_Nov. 23rd._--Rev. Alvah A. Adams, writing from Prescott, says:--

There are a few disturbances in our Zion. Some are bent on making mischief. You need not be surprised that the Grenville _Gazette_ speaks so contemptuously of you and the cause in which you have been, and are still, engaged. There are reasons why you need not marvel at the great torrent of scurrilous invectives with which his useless columns have of late abounded.

_Nov. 23rd._--Although not so intended by Dr. Ryerson, yet the publication of his "impressions," had the effect of developing the plans of Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, and those who acted with him, much more rapidly and fully than they could have antic.i.p.ated. In the second supplement to his _Colonial Advocate_, published November 23rd, Mr. Mackenzie used this unmistakeable language:--

The local authorities have no means to protect themselves against an injured people, if they persist in their unconst.i.tutional career.... There are not military enough to uphold a bad government for an hour, if the Rubicon has been pa.s.sed; and well does Sir John Colborne know that although he may hire regiments of priests here, he may expect no more red-coats from Europe in those days of economy.... He also knows that if we are to take examples from the Mother Country, the arbitrary proceedings of the officers of his government _are such_ as would warrant the people to an open and _armed resistance_.

_Dec. 6th._--Dr. Ryerson having received a protest from five of his ministerial brethren in the Niagara District,[43] against his "impressions" he wrote a remonstrance to each of them, but this did not appease them. Rev. David Wright said:--

As an individual I am not at all satisfied either with the course you have taken or the explanation given. Could you witness the confused state of our Church on Stamford Circuit; the insults we receive, both from many of our members and others of good standing, you would at once see the propriety of the steps we have taken for our defence. Hardly a tea-party or meeting of any kind, but the _Guardian_ is the topic of conversation, and the conversion of its editor and all the preachers to Toryism. The Ranters and the Ryanites are very busy, and are doing us much harm. I am more and more convinced of the imprudence of the course you have taken, especially at this trying time in our Church. In Queenston, Drummondville, Chippewa, Erie, St. Davids, the Lane, and Lyons'

Creek the preachers are hooted at as they ride by. This is rather trying. I a.s.sure you.

Rev. James Evans said:--

You request me not to solicit any to continue the _Guardian_ who are dissatisfied, and who wish to discontinue. This is worse than all beside. And do you suppose that, in opposition to the wish of the Conference, and interest of the Church, I shall pay attention to your request? No, my brother, I cannot; I will not. It shall be my endeavour to obtain and continue subscribers by allaying as far as practicable, their fears, rather than by telling them that they may discontinue and you will abide the consequences. I am astonished! I can only account for your strange and, I am sure, un-Ryersonian conduct and advice on one principle--that there is something ahead which you, through your superior political spygla.s.s, have discovered and thus shape your course, while we land-lubbers, short-sighted as we are, have not even heard of it.

Dr. Ryerson, therefore, challenged these five ministers to proceed against him as provided by the Discipline of the Church. In his reply to them, he lays down some important principles in regard to the rights of an editor, and the duty of his ministerial accusers. He said:--

