your letter in _The Church_, I have met your overtures in a pacific
and cordial spirit. I am sure that my remarks will be much more
acceptable to churchmen, so far as such remarks are friendly to
you, than they will be to others not belonging to our pale. I have
not consulted a soul about what I have written, nor have I shown
your pleasing reply to my first note to any one save good and safe
Mr. Henry Rowsell; though I should like to show it to Rev. H. J.
Grasett, and Bishop Strachan. You need never be afraid of what you
say to me in confidence.... It is certainly much more consistent in
you (provided only you get rid of Mr. Wesley's authority, and then,
by the way, you destroy your genealogy and succession) to call
yourselves a Church, than to be of the Church and not in it.... You
are said to possess some fine old Divinity works. You cannot have
read them without some approximation to our Church.
You are not in the position of the continental Churches. No
constraint is upon you. You can get Episcopacy, if you desire it.
Neither does the Church of England stand relatively towards you, as
the Gallican Church towards the Huguenots. You admit the purity of
our doctrine, and do not consider our discipline unscriptural. If
you were to read Bishop Stillingfleet on Separation, I think you
would open up new trains of thought. I just became so staunch an
Episcopalian, from viewing the matter extrinsically of Scripture
and history, and was led to conclude, from the nature of things,
that there can be but one valid ministry.
You are certainly a _Prospero_. You have waved your magic wand over
the _Guardian_. I saw it in an instant, and saw that you had done
it. I purposely, in my editorial, abstained from all allusions to
our confidential intercourse, or I would have thanked you for this
exercise of your healing influence.
It is by no means an unpleasing marvel that you and I, on the last
day of 1841, should be conversing so pleasantly and amicably. I
trust that peace and amity will flourish still more!
Do me the favour to accept a slight New Year's gift at my hands.
Dr. Ryerson wrote a reply to the strictures of _The Church_ newspaper,
and on the 26th addressed a private note on the subject to Mr. Kent, in
which he said:--
... The great difference between us seems to be that I value what I
hold to be the cardinal doctrines, and morals and interests of
Christianity, above either Churchism or Methodism. So that those
interests are advanced, either through the Church of England, or
Church of Scotland, or any other Protestant Church, I therein do
rejoice and will rejoice. You make the Church of England first of
all--essential to all--all in all; and that all who are not in the
Church of England are enemies to the Church of Christ, "strangers
to the covenants of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel." ... It is true you have exempted me by way of compliment;
but no intelligent man would wish to hold his religious intercourse
and standing on the tenor of a compliment; and that too at the
expense of his ecclesiastical connexion and general principles. If
I cannot but be viewed as an enemy of the Church of England as a
Methodist, it is a poor compliment to tell me that I am friendly to
it as a man. I do not understand the hair-splitting casuistry which
separates the man from the Christian....
I believe in your perfect sincerity and personal disinterestedness
and kindness, but I must say that you do not appear from the last
_Church_ to suppose it possible for a man to think in a different
channel from yourself without endangering his title to the skies,
or to common sense, and without absolutely forfeiting his claim to
orthodox Christianity. I refer not all to your maintenance of
apostolic succession, but to your unqualified reprobation of the
motives, feelings, and character of all who are not of your own
fold. How different are the sentiments and spirit of Bishop
Onderdonk's essay in support of the "Divine Right of Episcopacy"
from those of your articles in the last _Church_? Now, though we
may be without the attributes of what you believe to be a
scripturally constituted Church, we are not without the attributes
and feelings of men.... The apparatus of the Church of England is
surprisingly powerful when spiritually, rightly, and
comprehensively applied; but to build your structure like an
inverted pyramid, and to rouse every one not of you into warfare
against you, does not appear to me to be sound in theory, or wise
in practice.
Mr. Kent, in a private reply, dated 3rd February, said:--
I have read your letter over so as to prepare my remarks. In doing
this I anticipate no trouble. On the contrary, I hope to strengthen
my position and give greater weight to my axioms respecting the
duties of Churchmen in withholding aid from all religious societies
unconnected with the Church. I find, however, that your tone of
remark is excessively warm and indignant; and, deeming from the
tenor of your conversation on Thursday last, that you have doubts
on your mind respecting church government, and feeling convinced
that if ever you are led to subscribe to the indispensable
obligations of episcopacy, ... you will admit the validity of my
reasons for acting and writing as I do--under all these
circumstances I feel bound to ask you to meditate whether you will
not withdraw your letter. I give you my sacred honour that I do not
dread its effects. But I feel this, that should you ever experience
and avow a change of opinion in reference to the matters that are
now engaging your attention, it will be brought up against you by
your enemies, and may altogether prove a constant embarrassment.
Should you withdraw it, I will only mention the matter to Mr.
Grasett, who has already seen it. Should you determine on its
insertion, it shall appear next Saturday.
Dr. Ryerson did not withdraw his letter, and it appeared in _The Church_
of February 5th. The personal correspondence, however, ended here.
In accounting for his decided opposition to a church establishment in
Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:--
Before I was twenty years of age I had read Paley's Political
Philosophy, including his chapters on the British Constitution and
a Church Establishment; Locke on Government, and especially
Blackstone's Commentaries, particularly those parts on the Rights
of the Crown and the Rights of the Subject. From Paley I learned
that a Church Establishment is no part of Christianity, but a means
of supporting it, and a means which should be used only when the
majority of the people are of the religion thus supported. From
Blackstone I learned that the Church of England is the Established
Church of England and Ireland, but not of any colony, except under
one or more of three conditions, none of which existed in Upper
Canada. Upon the grounds, therefore, furnished by Blackstone and
Paley, I opposed the erection of a Church Establishment in Upper
Canada, without touching the question of a Church Establishment in
England.
Dr. Ryerson in a letter to a friend, thus refers to his early
experiences in regard to the Church of England:--
Although I had no opportunity of attending the service of the Church of
England until I was nearly twenty years of age, I made the Homilies and
Prayer Book, with the Bible, very constant companions of travel and
subjects of study. I drew my best pulpit illustrations from them, at the
very time that I was controverting the pretensions of the leaders of
that Church to exclusive establishment and supremacy in Upper Canada;
and, in so doing, I had the sympathies and support of a large portion of
the members of the Church of England, in addition to the unanimous
support of the members of other religious denominations. I felt that I
was preaching the Protestant Reformation doctrines of the Church of
England; and throughout life I have loved the Church of England with all
its faults, only second to that of my own church. I declined the offer
of ordination in the Church of England [page 206] several months after I
commenced preaching on a Methodist circuit, simply and solely upon the
ground that I was indebted to the Methodists for all the religious
instruction and influences I had experienced. I believed that I would be
more useful among them, though my life would be, as then appeared, one
of privation and labour. During the first four years of my ministry, my
salary amounted to less than one hundred dollars per annum, and during
the next twelve years (after my marriage) my salary did not exceed six
hundred dollars a year, including house rent and fuel.
In a letter written on the 28th October, 1843, to the Editor of the
_Guardian_ by Dr. Ryerson, he says:--
It is still, as it has long been, the position with the Editor of _The
Church_ and writers of his school to represent the efforts of other
Churches to maintain their own equal rights and privileges as hostility
to the Church of England.... Who proposed peace, and who has perpetuated
war--aggressive war? [page 292.] ... Who is it that proclaims bodies
prior to his own in Western Canada as "Dissenters," and seeks by every
species of unfair statement and insinuation to injure and degrade
them--both politically and religiously--and substantially maintaining
that Civil Government itself is an appropriate Providential instrument
to put down "dissent." For one, I have as yet been silent under this
provocation, insult, and proscription.
Circumscribed must his views be who does not perceive that "Puseyism,"
both in a religious and civil point of view, will soon become a far more
important question for the consideration and decision of the inhabitants
of Western Canada than that of the seat of Government, or than even that
of the University. And the day is hastening apace, when it will be a
prime matter of inquiry with them to determine ... whether they will
quietly consent to have their civil rights and liberties placed in any
form in the hands of men who regard the great majority of their
Christian fellow-subjects as unbaptized heathens and aliens in a
Christian country. Such is the issue to which _The Church_ is bringing
matters in Western Canada.[117]
* * * * *
In a journey from Kingston to Toronto by stage, which Dr. Ryerson made
in February, 1842, Bishop Strachan was a fellow passenger. Dr. Ryerson
thus speaks of the agreeable intercourse which he had with the Bishop on
that occasion:--
For the first time in my life I found myself in company with the Lord
Bishop of Toronto. He was accompanied by Mr. T. M. Jones, his
son-in-law, and Mr. Jarvis (Indian Department), very pleasant
companions, nor could I desire to meet with a more affable, agreeable
man than the Bishop himself. It would be unpardonable to introduce
remarks ... of one's neighbours ... into travelling notes in any form,
but there has been something so peculiar in the relations of "John
Toronto" and "Egerton Ryerson," that I must beg, in this instance, to
depart from a general rule. Conversation took place on several topics,
on scarcely any of which did I see reason to differ from the Bishop. He
spoke of the importance to us of getting our College at Cobourg
endowed--that an annual grant was an insufficient dependence--that as
the clergy reserve question had been settled by law, we had as much
right to a portion of the clergy lands as the Church of England--that as
we did not desire Government support for our ministers, we ought to get
our proportion appropriated to the College, as religious education was
clearly within the provisions of the Clergy Reserve Act. Valuable
suggestions, for which I thanked his lordship. I took occasion to advert
to what had excited the strongest feelings in my own mind, and in the
minds of our people generally--namely imputations on our loyalty to the
Government and laws of the country. The Bishop, with his characteristic
energy, said that what he had written on the subject he could at any
time prove--that he never represented or supposed that the Methodist
body of people were disaffected; nor had he represented or supposed that
those preachers who had been born and brought up in the country were
disloyal; but he was satisfied that such was the case with the majority
of those who used to come from the United States. I felt that the whole
matter was one of history, and not of practical importance in reference
to present interests; and I was much gratified in my own mind to find
that the real question, as one of history, was the proportion of
preachers who formerly came from the United States, and the character
and tendency of their feelings and influence; for no preachers have come
from the United States to this country these many years, and we have
none but British subjects in the Canada Conference.
After parting with the Bishop at Cobourg, in analyzing the exercises of
my own mind, I found myself deeply impressed with the following facts
and considerations:--
1. That the settlement of the clergy reserve question had annihilated
the principal causes of difference between those individuals and bodies
in this province who had been most hostile to each other.
2. That how much asperity of feeling, and how much bitter controversy
might be prevented, if those most concerned would converse privately
with each other before they entered into the arena of public
disputation.
3. That how much more numerous and powerful are the reasons for
agreement than for hostility in the general affairs of the country, even
among those who differ most widely on points of religious doctrine and
polity.[118]
FOOTNOTES:
[114] I have already on pages 41 and 206 mentioned the overtures which
were made to Dr. Ryerson by the late Bishop Stewart of Quebec to induce
him to enter the ministry of the Church of England. See also page 97.
[115] "From 1841 to 1843 the editorial management of _The Church_ was
assumed by Mr. John Kent, who had been a valuable contributor to its
pages from the commencement. The excitement, however, amid the clash and
din of party strife was too much for him, and the paper came back to its
first editor, who held it again ... for nearly four years.... It
gradually lost ground, and died out ... in 1856. Memoir of Bishop
Strachan by Bishop Bethune," page 159.
[116] From Dr. Ryerson's letter to Rev. J. Scott, Editor of the
_Guardian_, I make the following extracts:--I take the liberty to
mention two or three things that I have seen in the _Guardian_ which
have caused me some pain and concern. I refer to your mode and style of
controversy with "_The Church_." During, and since my late tour to the
West, I have heard several preachers and some others allude to it, and
nearly all in terms of regret. I set down the questions as they occur to
my own mind.
1. We have no controversy with the Church of England as a Church
Establishment. We have disclaimed opposing, or doing anything to
disparage the Church Establishment in England.... 2. Then on the subject
of church polity. Your articles, especially the series entitled
"Dissent, etc., No Wonder"--were put forth as a defence.... But which of
our institutions did they defend? The burden of them went to prove that
the Church of England is unscriptural in its polity, union with the
state, etc. Suppose all this were true, would it prove that our own
Church is apostolic and Scriptural? To prove that our neighbours are
black, does not prove that we are white. We do not profess to build up
ourselves upon the ruin of any body else, or to be "foragers" upon
others, although we readily accept members of other churches when they
offer themselves. To prove that Presbyterian ordination is valid (as did
the valuable series of articles copied by you from the _Wesleyan
Magazine_, and Powell, on Apostolic Succession) defends our ordination.
