Ryerson in the extraordinary silence of the Conference organ on the subject. In the same letter he said:--

I cannot but feel deeply grieved at not only the tameness but the profound silence of the _Guardian_ on this bill. Silence on such a measure, and at such a time, and after the course we have pursued hitherto, is acquiescence in it to all intents and purposes, and may be fairly and legitimately construed so by both friends and enemies. Oh, is it so? Can it be so, that the Editor of the _Guardian_ has got so completely into the leading strings of that churchism which is as poisonous in its feelings towards us, and its plans respecting us, as the simoon blast; that he will see measures going forward, which he must know are calculated, nay, intended, to trample us in the dust, and not even say one word, except in praise (as often as possible), of the very men who he sees from day to day plotting our overthrow!

I have also observed, in Dr. Strachan's letters to Hon. Wm. Morris, an attack upon Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary--such a one as would enable us to turn to our account on the clergy reserve question (and against Dr. Strachan's exclusive system) the entire influence of Her Majesty's Government, which would have great weight both in and out of the House of a.s.sembly. How I have heard Dr. Bunting, Mr. Beecham, and other members of the Committee at home, say that Lord Glenelg is one of the best and ablest men of the present day. At all events, after what we have obtained through his Lordship's instrumentality, I think that silence on our part is disgraceful--apart from considerations of local interests in this battle for right and justice.

Two able and moderate advocates of the settlement of the clergy reserve question were sent to England in 1837 to confer with Lord Glenelg on the subject, viz.: Hon. William Morris on behalf of the Church of Scotland, and Hon. W. H. Draper on behalf of the Church of England. In November of that year Dr. Ryerson was requested to draw up a paper embodying the opinions of the leading members of the Conference. This was done, and an elaborate paper on the subject was published in the _Guardian_ of January 17th, 1838.[91] Shortly afterwards Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to Lord Glenelg on the subject. I only insert the narrative part of it, as follows:--

I was favoured with a conversation on the clergy reserve question with Mr. [Sir James] Stephen, in accordance with your Lordship's suggestion, the day before I left London for Canada (27th April, 1837). After my arrival in this Province it was unanimously agreed to support the plan for the adjustment of that important and long agitated question, which had been mentioned by Mr. Stephen, in the interview referred to.

Sir F. B. Head set his face against it from the beginning, and did not wish me to say anything about it publicly. The Attorney-General acknowledged it was equitable, and did not make any serious objection to it.[92]

Recently a meeting of our princ.i.p.al ministers took place in Toronto, in order to consult upon the measures which it was desirable to adopt in order to promote the settlement of the question at the next session of Parliament. At the request of the meeting, another gentleman and myself waited upon the Hon. Mr.

Draper (who had taken the most official part in previous sessions), and showed him the resolutions agreed to. We stated that if it would embarra.s.s him in promoting the earliest settlement of the question, we would desist from publishing anything on the subject.

He expressed himself as highly gratified at our frankness, courtesy, and general views, and said that if his high-church friends had treated him with the same liberality and courtesy he would have been saved from much difficulty and embarra.s.sment, which he had experienced in his previous exertions; but that he thought there could be no objection to our publishing at large our views on the subject. The preparation of the doc.u.ment was a.s.signed to me.

When published, it appeared to meet the views of all parties, except the ultra shade of one party, who want the whole of the reserves; and it is now the most popular plan throughout the Province of settling the question, except that of appropriating the reserves to educational purposes exclusively.

A day or two before the publication of this doc.u.ment, the House of a.s.sembly went into Committee on a Bill to revest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament! Going to Toronto at this time, I did what I could to bring the subject again before the House, and accordingly addressed a letter through the press to Speaker MacNab, of the a.s.sembly, on the importance of an immediate settlement of the question, and also urging the adoption of the plan which had been recently proposed.[93] These papers appeared to create a considerable sensation among the members of the a.s.sembly; it was agreed on all sides that the question ought to be settled forthwith. But the reluctance of the Crown Officers to take up the subject soon became manifest; and it was not for some weeks after, that the subject could be forced upon them.[94] Then all (with very few exceptions) professed that the subject ought not to be postponed any longer. But the Crown Officers had no measure prepared, and differed in opinion on the subject--the Attorney-General consenting to the revesting of the reserves in the Crown, the Solicitor-General contending that they should be divided among four denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Roman Catholics, according to their relative numbers in Great Britain and Ireland!) This proposition had but three or four advocates in the House, including the author of it. Mr. Boulton, seconded by Mr. Cartwright, moved, in substance, that the clergy reserve provision was made for the clergy of the Church of England;--that it does not provide for more than a competent support for them;--that to appropriate it for them would give most satisfaction to the country. This resolution had five votes in favour of it. All these amendments, and several others, having been lost in Committee, the original resolution moved by Mr. Cartwright, to revest the clergy reserves in Her Majesty, for "the support of the Christian religion in this Province," was adopted by a majority of three or four. A bill was then brought in and read a first time, and ordered to a second reading next day, but was never afterwards taken up--the exclusive church party being anxious to keep it out of sight. Thus the question is laid over for another year, to the great disappointment and dissatisfaction of thousands who have promptly come forward to the support of the Government of the country.

