FOOTNOTES:

I regret to say that my own private affairs, arising from circumstances which have occurred since I saw you, prevent my assuming any situation under the Government which must necessarily occupy my undivided attention. I have heard from and replied to Mr. Harrison to the same effect.No person can more regret the unfortunate position in which we are placed than I do, and I agree with you that the loss of Sir Charles Metcalfe will be a public calamity. I have no doubt he will honestly carry out the principles of responsible government, and with a competent council, who understand what the country requires, and with competent individuals to carry those measures into effect, he would render more essential service to Canada than any former Governor whatever.I am under some apprehension that you mistake the feelings of the majority of Upper Canada members. A mere majority would ensure defeat; they must act in a body to give a majority in the present House; and from recent indications, there appears to be a change in the minds of those who were under very different impressions some time since. Although I was under a different impression some time since, I cannot see any chances of a new ministry being sustained, unless by a dissolution. 1. A majority seems indispensable to secure which the Reformers of Upper Canada must unite—and every Conservative must support them also;—the first cannot be relied on, therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the second. Most of the present members will feel themselves committed by their recent vote; they will all be pressing for a new election; and shape their course to the prevailing opinions. No ministry can have time to bring their measures before the public to produce any general impression; and no ministry can have confidence in the ultimate success of the wisest measures. In short, they will have no chance to exercise their ability, with a view of commanding success. Whereas, were a new election to take place (on the declaration by the Governor-General, that from the difficulty he experienced in making up a ministry which would command a majority of the present House, in conformity to the principles he avowed), the Governor-General could appeal to the people to return a representation from which he could select a Council possessing their confidence. Such an appeal would not be inconsistent with his former declarations, which must have been predicated on his obtaining a Council which would command a majority. Under such circumstances members would feel very naturally a much greater anxiety in sustaining any ministry with a chance of four years to test their measures, than as many days, as in the present instance. As far as I am individually concerned, even in that case, I could not accept of office unless I succeeded in arranging my own personal concerns, which I hope to effect during the season.I hear that in this district a strong feeling prevails in favour of the late ministry, who resigned, as they believe, to support the principle of responsible government; and they cannot understand that the Governor-General adheres to the same. This impression is natural; and it takes a long time to remove error. No man doubts the motives of Mr. Baldwin; none other of the administration is named, or possesses the least weight. I have not moved about or corresponded with a single member of the House, and I shall remain as passive as possible.I fully agree with you, that with the present Governor-General a fair opportunity offers to carry out useful projects; nay more, I am sure that one half of the present revenue now wasted, could be saved (not less than £100,000) for useful objects; but I cannot at present assist in carrying it into effect, which you cannot regret more than I do.

I am under some apprehension that you mistake the feelings of the majority of Upper Canada members. A mere majority would ensure defeat; they must act in a body to give a majority in the present House; and from recent indications, there appears to be a change in the minds of those who were under very different impressions some time since. Although I was under a different impression some time since, I cannot see any chances of a new ministry being sustained, unless by a dissolution. 1. A majority seems indispensable to secure which the Reformers of Upper Canada must unite—and every Conservative must support them also;—the first cannot be relied on, therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the second. Most of the present members will feel themselves committed by their recent vote; they will all be pressing for a new election; and shape their course to the prevailing opinions. No ministry can have time to bring their measures before the public to produce any general impression; and no ministry can have confidence in the ultimate success of the wisest measures. In short, they will have no chance to exercise their ability, with a view of commanding success. Whereas, were a new election to take place (on the declaration by the Governor-General, that from the difficulty he experienced in making up a ministry which would command a majority of the present House, in conformity to the principles he avowed), the Governor-General could appeal to the people to return a representation from which he could select a Council possessing their confidence. Such an appeal would not be inconsistent with his former declarations, which must have been predicated on his obtaining a Council which would command a majority. Under such circumstances members would feel very naturally a much greater anxiety in sustaining any ministry with a chance of four years to test their measures, than as many days, as in the present instance. As far as I am individually concerned, even in that case, I could not accept of office unless I succeeded in arranging my own personal concerns, which I hope to effect during the season.

I hear that in this district a strong feeling prevails in favour of the late ministry, who resigned, as they believe, to support the principle of responsible government; and they cannot understand that the Governor-General adheres to the same. This impression is natural; and it takes a long time to remove error. No man doubts the motives of Mr. Baldwin; none other of the administration is named, or possesses the least weight. I have not moved about or corresponded with a single member of the House, and I shall remain as passive as possible.