To prove that the Church of England is wrong and rotten from beginning
to end cannot be a defence of ourselves. It may, indeed, please some of
our friends; but it also tends to prove that we are settled enemies to
the Church of England in all its forms and features, as well as in its
union with the state.
Far be it from me to look upon the things I have mentioned as
characteristics of the _Guardian_; I look upon them as blemishes, and as
drawbacks from its usefulness--objects which I know are scarcely less
dear to your heart than life itself. If we narrow our own foundations by
such sweeping denunciations against the Church of England, and
strictures on persons without our communion, ... we multiply our
opponents, and reduce the circulation of our journal within the circle
of our own members.
I am sensible of my own errors, deficiency and unworthiness; but I have
felt that I should not do my duty to you as a brother beloved, and one
from whom I have received too many proofs of regard, and so much aid in
my labours, without thus telling you what was in my heart.
Rev. Mr. Scott at first felt aggrieved and disappointed on receiving
this letter and a personal correspondence between him and Dr. Ryerson
ensued, which, however, ended satisfactorily. In a letter to Dr.
Ryerson, written in 1864--23 years afterwards,--Mr. Scott thus recalls
the reminiscence of his career as Editor of the _Guardian_. He says:--My
esteemed friend: You and I have not always thought alike (and what is
manliness worth that is not independent enough to disagree?) but as age
advances I have an increasing pleasure in recalling to mind the years,
when you were Superintendent of old Adelaide street Church, and I was
your supplementary helper,--in joint intercession with the humbled at
night--in the damp basement, and during the day pursuing the penitents
in dirty taverns, and the dens of dirtier March [now Lombard] street,
the sainted Mrs. S. E. Taylor praying for us; and Christ won many souls.
Since then what progress Scriptural Christianity--Methodism--has made in
Canada! I trust that when you repose in the tomb, and I am beneath some
quiet sod of loved Canada, we shall meet those again for whose salvation
we laboured. In the words of an ancient wish: May your last days be your
best days! Mr. Scott entered the ministry in 1834; and died at Brampton,
May 5th, 1880, aged 77.
[117] In this connection see the significant conclusion of the note on
page 291.
[118] This incident might also form a fitting sequel to chapter xxvii,
page 213.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
1841-1842.
Victoria College.--Hon. W. H. Draper.--Sir Chas. Bagot.
Amongst the last public acts performed by Lord Sydenham was the giving
of the Royal assent to a Bill for the erection of the Upper Canada
Academy into a College with University powers. This he did on the 27th
August, 1841. Dr. Ryerson thus refers to the event, in a letter written
from Kingston on that day:--
The establishment of such an institution by the members of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada attests their estimate of
education and science; and the passing of such an act unanimously
by both Houses of the Legislature, and the Royal assent to it by
His Excellency in Her Majesty's name, is an ample refutation of
recent statements and proceedings of the Wesleyan Committee in
London ... while the Act itself will advance the paramount
interests of literary education amongst Her Majesty's Canadian
subjects.... For the accomplishment of this purpose, a grant must
be added to the charter--a measure ... honourable to the
enlightened liberality of the Government and Legislature. When they
are securely laying a broad foundation for popular government, and
devising comprehensive schemes for the development of the latent
resources of the country, and the improvement of its internal
communication, and proposing a liberal system of common school
education, free from the domination of every church, and aiding
colleges which may have been established by any church, we may
rationally and confidently anticipate the arrival of a long-looked
for era of civil government and civil liberty, social harmony, and
public prosperity.
In October, 1841, Dr. Ryerson was appointed Principal of the
newly-chartered College, and on the 21st of that month, he opened its
first session by a practical address to the students.
At the close of that address he said:--
His late Most Gracious Majesty William IV., of precious memory,
first invested this institution, in 1836, with a corporate charter
as an Academy--the first institution of the kind established by
Royal Charter, unconnected with the Church of England, throughout
the British Colonies. It is a cause of renewed satisfaction and
congratulation, that, after five years' operation as an Academy, it
has been incorporated as a College, and financially assisted by the
unanimous vote of both branches of the Provincial
Legislature,--sanctioned by more than an official cordiality, in
Her Majesty's name, by the late lamented Lord Sydenham, one of
whose last messages to the Legislative Assembly was, a
recommendation, to grant £500 as an aid to the Victoria College....
We have buoyant hopes for our country when our rulers and
legislators direct their earliest and most liberal attention to its
literary institutions and educational interests. A foundation for a
common school system in this province has been laid by the
Legislature, which I believe will at no distant day, exceed in
efficiency any yet established on the American Continent;[119] and
I have reason to believe that the attention of Government is
earnestly directed to make permanent provision for the support of
colleges also, that they may be rendered efficient in their
operation, and accessible to as large a number of the enterprising
youth of our country as possible.
[Illustration: University of Victoria College, Cobourg.]
Dr. Ryerson, although appointed Principal of the newly chartered
Victoria College in October, 1841, did not relinquish his pastoral
duties as Superintendent of the Toronto City Circuit until the
Conference of June, 1842. His appointment as General Secretary of the
Wesleyan Missionary Society, in 1840, necessitated his constant
attendance during the winter season at missionary-meetings.
Correspondence, consultation, and committee meetings filled up such time
as he could spare from his duties as Superintendent of the Circuit. His
was indeed a busy life; and by his untiring energy and industry he was
enabled to give more than the usual time to the various departments of
the Church's work. His aid and counsel was constantly being sought in
these things, and was as freely given as though he had the most abundant
leisure at his command. In February, 1842, he went to Kingston to attend
its missionary anniversary. While there he says:--
In an interview which I had with Sir Charles Bagot, the new
Governor-General, it affords me a satisfaction I cannot express, to
be able to say that, in advancing the interests of Victoria
College, and in securing the rights and interests of our Church,
Sir Charles Bagot will not be second to Lord Sydenham--that while,
as a man and a Christian, His Excellency is a strict and
conscientious churchman, as a Governor he will know no creed or
party in his decisions and administration.... I believe that it is
a principle of His Excellency's Government, in public appointments,
etc., qualifications and character being equal, to give the
preference to native and resident inhabitants of the
province--those who have suffered in the privations, have grown
with the growth, and strengthened with the strength of the country.
Sir Charles has the wisdom and experience of sixty-three years, and
the buoyant activity of our public men of forty. If I mistake not,
the characteristics of his government will be impartiality and
energy--not in making further changes, but,--in consolidating and
maturing the new institutions which have been established amongst
us--in obliterating past differences, in developing the latent
resources of the country, and in raising up a "united, happy, and
prosperous people."
In March, 1842, the question was raised as to the right of ministers of
the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, who had been members of the old
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, to
solemnize matrimony, or for the Conference legally to hold church
property. Dr. Ryerson prepared a case on the subject, and submitted it
to Hon. R. S. Jameson, the Attorney-General, for his opinion. The
opinion of the Attorney-General was conclusive in favour of these
rights, and thus this troublesome question, so often raised by
adversaries, was finally set at rest.
The transition period between the death of Lord Sydenham and the arrival
of his successor, Sir Charles Bagot, was marked by much uncertainty in
political matters. In September, 1842, Dr. Ryerson wrote to his friend,
Mr. John P. Roblin, the Liberal M.P.P. for Prince Edward county, on the
apparently threatening aspect of affairs. Mr. Roblin, in his reply,
dated Kingston, September 16th, said:[120]
The political sea has indeed appeared rough; the clouds were dark
and ominous of a dreadful storm. But I am happy to say that they
have passed away, and the prospect before us is now favourable.
There were in the House quite a large majority against ministers;
this they plainly saw, and, therefore, shaped their course to avert
the blow. Hon. W. H. Draper stated distinctly that it was, and had
been, his opinion, that the Lower Canadians should have a fair
proportion of members in the Executive Council, and for that
purpose he had no less than three times tendered his resignation;
that he was ready to go out, and would do so at any moment. Hon. R.
Baldwin certainly occupies a proud position at present, and may
continue to do so, if he is not too punctilious. The arrangement,
which it is understood has been come to, is that Messrs. Ogden,
Draper, and Sherwood go out, and that Mr. L. H. Lafontaine comes in
as Attorney East; Mr. Baldwin, Attorney-General West; Mr. T. C.
Aylwin, Solicitor-General East; Mr. James E. Small, or some other
Liberal, as the third man. This will make a strong Government, for
it can command a large majority in the House. It is true that the
gentleman you mentioned, and a few others will be dead against it,
but they are a small minority, and will form a wholesome check.
No man would regret more than I would to see the country thrown
into confusion at this time. I entertain a high opinion of the
Governor-General (Sir Charles Bagot.) He certainly has shown a
disposition to do everything he consistently could to give
satisfaction to the prominent party, and being (as he is) of the
Tory school, and appointed by a Tory ministry, he certainly is
deserving of much credit for going as far as he did to meet the
views of the Reformers.
The following was the only record left by Dr. Ryerson of his
principalship of Victoria College:--At the end of two years' labours in
the station of Adelaide Street Church (the predecessor of the present
Metropolitan Church), I was again wrested from my loved work by an
official pressure brought to bear upon me to accept the Presidency of
Victoria College, which was raised from Upper Canada Academy to a
College, and opened and inaugurated, in 1842, as a University College.
* * * * *
On the 3rd of August, 1842, the Wesleyan University at Middletown,
Connecticut, conferred on the Principal of Victoria College the degree
of D.D. His old and valued friend Francis Hall, Esq., proprietor of the
New York _Commercial Advertiser_, was the first to convey to him the
pleasing intelligence. He said:
Perhaps this will be the first communication from Middletown which
announces to Victoria College that its head is Rev. Egerton
Ryerson, D.D. May you long live to enjoy the distinguished title! I
hope to take you by the hand in a few days, and congratulate you
personally.
On the 21st of June, 1842, Dr. Ryerson was, with appropriate ceremonies,
formally installed as Principal of Victoria College. The Editor of this
volume well remembers what a joyful day it was for the College; and how
heartily and kindly the new Principal spoke words of encouragement to
each of the students then present. On that occasion he delivered a
carefully prepared inaugural address, which was afterwards published in
pamphlet form and widely circulated. On the 10th September, he sent a
copy of the address to Hon. W. H. Draper. In his note Dr. Ryerson called
Mr. Draper's attention to what he conceived to be the defective nature
of the provisions for the education of law-students, before their
entrance on the study of the law (pages 24 and 25 of the address). To
this Mr. Draper replied on the 16th. He also added an explanation in
regard to his present position in the Government. He said:--
I have perused your address with much satisfaction. The Law Society
of Upper Canada, by appointing a well-qualified examiner last term,
will, I think, forward your views as to the education which should
precede the study of that profession.
By the recent changes which have taken place, I have no longer the
right to visit Victoria College officially; but I hope that I may
be favoured with an opportunity of doing so in my private capacity.
You will not, I trust, consider it intrusive in me to briefly state
the cause of my retirement from the Cabinet. I have long considered
the Government in a false position, while the French Canadians saw
in the Council no person acquainted with their wants and
wishes--able and willing to look after their interests, and in whom
they had confidence. Apprehending from what took place in the
beginning of last session that they might refuse to take office
with me, I signified several months ago my readiness to retire if
that were the case. In July I renewed that offer. And now, when a
negotiation was opened on, it appeared that they would not come in
without Mr. Baldwin. I again offered my resignation, because,
taking the view I do of his conduct when we were last in Council
together, I feel I should not be in that body if he were there
also. From that moment I ceased to advise or have anything to do
with the matter. Had every other part of it been satisfactory to
me, or had it been altered so as to make it satisfactory,
nevertheless his being brought in inevitably put me out. Should you
hear my conduct canvassed and misunderstood, this explanation will,
I trust, set it right.
To Mr. Draper's letter Dr. Ryerson replied, and on the 7th October again
wrote, asking him to deliver an address to the students at the opening
of the session. In his letter Dr. Ryerson said:--
I deeply regret any occurrence which would deprive Canada of the
advantage of your official counsels. I have observed your public
conduct throughout, and it has been such in my estimation, as I
have felt it a pleasurable duty to appreciate and defend, even in
the most doubtful and trying circumstances. You now enjoy the proud
distinction of advising and assisting, on public grounds, to form a
government, from which, on personal grounds, you have felt it your
duty to retire. You cannot suppose that I entertain a less exalted
opinion of your disinterestedness and high sense of honour, when
the strong opinions I have again and again expressed of it, have
been more than realized by your present patriotic and noble course
of proceeding.
