  1850-1853. The Clergy Reserve Question Transferred to Canada. The re-opening of the clergy reserve question by Bishop Strachan, with a view to obtain relief in the temporary distress mentioned in Chapter xlviii., proved to be a fatal step, so far as his hopes for securing "better terms" were concerned. In the next year after he had issued his pastoral appeal for help, the clergy reserve fund yielded an increase, "and an expectation of a gradual increase annually was officially expressed." ("Secular State of the Church," page 11.) The Bishop's complaint against the Provincial Government (Chapter xlviii., page 379) was that its management of the clergy reserve lands was wasteful and extravagant. An effort was therefore made, in 1846, to vest these lands in the religious bodies then entitled to a share in the income derived from their sale. Mr. Gladstone communicated with the Governor-General on the subject, with this view, in February, 1846. The proposal, was, however, viewed with alarm, as well as was the fact that such efforts being made in England showed that, as in 1840, so in 1846, the rights of the Canadian people to this patrimony could be at any time alienated or extinguished by the Imperial Government, without the official knowledge or consent of the Canadian Parliament. These two facts, when they became known and appreciated by the people of Upper Canada, led to the taking of decisive steps to prevent them from becoming realities. The representatives in the Canadian House of Assembly of the Bishop of Toronto sought to get an address to the Crown passed, with a view to vesting a portion of the lands in the Church Society of Toronto. Hon. Robert Baldwin warned the friends of the Bishop of the impolicy and imprudence of such a proposition, and pointed out that if the clergy reserve question was thus re-opened, the former fierce agitation on the subject would be resumed, which might "end in the total discomfiture of the Church." His warning was unheeded, and although the motion for vesting the lands as proposed was rejected, by a vote of 37 After all, our great desire continues to be to acquire the management of what is left to the Church of the reserves; and why this reasonable desire is not complied with remains a matter of deep regret (page 19). The question thus brought before the Legislature, led to its being brought before the people, until it became a subject of discussion in political meetings and election contests. Finally, in 1850, the Government of the day secured the passage in the House of Assembly of an address to the Crown, praying for the repeal of the Imperial Clergy Reserve Act of 1840. In that address it is stated that— During a long period of years, and in nine successive sessions of the Provincial Parliament, the representatives of the people of Upper Canada, with an unanimity seldom exhibited in a deliberative body, declared their opposition to religious endowments.... The address further pointed out that the wishes of the people were thwarted by the Legislative Council, a body containing a majority avowedly favourable to the ascendancy of the Church of England. That the Imperial Government, from time to time, invited the Provincial Parliament to legislate on the subject of these reserves, disclaiming on the part of the Crown any desire for the superiority of one or more particular Churches; that Your Majesty's Government, in declining to advise the Royal assent being given to a Bill, passed by a majority of one, for investing the power of disposing of the reserves in the Imperial Parliament, admitted that from its inaccurate information as to the wants and general opinions of society (in which the Imperial Parliament was unavoidably deficient), the question would be more satisfactorily settled by the Provincial Legislature; that subsequently to the withholding of the Royal assent from the last-mentioned Bill, the Imperial Parliament passed an Act disposing of the proceeds of the clergy reserves in a manner entirely contrary to the formerly repeatedly expressed wishes of the Upper Canadian people, as declared through their representatives, and acknowledged as such in a message sent to the Provincial Parliament by command of Your Majesty's Royal predecessor. That we are humbly of opinion that the legal or constitutional impediments which stood in the way of provincial legislation on this subject should have been removed by an Act of the Imperial Parliament; but that the appropriation of revenues derived from the investment of the proceeds of the public lands of Canada, by the Imperial Parliament, will never cease to be a source of discontent to Your Majesty's loyal subjects in this Province; and that when all the circumstances connected with this question are taken into consideration, no religious denomination can be held to have such vested interest in the revenue derived from the proceeds of the said clergy reserves, as should prevent further legislation with reference to the disposal of them; but we are nevertheless of opinion that the claims of existing incumbents should be treated in the most liberal manner; and that the most liberal and equitable mode of settling this long-agitated question, would be for the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act providing that the stipends and allowances heretofore assigned and given to the clergy of the Church of England and Scotland, or to any other religious bodies or denominations of Christians in Canada, and to which the faith of the Crown is pledged, shall be secured during the natural lives or incumbencies of the parties now receiving the same ... subject to which provision the Provincial Parliament should be authorized to appropriate as, in its wisdom, it may think proper, all revenues As the agitation proceeded, Bishop Strachan and Dr. Ryerson again became involved in it. The Bishop took the lead, and addressed a letter to Lord John Russell on the subject. Dr. Ryerson at once joined issue with the Bishop, and prepared the following able rejoinder in reply to the Bishop's letter. He said:— The statements of the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in his letter to Lord John Russell, dated Canada, February 20th, 1851, and in his Charge delivered to the clergy of the Diocese of Toronto, in May, 1851, relate to the same subjects, and appear to be designed for perusal in England, rather than in Canada. These statements, as a whole, are the most extraordinary that I ever read from the pen of an ecclesiastic, much less from the pen of a Bishop of the Church of England, and an old resident and prominent actor in the affairs of the country of which he speaks. These statements are not only incorrect, but they are, for the most part, the reverse of the real facts to which they refer; and where they are most groundless, they are the most positive. To discuss them seriatim would occupy a volume. I will, as briefly as possibly, notice the most important of them under the following heads:— 1. The circumstances and objects of the original Clergy Land Reservation. 