While I believe that the late Executive Council, in the main, and in principle, was right, and Sir Charles wrong, yet I am very far from endorsing all that the Council did as right. I think that they should not have resigned when they did. I think they were guilty of a breach of trust in throwing up office in the midst of a session of Parliament, and when many important measures were pending. I think, as the "antagonism" which caused the resignation of the late Council existed before the Parliament was convened, that they should then have resigned, or remained in office until the prorogation....
You are not to suppose from these remarks that I have turned politician, or that I am intermeddling with things which do not belong to me. I have been endeavouring to attend to my appropriate work; and though continually pressed with questions, soliciting my opinions respecting passing events, I have said as little on all these matters as possible, and I am identified with no party.
Indeed, the state of my health is such as to admonish me to think about other things than worldly politics, and I blush to think that I have written so much respecting them. Powerfully convincing reasoning, with truth on your side, might produce a great effect among our people; but at the present more than nine-tenths of them, in these western parts, are the supporters of the late Executive Council.
In reply to a letter from his brother John, asking his opinion on the pending dispute between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson wrote on April 3rd, and said:--
Of the general measures of the late Council I cordially approve. I cannot say so of their dispute with the Governor-General. Of the policy which he or they had pursued, I have nothing to say. In that they might have been right, and he wrong. But, according to British practice, they ought to have resigned on what he had done, and not on what he would not promise to do. If the Crown intended to do just as they desired the Governor-General to do, still the promise ought not to be given, nor ought it to have been asked. The moment a man promises to do a thing he ceases to be as free as he was before he made the promise. It is essential principle that in the British Constitution that the Crown should be free--should be undefined in its prerogative. The exercise in that prerogative may be checked in various ways; but to bind it by promises is to infringe its constitutional liberty. If the Queen were to bind herself by promise, or declaration, that she would not appoint any person contrary to Sir Robert Peel's advice, how could she refuse to make O'Connell a peer, or appoint him Lord Chancellor of England if Sir Robert were to insist upon it? How could she ever get clear of Sir Robert by differing with him on a question of policy, if she were to bind herself before-hand to act according to his advice? Would it not be virtually giving the regal power into his hands?
Dr. Ryerson then proceeded to illustrate the views which he held on this subject:--
I can find examples in English History since 1688, of British Sovereigns having done just as Sir Charles Metcalfe is alleged to have done; I can also find examples of ministers resigning on account of what such Sovereigns had done; but I can find no example of any minister resigning on account of what the Sovereign would not promise to do on the subject of consultation and possible appointments.
I have seen it alleged, that the Governor-General was not bound to act upon the advice of his Council, only to ask it before he made any appointment. But the Governor-General did take the advice of the Council, in regard to the appointments of the Clerks of the Peace, both in the Bathurst and Dalhousie districts. Yet he is blamed as much for not acting upon it as if he had acted without taking it. But in Mr. Hincks' writings, and in all the papers advocating the same sentiments, I observe that it is contended that the Governor-General should act upon, as well as take, the advice of his Council. If so, what is he but their amanuensis--the recorder of their decrees?--the office which Sir Charles Bagot sustained on account of his illness; but whose example, in such circumstances, can not be laid down as a general rule.
Responsible government was a mere theory with the late Council, or until they came into office under Sir Charles Bagot. They had thought and reasoned about it, but they had never acted upon it, until then; what they learned under the government of a sick and dying man was not adapted to make them perfect practitioners. So they were about as wise and as raw in the business practically, as was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had doubtless thought, and read, and reasoned upon the subject also. The unskilfulness of inexperience, with good intentions, seems to me to have been evinced in the whole proceeding.
Of course it was considered, on the impulse of the moment, good policy to take a stand upon the principle of responsible government, and not upon the propriety, or policy, of certain appointments. By taking the latter ground, all might be lost; by taking the former ground, all would be gained, and a great deal of glory too, in the course of a few days, or a few weeks at most. But it has turned out otherwise. The question of prerogative has been brought up--a constitutional and imperial question. As such the British Government have decided upon it.... It is now no longer a question between the late Councillors and Sir Charles Metcalfe, but between them and Her Majesty's Government. I see, therefore, nothing in prospect but a renewal of the scenes of 1837, and 1838, only on a larger scale. Whether the point contended for is worth that price, or will be even obtained at that price, is problematical. I see no alternative, unless some enlightening, healing agency interpose. I pray for the safety of our Zion and people, especially, while I implore Divine interposition in behalf of our beloved country.
