_April 6th, 1831--Kingston._--I am very glad to see your commendations of the Attorney-General.[A] I think they are just.
They are certainly politic and seasonable. Indeed, I had thought of hinting to you the propriety of some such notice of his liberality, etc. I was afraid otherwise the coldness of the courtiers towards him might make him repent of such liberality. But I think that your remarks have come at the right time, and are exactly of the right sort.[66]
_June 14th, 1833--York._--We have heard with pleasure of your safe arrival in England: and pleasing indeed this has been to your many friends in the Province, whose prayers, good wishes, and friendly recollections, have accompanied you across the Atlantic.... Mr.
John Willson, M.P.P., of Saltfleet, has, within a day or two, obtained from the Receiver-General, on the warrant of the Lieutenant-Governor, 600 of the public money, to aid in building chapels, I suppose, for the Ryanites. (See page 87). The fact was mentioned to me privately this morning, but I deem it so important as to justify and require me to inform you confidentially of it, leaving it to your judgment to use the intelligence in the most discreet manner that may be consistent with the duty you owe to liberty and religion.
It excites surprise, pain, mortification, indignation, and contempt, to see the Executive Government here making unjust and invidious distinctions between His Majesty's subjects in the appropriations of the Clergy Reserves, thereby endeavouring to secure an unconstitutional and corrupt influence, especially after Lord Goderich's declaration in his despatch (which he directed to be published), that if any preference was shown to one denomination of Christians more than another, it was contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government, and against repeated instructions sent to the Government here.
As a Presbyterian I lament the grant to the Presbytery, and will do all I can to get it repealed, for I am convinced it will do injury to liberty and religion, and to the very persons who may wish, or wicked enough, to receive it. I suppose the Province is indebted to Sir John Colborne for these grants. If it is the Government at home, it ought to be known: if it is not, they ought not only to remove Sir John, but also reform this abuse. Have the Government ever given your Society sixpence, or even a foot of land for your chapels?--although it is the oldest and most numerous body of the kind in the Province; is not wealthy, and has rendered the most valuable services, and at a time when no other Church evinced the least interest for the religious instruction or the welfare of the people.
_April 12th, 1838--New York._--Your letter of the 23rd ult. and its enclosure [the defence], I need not say, have effected me deeply, too much, indeed, for me to describe my feelings. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this instance of your kindness; not less valued, certainly, because it was unexpected, not to say undeserved. If my misfortunes shall be the means of recovering a friendship which I formerly enjoyed and always prized, I shall feel not a little reconciled.[67]
I took the precaution some time ago, to send to England a plain, distinct statement of all that had occurred between Sir Francis Head and myself. This was transmitted to a friend to show to Lord Glenelg. My only object was the vindication of my character. I have never had the least expectation of obtaining justice or redress from the Colonial office. There seems in that department utter incapacity. The very persons they select for the Government of Upper Canada are enough to prove this. And yet I believe that Lord Glenelg is an able, as well as amiable, devout, good man.
_May 15th, 1838--New York._--I have received a letter from the gentleman in England, to whom I had written. He had seen Lord Durham, and shown him my letter. He expressed no opinion; but the gentleman thinks that the matter stands favourably before him. He has not yet seen Lord Glenelg.
_August 10th, 1839--New York._--Mr. Christopher Dunkin[68] is very anxious to have the honour of an introduction to you. I am very happy to be the means of gratifying him. Mr. Dunkin was editor of the Montreal _Courier_, in the latter part of 1837, and beginning of 1838. He was afterwards appointed by Lord Durham on the Commission relating to education, and has latterly resided in the United States.
About the time of Mr. Bidwell's defence, Dr. Ryerson also wrote an explanatory letter to the Colonial Office in regard to his excellent friend, Hon. John H. Dunn, the Receiver-General, whose generous conduct towards the Upper Canada Academy is mentioned on page 166[69]. In a letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Dunn to Dr. Ryerson, he said:--
I am very glad to learn from your letter that you have written to Lord Glenelg. It is but just to put His Lordship in possession of facts which may counteract the influence of misrepresentation, and enable His Lordship to exercise his own humane disposition in putting matters right, which have been so wrong and arbitrary towards the individual Mr. Bidwell, whom you have taken the interest in, and trouble, to restore to his position and his country.
I feel exceedingly obliged for the kind feeling which you entertain towards me. Believe me, that you have only done me justice by mentioning my name to Lord Glenelg. I have laboured hard since I have been in the Province to discharge my duty to my God and my Government. I have entertained different opinions at times of the "Powers here," but they have been the dictates of an honest heart.
I cannot guide my opinions to the service of any party. Whatever they may be, I shall lament if they should result in any other than for the best interests and welfare of the Province of Upper Canada.
You were so good as to read me your letter to Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the late execution of Lount and Matthews. Your version too, of the real meaning of the representation which caused Sir Francis Head to compel us to retire from the Executive Council, is so correct, that I cannot suggest any amendment; besides, I am bound by my oath not to divulge any transaction arising at the Council Board. I shall be very happy to see the letter published.
(See page 170.)
You have seen my name kindly mentioned in the public prints. What has been said has been the spontaneous expressions of other persons, quite unknown to me. I am grateful to those persons who have vindicated me against a party, eager to destroy me, and my family. I leave them to a Judge who knows the secrets of all hearts, and before whom we all shall soon appear. I have had my share of afflictions and troubles in this world, and to which I feel little or no attachment whatever. When the heart is sick, the whole body is faint.
Dr. Ryerson (in the _Guardian_ of 22nd January, 1840) thus referred to Mr. Dunn as one of the speakers in the Legislative Council on the popular side of the clergy reserve question:--
I was glad to hear Mr. Dunn speak so well and so forcibly,--universally and affectionately esteemed as he is beyond any other public functionary in Upper Canada.
Some months after the exile of Mr. Bidwell, Mr. James S. Howard was dismissed by Sir F. B. Head from the office of Postmaster of Toronto.
The alleged ground of dismissal was that he was a Radical, and had not taken up arms in defence of the country. Dr. Ryerson, with his usual generous sympathy for persons who in those days were made the victims of Governor Head's caprice, at once espoused Mr. Howard's cause. In his first letter in the Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, he said:--
After the insurrection of 1837-8, unfavourable impressions were made far and wide against the late Postmaster of Toronto, and Mr.
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 God gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to write, I will not passively 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 Assembly 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 Assembly, 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 _Constitution_ 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 _Constitution_ 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 circumstance:--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 circumstances 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 constituted 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 title: "The Cause and Circumstances 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 pass 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. Cassidy, which I have been permitted to read, I am sure the noble 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 classes 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.)