partizan
member of the Legislature in Upper Canada would have ventured to
propose.
When it was known that Her Majesty had declined to sanction Sir George
Arthur's bill, steps were taken by the Governor-General to devise such a
measure as would meet with the approval of the great mass of the people
in Upper Canada. To aid him in accomplishing this desirable end, Mr.
Poulett Thompson privately sought the aid of leading public men in the
Province. Having obtained their assistance, he, with the advice of his
Council, prepared a compromise measure which was designed to be just and
equitable to all parties concerned.
On the 6th January, 1840, the Governor-General sent a message to the
House of Assembly, in which he thus outlines the measure which, with his
sanction, Hon. Solicitor-General Draper submitted to the House:--
The Governor-General proposes that the remainder of the land should
be sold, and the annual proceeds of the whole fund, when realized,
be distributed [one half to the Episcopal and Presbyterian
Churches, and the other half among other religious bodies desiring
to share in it] for the support of religious instruction within the
Province, and for the promotion there, of the great and sacred
objects for which these different bodies are established or
associated.
On this bill, Dr. Ryerson remarked:--
From this message, the hopelessness of success in any further
attempts to get the annual proceeds of the reserves appropriated to
exclusively secular objects, is apparent.... Up to the present time
I have employed my best efforts, by every kind of argument,
persuasion and entreaty, to get the proceeds applied simply and
solely to educational purposes.... This is unattainable, and is
rendered so by an original provision of our Constitution (of 1791),
as stated by the Governor-General.
The bill was fiercely attacked by the then newly-appointed Bishop of
Toronto. He denounced it as--
Depriving the National Church of nearly three-fourths of her
acknowledged property, and then, in mockery and derision, offering
her back a portion of her own, so trifling as to be totally
insufficient to maintain her present Establishment; it tramples on
the faith of the British Government by destroying the birthright of
all the members of the Established Church who are now in the
province, or who may hereafter come into it; it promotes error,
schism and dissent, and seeks to degrade the clergy of the Church
of England to an equality with unauthorized teachers, etc.
The Bishop then uttered, that which events proved to be a memorable and
true prophecy, that the Church--
Need be under no great apprehension in regard to any measure likely
to pass the Provincial Legislature on the subject of the
reserves:--reckless injustice in their disposition will not be
permitted; although the Church may appear friendless and in peril,
from the defection and treachery of some professing members.... If
any of her children incline to despondency, let them turn their
eyes to England, where we have protectors both numerous and
powerful, watching our struggles, and holding out the hand of
fellowship and assistance. [See next page.]
Dr. Ryerson at once joined issue with the Bishop, and--
Confuted the pretensions of "John Toronto" by the doctrines and
statements of "John Strachan," who, when in England in 1827,
published a pamphlet in which he stated that "the provincial
legislatures have nothing to do, either directly or indirectly,
with the Romish Church; but the same legislatures may vary, repeal,
or modify the 31st Geo. III., cap. 31, as far as it respects the
Church of England."
Dr. Ryerson pertinently asked the Bishop--
How could a "birthright" be "varied, repealed, or modified," as he
had admitted that the constitutional act could do, "as far as it
respects the Church of England?" Can (he asks) the Legislature
"vary or repeal" the deeds by which individuals hold their
lands?--Which of the "dissenting" denominations recognized by law
is not as orthodox in doctrine as the Church of England, and far
more orthodox than those who endorse the Oxford "Tracts for the
Times?"
The bill was finally passed in the House of Assembly, by a vote of 31 to
7, and in the Legislative Council, by a vote of 13 to 4, notwithstanding
a remarkably outspoken and defiant speech from the Bishop. In it he used
the following language:
Feeling that the bill provides for the encouragement and
propagation of error; inflicts the grossest injustice by robbing
and plundering the National Church; that it attempts to destroy all
distinction between truth and falsehood; that its anti-Christian
tendencies lead directly to infidelity, and will reflect disgrace
on the Legislature, I give it my unqualified opposition.
The Bishop again utters his prediction, and stated that what he wanted
would be secured in England. He said--
At the same time I have no fear of its ever becoming law. But it
may be useful, for its monstrous and unprincipled provisions will
teach the Imperial Government the folly of permitting a Colonial
Legislature to tamper with those great and holy principles of the
Constitution, on the preservation of which the prosperity and
happiness of the British Empire must ever depend.
Although it was almost impossible to reason with any one who would
deliberately use such extravagant language, yet Dr. Ryerson replied to
the Bishop's statements _seriatim_. With a touch of irony, he said:--
After penning such an effusion, the Bishop might well betake
himself to the Litany of his Church, and pray the good Lord to
deliver him--from all blindness of heart; from pride, vain glory
and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred and malice, and all
uncharitableness.
The fate of the bill is thus described in a statement on the subject,
prepared by Dr. Ryerson. What he details clearly reveals the powerful
and sympathetic influences which the Bishop of Toronto was able
successfully to bring to bear upon "Henry of Exeter"--the then leader of
the Bench of Bishops,--and, through him, upon the other Bishops in the
House of Lords. Besides, Sir John Colborne (now Lord Seaton) took strong
ground in the House of Lords in favour of the views of his old friend,
Bishop Strachan, and aided the English Bishops in giving them practical
effect. Thus the reiterated prophecy of the Bishop of Toronto was not
uttered without abundant foreknowledge. It proved too true. Knowing
this, he no doubt felt free to deal in strong language, both against the
Legislature of Upper Canada, and the members of the Church of England in
both Houses, who were too patriotic, just and reasonable, as well as
far-seeing, to second his efforts to aggrandize the Church at the
expense, and against the strongly-expressed and oft-repeated wishes, of
the majority of the people, of Upper Canada. He said:
On the bill being sent to England (accompanied by a most energetic
despatch from the Governor-General, imploring Her Majesty's
Government not to disallow, but to sanction it), the Bishop of
Exeter moved in the House of Lords, that the question of the right
to the clergy reserve property in Canada should be referred to the
twelve Judges of England; but the decision of the Judges having
proved adverse to the exclusive pretensions of the Bishop of Exeter
and his party in England and Canada, the English Bishops then
conferred with Lord John Russell, in order to set aside Lord
Sydenham's Canadian bill, and introduce one into the Imperial
Parliament which would accomplish as far as possible the objects
aimed at by referring the question to the Judges. Lord John Russell
became a consenting party and agent in this unconstitutional act of
injustice and spoliation against the rights and feelings of a large
majority of the people of Upper Canada. It was against this act
that Messrs. W. and E. Ryerson (then in England), on behalf of the
Wesleyan Church in Canada, remonstrated in an elaborate and
strongly-worded letter to Lord John Russell--the only communication
of the kind made by any religious body in Canada against the bill
while it was before the British Parliament, or for several years
afterwards.
Knowing the strong influences which had been brought to bear upon Mr.
Poulett Thompson against Dr. Ryerson, by Sir George Arthur (page 193),
and against the Methodist body generally by interested parties in this
discussion, Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to the Governor-General on
the 25th March, 1840, in which he reviewed the course of the _Guardian_
and his own attitude on public questions during the preceding ten years.
The letter was evidently written with deep feeling, and under a keen
sense of the injustice done to the Methodist people by means of the
prolonged and persistent misrepresentation of these years. He said:--
I address your Excellency with feelings of the highest respect and
strong affection. You are the first Governor of Canada who has
exerted his personal influence and the authority of his station,
to accomplish that in Upper Canada which has been avowed and
promised by every Colonial-Secretary during the last ten
years--framing enactments and administering the Government for the
equal protection and benefit of all classes of Her Majesty's
Canadian subjects.... In doing so, your Excellency has been told
that you have patronized "republicans and rebels." ... The
_Guardian_, which you have been pleased to honour with an
expression of your approbation, has been charged with opposite
crimes from different quarters.... You have been told that the
ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church--whose rights you have
justly and kindly consulted--have formerly come from the United
States; and that the _Guardian_, during the first years of its
existence, was nothing but a vehicle of radicalism, disaffection,
and sedition.... As to the former, I may say that the Methodist
ministers have not come from ... the United States during the last
twenty years.... As to the latter, I furnish three columns of
extracts from the _Guardian_, ... from which the following may be
adduced:--
1. That in 1830 I entertained less friendship towards our American
neighbours than I do in 1840.
2. That in 1830 I advocated the very principles in the
administration of the Provincial Government that your Excellency
has declared to be the basis of your administration in 1840.
3. That in 1830 I was as strongly opposed to an exclusive, or
sectarian, spirit as I am in 1840.
4. That the very advice which I gave to the electors in 1830, as to
their rights and interests, I could now repeat with a view to
support your Excellency's administration.
5. That the very principles upon which your Excellency has
commenced your administration, ... were actually promised and
assured to the people of Upper Canada by a Tory Government in 1830.
In 1830 the Colonial-Secretary and Sir John Colborne proclaimed the
"good laws and free institutions," and the non-preference system
amongst religious denominations, which your Excellency is
determined to carry into practice.... When the hopes created by
these avowals have not only been deferred for these years, but
those who have indulged these hopes have been maligned and
proscribed for constitutionally seeking a realization of them, you
cannot be surprised if many of their hearts have been made sick,
and that confidence and hope has yielded to distrust and despair.
The Governor-General, through his private secretary, often requested Dr.
Ryerson, while Editor of the _Guardian_, to correct misstatements which
were made in regard to His Excellency's proceedings.[109]
After an interview with His Excellency, at his request, Dr. Ryerson, in
a letter dated 4th April, 1840, made a practical suggestion as to the
desirability of establishing the _Monthly Review_, as a means of
disseminating the liberal views which he entertained in regard to the
future government of this country, and also as an organ of public
opinion in harmony with these views. It was at first proposed that Dr.
