"The story of my life"

by Egerton Ryerson

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.