2. The position of the Church of England in Canada, and the professed wishes of the Lord Bishop. 3. The conduct of the Imperial and Canadian Governments towards the Church of England. 4. The effect of the union of the two Canadas on the proceedings and votes of the Legislative Assembly in regard to the Church of England. 5. Public grants to the Church of Rome, and the endowment of that Church in Lower Canada. 6. The Toronto University and Public Schools. I am to notice in the first place the statements of the Lord Bishop respecting the circumstances and objects of the Clergy Land Reservation. He speaks of it as having been suggested by the circumstances of the American revolution, and as having been intended as the special reward of those who adhered to the Crown of England during that seven years' contest. The Bishop says:— At the close of the war, in 1783, which gave independence to the United States, till then colonies of the British Crown, great numbers of the inhabitants, anxious to preserve their allegiance, and, in as far as they were able, the unity of the empire, sought refuge in the western part of Canada, beyond The Bishop subsequently states [See Chapter xxviii., page 219] that the object of the Constitutional Act of 1791 was More especially to confer upon the loyalists such a constitution as should be as near a transcript as practicable of that of England, that they might have no reason to regret, in as far as religion, law, and liberty were concerned, the great sacrifices which they had made. Allusions of this kind pervade a considerable part of the Bishop's letter, and furnish the first example, within my knowledge, of any writer attempting to invest the dispute between the American colonies and the mother country with a religious character; when every person the least acquainted with the history of those colonies, and of that contest, knows that the question of religion was never alluded to on the part of the colonists—that General Washington and other principal leaders in the revolution were professed Episcopalians—that the Church of England did not exist as an established church in any of those colonies, unless adopted as such by the local legislature, as in the case of Virginia—and that in the northern and eastern parts of those colonies, whence the first emigration to Upper Canada took place after the peace of 1783, the Church of England never did exist as an established church. Therefore, for the "religion of England" in that sense, those "loyalists" never could have "perilled their lives and fortunes;" nor could they have been influenced by any predilections for an establishment which they had never seen. The Bishop says truly that: The noble stand which the Province made against the United States in the war of 1812, in which the attachment of its inhabitants to the British empire was a second time signally displayed, brought the country into deserved notice. But nothing can be more fallacious than the claims he would found upon this fact, any more than those of the American revolution of 1776, to the clergy reserve land. For the Lord Bishop himself, when Archdeacon of York, in a printed discourse on the death of the first Bishop of Quebec, represents the benefits of the establishment as "little felt or known" in Upper Canada, and states that down to the close of the American War of 1812—namely, in 1815—there were but five clergymen of the Church of England in that vast province. And a few years afterwards, December 22nd, 1826, the Upper Canada House of Assembly, consisting of the representatives of the Loyalists and their sons, who had twice "signally displayed Resolved, that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Province bears a very small proportion to the number of other Christians, notwithstanding the pecuniary aid long and exclusively received from the benevolent society in England by the members of that Church, and their pretensions to a monopoly of the clergy reserves. The original Loyalist settlers of Upper Canada, and their immediate descendants, must be held to have understood their own feelings and sentiments better than the Lord Bishop: and the almost unanimous expression of such sentiments, through their representatives twenty-five years since, together with other circumstances to which I have referred, show how greatly mistaken is his Lordship, and how perfectly baseless are his assumptions and frequent allusions and appeals in reference to the hopes, wishes and sentiments of the original settlers of Upper Canada as a ground of claim to the clergy reserves in behalf of the Church of England. I have next to say a few words on the Bishop's statement as to the position of the Church of England in Canada, and the professions which he makes in respect to her position. He says, "Our position has, for some time, been that of a prostrate branch of the National Church;" and that position he, in another place, calls "a condition of inferiority to other religious denominations;" and he says, "she has been placed below Protestant dissenters, and privileges, wrested from her, have been conferred upon them." As to the position in which the Bishop would wish the Church of England in Canada to be placed, he says, "We merely claim equality, and freedom from oppression." These expressions are deeply to be regretted, when it is perfectly notorious that the pre-eminence and peculiar civil advantages claimed by the Bishop for the Church of England, have been the ground of all the disputes which have agitated the Legislature and people of Upper Canada for more than twenty-five years; when every person of the least