Ryerson should edit the _Review_, but after fuller consideration of the
matter he declined, and the editing and management of it was, at his
suggestion, placed in the hands of John Waudby, Esq., Editor of the
Kingston _Herald_. It was issued in Toronto early in 1841, but ceased on
the death of Lord Sydenham, in September of that year. In Dr. Ryerson's
letter to the Governor he said:--
About a fortnight after your Excellency left Toronto, I happened in
the course of conversation with Hon. R. B. Sullivan to mention the
subject of establishing a monthly periodical, such as I had
mentioned to you. Mr. Sullivan was anxious that something of the
kind should be undertaken; I stated to him that I understood that
your Excellency would highly approve of such a publication, if it
could be successfully established. Mr. Sullivan pressed me to
prepare a prospectus and submit it for your Excellency's
consideration. I drew up a prospectus, and got an estimate of the
cost, covering all expenses. Mr. Sullivan fully concurred in the
prospectus, except the first paragraph. He was afraid it might be
construed into an expression of opinion in favour of "responsible
Government," and proposed another paragraph in place of it. The one
was as acceptable to me as the other. A feeling of apprehension and
embarrassment at the responsibilities of such an undertaking, and
the course of exertion which a successful accomplishment of it
would require, has deterred me from forwarding, until now, the
accompanying prospectus for your Excellency's perusal and
signification of your pleasure thereon.[110]
I cannot but see that the public mind in this country is in a
chaotic state, without any controlling current of feeling, or fixed
principle of action, in civil affairs; but susceptible, by proper
management and instruction, of being cast into any mould of
rational opinion and feeling; yet liable, without judicious
direction, to fall into a state of "confusion worse confounded." I
know that now is the time--perhaps the only time--to establish our
institutions and relations upon the cheapest, the surest, and the
only permanent foundation of any system, or form of Government--the
sentiments and feelings of the population. But I alone have not the
means or the power of contributing to the accomplishment of these
objects. To the utmost of my humble abilities and acquirements, I
am willing to exert myself; and that without a shillings'
remuneration--although my present salary is less than £200 per
annum. I believe the government about to be established in these
provinces may be made the most enduring and loftiest memorial of
your Excellency's fame, and the greatest earthly blessing to its
inhabitants; and it will be to me a source of satisfaction to
contribute towards the formation and cementing of materials for the
erection of a monument at once so honourable to its founder, and so
beneficial to Her Majesty's Canadian subjects.
The personal influence of your Excellency in Lower Canada will be
required to induce two or three of the cleverest men in Lower
Canada to contribute to the columns of the _Review_; especially on
questions and subjects which grow out of the state and structure of
society in that province. Mr. Sullivan thinks he will be able to
contribute one, if not two, articles for each number. I am
acquainted with several other gentlemen who are competent to
contribute very ably on some subjects. I know from experience that
furnishing matter for any periodical, as well as giving it
character, must chiefly devolve upon the conductor of it. He must
give it soul, if it have any; he must combine, concentrate, and
direct its power. And such a publication, got up under so high and
favourable auspices, and properly conducted, and embodying the
productions of the leading minds of both provinces, cannot fail to
prove an engine of immense and even irresistible moral power in the
country; and must materially contribute to its intellectual as well
as political elevation.
As to my own views and feelings, I would greatly prefer retiring
altogether from any connection with the press in all discussions of
civil affairs in every shape and form, and I can consistently and
honourably do so in June. But if this course be not justifiable in
the present circumstances of the province; if it be deemed
expedient for me still to take a part in public matters, I am
sensible I ought to do more than I do now, or can do through the
organ of a religious body. The relation, character and objects of
the publication I now conduct, impose a restriction upon the topics
and illustrations which are requisite to an effective discussion of
political questions. Under such circumstances I can neither do
justice to myself, nor to the subjects on which I occasionally
remark, or might discuss.
I have felt the more disposed to make this communication, because
your Excellency's avowed system and policy of Government is but
carrying out and reducing to practice those views of civil polity
in Canada which have guided my public life, as your Excellency will
have observed from the articles and references which have appeared
in the _Guardian_. I have been defeated and disappointed
heretofore, because the local executive itself has been for the
most part rather the head of a party, than the Government of the
country, and the opposition, or "Reform" party, has often gone to
equal extremes of selfishness and extravagance; so that I have
occupied the unenviable and uncomfortable position of a sort of
break-water--resisting and checking the conflicting waves of mutual
party violence, convinced that the exclusive and absolute
ascendancy of either party would be destructive of the ends of just
Government, and public happiness; a position which, previously to
your Excellency's arrival in Canada, I had determined to abandon,
as I found myself possessed of no adequate means of accomplishing
any permanent good by occupying it.
I think the appearance in this province of Lord John Russell's
despatch on "Responsible Government" is timely. The "Reformers" are
too fully committed to Government to fly off; and a large portion
of the old "Conservative" party are glad of an excuse to change
their position. Neither party can triumph, as _both_ must concede
something. This mutual concession will prepare the way for mutual
forbearance, and ultimately for co-operation and union. Having
perceived that the Editor of the _Examiner_ was seeking, under the
pretence of supporting the Government, to get a House of Assembly
returned, consisting wholly of the old Reformers, who had
identified themselves in 1834-5-6, with the Papineau party of Lower
Canada, I thought it desirable to check such a design in the bud,
by insisting upon the support of Hon. W. H. Draper, and that he
should be returned upon the same grounds as those of Mr. Baldwin.
The elucidation and description of this one case will affect the
position of parties in the character of the elections throughout
the province, and make them turn, not upon Lord Durham's "Report,"
or any of the old questions of difference, but upon your
Excellency's administration. This, I have no doubt, with a little
care, will, in most instances be the case. Thus will the members
returned from Upper Canada, be isolated from the French
anti-unionists of Lower Canada, and be more fully, both in
obligation and feeling, identified with the Government. I have not,
therefore, been surprised at the _Examiner's_ indignation, as it is
so ultra, and thorough a partizan, and as it has some discernment,
though but little prudence.
In reply, the Private Secretary of the Governor-General said:
I am to express to you His Excellency's approbation of the plans
you have suggested, and he desires me to say that he requests that
you will visit Montreal, on your way to New York, as he is anxious
to see you on the subject contained in your letter.
The Special Council meets this day for the first time.
The Secretary further added:--
His Excellency agrees that the line which you have taken is most
judicious. There is no doubt that the gentleman to whom you refer
is doing very great mischief both to Hon. Robert Baldwin and the
Government, by the extremes to which he is pushing his cry for
responsible government, and his opposition to Hon. W. H. Draper.
Dr. Ryerson (who was on his way to the General Conference at Baltimore)
in a note, dated Montreal, 4th May, said:--
The Governor-General having kindly invited me to visit him and
converse on matters relating to public affairs, I did so, and was
most cordially received by him. I also had a long interview with
him on Friday afternoon, and am desired to spend the evening with
him on Saturday. His Excellency has given every requisite
information as to his plans. I am thus enabled to accomplish the
object of my visit far beyond what I expected when I left home.
In a letter from New York (dated 9th May) Dr. Ryerson said:--Much to my
surprise to-day, while in New York on my way to Baltimore, I received a
note from the Governor-General's Secretary, T. W. C. Murdoch, Esq., as
follows:--
By direction of the Governor-General I send you the enclosed bill
of exchange for £100 stg., the receipt of which I would request you
to acknowledge.
You will have seen the English papers which hold out every prospect
that both the Union and the Clergy Reserve Bills will be
satisfactorily settled. I feel that I may congratulate you, and
every friend of Canada, on such a result.
I acknowledged this kind and generous act, but at once returned the Bill
of Exchange to His Excellency--at the same time respectfully assuring
him, that under no circumstances could I receive anything for what I had
done, or might do, to support the policy and administration of Her
Majesty's Government, in the peculiar circumstances of the Province.
* * * * *
One of the chief points discussed in Upper Canada, in connection with
the proposed union of the provinces, was the effect it would have on the
Protestant character of the government and institutions of the county.
Mr. John W. Gamble, a public man, and a leading member of the Church of
England, in Vaughan, writing to Dr. Ryerson on the subject, said:--
I feel deeply the conviction that the time has now arrived when
Protestants must sink all points of minor consideration, and unite
in defence of our common faith. The union of the provinces will
most assuredly result in giving not only a preponderance, but a
large majority to the Roman Catholics in the united legislature;
and this taken in conjunction with the plans now in operation for
pouring a large Roman Catholic population into these provinces,
surely ought not only to excite the fears, but rouse the energies
of those who know and love the truth as it is in Jesus. I am
altogether ignorant of your opinion upon the union question, but I
call upon you as a Protestant to unite with me in endeavouring to
avert the threatened calamity.
Mr. Gamble was for many years afterwards an earnest opponent in the
Legislature of United Canada of the extension of the Separate School
system in the province.
* * * * *
Although greatly enfeebled in health, yet Dr. Ryerson's Mother was
enabled to write to him occasionally. In a letter written by her in
1839, after returning from seeing him, she said:--
I suppose you are anxious to know the state of my mind. I yet feel
that the Lord is my trust, and I am waiting daily till my change
come. I feel that when the "earthly house of this tabernacle be
dissolved, I have a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens." Dear Egerton, I feel very much as I did when I left
you--a great deal of weakness. I am anxious to live to see you all
once more, perhaps for the last time. Do not neglect to come up,
one and all, as soon as convenient, if you only stay one day. When
you come fetch some books, such as you think would be profitable
for me, and one of your good-sized Bibles; also three of your
likenesses. I thought that your Father had brought them up when he
came. Do not fail to come up and see us. Don't let me be denied the
happiness of seeing you soon.
FOOTNOTES:
[108] The organs of that party in Upper Canada spoke of Dr. Ryerson's
advocacy of Lord Durham's reforms with far less courtesy, and for
obvious reasons.
[109] Thus in a note dated 8th April, 1840, the Private Secretary
said:--I know that His Excellency would wish you to comment on Lord
John's despatch in the sense in which it is treated in the Montreal
_Gazette_. [This was done in the _Guardian_ of 15th April.] There
is no doubt also that it is absurd in Hon. Henry Sherwood to pretend
that he is supporting the Government when he opposes their own
Solicitor-General, but not less so in the _Examiner_ to support him and
oppose Mr. Draper, or to stand up for a kind of responsible government
which both His Excellency and Lord John Russell have declared to be
inadmissible. I know that His Excellency would wish you to do everything
in your power to support both Mr. Draper and Mr. Baldwin. Should any
article come out which you consider would interest His Excellency, may I
request you to send me a copy.
[110] The following was the prospectus agreed upon and issued:--
A Monthly Review, Devoted to the Civil Government of Canada.
The Canadas have been united under an amended constitution; the
foundation has been laid for an improved system of government. The
success of that constitution will greatly depend upon a correct
understanding and a just appreciation of its principles; and the
advantages of the new system of government will be essentially
influenced by the views and feelings of the inhabitants of the Canadas
themselves. At a period so eventful, and under circumstances so
peculiar, it is of the utmost importance that the principles of the
constitution should be carefully analysed, and dispassionately
expounded; that the relations between this and the Mother Country, and
the mutual advantages connected with those relations, should be
explained and illustrated; the duties of the several branches of the
government and the different classes of the community, stated and
enforced; the natural, commercial, and agricultural resources and
interests of these Provinces investigated and developed; a comprehensive
and efficient system[a] of public education discussed and established;
the subject of emigration practically considered in proportion to its
vast importance; the various measures adapted to promote the welfare of
all classes of the people originated and advocated; and a taste for
intellectual improvement and refinement encouraged and cultivated.
As the Editor's views on all the leading questions of Canadian policy
accord with those of His Excellency the Governor-General, who has been
pleased to approve of the plan of the _Monthly Review_, it will be
enabled to state correctly the facts and principles on which the
government proceeds; yet the writers alone will be held responsible for
whatever they may advance.
