[81] These kindly words the Bishop repeated in substance to the Editor some years since, when talking with him on the subject.--H.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
1791-1836.
The Clergy Reserves and Rectories Questions.
The discussion of the Clergy Reserve Question enters so largely into the Story of Dr. Ryerson's Life, that I give in this chapter a short, condensed sketch of its origin and history down to 1837-38. The remainder of the sketch will be developed in an account of the contest preceding the settlement of the question in subsequent chapters.
After the conquest of Canada, in 1760, the right of the Roman Catholic inhabitants to enjoy their religion was guaranteed to them in the Treaty of Paris, Feb. 10th, 1763. In 1774, an Act was passed by the British Parliament (14 Geo. III., ch. 83) by which the right to their accustomed dues and tithes was secured to the clergy of the Church of Rome in the then Province of Quebec (including what was afterwards Upper and Lower Canada). The same Act provided for the encouragement of the Protestant religion, and, for the support of a Protestant clergy, by other tithes and dues.[82]
In 1791, the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada, and, in an Act introduced into the British Parliament by Mr. Pitt, provision was made for their government. Sections 35-42 of that Act dealt with the maintenance and support of a Protestant Clergy, and this provision (1) allotted one-seventh of all lands which might be hereafter granted by the King for settlement; and (2) gave authority for the erection of "parsonages or rectories, according to the establishment of the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted, etc.
(Sec. 38).
The alleged reasons which induced George III. to make provision for the support of religion in the North American Colonies, are set forth, so far as they related to the Protestant religion, by the late Bishop Strachan in a pamphlet which he published in England in 1827.[83] He mentions the fact that Great Britain, of all European nations, had hitherto made no provision for religious instruction in her colonies. He further states that:--
The effect of this was that emigrants belonging to the Established Church who settled in America, not having access to their own religious ministrations, became frequently dissenters; and when the Colonies (now the United States) rebelled, there was not, among a population of nearly 3,000,000, a single prelate, and but very few Episcopal clergymen.
The folly of this policy was shown in the strongest light during the rebellion; almost all of the Episcopal clergy and their congregations remained faithful to the King, demonstrating by their conduct, that had proper care been taken to promote a religious establishment in connection with that of England, the revolution would not have taken place.[84]
Aware of the pernicious effects of this narrow and unchristian policy, and sensible that the colonial ought to be attached to the parent state by religious, as well as by political feelings, the great Mr. Pitt determined (in forming a constitution for the Canadas) to provide for the religious instruction of the people, and to lay the foundation of an Ecclesiastical Establishment which should increase with the settlement.
To accomplish this noble purpose, Mr. Pitt advised that one-seventh of the lands should be set apart for the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy. In Upper Canada this appropriation comprises one-seventh of the whole province: but in Lower Canada, one-seventh of those parts only which have been granted since 1791 (pages 2, 3).[85]
In a pamphlet published at Kingston, U.C., during the previous year, the substance of Mr. Pitt's remarks on that part of the Bill which authorized the setting apart of these lands, is given as follows:--
Mr. Pitt (House of Commons, 12th May, 1791), said that he gave the Colonial Government and Council power, under the instructions of His Majesty, to distribute out of a sum arising from the tithes for land or possessions, and set apart for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy. Another clause (he said) provided, for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy, a seventh portion of the lands to be granted in future. He declared that the meaning of the Act was to enable the Governor to endow and to present the Protestant clergy of the established church to such parsonage or rectory as might be constituted or erected within every township or parish, which now was, or might be formed; and to give to such Protestant clergyman of the established church, a part, or the whole, as the Governor thought proper, of the lands appropriated by the Act. He further explained that this was done to encourage the established church; and that possibly hereafter it might be proposed to send a Bishop of the established church to sit in the Legislative Council. (Parl. Reg., vol. 29, pp. 414, 415.)[86]
Mr. Fox was entirely opposed to these arrangements. He said: By the Protestant clergy, he supposed to be understood not only the clergy of the Church of England, but all descriptions of Protestants....
That the clergy should have one-seventh of all grants, he must confess, appeared to him an absurd doctrine. If they were all of the Church of England, this would not reconcile him to the measure.
