CHAPTER XL.
1844.
Preliminary Correspondence on the Metcalfe Crisis.
With a view to a thorough understanding of the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his Councillors, the following statement by Dr. Ryerson is necessary:—
After the conversation with Hon. W. H. Merritt, in January, 1844, and after subsequent communications with him on the subject, I most carefully and minutely examined the documents and correspondence and other statements of parties, and was satisfied of the correctness of Mr. Merritt's statements and conclusion. The question then arose in my own mind, whether, after I had so much to do in the establishment of responsible government and was morally so largely responsible for it, I should silently witness its misapplication, and see a man stricken down for maintaining, as the representative of his Sovereign, what Reformers had maintained in all previous years—that the patronage of the Crown, like the administration of justice, should be administered impartially according to merit, without respect to religious sect, or political party.
Dr. Ryerson also states (26th February) that:—After a prolonged and interesting interview with the Governor-General, I addressed a letter to him on the subject of that interview. In it I said: In looking over what I have from time to time, during the last eight years, written on the best government for Canada, I find that I have invariably insisted upon precisely the same views which I expressed to your Excellency, and with a frequency and fulness that I had no recollection of when I was honoured with the late interviews by you. These views were then warmly responded to by that portion of the public for whom I wrote. I am, therefore, the more fully (if possible) convinced of their correctness and importance to the best interests of Canada, and that they will be sustained when properly brought before the public—at least in Western Canada.
In reply to a note from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 2nd March, Dr. Ryerson, on the 7th, addressed a reply of some length to His Excellency. In it he said:—
The aspect of things in Western Canada has clearly changed for the worse during the last two months—since my first interview with Your Excellency in January. The party of the opposition have become organized—organized under circumstances more formidable than I have ever witnessed in Canada. Their ranks and influence have been increased by numbers who, two months since, were neutral, and who could have been forthwith brought to the side of constitutional government. Private letters to me (on which I can rely) speak in a very different tone as to the state of public sentiment and feeling. Unless a change to a very considerable extent be affected in the public mind, I think a dissolution would rather strengthen than weaken the ex-Council party. I am confident I do not overrate their strength—and it is a dangerous, though common error, to underrate the strength of an adversary. They are likewise organizing their party, and exciting the public mind to such a degree as to prevent any sentiments or measures from the present administration from being regarded or entertained at all. Such being the case, I have felt that delay has been loss. Whether that loss can be repaired presents to my own mind a problem difficult of solution.
Speaking of his former relations with the Lieutenant-Governors of Upper Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:—
I love liberty, personal and public, as much as any man. I have written much in its defence; but as much as I love liberty, and as ultra liberal as some may have supposed me to be, I have always regarded an infringement of the prerogative of the Crown as a blow at the liberty of the subject, and have, in every instance, resisted and repelled it as such. I did so in support of Sir F. Head in 1836. I did so in support of Sir George Arthur, in the difficult and painful task of administering the criminal law after the insurrection of 1837. I did so in support of the Royal instructions and recommendations of which Lord Sydenham was the bearer and agent; but in each instance, after having been lauded without measure, I was abandoned, or pursued, without protection or mercy. Sir Francis Head took offence at certain communications which Rev. Dr. Alder and Rev. Peter Jones justly made to the Imperial Government respecting his treatment of the Indians, and swore that, "as he had put down the radicals, he would now put down the Methodists;" and the Bishop of Toronto avowed and rejoiced that, radicalism having been extinguished, "the Church" would and should be maintained inviolate in all its (assumed) rights and immunities. Sir George Arthur having got through his many difficulties (in the course of which he gave me many thanks) determined, when the Session of the Legislature came, not to split with the Bishop of Toronto; not to grant, under any circumstances, the Methodists more than a mouse's share of public aid, and none at all except as salaries for their clergy, actually employed. He embodied these views in resolutions, and employed Hon. R. B. Sullivan to advocate them in the Legislative Council.