[a] Dr. Ryerson, who wrote this prospectus, evidently had in view such a
system of Education as he afterwards established.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
1840.
Proposal to leave Canada--Dr. Ryerson's Visit to England.
The year 1840 is somewhat memorable in the Methodistic history of Upper
Canada, for three things: 1st. The final retirement of Dr. Ryerson from
the editorship of the _Christian Guardian_; 2nd. Visit of Revs. William
and Egerton Ryerson to England, and the painful, yet fruitless,
discussions with a Committee of the British Conference on the lapsed
Union; 3rd. The annual and special Canada Conferences of that year--at
the latter of which the formal separation of the British and Canadian
sections of the Conference took place under peculiarly affecting
circumstances.
Dr. Ryerson and his brother John attended the American General
Conference at Baltimore, May, 1840. In a letter from there he said:--
The Methodist Connexion here are much in advance of us, and, as a
whole, even of the British Connexion. I have never seen a more
pious, intelligent, and talented body of men than the preachers
assembled here at Conference; nor more respectable, intelligent
congregations. The manners of the people in these Middle States are
very like the manners of intelligent people in Upper Canada--alike
removed from the English haughtiness and Yankee coldness--simple,
frank, and unaffected. Bishops Roberts, Soule, Hedding and Waugh
dined with us to-day. They are venerable and apostolic men. We have
had cordial invitations to come to this country, and did we consult
our own comfort, brother John and I would do so without hesitation.
Bishop Hedding hopes to visit us at our approaching Conference.
Rev. R. Newton, of England, will not visit Canada. Mr. ---- has
told him that it was not worth while to go to Canada; and all that
can be said to induce him to come is unavailing. We in Canada are
not worth so much trouble, or notice!
In a letter from Baltimore, dated May 25th, 1840, Dr. Ryerson states the
reason why he proposed to leave Canada:--
I am still at the General Conference. Rev. Dr. Bangs says that I
ought to remain until the close. After much consideration I have
decided upon a step which, for many reasons, appears desirable.
Instead of coming to this country for a few months, in order to
avail myself of some collegiate lectures, to pursue certain
branches of science, I have concluded and have made arrangements to
take a station in the city of New York for one, if not for two
years. My brother John would have done the same if we could have
both left Canada this year. If things in the province do not go on
better with us he will do so another year. I have seen the new
constitution which is about to be adopted by the British Parliament
for the future Government of Canada. I do not approve of it. To
interfere any more in civil contentions will be wasting the best
part of my life to little purpose, for there seems to be no end to
such things. To remain in Canada and be silent, will incur the
hostility of both parties. The government will regard my neutrality
as opposition, and the popular party will view it as indifference
to the rights of the people; and, in such circumstances, I shall
neither be useful nor happy. While, therefore, I am on good terms
with the Government and the country at large, my brother thinks
with me that it is by all means best to withdraw from such scenes.
I have the offer of one of the three or four largest Methodist
Chapels in New York. I shall be appointed to one of the largest and
most elegant in the city, where all the great public meetings are
held. There are, however, three or four vacant, equally desirable.
I much prefer this to my taking a district in Canada. I would not
return to the _Guardian_ again for any earthly consideration.
Dr. Ryerson went to the Conference at Belleville after his return from
Baltimore. Writing from there, he said:--
Previously to proceeding to elect the Secretary, an English brother
remarked that he had certain communications from the Committee in
London, which he wished to read. I observed that no communications could
be read until the Conference was organized, and the Conference could not
be organized until the Secretary was elected. The brother persevered,
and then stated that the documents referred to me. I then arose, and
observed that the proceeding was at variance with law, Methodism, and
justice. The Conference was justly roused to indignation by my remarks,
which were followed by some observations from my brother John, in the
same strain. Not a man spoke in favour of the English brother's
proceeding, and he was compelled to withdraw his proposal. Such an
anti-Methodistic and barbarous attempt to sacrifice me (as some of the
preachers afterwards expressed it), excited a strong feeling in my
favour, and, I was told, increased my majority of votes for the
Secretaryship. When the Conference balloted for Secretary, the votes
stood as follows:--Matthew Richey, 1; Anson Green, 1; Wm. Case, 2; E.
Evans, 12; Egerton Ryerson, 43. The circumstance has so deeply affected
me, that I feel it to be like tearing soul from body to be separated
from brethren who stand by me in the day of trial, and who will not
suffer me, as one of them expressed it to me, to be sacrificed at the
pleasure of my enemies.[111] But I see no reason to change my purposes;
and my brother John thinks I can do more good to the Connexion by being
in New York, than by remaining in Canada.
I desire, with humble dependence upon the wisdom and providence of God,
to commit my all to Him. I hunger and thirst after the mind which was in
Christ Jesus.
Subsequently Dr. Ryerson wrote, saying:--
My plans in regard to the United States must now be changed. The charges
of the London Committee, and the state of the Connexion in regard to the
Union, render my absence from the Province, in the judgment of my
brethren, unjustifiable and out of the question. Some of the preachers
insist that I must go to England, and meet Mr. Alder before the British
Conference. Such a mission is not impossible, but, I hope, not probable.
After the election of Secretary, the charges against Dr. Ryerson were
read. They were embodied in a resolution to the effect that he had
improperly interfered and sought to deprive the British Conference of
its annual grant from the Imperial Government for the extension of
missions in the province. The resolution was negatived by a vote of 59
to 8, and a series of resolutions sustaining Dr. Ryerson, in the
strongest manner, was passed. He and his brother William were appointed
as Representatives at the British Conference, with directions "to use
all proper means to prevent collision between the two Connexions."
As intimated in Dr. Ryerson's letter from Baltimore, he decided to
retire finally from the Editorship of the _Christian Guardian_. This he
did at the Belleville Conference, and on the 24th of June, 1840, he laid
down his pen as Editor of the _Christian Guardian_, and was succeeded by
Rev. Jonathan Scott. In his valedictory of that date, Dr. Ryerson
said:--
The present number of the _Guardian_ closes the connection of the
undersigned with the provincial press. To his friends and to those of
the public who have confided in him, and supported him in seasons of
difficulty and danger, he offers his most grateful acknowledgments;
those who have opposed him honourably, he sincerely respects; those who
have assailed him personally, he heartily forgives; and of those whose
feelings he may have wounded in the heat of discussion, he most humbly
asks pardon. While he is deeply sensible of his imperfections,
infirmities, and failings, he derives satisfaction from the
consciousness that he has earnestly aimed at promoting the best
interests of his adopted church and his native country.
Egerton Ryerson.
Immediately after the close of the annual Conference of 1840, Dr.
Ryerson and his brother William left for England. From his diary,
written at that time, he had made the following extracts for this
work:--
_July 22nd, 1840._--After landing at Liverpool, I called upon an
old and kind friend, Mr. Michael Ashton, and I had much
conversation with him and Rev. R. Young, on the affairs of our
mission. I and my brother William arrived in London on the 23rd.
Took up our lodgings with my old hostess, 27 Great Ormond Street.
Addressed a note to Lord John Russell, on the object of our
mission; an interview was appointed for the next day. Went to the
House of Commons in the evening, having an order for admission to
the Speaker's gallery, through the kindness of Lord Sandon.
_July 24th._--Went to the Colonial office; had a long interview
with Lord John Russell, on the Canada Clergy Reserve Bill. Mr.
[afterwards Sir James] Stephen was present. We pointed out to His
Lordship the injustice of the bill, and the probable consequences
if it were passed in its present shape. We spoke at some length,
but with great plainness; intimating that we regarded the measure
as the forfeiture of good faith on the part of Her Majesty's
Government, as the violation of the constitutional rights of the
inhabitants of Upper Canada, and as the cause of the unpopularity
of the British Government in that country. But his Lordship
appeared inflexible, and seemed to regard it essential to
conciliate the Bishops, but not essential to do what he considered
just in itself, or to fulfil the declarations of Government to the
inhabitants of Upper Canada, or to consult their oft-expressed
views and wishes. In the afternoon we went to see Mr. Charles
Buller, but he was not in town. In going through Hyde Park we saw
the Queen and Prince Albert, coming from Windsor. We took a hasty
view through Westminster Abbey, and in the evening we called upon
the Rev. Mr. Stead, formerly a missionary to India, and received
from him many useful suggestions respecting the object of our
mission.
_July 27th._--Prepared a long letter to Lord John Russell on the
Canada Clergy Reserve Bill, now before Parliament. Went to the
House of Commons in order to hear the debate on the third reading
of said bill. Lord John Russell was not present. But we heard a
long debate on the China opium trade, etc. Mr. W. E. Gladstone
introduced the discussion. Afterwards Sir Robert Peel spoke on the
present position of the Church of Scotland in resisting the
decision of the House of Lords. Mr. Fox Maule [Lord Panmure] spoke
in reply, and contended that the point for which the General
Assembly contended was the right of the people to a voice in the
choice of their ministers.
_July 28th._--Visited the City Road Chapel Grave-yard, the Bank,
various book establishments, and St. Paul's Cathedral.
_July 30th._--Left London yesterday; entered the city of York by
the southwest gate; got a glimpse of the Minster; the country
exceedingly beautiful, and in a high state of cultivation. Heard of
the death of poor Lord Durham. The attacks upon him in the House of
Lords as Governor-General of Canada, the abandonment of him by the
Government, the mortification experienced by him in consequence of
the Royal disapprobation at his sudden return from Canada before
his resignation had been accepted, are said to have hastened, if
not caused his death. His heart seems to have been set upon making
Canada a happy and a great country, and I think he intended to
rest his fame upon that achievement. He was defeated, disappointed,
died! How bright the prospect two years ago--how sudden the change,
how sad the termination! Oh, the vanity of earthly power, wealth
and glory!
_July 29th._--Arrived this morning at Newcastle-upon-Tyne by stage,
eighty miles from York. The next morning we went to the Conference,
and sent in our cards to Rev. G. Marsden; he came out and kindly
received us, and hoped our mission would be for good. We met with a
very cool reception from several of the preachers, with whom I was
acquainted and on friendly terms during my former visits. Not
feeling very well, or very much at home, we enquired our way to our
lodgings, and left.
_July 31st._--Went to the Conference this morning at 7 a.m. We were
furnished with the President's card of admittance, and shown a seat
in a corner at the side of the Chapel, and could hear but a part of
the debates. In the afternoon we addressed a note to the President,
to which we only received a verbal reply.
_Aug. 1st._--This morning we were engaged in writing a strong
letter to the President concerning our treatment, our position, the
objects of our mission, etc., but we were saved the pain of
delivering it, as, on our arrival, we were met and introduced as
accredited Representatives of the Canada Conference. Rev. J.
Stinson and Rev. M. Richey were also introduced at the same time.
