The Story of My Life Part 28

Ryerson by his friend, Mr. S. S. Junkin, in a letter, dated, Toronto, 1st May:--

Our Parliament was prorogued on the 20th April, after such a session as was never before known in Upper Canada. You will form some idea of the state of affairs when I tell you that it "stopped the supplies," and the Governor reserved all of the money bills, (twelve)--including that for the contingences of the House,--for the King's pleasure.

The immediate cause of the rupture between the new Governor (Sir F. B.

Head) and the House of a.s.sembly--

Arose out of the resignation of the Executive Council. On the 20th February, the Governor (as directed by Lord Glenelg) added three Reformers to his Council, viz.: Messrs. Robert Baldwin, John Rolph, and John Henry Dunn. On the 4th March, these gentlemen and the Conservative members, (Messrs. Peter Robinson, George H. Markland, and Joseph Wells) resigned. They complained that they were held responsible for measures which they never advised, and for a policy to which they were strangers. In reply the Governor stated in substance that he alone was responsible for the acts of his government, and was at liberty to have resource to their advice only when he required it; but that to consult them on all questions would be "utterly impossible." This answer was referred to a Committee of the House of a.s.sembly, which brought in a report censuring the Governor in the strongest terms. On the 14th March, Sir F. B. Head appointed Messrs. R. B. Sullivan, William Allan, Augustus Baldwin, and John Elmsley, as his new Executive Council.

On the 17th the House declared its entire want of confidence in the new Council, and stated that in retaining them the Governor violated the instructions of the Colonial Secretary to the Governor, to appoint Councillors who possessed the confidence of the people. Much recrimination followed; at length Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House, and directed that a new election be held.

In regard to this election, Dr. Ryerson, in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism" (page 226) says:--

Sir F. B. Head adroitly turned the issue, not on the question of the Clergy Reserves, or of other practical questions, but on the question of connection with the mother country, and of Republicanism vs. Monarchy, as had been recommended by Messrs. Hume and Roebuck, and advocated by Messrs. Mackenzie and Papineau. This was successful, inasmuch as those Reformers who would not disavow their connection with Messrs. Mackenzie, Hume and Roebuck, lost their election; for though not more than half a dozen had any sympathy with the sentiments of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Papineau, and Mackenzie, they did not wish to break the unity of the Reform party by repudiating them, and suffered defeat in consequence at the elections. The successful candidates, generally, while they repudiated Republican separation from the mother country, promised fidelity to the oft-expressed and well-known wishes of the people in the settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, which, however, they failed to fulfil.

In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Hallowell, his brother William said:--

Our loyal address, a very moderate one, to the Governor, was carried unanimously--all the young Preachers on trial being allowed to vote on that occasion. This is equally gratifying and surprising to all the friends of British supremacy. A gentleman from Montreal, who was present, was so surprised, and I may say, delighted, that he could hardly contain himself. I did not know for a short time, but he would be constrained from the violence of his feeling to jump up and shout. The Conference also adopted a very good address to the King. (See page 162.)

We are on the eve of a new election. The excitement through the country at large exceeds anything I have ever known. There would be very little cause for doubt or fear as to the results, were it not for one of the last acts of Sir John Colborne's administration, in establis.h.i.+ng and endowing nearly sixty Rectories. Knowing, as I do, that the public mind is strongly opposed to any measure of that sort, or any step towards legalizing a church establishment, yet I could not believe the feeling was so strong as it actually is. If the elections should turn out disastrously to the best interest of the country, the result can only be attributed to that unjust and most unpolitic act. We are willing to do all that we consistently can, but everywhere the rectory question meets us. While I am compelled to believe that a vast majority are devotedly loyal to our gracious Sovereign, yet the best and most affectionate subjects of the King would almost prefer revolution to the establishment of a dominant Church thus sought to be imposed on us.

In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Toronto, his brother John says:--

The late elections agitated the Societies very much in some places, but they are now settling down to "quietness and a.s.surance." I hope that the worst of the storm is over. The Governor is a talented man, but very little magisterial dignity about him. He takes good care to let every one know that _he_ esteems every day alike, travelling on Sabbaths the same as other days. Indeed he seems to have no idea of religion at all, but is purely a man of pleasure.

His popularity will soon be upon the wane if he does not mend in these respects.

The friends in Kingston are very anxiously looking for your return, and are becoming quite discontented and out of patience. They complained bitterly to me of your long absence, and were anxious to have me stay with them until you return.

CHAPTER XIX.

1837-1839.

Return to Canada.--The Chapel Property Cases.

In this part of the "Story" of his life, Dr. Ryerson has only left the following sentence:--At the Conference held after my return to Canada, in June, I declined re-election as Editor of the _Christian Guardian_, having promised my Kingston brethren, from whom I had been suddenly removed in November, 1835, that I would remain with them at least one year on my return from England.

After Conference, Dr. Ryerson (with Rev. E. Healy) attended as a deputation to the Black River Conference. He said:--

The Conference was presided over by Bishop Hedding, who, in strong and affecting language, expressed his feelings of respect and love for our Connexion in Canada. In reply, I reiterated the expression of our profound respect and affection for our honoured friend and father in the Gospel; by the imposition of whose hands, I, and several other brethren in Canada, have been set apart to the Holy Ministry. After my return to Kingston, brother Healy and I received from the Black River Conference a complimentary resolution in regard to our visit. In enclosing it to me, Rev. Jesse T. Peck, the Secretary [afterwards Bishop], said:--Allow me humbly, but earnestly, to beg a continuance of that friends.h.i.+p with you, which in its commencement has afforded me so much pleasure.