intelligence in Canada knows that the Church of England, besides other large educational and pecuniary patronage of government, enjoyed until 1840 an exclusive monopoly of the clergy lands which the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada long contended, and which the judges of England have decided, extended by law to Protestants generally—that the Church of England enjoys at this moment the greater part of the annual proceeds of the sales of those lands, besides rectory endowments of portions of them—that every political and religious party in I repeat the expression of my regret that the Bishop should draw entirely upon his imagination for such statements, and that his feelings should prompt him to represent objections to his own particular views and pretensions as oppression and persecution of the Church of England. The next class of the Bishop's statements which I shall notice, relate to the conduct of the Imperial and Canadian Governments towards the Church of England. Throughout his voluminous documents the Bishop represents the conduct of government, both Imperial and Colonial, as hostile to the Church of England; and employs, in some instances, terms personally offensive. The great question at issue is thus stated by the Bishop himself in his recent charge to his clergy:— In 1819, the law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that the words Protestant clergy embraced also the ministers of the Church of Scotland, not as entitling them to endowment in land, but as enabling them to participate in the proceeds of the reserves, whether sold or leased. In 1828, a select committee of the House of Commons extended the construction of the words Protestant clergy to the teachers of all Protestant denominations; and this interpretation, though considered very extraordinary at the time, was confirmed by the twelve judges in 1840. In his letter to Lord John Russell, the Bishop alludes to two of these decisions in terms peculiarly objectionable, while he omits all reference to the latter. He says:— The Established Church of Scotland claimed a share of those lands, or the proceeds, as a National Church within the Empire; and in 1819, the Crown lawyers made the discovery that it might be gratified, under the 37th clause of the 31st of George III., chap. 31. Next, the select committee of the House of Commons, in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, influenced by the spurious liberality of the times, extended this opinion of the Crown lawyers to any Protestant clergy. The Bishop thus impugns the impartiality and integrity of the opinions expressed by the law officers of the Crown in England, and by the select committee of the House of Commons, sarcastically calling the one a "discovery," and ascribing the In other documents the Bishop has designated this Act "an act of spoliation," and "robbery" of the Church of England. When the Bishop employs language of this kind in respect to Acts of Parliament and the official opinions in regard to their provisions, he cannot reasonably complain if other parties should respect them as little as himself, much less regard them as a "final settlement" of a question to which they have not been parties, and against which they have always protested. Under any circumstances, it is singular language to be employed by a person towards a government by whose fostering patronage he has become enriched. The fact is, that the successive Governors of Upper Canada have been members of the Church of England; that the principal cause of their unpopularity, and the most serious difficulties which both the Imperial and local governments have had to encounter in the colony, have arisen from their efforts to secure as much for the Church of England, in the face of the popular indignation and opposition, so much inflamed and strengthened by the irritating publications and extreme proceedings of the Bishop himself. It is understood that the report of the committee of the House of Commons on the civil government of Canada, in 1828, was written by Lord Stanley. However that may be, the sentiments of that report on the clergy reserve question were strongly expressed by his Lordship in his speech on the subject, 2nd May, 1828; and he and the other distinguished men who investigated the subject at that time, know whether they were "influenced by a spurious liberality" in the conclusion at which they arrived, or whether they were guided by a sense of justice, and yielded to the weight of testimony. At all events, the grave decision of the twelve judges of England to the same effect ought to have suggested to the Bishop other terms than those of "spurious liberality," "spoliation," and "robbery," and to have protected not only the "powers that be," but the great majority of the Canadian people, from the shafts of his harsh imputations. Here I think it proper to correct the Bishop's repeated references to the origin and circumstances of the differences of opinion in Upper Canada, as to the import of the words "Protestant clergy," and the "right of dissenting denominations" to participate in the benefit of the clergy reserves. He represents those differences as having originated with the clergy of So far from this representation being correct, it appears that the first submission of the question to the law officers of the Crown in England took place at the request of Sir P. Maitland, in reference, not to the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland, but to "all denominations" of Protestants—a question on which Sir P. Maitland, then Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, states in a despatch to Earl Bathurst, dated 17th May, 1819, that there was not only a "difference of opinion" on the subject, but "a lively feeling throughout the Province." It appears that certain "Presbyterian inhabitants of the town of Niagara and its vicinity" (not at that time in connexion with the Church of Scotland), petitioned Sir P. Maitland for "an annual allowance of £100 to assist in the support of a preacher," to be paid "out of funds arising from the clergy reserves, or any other fund at His Excellency's disposal." In transmitting a copy of this petition to Earl Bathurst, Sir P. Maitland ("York, Upper Canada, 17th May, 1819,") remarks as follows:— The actual product of the clergy reserves is about £700 per