In regard to the address which I have solicited you to deliver at
the opening of the next session of our College, I desire to state
that you will of course make it long or short, as you like,
although I should like it long. It is my intention to get, if
possible, some gentleman of high public standing and literary
talent to deliver an address at the commencement of each collegiate
year. I think that such addresses will have a salutary influence
upon the taste and feeling and ambition of the students; and the
notices and publication of them in the newspapers will tend to
elevate the standard of the public taste, and will, I think, be
useful to public men themselves. I shall be gratified, and I am
sure good will ensue, from your appearing before the public in a
somewhat new character.
To this letter Mr. Draper replied, on the 10th October:--
I find that, consistently with my professional engagements at the
different assizes (which are now of paramount importance to me), I
cannot prepare an address so as to do justice to your request. If
it involved only the attendance on the day, I would cheerfully make
some sacrifice to accomplish it; but there is more, for I would
wish, if I undertook the task, to perform it well, and try to
approximate the favourable expectation of those who were willing to
entrust it to me; and for this end I cannot devote time enough out
of the short interval between this and the latest day named by you.
Accept my assurance that I feel great reluctance in declining your
proposal. The compliment it conveyed was highly gratifying to me
under existing circumstances, and I should have felt sincere
pleasure in exciting my humble abilities in favour of an
institution to which, when I had fuller opportunities, I had
endeavoured to be of use (page 179). Accept my acknowledgements for
the kindness and courtesy of your other remarks in reference to
myself.
Sir Charles Bagot did not long hold the office of Governor-General. Like
Lord Sydenham, he was unexpectedly stricken by the hand of death, at
Kingston, on the 19th May, 1843. A sketch of his life and character was
prepared by Dr. Ryerson and published in the Kingston _Chronicle_. In
that sketch he said:--
Sir Charles Bagot has created throughout the length and breadth of
United Canada the settled and delightful conviction that its
Government is henceforth to be British, as well as Colonial--and,
as such, the best on the continent of America; that Canadians are
to be governed upon the principle of domestic, and not
transatlantic, policy; that they are not to be minified as men and
citizens, because they are colonists; that they are (to use the
golden words of Sir Robert Peel) "to be treated as an integral
portion of the British Empire."
This sketch was very favourably received by the leading public men of
Canada, and, after it appeared in the _Chronicle_, was reprinted by
Stewart Derbyshire, Esq., Queen's Printer, who, in a letter to Dr.
Ryerson on the subject, said:--
Your letter in the _Chronicle_ has attracted high admiration in the
quarters most competent for criticism, and it is felt you have done
a real service to the country. Supposing your wish is to diffuse
the sentiments of your letter, I have taken the liberty of giving
it to our printers of the _Canada Gazette_ to set up in handsome
type, 8 octavo pages, and shall strike off 1,000, and send about,
giving away a good many, and putting the rest at book-stores at a
very small price. The common run of people do not value what they
do not pay for. Have I acted in this in accordance with your
wishes--or do you interdict the publication? Many extra copies of
the _Chronicle_ were struck off, and about forty copies sent to-day
to England by the steamer "Great Western." Sir Robert Peel, Lord
Stanley, and Sir Charles Buller had one each.
Dr. Ryerson assented to the republication of his letter.
* * * * *
In the light of after events, the following extract from a letter
received by Dr. Ryerson from Hon. R. B. Sullivan, dated Kingston, 21st
July, 1843, is somewhat interesting. Mr. Sullivan had placed one of his
sons under Dr. Ryerson's care at Victoria College. After referring to
matters relating to the education of youth, Mr. Sullivan proceeded:--"I
hope that our friendship will be a sufficient inducement to you to teach
my boy that upon his own good conduct under Providence his future
happiness depends, and to give him that steadfastness of mind which lads
naturally want. In asking these things of you, I place myself under no
common obligation. There is no man in Canada of whom I would ask the
same. My doing so of you arises from a respect and regard for you
personally, which has grown as we have been longer acquainted, and which
no prejudices on the part of those with whom I have mixed, and no
obloquy heaped upon you by others, have ever shaken."
* * * * *
It is pleasant to get a kind word from those who approve of one's
course. It is pleasanter to get it from those who have been indifferent,
or even hostile. Thus, in a letter from Rev. Matthew Holtby to Dr.
Ryerson, written in March, 1842, he said:
Soon after I arrived here from England, I became acquainted with
you and your writings, and ever since, I have watched your course,
often with painful and prayerful anxiety. It is long since I
doubted the propriety of your public conduct, or the justice of
your cause; but as I observed the storm gathering around you, and
the winds blowing into a hurricane, from all the cardinal points at
once, I have had my fears, that you might faint in the apparently
unequal conflict. Thank God, he has delivered you--he has enabled
you to stand at the helm, and to steer the Old Ship into smoother
water. But we may rest assured that our foes are not dead. I only
wish you may manifest as much nautical skill in a calm, as you have
in the long storm, and I doubt not but all will be well.
FOOTNOTES:
[119] This memorable prophecy as to the future of our educational system
was evidently made by Dr. Ryerson under the conviction that the verbal
promise made to him by Lord Sydenham in 1841,--that he should have the
superintendence of that system--would have been carried out by his
successor, Sir Charles Bagot. There was no written promise, however, on
the subject, and he and his friends were greatly surprised at the
singular appointment made in May, 1842. It was not until 1844 that Dr.
Ryerson received the promised appointment--the reward (as was then most
unjustly alleged against him) of services rendered to Sir Charles
Metcalfe in the crisis of that year. (See, however, chapter xliii. on
Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent of Education.)
[120] This correspondence illustrates one phase of the political history
of the times.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
1843.
Episode in the Case of Hon. Marshall S. Bidwell.
As mentioned in Chapter xxiv., page 188, an effort was made in 1843 to
induce Hon. M. S. Bidwell to return to Canada. Copies of the
correspondence on the subject were enclosed to Dr. Ryerson, by the Hon.
Robert Baldwin, in a letter dated Kingston, 5th June, 1843, as
follows:--
I enclose you copies of letters which I am sure will afford you
much pleasure. At present this communication of them must be
confidential, as you will see by their date that they have not yet
reached their object himself. But after the warm interest you have
taken in the cause of my friend, at a time when any interference on
my part would have been worse than useless, I feel it due to you to
make you early acquainted with what has taken place. I have seen,
with much pleasure, that you have carried out the intention you
hinted to me when I last had the pleasure of seeing you at
Kingston. Your admirable letter must have had a good effect. I see
that some little popguns were let off at you on the occasion, but
they are too puny to excite anything but a smile at their
imbecility.
I regret much my inability to have been present at your last annual
examination, but hope to be more fortunate another year.
The Hon. Robert Baldwin's letter to Mr. Bidwell, enclosed to Dr.
Ryerson, dated Kingston, 2nd June, 1843, was as follows:--
I have great pleasure in being able to transmit to you a copy of a
note addressed by me to His Excellency the Governor-General, with a
copy of that of Mr. Secretary Harrison, conveying His Excellency's
reply, which, I am happy, so distinctly removes every obstacle to
your return to what has been in all essentials your native country;
and that without the descent on your part, by even a single step,
from the high ground which you have always maintained in relation
to your unjust expatriation.
I will at present only stop to assure you of the sentiments of
unabated affection and respect with which you have ever continued
to be regarded in this country, during the whole period of your
exile, and to express my conviction of the satisfaction with which
your return will be hailed by all your former friends, and by many
even of your former political opponents--in which satisfaction, I
trust, I need scarcely add that no one will more sincerely
participate than myself.
The following is a copy of Mr. Baldwin's note to Sir Charles Metcalfe,
the Governor-General, dated 25th May:--
Mr. Robert Baldwin, having been informed by Mr. Secretary Harrison
that with reference to the case of Mr. Bidwell, which Mr. Baldwin
had the honour of bringing under the notice of the Governor-General
shortly after his assumption of the Government, His Excellency only
requires a request to be made to him as a foundation for his
directing that the pledge taken from that gentleman, in his
departure from Upper Canada, should be cancelled, and giving His
Excellency's sanction for the introduction into Parliament of a
Bill to restore to Mr. Bidwell the political rights of which his
residence abroad, under pressure of that pledge, has deprived him,
Mr. Baldwin respectfully begs leave to make that request.
The letter in reply, of Mr. Secretary Harrison to Hon. Robert Baldwin,
dated 29th May, was as follows:--
I am commanded by the Governor-General to inform you, in reply to
your note of the 25th inst., that His Excellency considers it right
that whatever pledge may have been given by Mr. Bidwell on his
departure from Upper Canada, to preclude his return, should be
cancelled. The letter of that gentleman to the then
Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Francis Bond Head, supposed to contain
such a pledge, is not to be found in the archives of the
Secretary's office. I am, therefore, directed to say that the
pledge is considered as cancelled, and that the letter, if ever
found, may be returned.
I am also further desired to acquaint you that in the event of Mr.
Bidwell's proposing to return, His Excellency will give his
sanction to the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to restore
to that gentleman the political rights of which his residence
abroad, under pressure of his pledge, deprived him.
On the 14th August, 1843, Hon. Robert Baldwin wrote the following letter
to Dr. Ryerson:--
I send you a copy of a letter from our friend, Mr. Bidwell, in
answer to my letters to him. The original I have sent up to my
father, but had a copy made for you, knowing the interest you have
ever taken in his case.
Hon. M. S. Bidwell's letter to Hon. Robert Baldwin, dated New York, 31st
July, 1843, was as follows:--
I hardly know how to commence my answer to your letter after so
long a delay which has been unintentional and unexpected, and in a
great measure unavoidable. I might, indeed, and ought to have
written to you when I first received it, but I then hoped it would
be in my power to make you a short visit in compliance with your
invitation. On this point I was kept in suspense by the state of
Mrs. Bidwell's health, and was besides very laboriously occupied
with indispensable professional engagements. With this frank
explanation I throw myself upon your indulgence to pardon my delay.
Never, my dear friend, for one moment have I doubted your kind and
friendly feelings, or your anxiety that I should be treated with
justice and liberality by the Government, and I have never ceased
to be gratified that I was honoured with the friendship of one
whose wishes and talents have, for many years, commanded my
respect. Amidst the dejection of spirits and perplexity of mind
that I have suffered, this consideration has afforded me great
consolation.
Your communication has now taken me by surprise. You will add to
your former obligations if you will make suitable acknowledgements
for me to His Excellency for the answer which, by his directions,
Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to your letter.
All that I have learned of Sir Charles Metcalfe's character and
measures has filled me with the highest respect, and with a
confidence that Canada will be governed by him with wisdom,
justice, and liberality. Loving that country, this confidence has
been a source of great joy to me.
Let me add that, in my judgment, Sir Robert Peel in all his
measures, since his last appointment has shown a wise moderation
and conciliatory spirit, and an anxious desire for the true welfare
of the vast Empire beneath the sway of Her Majesty's sceptre.
I would gladly make you a visit at once if I could, but I should
feel great pleasure to see you here. I shall do with great pleasure
what I can to make the visit agreeable to you. I have heard with
concern of the feeble health of your venerable father. I cannot
tell you with what deep interest and great respect I think of him.
He has been the consistent friend of constitutional liberty through
evil report as well as good report. Amidst perfidy and violence,
folly and bigotry and intolerance, he has presented a rare and
happy example, which I admire, of an enlightened and cultivated
mind supporting the great principles of the British Constitution
with discriminating zeal, constancy of purpose, and moderation of
temper. I beg that you will do me the favour when you write to him
to present my most affectionate and respectful regards.
I perceive that Mr. Secretary Harrison alludes to the possibility
of my returning to Canada. I cannot fail to feel, as long as I
live, a deep interest in that country, and the most ardent wishes
for its prosperity. But I have formed no plans for a change of
residence. A constant attention to my business, which is necessary
for the support of my family, has left me no time to form plans.
With a gratified sense of your kindness and with great regard and
affection, your friend,
Marshall S. Bidwell.
To this letter from Mr. Bidwell, Hon. Robert Baldwin replied on the 12th
August, as follows:--
I have, believe me, great pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of
your letter, as well on account of its relieving me, to a certain
extent at least, from apprehensions that Mrs. Bidwell's health was
the cause of your silence.