I am no party man--I have never judged--I cannot judge questions according to party, but according to constitutional principles and history. On the first blush I was favourably impressed with the position and resignation of the late council; but when I came to examine their position, as I had done Hon. Mr. Draper's speech on the University question by the light of history (it being a new question), I came to the conclusions that I have stated above. I think the most general impression in the country, and perhaps amongst the members of our Church, is that which first struck my own mind; but I think it is contrary to the principles and practice of the British Constitution.
During one of his visits to Kingston, early in 1844, Dr. Ryerson called at the office of his old friend, Hon. J. H. Dunn (one of the late Councillors), who had desired to see him. Mr. Dunn was not in when he called. He therefore, on his return to Cobourg addressed him as follows:--My brother John told me that you had asked him what I thought of the late differences between the Governor-General and his Council.
After all that I have read and learned, I think very much of them as I did of the differences between the late Lord Sydenham and Hon. Robert Baldwin. You then asked me (at the Lambton House) whether I approved of your remaining in office, or of Mr. Baldwin's resigning. You will recollect my reply, that I thought Mr. Baldwin ought to have waited until an actual difference arose between him and other members of the Council on some measure, or measures; and that he ought not to have resigned on account of an alleged want of confidence, or theoretical difference of opinion. So I think in the present case. After stating your views to Sir Charles Metcalfe, you ought to have waited until some act, or acts, had taken place in contravention of these views, and which act, or acts, you were not disposed to justify; or if you thought it your duty to resign, then it appears to me you should have resigned on some acts which had been performed, and which you would not justify, and on the policy involved in which you were prepared to appeal to the country. But to resign upon a conversation, and not upon specific administrative acts, appears to me to be without precedent. It has brought up the question of prerogative, the constitutional decision of which, rests of course, with the supreme tribunals of the Empire. I think Mr. Baldwin's conscientious theoretical rigidness has led to an error, praiseworthy in its motives, but not the less an error--an error which in private life would have attracted no attention, but in public life makes a great noise, and may lead to serious consequences. I could wish with all my heart that you were in your late office, which you have so long and so faithfully filled.
In a note to Dr. Ryerson, on various matters, dated April 10th, Mr.
Civil Secretary Higginson said:--
The Reform League in Toronto are making unusual exertions, and as you may have seen by their late resolutions, no longer conceal their real object, but in defiance of all their machinations, and they are not over scrupulous as to their means, truth and honesty of purpose, backed by loyal hearts and liberal measures, must and will prevail.
To this note Dr. Ryerson thus replied on the 12th April:--
I think the public feeling in Canada West is now stationary; or since the rumour of my appointment as Superintendent of Education (and how it got afloat I cannot imagine) is rather turning in favour of the Governor-General. The reason seems to be this: The opponents of His Excellency represent him as weak--as supported by nobody but a weak ultra-party. It has been alleged by both my friends and enemies, that whether the best or worst man in Canada, I have not hesitated to face in succession the united press and councils of each of the two ultra-parties in Canada, and succeeded in each instance to reduce them from a large majority to a small minority--deriving no advantage from the victories, except as some suppose, the pleasure of humbling my enemies. It is the impression of great numbers of persons, and to an extent and degree which has often amused me, that whatever cause I espouse, be it good or bad, will succeed; and that I never undertake a thing, however apparently impracticable, without a certainty of success.
Though such a feeling increases the difficulty of every step of a man's career, it furnishes him with capital to begin with. My life having been bound up with the two great principles of constitutional monarchy on the one hand, and equal civil and religious principles in Canada on the other, all who really desire such a government, without regard to the domination of a party, ... seem to think the Governor-General will succeed if I have resolved to espouse his government....