I beg to say that I cannot publish the criminating declaration of which you speak. You will therefore act your pleasure in publishing it elsewhere. The charges against me are either true or false. If they are true, are you proceeding in the disciplinary way against me? Though I am editor for the Conference, yet I have individual rights as well as you; and the increased responsibility of my situation should, under those rights, if possible, be still more sacred. And if our Conference will place a watchman upon the wall of our Zion, and then allow its members to plunge their swords into him whenever they think he has departed from his duty, without even giving him a court-martial trial, then they are a different description of men from what I think they are. If, as you say, I have been guilty of imprudent conduct, or even "misrepresented my brethren," make your complaint to my Presiding Elder, according to discipline, and then may the decision of the Committee be published in the _Guardian_, or anywhere else that they may say. So much for the disciplinary course. Again, if "the clamour," as you call it, against the _Guardian_ be well founded, are you helping the _Guardian_ by corroborating the statement of that clamour? Can Brother James Evans consistently or conscientiously ask an individual to take, or continue to take the _Guardian_, when he or you publish to the world the belief that its principles are changed? Will this quiet the "clamour?" Will this reconcile the members? Will this unite the preachers? Will this promote the harmony of the Church? Will it not be a fire-brand rather than the "seeds of commotion?" One or two others here got a meeting of the male members of the York Society, and proposed resolutions similar in substance to yours, which were opposed and reprobated by brother Richardson, on the very disciplinary and prudential ground of which I speak, and rejected by the Society. In your declaration you say (not on account of "clamour," or accusations of editors or others, but on account of editorial remarks in the _Guardian_), "you express your sentiments to save your character from aspersion." In this you imply that the editor of the _Guardian_ has misrepresented your sentiments, and aspersed your character; and, if so, has he not changed his principles? And, if he has changed his principles, is he not guilty of falsehood, since he has positively declared to the reverse? You therefore virtually charge him with inconsistency, misrepresentation, and deliberate falsehood. Is this the fruit of brotherly love? Again, you say that "our political sentiments are the same as before the visit of the editor of the _Guardian_ to England." Is not this equal to a.s.serting that the editor's sentiments are not the same? You therefore say that you love me; that you desire the peace of the Church, and the interests of the _Guardian_, yet you propose a course which will confirm the slanders of my enemies--to implicate me with inconsistency and falsehood--to injure the _Guardian_, and deprive yourselves of the power, as men of honour and truth, to recommend it--to kindle and sanction dissatisfaction among our Church members--to arm preacher against preacher--and to criminate a brother before the public, without a disciplinary trial. You say "our friends are looking out for it." Is this the way, my brother, that you have quieted their minds, by telling them that you also were going to criminate the editor? If this be so, I am not surprised that there is dissatisfaction on your circuit. Brother Evans said that nothing but a denial of having changed my opinions, and an explicit statement of them, would satisfy our friends. I did so, and did so plainly and conscientiously. Yet you do not even allude to this expression of my sentiments, but still insist upon doing what is far more than taking my life--stabbing my principles and integrity. I ask if this is my reward for endangering my life and enduring unparalleled labours, to save the Societies heretofore from being rent to the very centre, and enduring ceaseless storms of slander and persecution for years past in defending the abused character of my brethren? Are they the first to lift up their heel against me? Will they join in the hue and cry against me, rather than endure a "hoot," when I am unjustly treated and basely slandered? I hope I have not fallen into such hands.

Dr. Ryerson received at this time a candid and kindly characteristic letter from his youngest brother, Edwy, at Stamford, which indicated that a reaction was taking place in regard to the much discussed "impressions." He says:--

The present agitated state of the Societies, partly from the Union, and, in a greater degree, from your "impressions" (which would have been a blessing to our Societies, had they never been published) make it very unpleasant to ask even for subscriptions to the _Guardian_. We are here in a state of commotion; politics run high, and religion low. "The _Guardian_ has turned Tory," is the hue and cry, and many appear to be under greater concern about it, than they ever were about the salvation of their souls. Many again, have got wonderfully wise, and pretend to reveal (as a friend, but in reality as an enemy) the secrets of your policy. Under these unpleasant circ.u.mstances, the Ranters have availed themselves of the opportunity of planting themselves at nearly all our posts, and sowing tares in our Societies.

You have received a protest, signed by several preachers, and my name among them. Those were my impressions at the time. Therefore I thought it my duty, in connection with my brethren, to make my protest. I have, however (since seeing the _Guardian_), been led to believe you had not changed from what you were. Many of the preachers are rejoiced that you were put in the editorial chair, and feel strongly disposed to exert their influence that you may not be displaced.

_Dec. 2nd._--On this day Dr. Ryerson received a kind word of encouragement from Mr. Alex. Davidson, a literary friend in Port Hope, afterwards of Niagara. He said:--

I have had an opportunity of seeing most of the provincial papers.

They exhibit a miserable picture of the state of the press. The conduct of the editors ought, I think, to be exposed. I have been afraid that from such unmerited abuse, you would quit the _Guardian_ in disgust, and I am glad to see that, though your mind may be as sensitive as that of any other person, you remain firm.

Another indication of the reaction in regard to the "impressions" is mentioned in a note received from Rev. Ephraim Evans, Trafalgar. He says:--

Mr. Thos. Cartwright, of Streetsville, who had given up the _Guardian_, has ordered it to be sent to him again so that he may not seem to countenance the clamour that has been raised against you. Mr. Evans adds: "I am happy to find that the agitation produced by the unwarrantable conduct of the press generally, is rapidly subsiding; and, I trust, nay, am certain, that the late avowal of your sentiments, will be perfectly satisfactory to every sensible and ingenuous mind. I am, upon the whole, led to believe that Methodism will weather out this storm also, and lose not a spar."

_Dec. 6th._--Among the many letters of sympathy received by Dr. Ryerson at this time, was one from his Father, in which he says:--

I perceive by the papers that you have met with tempestuous weather. I devoutly hope that the Great Pilot will conduct you safely through the rocks and quicksands on either side.