As an indication of the determination of the party then in power in Upper Canada to carry their scheme for the re-investment of the Reserves in the Crown, before the close of this friendly Parliament, I quote the following extract from a despatch from Sir George Arthur to Lord Glenelg, dated 11th July, 1838:--

At the first meeting of the Legislature, I propose to cause a bill to be introduced for re-investing the lands reserved for the clergy in the Crown, to be applied for religious purposes, and I have reason to think that it will be carried by a considerable majority.

In June, 1838, Dr. Ryerson became Editor of the _Christian Guardian_. It was, as I have shown, at a most critical period in our provincial history. He was called to that post by the unanimous voice of his brethren. That call, too, was emphasized by the fact that the object of the dominant party in decrying the loyalty of their opponents was now clearly seen; and that, therefore, none but a man of undaunted courage, unimpeachable loyalty, as well as unquestioned ability, could successfully cope with the powerful combination of talent and influence which the ruling party possessed.

Nor should it be forgotten, that in the unfortunate crisis through which the Province had just pa.s.sed, the prestige of the party which had always claimed the whole of the reserves as the patrimony of the Church of England, had, from political causes, immensely increased. This gave them a double advantage; while, on the other hand, the prestige of the party which for years had firmly and consistently resisted these claims, had, for the same political reasons, as sensibly and as seriously declined.

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

They imposed a double burthen upon those who had the courage (or, it might be said, audacity) to question the righteousness of claims, which--not to speak of the invaluable services and inviolable loyalty of the claimants themselves in the crisis of the rebellion--were by words of the statute, as interpreted by the law officers of the Crown, so clearly given to those claimants.

Such was the position of parties, and the condition of affairs in Upper Canada, when Dr. Ryerson was called to the editorial chair of the leading newspaper in the Province. That he was possessed of the requisite ability and firmness to maintain the rights of a discouraged minority, and resist the then almost unquestioned will of a powerful majority, few doubted. The bold defence of the supposed exiled rebel, Bidwell, proved that neither courage nor talent was wanting. The bitter hatred of the revolutionary party, as expressed in the threat that, should they succeed, their first victim would be Egerton Ryerson, showed that in the new crusade he would have no help (if not covert opposition) from that extreme section of his former friends. Nor, as events proved, could he reckon on any support from the British missionary section of the Methodist community. Indeed, they were hostile to his views, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter.

In entering into this contest, therefore, Dr. Ryerson found that he would have to encounter a threefold enemy--each section of it able, resolute and influential, especially that one practically in possession of the reserves--fighting, as it was, for its very existence, and acting entirely on the defensive.

Soon after Dr. Ryerson entered on his editorial duties he published in the _Guardian_ an elaborate series of letters on "The Clergy Reserve Question, as a matter of History, a Question of Law, and a Subject of Legislation," addressed to Hon. W. H. Draper, Solicitor-General. After reviewing the proceedings of the Government and Legislature on the subject down to the end of the session of 1838, he summed up the leading facts which he had established, in the following words:--

I have stated that the Government has been administered for fourteen years in utter contempt of the wishes of the inhabitants, const.i.tutionally, continuously, and almost unanimously expressed through their representatives and otherwise, on a subject which concerns their highest and best interests, and which, as the history of Great Britain amply shows, has always more deeply interested British subjects than any other. Sir, on the unspeakably important subjects of religion and education our const.i.tutional right of legislation has, by the arbitrary exercise and influence of Executive power, been made a mockery, and our const.i.tutional liberties a deception; and it is to the influence over the public mind of the high religious feelings and principles of those cla.s.ses of the population who have been so shamefully calumniated by the Episcopal clergy and their party scribes, that the inhabitants of Upper Canada are not doing in 1838, what Englishmen did do in 1688, when their feelings were outraged and their const.i.tutional liberties infringed, and the privileges of Parliament trampled upon, in order to force upon the nation a system of religious domination which the great majority of the people did not desire.