My brother William then presented the address and resolutions of
the Canada Conference. A comfortable seat was now provided for us,
in front of the President. Thank God, we now have a right to speak,
can take our own part, and maintain the rights and interests we
have been appointed to represent!
_Aug. 3rd._--The Committee of the last year on Canadian affairs had
met and reported:--That the resolutions of the Committee of which
the Canadian Conference had complained we unanimously confirmed,
and recommended that the Conference appoint a large Committee to
whom the Messrs. Ryerson and the documents of the Canadian
Conference be referred.
The cases of Circuits proposed to be divided were next taken up.
This caused many amusing remarks. Rev. R. Newton thought they were
losing the spirit of their fathers in travelling, who had
insuperable objections to solitary stations. Dr. Bunting assigned
as a reason for the failure of the health of so many young men, the
custom of giving up horses: said it was an innovation; quoted some
of the last words of Wesley: "I cannot make preachers--I cannot buy
preachers--and I will not kill preachers."
A long conversation ensued on the subject of reading the Liturgy
generally, and concluded by a resolution that the Liturgy be read
on the principal Sabbath at each Conference. On the subject of
reading the Liturgy by the preachers themselves, Dr. Bunting said:
It was very well for men to spend their strength in preaching, and
let others read the prayers, when Methodism was only a Society
supplementary to the Church; but having in the order of Providence
grown up into an independent and separate Church, the preachers
were something more than mere preachers of the Word--they were
ministers of the Church, and ought to read as well as preach.
The address of the Irish Conference was read. Rev. T. Jackson said
he could bear testimony to the very respectful manner in which the
address of the British Conference had been received by the Irish
Conference, and he trusted the brethren would understand the import
and bearing of that remark. Rev. Mr. Entwistle referred to the
liberality and cheerfulness of the Irish preachers in their
difficulties, when Dr. Bunting replied that if they had been in
such difficulties their heads would have hung down.
Dr. Ryerson's diary ends here. A full account of the interviews and
discussions with the Wesleyan authorities in England are given in the
Epochs of Canadian Methodism, pages 407-426. The result was, that the
Committee on the subject reported a series of resolutions adverse to the
Canada representatives, which were adopted by the Conference after "more
than four-fifths of its members had left for their circuits." The
pacific resolutions of the Upper Canada Conference were negatived by a
majority, and it was declared "that a continuance of the more intimate
connection established by the articles of 1833 [was] quite
impracticable."
Thus was ignominously ended a union between the two Conferences which
had (nominally) existed since 1833, and which had promised such happy
results, and thus was inaugurated a period of unseemly strife between
the two parties from 1840 to 1847, when it happily ceased. What followed
in Upper Canada is thus narrated by Dr. Ryerson:--
The English Conference having determined to secede from the Union which
it had entered into with the Canadian Conference in 1833, and to
commence aggressive operations upon the Canadian Conference, and its
societies and congregations, a special meeting of the Canadian
Conference became necessary to meet this new state of things, to
organize for resenting the invasion upon its field of labour, and to
maintain the cause for which they had toiled and suffered so much for
more than half a century.
The prospects of the Canada Conference were gloomy in the extreme; the
paucity of ministers, and the poverty of resources in comparison to the
English Conference, besides numerous other disadvantages; but the
ministers of the Canadian Conference with less than a dozen individual
exceptions, had hearts of Canadian oak, and weapons of New Jerusalem
steel, and were determined to maintain the freedom of the Church, and
the liberties of their country, whatever might be the prestige or
resources of their invaders; and "according to their faith it was done
unto them;" out of weakness they waxed strong. They sowed in tears, they
reaped in joy. Their weeping seed-sowing was followed by rejoicing,
bringing their sheaves with them.
The Special Conference caused by these events was held in the Newgate
(Adelaide) Street Church in October, 1840. The venerable Thomas
Whitehead, then in his 87th year, opened the proceedings, after which
Rev. William Case was elected to preside. Rev. Mr. Whitehead was
subsequently elected President. Dr. Ryerson was elected Secretary, but
declined, and Rev. J. C. Davidson was appointed in his place. The whole
matter of differences between the two Conferences was discussed at
great length, and with deep feeling on the part of the speakers. Dr.
Ryerson spoke for five hours, and his brother William for nearly three.
Finally a series of eleven resolutions were adopted, strongly
maintaining the views of the Canadian Representatives to England, and
protesting--
Against the Methodistic or legal right or power of the Conference
in England to dissolve, of its own accord, articles and obligations
which have been entered into with this Conference by mutual
consent.
In consequence of the adoption of these resolutions, the following
ministers requested permission to withdraw from the Canada Conference
with a view to connect themselves with the British Missionary party,
viz:--
Rev. Messrs. William Case, Ephraim Evans, Benjamin Slight, James
Norris, Thomas Fawcett, William Scott, John G. Manly, Edmund
Stoney, James Brock, Thomas Hurlburt, Matthew Lang, John Douse,
William Steer, John Sunday, and C. B. Goodrich.
The leave-taking was said to have been very tender and sorrowful. Of the
members of the Canada Conference who left it, Dr. Ryerson said:--
Among the ten who seceded from the Canada Conference to the London
Wesleyan Committee was the venerable William Case, who took no part
in the crusade against his old Canadian brethren, but who wished to
live in peace and quietness, with the supply of his wants assured
to him in his old, lonely Indian Mission at Alnwick, near Cobourg,
isolated alike from the white inhabitants and from other Indian
tribes, where he continued until his decease.
The character of this untoward contest with the British Conference
party--so far as it related to Dr. Ryerson--can be best understood from
the conclusion of his five hours' speech before the Special Conference.
He said:--
I am aware that a combined effort has been determined upon and is
making to destroy me as a public man, and to injure this Connexion,
as far as my overthrow can affect it. I rejoice to know that the
strength and efficiency of our Church are not depending upon me;
but I am not insensible to the advantages which it is supposed will
be gained over the Church if I can be put down. Our adversaries
seem to have abandoned the idea of answering my arguments, or of
diverting me from my purposes, in regard to my position, and views
and feelings towards this Connexion. The only expedient left is
that which requires no strength of intellect--no solid
arguments--no moral principle--but abundance of confidence,
malignity, and zeal. It is the expedient of impeaching my moral
integrity, and blackening my character. And this is attempted to be
accomplished. One class of adversaries, not by an appeal to reason,
or even to official documents, but by the importation and retail
from one side of the Atlantic to the other, and one end of the
province to the other, and from house to house, of bits and parcels
of perverted private conversations--a mode of warfare disgraceful
to human nature, much more to any Christian community. History
apprizes me that, in such a warfare, some of the best of men have
not triumphed until long after they slept in death, when the hand
of time and the researches of impartial history did them that
justice which the cupidity and jealousies of powerful
contemporaries denied them. I know not the present result of
existing combinations against myself. On that point I feel little
concern, though I am keenly alive to their influence upon my public
usefulness. I engaged in the Union, because I believed the
principles upon which it was founded were reasonable, and the
prejudices against it on all sides were unreasonable. I do not
regret the opposition which I have experienced--the reproaches
which I have incurred--the labours I have endured; but I do
regret--and every day's reflection adds fresh poignancy to my
regrets--that in carrying out a measure which I had hoped would
prove an unspeakable blessing to my native country, I have lost so
many friends of my youth. No young man in Canada had more friends
amongst all Christian denominations than I had when the Union took
place. Many of them have become my enemies. I can lose property
without concern or much thought; but I cannot lose my friends, and
meet them in the character of enemies, without emotions not to be
described. I feel that I have injured myself, and injured this
Connexion, and I fear this province, not by my obstinacy, but by my
concessions. This is my sin, and not the sins laid to my charge. I
have regarded myself, and all that Providence has put into my hands
from year to year, as the property of this Connexion. I can say, in
the language of Wesley's hymn--
"No foot of land do I possess,
No cottage in the wilderness;
A poor wayfaring man."
And it is to me a source of unavailing grief, that after the
expenditure of so much time, and labour, and suffering, and means,
one of the most important measures of my life may prove a
misfortune to the Church of my affections and the country of my
birth. I have only to say, that as long as there is any prospect of
my being useful to either, I will never desert them.
We have surveyed every inch of the ground on which we stand: We
have offered to concede everything but what appertains to our
character, and to our existence and operations as a Wesleyan
Methodist Church. The ground we occupy is Methodistic, is rational,
is just. The very declarations of those who leave us attest this.
They are compelled to pay homage to our character as a body; they
cannot impeach our doctrines, or discipline, or practice; nor can
they sustain a single objection against our principles or standing;
the very reasons which they assign for their own secession are
variable, indefinite, personal, or trivial. But the reasons which
may be assigned for our position and unity are tangible, are
definite, are Methodistic, are satisfactory, are unanswerable.
The effect of this disruption was disastrous to the peace and unity of
the Wesleyan body, especially in the towns and cities.
Some time after the Conference, Dr. Ryerson received the following
characteristic letter from the venerable Thomas Whitehead, the President
of the Canada Special Conference:--
I have been not a little pleased with the expectation of seeing you
this evening, and of hearing you speak of the sorrows and joys of
Wesleyan Methodism in Upper Canada. God grant that you and I and
all of us, when our labours, sorrows and joys on earth are ended,
may meet around the throne of God and the Lamb. Your labours,
sorrows and joys for these years past have been unparalleled, and
to the present they are increasing. Well, you have been called
(with not a few invaluable assistants) to stand up in defence of
the Gospel, and have been sometimes placed near the swellings of
Jordan; however, you still rejoice in your labours, and the effects
thereof, and so do I; and, blessed be God, the Pilot of the
Galilean lake is still on shipboard, and he will soon speak peace
to the troubled waters, and there will be a great calm. I have no
doubt but Brother Green and Brother Bevitt (a comical soul) and
yourself have had cold travelling (I hope good lodging) in your
western rides; I am persuaded you have met with friends, and a
generous people. God bless them!
I greatly rejoice that our brethren in the ministry are faithful,
affectionate, and successful in defence of all that appertains to
the privileges of the glorious Gospel of the Son of God, long, long
preached by the Wesleyan Methodist ministers in the wilds of Upper
Canada, and I trust they will, by all Christian means and measures,
support Her Majesty's Government in Canada. May the Holy and
Blessed God give us peace, and good government in our day. I have
been a little vexed with the travelling gab of one of our own
former friends, who is pleased to inform the people that you were
the sole cause of the late rebellion. I must tell him, the first
time I meet with him, that the meaning of his sing-song is not
understood, and that if he will explain his hidden meaning, it will
be, that he is ready to prove that the Rev. Egerton Ryerson was the
sole cause of the rebellion in Heaven, by the fallen angels. In
that case no one would mistake his meaning.