_Jan. 6th, 1834._--In a letter from Rev. Anson Green, at Augusta, it was apparent that the tide of popular opinion against Dr. Ryerson had turned. He said:--

I have been very much pleased indeed with the _Guardian_ during the last few months. There is a very great improvement in it. In this opinion I am not alone. Your remarks on the Clergy Reserve question were very timely and highly satisfactory. A number of our brethren have wished me to express to you the pleasure they feel in the course which you have pursued as editor. There has been very great prejudice against you in these parts, among preachers and people, but I think they are dying out and will, I trust, shortly entirely disappear. I hope we shall soon see "eye to eye."

_March 5th._--In the _Guardian_ of this day, Dr. Ryerson intimated that:--

Among many schemes resorted to by the abbettors of Mr. Mackenzie to injure me, was the circulation of all kinds of rumours against my character and standing as a minister. For proof, it was represented that I was denied access to the Wesleyan pulpit in this town. When these statements were made early in the year, the stewards and leaders of the York Society met on the 11th of last January, and pa.s.sed a resolution to the effect

That being anxious, lest, under exciting circ.u.mstances, you might be tempted to withhold your ministrations from the York congregation, they desire their Secretary to inform you that it is their wish, and they believe it a duty you owe to the Church of Christ, to favour it with your views on His unsearchable riches as often as an opportunity may present itself.

As these rumours have now been revived, I published this resolution in the _Guardian_ of to-day.

The capital offence charged against Dr. Ryerson in publishing his "impressions" was his exposure of Joseph Hume, M.P., the friend and patron of Mr. Mackenzie. (See pages 118 and 123.) In the _Guardian_ of December 11th, Dr. Ryerson fully met that charge. Among other things he pointed out:--

1st. That, having voted for a Church establishment in India, Mr. Hume was the last man who should have been entrusted with pet.i.tions from Upper Canada, against a Church establishment in Upper Canada. 2nd. That Methodists emigrating to this country, when they learn that Mr. Hume is regarded as a sort of representative of the principles of the Methodists in Upper Canada, immediately imbibe strong prejudices against them, refusing to unite with them, and even strongly opposing them, saying that such Methodists are Radicals--a term which, in England, conveys precisely the same idea that the term Republican does in this Province.

Thus the prejudices which exist between a portion of the Canadian and British Methodists here, are heightened, and the breach widened. 3rd.

That even adherents of the Church of England here who were Reformers in England join the ranks of those opposed to us when they know that Mr.

Hume is a chosen representative of our views in England; for the personal animosity between the Whigs and Reformers and Radicals in England is more bitter, if possible, than between the Radicals and Tories, and far more rancorous than between the Whigs and Tories. There is just as much difference between an English Reformer and an avowed English Radical as there is between a Canadian Reformer and an avowed Canadian Republican. In the interests of the Methodists, therefore, religiously and politically, the allusion to Mr. Hume was justifiable and necessary. Dr. Ryerson continues:--

I may mention that so strongly impressed was I with these views, that in an interview which I had with Mr. Secretary Stanley, a few days before the Clergy Reserve pet.i.tions were presented by Mr. Hume, I remarked that the people of Upper Canada, not being acquainted with public men in England, had sent them to the care of a gentleman of influence in the financial affairs of Great Britain, but that I was apprehensive that he was not the best qualified to advocate a purely legal and religious question. Mr. Secretary Stanley smilingly interrupted me by asking "Is it Hume?" I replied, "It is, but I hope this circ.u.mstance will not have the least influence upon your mind, Mr. Secretary Stanley, in giving the subject that important and full consideration which its great importance demands." Mr. Stanley replied: "No, Mr. Ryerson, be a.s.sured that the subject will not be in the least prejudiced in my mind by any circ.u.mstance of that kind; but I shall give it the most important and grave consideration."

_May 24th._--Within three months after Dr. Ryerson had stated these facts in regard to Mr. Hume, overwhelming evidence of the correctness of his statement that Mr. Hume was unfit to act as a representative, in the British Parliament, of the people of Upper Canada, was given by Mr. Hume himself in a letter addressed to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, dated 29th March, 1834. In that letter Mr. Hume stated that Mr. Mackenzie's

Election to, and subsequent ejection from the Legislature, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, and which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country.

He also advised that

The proceedings between 1772 and 1782 in America ought not to be forgotten; and to the honour of the Americans, for the interests of the civilized world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view.

Dr. Ryerson added: There is no mistaking the revolutionary and treasonable character of this advice given to Canadians through Mr. W.