In August of this year, 1837, the celebrated trial of the Waterloo Chapel case[50] took place before Mr. Justice Macaulay, at the Kingston a.s.sizes, and a verdict was given against the Wesleyan Methodists. It was subsequently appealed to the Court of King's Bench, at Toronto. Three elaborate judgments were delivered on the case. Rev. John Ryerson was a good deal exercised as to the ill effects, upon the connexional church property, of Judge Macaulay's adverse decision. In a letter to Dr.

Ryerson, he said:--

We are much troubled and perplexed, here in Toronto, about the Waterloo Chapel case. I saw the Attorney-General on the subject to-day. When Judge Macaulay's judgment is published, I hope you will carefully review the whole matter, and lay the thing before the public in such a way as to produce conviction. Everybody is inquiring whether or not you will take up the subject.

An appeal was made to the King's Bench at Toronto. This Court--

Set aside the verdict of the lower Court, and ordered a new trial.... At this second trial, as also that respecting the Belleville Church property case, [November, 1837], ... the whole matter was "ventilated," and the result was that the legal decision of the highest judicial tribunal of the land confirmed the Wesleyan Methodist Church as the rightful owner of the Church property, it being the true representative and successor of the original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These litigations extended over more than two years, and the friends of Zion and of peace greatly rejoiced when they were brought to a just and final settlement. (Epochs of Canadian Methodism, pages 278, 279.)

In regard to these three judgments on the case, Dr. Ryerson said:--

During the latter part of this month I have devoted such time as I could spare to a lengthened review for the _Guardian_, of the elaborate judgments of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices Macaulay and Sherwood, on the Waterloo Chapel case.[51] The opinion of the Chief Justice displays profound research, acute discrimination, and sound judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Macaulay indicates great labour and strict religious scrupulosity.

The opinion of Mr. Justice Sherwood betrays great want of acquaintance with the discipline, usages, and general history of Methodism. To the Methodist Connexion the conflict of opinion and confusion of reasoning of these learned judges are most prejudicial and disastrous. I have therefore sought, in the "review," to set forth the true facts of this abstruse case--facts connected with the history of Methodism--facts, with the most material of which I am personally acquainted, and in the progress of which I have been called to act a conspicuous part.

In regard to this "review," Rev. E. Healy wrote to Dr. Ryerson, from Brockville, and said:--

I have read your review of the opinion of the judges, and am happy to see it. What the judges will do with you, I do not know. You are considered, I believe, by some in this part of the country, as part man and part demon. This is one reason, doubtless, why I am also so bad a man, as I have said so much in your favour.

Rev. Hannibal Mulkins,[52] writing from Whitby on this subject, said:--

The agitation which was antic.i.p.ated by some of the preachers at the last Conference, and which has existed in some degree has happily subsided, notwithstanding the most vigorous efforts have been made, and all the arts of calumny and misrepresentation, employed to harra.s.s, to worry, and devour.

I was very glad to see your "review" of the opinions of the Judges in the Chapel case. I have read it with much satisfaction. On this circuit, notwithstanding the prejudices of some individuals, it has been perused with general delight, and to our friends in particular it has been highly satisfactory.

Dr. Ryerson, in a letter from New York, dated November, 1837, says:--

I have just returned from an extended tour of about 500 miles in the Middle and Southern States, in order to obtain information and evidence relative to the organization of the Methodist Church in America, the character of its Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference--points which involve the issue of our chapel property case. From the ma.s.s of testimony and information I have been able to collect, by seeing every preacher in this continent who was in the work in 1784, relative to the character of Methodist Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference, I feel no doubt as to the result.[53]

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in making his report on the same subject, said:--

I spent a whole day with Bishop Hedding, and had much conversation with him about our affairs generally. He told me that the American Methodist Church had never regarded Episcopacy as a Divine ordinance--nor as an essential doctrine of the Church--but as an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, which could be modified by the General Conference, or even dispensed with without violating the great principles of Methodism. The Bishop is of the opinion, however, that if our Courts decide against us, we shall have to return to Episcopacy, and that the first Bishop should be ordained by the Bishops of the American Church.

Dr. Ryerson, in the same November letter, says:--

I have also accompanied Mr. Stinson to render him what a.s.sistance I could, in examining Manual Labour Schools, with a view to establis.h.i.+ng one for the benefit of our Indian youth--an object of the very greatest importance, both to the religious and civil interests of our aboriginal fellow countrymen. Also to get from the New York Missionary Board a sum of money for the Indian work which was expected from them before our Union with the English Conference.

In a letter to Dr. Alder, written from New York in the same month, Dr.

Ryerson said:--

The concern of our preachers and friends on the Chapel case is deep and truly affecting. As I took so responsible a part in the Union, I cannot describe my feelings on this question. At the request of our brethren I have undertaken to do what I could to secure our Church property from the party claiming it. I have travelled nearly 500 miles this week for that purpose. But it is cheering amidst all our difficulties, and the commotions of the political elements, that our preachers, I believe, without exception, are of one heart--that our societies are in peace--that the work of our blessed Lord is reviving in many of the circuits, although the cause in Kingston suffers, and my dear brethren there complain, in consequence of my connexional engagements and absence from them.

FOOTNOTES:

[50] Between the Episcopal and Wesleyan Methodists for the possession of the Church property. Waterloo was four miles north of Kingston.

[51] The Review is inserted in the _Guardian_, vol. viii., pages 169-178. The Belleville case was published in pamphlet form.

[52] This gentleman entered the Wesleyan ministry in 1835, but joined the Church of England in 1840. He was for many years Chaplain to the Penitentiary, at Kingston, and always retained a warm regard for Dr.

Ryerson. He died in 1877, aged 65 years.

[53] The particulars here referred to are given in detail in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 279-281.

CHAPTER XX.