I fully agree with you, that with the present Governor-General a fair opportunity offers to carry out useful projects; nay more, I am sure that one half of the present revenue now wasted, could be saved (not less than £100,000) for useful objects; but I cannot at present assist in carrying it into effect, which you cannot regret more than I do.

In a note received from Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson, dated 10th April, he gave Dr. Ryerson the reasons for the unexpected delay in the formation of a new Cabinet. Hon. S. B. Harrison had also written to him on the same subject, so far as he and the other proposed Upper Canada members were concerned. Mr. Higginson said:—

The formation of a permanent Council has been most vexatiously, but unavoidably, delayed, owing to the extraordinary timidity—I can call it by no more appropriate name—of our friends in Lower Canada—the most eligible of whom have hitherto shrunk from the responsibility they would incur by the acceptance of office. Hon. D. B. Viger, who is still in Montreal, and who ought from long experience, to have a good knowledge of his countrymen, expresses himself confident of the result, and is of opinion that the delay, of which we complain, produces good and strengthens His Excellency's position. It is very evident that it has a different effect in the West; and it is to be hoped that as soon as the Montreal election is over (of which, barring violence, Mr. Molson is certain) immediate steps will be taken to fill up the offices now vacant.

In reply to Mr. Higginson's note, Dr. Ryerson said:—

I do not think that much evil arises at the present time, even in Canada West, from delay. Could the vacancies be filled up two or three months ago, the government would have secured the support of thousands who have since swelled the ranks of the ex-Councillors. But the loss by delay was, I think, incurred to its full extent during the months of January, February, and March. The proceedings of the late meeting of the Leaguers in Toronto have doubtless added something to their strength. But some portions of these very proceedings will meet them in a way they little expect—not, to be sure, before a jury of twelve men, as did the nine months' proceeding of O'Connell and his associates, but before the jury of the whole country, and upon principles sanctioned by the Constitution and history of England, which, I believe more confidently than when I wrote last, will result in a triumphant acquittal and justification of the Vice-Regal defendant.

On the 23rd May, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson wrote to Dr. Ryerson, as follows:—

You will be sorry to hear that Hon. Mr. Harrison has failed to make certain private arrangements which he so much hoped for, and that he has declined to take office. He is, therefore, unable to join the Cabinet.

FOOTNOTES:[121]As an indication of outside opinion on this question, I insert the following note, written by Rev. Anson Green, on the 31st December, 1843, to Dr. Ryerson. Mr. Green said: I cannot see why the Executive Council should resign at the present time, for they stated in the House that both Mr. Stanton, Collector at Toronto, and the Speaker of the Legislative Council were appointed by their advice. I think they should have waited until His Excellency refused to ask or take their advice, and not force him to make pledges. In my opinion both parties have acted indiscreetly. I have reason to believe that a majority of the Reformers from Upper Canada, in Parliament, would be happy to support Hon S. B. Harrison, if he could form a ministry from the majority on the question at issue.[122]In regard to this proposal, Mr. Harrison wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the 17th of January, to say that he had an interview with the Governor-General, and that: His Excellency expressed himself favourably disposed upon all the points touched upon, and was willing to consider the means of carrying out the objects contemplated. It appears, therefore, to me, that the matter may be arranged if our friend Merritt can be persuaded to join. I have written to him in that view. Should that be the case, I am prepared, and a communication should be made to Hon. W. H. Draper, which I will make immediately upon hearing from you and Mr. Merritt. As Mr. Draper will be here by the latter end of this week, it would be better, on hearing from Mr. Merritt, that you should be here yourself.

[121]As an indication of outside opinion on this question, I insert the following note, written by Rev. Anson Green, on the 31st December, 1843, to Dr. Ryerson. Mr. Green said: I cannot see why the Executive Council should resign at the present time, for they stated in the House that both Mr. Stanton, Collector at Toronto, and the Speaker of the Legislative Council were appointed by their advice. I think they should have waited until His Excellency refused to ask or take their advice, and not force him to make pledges. In my opinion both parties have acted indiscreetly. I have reason to believe that a majority of the Reformers from Upper Canada, in Parliament, would be happy to support Hon S. B. Harrison, if he could form a ministry from the majority on the question at issue.

[122]In regard to this proposal, Mr. Harrison wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the 17th of January, to say that he had an interview with the Governor-General, and that: His Excellency expressed himself favourably disposed upon all the points touched upon, and was willing to consider the means of carrying out the objects contemplated. It appears, therefore, to me, that the matter may be arranged if our friend Merritt can be persuaded to join. I have written to him in that view. Should that be the case, I am prepared, and a communication should be made to Hon. W. H. Draper, which I will make immediately upon hearing from you and Mr. Merritt. As Mr. Draper will be here by the latter end of this week, it would be better, on hearing from Mr. Merritt, that you should be here yourself.

