Ryerson by his brother John, may be safely taken as an example of the feeling which they at first evoked. It is characterized by strong and vigorous language, indicative of the state of public opinion at the time. It is valuable from the fact that while it is outspoken in its criticism of Dr. Ryerson's views, it touches upon the point to which I have already referred, viz: the separation into two sections of the powerful party which was then noted as the champion of popular rights.
Mr. Ryerson says:--
Your article on the Political Parties of England has created much excitement throughout these parts. The only good that can result from it is, the breaking up of the union which has hitherto existed between us and the radicals. Were it not for this, I should much regret its appearance. But we had got so closely linked with those extreme men, in one way or another, that we cannot expect to get rid of them without feeling the shock, and, perhaps, it may as well come now as anytime. It is our duty and interest to support the Government. Although there may be some abuses which have crept in, yet, I believe that we enjoy as many political and religious advantages as any people. Our public affairs are as well managed as in any other country. As it respects the Reformers, so called, take Baldwin, Bidwell, Rolph, and such men from their ranks, and there is scarcely one man of character or honour among them. I am sorry to say it, but it is so. The best way for the present is for us to have nothing to say about politics, but treat the Government with respect. Radcliffe, of the Cobourg _Reformer_, and Dr. Barker, of the Kingston _Whig_, have come out in their true character.
Radcliffe is preparing a heavy charge against you. But let them come; fear them not! I hope they will show themselves _now_. I thought that you, in your reply to W. L. Mackenzie, did not speak in a sufficiently decided manner. You say you have not changed your views; but I hope you have in some respects. Although you never were a Radical, yet have not we all leaned too much towards them, and will we not now smart for it a little? But, the sooner it comes on, the sooner it will be over.
Rev. John Ryerson then gives the first intimation of the existence of that germ of hostility to the recently consummated Union on the part of the British Wesleyan Missionaries in this country--a hostility which became at length so deep and widespread as to destroy the Union itself--a union which was not fully restored until 1847. Mr. Ryerson points out the political animus of the movement, and proceeds:--
You see that the Missionaries are making great efforts to have Kingston and York made exceptions to the general arrangements.
Should the English Committee listen to them, confidence will be entirely destroyed. Their object is to make the British Conference believe that we have supported Radical politics to an unlimited extent, and that, therefore, the people will not submit to the Union with such people; they (the Missionaries) are, however, the authors of the whole trouble. Rev. Mr. Hetherington told me that they were getting the back numbers of the _Guardian_ to prove that we had been political intimidators! They say that Mr. Marsden, the President, told the members at Kingston that it they could make it appear that we had done this, they should be exempted from the Union, and be supplied with Missionaries from home.
In a subsequent letter from Rev. John Ryerson, he discusses his brother's "Impressions of Public Men in England," and utters a word of warning to the Methodist people who have allied themselves too closely with the disloyal party. He says:
What will be the result of your remarks in the _Guardian_ on Political Parties in England, I cannot say. They will occasion much speculation, some jealousy, and bad feeling. I have sometimes thought you had better not have written them, particularly at this time, yet I have long been of the opinion (both with regard to measures and men) that we leaned too much towards Radicalism, and that it would be absolutely necessary to disengage ourselves from them entirely. You can see plainly that it is not Reform, but Revolution they are after. We should fare sumptuously, should we not, with W. L. Mackenzie, of Toronto, and Radcliffe, of Cobourg, for our rulers! I have also felt very unpleasant in noticing the endeavours of these men (aided by some of our members) to introduce their republican leaven into our Ecclesiastical polity. Is it not a little remarkable that not one of our members, who have entered into their politics, but has become a furious leveller in matters of Church Government, and these very men are the most regardless of our reputation, and the most ready to impugn our motives, and defame our character, when we, in any way, cross their path. There are some things in your remarks I don't like; but, on the whole, I am glad of their appearance, and I hope, whenever you have occasion to speak of the Government, you will do it in terms of respect. I am anxious that we should obtain the confidence of the Government, and entirely disconnect ourselves from that tribe of levellers, with whom we have been too intimate, and who are, at any time, ready to turn around and sell us when we fail to please them.