In a letter of congratulation, written in May, 1841, to Rev. Dr. Bangs,
on his appointment to the Presidency of the Wesleyan University,
Middletown, Conn., Dr. Ryerson said:--
I hope and pray that you may be able to continue without abatement
to favour and edify the religious public with the rich results of
your varied reading and matured thinking. On this ground I desire
to express my personal obligations; and not the least for your
"Letters to young Ministers of the Gospel," which were the first I
recollect of reading. Many of your remarks and suggestions, on the
subjects which they treat, have been of great service to me.
Speaking of the rupture of the union between the British and Canadian
Conferences, and of alleged personal obstacles which he presented in the
way of a reunion, Dr. Ryerson said:--The agents of the London Missionary
Committee have not injured the Societies generally; although the scenes
of schism which have been and are exhibited in many places are highly
disgraceful. I am not aware that Elder Case has taken any active part in
these transactions, and he has continued an acting and useful member of
the Academy Board, notwithstanding his strange secession from our
Conference. I have observed by the discussion, especially in the
pamphlet lately published by the Committee in London, that the whole
affair is made to appear, as much as possible, a matter of difference
between the Committee and me personally, and epithets have been
multiplied against me in proportion to the want of facts. I have always
resolved not to allow myself to be the ground of difference between two
bodies. If I can make this circumstance instrumental in effecting an
amicable adjustment of differences, such as would be agreeable and
advantageous to my brethren, I have thought it would be best to do so,
and retire personally from the Conference, either employing my pen for
the religious and general interests of my native land, or seeking a
more peaceful field of labour in your part of the world, where I almost
wish I had gone last year as proposed--although I know not that I could
have done otherwise than I did, in accordance with what is due to
personal honour and character.
The Imperial Parliament has disposed of the clergy reserves in a manner
the most unfair, unjust, and corrupt, although the old Constitution of
Canada provides for the disposal of them by the Provincial Legislature.
Wide-spread, secret dissatisfaction exists in the country; a majority of
the new Assembly (which has not yet met) are friends of the people, but
many are afraid to move, or to say what they think. My own apprehension
is that, notwithstanding all exertions to the contrary, under the
present system of things the morals and intelligence of the people will
be on a level with their liberties. Whether my continued silence in such
circumstances is a virtue, or a crime; or whether I should retire from
the country, or remain and make one Christian, open, and decisive effort
to secure for my fellow-countrymen a free constitution and equal rights
among their churches, is a perplexing question to me, as well as to my
brothers. It is believed by some intelligent men, who have talked on the
subject, that if I would come out as the advocate of the country, there
would be no doubt of success, from my knowledge of the subject, from a
general, and, as I think, overweening confidence on the part of my
friends in my powers of concentration, perseverance and energy, and from
the feelings of the country. It is also thought that, if there should be
a failure of success, I could then honourably retire to the United
States. I am no theorist, but I hate despotism as I do Satan, and I love
liberty as I do life; and my thoughts and feelings flow so strongly in
favour of the religious and civil freedom of my native country, that
with all my engagements and duties, I cannot resist them, at least half
of the time. I would be most grateful to you for your opinion on this
general matter, irrespective of details, with which, of course, you
cannot be acquainted.
To this letter Rev. Dr. Bangs replied as follows:--
I feel much for my Canadian brethren, and I can never be
indifferent to their weal or woe. I have never had but one opinion
respecting your separation from us, and that is, that it was an
erroneous step at the time, originating with the ambition of one
man--Henry Ryan. (See page 87.) Regrets, however, are useless now.
The die has been cast; but from that unhappy moment you have been
tossed about from one point of the compass to another. What a sad
condition the people are in, according to your representation! And
who shall right them? I suppose you cannot do it, although you
cannot be indifferent to their interests, temporal and eternal.
Respecting your leaving the country, I would say, that if your
brethren judge it best, you will receive a cordial welcome among
us; as I am sure you would from me. In the meantime, you would do
well to consult Bishop Hedding, who presides among us this year. I
thank you for the expressions of affection. Whatever of good you
may have received from my poor labours, let God have the praise and
glory. I never undertook any duties with more appalling feelings
than I did the present ones; and yet I have been wonderfully
blessed and favoured by providential indications. When I was called
to the Presidency of the Wesleyan University, I dared not say no;
but I accepted it with a trembling sense of my responsibilities,
and thus far I have been greatly blessed and comforted. I shall be
glad to see you, and remember that I have a prophet's room, and a
bed and a table for you.
From Rev. Dr. D. M. Reese, a noted member of the New York Conference,
Dr. Ryerson received the following letter:--
I am at a loss to say what is the opinion of our great men here,
touching your Canadian conflict with the British Conference; though
all our sympathies are with you. All concur that you have the
victory in your pamphlet war. I have not heard a different opinion
from any one who has read them. I suppose you may have learned how
cavalierly Rev. R. Newton treated Rev. Mr. Gurley, though
introduced to him by letters from those to whom Mr. N. was largely
indebted here. He refused to introduce him to Dr. Bunting, etc.,
although this favour was solicited. He neither invited Mr. G. to
see him again, nor even called on him. This British reciprocity of
American politeness is humiliating, and resembles the treatment you
and your brother received at his hands, as well as that of other
great men in the Wesleyan Conference towards you.
At the Special Conference of October, Dr. Ryerson was appointed
Corresponding Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society of Upper
Canada. On the 10th November he issued a statement and appeal on behalf
of the Society. In it he indicates definitely the secret causes which
led to the disruption of the Union. He said:--
Zealous attempts have been made to lead astray sincere friends of
Methodism and religion by the pretense that party politics is the
[difficulty]. Never was a pretext more unfounded.... It will be seen by
the proceedings of our Conference-- ... and is even admitted in the
report of the ... English Conference--that no political party question
should, on any account, be suffered amongst us, ... or in our official
organ, and that we did not even desire the continued discussion of the
clergy reserve question.... But with even silent neutrality on all
questions of civil polity ..., the authorities of the English Conference
were not satisfied; they insisted that we should "admit and maintain,
even in this Province, the principle of Church and State Union"--a
question which has been the most exciting and baneful topic of party
feeling and party organization of any question which has ever been
discussed in Upper Canada. They also insisted that we should concede to
the Conference in England the right of an "efficient direction over the
public proceedings" of the Connexion in this province.... These are the
real grounds of the difference between the two bodies.
In a letter on this subject, written by Dr. Ryerson, 13th November, he
said:--
Herewith is a copy of a letter which I addressed to the late Rev.
Richard Watson in 1831 [see _Guardian_ of November 18th, 1840],
deprecating the interference of the London Committee with our work
in this province, and explaining our views and operations as a
body.... In going one day into the Wesleyan Mission House, when in
England in 1833, I found one of the clerks copying that letter into
the official books of the Committee. That letter is of some
importance on several accounts. It will show that we were just as
moderate, and as reasonable, and as constitutional in our views as
a body in 1831, as we have been from that time to this, and that
the representations to the contrary are the fabulous creations of
party feelings.... [It will also show] that [the London Committee]
fully understood our views on the question of a church
establishment in Upper Canada, respecting which they have not even
pretended that we ever made the slightest compromise; and that we
as a body were in a prosperous condition before the Union.
It was not, therefore, without full knowledge of Dr. Ryerson's views on
this subject, and of the state of the Methodist body in Upper Canada,
that the British Conference in 1833, and again in 1840, sought to
interfere with the work in this province and divide the Societies. By
Dr. Ryerson's mission to England this evil was averted by a union in
1833, which proved to be but a hollow truce, as the events of 1840
demonstrated.
That the evil genius of Rev. Robert Alder exercised a baneful influence
upon both Conferences, is abundantly evident from his own subsequent
conduct and other events. And that this was the case is more clearly
manifest from the fact that when he ceased to exert any influence in the
Connexion, and when Dr. Ryerson and the Canadian Representatives were
able to lay the whole case before the British Conference in 1847, that
body, led by Dr. Bunting himself, entirely endorsed the consistent
action of the Canada Conference in all of this painful and protracted
business. He said: "The Canadian brethren are right, and we are wrong."
(See a subsequent Chapter on the subject.)
Looking at the facts of the case in the light of to-day, can any one
wonder at the pertinacity and zeal with which Dr. Ryerson resisted the
unnatural and unwise system of foreign dictation sought to be imposed
upon the Canadian Connexion. This he did at a great sacrifice of
personal feeling, and of personal friendship, as well as of personal
comfort and popularity. He maintained, as he had stipulated in the
articles of Union, that "the rights and privileges of the Canadian
preachers and Societies should be preserved inviolate." He knew that a
Church in a free country like Canada, characterized as it was by
Methodistic zeal and vigour, and yet tempered by the moderation of
Canadian institutions and manners, possessed within itself a spirit of
independence and of growth and progress which would never brook the
official control of a Committee thousands of miles away. To be subject
to even the generous control of such a Committee, possessed of no
practical experience in Canadian matters, would, he knew, doom the
Church to a dwarfed, and unnatural, and a miserable existence. Events
had already proved to Dr. Ryerson (while the Union during 1839-1840 was
in a moribund state) that the Church, controlled by a dominant section
of the British Conference, would be a prey to internal feuds and
jealousies. In the conflicts that would then ensue spiritual life would
die out, missionary zeal would be fitful in its efforts, and every
Church interest would partake largely of a sectional and partizan
character, destructive alike to the symmetry, growth and harmony of
development of a living Church, endowed with rich spiritual life and
free and vigorous in its independent action.
To a person of the statesman-like qualities of mind which Dr. Ryerson
possessed in so high a degree, these things must have been ever present.
They gave evident decision to his thoughts and vigour to his pen. He was
no novice in public or ecclesiastical affairs. He had been trained for
fifteen years in a school of resistance, almost single-handed, to
ecclesiastical domination, and had detected and exposed intrigues,--one
of which was of parties in this conflict, which was entirely derogatory
to the dignity and independence of Methodism in Canada. (See pages
238-241.)
His knowledge of public affairs and of party leaders gave him abundant
insight into the motives and tactics of men bent upon accomplishing pet
schemes and favourite projects. And all of this knowledge had so ripened
his experience that it rendered him the invaluable and trusted leader in
Canadian Methodism, which in those days made his name a household word
in the Methodist homes of Upper Canada. This trust and confidence he
never betrayed. His unswerving fidelity to his Church and people cost
him dearly--the loss of many friends, and the reproaches of many
enemies. But he survived it all, and was enabled, under Providence, to
mould the institutions of Canadian Methodism and even of his native
country. He has left on some of them the impress of his mind and genius,
which it is the pride of Canadians to recognize and acknowledge to this
day.
FOOTNOTES:
[111] The more important parts of the painful proceedings at this
Conference are given in "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 341-358.
The result of this formidable attack on Dr. Ryerson by the English
Missionary party before the Canada Conference, is thus stated by Rev.