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.

It was with extreme reluctance that I could at all assent to the measure of Union of the Canadas. The agents of the LondonWesleyan Committee vehemently opposed it, and wished me to write against it. I wished to remain neutral. Lord Sydenham most earnestly solicited my aid—promised a just measure on the clergy reserve question, and assured me against any hostility of the agents of the London Committee, of all the protection and assistance that the Government could give. He died,—and I have been left, without the slightest assistance or protection on the part of the Government, to meet alone the hostile proceedings and influence of the London Wesleyan Committee. In order to sustain myself in these reverses, and especially in the last, but most painful one, I have been compelled to put forth physical and intellectual efforts that I am absolutely incapable of repeating.

I have adverted—even at the expense of being tedious and egotistic—to these unpleasant details, that Your Excellency may fully understand and appreciate my present position, and my caution in embarking in another conflict without a reasonable hope that I will not be made a victim of abandonment and of oppression, after I have employed the utmost of my humble efforts in support of the principles of the constitution and prerogatives of the Crown.

In the present crisis, the Government must of course be first placed upon a strong foundation, and then must the youthful mind of Canada be instructed and moulded in the way I have had the honour of stating to Your Excellency, if this country is long to remain an appendage to the British Crown. The former, without the latter, will only be a partial and temporary remedy.

Anything like a tolerable defence of Your Excellency's position—anything approaching to an effective exposure of the proceedings of the late Council in their demands, the grounds of their resignation, their explanation, their tribunal of appeal, their variations of position, the principles and consequences involved in each step of their course, and the spirit and doctrines they now exhibit, appears to me to be a desideratum. They could be convicted out of their own mouths on every count of the charges they have brought against the Governor-General, and from the same source might evidence be adduced that they advocate sentiments and sanction proceedings which are unknown to the British Constitution, and which appertain only to an independent state. Yet, in place of exposition, and arguments and illustrations that would tell upon the public mind, we have nothing but puerile effusions, thread-bare assertions, and party criminations—nothing that would convince adversaries and make friends of enemies. Your Excellency's replies, and a few passages in the MontrealGazette, and in apamphlet which lately appeared in the KingstonChronicle, are all that I have seen which are calculated to produce practical effect upon the public mind. Hon. D. B. Viger's pamphlet is too limited in its range of topics, and too speculative and refined to be effective upon any other than well-educated statesmen.

The desideratum required I would attempt to supply, and then devise measures, put forth publications, and employ efforts to direct the public mind into new channels of thinking, and furnish the youthful mind with instruction and materials for reading that would render this country British in domestic feeling, as I think it now is intentionally in loyalty. To do anything effectual toward the accomplishment of such a task, my position should be made as strong as possible. At best my qualifications for a work so difficult and varied are extremely limited, but more especially under present circumstances.

After weighing the matter carefully, and pondering (in comparing small things with great) upon the part which Bishop Burnet took in settling the disordered elements of British intellect after the revolution of 1688, I have resolved to do as he did—place my humble services at the disposal of my Sovereign—and in whatever situation Your Excellency is of opinion I can render most service to the government and the country under existing circumstances. I will hazard the enterprise, and stand or fall with the Governor-General in the present crisis, notwithstanding the increased cloudiness of our political atmosphere. I would rather aid as a private individual, and as an independent volunteer in the service of the Crown and country—as I have been on former occasions—than be placed in any official situation.

To this letter Dr. Ryerson received the following reply from Mr. Secretary Higginson, dated 12th March:—I am directed to convey to you the expression of the Governor-General's cordial thanks for the public spirited offer of your able and valuable services in the present crisis of public affairs; an offer which His Excellency accepts with a high degree of satisfaction, feeling confident that you will bring most efficient aid to the Government.

On March 18th Dr. Ryerson replied to this note from Mr. Higginson. He said:—I think there will be but little difficulty in disentangling the question from the perplexing confusion in which it has been involved, and placing it upon the true issue as to a government of party, or of justice. If, in elucidating and applying it, I can incorporate some of Lord Brougham's fulminations on the evil of party with my own conceptions, I may be able to add the occasional discharge of a cannon, or the bursting of a bombshell, to the running fire of ordinary musketry. ThoughI am no stranger to contests, I cannot divest myself of palpitations at the approach of an engagement. When once the fire has commenced, I feel but little concern except to keep cool and good-natured, and to have an ample supply of ammunition for all exigencies—satisfied of the righteousness of the cause and the government of an over-ruling Providence.

