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.