As the session of the Legislature of 1839 approached, a vigorous effort was made by _The Church_ newspaper (the clerical organ), and the _Patriot_ (the lay organ) of the church party to influence public opinion in favour of a re-investment of the clergy reserves in the Crown (for the reasons given on page 225.)

It was well known that Dr. Ryerson had strenuously opposed any reference of the questions to the British Parliament as a pusillanimous, and yet an interested, party abnegation of Canadian rights. He, therefore, prepared and circulated extensively a pet.i.tion to the House of a.s.sembly on this and kindred subjects. This proceeding called forth a counter pet.i.tion, urging the Legislature to recognize the principle of an established church, etc. Dr. Ryerson, therefore, lost no time in inserting in the _Guardian_ of 24th October, a stirring appeal, in which he urged the Methodist ministers and members throughout the country to sign the pet.i.tion which he had prepared without delay. He insisted upon the abolition of the rectories surrept.i.tiously established by Sir John Colborne, on the ground that, although authorized by the Act of 1791, yet that their establishment was not in harmony with the terms of the despatch of Lord Ripon, dated November 8th, 1832, which stated that--

His Majesty has studiously abstained from the exercise of his undoubted prerogative of founding and endowing literary or religious corporations, until he should obtain the advice of the representatives of the people in that respect.

He concluded the appeal with these words:--It becomes every man who properly appreciates his civil and religious rights and privileges, and those of posterity after him, to give his name, his influence, and exertions, in the final effort to place those rights and privileges upon the broad foundation of equal justice to all cla.s.ses of the inhabitants.

In a subsequent appeal, issued in November, he said:--Let every man who has a head to think, a foot to walk, and a hand to write, do all in his power to circulate the pet.i.tions for the entire abolition of high church domination, and the perfect religious and political equality of all denominations of Christians.... The majority of the people of England are willing to have glebes, rectories, t.i.thes, church rates, etc.; but the majority of the people of this Province want nothing of the kind....

The right of the inhabitants of this Province to judge, and to have their wishes granted on everything connected with the disposition of the clergy reserves, and the proceeds of them, has been formally recognized in gracious despatches from the Throne.

Few in the present day can realize the storm which these pet.i.tions and appeals provoked. Every effort was made (as will be seen) to silence the voice and stay the hand of Dr. Ryerson, the chief promoter of the pet.i.tions, and the able opponent of the establishment of church ascendancy in Upper Canada. Thus matters reached a crisis in the latter part of the year 1838. So intense was the feeling evoked by the ruling party against Dr. Ryerson's proceeding, that in many places the promoters of the pet.i.tions were threatened with personal violence, and even with death, as may be seen by letters published in the _Guardian_ at this time. The publication of these letters at the present time would excite feelings of amazement that such a state of things was ever possible in a free country like Canada.

Not only was this policy of intimidation pursued in the rural parts of the country, but the newspapers in Toronto and the larger towns, controlled by his opponents, made a combined a.s.sault upon Dr. Ryerson, as the central figure in this movement. On the 19th December, 1838, he inserted an able defence of himself. He said:--

The question of the Clergy Reserves, or in other words, of a dominant ecclesiastical establishment in this Province, embracing one or more Churches, has been a topic of public discussion for nearly twenty years. For thirty years after the creation of Upper Canada (in 1783) there was no ecclesiastical establishment in the country, except in the letter of an Act of Parliament. During that time there was no weakening of the hands of Government by discussing the question of a dominant church.... But from the time that the Episcopal clergy commenced the enterprise of ecclesiastical supremacy in the Province, there has been civil and religious discord. The calumnious and persecuting measures they have pursued from time to time to accomplish their purpose, I need not enumerate. For twelve years I have sought to restore peace to the Province, by putting down their pretensions. I have varied in the means I have employed, but never in the end I have had in view, as I have always avowed to them and their partizans, and to the Colonial and Imperial Governments, on every suitable occasion.

It was a favourite weapon of attack to denounce as rebels and republicans all those who opposed the exclusive claims of the then representatives of the Church of England. And this stigma was, in 1838, a personal and social one which every person to whom it was applied resented. But the more such persons resented the charge of disloyalty the more was the charge reiterated, and they were hara.s.sed and denounced as "radicals" and "republicans."