In February the Rev. John Ryerson wrote to Dr. Ryerson on the Metcalfe crisis, and said:—

While I believe that the late Executive Council, in the main, and in principle, was right, and Sir Charles wrong, yet I am very far from endorsing all that the Council did as right. I think that they should not have resigned when they did. I think they were guilty of a breach of trust in throwing up office in the midst of a session of Parliament, and when many important measures were pending. I think, as the "antagonism" which caused the resignation of the late Council existed before the Parliament was convened, that they should then have resigned, or remained in office until the prorogation....You are not to suppose from these remarks that I have turned politician, or that I am intermeddling with things which do not belong to me. I have been endeavouring to attend to my appropriate work; and though continually pressed with questions, soliciting my opinions respecting passing events, I have said as little on all these matters as possible, and I am identified with no party. Indeed, the state of my health is such as to admonish me to think about other things than worldly politics, and I blush to think that I have written so much respecting them. Powerfully convincing reasoning, with truth on your side, might produce a great effect among our people; but at the present more than nine-tenths of them, in these western parts, are the supporters of the late Executive Council.

You are not to suppose from these remarks that I have turned politician, or that I am intermeddling with things which do not belong to me. I have been endeavouring to attend to my appropriate work; and though continually pressed with questions, soliciting my opinions respecting passing events, I have said as little on all these matters as possible, and I am identified with no party. Indeed, the state of my health is such as to admonish me to think about other things than worldly politics, and I blush to think that I have written so much respecting them. Powerfully convincing reasoning, with truth on your side, might produce a great effect among our people; but at the present more than nine-tenths of them, in these western parts, are the supporters of the late Executive Council.

In reply to a letter from his brother John, asking his opinion on the pending dispute between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Councillors, Dr. Ryerson wrote on April 3rd, and said:—

Of the general measures of the late Council I cordially approve. I cannot say so of their dispute with the Governor-General. Of the policy which he or they had pursued, I have nothing to say. In that they might have been right, and he wrong. But, according to British practice, they ought to have resigned on what he had done, and not on what he would not promise to do. If the Crown intended to do just as they desired the Governor-General to do, still the promise ought not to be given, nor ought it to have been asked. The moment a man promises to do a thing he ceases to be as free as he was before he made the promise. It is essential principle that in the British Constitution that the Crown should be free—should be undefined in its prerogative. The exercise in that prerogative may be checked in various ways; but to bind it by promises is to infringe its constitutional liberty. If the Queen were to bind herself by promise, or declaration, that she would not appoint any person contrary to Sir Robert Peel's advice, how could she refuse to make O'Connell a peer, or appoint him LordChancellor of England if Sir Robert were to insist upon it? How could she ever get clear of Sir Robert by differing with him on a question of policy, if she were to bind herself before-hand to act according to his advice? Would it not be virtually giving the regal power into his hands?

Dr. Ryerson then proceeded to illustrate the views which he held on this subject:—

I can find examples in English History since 1688, of British Sovereigns having done just as Sir Charles Metcalfe is alleged to have done; I can also find examples of ministers resigning on account of what such Sovereigns had done; but I can find no example of any minister resigning on account of what the Sovereign would not promise to do on the subject of consultation and possible appointments.

I have seen it alleged, that the Governor-General was not bound to act upon the advice of his Council, only to ask it before he made any appointment. But the Governor-General did take the advice of the Council, in regard to the appointments of the Clerks of the Peace, both in the Bathurst and Dalhousie districts. Yet he is blamed as much for not acting upon it as if he had acted without taking it. But in Mr. Hincks' writings, and in all the papers advocating the same sentiments, I observe that it is contended that the Governor-General should act upon, as well as take, the advice of his Council. If so, what is he but their amanuensis—the recorder of their decrees?—the office which Sir Charles Bagot sustained on account of his illness; but whose example, in such circumstances, can not be laid down as a general rule.Responsible government was a mere theory with the late Council, or until they came into office under Sir Charles Bagot. They had thought and reasoned about it, but they had never acted upon it, until then; what they learned under the government of a sick and dying man was not adapted to make them perfect practitioners. So they were about as wise and as raw in the business practically, as was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had doubtless thought, and read, and reasoned upon the subject also. The unskilfulness of inexperience, with good intentions, seems to me to have been evinced in the whole proceeding.Of course it was considered, on the impulse of the moment, good policy to take a stand upon the principle of responsible government, and not upon the propriety, or policy, of certain appointments. By taking the latter ground, all might be lost; by taking the former ground, all would be gained, and a great deal of glory too, in the course of a few days, or a few weeks at most. But it has turned out otherwise. The question of prerogative has been brought up—a constitutional and imperial question. As such the British Government have decided upon it.... It is now no longer a question between the late Councillors and Sir Charles Metcalfe, but between them and Her Majesty's Government. I see, therefore, nothing in prospect but a renewal of the scenes of 1837, and 1838, only on a larger scale. Whether the point contended for is worth that price, or will be even obtained at that price, is problematical. I see no alternative, unless some enlightening, healing agency interpose. I pray for the safety of our Zion and people, especially, while I implore Divine interposition in behalf of our beloved country.I am no party man—I have never judged—I cannot judge questions according to party, but according to constitutional principles and history. On the first blush I was favourably impressed with the position and resignationof the late council; but when I came to examine their position, as I had done Hon. Mr. Draper's speech on the University question by the light of history (it being a new question), I came to the conclusions that I have stated above. I think the most general impression in the country, and perhaps amongst the members of our Church, is that which first struck my own mind; but I think it is contrary to the principles and practice of the British Constitution.