annum. This petition involves a question on which I perceive there is a difference of opinion, viz., whether the Act intends to extend the benefit of the reserves, for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy, to all denominations, or only to those of the Church of England. The law officers incline to the latter opinion. I beg leave to observe to your Lordship, with much respect, that your reply to this petition will decide a question of much interest, and on which there is a lively feeling throughout the Province. [See page 221.] Earl Bathurst's reply to this despatch is dated "Downing Street, 6th May, 1820," and commences as follows:— Having requested the opinion of His Majesty's law officers as to the right of dissenting Protestant ministers, resident in Canada, to partake of the lands directed by the Act of the 31st George III., c. 31, to be reserved as a provision for the support of a Protestant clergy, I have now to state that they are of opinion that though the provisions made by the 31st George III., c. 31, ss. 36 and 42, for the support and maintenance of a Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the Church of England, but may be extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, yet that they do not extend to dissenting ministers, since the terms Protestant clergy can apply only to the Protestant clergy recognized and established by law. It is thus clear that the question of the right of different Protestant denominations to participate in the benefit of the clergy reserves did not originate in any claims or agitation commenced by the clergy of the Church of Scotland; that as early as the beginning of 1819, (only four years after the close of the last American War, during which, as the Bishop truly It now becomes my duty to examine another large class of statements, which I have read with great surprise and pain; and which are, if possible, less excusable than those which I have already noticed. I refer to the Bishop's statements in regard to the influence of the union of the two Canadas on the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the united Province, on the question of the clergy reserves. The Bishop, in his letter to Lord John Russell (referring to the Address of the Legislative Assembly, at the session of 1850, to the Queen), states as follows:— Before the union of Upper and Lower Canada, such an unjust proceeding could not have taken place, for, while separate, the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had frequently a commanding weight in the Legislature, and at all times an influence sufficient to protect her from injustice. But since their union under one Legislature, each sending an equal number of members, matters are sadly altered. It is found, as was anticipated, that the members returned by dissenters uniformly join the French Roman Catholics, and thus throw the members of the Church of England into a hopeless minority on all questions in which the National Church is interested. The Church of England has not only been prostrated by the union under that of Rome, and the whole of her property made dependent on Roman Catholic votes, but she has been placed below Protestant dissenters, and privileges wrested from her which have been conferred upon them. In his recent charge to the clergy of his Diocese, the Bishop remarks again:— So long as this diocese remained a distinct colony, no measure detrimental to the Church ever took effect. Even under the management and prevailing influence of that able and unscrupulous politician, the late Lord Sydenham, a Bill disposing of the clergy reserves, was carried by one vote only—a result which sufficiently proved that it was not the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject. I shall first notice that part of the Bishop's statement which That the lands set apart in this Province for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy ought not to be enjoyed by any one denomination of Protestants to the exclusion of their Christian brethren of other denominations, equally conscientious in their respective modes of worshipping God, and equally entitled, as dutiful and loyal subjects, to the protection of Your Majesty's benign and liberal Government; we, therefore, humbly hope it will, in Your Majesty's wisdom, be deemed expedient and just, that not only the present reserves, but that any funds arising from the sales thereof, should be devoted to the advancement of the Christian religion generally, and the happiness of all Your Majesty's subjects of whatever denomination; or if such application or distribution should be deemed inexpedient, that the profits arising from such appropriation should be applied to the purposes of education and the general improvement of this Province. The following year (January, 1827), the House of Assembly passed a Bill (the minority being only three), providing for the sale and application of the whole of the proceeds of the reserves for purposes of education, and erection of places of public worship for all denominations of Christians. And, on examining the journals, I find that from that time down to the union of the Canadas in 1841, not a year passed over without the passing of resolutions, or address, or bill, by the House of Assembly of Upper Canada, for the general application of the proceeds of the reserves, in some form or other, but always, without exception, against what the Bishop claims as the rights of the Church of England in respect to those lands. It is difficult to conceive a more complete refutation than these facts furnish of the Bishop's statement, that the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had a commanding weight in the Legislature; nor could a stronger proof be required of "the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject," than such a course of procedure on the part It is also incorrect to say that the Bill of Lord Sydenham in 1840 "was carried by a majority of one vote only." A Bill did pass the Assembly of Upper Canada the year before, by "a majority of one vote only;" but that was a Bill to re-invest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament for "general religious purposes,"—a Bill passed a few hours before the close of the session, during which no less than forty-eight divisions, with the record of yeas and nays, took