I cannot, however, conceal my disappointment at the last paragraph
of your letter, in which, though you do not altogether shut out the
hope of our having you again amongst us.... The obligations in
regard to Mrs. Bidwell's health which you wrote (as precluding such
consideration for the present) are, however, too sacred for even
friendship to venture upon more than a repetition of those
assurances, which my former letter contained, of the feelings of
affection entertained towards you in this country, and the
satisfaction which your return would afford. I, however, find it
impossible to do otherwise than indulge in the pleasing
anticipation of again seeing you amongst us, not as a mere visitor,
but as once more a Canadian, in fact as well as in feeling. We have
not, and certainly for the generation to which we belong, shall
not, have any subjects of equal importance, in a pecuniary point of
view, to those which seek the aid, and reward the exertion, of your
professional talents where you are. It seems, therefore, to partake
somewhat of selfishness to wish to withdraw you from an arena
worthy of your great talents, to appropriate those talents to a
sphere so much more limited. Be that as it may, I will indulge the
hope, so long as you do not forbid it. In the meantime, could you
not take a leave of absence for a few weeks during the coming
Autumn Assizes, and amuse yourself with holding some briefs on some
of them here? We have now five Circuits--the Eastern, Midland,
Home, Niagara, and Western. Mr. Justice Jones takes the Eastern,
Mr. Justice McLean the Midland, the Chief Justice the Niagara, and
Mr. Justice Hagerman the Western. Nothing would give me more
pleasure than to see you thus renew your relations with our bar;
even if you should not do so with a view to a final return to it.
Let me know soon, in a post or two, if possible, as well as the
circuit you mean to go on.... Now as I have gone on with this
scheme, I find myself grow warm on it, so do not throw cold water
upon it by a negative.
If I could do so with any propriety, I would avail myself of your
kind invitation to visit you at New York for the purpose, not only
of seeing you, but of urging this my suit in person. But I assure
you it is out of my power to do so. Parliament is called for 2nd
September, and I shall not have a moment's leisure from this time
till the Session is over. You must recollect that, as a Parliament
man, I am comparatively but a young hand, and I have to try and
make up for want of experience by hard work; though I find it by no
means a sufficient substitute.
I complied in substance with your request to make your
acknowledgements to His Excellency for the answer, which by his
direction, Mr. Secretary Harrison returned to my letter; but lest I
should do so less appropriately than I ought, I took the liberty of
letting you speak for yourself, by showing His Excellency your
letter.
Your opinions of the Governor-General and of Sir Robert Peel
entirely agree with my own. But I regret to say that some of our
friends, and of our firm friends too, seem to me to forget what has
been accomplished because everything is not done at once, or,
because some things are done not exactly as they would have them.
This impatience is much to be regretted. If I were one whom it was
necessary to keep up to the mark, as it may be called, it might be
excusable, but they do not even profess to think that to be the
case as respects the points in question. Their display of
dissatisfaction, therefore, has only the effect of lessening the
weight of the party in Upper Canada in the eyes of both the Head of
the government here and the Imperial authorities at home. But I did
not mean to make this a letter of complaint; but the fact is, I am
just now smarting under an ebullition of violence on the part of
our friends in Toronto, on the subject of Mr. Stanton's appointment
to the Collectorship there, which almost involuntarily led me into
these remarks. You will, I hope, excuse me.
My dear father, I am happy to say, appears by his last letters to
be rather better. I fear much, however, that the improvement cannot
be considered of a permanent character. As the Governor-General
kept your letter till yesterday, I was only able to send it up to
him to-day. It will, I am sure, afford him much gratification.
I hope you will excuse the length of this epistle, and rebuke me by
the shortness of your reply, which need contain no more than six
words, to wit: "I will ride the circuit." I believe "ride" is the
professional term; at least used to be so, though it may belong to
the era of Mr. Justice Twisden, if not a still more remote one,
rather than at present.... You see how inclined I am to run on, so
that lest I should transgress beyond endurance, I will conclude at
once, with the assurance of my warm and continued regard. Ever your
affectionate friend,
R. B.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
1844.
Events Preceding the Defence of Lord Metcalfe.
The defence of Lord Metcalfe, the Governor-General of Canada, who
succeeded Sir Charles Bagot in 1843, was unquestionably the most
memorable act of Dr. Ryerson's long and eventful life.
His previous training for twenty years in the school of controversy in
relation to civil and religious rights; his personal intercourse with
leading statesmen in England on Canadian affairs; his contests for
denominational equality with successive Governors in Upper Canada, and
his counsels and suggestions, (offered at their request), to such
notable representatives of Royalty in Canada as Lord Durham, Lord
Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot, and Sir Charles Metcalfe, put it beyond the
power of even the most captious to question the pre-eminent
qualifications of Dr. Ryerson to discuss, in a practical and intelligent
manner, the then unsettled question of responsible government as against
the prerogative--a question which had arisen between Sir Charles
Metcalfe and his late Councillors. In the chapter which Dr. Ryerson had
prepared for this part of the Story of his Life, he thus refers to his
intercourse with, and relations to, the distinguished Governors whom I
have mentioned. He said:--
In 1839 a Royal Commission was issued to Lord Durham to investigate the
affairs of Canada, and report thereon to Her Majesty. While engaged in
his important duty he sent for and conferred with me repeatedly, and
treated me with such consideration, as that on leaving him he would
accompany me to the door and open it for me, shaking hands with me most
cordially. After his return to England he sent me a copy of his famous
Report (addressed by himself) before it was laid on the table of the
House of Lords. On receiving in advance this report of Lord Durham I
published in the _Guardian_, with appropriate headings, extracts from
that part of it which related to the establishment of responsible
government and its administration in Canada, and then lent the extracts
and the type on which they were printed to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Francis
Hincks for insertion in the _Examiner_ newspaper, of which he was at
that time proprietor and Editor. I afterwards aided Lord Sydenham in
every way in my power to allay the party passions and animosities of the
past, and to establish responsible government upon liberal principles,
irrespective of past party distinctions, comprehending Hon. W. H. Draper
and Hon. Robert Baldwin in the same administration--a union or coalition
which did not long survive the life of Lord Sydenham--Mr. Baldwin
declaring his want of confidence in Mr. Draper, and retiring from the
government. Soon afterwards, Mr. Baldwin and his friends succeeded to
power under Sir Charles Bagot.
This was the state of things until 1843, when Sir Charles Bagot died,
and Sir Charles Metcalfe was appointed to succeed him. I had the
melancholy pleasure of offering a tribute (in the form of an obituary
notice) to the character and administration of both Lord Sydenham and
Sir Charles Bagot--papers much noticed and widely circulated at the time
as the best specimens of any writing which had ever appeared; but I had
a genial theme and good subjects in both cases. Sir Charles Metcalfe was
popular with all parties at first: but after a few months a difference
arose between him and his Councillors as to the appointment of the Clerk
of the Peace of the County of Lanark, and then on the principle of
appointments to office; or in other words, the exercise of the patronage
of the Crown.
To understand the character of this famous and much misrepresented
controversy, and how I became involved in it, some preliminary and
explanatory remarks are necessary:--
It is to be observed in the first place, that one chief subject of
complaint by "Reformers" for many years--nay from the beginning--was the
partial exercise of the patronage of the Crown, appointing magistrates,
officers of militia, judges, etc., from men of one party only, in whose
behalf every kind of executive favour was bestowed for years. This was
the purport of their complaints in the various petitions and addresses
of "Reformers" to the Earl of Durham, Lord Sydenham, Sir Charles Bagot,
etc., who necessarily promised that the Governments should henceforth be
conducted upon the principles of justice, "according to the well
understood wishes of the people," of whom "Reformers" claimed to
contribute a large majority, and even of the liberal Conservative
members of the Church of England. But singular to say, on the occurrence
of the first vacancy, the Reform government urged upon Sir Charles
Metcalfe the appointment of one of their own party, irrespective of the
superior claims, as the Governor conceived (on the ground of service,
experience and fitness), of a deserving widow and her orphan son. The
circumstances were as follows:--
Amongst the early gentlemen immigrants in the County of Lanark was
a Mr. Powell, a man of wealth and education; but in attempting to
clear and cultivate a farm in a new country, he soon expended his
means and became reduced in circumstances. He was appointed Clerk
of the Peace, and discharged its duties for many years, when he
sickened and died. During the two years' sickness which preceded
his death, the duties of office were discharged satisfactorily by
his son, who was then about twenty or twenty-one years of age. On
the death of her husband, the Widow Powell proceeded to Kingston to
plead in person before Sir Charles Metcalfe for the appointment of
her son to the office vacated by the death of her husband, and as
the only means of supporting herself and family. One can easily
conceive the effect of such an appeal upon Sir Charles Metcalfe's
benevolent feelings. He declined the advice of his Councillors for
a party appointment, and determined to appoint the widow's son to
the office rendered vacant by the death of her husband, and one
which he had successfully discharged for nearly two years. The
Council, instead of resigning on the fact of the appointment,
sought to obtain from Sir Charles Metcalfe a promise that he would
henceforth act upon their advice. He said he would always receive
and consider their advice, but would give no promise on the part of
the Crown as to how far he would pledge the prerogative in advance
and act upon that advice. On this the Councillors resigned,
charging Sir Charles Metcalfe with violating the principles of
responsible government. This he positively denied. The
circumstances of the case were so mystified by the statements made,
that general prejudice was excited against Sir Charles Metcalfe,
and the Councillors seemed for the time to have the country at
their backs.[121]
I was at that time President of Victoria College; and the late Hon. Wm.
Hamilton Merritt, returning from Kingston at the sudden close of the
Session of Parliament held there, stopped the stage in front of the
College, called to see me, and asked me what I thought of the
occurrences between the Governor-General and his Councillors. I told him
that, from what I had heard, my sympathies were with the Councillors. He
answered that I was mistaken; that the Councillors were clearly in the
wrong; that they had made a great mistake, and were endangering
principles of government for which he had so long contended. He then
stated the particulars of what had transpired, and referred me, in
confirmation of his statement, to the documents and correspondence which
would all be printed in a few days. I replied, that if what he (Mr.
Merritt) stated was correct, Sir Charles Metcalfe was an injured man,
and that the new system of responsible government was likely to be
applied in a way contrary to what had always been professed by its
advocates. Mr. Merritt requested me to examine for myself the documents
and correspondence to which he had referred, but enjoining secresy as to
his conversation with me--and which I never mentioned to any human being
during his life.
After Mr. Merritt returned to St. Catharines he wrote to Dr. Ryerson
early in January, 1844 on the subject, as follows:--
There can be little doubt that both the Governor and his late
administration have erred. A conciliatory spirit would have avoided
this crisis; they had an opportunity of placing this Province in a
most enviable situation--they have neglected, or did not possess
the ability to avail themselves of it; and I am sorry to say, that
I am neither satisfied with their measures, nor can I place
confidence in their judgment. At the same time I feel so thoroughly
convinced of the necessity of having under the control of our
Legislature the entire management of our internal concerns--without
which any attempt at a thorough reformation would be useless--that
I have my apprehensions, that any movement which would have a
tendency to check its onward progress, would be injurious--the
principle does not appear to be fully understood, or fully
conceded. The time has not arrived--nevertheless I feel satisfied
the Governor-General would admit it, and act fully up to it with
any Cabinet which possessed his confidence, and thus bring it into
action much earlier than persisting in the opposite course. On the
other hand, you are subject to the imputation of abandoning men who
resigned for the maintenance of that principle, and few can doubt
the honesty of purpose of Lafontaine and Baldwin.
Being thus placed on the horns of a dilemma, the wisest plan is,
perhaps, to let matters take their course--at all events I have
made up my mind to do so. I should be most happy to hear from you
on the subject, knowing you have given those subjects much
attention; and believing that your mind is devoted to promoting the
best interests of your fellow countrymen, your opinions are
received with attention, and always carry great weight with me.
To this letter from Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson replied on the 20th
January, 1844, as follows:--
After you called upon me, I turned my attention to the state of our
public affairs, and reflected on them from various points of view. I
concluded to state my views to His Excellency, if he requested me to do
so, and also to Hon. S. B. Harrison, if I should see him.