Responsible government was a mere theory with the late Council, or until they came into office under Sir Charles Bagot. They had thought and reasoned about it, but they had never acted upon it, until then; what they learned under the government of a sick and dying man was not adapted to make them perfect practitioners. So they were about as wise and as raw in the business practically, as was Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had doubtless thought, and read, and reasoned upon the subject also. The unskilfulness of inexperience, with good intentions, seems to me to have been evinced in the whole proceeding.

Of course it was considered, on the impulse of the moment, good policy to take a stand upon the principle of responsible government, and not upon the propriety, or policy, of certain appointments. By taking the latter ground, all might be lost; by taking the former ground, all would be gained, and a great deal of glory too, in the course of a few days, or a few weeks at most. But it has turned out otherwise. The question of prerogative has been brought up—a constitutional and imperial question. As such the British Government have decided upon it.... It is now no longer a question between the late Councillors and Sir Charles Metcalfe, but between them and Her Majesty's Government. I see, therefore, nothing in prospect but a renewal of the scenes of 1837, and 1838, only on a larger scale. Whether the point contended for is worth that price, or will be even obtained at that price, is problematical. I see no alternative, unless some enlightening, healing agency interpose. I pray for the safety of our Zion and people, especially, while I implore Divine interposition in behalf of our beloved country.

I am no party man—I have never judged—I cannot judge questions according to party, but according to constitutional principles and history. On the first blush I was favourably impressed with the position and resignationof the late council; but when I came to examine their position, as I had done Hon. Mr. Draper's speech on the University question by the light of history (it being a new question), I came to the conclusions that I have stated above. I think the most general impression in the country, and perhaps amongst the members of our Church, is that which first struck my own mind; but I think it is contrary to the principles and practice of the British Constitution.

During one of his visits to Kingston, early in 1844, Dr. Ryerson called at the office of his old friend, Hon. J. H. Dunn (one of the late Councillors), who had desired to see him. Mr. Dunn was not in when he called. He therefore, on his return to Cobourg addressed him as follows:—My brother John told me that you had asked him what I thought of the late differences between the Governor-General and his Council. After all that I have read and learned, I think very much of them as I did of the differences between the late Lord Sydenham and Hon. Robert Baldwin. You then asked me (at the Lambton House) whether I approved of your remaining in office, or of Mr. Baldwin's resigning. You will recollect my reply, that I thought Mr. Baldwin ought to have waited until an actual difference arose between him and other members of the Council on some measure, or measures; and that he ought not to have resigned on account of an alleged want of confidence, or theoretical difference of opinion. So I think in the present case. After stating your views to Sir Charles Metcalfe, you ought to have waited until some act, or acts, had taken place in contravention of these views, and which act, or acts, you were not disposed to justify; or if you thought it your duty to resign, then it appears to me you should have resigned on some acts which had been performed, and which you would not justify, and on the policy involved in which you were prepared to appeal to the country. But to resign upon a conversation, and not upon specific administrative acts, appears to me to be without precedent. It has brought up the question of prerogative, the constitutional decision of which, rests of course, with the supreme tribunals of the Empire. I think Mr. Baldwin's conscientious theoretical rigidness has led to an error, praiseworthy in its motives, but not the less an error—an error which in private life would have attracted no attention, but in public life makes a great noise, and may lead to serious consequences. I could wish with all my heart that you were in your late office, which you have so long and so faithfully filled.

In a note to Dr. Ryerson, on various matters, dated April 10th, Mr. Civil Secretary Higginson said:—

The Reform League in Toronto are making unusual exertions, and as you may have seen by their late resolutions, no longer conceal their real object, but in defiance of all their machinations, and they are not over scrupulousas to their means, truth and honesty of purpose, backed by loyal hearts and liberal measures, must and will prevail.