place in the Assembly on the question of the clergy reserves; and after the Assembly had passed, by considerable majorities, both resolutions and a Bill to give the Church of England one-fourth of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, and the other three-fourths to other religious denominations and to educational purposes—a Bill which, with some verbal amendments, also passed the Legislative Council, and against which the Bishop, joined by one other member, recorded an elaborate protest. But just at the heel of the session, and after several members of the Assembly voting in the majority had gone to their homes, a measure (which had been previously negatived again and again) was passed by a "majority of one vote only" (22 to 21), to re-invest the reserves—a measure which the law officers in England pronounced "unconstitutional," as the manner of getting it through the Canadian Legislature was unprecedented. [See page 249.] But the measure of Lord Sydenham was carried in the Assembly by a majority of 4, and in the Legislative Council (of which the Bishop was a member and voted against the bill) by a majority of 8. A considerable majority of the members of the Church of England of both Houses of the Legislature voted for the bill, and were afterwards charged by the Bishop with "defection," and "treachery" for doing so. [See page 262.] On this point Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated Toronto, 5th February, 1840, stated as follows:— It is notorious to every one here, that of twenty-two members being communicants of the Church of England who voted upon this Bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate; whilst in the Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those who gave it their warmest support are to be found many gentlemen of the highest character for independence and for attachment to the Church, and whose views in general politics differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. After this epitome of references to the proceedings of the people of Upper Canada, through their representatives, from 1825 to 1840, on what the Bishop terms the "rights" and "patrimony" of the Church of England, it is needless to make He thought the clergy reserves should be fairly divided among the Protestant denominations, and that they should be altogether taken out of the hands of the Government, as the only way to take them out of the reach of agitation. He thought the rectories were vested rights, and should not be disturbed, unless by due process of law, if, as was pretended, they were improperly obtained. If there were any claims in the Act of 1791 which seemed to connect the Church of England to the State, though he did not think they did, they might be repealed, and the Bishop of Toronto seemed to be of opinion that that might be done. Let the appointment of the incumbents to the rectories, too, be taken from the Government, if it were thought proper, and given to the Church for other uses. He merely suggested that without wishing to impose it. He would conclude with one reflection: Let his Protestant fellow-countrymen remember they would never find opposition to their just rights from Roman Catholics and French Canadians. The latter had repeatedly passed Acts in Lower Canada to give equal rights to those who were called dissenters, and Jews, which were rejected by members of the Church of England in the Council, and it was worthy of remark that, at a moment when in England a pretended aggression had given occasion for persecution, the Church of England here had to rely upon Catholics to protect it against the aggression of other Protestant sects. I shall now make a few observations on the Bishop's statements respecting government grants to the Church of Rome, and the endowments of that Church in Lower Canada. The Bishop, framing his statements with a view to the Protestant feeling of England, inveighs in general terms against the Government on account of its alleged patronage of the Church of Rome; makes exaggerated statements on one side, and omits all references to facts on the other side which would enable the Protestants of England, to whom he appeals, to understand In Upper Canada, the Roman Catholic clergy do not, at present, exceed seventy in number, and the provision for their support is very slender. It depends chiefly on their customary dues, and the contributions of their respective flocks; unless, indeed, they receive assistance from the French portion of the Province, where the resources of the Romish Church are abundant. Now, while the Bishop presents an overdrawn and startling picture of the emoluments of the Church of Rome in Lower Canada, he omits all statements of public grants and payments to the clergy of that church in Upper Canada. The Bishop must know, that in addition to their "customary dues, and the voluntary contributions of their flocks," the clergy of the Church of Rome receive £1,666 per annum, and that that sum is paid out of the clergy reserve fund under the provisions of the very Act, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78, for the perpetuation of which he contends. The first instructions to support the Roman Catholic clergy in Upper Canada out of public funds, were given by Earl Bathurst, in a despatch to Sir P. Maitland, dated 6th October, 1826, and which commenced in the following words:— You will receive instructions from the Treasury for the payment, from funds to be derived from the Canada Company, of the sum of £750 per annum, for the salaries of the Presbyterian ministers, and a similar sum for the support of the Roman Catholic priests. But what is remarkable is, that this very policy of granting aid to the Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, for which Government has been so much blamed by the Bishop's friends in England, was urged by, if it did not originate with, the Bishop himself. For, in a speech delivered by the Bishop in the Legislative Council of Upper Canada, 6th March, 1828, and afterwards published by himself, I find his own statement of his proceedings in this matter, as follows:— It has always been my wish to see a reasonable support given to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, because they belong to a Church which is established in one section of the empire; and to the Roman Catholic Church because it may be considered as a concurrent church with the establishment in the sister Province; and to this end I have, at all times, advised the leading men of both those churches to make respectful representations to His Majesty's Government for assistance, leaving it to Ministers to discover the source from which such aid might be taken.