Dr. Ryerson having gone to Kingston at the request of Sir Charles
Metcalfe, saw Mr. Harrison, who urged him to state his views fully to
the Governor-General. In the same letter to Mr. Merritt, Dr. Ryerson
said:--The next day, in compliance with His Excellency's expressed wish,
I laid before him the result of my reflections on the present state of
our affairs, in an interview of three hours and a half. In them His
Excellency expressed his full concurrence, and thanked me cordially for
the trouble I had taken to wait upon him and state at large what he
considered of so much importance. In addition to the question at issue
between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson
discussed with him the subject of the reconstruction of his Cabinet. The
result he thus states in his letter to Mr. Merritt:--I cannot of course
enter into every one of the subjects to which I referred in my
conversation with the Governor-General. Mr. Harrison has doubtless
written to you on the whole matter. The result was that Mr. Harrison
will take office if you will.[122]
As to your superior qualifications for the position offered you, there
can be but one opinion in the country. I am satisfied that, without the
slightest sacrifice of principle or consistency--upon the broadest
principles of responsible government, and in harmony with the best
interests of the country--you can accept of office. I think that when
the views I have expressed to His Excellency are fairly and fully stated
to the country, you would, in office, have a large majority of at least
the Upper Canada members of the present House of Assembly to support
you; and, in case of a general election, I doubt not but you would have
an ample majority in the new Parliament. Should you consent to take
office, I think you need not fear the result. I think there is a fair
opportunity for you to render a great service to the country, and to
establish still more widely and permanently an already honourable
reputation of no common order.
I shall be glad, at your earliest convenience, to learn the result of
your deliberations. I should also be happy to see you, if you should
soon proceed to Kingston. Whatever the Governor-General may have
heretofore thought of either the theory or practice of responsible
government, he is certainly right on the subject now. And when His
Excellency avows what Sir F. Head denied, and offers everything that has
been demanded, surely, as far as principles of government are concerned,
the country wants, and ought to have, no more. I think it will be a
fearful calamity to the country, if we drive Sir Charles Metcalfe away
from us. I doubt whether England can produce his like for Canada.
To this letter Mr. Merritt replied, on the 25th January:--
I regret to say that my own private affairs, arising from
circumstances which have occurred since I saw you, prevent my
assuming any situation under the Government which must necessarily
occupy my undivided attention. I have heard from and replied to Mr.
Harrison to the same effect. No person can more regret the
unfortunate position in which we are placed than I do, and I agree
with you that the loss of Sir Charles Metcalfe will be a public
calamity. I have no doubt he will honestly carry out the principles
of responsible government, and with a competent council, who
understand what the country requires, and with competent
individuals to carry those measures into effect, he would render
more essential service to Canada than any former Governor whatever.
I am under some apprehension that you mistake the feelings of the
majority of Upper Canada members. A mere majority would ensure
defeat; they must act in a body to give a majority in the present
House; and from recent indications, there appears to be a change in
the minds of those who were under very different impressions some
time since. Although I was under a different impression some time
since, I cannot see any chances of a new ministry being sustained,
unless by a dissolution. 1. A majority seems indispensable to
secure which the Reformers of Upper Canada must unite--and every
Conservative must support them also;--the first cannot be relied
on, therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the second. Most of the
present members will feel themselves committed by their recent
vote; they will all be pressing for a new election; and shape their
course to the prevailing opinions. No ministry can have time to
bring their measures before the public to produce any general
impression; and no ministry can have confidence in the ultimate
success of the wisest measures. In short, they will have no chance
to exercise their ability, with a view of commanding success.
Whereas, were a new election to take place (on the declaration by
the Governor-General, that from the difficulty he experienced in
making up a ministry which would command a majority of the present
House, in conformity to the principles he avowed), the
Governor-General could appeal to the people to return a
representation from which he could select a Council possessing
their confidence. Such an appeal would not be inconsistent with his
former declarations, which must have been predicated on his
obtaining a Council which would command a majority. Under such
circumstances members would feel very naturally a much greater
anxiety in sustaining any ministry with a chance of four years to
test their measures, than as many days, as in the present instance.
As far as I am individually concerned, even in that case, I could
not accept of office unless I succeeded in arranging my own
personal concerns, which I hope to effect during the season.
I hear that in this district a strong feeling prevails in favour of
the late ministry, who resigned, as they believe, to support the
principle of responsible government; and they cannot understand
that the Governor-General adheres to the same. This impression is
natural; and it takes a long time to remove error. No man doubts
the motives of Mr. Baldwin; none other of the administration is
named, or possesses the least weight. I have not moved about or
corresponded with a single member of the House, and I shall remain
as passive as possible.
I fully agree with you, that with the present Governor-General a
fair opportunity offers to carry out useful projects; nay more, I
am sure that one half of the present revenue now wasted, could be
saved (not less than £100,000) for useful objects; but I cannot at
present assist in carrying it into effect, which you cannot regret
more than I do.
In a note received from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 10th April,
he gave Dr. Ryerson the reasons for the unexpected delay in the
formation of a new Cabinet. Hon. S. B. Harrison had also written to him
on the same subject, so far as he and the other proposed Upper Canada
members were concerned. Mr. Higginson said:--
The formation of a permanent Council has been most vexatiously, but
unavoidably, delayed, owing to the extraordinary timidity--I can
call it by no more appropriate name--of our friends in Lower
Canada--the most eligible of whom have hitherto shrunk from the
responsibility they would incur by the acceptance of office. Hon.
D. B. Viger, who is still in Montreal, and who ought from long
experience, to have a good knowledge of his countrymen, expresses
himself confident of the result, and is of opinion that the delay,
of which we complain, produces good and strengthens His
Excellency's position. It is very evident that it has a different
effect in the West; and it is to be hoped that as soon as the
Montreal election is over (of which, barring violence, Mr. Molson
is certain) immediate steps will be taken to fill up the offices
now vacant.
In reply to Mr. Higginson's note, Dr. Ryerson said:--
I do not think that much evil arises at the present time, even in Canada
West, from delay. Could the vacancies be filled up two or three months
ago, the government would have secured the support of thousands who have
since swelled the ranks of the ex-Councillors. But the loss by delay
was, I think, incurred to its full extent during the months of January,
February, and March. The proceedings of the late meeting of the Leaguers
in Toronto have doubtless added something to their strength. But some
portions of these very proceedings will meet them in a way they little
expect--not, to be sure, before a jury of twelve men, as did the nine
months' proceeding of O'Connell and his associates, but before the jury
of the whole country, and upon principles sanctioned by the Constitution
and history of England, which, I believe more confidently than when I
wrote last, will result in a triumphant acquittal and justification of
the Vice-Regal defendant.
On the 23rd May, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson, as
follows:--
You will be sorry to hear that Hon. Mr. Harrison has failed to make
certain private arrangements which he so much hoped for, and that
he has declined to take office. He is, therefore, unable to join
the Cabinet.
FOOTNOTES:
[121] As an indication of outside opinion on this question, I insert the
following note, written by Rev. Anson Green, on the 31st December, 1843,
to Dr. Ryerson. Mr. Green said: I cannot see why the Executive Council
should resign at the present time, for they stated in the House that
both Mr. Stanton, Collector at Toronto, and the Speaker of the
Legislative Council were appointed by their advice. I think they should
have waited until His Excellency refused to ask or take their advice,
and not force him to make pledges. In my opinion both parties have acted
indiscreetly. I have reason to believe that a majority of the Reformers
from Upper Canada, in Parliament, would be happy to support Hon S. B.
Harrison, if he could form a ministry from the majority on the question
at issue.
[122] In regard to this proposal, Mr. Harrison wrote to Dr. Ryerson on
the 17th of January, to say that he had an interview with the
Governor-General, and that: His Excellency expressed himself favourably
disposed upon all the points touched upon, and was willing to consider
the means of carrying out the objects contemplated. It appears,
therefore, to me, that the matter may be arranged if our friend Merritt
can be persuaded to join. I have written to him in that view. Should
that be the case, I am prepared, and a communication should be made to
Hon. W. H. Draper, which I will make immediately upon hearing from you
and Mr. Merritt. As Mr. Draper will be here by the latter end of this
week, it would be better, on hearing from Mr. Merritt, that you should
be here yourself.
CHAPTER XL.
1844.
Preliminary Correspondence on the Metcalfe Crisis.
With a view to a thorough understanding of the question at issue between
Sir Charles Metcalfe and his Councillors, the following statement by Dr.
Ryerson is necessary:--
After the conversation with Hon. W. H. Merritt, in January, 1844, and
after subsequent communications with him on the subject, I most
carefully and minutely examined the documents and correspondence and
other statements of parties, and was satisfied of the correctness of Mr.
Merritt's statements and conclusion. The question then arose in my own
mind, whether, after I had so much to do in the establishment of
responsible government and was morally so largely responsible for it, I
should silently witness its misapplication, and see a man stricken down
for maintaining, as the representative of his Sovereign, what Reformers
had maintained in all previous years--that the patronage of the Crown,
like the administration of justice, should be administered impartially
according to merit, without respect to religious sect, or political
party.
Dr. Ryerson also states (26th February) that:--After a prolonged and
interesting interview with the Governor-General, I addressed a letter to
him on the subject of that interview. In it I said: In looking over what
I have from time to time, during the last eight years, written on the
best government for Canada, I find that I have invariably insisted upon
precisely the same views which I expressed to your Excellency, and with
a frequency and fulness that I had no recollection of when I was
honoured with the late interviews by you. These views were then warmly
responded to by that portion of the public for whom I wrote. I am,
therefore, the more fully (if possible) convinced of their correctness
and importance to the best interests of Canada, and that they will be
sustained when properly brought before the public--at least in Western
Canada.
In reply to a note from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 2nd March,
Dr. Ryerson, on the 7th, addressed a reply of some length to His
Excellency. In it he said:--
The aspect of things in Western Canada has clearly changed for the
worse during the last two months--since my first interview with
Your Excellency in January. The party of the opposition have become
organized--organized under circumstances more formidable than I
have ever witnessed in Canada. Their ranks and influence have been
increased by numbers who, two months since, were neutral, and who
could have been forthwith brought to the side of constitutional
government. Private letters to me (on which I can rely) speak in a
very different tone as to the state of public sentiment and
feeling. Unless a change to a very considerable extent be affected
in the public mind, I think a dissolution would rather strengthen
than weaken the ex-Council party. I am confident I do not overrate
their strength--and it is a dangerous, though common error, to
underrate the strength of an adversary. They are likewise
organizing their party, and exciting the public mind to such a
degree as to prevent any sentiments or measures from the present
administration from being regarded or entertained at all. Such
being the case, I have felt that delay has been loss. Whether that
loss can be repaired presents to my own mind a problem difficult of
solution.
Speaking of his former relations with the Lieutenant-Governors of Upper
Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:--
I love liberty, personal and public, as much as any man. I have written
much in its defence; but as much as I love liberty, and as ultra liberal
as some may have supposed me to be, I have always regarded an
infringement of the prerogative of the Crown as a blow at the liberty of
the subject, and have, in every instance, resisted and repelled it as
such. I did so in support of Sir F. Head in 1836. I did so in support of
Sir George Arthur, in the difficult and painful task of administering
the criminal law after the insurrection of 1837. I did so in support of
the Royal instructions and recommendations of which Lord Sydenham was
the bearer and agent; but in each instance, after having been lauded
without measure, I was abandoned, or pursued, without protection or
mercy. Sir Francis Head took offence at certain communications which
Rev. Dr. Alder and Rev. Peter Jones justly made to the Imperial
Government respecting his treatment of the Indians, and swore that, "as
he had put down the radicals, he would now put down the Methodists;" and
the Bishop of Toronto avowed and rejoiced that, radicalism having been
extinguished, "the Church" would and should be maintained inviolate in
all its (assumed) rights and immunities. Sir George Arthur having got
through his many difficulties (in the course of which he gave me many
thanks) determined, when the Session of the Legislature came, not to
split with the Bishop of Toronto; not to grant, under any circumstances,
the Methodists more than a mouse's share of public aid, and none at all
except as salaries for their clergy, actually employed. He embodied
these views in resolutions, and employed Hon. R. B. Sullivan to advocate
them in the Legislative Council.
It was with extreme reluctance that I could at all assent to the measure
of Union of the Canadas. The agents of the London Wesleyan Committee
vehemently opposed it, and wished me to write against it. I wished to
remain neutral. Lord Sydenham most earnestly solicited my aid--promised
a just measure on the clergy reserve question, and assured me against
any hostility of the agents of the London Committee, of all the
protection and assistance that the Government could give. He died,--and
I have been left, without the slightest assistance or protection on the
part of the Government, to meet alone the hostile proceedings and
influence of the London Wesleyan Committee. In order to sustain myself
in these reverses, and especially in the last, but most painful one, I
have been compelled to put forth physical and intellectual efforts that
I am absolutely incapable of repeating.