To this note Dr. Ryerson thus replied on the 12th April:—

I think the public feeling in Canada West is now stationary; or since the rumour of my appointment as Superintendent of Education (and how it got afloat I cannot imagine) is rather turning in favour of the Governor-General. The reason seems to be this: The opponents of His Excellency represent him as weak—as supported by nobody but a weak ultra-party. It has been alleged by both my friends and enemies, that whether the best or worst man in Canada, I have not hesitated to face in succession the united press and councils of each of the two ultra-parties in Canada, and succeeded in each instance to reduce them from a large majority to a small minority—deriving no advantage from the victories, except as some suppose, the pleasure of humbling my enemies. It is the impression of great numbers of persons, and to an extent and degree which has often amused me, that whatever cause I espouse, be it good or bad, will succeed; and that I never undertake a thing, however apparently impracticable, without a certainty of success. Though such a feeling increases the difficulty of every step of a man's career, it furnishes him with capital to begin with. My life having been bound up with the two great principles of constitutional monarchy on the one hand, and equal civil and religious principles in Canada on the other, all who really desire such a government, without regard to the domination of a party, ... seem to think the Governor-General will succeed if I have resolved to espouse his government....

From this state of mind in the case of many Reformers, and from what I have learned from other sources, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the efforts to inflame party spirit—to produce party blindness, and create party organizations—there is still a spirit of candour and enquiry (all I ask) amongst a large portion of the Liberal party which will furnish an ample fulcrum for a lever that will overthrow the enemy. I think that June will probably be the best time for the application of such a lever. The opposition can do nothing more at present. June is rather a leisure month for reading—the hay and wheat harvest will come on in July, August and September,—during which time agitators can do but little, and then I suppose will come the session of the Legislature. I hope to produce a vindication of His Excellency that will do no discredit to him, and shake, if not confound, his enemies, and exhibit such a platform of government as will appeal to every candid, common sense, sound British subject, best adapted to promote the best interests and greatest happiness of Canada....

To vindicate injured worth, either in high or humble life, has on different occasions, afforded me peculiar pleasure, and I contemplate, even as a pleasing task (though painful from the occasion) the purpose and opportunity of doing so in respect to so noble a subject and so good a cause as that with which His Excellency is identified. When the Government once assumes the attitude of strength, many who are now neutral, or perhaps professedly leaning to the apparently stronger party, will come over avowedly to the Crown. The timidity of the secret friends of the government in Lower Canada is an infirmity (I think of a majority of mankind) which requires as much pity as it deserves censure. All Greeks are not Spartans. Ten men seem to be made for work, where one is constituted for war. I have found it so in the hour of peril; when I have been left almost alone, though I found abundance of helping and co-operating friends as soon as the tide of victory began to turn in my favour. I think it will be so with the government in less than twelve months—at least in Upper Canada. The League organization in Toronto is the most formidable affair that has ever been formed in western Canada. I am told that its funds are large also,—several thousand pounds—but I think its power can be broken.

In a note to Dr. Ryerson from Mr. Higginson, dated 23rd of May, he said:—You will of course have seen the manifesto just hatched and brought forth by the League, jesuitically and cleverly enough put we must admit; it will no doubt be widely circulated, and it is very desirable that an antidote to the poison should be as extensively communicated to the people; and who in the province is so capable as yourself for such a task? If you would take up the argumentsseriatim—you could prove their fallacy without much difficulty. The fabric being founded upon misapprehension and falsehood, must go with a run. I confess I long to see these ambitious party-men unmasked.

1844.

Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended against his Councillors.

On the 27th May, 1844, Dr. Ryerson issued the first part of his memorable Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, not only against the attacks of his late Councillors, but also against those of the all-powerful League which had been formed against him on the 24th March, under the auspices of the Toronto Reform Association. The Manifesto of that famous League was dated on the 16th May. Its issue at once decided Dr. Ryerson to enter the lists in defence of Sir Charles, and the prefatory note to his rejoinder was written on the 27th May. From the introductory portion of it I make the following extract:—

Rev. Egerton Ryerson ... proposes ... to prove [from the] testimony of his late Advisers ... that His Excellency is entitled to the verdict of the country on every count of the indictment got up against him.Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the people of Canada, as Themistocles said to the Athenians who were incensed against him, "Strike, but hear me!"... If Leonidas,[123]with three hundred Spartans, could throw themselves into the Thermopylæ of death for the salvation of their country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex, which, he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in calamities more serious than those which followed the events of 1837.

Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the people of Canada, as Themistocles said to the Athenians who were incensed against him, "Strike, but hear me!"

... If Leonidas,[123]with three hundred Spartans, could throw themselves into the Thermopylæ of death for the salvation of their country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex, which, he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in calamities more serious than those which followed the events of 1837.

The following account of this memorable controversy was written by Dr. Ryerson himself. It has been slightly abridged and a few explanatory notes added:—

After much consideration, but without consulting any human being, I determined to enter the arena of public discussion to set forth and vindicate the true principles of responsible government, and to defend Sir Charles Metcalfe, as I had before defended Mr. Bidwell, from the unjust attacks made upon him; and I published an introductory paper avowing my purpose. My friends generally and the country at large were against me. My elder brother, John, a life-long Conservative, on first meetingme after the publication of that introductory paper, said, "Egerton, you have ruined yourself, for nine-tenths of the people are opposed to the Governor-General." I answered, "I know it; but I believe that nine-tenths of the people are mistaken, and that if they will read what I am about to write they will think as I do."

The contest was severe; the ablest and most meritorious public men in the province were arrayed on the opposite side; but I felt that truth and justice did not rest on numbers—that there was a public, as well as an individual, conscience, and to that conscience I appealed, supporting my appeal by reference to the past professions of Reformers, the best illustrations from Greek, Roman, and English history, and the authority of the best writers on constitutional government, and moral and political philosophy, and the highest interests, civil and social, of all classes of society in Upper Canada. For months I was certainly the "best abused man" in Canada; but I am not aware that I lost my temper, or evinced personal animosity (which I never felt), but wrote with all the clearness, energy, and fire that I could command.

The general elections took place in October, 1844, and in all Upper Canada (according to theGlobe'sown statement) only eight candidates were elected in opposition to Sir Charles Metcalfe! Such a result of a general election was never before, or since, witnessed in Upper Canada.

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 morethan 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 of1837 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 repeatedverbatim et literatimin 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 ofthe 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.

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 ofthe 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.

From Mr. Higginson Dr. Ryerson received the following interesting letter, dated Montreal, 20th July:—

As you will no doubt think it right, after you complete the series of your admirable and unanswerable letters, to expose the fallacy and falsehood with which Hon. R. B. Sullivan, as "Legion," endeavours to bolster up his arguments in reply to them, I think the enclosedprécisof a conversation that took place between the leader of the French party in the late Council and myself, early in May last, will convince you that His Excellency did not write his despatch of the 23rd of that month, quoted in the debate by Lord Stanley, upon insufficient grounds, or in ignorance of the real sentiments and inclinations of his then advisers. Letter No. 5 of "Legion," in referring to this despatch, charges His Excellency with what he calls paraphrasing, or, in other words, misrepresentation, as no men in their senses could have made such demands as the late Council are stated to have urged. The words made use of by His Excellency are not theirs, it is true; but did not the opinions expressed by Mr. Lafontaine, their leader, bear out the assertion? I regret that Lord Stanley did not quote what followed. I have given the meaning, rather than the words, of the dictatorial Councillor; but I have not in the slightest degree exaggerated the substance of his discourse. I ought to add that the conversation originated in a rumour of His Excellency's intending to appoint a Provincial Aide-de-camp, of whom Mr. Lafontaine did not approve; and that, although addressed to me, I could only suppose that it was intended for the ears of His Excellency. You will, of course, not believe the newspaper statements of Sir Charles having sent for Mr. Lafontaine. Ever since our arrival here the French party have been urging that the only way of getting out of our difficulties is by allowing Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin to resume their places—as the French people believe that they cannot enjoy responsible government without them. To this His Excellency cannot consent. What the result may be is not quite clear; our future plans have been delayed by this negotiation, which, though still pending, must terminate in a day or two. I hope that under any circumstances we shall be able to meet the present Parliament, if not with a majority, at least with a strong minority.The following is thePrécisto which I refer:—Mr. Lafontaine said: Your attempts to carry on the government on principles of conciliation must fail. Responsible government has been conceded, and when we lose our majority we are prepared to retire; to strengthen us we must have the entire confidence of the Governor-General exhibited most unequivocally—and also his patronage—to be bestowed exclusively on our political adherents. We feel that His Excellency has kept aloof from us. The opposition pronounce that his sentiments are with them. There must be some acts of his, some public declaration in favour of responsible government, and of confidence in the Cabinet, to convince them of their error. This has been studiously avoided. Charges have been brought against members of the Council, in addresses, and no notice given to them, viz.: Mr. B. was even mentioned by name, or at least by office, and will declare on the first day of the session that it is only as a member of responsible government that he for one would consent to act. If he supposed for a moment that Sir Charles could introduce a different system, he would resign. In fact, the Governor ought to stand in the same position towards his Cabinet as Her Majesty does. They cannot be prepared to defend his acts in Parliament if done without their advice—instance the case of the Collector of Customs' intended dismissal. No new-comers ought to be appointed to office. Declareshis disinterestedness, as his party—i.e.the French Canadians—must carry the day. The Conservatives would be just as ready to join them as those that have—has no desire for office for office's sake. If the Governor does not take some steps to denounce and show his disapprobation of Orangeism, his not doing so will be construed into the reverse, and the system will extend, and bloodshed will follow. The other party will organize—and they would be great fools if they did not—no Orangemen to be included in Commissions of the Peace—no justice at present for Catholics in Upper Canada. A law for the suppression of illegal societies does exist, but very difficult to discover members of them and to execute the law. Conciliation is only an attempt to revert to the old system of government—viz: the will of the Governor. It must fail. Lord Stanley decidedly adverse to the Lower Canadians; does not forget their expunging one of his despatches from their journals—it was so impudent. Trusts the Home Government will accept the proposed civil list; they will never have so large a one offered again. In conclusion, Sir Charles Metcalfe's great reputation places him in an eminently favourable position for carrying out Sir Charles Bagot's policy, by which alone the Province can be satisfactorily governed. A declaration by Government to this effect would put a stop to political agitation which the opposition keep alive as long as they have the slightest hopes of office—all they care for. Let them know that the game was up, and all would go right, and many come round. The differences of religion in Upper Canada will always prevent amalgamation; you must make them all of the same, like ourselves in Lower Canada. French language clause in Union Bill must be expunged.

