"The story of my life"

by Egerton Ryerson

In reply to a letter from Rev. Joseph Stinson, urging him to come to Toronto and oppose this bill, Dr. Ryerson said:—

For me to leave Kingston, under present circumstances, and go to Toronto would ruin my ministerial influence and usefulness here and blast all our present hopes of prosperity. You know that by my continued and repeated absence, I have already lost fifty per cent. in the confiding hopes of the people, and consequently in very power of doing them good. You know, likewise, that the financial interests of the Society have so lamentably declined that we are already largely in arrears. I cannot, therefore, leave, unless I am positively required to do so by the Book Committee.

A more serious aspect of the matter, however, was presented to Dr. Ryerson in the extraordinary silence of the Conference organ on the subject. In the same letter he said:—

I cannot but feel deeply grieved at not only the tameness but the profound silence of the Guardian on this bill. Silence on such a measure, and at such a time, and after the course we have pursued hitherto, is acquiescence in it to all intents and purposes, and may be fairly and legitimately construed so by both friends and enemies. Oh, is it so? Can it be so, that the Editor of the Guardian has got so completely into the leading strings of that churchism which is as poisonous in its feelings towards us, and its plans respecting us, as the simoon blast; that he will see measures going forward, which he must know are calculated, nay, intended, to trample us in the dust, and not even say one word, except in praise (as often as possible), of the very men who he sees from day to day plotting our overthrow!

I have also observed, in Dr. Strachan's letters to Hon. Wm. Morris, an attack upon Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary—such a one as would enable us to turn to our account on the clergy reserve question (and against Dr. Strachan's exclusive system) the entire influence of Her Majesty's Government, which would have great weight both in and out of the House of Assembly. How I have heard Dr. Bunting, Mr. Beecham, and other members of the Committee at home, say that Lord Glenelg is one of the best and ablest men of the present day. At all events, after what we have obtained through his Lordship's instrumentality, I think that silence on our part is disgraceful—apart from considerations of local interests in this battle for right and justice.

Two able and moderate advocates of the settlement of the clergy reserve question were sent to England in 1837 to confer with Lord Glenelg on the subject, viz.: Hon. William Morris on behalf of the Church of Scotland, and Hon. W. H. Draper on behalf of the Church of England. In November of that year Dr. Ryerson was requested to draw up a paper embodying the opinions of the leading members of the Conference. This was done, and an elaborate paper on the subject was published in the Guardian of January 17th, 1838.[91] Shortly afterwards Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to Lord Glenelg on the subject. I only insert the narrative part of it, as follows:—

I was favoured with a conversation on the clergy reserve question with Mr. [Sir James] Stephen, in accordance with your Lordship's suggestion, the day before I left London for Canada (27th April, 1837). After my arrival in this Province it was unanimously agreed to support the plan for the adjustment of that important and long agitated question, which had been mentioned by Mr. Stephen, in the interview referred to.

Sir F. B. Head set his face against it from the beginning, and did not wish me to say anything about it publicly. The Attorney-General acknowledged it was equitable, and did not make any serious objection to it.[92]

Recently a meeting of our principal ministers took place in Toronto, in order to consult upon the measures which it was desirable to adopt in order to promote the settlement of the question at the next session of Parliament. At the request of the meeting, another gentleman and myself waited upon the Hon. Mr. Draper (who had taken the most official part in previous sessions), and showed him the resolutions agreed to. We stated that if it would embarrass him in promoting the earliest settlement of the question, we would desist from publishing anything on the subject. He expressed himself as highly gratified at our frankness, courtesy, and general views, and said that if his high-church friends had treated him with the same liberality and courtesy he would have been saved from much difficulty and embarrassment, which he had experienced in his previous exertions; but that he thought there could be no objection to our publishing at large our views on the subject. The preparation of the document was assigned to me. When published, it appeared to meet the views of all parties, except the ultra shade of one party, who want the whole of the reserves; and it is now the most popular plan throughout the Province of settling the question, except that of appropriating the reserves to educational purposes exclusively.

A day or two before the publication of this document, the House of Assembly went into Committee on a Bill to revest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament! Going to Toronto at this time, I did what I could to bring the subject again before the House, and accordingly addressed a letter through the press to Speaker MacNab, of the Assembly, on the importance of an immediate settlement of the question, and also urging the adoption of the plan which had been recently proposed.[93] These papers appeared to create a considerable sensation among the members of the Assembly; it was agreed on all sides that the question ought to be settled forthwith. But the reluctance of the Crown Officers to take up the subject soon became manifest; and it was not for some weeks after, that the subject could be forced upon them.[94] Then all (with very few exceptions) professed that the subject ought not to be postponed any longer. But the Crown Officers had no measure prepared, and differed in opinion on the subject—the Attorney-General consenting to the revesting of the reserves in the Crown, the Solicitor-General contending that they should be divided among four denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Roman Catholics, according to their relative numbers in Great Britain and Ireland!) This proposition had but three or four advocates in the House, including the author of it. Mr. Boulton, seconded by Mr. Cartwright, moved, in substance, that the clergy reserve provision was made for the clergy of the Church of England;—that it does not provide for more than a competent support for them;—that to appropriate it for them would give most satisfaction to the country. This resolution had five votes in favour of it. All these amendments, and several others, having been lost in Committee, the original resolution moved by Mr. Cartwright, to revest the clergy reserves in Her Majesty, for "the support of the Christian religion in this Province," was adopted by a majority of three or four. A bill was then brought in and read a first time, and ordered to a second reading next day, but was never afterwards taken up—the exclusive church party being anxious to keep it out of sight. Thus the question is laid over for another year, to the great disappointment and dissatisfaction of thousands who have promptly come forward to the support of the Government of the country.