_Nov. 20th._--In another letter to Dr. Ryerson from his brother John, at this date, he says:--
I deeply feel for you in the present state of agitation and trial.
My own heart aches and sickens within me at times; I have no doubt, however much of a philosopher you may be, that you at times participate in the same feelings; but, pursuing a conscientious course, I hope you will at times be able to say:
"Courage, my soul! thou need'st not fear, Thy great Provider still is near."
The following sympathetic letter from Dr. Ryerson's friend, Mr. E. C.
Griffin, of Waterdown, written at the same time, gives another proof of the unreasoning prejudice of those whose knowledge of the outer world was circumscribed and superficial. In England, Dr. Ryerson saw things as they were. He was, therefore, not prepared for the burst of wrath that followed the plain recital of his "impressions" of men and things in England. Mr. Griffin writes:--
The respect I have for you and yours should at all times deter me from bearing evil tidings, yet the same consideration would make it a duty under peculiar circumstances. You have already learned that the public mind has been much agitated in consequence of your remarks in the _Guardian_ on Mr. Joseph Hume, M.P., and Mr. Thomas Attwood, M.P. (see page 123). On this Circuit it is truly alarming--some of our most respectable Methodists are threatening to leave the Church. The general impression has obtained (however unjustly) that you have "turned downright Tory," which, in this country, whether moderate or ultra, seems to have but one meaning among the bulk of Reformers, and that is, as being an enemy to all reform and the correction of acknowledged abuses. This general impression among the people has created a feverish discontent among the Methodists. The excitement is so high that your subsequent explanation has seemed to be without its desired effect. I should be glad if you would state distinctly in the _Guardian_ what you meant in your correspondence with the Colonial Secretary, when you said you had no desire to interfere with the present emoluments of the Church clergy (or words to that effect); and also of the term "equal protection to the different denominations." You are, doubtless, aware of the use made of these expressions by some of the journals, and, I am sorry to say, with too much effect. These remarks, taken in connection with those against Mr. Hume, is the pivot on which everything is turned against you, against the _Guardian_, and against the Methodists.
A few days later Dr. Ryerson received another letter from Mr. Griffin, in which he truthfully says:--
Perhaps there have not been many instances in which sophistry has been applied more effectually to injure an individual, or a body of Christians, as in the present instance. Whigs, tories, and radicals have all united to crush, I may say at a blow, the Methodists, and none have tried to do so more effectually than Mr. W. L. Mackenzie.
He persisted in it so as to make his friends generally believe that the cause of reform was ruined by you. His abuse of you and your friends, and the Methodists, is more than I can stand. He has certainly manifested a great want of discernment, or he has acted from design. I see that the Hamilton _Free Press_ has called in the aid of Mr. F. Collins, of the _Canadian Freeman_, to assist in abusing you and your whole family.
From Augusta, Rev. Anson Green wrote about the same time, and in a similar strain, but not so sympathetically. He says:--
I fear your impressions are bad ones. Our people are all in an uproar about them.
_Nov. 22nd._--Rev. William Ryerson writing from Kingston at this time, reports the state of feeling there. He says:--
As to the _Guardian_, I am sorry to inform you that it is becoming less popular than formerly. If your English "impressions" are not more acceptable and useful in other parts than they are here, it will add little to your credit, or to the usefulness of your paper to publish any more of them. I know that you have been shamefully abused, and treated in a most base manner, and by no one so much so as by Mr. Radcliffe of the Cobourg _Reformer_. I hope you will expose the statements and figures of the _Reformer_ to our friends.
It is rather unfortunate that if you did intend, as is said, to conciliate the Tory party in this country, you should have expressed yourself in such a way as to be so much misunderstood.
_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 anticipated. 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 unconstitutional career.... There are not military enough to uphold a bad government for an hour, if the Rubicon has been passed; 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 assure 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 spyglass, 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 asserting 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 circumstances, 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 passed a resolution to the effect
That being anxious, lest, under exciting circumstances, 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 petitions 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:--