Bidwell. But subsequent investigations corrected these impressions.

The former has been appointed to office, and Sir F. B. Head's proceedings against the latter have been cancelled by Sir Charles Metcalfe. (Page 16.)

Again, in the "Prefatory Address" to the Metcalfe Defence, he said:--

While G.o.d gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to write, I will not pa.s.sively see honourable integrity murdered by grasping faction.... I would not do so in 1838, when an attempt was made to degrade and proscribe, and drive out of the country all naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all Reformers with the brand of rebellion.... I relieved the name of an injured James S. Howard from the obloquy that hung over it, and rescued the character and rights of an exiled Bidwell from ruthless invasion, and the still further effort to cover him with perpetual infamy by expelling him from the Law Society. (Page 7.)

FOOTNOTES:

[61] According to the books of the Law Society, Mr. Bidwell commenced his legal studies in Kingston, the 14th March, 1816, in the office of Mr. Daniel Washburn, and completed them in the office of Mr. Daniel Hagerman, of Ernestown. He was admitted as a barrister-at-law in April, 1821.

Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of a.s.sembly in 1824; re-elected and chosen Speaker in 1828. On the death of George IV., in 1830, a new general election took place, when the Reform party were reduced to a minority, and Mr. Bidwell was not re-elected Speaker; but he greatly distinguished himself in the debates of the House. In 1834, a new general election took place; a large majority of Reformers were returned, and Mr. Bidwell was again elected Speaker. In May, 1836, Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House of a.s.sembly, and Mr. Bidwell and his colleague, the late Peter Perry, were defeated in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, which Mr. Bidwell had represented in Parliament during twelve years. From that time (May, 1836) Mr. Bidwell never attended a political meeting, or took any part in politics.

[62] As stated by Dr. Ryerson, in the above note, Mr. Bidwell took no part in politics after his political defeat in May, 1836. In a note to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, dated August 3rd, 1837, Mr. Bidwell said: Having learned from the _Const.i.tution_ of yesterday that I was chosen as a delegate to a Provincial Convention, I think it right without delay to inform you ... that I must be excused from undertaking the duties of that appointment.... I cannot but regret that my name should have been used without my consent, or previous knowledge, by which I am driven to the disagreeable necessity of thus publicly declining [the] appointment, etc. In the _Guardian_ of 27th September, where this letter appears, it is stated that Mr. Mackenzie did not publish it in the _Const.i.tution_ until the 20th September--six weeks after he had received it.

In a letter from Mr. Bidwell, dated, the 30th April, 1837, to Dr.

O'Callaghan, of Montreal, he said: Retired from public life, probably for ever; I still look with the deepest sympathy on the efforts of those who are actively contending for the great principles of liberty, and good government, etc.--"_Political History of Canada_, 1840-1855, by Sir Francis Hincks, 1877, page 7."

[63] Sir Alexander Campbell, now Minister of Justice, in a note to the Editor, thus explains this circ.u.mstance:--In the winter of 1837-38, I was a student-at-law, and a resident of Kingston. Dr. Ryerson was then the Methodist minister in charge of the only congregation of that body in town. The rebellion of 1837-8, had led to excited, and very bitter feelings--arrests had been frequent; and it was not prudent for any one to try to palliate the deeds of the rebels, or to seek to lessen the odium which covered their real, or even supposed allies and friends. Dr.

Ryerson, however, desired to bring out the facts connected with Mr.

Bidwell's banishment, and to change the current of public feeling on the subject--but it was not wise to send letters to the press in his own handwriting, or in any other way suffer it to become known that he was the author of the letters in defence of Mr. Bidwell. Under these circ.u.mstances he asked me to copy them, and take them to the _Herald_ office--then the most liberal paper in Upper Canada. I was proud of the confidence placed in me, and copied the several letters, and went with them to the publisher. The letters were signed in words which I have not since seen, but which remain impressed upon my memory, and which were as follows:--

"I am Sir, by parental instruction and example, by personal feeling and exertion,

A United Empire Loyalist"

The letters const.i.tuted an eloquent defence of Mr. Bidwell, who certainly took no part in the counsels of those who were afterwards engaged in the rebellion, when it became evident that they intended to push matters to extremes.

