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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 petition (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 Assembly 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 Assembly, 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 xxxi., 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 XXX.
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 asserted 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 asserted by the Missionary party.
As the clergy reserve question gradually became the absorbing topic of discussion in the country (with Dr. Ryerson as one of the chief leaders in that discussion), it was natural that so important a matter should receive the attention of Conference. This it did at an early date. In 1837 strong resolutions were passed upon the subject, which excited much uneasiness among the English Missionary party. The Rev. W. H. Harvard, President of the Conference, in writing to Dr. Ryerson on the subject after Conference, said:--
Since I came away from the Conference, I have been greatly concerned as to the anti-church impression likely to be made on the mind of our people by our recent resolutions of Conference; and I would fain engage your interest with Rev. E. Evans, our Editor, to accompany them with some saving paragraph on the general principle of an establishment which may keep our people from the danger of imbibing the principle of dissent, the operation of which will always foster a religious radicalism in our body, and the influence of which our fathers at home strongly deprecate. I think with you, that in the altered circumstances of our Colonial relations, we have reason to plead for concessions of equality of rights and privileges which would never be granted in the Mother Country. In that respect I do not dissent from the spirit of the resolutions.
But I more and more think and feel that there is a middle path of respectful deference to the principle of an establishment even in the Colonies, which, so modified, would not be injurious, but rather helpful, to our good cause,--and which is a vantage ground on which none of our enemies could touch us. It is true, that from Wesleyan high quarters you have had encouragement to believe an independent stand against Church domination would not be disapproved; yet even there a denial of the principle of an establishment (or that the Government should profess some one form of Christianity, with equal privileges to other Christians) would meet with reprobation; and if not, who does not see, if we take that anti-Wesleyan ground, it may involve the question of Wesleyan consistency on our part, while at the same time it would be in danger of throwing our people into the arms of the Radical-popish-infidel faction, where they will, bear like, be hugged till the breath of piety is pressed out of them. Of course, it would drive away from our congregations many of those pious or well-disposed Church people who occasionally mingle with and derive good from us. It was Mr. Wesley's conviction that the Methodists were in part raised up to spread scriptural holiness in the Church of England, as well as in the world at large. I must repeat my wish, that you had yielded to my suggestion to admit into the resolution the phrases, "that the principle of an establishment should be so administered in this Province as to secure perfect equality of rights and privileges among all other communities."
You may have ulterior views which I am too short-sighted to perceive. But I am fully convinced, that if the _Guardian_ does not save us from identification with dissent from the Church of England at this crisis, the real friends of our Zion will bitterly deplore it another day.[97]
Here was a broad and distinct declaration of principle, as fully in harmony with the views of the dominant party as they were entirely opposed to those held by the Canadian Conference party. They were perfectly sincere, too, and were uttered by one of the most moderate, and yet most thoroughly representative agents of the British Missionary party in this Province. It can be easily seen how tempting an opportunity it was for the ruling party to foster this feeling amongst the English Missionary section of Methodists, by strong appeals to their well-known loyalty--their respect and love for the old mother-church, which John Wesley so venerated. Even condescension and flattery were employed. _The Church_ and other newspapers made appeals with tact and ability[98] (see page 236); the Lieutenant Governor himself took the trouble to address a letter on the subject direct to the Missionary Committee in London, and Archdeacon Strachan never failed to single out for respectful mention and commendation the representatives of the British Missionary party in Canada, as distinguished from the "disloyal and republican section of the Methodists."[99]
Referring to this period, Rev. John Ryerson, in his Historical Recollections of Methodism (as annotated by Dr. Ryerson) informs us that--
After aiding to suppress the rebellion, the _Guardian_ resumed the discussion of the clergy reserve question, and insisted that it should be settled. But nothing was farther from the thoughts of Dr.
Strachan and Sir George Arthur. They contended that the mooting of the question at such a time was evidence of disloyalty on the part of those who were endeavouring to despoil the Church of its lawful rights. The Editor of the _Guardian_ (Dr. Ryerson) was threatened with personal violence, with prosecution, and banishment. Yet the _Guardian_ kept on the even tenor of its way; and in proportion to the fury of the monopolists, did the Editor increase his exertions to wrest from them their unjust gains. Then the oppressors of equal rights, seeing that nothing else would do, called into requisition the old craft to divide the Methodists, or, by other influences, to coercively control them.
Sir George Arthur, the amanuensis of Dr. Strachan in these matters, wrote to the Missionary Committee in London of the evil and disturbing doings of the _Guardian_, and called on them for their interference. This flattering appeal received a very complimentary reply. The Committee also wrote to their missionary agents in Canada, directing them to interpose and arrest the unjustifiable course of the _Guardian_. The objection was that the paper "had become party-political;" that "its course was disquieting to the country, and disreputable to Wesleyan Methodism," ... etc. It is not denied (adds Rev. J. Ryerson), that the _Guardian_ at this time was very political for a religious journal....
On this Dr. Ryerson remarked--
It is true, as my brother has intimated, that the _Guardian_ was "very political," because the Editor was intensely in earnest on the great object for which he had been elected by the Conference.... The times of his former proposed conciliations and compromises were now past. He felt the awfulness of the crisis and the responsibility of his position. The Reform party had been crushed by the rebellion of 1837, and the Reform press silenced; there was, in fact, no Reform party. The high-church party thought that their day of absolute power and ecclesiastical monopoly had dawned. It had been agreed by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels ... that Egerton Ryerson [should be their first victim].
He alone stood above successful calumny by the high-church party, and backed as he was by his Canadian Methodist brethren, he determined to defend to the last, the citadel of Canadian liberty....
