1838.
The Clergy Reserve Controversy Renewed.
The question at issue, when the House of Assembly was elected in 1836 for the parliamentary term ending in 1839, was adroitly narrowed by Sir F. B. Head to the simple one of loyalty to the Crown, or—as Dr. Ryerson, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper (September, 1838), expressed it—"Whether or not ... this Province would remain an integral part of the British Empire." Lord Durham pointed out that Sir F. B. Head led the people to believe "that they were called upon to decide the question of separation [from Great Britain] by their votes."
Under such circumstances the clergy reserve question was subordinated to those of graver moment. Besides, even if pledges had been given by members before the election on the subject, they were not felt, as the event proved, to be very sacred. Speaking of this Parliament, Dr. Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Draper, (already mentioned), said:—
The present Assembly at its first session adopted a resolution in favour of appropriating the reserves for "the religious and moral instruction of the Province." But its proceedings during the second session were so vacillating that it is now difficult to say what the opinions of the members are.
One explanation of this state of feeling was, that the political views of a majority of the members were in harmony with those of the ruling party in the country, and yet were at variance with the views of their constituents on the clergy reserve question. Advantage was taken of the existence of this political sympathy by the leaders of the dominant party, with a view to secure the removal of the clergy reserve question from the hostile arena of the Upper Canada Legislature to the friendly atmosphere of the English House of Commons, and the still more friendly tribunal of the House of Lords—where the bench of bishops would be sure to defend the claims of the Church to this royal patrimony.[90]
Accordingly, at the third session of this Parliament, Mr. Cartwright, of Kingston, introduced a bill "to revest the Clergy Reserves in Her Majesty"—the first reading of which was carried by a vote of 24 to 5, and passed through Committee of the whole by a vote of 29 to 12. As soon as Dr. Ryerson, then in Kingston, got a copy of this bill he wrote the following letter, on the 13th January, 1838, to the Guardian:—
The professed object of this bill is described by its title, but the real object, and the necessary effect of it, from the very nature of its provisions, is to apply the reserves to those exclusive and partial purposes against which the great majority of the inhabitants of this province, both by petition and through their representatives, have protested in every variety of language during the last twelve years—and that without any variation or the shadow of change. The bill even proposes to transfer future legislation on this subject from the Provincial to the Imperial Parliament! The authors of this bill are, it seems, afraid to trust the inhabitants of Upper Canada to legislate on a subject in which they themselves are solely concerned; nay, they will environ themselves and the interests they wish to promote behind the Imperial Parliament! The measure itself, containing the provisions it does, is a shameful deception upon the Canadian public—is a wanton betrayal of Canadian rights—is a disgraceful sacrifice of Canadian, to selfish party interests—is a covert assassination of a vital principle of Canadian constitutional and free government—is a base political and religious fraud which ought to excite the deep concern and rouse the indignant and vigorous exertion of every friend of justice, and freedom, and good government in the country.
My language may be strong; but strong as it is, it halts far behind the emotions of my mind. Such a measure, I boldly affirm, is not what the people of Upper Canada expected from the members of the present Assembly when they elected them as their representatives; it is not such a measure as, I have reason to believe, a majority of the present members of the Assembly gave their constituents to understand they would vote for when they solicited their suffrages. Honourable gentlemen, if I can be heard by them, ought to remember that they have a character to sustain, more important than the attainment of a particular object; they ought to remember that they act in a delegated capacity; and if they cannot clear their consciences and maintain the views and interests of their constituents, they ought, as many an honest English gentleman has done, to resign their seats in the legislature; they ought to remember to whom and under what expectations they owe their present elevation; above all, they ought to remember what the equal and impartial interests of their whole constituency require at their hands.
If, however, every pledge or honourable understanding should be violated; if every reasonable hope should be disappointed; and if the loyal and deserving inhabitants of Upper Canada should be deceived, and disappointed, and wronged by the passage of this bill into a law, petitions ought to be circulated in every part of the province to Her Majesty the Queen to withhold the royal assent from the bill; and I hereby pledge £50 (if I have to sell my library to obtain the amount) for the promotion of that object. Such an act, under the present circumstances of the country, would be worse than a former alien bill, and ought to be deprecated, resisted, and execrated by every enlightened friend of the peace, happiness, and prosperity of the Province.