The following is thePrécisto which I refer:—

Mr. Lafontaine said: Your attempts to carry on the government on principles of conciliation must fail. Responsible government has been conceded, and when we lose our majority we are prepared to retire; to strengthen us we must have the entire confidence of the Governor-General exhibited most unequivocally—and also his patronage—to be bestowed exclusively on our political adherents. We feel that His Excellency has kept aloof from us. The opposition pronounce that his sentiments are with them. There must be some acts of his, some public declaration in favour of responsible government, and of confidence in the Cabinet, to convince them of their error. This has been studiously avoided. Charges have been brought against members of the Council, in addresses, and no notice given to them, viz.: Mr. B. was even mentioned by name, or at least by office, and will declare on the first day of the session that it is only as a member of responsible government that he for one would consent to act. If he supposed for a moment that Sir Charles could introduce a different system, he would resign. In fact, the Governor ought to stand in the same position towards his Cabinet as Her Majesty does. They cannot be prepared to defend his acts in Parliament if done without their advice—instance the case of the Collector of Customs' intended dismissal. No new-comers ought to be appointed to office. Declareshis disinterestedness, as his party—i.e.the French Canadians—must carry the day. The Conservatives would be just as ready to join them as those that have—has no desire for office for office's sake. If the Governor does not take some steps to denounce and show his disapprobation of Orangeism, his not doing so will be construed into the reverse, and the system will extend, and bloodshed will follow. The other party will organize—and they would be great fools if they did not—no Orangemen to be included in Commissions of the Peace—no justice at present for Catholics in Upper Canada. A law for the suppression of illegal societies does exist, but very difficult to discover members of them and to execute the law. Conciliation is only an attempt to revert to the old system of government—viz: the will of the Governor. It must fail. Lord Stanley decidedly adverse to the Lower Canadians; does not forget their expunging one of his despatches from their journals—it was so impudent. Trusts the Home Government will accept the proposed civil list; they will never have so large a one offered again. In conclusion, Sir Charles Metcalfe's great reputation places him in an eminently favourable position for carrying out Sir Charles Bagot's policy, by which alone the Province can be satisfactorily governed. A declaration by Government to this effect would put a stop to political agitation which the opposition keep alive as long as they have the slightest hopes of office—all they care for. Let them know that the game was up, and all would go right, and many come round. The differences of religion in Upper Canada will always prevent amalgamation; you must make them all of the same, like ourselves in Lower Canada. French language clause in Union Bill must be expunged.

On the 26th July Dr. Ryerson replied to Mr. Higginson—

I shall make use of the enclosurePrécisin substance when I come to reply to "Legion"—which will, of course, not be until he shall have got through his series.

The "Defence" of Sir Charles Metcalfe consisted of nine papers, in which the whole question at issue was fully discussed. In concluding the ninth, Dr. Ryerson said:—

Back to Index Next