—His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province (Sir P. Maitland), having represented in the strongest manner to His Majesty's Government the propriety of making some provision for the clergy in communion with the kirk, and also of the Roman Catholic clergy resident in Upper Canada, a reference was made to me on that subject, Thus four months before Earl Bathurst sent out instructions to give salaries to Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, the Bishop states that he urged it upon the favourable consideration of His Lordship. The Bishop then significantly adds:— I did flatter myself that they would have been satisfied, as indeed they ought to have been, and that henceforth the clergy of the two denominations, the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian, while discharging their own religious duties, would cordially co-operate with those of the establishment in promoting the general peace and welfare of society. It is gratifying to me to state that, as far as I know, the Roman Catholic clergy, during this contest, have observed a strict neutrality. However ingenious it may be, I cannot regard it as ingenuous that the Bishop should promote the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in this country in order to secure their political alliance and support against other Protestant denominations, and then appeal to Protestants in England against the Government and Legislature in Canada, because of the countenance given to the Church of Rome. It is hardly fair for the Bishop to act one part in Canada and another in England; and it is fallacious and wrong to represent the votes of Roman Catholics as exerting any influence whatever on the state of the question in Upper Canada—as of the twenty-five Roman Catholics who voted on the question last year, twelve voted on one side and thirteen on the other; and they are known to hold the opinion declared by their leader, Mr. Lafontaine, that the proceeds of the clergy reserves belong to the Protestants of the country in contradistinction to Roman Catholics. The Bishop's statements in regard to the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada are most extravagant. They cannot affect, in the least, the merits of the question which has so long agitated Upper Canada; and they appear to be introduced merely for effect in England, where the social state and position of parties in Canada are little known or understood. It is needless to examine the Bishop's statements on this subject in detail; but I will make two or three remarks, to show the fallacy of both his assertions and his reasoning. He gives no data whatever for his perfectly gratuitous and improbable assumption of four hundred parish priests in Lower Canada at a salary of £250 each, exclusive of those employed in colleges, monasteries, and religious houses, making, he says, The revenue of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, £100,000 per annum, a sum which represents a money capital of at least £2,000,000! This imaginary estimate of the Bishop is simply absurd, and supposes in Lower Canada ten-fold the wealth that really exists. The Bishop also gives a return of the seignorial lands of several religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, then invests those lands with a fictitious value, and sets them down as representing "a capital of £700,000!" whereas the rights to these lands are simply seignorial, and the annual revenue arising from them does not amount to threepence per acre. The Jesuits' estates, 891,845 acres—by far the largest item in the Bishop's paper—are in the hands of the Government, and not of the Roman Catholic Church at all. The fallacy of the Bishop's reasoning on this point will appear from the facts, that the British Crown has never made a grant or endowment to the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, or to any religious order of that Church; that whatever lands or endowments that Church or its religious communities may possess, were obtained either from the Crown of France, and therefore secured by treaty, or by the legacies of individuals, or by purchase. The island of Montreal was obtained by purchase; the rights are merely seignorial, or feudal, and yield to the seigneurs £8,000 per annum. There is, therefore, no analogy whatever between endowments thus obtained and held, and lands appropriated by the Crown for certain general objects, which have been vested in the hands of no religious community, and over which Parliament has expressly reserved the power of discretionary legislation. I shall now offer a few remarks on the Bishop's statements respecting the Toronto University and system of public schools in Upper Canada. As these are questions which have been set at rest by local legislation, by and with the sanction of the Imperial Government, I need only refer to the Bishop's statements so far as to remove the erroneous impressions and unjust prejudices which they are calculated to produce. In reference to the Bishop's statements, that "graduates in holy orders are declared ineligible as members of the Senate," I remark that such graduates are and have been members of the Senate from the commencement. And when the Bishop pronounces the University "essentially unchristian," he must have known that not only a Parliamentary law, but a University statute, exists for the religious instruction and worship of all the students of the University; whereas, when the Bishop had the management of it, no provision whatever existed for the religious instruction and worship of any of the students except members of the Church of England. The statement, therefore, of the Bishop, that— There is at present no Seminary in Upper Canada in which the children of conscientious churchmen can receive a Christian and liberal education, is contradicted by the fact that the children of many churchmen, as "conscientious" as the Bishop himself, are receiving such an education at a "Seminary in Upper Canada." The