L. Mackenzie. Yet I have been denounced for exposing the designs of such revolutionary advisers!

The following is an extract from Mr. W. L. Mackenzie's remarks in the _Colonial Advocate_ on Mr. Hume's letter:--

The indignant feeling of the honest old Reformer (Hume), when he became acquainted with the heartless slanders of the unprincipled ingrate Ryerson, may be easily conceived from the tone of his letter.... Mr. Mackenzie will be prepared to hand the original letter to the Methodist Conference.

_June 4th._--In the _Guardian_ of this date, Dr. Ryerson replied at length to Mr. Hume's letter, pointing out how utterly and totally false were Mr. Hume's statements in regard to himself. He, in June, 1832, expressed his opinion of Mr. Hume (pages 118 and 123). He then said:--

That was my opinion of Mr. Hume, even before I advocated the Clergy Reserve pet.i.tion in England,--such it was after I conversed with him personally, and witnessed his proceedings,--such it is now,--and such must be the opinion of every British subject, after reading Mr. Hume's revolutionary letter, in which he rejoices in the approach of a crisis in the affairs of the Canadas, "which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country!" I stated to Mr. Mackenzie more than once, when he called upon me in London, that I could not a.s.sociate myself with his political measures. But notwithstanding all my caution, I, in fact, got into bad company, for which I have now paid a pretty fair price.... I cannot but regard it as a blessing and happiness to the Methodist connexion at large, that they also, by the admission of all parties, stand so completely distinct from Messrs. Hume and Mackenzie, as to be involved in no responsibility and disgrace, by this premature announcement of their revolutionary purposes.

_Oct. 25th._--As to the final result of the agitation in regard to the "Impressions," Rev. John Ryerson, writing from Hallowell (Picton), at this date, says:--

The work of schism has been pretty extensive in some parts of this District. There have as the result of it left, or have been expelled, on the Waterloo Circuit, 150; on the Bay of Quinte, 40; in Belleville, 47; Sidney, 50; Cobourg, 32; making in all 320.

There have been received on these circuits since Conference 170, which leaves a balance against us of 150.

Remarks on the Result of the "Impressions."

The result (on the membership of the Societies) of this politico-religious agitation was more or less the same in other parts of the Connexion. The publication of the "impressions" was (to those who had for years been in a state of chronic war with the powers that be) like the falling of the thunderbolt of Jove out of a cloudless sky. It unexpectedly precipitated a crisis in provincial affairs. It brought men face to face with a new issue. An issue too which they had not thought of; or, if it had presented itself to their minds, was regarded as a remote, if possible, contingency. Their experience of the working of "British inst.i.tutions" (as the parody on them in Upper Canada was called), had so excited their hostility and embittered their feelings, that when they at first heard Dr. Ryerson speak in terms of eulogy of the working of these inst.i.tutions in the mother country, they could not, or would not, distinguish between such inst.i.tutions in England and their professed counterpart in Upper Canada. Nor could they believe that the great champion of their cause, who in the past had exposed the pernicious and oppressive workings of the so-called British inst.i.tutions in Upper Canada, was sincere in his exposition of the principles and the promulgation of doctrines in regard to men and things in Britain, which were now declared by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie to be heretical as well as entirely opposed to views and opinions which he (Dr. Ryerson) had hitherto held on these important questions. The novelty of the "impressions" themselves, and the bitterness with which they were at once a.s.sailed, confused the public mind and embarra.s.sed many of Dr.

Ryerson's friends.

In these days of ocean telegraphy and almost daily intercourse by steam with Britain, we can scarcely realize how far separated Canada was from England fifty years ago. Besides this, the channels through which that intercourse was carried on were few, and often of a partizan character.

"Downing Street [Colonial Office] influence," and "Downing Street interference with Canadian rights," were popular and favourite topics of declamation and appeal with the leaders of a large section of the community. Not that there did not exist, in many instances, serious grounds for the accusations against the Colonial Office; but they, in most cases, arose in that office from ignorance rather than from design.

However the causes of complaint were often greatly exaggerated, and very often designedly so by interested parties on both sides of the Atlantic.

This, Dr. Ryerson soon discovered on his first visit to England, in 1833, and in his personal intercourse with the Colonial Secretaries and other public men in London. The manly generosity of his nature recoiled from being a party to the misrepresentation and injustice which was current in Canada, when he had satisfied himself of the true state of the case. He, therefore, on his return to the Province, gave the public the benefit of his observation and experience in England.

In the light of to-day what he wrote appears fair and reasonable. It was the natural expression of pleased surprise that men and things in England were not so bad as had been represented; and that there was no just cause for either alarm or ill feeling. His comparisons of parties in England and in Canada were by extreme political leaders in Canada considered odious. Hence the storm of invective which his observations raised.