The greater part of these Protestant clergy were not of the Church of England; they were chiefly Protestant dissenters.... We were, by this Bill, making a sort of provision for the Protestant clergy of Canada [of one-seventh of the land] which was unknown to them in every part of Europe; a provision, in his apprehension, which would rather tend to corrupt than to benefit them. (Hansard, vol. 29, 1791, page 108.)
I have carefully gone through the whole of the debate on this subject, but I cannot find one word in it which would indicate that Mr. Pitt, Mr.
Fox, or Mr. Burke (the chief speakers), entertained the idea that endowing the clergy had any political significance as a precautionary measure for ensuring the loyalty of the inhabitants. The opinion was expressed that setting apart these lands was the most feasible way (as Mr. Pitt said) of providing "for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy," and of giving "them a competent income."[87]
In a letter to Dr. Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated December, 1790, Col. J. Graves Simcoe said:--
I am decidedly of opinion that a regular Episcopal establishment ... is absolutely necessary in any extensive colony which England means to preserve, etc. The neglect of this principle of overturning republicanism in former periods, by giving support and assistance to those causes which are perpetually offering themselves to affect so necessary an object, is much to be lamented; but it is my duty to be as solicitous as possible, that they may now have their due influence, etc.
In a "Memoir" written by Governor Simcoe in 1791, he said:
In regard to the Episcopal establishment ... I firmly believe the present to be a critical moment, in which that system, so interwoven and connected with the monarchical foundation of our government, may be productive of the most permanent and extensive benefits, in preserving the connection between Great Britain and her Colonies.
From various sources I gather the following particulars:--
From 1791 to 1819, the Clergy Reserves were in the hands of the Government, and managed by it alone. For years they yielded scarcely enough to defray the expenses of management. In 1817 the House of Assembly objected to such an appropriation for the clergy, as "beyond all precedent lavish," and complained that the reservations were an obstacle to improvement and settlement. In 1819, lands were taxed for the construction of roads, and it was contended that the reservations on the public roads should also be taxed.
In 1819, the question was first mooted, as to the right of Presbyterians to share in the reserves. In March, of that year, thirty-seven Presbyterians of the town of Niagara, petitioned Sir Peregrine Maitland, to grant to the Presbyterian congregation there, the annual sum of 100 in aid, out of the clergy reserves, or out of any other fund at the Governor's disposal. In transmitting this petition to the Colonial Secretary for instructions, Sir P. Maitland mentioned that "the actual product of the clergy reserves is about 700 per annum." In May, 1820, a reply was received from Lord Bathurst, stating that, in the opinion of the Crown officers, the provisions of the Act of 1791, "for the support of the Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the clergy of the Church of England, but may be extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland," but not to dissenting ministers.
In 1819, on the application of Bishop Mountain, of Quebec, the clergy in each province were incorporated for the purpose of leasing and managing the reserves--the proceeds, however, to be paid over to the Government. On the appearance of a notice to this effect in the Quebec _Gazette_, dated, 13th June, 1820, the clergy of the Church of Scotland memorialized the King for a share in these reserves.
In 1823, the House of Assembly, on motion of Hon. William Morris, concurred in a series of resolutions, asserting the right of the Church of Scotland in Canada to a share in the reserves. These resolutions were rejected by the Legislative Council, by a vote of 6 to 5.
In April, 1824, Dr. Strachan was deputed by the Bishop of Quebec and Sir P. Maitland, to go to England and get authority from Lord Bathurst to sell portions of the reserves. In the meantime, the Canada (Land) Company proposed to purchase all the Crown and Clergy Reserve Lands at a valuation to be agreed on. The clergy corporation having desired a voice in this valuation, the Bishop of Quebec deputed Archdeacon Mountain to press this view on Lord Bathurst. Some misunderstanding having arisen between Lord Bathurst and Archdeacon Strachan, and the Canada Land Company, Dr. Strachan went to England in April, 1826, and was deputed by Lord Bathurst to arrange the differences with Mr. John Galt, Commissioner of the Company. This they did by changing the original plan. The clergy lands were exchanged for 1,000,000 acres in the Huron tract. Out of the moneys received from the Canada Company the Home Government appropriated 700 a year to the Church of Scotland clergy,[88] and the same amount to the clergy of the Church of Rome in Upper Canada.