lands out of which the University has been endowed were early set apart by the Crown, not on the application or recommendation of any authority or dignitary of the Church of England, but on the application of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada; and the cause of all the agitation on the subject is, that the Bishop, unknown to the Canadian people, and by representations which they, through their representatives, declared to be incorrect and unfounded, obtained a University Charter in England, and the application of those lands as an endowment, which the Legislative Assembly never would recognize. And now that that Assembly has at length got these lands restored to the objects for which they were originally appropriated, but from which they had for a time been alienated, the Bishop seeks, by the most unfounded imputations and representations, to do all in his power to damage a Seminary which he ought to be the first to countenance and support. In his recent charge to his clergy, the Bishop has sought to damage the public elementary schools; and here his statements are equally at fault with those noticed in regard to the University. The Bishop says, "Christianity is not so much as acknowledged by our School law." This statement is contradicted by the 14th section of the School Act, and the general regulations which are made under its authority, headed, "Constitution and government of schools in respect to religious instruction," and which commence with the following words:— As Christianity is the basis of our whole system of elementary education, that principle should pervade it throughout. The Bishop says again:— To take away the power of parents to judge and direct the education of their children, which is their natural privilege from God, as our schools virtually do, will never be allowed in Great Britain. The Bishop makes this statement in the face of the express provision of the 14th section of the School Act, which declares that "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents or guardians shall desire." The Bishop furthermore states that "the Bible appears not among our school books," and says also that the "system is not based on a recognition of the Scriptures." It would be strange if the Bishop were ignorant that in a lengthened correspondence, printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, the Chief Superintendent of Schools objected to any law or system which would exclude the Bible from the schools,—that the Government The Bishop likewise says:— A belief of Christianity is not included among the qualifications of school-masters; and I am credibly informed that there have been instances of candidates for schools disavowing all religious belief. There is no law to prevent the vilest person from being "candidates" for any office, even that of holy orders; but "candidates for schools," and "school-masters," with legal certificates of qualification, are two very different things. According to the school law, no person can be a legally qualified teacher, or receive any portion of the school fund, without appearing before a County Board of Examiners (who consist, in all cases, more or less of clergymen), produce to them "satisfactory evidence of good moral character," and be examined and approved by them. Even the name of the church to which the "school-master" belongs is specified, and the annual reports of the Chief Superintendent of Schools include this item of information. A teacher may also, at any time, be dismissed for intemperance or any immoral conduct. It is notorious that the standard of qualification for teachers, both moral and intellectual, and the provisions and regulations for religious instruction in the schools, are much higher, and more complete and efficient, than under a former school law which the Bishop himself introduced into the Legislature, when he was Chairman of the Provincial Board of Education. Again, the Bishop states that All that is wanting is, to give power to the different boards or authorities to grant separate schools to all localities desiring them. This is precisely what the school law provides; for the 24th section of the Act expressly authorizes and empowers the Board of School Trustees in each city or town, "to determine the number, sites, kind and description of schools which shall be established in such city or town." The Boards of School Trustees may therefore establish as many "separate schools" in all the cities and towns in Upper Canada, as they shall think proper. But they are not willing to establish such separate schools as the Bishop desires; and when an amendment to the school law was proposed at the last session, to compel the local "boards or authorities" to do so, it was almost unanimously rejected. The Bishop says, indeed, referring to this circumstance, that "when the Church of England requested separate It is lamentable to see the Bishop making such statements to damage and pull down the educational institutions of the country, merely because they are not under his denominational control, and subservient to his denominational purposes,—a system of schools which he has, from the commencement, endeavoured to establish in Upper Canada, and for which he has agitated the country these many years. That I do the Bishop no injustice in this statement, I may remark, that in his letter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1827, applying for the so-much-agitated Charter of the Provincial University, he states his object to be, that the clergy of the Church of England in Upper Canada may "acquire by degrees the direction of education which the clergy of England have always possessed." Now that the Legislative Assembly, since the establishment of free constitutional government, have defeated the peculiar objects of the Bishop, he labours by groundless imputations and statements to bring the whole system of public instruction into contempt. It is to be hoped that such efforts will be as unsuccessful in England as they have been in Canada, where his appeals for agitation have not been responded to by one out of ten of the congregations of the Church of England, and are not sustained by the greater part of the members of the Church of England in both branches of the Legislature. Not a petition has been presented by members of the Church of England