Dr. Carroll: "When the Rev. Matthew Richey's motion of condemnation on
the Rev. Egerton Ryerson for his interference in the matter [of the
Government grant of £900 to Wesleyan missions] was put to the
Conference, there were only eight in its favour, several of whom, after
obtaining further light, wished to change their votes; and fifty-nine
against it. Three were excused from voting."--_Case, etc._, vol. iv.,
page 298, note.
CHAPTER XXXV.
1840-1841.
Last Pastoral Charge.--Lord Sydenham's Death.
The following paragraphs, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, refer to this period
of his history:--
In the autumn of 1840, on returning from England, when the English
Wesleyan Committee and Conference seceded from the Union with the
Canadian Conference, I was appointed to Adelaide Street station in
Toronto, which had been filled for two years by the Rev. Dr. Richey--an
eloquent and popular preacher. The separation between the two
Conferences had taken place the week before I assumed the charge of
Adelaide Street station. Dr. Richey had carried off the greater part of
both the private and official members of the Church, and I was left with
but a skeleton of each. When I ascended the pulpit for the first time,
the pews in the body of the church, which had been occupied by those who
had seceded, were empty, and there were but scattered hearers, here and
there, in the other pews and in the gallery. By faith and prayer I had
prepared myself for the crucial test, and conducted the services without
apparent depression or embarrassment. I made no pretensions, and had
never made any, to pulpit eloquence--the motto of my ministry being to
make things plain and strong by previous thought and prayer, and without
verbal preparation. I often went from lying on my back in my study, in
an agony of distress and prayer, to the pulpit, where a divine anointing
seemed to rest upon me, such as I had never before experienced. There
were frequent prayer-meetings in my own study, at six o'clock in the
morning. The result was, by the Divine blessing, that the church was
filled with hearers, and the membership was more than doubled.
At the first Annual Missionary Meeting in the Church after the division,
the President of the Executive Council presided; several members of the
Government were on the platform, and the collections and subscriptions
were more than double those of any previous year. The pretext for this
separation of the English Wesleyan Committee and Conference from the
Canadian Conference, was professed loyalty in Church and State; but both
the Imperial and Canadian Government of that day approved the position
of the Canadian Conference, withdrew and suspended the grant previously
made to the London Wesleyan Missionary Committee during the seven years
of its hostility to the Canadian Conference, and only consented to its
restoration for the joint interests of the two Conferences, and on
recommendation of the Representatives of the Canadian Conference, after
the reconciliation and reunion of the two Conferences, in 1847.
[Illustration: Old Newgate Street (afterwards Adelaide St.) Wesleyan
Church, 1832-1872.]
In October, 1840, Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter of congratulation to
Lord Sydenham, on his elevation to the peerage. He again referred to
the publication of the _Monthly Review_, proposed by His Excellency. In
regard to the latter he said:--
The publication of a monthly periodical such as I suggested to your
Excellency last spring, appears to me now, as it did then, to be of
great importance, in order to mould the thinkings of public men and
the views of the country in harmony with the principles of the new
Constitution and the policy of Your Excellency's administration,
and to secure a rational and permanent appreciation of its objects,
and merits; and it would have afforded me sincere satisfaction to
have given a proper tone and character to a publication of that
kind. But what I have written publicly in reference to the
principles and measures of Your Excellency's Government has already
been productive of serious consequences both to myself and the Body
with which I am connected.
In the discharge of my ecclesiastical duties, I have to devote
several hours of four days in each week to visiting the sick, poor,
and other members of my pastoral charge, and am preparing a series
of discourses on the Patriarchal History, and the Evidences of
Christianity, arising from the discoveries of modern science, and
the testimony of recent travellers, besides the correspondence and
engagements which devolve upon me in the office I hold in the
Methodist Church. Under such circumstances the assumption by me of
the management of such a periodical is impracticable. I could not
do justice to it, nor to my other appropriate duties. I might, in
the course of my miscellaneous reading, select passages from
established authors, which would be suitable for a miscellany at
the end of each number, to illustrate and confirm the principles
discussed in the preceding pages of it. I might now and then
contribute a general article on the Intellectual and Moral Elements
of Canadian Society; or, on the Evils of Party Spirit; or, on the
Necessity of General Unity in order to General Prosperity, etc.,
etc.; but even in these respects I fear I could not render much
efficient aid, from the exhaustion of my physical strength in other
labours, and for want of the requisite time for study, in order to
write instructively and effectively on general subjects.
In the same letter, Dr. Ryerson thus referred to his determination to
take no further part in the discussion of public affairs, owing to the
hostility which his support of Lord Sydenham's policy had excited in
various quarters[112]:--
In retiring from taking any public part in the civil affairs of this
country, I beg to express my grateful sense of the frankness, kindness,
and condescension which I have experienced from Your Excellency. You are
the first Governor of Canada who has taken the pains to investigate the
character and affairs of the Wesleyan Methodist Church for himself, and
not judge and act from hearsay; the first Governor to ascertain my
sentiments, feelings, and wishes from my own lips, and not from the
representations of others. As a body, considering our labours and
numbers, we have certainly been treated unjustly and hardly by the Local
Government. Every effort was used here to deprive us of the Royal
liberality, and Lord Glenelg's recommendations in regard to the Upper
Canada Academy. I think Lord John Russell himself was prepossessed
against me by the representations of Rev. Mr. Alder, and probably of Sir
George Arthur and others. But by your condescension and courtesy I have
been prompted and emboldened to express myself to Your Excellency on all
questions of civil government and the affairs of this country, more
fully than I have to any man living. My private opinions and public
writings have been simultaneously before Your Excellency, together with
all the circumstances under which I have expressed the one and published
the other. I feel confident, therefore, that however I may be
misrepresented by some, or misunderstood by others, I shall have justice
in the estimate and opinions of Your Excellency--that I have been
anything but theoretical or obstinate--that I have shrunk from no
responsibility in the time of need and difficulty--and that my opinions,
whether superficial or well-considered, are such as any common-sense,
practical man, whose connection, associations, and feeling are involved
in the happiness and well-being of the middle classes, might be expected
to entertain.
It is not my intention or wish to obtrude my opinions upon your
attention, except in so far as may be necessary to acquaint Your
Excellency with the interests and wishes of the body whom I have been
appointed to represent. In regard to the many other important questions
embraced in the great objects of your Government, I shall abstain from
any officious interference; although all that may be in my mind or heart
on any subject shall be at the service of Your Excellency when desired.
From what I have witnessed and experienced, I have no doubt that every
possible effort will made to prejudice me in Your Excellency's mind, and
induce Your Excellency to treat the Methodist body in this province as
preceding Governors have done. But I implore Your Excellency to try
another course of proceeding, whether as any experiment, or as an act of
justice. I am persuaded that Your Excellency has found no portion of the
people of this Province more reasonable in their requests, or more
easily conciliated to your views and wishes than the Representatives,
members and friends of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada; and, I
doubt not, Your Excellency will find them cultivating and exhibiting the
same spirit during the entire period (and may it be a long one!) of your
administration of the Government of Canada.
On the 8th of the same month, Dr. Ryerson felt himself constrained to
address a note to Lord Sydenham in regard to the policy of Lord John
Russell's Clergy Reserve Bill, so far as it might affect the question of
public education, in which he was deeply interested. He said that he
conceived the Bill to be most unjust in its provisions, as he had stated
to His Lordship (while it was under consideration of Parliament). He
added: Should the partial and exclusive provisions of the measure
pervade the views and administration of Government in Canada, in regard
to a general system of education, etc., I should utterly despair of ever
witnessing social happiness, general educational culture, or unity in
this country. But I have no doubt the exclusive powers with which the
Bill invests the Governor, will be exerted to counteract the inequality
of its other provisions, and that Your Excellency's whole system of
public policy will be based upon the principles of "equal justice to all
classes of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects." Under these circumstances,
I have suggested to the conductor of the _Christian Guardian_ (from the
editorship of which I retired last June) not to make any remarks on the
Bill which may tend to create dissatisfaction; nor do I intend, for the
same reasons, to publish the letter which my brother and I addressed to
Lord John Russell on the subject. His Lordship said, indeed, that the
Bill was not what he wished, nor could he say it was just; but he had
clearly ascertained that a more liberal one could not be got through the
House of Lords, and he thought that that Bill was better than none.
The Hon. Isaac Buchanan, in a letter to the Editor, dated April
1882,--speaking of these times and events--said:--
I was one of Dr. Ryerson's oldest friends and coöperators that have
survived him. I was first in Toronto (then York) in 1830. Although
not then 20 years of age, I came out to Montreal as a partner in a
mercantile firm; and in the fall of 1831 I came up to York to
establish a branch House. From that time I have known Dr. Ryerson,
and then formed that high opinion of both his abilities and his
character which went on increasing more and more; so that for the
last forty years of his life I have regarded him as Canada's
greatest son. Of late years I seldom met him, but when I did, it
was an inexpressible pleasure to me, as an interchange of the most
unbounded mutual confidences took place between us in our views and
objects. He knew my view of religion,--that as with Spiritual
Religion (which is nothing to the mind unless it is everything), so
with the Religion of Humanity (my name for the removal of all
impediments out of the way of the employment, and of the enjoyment
of living of our own people)--it will not take a second place, but
must be the first question in the politics of every
country--otherwise its Government is a mere political machine. He
knew my belief that the Church Question being in the way of this
people's question, it took the first place among the causes of all
the industrial evils in England and Ireland. With me, therefore, it
was a _sine qua non_ to get quit of our dominant Church nuisance in
Canada, viewing it as a thing in the way of the prosperity of the
people, and therefore as a thing insidiously undermining their
loyalty. I am sure that his views were not far removed from mine in
this matter, and yet not a particle of enmity to the Church ever
affected me, and, I believe, the same thing was true of Dr.
Ryerson. But I felt the insufferable evil of the position it had in
this country, not only as usurping the first place in politics,
which the Labour Question should occupy, but as rendering the
connection with England odious and short-lived. Being one of those
sent for by the Governor-General (Mr. Poulett Thompson) on the
clergy reserve question, I told His Excellency plainly that
although my countrymen, the Scotch, did not hesitate to dissent, as
a matter of conscience, they would not be loyal to a government
that made them dissenters by Act of Parliament.
Five years previous to this, or in 1835, I had, as an extra of the
_Albion_ newspaper, published by Mr. Cull, about the time York
became Toronto, proposed a plan of settlement for the clergy
reserves, fitted to solve the difficulties connected with them,
whether Industrial, Educational, or Political. My proposal was that
an educational tax should be levied, the payments by each church or
sect being shewn in separate columns, and each sect receiving from
the clergy reserve fund, in the proportion of its payments for
education.