I have adverted--even at the expense of being tedious and egotistic--to
these unpleasant details, that Your Excellency may fully understand and
appreciate my present position, and my caution in embarking in another
conflict without a reasonable hope that I will not be made a victim of
abandonment and of oppression, after I have employed the utmost of my
humble efforts in support of the principles of the constitution and
prerogatives of the Crown.
In the present crisis, the Government must of course be first placed
upon a strong foundation, and then must the youthful mind of Canada be
instructed and moulded in the way I have had the honour of stating to
Your Excellency, if this country is long to remain an appendage to the
British Crown. The former, without the latter, will only be a partial
and temporary remedy.
Anything like a tolerable defence of Your Excellency's
position--anything approaching to an effective exposure of the
proceedings of the late Council in their demands, the grounds of their
resignation, their explanation, their tribunal of appeal, their
variations of position, the principles and consequences involved in each
step of their course, and the spirit and doctrines they now exhibit,
appears to me to be a desideratum. They could be convicted out of their
own mouths on every count of the charges they have brought against the
Governor-General, and from the same source might evidence be adduced
that they advocate sentiments and sanction proceedings which are unknown
to the British Constitution, and which appertain only to an independent
state. Yet, in place of exposition, and arguments and illustrations that
would tell upon the public mind, we have nothing but puerile effusions,
thread-bare assertions, and party criminations--nothing that would
convince adversaries and make friends of enemies. Your Excellency's
replies, and a few passages in the Montreal _Gazette_, and in a
pamphlet which lately appeared in the Kingston _Chronicle_, are all that
I have seen which are calculated to produce practical effect upon the
public mind. Hon. D. B. Viger's pamphlet is too limited in its range of
topics, and too speculative and refined to be effective upon any other
than well-educated statesmen.
The desideratum required I would attempt to supply, and then devise
measures, put forth publications, and employ efforts to direct the
public mind into new channels of thinking, and furnish the youthful mind
with instruction and materials for reading that would render this
country British in domestic feeling, as I think it now is intentionally
in loyalty. To do anything effectual toward the accomplishment of such a
task, my position should be made as strong as possible. At best my
qualifications for a work so difficult and varied are extremely limited,
but more especially under present circumstances.
After weighing the matter carefully, and pondering (in comparing small
things with great) upon the part which Bishop Burnet took in settling
the disordered elements of British intellect after the revolution of
1688, I have resolved to do as he did--place my humble services at the
disposal of my Sovereign--and in whatever situation Your Excellency is
of opinion I can render most service to the government and the country
under existing circumstances. I will hazard the enterprise, and stand or
fall with the Governor-General in the present crisis, notwithstanding
the increased cloudiness of our political atmosphere. I would rather aid
as a private individual, and as an independent volunteer in the service
of the Crown and country--as I have been on former occasions--than be
placed in any official situation.
To this letter Dr. Ryerson received the following reply from Mr.
Secretary Higginson, dated 12th March:--I am directed to convey to you
the expression of the Governor-General's cordial thanks for the public
spirited offer of your able and valuable services in the present crisis
of public affairs; an offer which His Excellency accepts with a high
degree of satisfaction, feeling confident that you will bring most
efficient aid to the Government.
On March 18th Dr. Ryerson replied to this note from Mr. Higginson. He
said:--I think there will be but little difficulty in disentangling the
question from the perplexing confusion in which it has been involved,
and placing it upon the true issue as to a government of party, or of
justice. If, in elucidating and applying it, I can incorporate some of
Lord Brougham's fulminations on the evil of party with my own
conceptions, I may be able to add the occasional discharge of a cannon,
or the bursting of a bombshell, to the running fire of ordinary
musketry. Though I am no stranger to contests, I cannot divest myself
of palpitations at the approach of an engagement. When once the fire has
commenced, I feel but little concern except to keep cool and
good-natured, and to have an ample supply of ammunition for all
exigencies--satisfied of the righteousness of the cause and the
government of an over-ruling Providence.
In February the Rev. John Ryerson wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the Metcalfe
crisis, and said:--
While I believe that the late Executive Council, in the main, and
in principle, was right, and Sir Charles wrong, yet I am very far
from endorsing all that the Council did as right. I think that they
should not have resigned when they did. I think they were guilty of
a breach of trust in throwing up office in the midst of a session
of Parliament, and when many important measures were pending. I
think, as the "antagonism" which caused the resignation of the late
Council existed before the Parliament was convened, that they
should then have resigned, or remained in office until the
prorogation....
You are not to suppose from these remarks that I have turned
politician, or that I am intermeddling with things which do not
belong to me. I have been endeavouring to attend to my appropriate
work; and though continually pressed with questions, soliciting my
opinions respecting passing events, I have said as little on all
these matters as possible, and I am identified with no party.
Indeed, the state of my health is such as to admonish me to think
about other things than worldly politics, and I blush to think that
I have written so much respecting them. Powerfully convincing
reasoning, with truth on your side, might produce a great effect
among our people; but at the present more than nine-tenths of them,
in these western parts, are the supporters of the late Executive
Council.
In reply to a letter from his brother John, asking his opinion on the
pending dispute between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors,
Dr. Ryerson wrote on April 3rd, and said:--
Of the general measures of the late Council I cordially approve. I
cannot say so of their dispute with the Governor-General. Of the policy
which he or they had pursued, I have nothing to say. In that they might
have been right, and he wrong. But, according to British practice, they
ought to have resigned on what he had done, and not on what he would not
promise to do. If the Crown intended to do just as they desired the
Governor-General to do, still the promise ought not to be given, nor
ought it to have been asked. The moment a man promises to do a thing he
ceases to be as free as he was before he made the promise. It is
essential principle that in the British Constitution that the Crown
should be free--should be undefined in its prerogative. The exercise in
that prerogative may be checked in various ways; but to bind it by
promises is to infringe its constitutional liberty. If the Queen were to
bind herself by promise, or declaration, that she would not appoint any
person contrary to Sir Robert Peel's advice, how could she refuse to
make O'Connell a peer, or appoint him Lord Chancellor of England if Sir
Robert were to insist upon it? How could she ever get clear of Sir
Robert by differing with him on a question of policy, if she were to
bind herself before-hand to act according to his advice? Would it not be
virtually giving the regal power into his hands?
Dr. Ryerson then proceeded to illustrate the views which he held on this
subject:--
I can find examples in English History since 1688, of British Sovereigns
having done just as Sir Charles Metcalfe is alleged to have done; I can
also find examples of ministers resigning on account of what such
Sovereigns had done; but I can find no example of any minister resigning
on account of what the Sovereign would not promise to do on the subject
of consultation and possible appointments.
I have seen it alleged, that the Governor-General was not bound to
act upon the advice of his Council, only to ask it before he made
any appointment. But the Governor-General did take the advice of
the Council, in regard to the appointments of the Clerks of the
Peace, both in the Bathurst and Dalhousie districts. Yet he is
blamed as much for not acting upon it as if he had acted without
taking it. But in Mr. Hincks' writings, and in all the papers
advocating the same sentiments, I observe that it is contended that
the Governor-General should act upon, as well as take, the advice
of his Council. If so, what is he but their amanuensis--the
recorder of their decrees?--the office which Sir Charles Bagot
sustained on account of his illness; but whose example, in such
circumstances, can not be laid down as a general rule.
Responsible government was a mere theory with the late Council, or
until they came into office under Sir Charles Bagot. They had
thought and reasoned about it, but they had never acted upon it,
until then; what they learned under the government of a sick and
dying man was not adapted to make them perfect practitioners. So
they were about as wise and as raw in the business practically, as
was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had doubtless thought, and read, and
reasoned upon the subject also. The unskilfulness of inexperience,
with good intentions, seems to me to have been evinced in the whole
proceeding.
Of course it was considered, on the impulse of the moment, good
policy to take a stand upon the principle of responsible
government, and not upon the propriety, or policy, of certain
appointments. By taking the latter ground, all might be lost; by
taking the former ground, all would be gained, and a great deal of
glory too, in the course of a few days, or a few weeks at most. But
it has turned out otherwise. The question of prerogative has been
brought up--a constitutional and imperial question. As such the
British Government have decided upon it.... It is now no longer a
question between the late Councillors and Sir Charles Metcalfe, but
between them and Her Majesty's Government. I see, therefore,
nothing in prospect but a renewal of the scenes of 1837, and 1838,
only on a larger scale. Whether the point contended for is worth
that price, or will be even obtained at that price, is
problematical. I see no alternative, unless some enlightening,
healing agency interpose. I pray for the safety of our Zion and
people, especially, while I implore Divine interposition in behalf
of our beloved country.
I am no party man--I have never judged--I cannot judge questions
according to party, but according to constitutional principles and
history. On the first blush I was favourably impressed with the
position and resignation of the late council; but when I came to
examine their position, as I had done Hon. Mr. Draper's speech on
the University question by the light of history (it being a new
question), I came to the conclusions that I have stated above. I
think the most general impression in the country, and perhaps
amongst the members of our Church, is that which first struck my
own mind; but I think it is contrary to the principles and practice
of the British Constitution.
During one of his visits to Kingston, early in 1844, Dr. Ryerson called
at the office of his old friend, Hon. J. H. Dunn (one of the late
Councillors), who had desired to see him. Mr. Dunn was not in when he
called. He therefore, on his return to Cobourg addressed him as
follows:--My brother John told me that you had asked him what I thought
of the late differences between the Governor-General and his Council.
After all that I have read and learned, I think very much of them as I
did of the differences between the late Lord Sydenham and Hon. Robert
Baldwin. You then asked me (at the Lambton House) whether I approved of
your remaining in office, or of Mr. Baldwin's resigning. You will
recollect my reply, that I thought Mr. Baldwin ought to have waited
until an actual difference arose between him and other members of the
Council on some measure, or measures; and that he ought not to have
resigned on account of an alleged want of confidence, or theoretical
difference of opinion. So I think in the present case. After stating
your views to Sir Charles Metcalfe, you ought to have waited until some
act, or acts, had taken place in contravention of these views, and which
act, or acts, you were not disposed to justify; or if you thought it
your duty to resign, then it appears to me you should have resigned on
some acts which had been performed, and which you would not justify, and
on the policy involved in which you were prepared to appeal to the
country. But to resign upon a conversation, and not upon specific
administrative acts, appears to me to be without precedent. It has
brought up the question of prerogative, the constitutional decision of
which, rests of course, with the supreme tribunals of the Empire. I
think Mr. Baldwin's conscientious theoretical rigidness has led to an
error, praiseworthy in its motives, but not the less an error--an error
which in private life would have attracted no attention, but in public
life makes a great noise, and may lead to serious consequences. I could
wish with all my heart that you were in your late office, which you have
so long and so faithfully filled.
In a note to Dr. Ryerson, on various matters, dated April 10th, Mr.
Civil Secretary Higginson said:--
The Reform League in Toronto are making unusual exertions, and as
you may have seen by their late resolutions, no longer conceal
their real object, but in defiance of all their machinations, and
they are not over scrupulous as to their means, truth and honesty
of purpose, backed by loyal hearts and liberal measures, must and
will prevail.
To this note Dr. Ryerson thus replied on the 12th April:--
I think the public feeling in Canada West is now stationary; or since
the rumour of my appointment as Superintendent of Education (and how it
got afloat I cannot imagine) is rather turning in favour of the
Governor-General. The reason seems to be this: The opponents of His
Excellency represent him as weak--as supported by nobody but a weak
ultra-party. It has been alleged by both my friends and enemies, that
whether the best or worst man in Canada, I have not hesitated to face in
succession the united press and councils of each of the two
ultra-parties in Canada, and succeeded in each instance to reduce them
from a large majority to a small minority--deriving no advantage from
the victories, except as some suppose, the pleasure of humbling my
enemies. It is the impression of great numbers of persons, and to an
extent and degree which has often amused me, that whatever cause I
espouse, be it good or bad, will succeed; and that I never undertake a
thing, however apparently impracticable, without a certainty of success.