From this state of mind in the case of many Reformers, and from what I have learned from other sources, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the efforts to inflame party spirit--to produce party blindness, and create party organizations--there is still a spirit of candour and enquiry (all I ask) amongst a large portion of the Liberal party which will furnish an ample fulcrum for a lever that will overthrow the enemy.
I think that June will probably be the best time for the application of such a lever. The opposition can do nothing more at present. June is rather a leisure month for reading--the hay and wheat harvest will come on in July, August and September,--during which time agitators can do but little, and then I suppose will come the session of the Legislature.
I hope to produce a vindication of His Excellency that will do no discredit to him, and shake, if not confound, his enemies, and exhibit such a platform of government as will appeal to every candid, common sense, sound British subject, best adapted to promote the best interests and greatest happiness of Canada....
To vindicate injured worth, either in high or humble life, has on different occasions, afforded me peculiar pleasure, and I contemplate, even as a pleasing task (though painful from the occasion) the purpose and opportunity of doing so in respect to so noble a subject and so good a cause as that with which His Excellency is identified. When the Government once assumes the attitude of strength, many who are now neutral, or perhaps professedly leaning to the apparently stronger party, will come over avowedly to the Crown. The timidity of the secret friends of the government in Lower Canada is an infirmity (I think of a majority of mankind) which requires as much pity as it deserves censure.
All Greeks are not Spartans. Ten men seem to be made for work, where one is constituted for war. I have found it so in the hour of peril; when I have been left almost alone, though I found abundance of helping and co-operating friends as soon as the tide of victory began to turn in my favour. I think it will be so with the government in less than twelve months--at least in Upper Canada. The League organization in Toronto is the most formidable affair that has ever been formed in western Canada.
I am told that its funds are large also,--several thousand pounds--but I think its power can be broken.
In a note to Dr. Ryerson from Mr. Higginson, dated 23rd of May, he said:--You will of course have seen the manifesto just hatched and brought forth by the League, jesuitically and cleverly enough put we must admit; it will no doubt be widely circulated, and it is very desirable that an antidote to the poison should be as extensively communicated to the people; and who in the province is so capable as yourself for such a task? If you would take up the arguments _seriatim_--you could prove their fallacy without much difficulty. The fabric being founded upon misapprehension and falsehood, must go with a run. I confess I long to see these ambitious party-men unmasked.
CHAPTER XLI.
1844.
Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended against his Councillors
On the 27th May, 1844, Dr. Ryerson issued the first part of his memorable Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, not only against the attacks of his late Councillors, but also against those of the all-powerful League which had been formed against him on the 24th March, under the auspices of the Toronto Reform Association. The Manifesto of that famous League was dated on the 16th May. Its issue at once decided Dr. Ryerson to enter the lists in defence of Sir Charles, and the prefatory note to his rejoinder was written on the 27th May. From the introductory portion of it I make the following extract:--
Rev. Egerton Ryerson ... proposes ... to prove [from the] testimony of his late Advisers ... that His Excellency is entitled to the verdict of the country on every count of the indictment got up against him.
Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the people of Canada, as Themistocles said to the Athenians who were incensed against him, "Strike, but hear me!"
... If Leonidas,[123] with three hundred Spartans, could throw themselves into the Thermopylae of death for the salvation of their country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex, which, he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in calamities more serious than those which followed the events of 1837.
The following account of this memorable controversy was written by Dr.
Ryerson himself. It has been slightly abridged and a few explanatory notes added:--
After much consideration, but without consulting any human being, I determined to enter the arena of public discussion to set forth and vindicate the true principles of responsible government, and to defend Sir Charles Metcalfe, as I had before defended Mr. Bidwell, from the unjust attacks made upon him; and I published an introductory paper avowing my purpose. My friends generally and the country at large were against me. My elder brother, John, a life-long Conservative, on first meeting me after the publication of that introductory paper, said, "Egerton, you have ruined yourself, for nine-tenths of the people are opposed to the Governor-General." I answered, "I know it; but I believe that nine-tenths of the people are mistaken, and that if they will read what I am about to write they will think as I do."