This first attempt of mine to get an endowment for education
failed, as there was then no system of Responsible Government. But
five years afterwards (in 1840) when my election for Toronto had
decided the question of Responsible Government, and before the
first Parliament met, I spoke to Lord Sydenham, the
Governor-General, on the subject. He felt under considerable
obligation to me for standing in the breach when Hon. Robert
Baldwin found he could not succeed in carrying Toronto. I told him
that I felt sure that if we were allowed to throw the accounts of
the Province into regular books, we would show a surplus over
expenditure. His Excellency agreed to my proposal, and I stipulated
that, if we showed a surplus, half would be given as an endowment
for an educational system. Happily we found that Upper Canada had a
surplus revenue of about $100,000 a year--half of which the
Parliament of 1841 set aside for education as agreed--the law
stipulating that every District Council getting a share of it would
locally tax for as much more, and this constituted the financial
basis of our educational system. Thus I have given you a glimpse of
the time when Dr. Ryerson and I were active coöperators.
Dr. Ryerson has left no farther record of his two years' ministry in
Newgate (Adelaide) Street circuit, Toronto, than that recorded on page
282. Some incidents of it will be found in the letter of the Rev.
Jonathan Scott, editor of the _Guardian_, on page 294. Rev. I. B.
Howard, Dr. Ryerson's assistant at the time, has also furnished me with
some personal reminiscences of his intercourse with him during the
latter year of Dr. Ryerson's pastoral life. He says:--
When I was Dr. Ryerson's assistant in Toronto, upwards of forty
years ago (in 1841-2), he was studying Hebrew with a private tutor.
As I had previously taken lessons in that language he kindly
invited me to unite with him (at his expense) in this study. This
I did three times a week at his house. On those days I always dined
with him; and as it was his custom to spend the hour before dinner
in devotional reading and prayer, I had the great privilege of
spending this hour with him in his study--and I shall never forget
the sincere, heart-searching, and devout manner in which he
conducted these hallowed exercises, nor the great spiritual
instruction and benefit I received from them. His humble
confessions, earnest pleadings, and fervent spirit deeply impressed
my youthful heart with the fact that he was indeed a man of God.
During that year (one of the few of his regular pastorate) I had
also the privilege of frequently hearing him preach, especially
during eight weeks of special and very successful revival services,
which we held in old Adelaide (then nearly new and known as
"Newgate") Street Church. I have frequently heard him preach since
that time, mostly on special occasions, and always with pleasure
and profit; but never since he left the pastoral work have I heard
from him such earnest, powerful and overwhelming appeals to the
minds, and hearts, and consciences of men, as when, with the
responsibilities and sympathies of a pastor's heart, he delighted,
and moved, and melted the large and admiring audiences which
attended his ministry. I have always believed, that, had he
continued in his pastoral work, he would have been not only an able
and popular, but also in an eminent degree a successful soul-saving
preacher.
During the year I was with him in Toronto, Dr. Ryerson frequently
heard me preach; and as it was only the second year of my ministry
his presence in the congregation was at first a great terror to me;
but the kind words of encouragement, as well as the wise and
fatherly counsels which he frequently gave me soon allayed my
fears, and led me to regard it rather as a privilege than a cross
to have him for a hearer.[113] Would that every young preacher had
such a kind and sympathizing superintendent!
Hon. William Macdougall also bears testimony to the kindness which he
experienced from Dr. Ryerson at this period. He says:
About the year 1840, I was living in the township of Vaughan, and
like other boys of the same class and age, devoting my winters to
school, and my summers to the healthful exercise of the farm. My
father was a good farmer, pretty well-to-do, and I, being the
eldest son, was second in command. He had purchased two or three
uncleared lots in the same township, one of which was designed for
me. I was fond of books, and possessed some good ones, besides I
had made diligent use of a circulating library in the
neighbourhood. We took in a political newspaper, an agricultural
monthly, and the _Christian Guardian_. At this point of my career I
met Dr. Ryerson. He came into our neighbourhood to attend a
missionary meeting, and stopped at my father's house. I was asked
to go with him to his next appointment. We were thus alone together
for some hours. On the way we chatted about temperance, history,
politics, education, etc. The rebellion of 1837, and the political
questions that grew out of it still agitated the public mind. He
spoke of Mackenzie and Rolph; of Baldwin and Bidwell; of Sir
Francis Head and the Family Compact. I discovered that he admired
Bidwell, but disliked Mackenzie. He took much pains to explain to
me some points in reference to the clergy reserve and rectory
questions, and seeing that I was an appreciative listener, he asked
me if I would like to be a politician. I said I would, if I thought
I could overturn the Family Compact, secure the clergy reserves for
education, and drive the Hudson Bay Company out of the North-West.
He looked at me for a moment with an amused expression. The last
plank of my platform seemed to arouse his curiosity. The Hudson Bay
Company and its affairs had not then attracted much notice. He
asked me why I desired to drive out the Hudson Bay Company. I
replied that I had read a lecture by Hon. R. B. Sullivan, on
immigration and the movement of population westward, in which he
described the Great Valley of the Saskatchewan in colours so
glowing, that I wondered why we did not all go there, but on
further enquiry I found that a small body of London Fur-traders
claimed the whole country as a preserve for musk-rats and foxes,
under an old charter from a King who, at the time, did not own a
foot of it; that I thought the fur-traders ought to be compelled to
give up the good land, _vi et armis_, if need be. He said, "My
young friend, your ambition is great; I am afraid you have not
considered the difficulties to be overcome." I felt slightly sat
upon; but I warmed with my subject, and as I had already made
temperance speeches to admiring audiences in the "back
concessions," I was not easily disconcerted. He then made the
remark which forty years afterwards I recalled to his recollection.
"Before you undertake such enterprises you must study law; it is a
noble profession, and in this country is the only sure road to
success in politics. If I had not felt it my duty to preach the
Gospel, I would have studied law myself." I remarked that I had
read articles in the _Christian Guardian_, attributed to him, which
I had heard people say exhibited a great deal of legal knowledge.
He seemed pleased by the compliment, but did not acknowledge the
paternity of the articles. After some further conversation as to my
studies, etc., he recommended me to begin at once to read Latin,
and promised to speak to my father and advise him to let me study
law. He kept his promise; my father rather reluctantly consented,
telling me that if I left home I would lose the farm. You know the
rest.
May I not venture the remark, that if a promising agriculturist was
spoiled by that interview, Dr. Ryerson was the spoiler? and, if
Canada has derived any benefit from my humble labours as
journalist, legislator, executive councillor, etc., he is entitled
to a share of the credit, for, as I loved--and still recall with
envious regret--the unsophisticated pleasures and contentment of a
farmer's life, I would, probably, have pursued the even tenor of my
bucolic way but for his advice and kind-hearted mediation.
In the political controversies that agitated the country from 1850
to 1862, we sometimes crossed swords. In 1865, it became my duty,
as a member of Government, to carry through Parliament an important
measure relating to Grammar Schools. Much to his surprise, I
successfully resisted all attempts at mutilation, for which he
warmly expressed his acknowledgements. During the serious, and
sometimes acrimonious discussions which preceded and followed the
Act of Confederation, I enjoyed the benefit of his approving
sympathy and wise counsel. Others with better warrant may speak of
his great power and achievements as a Christian Minister; but you
will permit me to say that I knew him as a generous friend and
patron of Canadian youth; as a sagacious and resolute man of
affairs; as a staunch defender of the British constitutional system
of government; and as a patriotic, true-hearted son of Canada--_Si
monumentum requiris--circumspice!_
Dr. Ryerson's pastoral charge of the Toronto City Circuit in 1840-41,
and other ministerial duties, engrossed all of his time to the exclusion
of other matters. It seemed to have been a positive relief to him to
engage in these more congenial pursuits. He rarely used his pen, except
on very pressing occasions. He was nevertheless a close observer of
passing events, but took no active part in them.
Lord Sydenham frequently availed himself of Dr. Ryerson's counsel and
co-operation. Shortly before the death of that able Governor, Dr.
Ryerson had gone to Kingston, as requested, on matters of public
interest. The unexpected death of Lord Sydenham, on the 19th of
September, 1841 (the immediate cause of which was a fall from his
horse), called forth a burst of universal sorrow throughout the then
newly created Province of Canada. One of the most touching tributes to
his memory was penned by Dr. Ryerson, while on his way to Kingston to
see him. It was published in the _Guardian_ of the 29th September, and
republished with other notices in a pamphlet by Mr. (now Sir) Francis
Hincks, then editor of the Toronto _Examiner_. From that sketch of Lord
Sydenham's career I take the following concluding passages:--
At the commencement of His Lordship's mission in Upper Canada, when
his plans were little known, his difficulties formidable, and his
Government weak, I had the pleasing satisfaction of giving him my
humble and dutiful support in the promotion of his non-party and
provincial objects; and now that he is beyond the reach of human
praise or censure--where all earthly ranks and distinctions are
lost in the sublimities of eternity--I have the melancholy
satisfaction of bearing my humble testimony to his candour,
sincerity, faithfulness, kindness and liberality. A few days before
the occurrence of the accident which terminated his life, I had the
honour of spending an evening and part of a day in free
conversation with His Lordship; and on that, as well as on former
similar occasions, he observed the most marked reverence for the
truths of Christianity--a most earnest desire to base the civil
institutions of the country upon Christian principles, with a
scrupulous regard to the rights of conscience--a total absence of
all animosity against any person or parties opposed to him--and an
intense anxiety to silence dissensions and discord, and render
Canada contented, happy and prosperous.
... The day before his lamented death he expressed his regret that
he had not given more of his time to religion.... The last hours of
his life were spent in earnest supplications to the Redeemer, in
humble reliance upon whose atonement he yielded up the ghost.
After the publication of this letter in the _Guardian_, Dr. Ryerson
received the following acknowledgment from T. W. C. Murdoch, Esq., late
private Secretary to Lord Sydenham:--
I ought to have thanked you before for the numbers of the
_Guardian_ containing your letter on the death of Lord Sydenham.
That letter I have read over and over again with the deepest
emotion, and I cannot but feel how much more worthily the task of
writing the history of his administration might have been confided
to your hands than to mine. That I shall discharge the duty with
affectionate zeal and good faith, I hope I need not assure you, but
I fear my inability to do justice to so statesmanlike an
administration, or to make apparent to others those nice shades of
policy which constituted the beauty and insured the success of his
government. In the meantime what are we to hope or expect from the
new Governor Sir C. Bagot. My principal confidence is that Sir R.
Peel is too prudent a man to wish discredit to his administration
by allowing the re-introduction of the old, bad system, and that
consequently Sir Charles will be instructed to follow out to the
best of his ability Lord Sydenham's policy.