Though such a feeling increases the difficulty of every step of a man's
career, it furnishes him with capital to begin with. My life having been
bound up with the two great principles of constitutional monarchy on the
one hand, and equal civil and religious principles in Canada on the
other, all who really desire such a government, without regard to the
domination of a party, ... seem to think the Governor-General will
succeed if I have resolved to espouse his government....
From this state of mind in the case of many Reformers, and from what I
have learned from other sources, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding
the efforts to inflame party spirit--to produce party blindness, and
create party organizations--there is still a spirit of candour and
enquiry (all I ask) amongst a large portion of the Liberal party which
will furnish an ample fulcrum for a lever that will overthrow the enemy.
I think that June will probably be the best time for the application of
such a lever. The opposition can do nothing more at present. June is
rather a leisure month for reading--the hay and wheat harvest will come
on in July, August and September,--during which time agitators can do
but little, and then I suppose will come the session of the Legislature.
I hope to produce a vindication of His Excellency that will do no
discredit to him, and shake, if not confound, his enemies, and exhibit
such a platform of government as will appeal to every candid, common
sense, sound British subject, best adapted to promote the best interests
and greatest happiness of Canada....
To vindicate injured worth, either in high or humble life, has on
different occasions, afforded me peculiar pleasure, and I contemplate,
even as a pleasing task (though painful from the occasion) the purpose
and opportunity of doing so in respect to so noble a subject and so good
a cause as that with which His Excellency is identified. When the
Government once assumes the attitude of strength, many who are now
neutral, or perhaps professedly leaning to the apparently stronger
party, will come over avowedly to the Crown. The timidity of the secret
friends of the government in Lower Canada is an infirmity (I think of a
majority of mankind) which requires as much pity as it deserves censure.
All Greeks are not Spartans. Ten men seem to be made for work, where one
is constituted for war. I have found it so in the hour of peril; when I
have been left almost alone, though I found abundance of helping and
co-operating friends as soon as the tide of victory began to turn in my
favour. I think it will be so with the government in less than twelve
months--at least in Upper Canada. The League organization in Toronto is
the most formidable affair that has ever been formed in western Canada.
I am told that its funds are large also,--several thousand pounds--but I
think its power can be broken.
In a note to Dr. Ryerson from Mr. Higginson, dated 23rd of May, he
said:--You will of course have seen the manifesto just hatched and
brought forth by the League, jesuitically and cleverly enough put we
must admit; it will no doubt be widely circulated, and it is very
desirable that an antidote to the poison should be as extensively
communicated to the people; and who in the province is so capable as
yourself for such a task? If you would take up the arguments
_seriatim_--you could prove their fallacy without much difficulty. The
fabric being founded upon misapprehension and falsehood, must go with a
run. I confess I long to see these ambitious party-men unmasked.
CHAPTER XLI.
1844.
Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended against his Councillors
On the 27th May, 1844, Dr. Ryerson issued the first part of his
memorable Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, not only against the attacks
of his late Councillors, but also against those of the all-powerful
League which had been formed against him on the 24th March, under the
auspices of the Toronto Reform Association. The Manifesto of that famous
League was dated on the 16th May. Its issue at once decided Dr. Ryerson
to enter the lists in defence of Sir Charles, and the prefatory note to
his rejoinder was written on the 27th May. From the introductory portion
of it I make the following extract:--
Rev. Egerton Ryerson ... proposes ... to prove [from the] testimony
of his late Advisers ... that His Excellency is entitled to the
verdict of the country on every count of the indictment got up
against him.
Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the people of Canada, as
Themistocles said to the Athenians who were incensed against him,
"Strike, but hear me!"
... If Leonidas,[123] with three hundred Spartans, could throw
themselves into the Thermopylæ of death for the salvation of their
country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any
sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in
order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex,
which, he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in
calamities more serious than those which followed the events of
1837.
The following account of this memorable controversy was written by Dr.
Ryerson himself. It has been slightly abridged and a few explanatory
notes added:--
After much consideration, but without consulting any human being, I
determined to enter the arena of public discussion to set forth and
vindicate the true principles of responsible government, and to defend
Sir Charles Metcalfe, as I had before defended Mr. Bidwell, from the
unjust attacks made upon him; and I published an introductory paper
avowing my purpose. My friends generally and the country at large were
against me. My elder brother, John, a life-long Conservative, on first
meeting me after the publication of that introductory paper, said,
"Egerton, you have ruined yourself, for nine-tenths of the people are
opposed to the Governor-General." I answered, "I know it; but I believe
that nine-tenths of the people are mistaken, and that if they will read
what I am about to write they will think as I do."
The contest was severe; the ablest and most meritorious public men in
the province were arrayed on the opposite side; but I felt that truth
and justice did not rest on numbers--that there was a public, as well as
an individual, conscience, and to that conscience I appealed, supporting
my appeal by reference to the past professions of Reformers, the best
illustrations from Greek, Roman, and English history, and the authority
of the best writers on constitutional government, and moral and
political philosophy, and the highest interests, civil and social, of
all classes of society in Upper Canada. For months I was certainly the
"best abused man" in Canada; but I am not aware that I lost my temper,
or evinced personal animosity (which I never felt), but wrote with all
the clearness, energy, and fire that I could command.
The general elections took place in October, 1844, and in all Upper
Canada (according to the _Globe's_ own statement) only eight candidates
were elected in opposition to Sir Charles Metcalfe! Such a result of a
general election was never before, or since, witnessed in Upper Canada.
It has been alleged again and again, that Sir Charles Metcalfe was
opposed to responsible government and that I supported him in it. The
only pretext for this was, that in the contest with Sir Charles Metcalfe
his opponents introduced party appointments as an essential element of
responsible government, which they themselves had disavowed in previous
years when advocating that system of government. The doctrine of making
appointments according to party (however common now, with its
degenerating influences) was then an innovation upon all previously
professed doctrines of reformers, as I proved to a demonstration in my
letters in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe.
Sir Francis Hincks, in an historical lecture delivered at Montreal, in
1877, has revived this charge against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has
attempted to create the impression that there was a sort of conspiracy
between the late Earl of Derby and Lord Metcalfe to extinguish
responsible government in Canada. For such an insinuation there is not a
shadow of reason, though the author may have thought so, from his strong
personal feelings and former party views, as one of the actors in the
struggle.
I was in England during the latter part of 1844 and 1845, when the Earl
of Derby was Colonial Secretary, and had more than one conversation
with him on Canadian affairs; and I know that the Earl of Derby had no
more intention or desire to abolish responsible government in Canada
than had Sir Francis Hincks himself. The Earl of Derby had, indeed,
fears lest the party in power, under the new system, should act upon the
narrow and prescriptive principles and spirit of the old tory party, and
wished to see that with the new system an enlarged policy would
extinguish the hatreds, as well as the proscriptions, of the past, and
unite all classes in the good government and for the advancement of the
country. This was the view of Lord Metcalfe; and this was the view
advocated in my letters in his defence, which may be appealed to in
proof that the essence of that contest was not responsible government,
but as to whether or not the distribution of the patronage of the Crown
should be dispensed upon the principles of party, or on those of justice
and morality.
I may add an illustrative and curious incident on this subject:--On the
passing of the Imperial Act for confederating the British North American
Colonies into the Dominion of Canada, and its proclamation, I wrote and
published an address to the people of Upper Canada in 1868, suggesting
to them to forget the differences of the past, and the principles and
spirit in which they should introduce the new system of government, and
build up for themselves a united and prosperous nation. A few days after
the publication of this address, I met in the street, an honourable
gentleman, who had been one of the party opposed to Sir Charles
Metcalfe, a member of a Liberal government, a life-long Reformer. He
complimented me on my recent address to the people of Upper Canada; but
added, "The great mistake of your life was the letters you wrote in
defence of Lord Metcalfe." I answered, "Do you think so?" "Yes," said
he, "that was the great mistake of your life." "And," said I, "you
approve of my recent public address?" "Yes," he answered, "I think it is
the best thing you ever wrote." "Well," said I, "do you know that that
address with the exception of the introductory and concluding
paragraphs, is a reproduction, word for word, of my third letter in
defence of Lord Metcalfe, counselling my fellow-countrymen as to the
principles and spirit in which they should act in carrying into effect
the then new system of responsible government!" He exclaimed, "It cannot
be! I have these letters." I said, "It can be; and it is so; and if you
will compare my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe with my recent
address, you will find that I have not omitted an illustration from
Greek, or Roman, or English history, or an authority from standard
writers, on political or moral science, or a petition or address from
Reformers from the rebellion of 1837 to the establishment of
responsible government under Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot in
1840-42; that I have not added to, or omitted, a word, but have repeated
_verbatim et literatim_ in 1868, in regard to confederate government,
what I advised the people of Canada in 1844 in regard to responsible
government." And now, I continued, "who has changed? you or I?" "Oh," he
said, "circumstances alter cases." "Truly," I said, "circumstances alter
cases; but circumstances don't change principles; I wrote on the
principles and spirit of government irrespective of party." On such
principles I have endeavoured to act throughout my more than half a
century of public life--principles, the maintenance of which has
sometimes brought me into collision with the leaders of one party, and
sometimes in opposition to those of another party; but principles which
I have found higher and stronger than party.
* * * * *
A day or two after the issue of Dr. Ryerson's first paper in defence of
Sir Charles Metcalfe, Hon. Isaac Buchanan sent to him copies of letters
which he had written to Hon. Joseph Howe, Halifax, and to Civil
Secretary Higginson, Kingston, on the Metcalfe controversy. In this
letter he said:--
It is with infinite pleasure that I see you have publicly come out
to tell the truth as to politics and public men. The fact is,
politics in a new country are either the essential principles of
society or parish business. In both cases every man is interested,
and to a less extent than in an old state of things, where in a
hereditary educated class, there are natural guardians of the
public virtue. Is it objectionable that clergymen interfere in the
arrangement of detail for the happiness of the country? But it is,
as I have always maintained, their most imperative duty to hold and
express an opinion on constitutional politics. The priests in Lower
Canada, from not doing so, permitted the rebellion of 1837. I,
myself, care nothing, and never did care anything, for party
politics in Canada; and, in my mind, the distinction has always
been more marked between these and constitutional politics than I
have been able to explain.
Dr. Ryerson did not attend the opening of Conference at Kingston, in
June, 1844. Mr. Higginson wrote to him on the 12th to express his
disappointment at not seeing him there, and added:--
Of your letters--your admirable letters--I only hear one opinion,
that they are most powerful, unassailable; and this the opposition
press appears to find them, for I can perceive no attempt to answer
the convincing arguments adduced by you. They merely abuse you and
impugn your motives: lying and misrepresentation are their
favourite weapons.
You will have heard of the discovery of the Orange Plot, the
conspiracy between Sir C. Metcalfe and Ogle R. Gowan to upset the
Government!
We had a very satisfactory communication from Lord Stanley, by the
last packet, entirely approving of the "dignified and temperate"
conduct of the Governor, and assuring him of the strenuous support
of Her Majesty's Government, in resisting the "unreasonable and
exorbitant pretensions of the late Cabinet." Shall we see you
again before we move to Montreal? Sir Charles goes to the Falls,
and then returns to Kingston, which he leaves on the 20th for
Montreal.
From Mr. Higginson Dr. Ryerson received the following interesting
letter, dated Montreal, 20th July:--
As you will no doubt think it right, after you complete the series
of your admirable and unanswerable letters, to expose the fallacy
and falsehood with which Hon. R. B. Sullivan, as "Legion,"
endeavours to bolster up his arguments in reply to them, I think
the enclosed _précis_ of a conversation that took place between the
leader of the French party in the late Council and myself, early in
May last, will convince you that His Excellency did not write his
despatch of the 23rd of that month, quoted in the debate by Lord
Stanley, upon insufficient grounds, or in ignorance of the real
sentiments and inclinations of his then advisers. Letter No. 5 of
"Legion," in referring to this despatch, charges His Excellency
with what he calls paraphrasing, or, in other words,
misrepresentation, as no men in their senses could have made such
demands as the late Council are stated to have urged. The words
made use of by His Excellency are not theirs, it is true; but did
not the opinions expressed by Mr. Lafontaine, their leader, bear
out the assertion? I regret that Lord Stanley did not quote what
followed. I have given the meaning, rather than the words, of the
dictatorial Councillor; but I have not in the slightest degree
exaggerated the substance of his discourse. I ought to add that the
conversation originated in a rumour of His Excellency's intending
to appoint a Provincial Aide-de-camp, of whom Mr. Lafontaine did
not approve; and that, although addressed to me, I could only
suppose that it was intended for the ears of His Excellency. You
will, of course, not believe the newspaper statements of Sir
Charles having sent for Mr. Lafontaine. Ever since our arrival here
the French party have been urging that the only way of getting out
of our difficulties is by allowing Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin
to resume their places--as the French people believe that they
cannot enjoy responsible government without them. To this His
Excellency cannot consent. What the result may be is not quite
clear; our future plans have been delayed by this negotiation,
which, though still pending, must terminate in a day or two. I hope
that under any circumstances we shall be able to meet the present
Parliament, if not with a majority, at least with a strong
minority.