The incident made a great impression on me at the time, and was the beginning of a friendship with which Dr. Ryerson honoured me, and which ended only with his life.

A. Campbell.

Ottawa, 29th December, 1882.

[64] The defence was afterwards reprinted in a pamphlet on the 10th of May, 1838, with the following t.i.tle: "The Cause and Circ.u.mstances of Mr.

Bidwell's Banishment by Sir F. B. Head, correctly stated and proved by A United Empire Loyalist." Kingston, 1838, pp. 16.

[65] Some time after Sir George Arthur's arrival as Governor, he sent for me, and stated that his object in doing so was to request me, for the sake of the Government and the country, to withdraw the letter I had written in answer to Attorney-General Hagerman; that it greatly weakened the Government; that my power of argumentation was prodigious, but he believed I was mistaken; that Mr. Bidwell had called to pay his respects to him at Albany, on his way to Canada; and that he (Sir George) believed Mr. Bidwell was guilty, as far as a man of his caution and knowledge could be concerned in the rebellion; and though my argument on his behalf seemed to be irresistible, he believed I was wrong, and that the withdrawal of my letter would be a great help to the Government. I replied that my weekly editorials in the _Christian Guardian_ (of which I had consented to be re-elected Editor) showed that I was anxious to suppress the factious and party hatreds of the day, and to place the Government upon a broad foundation of loyalty and justice; that what I had written in the case of Mr. Bidwell had been written by me as an individual and not as the editor of the organ of a religious body, and had been written from the firm conviction of Mr. Bidwell's innocence, and that his case involved the fundamental and essential rights of every British subject; and that, however anxious I was to meet His Excellency's wishes, I could not withdraw my letter. I then bowed myself out from the presence of Sir George, who, from that hour became my enemy, and afterwards warned Lord Sydenham against me as "a dangerous man," as Lord Sydenham laughingly told me the last evening I spent with him in Montreal, at his request, and before his lamented death.

[66] These remarks will be found on page 83 of the _Guardian_ of 2nd April.

[67] This loss of friendship with Dr. Ryerson may be explained by the following reference to Mr. Bidwell, in a letter from Dr. Ryerson, to his brother John, dated, Kingston, 29th May, 1838:--From an intimate religious friend of Mr. Bidwell, I learn that during the last few years he had acted more after a worldly policy, common to politicians, and had, therefore, partly laid himself open to the censure which he has received. I am also sensible of his prejudices against me of late years, and of the great injury which I have thereby sustained. I had some difficulty to overcome my own feelings in the first instance. But as far as individual feelings and interests are concerned, "it is the glory of man to pa.s.s over a transgression," generous as well as just, as we have received help from Bidwell himself when we could not help ourselves, and were trampled upon by a desperate party. If others had seen the letters from Bidwell to Mr. Ca.s.sidy, which I have been permitted to read, I am sure the n.o.ble generosity of their hearts would be excited in all its sympathies. I do not think, however, that he will ever return to this Province to reside. That appears to be altogether out of the question with him; but that does not alter the nature of the case.

I have replied to Mr. Hagerman with calmness, but with deep feeling. My reply will occupy about eight columns in to-morrow's _Herald_.

[68] Mr. Dunkin afterwards became a noted politician, and member of the Parliament of United Canada, from 1857, until Confederation. He was the promoter of the "Dunkin Act." He was one of the contributors to the _Monthly Review_, established by Lord Sydenham in 1841. He was subsequently appointed to the Bench, and died a few years since.

[69] The Hon. John Henry Dunn was a native of England. He came to Canada in 1820, having been appointed Receiver-General of Upper Canada, and a member of the Executive and Legislative Council. He held the office of Receiver-General until the union of the Provinces in 1841, when the political exigencies of the times compelled him to resign it. He and Hon. Isaac Buchanan contested the city of Toronto, in the Reform interest, in 1841, and were returned. Mr. Dunn received no compensation for the loss of his office, and soon afterwards returned to England, where he died in 1854. He was a most estimable public officer. His son, Col. Dunn, greatly distinguished himself during the Crimean war, and, on his visiting Canada soon afterwards, was received with great enthusiasm, and a handsome sword was presented to him.--H.