The contest was severe; the ablest and most meritorious public men in the province were arrayed on the opposite side; but I felt that truth and justice did not rest on numbers--that there was a public, as well as an individual, conscience, and to that conscience I appealed, supporting my appeal by reference to the past professions of Reformers, the best illustrations from Greek, Roman, and English history, and the authority of the best writers on constitutional government, and moral and political philosophy, and the highest interests, civil and social, of all classes of society in Upper Canada. For months I was certainly the "best abused man" in Canada; but I am not aware that I lost my temper, or evinced personal animosity (which I never felt), but wrote with all the clearness, energy, and fire that I could command.
The general elections took place in October, 1844, and in all Upper Canada (according to the _Globe's_ own statement) only eight candidates were elected in opposition to Sir Charles Metcalfe! Such a result of a general election was never before, or since, witnessed in Upper Canada.
It has been alleged again and again, that Sir Charles Metcalfe was opposed to responsible government and that I supported him in it. The only pretext for this was, that in the contest with Sir Charles Metcalfe his opponents introduced party appointments as an essential element of responsible government, which they themselves had disavowed in previous years when advocating that system of government. The doctrine of making appointments according to party (however common now, with its degenerating influences) was then an innovation upon all previously professed doctrines of reformers, as I proved to a demonstration in my letters in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe.
Sir Francis Hincks, in an historical lecture delivered at Montreal, in 1877, has revived this charge against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has attempted to create the impression that there was a sort of conspiracy between the late Earl of Derby and Lord Metcalfe to extinguish responsible government in Canada. For such an insinuation there is not a shadow of reason, though the author may have thought so, from his strong personal feelings and former party views, as one of the actors in the struggle.
I was in England during the latter part of 1844 and 1845, when the Earl of Derby was Colonial Secretary, and had more than one conversation with him on Canadian affairs; and I know that the Earl of Derby had no more intention or desire to abolish responsible government in Canada than had Sir Francis Hincks himself. The Earl of Derby had, indeed, fears lest the party in power, under the new system, should act upon the narrow and prescriptive principles and spirit of the old tory party, and wished to see that with the new system an enlarged policy would extinguish the hatreds, as well as the proscriptions, of the past, and unite all classes in the good government and for the advancement of the country. This was the view of Lord Metcalfe; and this was the view advocated in my letters in his defence, which may be appealed to in proof that the essence of that contest was not responsible government, but as to whether or not the distribution of the patronage of the Crown should be dispensed upon the principles of party, or on those of justice and morality.
I may add an illustrative and curious incident on this subject:--On the passing of the Imperial Act for confederating the British North American Colonies into the Dominion of Canada, and its proclamation, I wrote and published an address to the people of Upper Canada in 1868, suggesting to them to forget the differences of the past, and the principles and spirit in which they should introduce the new system of government, and build up for themselves a united and prosperous nation. A few days after the publication of this address, I met in the street, an honourable gentleman, who had been one of the party opposed to Sir Charles Metcalfe, a member of a Liberal government, a life-long Reformer. He complimented me on my recent address to the people of Upper Canada; but added, "The great mistake of your life was the letters you wrote in defence of Lord Metcalfe." I answered, "Do you think so?" "Yes," said he, "that was the great mistake of your life." "And," said I, "you approve of my recent public address?" "Yes," he answered, "I think it is the best thing you ever wrote." "Well," said I, "do you know that that address with the exception of the introductory and concluding paragraphs, is a reproduction, word for word, of my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe, counselling my fellow-countrymen as to the principles and spirit in which they should act in carrying into effect the then new system of responsible government!" He exclaimed, "It cannot be! I have these letters." I said, "It can be; and it is so; and if you will compare my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe with my recent address, you will find that I have not omitted an illustration from Greek, or Roman, or English history, or an authority from standard writers, on political or moral science, or a petition or address from Reformers from the rebellion of 1837 to the establishment of responsible government under Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot in 1840-42; that I have not added to, or omitted, a word, but have repeated _verbatim et literatim_ in 1868, in regard to confederate government, what I advised the people of Canada in 1844 in regard to responsible government." And now, I continued, "who has changed? you or I?" "Oh," he said, "circumstances alter cases." "Truly," I said, "circumstances alter cases; but circumstances don't change principles; I wrote on the principles and spirit of government irrespective of party." On such principles I have endeavoured to act throughout my more than half a century of public life--principles, the maintenance of which has sometimes brought me into collision with the leaders of one party, and sometimes in opposition to those of another party; but principles which I have found higher and stronger than party.