FOOTNOTES:
[112] In the _Guardian_ of October 7th, 1840, Dr. Ryerson says:--Lord
Sydenham well knows the feelings of reluctance and apprehension under
which I assumed the responsibility of giving my humble and earnest
support to the measures of his government in Upper Canada.... He well
knows that I adopted the course I did with a deep consciousness that it
would be attended with personal sacrifice, with no other expectation or
wish but justice to the church to which I belonged--equal justice to
other churches--and the hope of prosperity to my native country under an
improved and efficient system of government. I did not indeed expect
that hostility against me from London would be prosecuted to the extent
it has been.... I have incurred the censure of the British Conference
for supporting, and not for opposing, the government when it needed my
support, and when it was in my power to have embarrassed it.... As it
respects myself personally, I shall not repine at having made the
sacrifice, if the new system of government but succeeds, and the land of
my birth and affections is made prosperous and happy. Note on page 199.
[113] This the Editor has been assured was also Rev. Dr. Potts'
experience of Dr. Ryerson as a hearer, several years afterwards, and
during the time that he (Dr. Potts) was pastor of the Metropolitan
Church, Toronto.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
1841.
Dr. Ryerson's attitude toward the Church of England.
The constant references in this volume to Dr. Ryerson's attitude of
hostility to the exclusive claims and pretensions put forth on behalf of
the Church of England in this province, require some explanation. His
opponents sought to neutralize this opposition by endeavouring to make
it appear that, because he opposed these claims and ignored these
pretensions, he was hostile to the Church of England as a great
spiritual power in the land.[114] He had himself often pointed out the
fallacy of this reasoning, and drawn so clear a distinction between men
and things in the controversy--the Church and her representatives--that
I cannot add any thing to what he has written on the subject. In one
letter he said:--
I am often charged with hostility to the Church of England. Did I
know nothing of the Church of England except what has been
exhibited in this province, ... how could I have any partiality for
that Church? There is a large and growing branch of the Established
Church in England that I venerate, admire, and love; but there is a
semi-popish branch of it for which I have no such respect, and that
is the branch, with a few individual exceptions, which exists in
this province....
Again, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper, on the clergy reserve question,
dated October 12th, 1838, he said:--
I would not derogate an iota from the respect claimed by the Church
of England on account of the prerogatives to which she is legally
entitled [in England]. As the form of religion professed by the
Sovereign and rulers of the Empire--as the Established Church of
the British realm--as the Church which has nursed some of the
greatest statesmen, philosophers, and divines that have
enlightened, adorned, and blest the world, she cannot fail to
command the respect of all enlightened men, whatever may be thought
of the conduct and pretensions of the Canadian branch of that
Church--pretensions which have been virtually repudiated in royal
charters, and contradicted by the entire civil and ecclesiastical
history of the old British colonies.
Dr. Ryerson's attitude to the Church of England was clearly defined in a
private and friendly correspondence between him and John Kent, Esq.,
Editor of _The Church_ newspaper, in 1841-42. (See page 97.) That paper
was established in May, 1837, as the organ of the Church of England in
Upper Canada. It was at first edited by Rev. Dr. (afterwards Bishop)
Bethune, rector of Cobourg. In 1841, John Kent, Esq., became its
editor.[115] In the religions controversies of those days _The Church_,
was ably edited. It was a decided champion of the high church, or
Puseyite party, and, as such it came into constant conflict with the
Wesleyan Methodists and their organ, the _Christian Guardian_, and
especially with its chief editor, Dr. Ryerson. On the 21st December,
1841, Dr. Ryerson wrote a letter for insertion in _The Church_, and
accompanied it with a private note to Mr. Kent. From that letter I make
the following extracts:--
I, as well as my friends, have been the subjects of repeated
strictures in your pages; during the last two years I have replied
not a word, nor published a line in reference to the Church Of
England.
I have stated on former occasions--and perhaps my two years'
silence may now give some weight to the statement--that my
objections had no reference to the existence, or prosperity, of the
Church of England as a Church, but simply and solely to its
exclusive establishment and endowment in Upper Canada, especially,
and indeed entirely, in reference to the clergy reserves. During
the discussions which took place, and which were continued for
years, I wrote many strong things; but nothing on the Episcopal
form of Government, or the formularies, or doctrines of the Church
of England. The doctrines of the Church of England, as contained in
the Articles and Homilies, I always professed to believe. On the
subject of Church Government, I often expressed my views in the
language of Dr. Paley, and in accordance with the sentiments of
many distinguished dignitaries and divines of the Church of
England, that no particular form of Church Government has been
enjoined by the Apostles. I have objected to the Episcopal, or any
other one form of Church Government, being put forth as essential
to the existence of the Church of Christ, and as the only
Scriptural form; but no further. I do not think the form of Church,
any more than the form of civil government, is settled in the
Scriptures; I believe that both are left, as Bishop Stillingfleet
has shown at large, to times, places, and circumstances, to be
determined upon the ground of expediency and utility--a ground on
which Dr. Paley has supported the different orders of the Church of
England with his accustomed clearness, ability and elegance. I
know, on the contrary, that much may be said upon the same ground
in favour of itinerancy, of Presbyterianism, and of independency.
On the subject of forms of prayer, I have never written; though I
have for many years used forms of prayer in private as helps to,
not substitutes for, devotion. I believe the foundation of the
Church of Christ is not laid in forms, but in doctrines....
I believe it would be a moral calamity for either the Church of
England, or Church of Scotland, or the Wesleyan Methodist Church,
the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches to be annihilated in
this province. I believe there are fields of labour which may be
occupied by any one of those Churches with more efficiency and
success than by any of the others. They need not, and I think,
ought not, to be aggressors upon each other....
As there were seven Apostolic Churches in Asia, we believe
ourselves one of the Apostolic Churches in Canada.... Those
persons, who believe that the instruction, and religious advantages
and privileges afforded by our Church will more effectually aid
them in working out their salvation than those which they can
command in any other part of the general fold of Christ, are
affectionately received under our watch-care; but not on account of
our approximation to, or our dissent from, the Church of England,
or any other Church.
With the settlement of the clergy reserve question ended my
controversy with the Church of England, as I have again and again
intimated that it would. Churches, as well as individuals, may
learn wisdom from experience. I therefore, submit, whether the
controversies and their characteristic feelings between the Church
of England and the Wesleyan Methodist Church in this province ought
not to cease, with the removal of the causes which produced
them?... Whether both Churches are not likely to accomplish more
religious and moral good by directing their energies against
prevalent vice and ignorance than by mutual warfare?
Dr. Ryerson concludes his letter in the following truthful and striking
language:--
I intend no offence when I express my conviction that the Church of
England in this province has vastly greater resources for doing
good than for warring with other Protestant Churches. I know her
weak points, as well as her strong towers. I am not a stranger to
the appropriate weapons for assailing the one, and for neutralizing
the strength of the other. And you have not to learn that it is
easier to deface than to beautify--to pull down a fair fabric than
to rear a common structure; and that a man may injure others
without benefitting himself. On the other hand I am equally
sensible that the Wesleyan Methodist Church has nothing to gain by
controversy; but I am quite sure, from past experience, as well as
from present aspects, that she has not so much to fear, to risk, or
to lose, as the Church of England. If controversy be perpetuated
between your Church and our own, I wash my hands from all
responsibility of it--even should the duty of self-defence compel
me to draw the sword which I had, in inclination and intention,
sheathed for ever. History, and our own experience to some extent,
abounds with monitory lessons, that personal disputes may convulse
churches, that ecclesiastical controversies may convulse provinces,
and lead to the subversion of governments....
In his private note to Mr. Kent, Dr. Ryerson said:--
I have long been impressed with the conviction that Canada could
not prosper under the element of agitation. I supported the Union
of the Canadas with a view to their civil tranquility. I believe my
expectations will be realized. In our new state of things I desire
not to be considered as standing in an attitude of hostility to the
Church of England, any more than to any other Church. I have wished
and resolved to leave civil and ecclesiastical party politics with
the former bad state of things. Travelling, observation and
experience, have been a useful school to me, and time will do
justice to the merits or demerits of my motives and conduct.
On the 22nd of December, Mr. Kent replied to Dr. Ryerson:--
Do not think that I wish to meet you coldly. I would gladly fling
away the weapons of strife. The warfare in which I am engaged, and
which I dare not decline, is literally embittering my existence,
and pressing upon me very severely. I am not aware that I have in
any way personally attacked you, or ever by name, since the
commencement of my editorial career. I should hail a day of concord
with overflowing joy. I should rejoice to see your powerful, acute,
and vigorous mind exerting itself in a manner that we should all
consider serviceable to the cause of loyalty and the Protestant
religion.
From a glance at your letters, I fondly hope that some gleam of
light is breaking in upon us all. My firm conviction is that the
doctrine of the apostolical succession will be the bond of union
and the cementer of differences, now apparently impossible. You
must have studied the question--and how can your vivid and clear
mind elude its force? Must there not be some one apostolical mode
of conferring the ministerial functions, or must it be open to all,
and Quakerism be right? I do not think I have been the assailant.
The _Guardian_ is outrageously personal and unscrupulous in its
misstatements.... I am far from thinking that I am meek and gentle
enough; but I have carefully excluded personalities,--though I
readily concede that my course of argument, which pervades all I
write or select, has been to cut away the ground from under the
feet of every denomination in the province, outside of the Church.
The papists, I firmly believe, are meditating some grand movement
all over the world; and it would be glorious indeed if Protestants
could find a common centre of union. But what can I, in my humble
way, do? I dare not drop the necessity of the apostolical
succession,--though I might dwell less upon it, and avoid, as much
as possible, as I always have done, to mix it up with offence to
other denominations. Yet, as I before intimated, the assertion and
maintenance of it, in the simplest and least controversial manner,
must ever provoke hostility. It is an endless subject to get
upon....
I shall be very happy to call on you at an early opportunity, and
obtain, or rather revive, the pleasure of your personal
acquaintance. It would be the happiest Christmas I ever spent, if
it witness the extinction of long theological enmities, and the
dawn of an era of Christian concord and love.
On the 29th December, Dr. Ryerson wrote a private note again to Mr.
Kent. He said:--I was glad to learn by the last _Church_ that you will
give my remarks a place in your columns, and that you cordially and
elegantly respond to the general spirit and design of them....
I have had a correspondence with the Editor of the _Guardian_ in
reference to the mode of conducting it, in regard to the Church of
England, and in some other respects. I am happy to be able to say that
he has at length yielded to my reasonings and recommendations, and will,
I have no doubt, conduct the _Guardian_ in accordance with the general
views expressed in my communications to you.[116] To-day's _Guardian_,
as you see, presents a visible and agreeable improvement in the points
referred to.
I blame you not for your strict and high principles as a churchman, but
I do not think that you do now make sufficient allowance for difference
of forms and ceremonies in the common faith of Protestantism. I think
you should allow as much as Archbishop (Lord Keeper) Williams has done,
and as much as is involved in the passage quoted by him from Irenæus.
Why should we be "unchurched" any more than the continental churches?
Mr. Kent, in reply to Dr. Ryerson (31st December), said:--