CHAPTER XXV.

1838.

Return to the Editorship of the "Guardian."

The Rebellion of 1837-38 was suppressed by the inherent and spontaneous loyalty of all cla.s.ses of the Canadian people. Yet, after it was over, the seeds of strife engendered by the effort to prove that one section of the community was more loyal than the other, and that that other section was chiefly responsible for the outbreak, bore bitter fruit in the way of controversy. Dr. Ryerson took little part in such recriminatory warfare. It was too superficial. He felt that it did not touch the underlying points at issue between the dominant, or ruling, party and those who were engaged in a contest for equal civil and religious rights. He, and the other leaders who influenced and moulded public opinion, clearly saw that this recriminatory war was carried on by the dominant party as a mask to cover their ulterior designs--designs which were afterwards developed in the more serious struggle for religious supremacy which that party waged for years afterwards, and which at length issued in the complete triumph of the principles of civil and religious freedom for which Dr. Ryerson and the representatives of other religious bodies had so long and so earnestly contended. (See page 452.)

Besides, Dr. Ryerson was anxious to fulfil the engagement made with the Kingston Society that he would resume his pastoral charge there, after his return from England in June, 1837. He was, however, repeatedly pressed by his friends to write for the _Guardian_, or other newspaper, on the vital questions of the day. In reply to his brother John, who had urged him in the matter, he wrote (March, 1838) saying that he was so happily engaged in his pastoral duties at Kingston that he could not then devote the necessary time to the discussion of public questions.

His brother, in remonstrating with him on the subject, said:--

Your letter affords me great satisfaction, accompanied with sorrow.

I am afflicted to think of the state the Province is in. Never did high-churchism take such rapid strides towards undisputed domination in this country as it is now taking. Never were the prospects of the friends of civil and religious liberty so gloomy and desperate as they are now. You say that you have not time to write on these subjects. I will say, if you had, it would not now, I fear, accomplish much. Indeed, it would, require the undeviating course and the whole weight of the _Guardian_ to accomplish anything at this time, so completely is all moral power in the country enervated and liberty prostrated.

It is a great blessing that Mackenzie and radicalism are down, but we are in imminent danger of being brought under the domination of a military and high-church oligarchy, which would be equally bad, if not infinitely worse. Under the blessing of Providence there is one remedy, and only one; and that is, for you to take the editorship of the _Guardian_ again. Several preachers have spoken to me on this subject lately. One of them said to me (and he could think of nothing else) that that alone would save us and the country from utter ruin, and urged the necessity of the Conference electing you, whether you would consent to serve or not. The truth is, it is absolutely necessary for the sake of the Church and the country that you reside in Toronto, and have direction of affairs here. I wish all of our proceedings to be calm and moderate, but that we be firm, and that the great principles of religious freedom and equality should be uncompromisingly maintained.

In a subsequent letter to Dr. Ryerson his brother John said:

In fact there is no way of escape out of our troubles but for you to take the _Guardian_. The feeling of dissatisfaction at the present state of things is becoming exceedingly strong among the preachers and people. I partic.i.p.ate in their feelings.

Dr. Ryerson yielded to these appeals, and did write for the _Guardian_.

In a letter, dated Kingston, April 4th, he said:--

I have recently written at considerable length to Lord Glenelg respecting the Academy and other local matters. What you say in regard to myself, and my appointment next year, I feel to be a delicate and difficult matter for me to speak on. In regard to myself I have many conflicting thoughts. My feelings, and private interests, are in favour of my remaining where I am, if I remain in the Province. I have been very much cast down, and my mind has been much agitated on the subject. For the present I am somewhat relieved by the conclusion to which I have come, in accordance with Dr. Clarke's "Advice to a Young Preacher," not to choose my own appointment, but after making known any circ.u.mstances, which I may feel it necessary to explain, to leave myself in the hands of G.o.d and my brethren, as I have done during the former years of my ministry. If the Lord, therefore, will give me grace, I am resolved to stand on the old Methodistic ground in the matter of appointment to the _Guardian_.