In June, 1826, the Home Government, on the memorial of the Church of Scotland General Assembly, and an address from the House of Assembly, founded on the resolutions of 1823 (which, as introduced, had been rejected by the Legislative Council), acknowledged the rights of the Church of Scotland clergy to a share of the reserves.
In January, 1826, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to distribute the proceeds of the reserves for the benefit of all denominations, or failing that to the purposes of education and the general improvement of the Province. The reply to this memorial was so unsatisfactory that the House of Assembly (December 22nd, 1826), adopted a series of eleven resolutions, deprecating the action of the Home Government in appropriating the clergy reserves to individuals connected with the Church of England "to the exclusion of other denominations"--that church bearing "a very small proportion to the number of other Christians in the province." The Assembly prayed that the proceeds of the reserves be applied to the support of district and common schools, a Provincial seminary, and in aid of erecting places of worship for all denominations of Christians. These resolutions passed by majorities of from 25 to 30; the nays being 2 and 3 only. The bill founded on these resolutions was negatived in the Legislative Council (January, 1827). In the year 1826, Dr. Strachan obtained a royal charter for King's College, with an endowment of 225,000 acres of land, and a grant of 1,000 for sixteen years. This charter was wholly in favour of the Church of England, and its obnoxious clauses remained unchanged until 1835.
In March, 1827, Hon. R. W. Horton introduced a Bill into Parliament to provide for the sale of the clergy lands, as asked for by the Bishop of Quebec. This led to a protracted discussion between the friends in the House of the English and Scotch Churches, and requests were made for information on the state of these Churches in Upper Canada. Archdeacon Strachan, then in England, furnished this information in his famous letter and Chart, dated, May 16th, 1827. Objection to giving the clergy corporation power to sell these lands having been made, Mr. Horton withdrew his original bill, and in a new one, which was passed, confined the exercise of this power to the Executive Government.
In March, 1828, the House of Assembly memorialized the King to place the proceeds of the reserves at the disposal of the House for the purposes of education and internal improvement. Mr. Morris'
motion to strike out "internal improvement" was lost. In this year a committee of the House of Commons reported against continuing the reservation in mortmain of the clergy lands, as it imposed serious obstacles to the improvement of the colony.
In 1829, two despatches on the clergy reserve question were sent to the Colonial Secretary by Sir John Colborne. In one, dated 11th April, Sir John says: If a more ardent zeal be not shown by the Established Church, and a very different kind of minister than that which is generally to be found in this Province sent out from England, it is obvious that the members of the Established Church will be inconsiderable, and that it will continue to lose ground.
The Methodists, apparently, exceed the number of the Churches of England and Scotland.... If the Wesleyan Methodists in England could be prevailed on to supply this Province with preachers, the Methodists of this country would become, as a political body, of less importance than they are at present.
In this year the House of Assembly passed a bill similar to that of 1828. It was rejected, as in the previous year, by the Legislative Council. In 1830, the same proceedings were repeated with like result.
In December, 1830 (see page 101), a monster petition was agreed to, and afterwards signed by 10,000 persons and sent to England, praying that steps be taken to leave the ministers of all denominations to be supported by the people among whom they labour and the voluntary contributions of benevolent Societies in Canada and Great Britain--to do away with all political distinctions on account of religious faith--to remove all ministers of religion from seats and places of political power in the Provincial Government--to grant to the clergy of all denominations the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges in everything that appertains to them as British subjects and as ministers of the Gospel, particularly the right of solemnizing matrimony--to modify the charter of King's College, so as to exclude all sectarian tests and preferences--and to appropriate the proceeds of the sale of the lands, heretofore set apart for the support of a Protestant Clergy, to the purposes of general education and various internal improvements.
Such was the comprehensive character of the reforms prayed for in this province upwards of fifty years ago. All of these reforms have been long since granted; but the enumeration of them shows how far off the mass of the people and their ministers were then from the enjoyment of the civil and religious privileges which are now the birthright of every British subject in Canada.
This "programme of reforms" will also show what were the principles for which Dr. Ryerson, and other pioneers of religious freedom in Upper Canada, had to contend half a century ago. Nor was the victory easily won which they achieved. The struggle was a long and arduous one. Each step was contested by the dominant party, and every reform was resisted with a determination worthy of a better cause.