A day or two after the issue of Dr. Ryerson's first paper in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, Hon. Isaac Buchanan sent to him copies of letters which he had written to Hon. Joseph Howe, Halifax, and to Civil Secretary Higginson, Kingston, on the Metcalfe controversy. In this letter he said:--
It is with infinite pleasure that I see you have publicly come out to tell the truth as to politics and public men. The fact is, politics in a new country are either the essential principles of society or parish business. In both cases every man is interested, and to a less extent than in an old state of things, where in a hereditary educated class, there are natural guardians of the public virtue. Is it objectionable that clergymen interfere in the arrangement of detail for the happiness of the country? But it is, as I have always maintained, their most imperative duty to hold and express an opinion on constitutional politics. The priests in Lower Canada, from not doing so, permitted the rebellion of 1837. I, myself, care nothing, and never did care anything, for party politics in Canada; and, in my mind, the distinction has always been more marked between these and constitutional politics than I have been able to explain.
Dr. Ryerson did not attend the opening of Conference at Kingston, in June, 1844. Mr. Higginson wrote to him on the 12th to express his disappointment at not seeing him there, and added:--
Of your letters--your admirable letters--I only hear one opinion, that they are most powerful, unassailable; and this the opposition press appears to find them, for I can perceive no attempt to answer the convincing arguments adduced by you. They merely abuse you and impugn your motives: lying and misrepresentation are their favourite weapons.
You will have heard of the discovery of the Orange Plot, the conspiracy between Sir C. Metcalfe and Ogle R. Gowan to upset the Government!
We had a very satisfactory communication from Lord Stanley, by the last packet, entirely approving of the "dignified and temperate"
conduct of the Governor, and assuring him of the strenuous support of Her Majesty's Government, in resisting the "unreasonable and exorbitant pretensions of the late Cabinet." Shall we see you again before we move to Montreal? Sir Charles goes to the Falls, and then returns to Kingston, which he leaves on the 20th for Montreal.
From Mr. Higginson Dr. Ryerson received the following interesting letter, dated Montreal, 20th July:--
As you will no doubt think it right, after you complete the series of your admirable and unanswerable letters, to expose the fallacy and falsehood with which Hon. R. B. Sullivan, as "Legion,"
endeavours to bolster up his arguments in reply to them, I think the enclosed _precis_ of a conversation that took place between the leader of the French party in the late Council and myself, early in May last, will convince you that His Excellency did not write his despatch of the 23rd of that month, quoted in the debate by Lord Stanley, upon insufficient grounds, or in ignorance of the real sentiments and inclinations of his then advisers. Letter No. 5 of "Legion," in referring to this despatch, charges His Excellency with what he calls paraphrasing, or, in other words, misrepresentation, as no men in their senses could have made such demands as the late Council are stated to have urged. The words made use of by His Excellency are not theirs, it is true; but did not the opinions expressed by Mr. Lafontaine, their leader, bear out the assertion? I regret that Lord Stanley did not quote what followed. I have given the meaning, rather than the words, of the dictatorial Councillor; but I have not in the slightest degree exaggerated the substance of his discourse. I ought to add that the conversation originated in a rumour of His Excellency's intending to appoint a Provincial Aide-de-camp, of whom Mr. Lafontaine did not approve; and that, although addressed to me, I could only suppose that it was intended for the ears of His Excellency. You will, of course, not believe the newspaper statements of Sir Charles having sent for Mr. Lafontaine. Ever since our arrival here the French party have been urging that the only way of getting out of our difficulties is by allowing Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin to resume their places--as the French people believe that they cannot enjoy responsible government without them. To this His Excellency cannot consent. What the result may be is not quite clear; our future plans have been delayed by this negotiation, which, though still pending, must terminate in a day or two. I hope that under any circumstances we shall be able to meet the present Parliament, if not with a majority, at least with a strong minority.
The following is the _Precis_ to which I refer:--