The following is the _Précis_ to which I refer:--
Mr. Lafontaine said: Your attempts to carry on the government on
principles of conciliation must fail. Responsible government has
been conceded, and when we lose our majority we are prepared to
retire; to strengthen us we must have the entire confidence of the
Governor-General exhibited most unequivocally--and also his
patronage--to be bestowed exclusively on our political adherents.
We feel that His Excellency has kept aloof from us. The opposition
pronounce that his sentiments are with them. There must be some
acts of his, some public declaration in favour of responsible
government, and of confidence in the Cabinet, to convince them of
their error. This has been studiously avoided. Charges have been
brought against members of the Council, in addresses, and no notice
given to them, viz.: Mr. B. was even mentioned by name, or at least
by office, and will declare on the first day of the session that it
is only as a member of responsible government that he for one would
consent to act. If he supposed for a moment that Sir Charles could
introduce a different system, he would resign. In fact, the
Governor ought to stand in the same position towards his Cabinet as
Her Majesty does. They cannot be prepared to defend his acts in
Parliament if done without their advice--instance the case of the
Collector of Customs' intended dismissal. No new-comers ought to be
appointed to office. Declares his disinterestedness, as his
party--_i.e._ the French Canadians--must carry the day. The
Conservatives would be just as ready to join them as those that
have--has no desire for office for office's sake. If the Governor
does not take some steps to denounce and show his disapprobation of
Orangeism, his not doing so will be construed into the reverse, and
the system will extend, and bloodshed will follow. The other party
will organize--and they would be great fools if they did not--no
Orangemen to be included in Commissions of the Peace--no justice at
present for Catholics in Upper Canada. A law for the suppression of
illegal societies does exist, but very difficult to discover
members of them and to execute the law. Conciliation is only an
attempt to revert to the old system of government--viz: the will of
the Governor. It must fail. Lord Stanley decidedly adverse to the
Lower Canadians; does not forget their expunging one of his
despatches from their journals--it was so impudent. Trusts the Home
Government will accept the proposed civil list; they will never
have so large a one offered again. In conclusion, Sir Charles
Metcalfe's great reputation places him in an eminently favourable
position for carrying out Sir Charles Bagot's policy, by which
alone the Province can be satisfactorily governed. A declaration by
Government to this effect would put a stop to political agitation
which the opposition keep alive as long as they have the slightest
hopes of office--all they care for. Let them know that the game was
up, and all would go right, and many come round. The differences of
religion in Upper Canada will always prevent amalgamation; you must
make them all of the same, like ourselves in Lower Canada. French
language clause in Union Bill must be expunged.
On the 26th July Dr. Ryerson replied to Mr. Higginson--
I shall make use of the enclosure _Précis_ in substance when I come to
reply to "Legion"--which will, of course, not be until he shall have got
through his series.
The "Defence" of Sir Charles Metcalfe consisted of nine papers, in which
the whole question at issue was fully discussed. In concluding the
ninth, Dr. Ryerson said:--
I have written these papers ... as a man who has no temporal
interest whatever, except in common with that of his native
country--the field of his life's labours--the seat of his best
affections--the home of his earthly hopes;--up to the present time
I have never received one farthing of its revenue. I know something
of the kinds and extent of the sacrifices which are involved in my
thus coming before the public. If others have resigned office, I
have declined it, and under circumstances very far less propitious
than those under which the late Councillors stepped out.... I have
no interest in the appointment of one set of men to office, or in
the exclusion of any other man, or set of men, from office. I know
but one chief end of civil government--the public good; and I have
one rule of judging the acts and sentiments of all public
men--their tendency to promote the public good.... I am as
independent of Messrs. Viger, Draper and Daly, as I am of Messrs.
Baldwin, Sullivan and Hincks.... I might appeal to more than one
instance in which the authority and patronage of the Governor did
not prevent me from defending the constitutional rights of my
fellow-subjects and native country.... The independent and
impartial judgment which I myself endeavour to exercise, I desire
to see exercised by every man in Canada. I believe it comports best
with constitutional safety, with civil liberty, with personal
dignity, with public duty, with national greatness. With the
politics of party--involving the confederacy, the enslavement, the
selfishness, the exclusion, the trickery, the antipathies, the
crimination of party, no good man ought to be identified.... With
the politics of government--involving its objects, its principles,
its balanced powers, its operations--even against the encroachments
of any party--every British subject has much to do. Civil
government, as St. Paul says, "is an ordinance of God." Every
Christian ... is to see it not abused, or trampled under foot, or
perverted to party or sectional purposes; but he is to seek its
application to the beneficent ends for which it was designed by our
common Creator and Governor. Such have been the ends for which the
people of Canada have long sought its application; such have been
the ends sought by the Governor-General.
Dr. Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Higginson (26th July) said:
I have now concluded my defence of His Excellency against the attacks of
his late councillors. I have done the best I could. As to its influence
upon the public mind, I am, of course, not responsible. I cannot compel
persons to read, think, or reason, however I may do so for them. In some
places, I am told, a most essential change has taken place in the public
mind, in consequence of the perusal of my letters. In other places,
passion has prevented the perusal of them, and numbers of persons have
just become calm enough to desire to peruse them, and are anxiously
waiting for the pamphlet edition.
I have not yet heard of any one who has read them all, who has not
become convinced of the correctness of my reasoning. But it is the
opinion of persons who have far better means of judging than I have,
that the effect of them the next two months will be much greater than
during the last two months. The violent feelings which the whole party
of the Leaguers sought to excite against myself have, to a great extent,
subsided, and a spirit of inquiry and reflection is returning to the
public mind. I believe nothing has been done to circulate my articles
among the mass of the people--beyond the ordinary newspaper agency. I
believe that were my ninth number itself printed and widely circulated
in Upper Canada in tract form, it would prepare the way for the success
of a just administration, consisting of any persons whom His Excellency
might select--at least so far as the great majority of the people of
Western Canada is concerned. I think the decision of the Imperial
Government on the whole question should be laid before the Legislature
in a despatch. The matter would be thus brought to a single issue, and I
doubt not but the prerogative would be placed upon the true foundation.
To proceed again to legislation, without a distinct settlement of this
question, appears to me derogatory to the dignity of the Crown itself
(both in England and Canada) and unsafe in every respect; and unjust to
both His Excellency and to all who have supported him. I think also that
the Hon. Mr. Draper ought (if necessary) to be supported as strongly as
ever George III. supported Mr. Pitt. Mr. Draper has thrown himself into
the breach, and defended and supported the Government in no less than
three emergencies, when others have abandoned, and even sought to
overthrow it. I think that Mr. Draper ought not to be made a sacrifice,
without an appeal to the people. Much prejudice and passion have, of
course, been excited by the Leaguers since last January, and they have
formed a regular and extensive organization; but a reaction has already
commenced; the backbone of their power is broken. They can form
branches, associations, and threaten us as they did a few months ago;
but not a few amongst themselves are wavering. If the Government will
act with liberality and energy, and the Home Government transmit an
official decision on the question at issue, to be first submitted to the
Legislature and then to the people, I believe His Excellency's exertions
will be crowned with a glorious victory, to his own credit, the honour
of the British Crown, the strengthening of our connection with the
Mother Country, and the great future benefit of Canada.
As to myself: when I commenced this discussion I did not know what might
be my own fate in respect to it. I wished, at least, to do my duty to my
family; to quiet their apprehension, and not embarrass and distrust my
own mind, while undertaking a task of so great magnitude.
In regard to the past: I have completed my task to the best of my humble
ability. The satisfaction of having done my duty is all the
acknowledgment or commendation I desire, or can receive. With my present
experience, I might perform the task in a manner more worthy of the
subject, and more to my own satisfaction. I hope, however, an occasion
for such a discussion may not occur again in Canada. The hostile
personal feelings excited against me in some quarters will, I hope, be
lived down in time. The disclosures which have been made of the alleged
sins of my public, and even private life, have not, I trust, brought to
light one dishonourable act, one republican or unconstitutional
sentiment, even under the severest provocations, and grossest abuse.
Dr. Ryerson had written to the Governor-General early in August on
several matters. He received a reply from Mr. Secretary Higginson on the
15th of that month. In it he says:--
The Governor-General looks forward to the pleasure of seeing you
soon, when he will have an opportunity of personally expressing his
warmest thanks for your admirable and unanswerable letters in
defence of the Queen's Government. His Excellency feels very much
indebted to you for the zeal and ability that enabled you to
perform, in so truly an efficient manner, the arduous task which
your patriotism and public spirit induced you to undertake. Upon
other important subjects adverted to in your letter, His Excellency
will be very happy to have personal communication with you when
you come down. Our object now is to complete the Council, as far as
may be practicable, without the body of the French party, who
doggedly refused to take part in any Administration of which
Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin are not members. Mr. William Smith,
of the Montreal Bar, accepts the Attorney-Generalship, for the
duties of which he is said to be well qualified. He is a Liberal in
politics, and has always been looked on as a friend of the French
party. The Hon. Mr. Morris is willing to take the
Receiver-Generalship, and I hope that Mr. W. H. Merritt will now
find himself at liberty to join the Council. The Crown Lands
Department will still remain unfilled; and perhaps it is well that
that door should be still kept open.
Mr. Billa [now Hon. Senator] Flint, of Belleville, in a letter dated
14th August, in correcting an error in one of Dr. Ryerson's Metcalfe
letters on a matter of fact, adds:--
I hope soon to read your pamphlet, but in not reading your letters
heretofore, I have been enabled to answer the attacks of your
enemies, not on the grounds of a consent, but upon other, and I
trust better ground, that of not condemning a man unheard, as is
the case in this part of the community, and as I have stated that
you must be near right from the fact that your enemies dare not
publish your productions.
With a view to aid Dr. Ryerson in his personal defence, Hon. Isaac
Buchanan wrote to him on the 22nd August, and said:--
As I think you may feel called on to answer the personal attacks
made upon you, or, at all events, to defend the ministerial
character from those who deprive it of all manliness and
independence, I send you Hetherington's "History of the Church of
Scotland." On one page, and in the note referred to, you will find
the methods and conduct of Knox explained. It will be the best, as
well as the most truthful policy on your part, to show your
agreement with this great character. The effect will be great, not
only on the Methodist Scotch, but all other Scotch in the Colony,
for we are all for national, instead of party, freedom; we prefer
our country to our party.
It may be my fondness for my country; but I think no other country,
or people, have ever shown that indomitable love of equal justice
and rational, because national freedom, as opposed to party
supremacy, as we have done in Scotland.
I feel sure that you may make some happy illustrations from
Hetherington's History to enlighten the public on the present state
of affairs, when we are about to be enthralled by party tyranny,
and do much to revive the spirit:
"Ne'er will I quail with down-cast eye
Beneath the frown of tyranny;
In freedom I have lived, in freedom I will die."
The history of our Church is not only the history of Scotland, but
the history of the world's freedom from the tyranny of men, or
parties.
Dr. Ryerson had written to His Excellency in regard to the issue of his
letters in a pamphlet with a full index. To this letter Mr. Higginson
replied on the 19th August:--
I am desired by His Excellency to repeat his thanks for your
continued exertions in support of Her Majesty's Government.
Your index to the pamphlet will be exceedingly useful. I should
like very much to have the pamphlet translated into French, for the
benefit of the Lower Canadians, and perhaps I shall be able to
accomplish it. I should be obliged by your ordering a few hundred
copies to be sent to me for distribution in the Eastern Townships.
FOOTNOTES:
[123] By a singular popular error, which this sentence may have
suggested, it was stated and generally believed that the Defence of Lord
Metcalfe by Dr. Ryerson was written and published under _the nom de
plume of_ "Leonidas."
CHAPTER XLII.
1844-1845.
After the Contest.--Reaction and Reconstruction.