against the present system of public schools, except one, adopted by a meeting presided over by the Bishop, and signed by himself; and the Legislative Council within the last few days, by a majority of more than two to one, concurred with the Legislative Assembly and Administration in regard to the clergy reserves and University. The Bishop's extreme policy and proceedings have been and are a great calamity to the Church of England in Canada—a calamity which can only be mitigated and removed by the discountenance of such proceedings, and by the adoption of a more Christian and judicious policy on the part of members of the Church, both in England and in Canada. In reviewing the history of this question from 1840 until its final settlement by the Canadian Parliament, in 1854, Dr. Ryerson said:— Messrs. William and Egerton Ryerson had been appointed representatives Early in 1852, the Government of which Earl Grey was Secretary of State for the Colonies, was superseded by that of the Earl of Derby, with Sir John Packington as Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in a despatch to Lord Elgin, dated April 22nd, 1852, says:— By a despatch from my predecessor, Earl Grey, of the 11th July last, you were informed that Her Majesty's then servants found themselves compelled to postpone to another Session the introduction of a Bill into Parliament giving the Canadian Legislature authority to alter the existing arrangements with regard to the clergy reserves. With reference to that intimation, I have to inform you that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's present advisers to propose such a measure to Parliament this Session. "The result would probably be the diversion to other purposes" of the clergy reserves than "the support of divine worship and religious instruction in the colony." Sir John Pakington was soon undeceived as to the continued Canadian sentiment on the subject, for Sir Francis Hincks, then Inspector-General and Premier of Canada, who happened to be in London on official business on behalf of the Canadian The assurances of Her Majesty's late Government that such action would be taken, had prepared the people of Canada to expect that no further delay would take place in meeting their just wishes upon a question of such paramount importance to them; the Council, therefore, recommend that their colleague, the Inspector-General, be requested by the Provincial Secretary to seek an interview with Her Majesty's Ministers, and represent to them the importance of carrying out the pledges of their predecessors on the subject of the clergy reserves, and thus empower the Colonial Legislature to deal with the question in accordance with the well-understood wishes of the people of Canada. The Derby ministry resigned office in December, 1852, and the Duke of Newcastle succeeded Sir John Pakington as Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the 15th January, 1853, the Duke addressed a despatch to the Earl of Elgin announcing the decision of the new ministry to propose the repeal of the Imperial Act of 1840, which was successfully accomplished. After the passing of the Imperial Act transferring the final settlement of the clergy reserve question to Canada, a coalition Government was formed by the aid of Sir Allan McNab, called the Hincks-Morin Ministry. After protracted negotiation (with the beneficiaries under the Imperial Act) and discussion in the Legislature, a Bill was passed providing for the interests of these claimants, but "secularizing" the remaining proceeds of the reserves to municipal purposes. This was the last of the Acts assented to by Lord Elgin previous to his departure from Canada. Sir Edmund Head, his successor, speaking on this subject, said:— An Act assented to by my predecessor has finally settled the long pending dispute with regard to the clergy reserves, and it has done so in such a manner as to vindicate liberal principles, whilst it treats the rights of individuals with just and considerate regard. Thus was a struggle of more than twenty-five years ended, equality before the law of all religious denominations established, and constitutional rights of the people of Upper Canada secured, to their great joy. But the Bishop of Toronto, whose policy and measures had caused so much agitation in Upper Canada, regarded this settlement of the clergy reserve question as an irreparable calamity to the Church of England in Canada. On the 16th of March, 1853, the Bishop addressed a letter to the Duke of Newcastle, of which the following are extracts:— Power and violence are to determine the question; vested rights and the claims of justice are impediments to be swept away. Hence the spoliation sought to be perpetrated by the Legislature of Canada has no parallel in The grants made by the Crown were all held by the same tenure—whether to individuals or corporations—not reservations for certain purposes, with power expressly given to Colonial Assemblies to "vary or repeal" them. The Bishop proceeded:— I feel bitterly, my Lord Duke, on this subject. Till I heard of your Grace's despatch, I had fondly trusted in Mr. Gladstone and his friends, of whom you are one, notwithstanding the present doubtful Administration; and I still argued in my heart, though not without misgivings, that the Church was safe, I have cherished her with my best energies for more than half a century in this distant corner of God's dominions; and after many trials and difficulties I was beholding her with joy, enlarging her tent, lengthening her cords, and strengthening her stakes, but now this joy is turned into grief and sadness, for darkness and tribulation are approaching to arrest her onward progress. Permit me, in conclusion, my Lord Duke, to entreat your forgiveness if, in the anguish of my spirit, I have been too bold, for it is far from my wish or intention to give personal offence. And of this rest assured, that I would most willingly avert, with the sacrifice of my life, the calamities which the passing of your Bill will bring upon the Church in Canada. There is a touching pathos in the close of this letter; but the Bishop himself lived to see his apprehended calamities turned into blessings; for the most prosperous and brightest days of the Church of England in Upper Canada have been from 1853 to the present time. FOOTNOTES: |
|