I thank you for Chief Justice Robinson's address at the trial of the prisoners. It is good. My own views are in favour of lenity to these prisoners. Punishments for political offences can never be beneficial, when they are inflicted in opposition to public sentiment and sympathy. In such a case it will defeat the object it is intended to accomplish. It matters not whether that sentiment and sympathy are right or wrong in the abstract; the effect of doing violence to it will be the same. But I would not pander to that feeling, how carefully soever one may be disposed to observe its operations. The fact, however, is, that Sir Francis Head deserves impeachment, just as much as Samuel Lount deserves execution. Morally speaking, I cannot but regard Sir Francis as the more guilty culprit of the two.

I admire, as a whole, Sir George Arthur's reply to the address of the "Const.i.tutional Reformers." There is good in it. They will see the folly of continuing the former party designations, and pretended grounds of complaint. I think, however, that their address will do good, from the large number of names attached to it. I was surprised, and it has created quite a sensation here, that there are so many as 772 in Toronto, who still have the moral courage to designate themselves "Const.i.tutional Reformers." It will teach the other party that they are not so strong, and so absolute in the voice of the country, as they thought themselves to be.

I am satisfied that there never was such a time as from the termination of the trial of the prisoners to the next session of Parliament, for us to stamp upon the public mind at large, our own const.i.tutional, and Scriptural, political, and religious doctrines; and to give the tone to the future Government and Legislation of the Province, and to enlarge vastly a sphere of usefulness. I shall write some papers for the _Guardian_ with this view.

In a letter from Brockville, Rev. William Scott said:--

My humble opinion is, that in order to our safety as a Church--our preservation from high church influence--you must be at Toronto. I a.s.sure you that is the opinion of our influential men in this quarter, who understand the state of the province, and the position of Methodism. Permit me to add that the one hour's conversation which I had with you amply repaid me for all the furious battles which I have fought on this circuit in your defence.

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in a letter to Rev. John Ryerson, said:

I am quite of your opinion that your brother Egerton ought to take the _Guardian_ next year. There is a crisis approaching in our affairs which will require a vigorous hand to wield the defensive weapon of our Conference. There can be no two opinions as to whom we should give that weapon. We now stand on fair ground to maintain our own against the encroachments of the oligarchy, and we must do it, or sink into a comparatively uninfluential body--this must not be.

As urged by these letters from his brethren, Dr. Ryerson, early in May, 1838, prepared several articles for the _Guardian_. His brother John, who was a member of the Book Committee, thus speaks of the series of articles sent to that paper:--

I cannot express to you how much I am gratified and pleased with your article on "Christian Loyalty." It will, no doubt, do immense good. We have had a regular campaign in our Book Committee, in reading and discussing your articles. The one on "Christian Loyalty" occupied nearly the whole time. Your article on "The Church" is one of the most admirable papers I ever read. Not a word of that is to be altered. Your communication on "Indian Affairs," I cannot speak so highly of. I hope you will pardon me for leaving out some of the severe remarks on Sir Francis. I am afraid they will do harm with the present Government.

At the Conference of 1838, Dr. Ryerson was re-elected Editor of the _Christian Guardian_. In his first editorial, dated 11th July 1838, he said:--

Notwithstanding the almost incredible calumny which has in past years been heaped upon me by antipodes-party-presses, I still adhere to the principles and views upon which I set out in 1826. I believe the endowment of the priesthood of any Church in the Province to be an evil to that Church.... I believe that the appropriation of the proceeds of the clergy reserves to general educational purposes, will be the most satisfactory and advantageous disposal of them that can be made. In nothing is this Province so defective as in the requisite available provisions for, and an efficient system of, general education. Let the distinctive character of that system be the union of public and private effort.... To Government influence will be spontaneously added the various and combined religious influence of the country in the n.o.ble, statesmanlike, and divine work of raising up an elevated, intelligent, and moral population.[70]