In repelling this unfounded charge, Dr. Ryerson did not descend to vindication or explanation. He became in turn the a.s.sailant, and began to "carry the war into Africa." With scorn and invective he replied to the charge, and showed that his opponents, with all their boasting and professions of loyalty, had failed to render the necessary aid in time of need. Thus: It has been said that I prevented the militia from turning out when first called upon.... It is true that I did not exhort any one to volunteer.... One reason ... was that I desired to have the country furnished with a practical ill.u.s.tration of high-church patriotism and loyalty in the hour of need. The _Church_ and the _Patriot_ had boasted of their mult.i.tudes; but those mult.i.tudes shrivelled into a Falstaff's company in an hour which detected the difference between the loyalty of the lip and the heart.... The elongated countenances in certain quarters for a few days [in December, 1837], will never be forgotten! From the Government House to the poorest cottage the omnipotent power of the _Guardian_ was proclaimed as producing this alarming state of things! Indeed, I received a verbal message from His Excellency on the subject. At this juncture ... the heads of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches formally addressed [their adherents] exhorting them to rally to the standard of their country, and from that hour we have heard nothing but congratulations and boasts in regard to the readiness ... with which the militia came forward in all parts of the Province at the call of the Government. It has been insinuated that I attacked the local Government.... The charge is unfounded. When the local Government was attacked for having pursued a different course from that of Lord Durham towards the political prisoners, I reconciled the course of the two administrations. Several numbers of the _Guardian_ containing that dissertation were requested for the Government House, and ... were sent to England.... But when both my position and myself stand virtually ... impugned by proclamation, I am neither the sycophant nor the renegade to crouch down under unmerited imputations, come from whence they may, even though I should suffer imprisonment and ruin for my temerity.

I am at length exhorted to silence, but not my opponents.... A royal answer was returned to an address of the Episcopal Clergy a few weeks since.[95] Nor is silence imposed upon me until the entire weight of the Chief Magistracy is thrown into the Episcopal scale. If the injunction had been given to _all_ parties ... then we might have felt ourselves in some degree equally protected.... But at the moment when the Province is turned into a camp--when freedom of opinion may be said to exist, but scarcely to live--when unprecedented power is wielded by the Executive, and the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended, for one party in the Province to have free range of denunciation, intimidation, etc., against Methodists and others ... and then for silence to be enjoined on me and those who agree with me ... does excite, I confess, my anxious concern, as the object of it in regard to myself and a large portion of the country cannot be mistaken.

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

15th, 1835) recommended a "comprehensive liberality" in every department, and in all the acts of the Government, they conceded in full the popular demands on the clergy reserve question, and deprecated the establishment of any religious corporations until the advice of the local Legislature had been obtained--these very despatches Sir F. B.

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

Has it not been grossly violated?... In his appointments and dismissals from office, and in the whole tone and spirit of his government, did not Sir F. B. Head become the head of a party instead of the Governor of the Province?... The result of his new system of government already is derangement of the currency--insurrection--bloodshed--loss of property--demoralization, by calling large bodies of men from rural to military employments--decrease of population--cessation of immigration--decrease of credit--decrease of revenue--increase of the public debt--decrease of the value of property--increase of popular dissatisfaction--vast military expenditures from the taxes of an overburthened British population--insecurity of person and property, and general distrust. Under these "Church and King" counsels, for two years more, and this province will be a Paradise!... We have laboured hard to obtain and secure many blessings for our native land, but certainly not such blessings as these!

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

Ryerson was moved by ambitious motives. In reply Dr. Ryerson said:--As to my motives of ambition, etc., my enemies will probably concede to me two or three things. 1. That long before Sir F. B. Head came to Upper Canada I had been honoured by as large a share of popular favour in this province as any individual could reasonably expect or desire.... 2. That the path to royal favour has been opened as widely to me as it is possible for it to be opened to any clerical individual who has laid it down as a rule, and stated it to Ministers of the Crown and Governors, that he never could knowingly receive a farthing from any quarter, or in any way, which was not pointed out and authorized by the discipline of his Church. But as a love of popular favour has not obliterated from my recollection the rightful prerogatives of the Crown, I cannot see why I should thereby be disqualified from a disinterested maintenance of const.i.tutional rights, especially when many more are immediately concerned in the latter than in the former.

FOOTNOTES:

[90] In his despatch to Lord Glenelg, giving an extract of his speech at the opening of the ensuing session of the Legislature, Sir George Arthur puts this idea in an official form. He says:--That such "a tribunal is free from those local influences and excitement which operate too powerfully here." In his seventh letter to Hon. W. H. Draper on the clergy reserve question, dated January, 26th, 1839, Dr. Ryerson argues the whole question of the re-investment of the reserves at length. He also shows that so far from the "tribunal" here spoken of by Sir George Arthur being a desirable one to adjudicate on this question, it would be the very reverse.