He knew that, as in a final struggle for victory between two armies, when that victory was trembling in the scales, the wavering of a single battalion on either side might animate and decide victory in favour of the enemy; so a compromising sentence or ambiguous word from the Editor might rouse the high-church party to increased confidence and action, and proportionally weaken the cause of civil and religious liberty in Upper Canada. The Editor of the _Guardian_ had no fear, and he evinced none.... I contended that all the political questions then pending had a direct or indirect bearing on this great question; ... that I would not be turned aside from the great object in view until it was obtained; that the real object of the Government and of the Missionary Committee was not so much to prevent the introduction of politics into the _Guardian_, as the discussion of the clergy reserve question itself, and of the equal religious rights of the people altogether, so that the high-church party might be left in peaceable possession of their exclusive privileges, and their unjust and immense monopolies, without molestation or dispute.
Rev. J. Ryerson adds: Had Dr. Ryerson "yielded to the dictation of Sir George Arthur's government, and the interference of the London Missionary Committee, one-seventh of the land of the Province might now be in the hands of the Church of England. But the course of the _Guardian_ in this matter, however right, brought upon [the Canadian Methodist Church] calamities and sufferings of seven years'
continuance."
About a month before the Conference of 1839 met, Sir George Arthur received a reply, by the hands of Dr. Alder, from the Missionary Committee in London (signed by Dr. Bunting and the other Secretaries), which he published in the _Patriot_ newspaper. Dr. Ryerson inserted the letter in the _Guardian_ of the 22nd May, with these remarks:--
We copy from the _Patriot_ a letter, addressed by the Wesleyan Missionary Secretaries in London to Sir George Arthur, disclaiming "all participation in the views expressed in the _Guardian_ on the ecclesiastical questions of this Province."
He then goes on to show that the views expressed in the _Guardian_ were identical with those embodied in the proceedings of the Wesleyan Conference in Upper Canada from the beginning, and that they were explicitly avowed and understood by both parties at the time of the union of the Conferences in 1833.
The object of the publication of the letter was evidently twofold: 1st.
To put a weapon into the hands of the friends of a dominant church in Upper Canada. 2nd. To paralyze the efforts of Dr. Ryerson to secure equal rights for all religious bodies, and thus to weaken his powerful influence as a champion of those rights.
It was a noticeable fact that all of the disclaimers from the British party first appeared in the Church of England organs, and were there triumphantly appealed to as the unbiassed expression of Methodist opinion from headquarters in England. In supplementing Rev. John Ryerson's Historical Narrative of events at this period, Dr. Ryerson stated, in substance, that:--
It was soon found that Sir George Arthur had thrown himself into the hands of the oligarchy on the question of the clergy reserves--he would not consent to have them applied to any other purpose than the support of the clergy, and was anxious to have them revested in the Crown. When Sir George's views and plans were brought before the Legislature, I opposed them. The Missionary Committee interposed (at Sir George's own request) and supported him on that question. However, Her Majesty's Government subsequently set aside the proceedings of Sir George Arthur, upon the very same grounds on which I had opposed them; but that made no difference in the feelings towards me of Dr. Alder and his colleagues.
Early in June, 1839, Dr. Alder addressed a letter to the _Guardian_, explaining and defending his views on church establishments. On the 12th of that month, Dr. Ryerson replied to him at length, and, at the close, put a series of questions to Dr. Alder. From the 2nd and 6th I make the following extracts:--
2. Are you satisfied that you are providentially called of God to attempt to make Methodism an agency in promoting a national establishment of religion in a new country, in the teeth of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants?
6. Are you warranted from any writings or authority of Mr. Wesley to insist that, "under _no_ circumstances," the principle of an establishment shall be abandoned?... Mr. Wesley and his coadjutors have left it on record, in the minutes of their Conference, as their deliberate judgment, that "there is no instance of, or ground at all for, a national church in the New Testament;" that they "apprehended it to be a merely political institution." How can any true Wesleyan convert that into a matter of faith and religious principle for which Mr. Wesley declared there "was no instance or ground at all in the New Testament?" ... I know that the local Executive is most intent to secure the aid of the Missionary Committee to support the recent re-investment act of spoliation; I believe that your letter ... emboldened and encouraged them in the re-investment scheme, and His Excellency stated some months since that he had written for you to come to this country; they think that they can bargain with you upon more advantageous terms than they can with the Methodist Conference in this Province, but I entreat you to pause before you proceed to insist that that which Mr. Wesley declares ... to be "a merely political institution,"
forms any part of Wesleyan Methodism.[100]
Dr. Ryerson's account of what transpired at the ensuing Conference is in substance as follows:--
Dr. Alder attended the Conference at Hamilton, June, 1839, and introduced resolutions expressive of his views, to which he insisted upon the concurrence of the Conference. The resolutions were discussed for three days. On the last day Dr. Ryerson replied, after which the resolutions were negatived by a vote of 55 to 5.[101]
At the same Conference Dr. Ryerson was appointed secretary, by a vote of 41 to 14. But it was in regard to the election of Editor that the greatest interest was taken, not so much amongst the Canadian section of the Methodist people as amongst the members of other religious bodies.
The _Guardian_ stated:--
For the last two months the several provincial journals have renewed their efforts of vehement vituperation against the Editor; ... they have sought and hoped to create a division in the ranks of the Methodist family, and, by thus dividing, to conquer; they even triumphed by anticipation--so much so, that the Editor of _The Church_ oracularly predicted the speedy release of the Editor of the _Guardian_ from his editorial duties.
The chagrin which was felt by these parties can be well imagined when the ballot announced that Dr. Ryerson had been re-elected editor, by a vote of 60 to 13! Speaking of this memorable triumph, Dr. Ryerson declared that:--
Never before did I receive, directly or indirectly, so many unequivocal testimonies of respect and confidence, not merely from the Methodist Church at large, but also from members of other churches.