In March 1831, the first attempt was made (on motion of Mr. Hagerman) to deprive the Canadian Legislature of the power to deal with the clergy reserve question. His motion was to revest the reserves in the crown for religious purposes, but it was negatived by a vote of 30 to 7. Although defeated now, the same proposition was frequently made afterwards, and at length with success. In 1839 a provision of that kind was passed, but it failed on technical grounds to receive the royal assent. See chapter xxxi.
In 1831 and 1832, addresses to the King were adopted by the House of Assembly praying, as before, that the reserves be applied to educational purposes. In this year a satisfactory reply from the Home Government, in regard to the clergy reserve question, was communicated to the Legislature, and it was invited to consider the desirability of exercising its power to "vary or repeal" certain provisions for the support of a Protestant Clergy. In 1832 and in 1833, bills to revest the clergy reserve lands in the Crown were read a second time, and, in 1834, one to that effect was finally passed, but was rejected by the Legislative Council. A bill for the sale of the reserves and the application of the proceeds to educational purposes, was passed in 1835, by a vote of 40 to 4, but was again rejected by the Legislative Council.
This body in the same year proposed that both Houses should abdicate their functions in regard to the reserves (as they were unable to concur in any measure on the subject), and request the Imperial Parliament to legislate on the subject! The House of Assembly peremptorily refused, by a vote of two to one, to concur in such a proposition, and read a dignified lecture to the Council on its refusal to pass their measures, or to originate one of its own. The members of the Assembly felt that the influence of the Governor and the members of the Council would be so potent in England, that by it the wishes of the people of Upper Canada, as repeatedly expressed by that House, would be frustrated.[89] In 1836, the bill of the previous year was passed by the Assembly by a majority of 35 to 5. The Legislative Council amended it so as to leave the matter as before with the British Parliament. This amendment was defeated by the House of Assembly by a vote of 27 to 1, and so the matter ended. In 1837-38 the rebellion took place, leaving the clergy reserve question in abeyance for some time.
On the 15th January, 1836, Sir John Colborne, by order in council, established fifty-seven rectories in Upper Canada, and endowed them out of the clergy reserve lands. This was done at the last moment, and while the successor of Sir John Colborne (Sir F. B. Head) was on his way from New York to Toronto. So great was the haste in which this act was done, that only 44 out of the 57 patents were signed by the retiring Governor; so that only that number of rectories were actually endowed. There is no doubt but that the Constitutional Act of 1791 authorized not only the setting apart of the clergy reserves, but also the erection of "parsonages and rectories according to the establishment of the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted. (Sec. 38). But, in Lord Glenelg's opinion, the subject was never submitted for the signification of the King's pleasure thereon. Certain ambiguous words, in Lord Ripon's reply to a private communication from Sir John Colborne, was the authority relied upon for the hasty and unpopular act of the retiring Governor. The legality of the act was frequently questioned, but it was finally affirmed by the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada in 1856. The judgment in the case of the Attorney-General _vs._ Grasett was that--
Under the statute 31, Geo. III., ch. 31, and the Royal Commission, Sir John Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, had authority to create and endow rectories without further instructions.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] These tithes continued to be collected for the support of a Protestant Clergy until February, 1823, when a declaratory Act, passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada in 1821, was sanctioned by the King to the effect that hereafter "no tithes shall be claimed, demanded, or received by any ecclesiastical parson, rector or vicar, of the Protestant Church within this Province."
[83] Observations on the Provision made for the Maintenance of a Protestant Clergy in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, under the 31st Geo. III., cap. 31. By John Strachan, D.D., Archdeacon of York, Upper Canada, pp. 44. London, 1827.
[84] In a letter written by Dr. Ryerson in 1851, he criticised a similar statement then made by Bishop Strachan. He pointed out that Washington and other leaders of the revolution were staunch churchmen.
[85] In no part of Mr. Pitt's remarks on the Bill setting apart land for the Protestant Clergy do I find any intimation of the kind mentioned by Bishop Strachan. Governor Simcoe, however, held these views, which by mistake the Bishop may have attributed to Mr. Pitt. (See next page.)--H.
[86] An Apology for the Church of England in the Canadas, etc. By a Protestant of the Established Church of England. Kingston, U.C., 1826, page 11.