It should be remembered that in more than one despatch the Colonial Secretary held that the question was one to be settled by the Provincial, rather than by the Imperial Parliament, and declined to interfere with the rights of the Canadian Legislature in the matter.

This will be clearly shown in a subsequent chapter. Lord Glenelg's utterances on this question are very emphatic, especially in his despatch dated 5th December, 1835.

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

Ryerson, W. Ryerson, E. Ryerson, Green, Evans, Jones, Wilkinson, Beatty, and Wright. See also _Guardian_ of October 10th, 1838.

[92] In the _Guardian_ of September 12th, 1838, page 180, Dr. Ryerson makes a fuller reference to this matter. Speaking of the Hume and Roebuck letters (page 167), he says: I was indeed--what I never thought of in London--applauded to satiety by the const.i.tutional press of Upper Canada [for these letters], and by many individuals, several of whom, on my landing in Canada last year, gave me no small thanks for the results of the election of 1836. But all that ceased within a week after my return to Canada.... And why? Because I availed myself of the first opportunity after my return to submit and press upon Sir Francis and the Attorney-General and others, the importance and necessity of an early and equitable settlement of the clergy reserve question, in order to satisfy the expectations of thousands who had voted for const.i.tutional candidates.... The very moment it was seen that my views and intentions on that subject remained unchanged, I saw a change in the expression of countenances. Sir Francis, indeed, _never_ thanked me, for [the letters]; he wished me to say nothing about the clergy reserve question; and within four weeks sent a calumniating letter against me to Lord Glenelg; and the Attorney-General, so far from remembering the estimate he professed (on my return from England) to place upon my services to the Province, sought last winter to get a clause inserted in the Report of the Select Committee on the Upper Canada Academy, impugning my motives and exonerating Sir Francis from the allegations contained in my pet.i.tion (see page 180), without even investigating its merits, etc.

[93] In a letter to a friend, in January, 1838, Dr. Ryerson relates an amusing incident which was characteristic of Sir Allan MacNab's love of a bit of fun. He said:--In conversation one day with Mr. Speaker MacNab, he gravely proposed to me that I should meet Archdeacon Strachan and a clergyman of the Church of Scotland; and for him and other members of the a.s.sembly to hear us put forth our respective claims to the clergy reserves, and for them to say a word now and then if they liked. After having heard the parsons argue the point, some member was to bring such a measure before the a.s.sembly, as we three should propose. This rather amusing way of settling the question was evidently by way of a joke, so I made no objection to it. He is to inform me of the time and place for the argument, after having consulted the other parties concerned; but I shall hear no more of it!

[94] The cause of this apathy will be apparent from the narrative in chapter x.x.xi., and the note on page 225.

[95] In their address they designated themselves as the Bishop, Archdeacons, and Clergy of the Established Church _of Upper Canada_; but Sir George Arthur, in his reply, addressed them as the Bishop, Archdeacons, and Clergy of the established Church _of England_ in Upper Canada.

CHAPTER x.x.x.

1838-1839.

The Ruling Party and the Reserves.--"Divide et Impera."

In dealing with so large and influential a body as the Methodists, made up, as it was years ago, of two distinct elements, somewhat antagonistic to each other, it can easily be understood that the more astute among the high church or "family compact" party clearly saw that their only hope of success in the clergy reserve controversy was by taking advantage of the presence of this antagonistic element in the Methodist body, and to turn it to practical account against Dr. Ryerson, so as to checkmate him in the contest. Queen Elizabeth's motto: _Divide et impera_, was therefore adopted. And every effort was made to intensify the feelings and widen the breach which already existed between the two sections of the Methodists. This was the more easily done by the appeal which was made to the national prejudices of Methodists of British origin, as against the alleged republican tendency of their colonial brethren.[96] In this effort the ruling party were publicly and privately aided by members of the Missionary Committee in London. To discuss this question now would be practically useless. None but actors in the scenes and conflicts of those times could realize the strong, even bitter, feelings which existed in the chief towns between the two parties at the time. Cherished sentiments of loyalty, strong home feelings, and orthodox Methodist principles, were appealed to, and alternately a.s.serted their influence on opposite sides in the contest.

Added to the difficulty which Dr. Ryerson experienced in conducting the clergy reserve controversy was the fact, that many Methodists of British origin fully sympathized with the claims of the old national and historical Church of England--they held that it was _ipso facto_ the "established" church in every British Colony, as often a.s.serted by the Missionary party.