1870-1875.

Miscellaneous Closing Events and Correspondence.

On the 23rd of April, 1870, Rev. Drs. Punshon, Wood and Taylor, Chairman and Secretaries of the Central Board of Wesleyan Missions, addressed a letter to Sir George Cartier, Minister of Militia, on the subject of sending a Methodist chaplain with the Red River expedition under General Lindsay and the present Lord Wolseley. In their letter they said:—

This letter was merely acknowledged, and no action was taken upon it. In the following June Conference, the subject was brought up, and much feeling was evoked at Sir George Cartier's apparent want of courtesy to the Missionary Board. Sir Alexander Campbell, on seeing a report of the Conference proceedings on the subject, wrote a very kind note to Dr. Ryerson, in which he expressed his opinion that some mistake must have occurred in the matter, and that he was sure no discourtesy was thought of on the part of Sir George Cartier. To this note Dr. Ryerson replied on the 18th of June:—

I yesterday received your very kind letter of the 13th inst. I think you know too well my high respect, and even affection for you, and my expectations long since formed of your success and usefulness to the country, as a public man, to doubt my implicit confidence in any statement made by you, and my desire to meet your views as far as possible.

In the matter as relating to Sir George E. Cartier, I may remark, that the President of the Wesleyan Conference stated to me the week before its annual meeting, that a communication had been addressed by himself, and the Missionary Secretaries, to Sir George Cartier respecting our sending a Wesleyan Minister with the Red River expedition, to supply the spiritual wants of many members of our own congregations, and proposing to confer with him (Sir G. C.) as to the arrangement; that he regarded the treatment of their letter by Sir George as discourteous, and that he thought the Conference should be informed of it, and that it should take some action on the subject. The Rev. Dr. Wood, senior Missionary Secretary, read to the Conference the correspondence and the draft of four resolutions, on the subject of which he gave notice. I was not in the Conference when this took place. On reading Dr. Wood's resolutions, I suggested some modifications of them, and prepared resolutions which he preferred to his own, and which I proposed for adoption the day after giving notice of them.

As to Sir George's courtesy, I may observe that the letter addressed to him, proposed a conference with him on the subject: that his Deputy, in reply, by direction of Sir George Cartier, as he says, acknowledged the receipt of the letter addressed to him, but though that letter was dated at Toronto, and signed officially, the answer to it was addressed simply to the "Rev. Mr. Punshon, Montreal," and no further notice taken of it to this day. And it seems that Sir George did not think it worth his while even to mention, much less submit the letter, to you and your colleagues from Upper Canada.

In regard to the question of chaplain, our view is, and the proposal contemplated by our President and Missionary Secretaries was, that the Government should not pay any salary to the chaplain, but simply provide his rations and accommodations. It is our view that the Government should not pay or appoint any chaplain, but leave to each denomination the right of doing so, if it should think proper. Each chaplain thus nominated and paid, to be recognized by the military authorities, and be subject, of course, to the military regulations. In such circumstances, it is probable there would have been three Protestant chaplains—Church of England, Presbyterian, and Methodist. I infer or assume this on the ground of experience. In our Normal School of one hundred and fifty students, each is asked his religious persuasion, and the chief minister of that persuasion is furnished with a list of the names of students adhering to or professing his Church, and the day, and hour, and place where he can give them religious instruction. The result is, that by mutual consultation and agreement of ministers, all the Presbyterians, including even the Congregationalists and Baptists, meet in one class, and receive religious instruction from one minister, the ministers agreeing to take the labour in successive sessions—one minister performing all the duty one session. The arrangement voluntarily exists among the different classes of Methodists—though Wesleyan ministers do all the work. A Church of England minister attends to the instruction and religious oversight of the Church of England students, and the chief Roman Catholic priest does the same in regard to the Roman Catholic students. Nothing can be more fair, practical, and satisfactory than a similar arrangement in regard to the Red River expedition. What may be the peculiar views, habits, etc. of the Church of England chaplain appointed and salaried by the Government, I know not; but you know as well as I do that a man being a clergyman of the Church of England is no longer a guarantee that he does not entertain and teach views and practices more subversive of unsophisticated Protestant principles and feelings than could be as successfully done by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides, as a general rule, men, especially young men, do not regard, and are not controlled, as to their own worship and pastorate, except by the services and pastoral oversight to which they are accustomed and attached; and without such influence and aid to the preservation and strengthening of moral principles, habits, and feelings, more young men are liable to be demoralized and ruined in military expeditions, such as that of the Red River, than are likely to be killed in battle or die of disease.

This is the view for which the Methodist body will contend, whatever may be the result. The Secretaries of the Bible Society went among the volunteers, while at Toronto, and proffered a Bible to each one that would accept of it, and found on inquiry, that four-fifths of the volunteers, even from Lower Canada, were Protestants, and a much larger proportion of the volunteers of Upper Canada, and a large number of them not members of the Church of England but Methodists and Presbyterians. Of course, it answers the Roman Catholic purpose, and will doubtless be acceptable to many members of the Church of England, for the Government to appoint and pay chaplains of those persuasions; but I am persuaded there will be little difference of a contrary opinion on the subject among the ministers and members of the excluded persuasions. I wish I could share with you in your expressed confidence in Sir George Cartier, but I have no such confidence in him, and especially in the ecclesiastical influence under the dictation of which he acts. Wherein I may have been misinformed, and may not have stated matters correctly, I shall be prepared to correct any such errors, when I come to reply to the various attacks which have been made upon me, in vindication of myself, and the Wesleyan Conference in regard to the complaint made, and the position assumed in respect to Sir George E. Cartier, and the Red River business.

On the 30th June, Mr. James Wallace, of Whitby, addressed Dr. Ryerson a letter on the subject, in which he said:—

On the 24th August, 1870, the corner stone of the Metropolitan Church, Toronto, was laid. Dr. Ryerson felt that it was a memorable day in the annals of Methodism in Toronto. I was honoured (he said) by being selected to lay the corner stone of the Metropolitan Church. Rev. Dr. Punshon, President of the Conference was present, and delivered an admirable address. He also read one which I had prepared, but which I was unable to deliver myself. The auspicious event of the day amply repaid me for the anxiety which I had so long felt in regard to the success of the enterprise, and for the responsibility which, with other devoted brethren, I had personally assumed to secure the site, and carry to a successful issue the erection of a building which would be an honour to Methodism, and a credit to the cause in Toronto.

On the 17th March, 1871, Dr. Ryerson received a letter from the venerable Rev. Dr. James Dixon, dated Bradford, Eng., 2nd inst. In it he says:—In my eighty-third year, blind, deaf, and so paralyzed as to be unable to walk without assistance, I feel that the world is fast receding. Having sense and affection remaining, I feel desirous of holding a little fellowship once more with you, my dear old friend. The world to me looks like one of your forests with the trees cut down, except here and there one a little stronger than the rest. I look upon you as one of those, vigorous forest trees still remaining. And may you long remain, a blessing to your country and the Church! After referring to his own religious life and experiences, he concludes:—As long as I live my affection for you will never vary. I also remember other Canadian friends with great interest and affection. Farewell! my dear old friend. We shall meet again before long in a brighter world. If you can find time, I shall be most happy to receive a line from you.

Dr. Ryerson did find time to respond to the letter of his dear and valued friend Dr. Dixon. His venerable aspect was well remembered, when, as President of the Canada Conference in 1848, he did good and valued service for the Methodist Church in Canada.

On the 29th of June, 1871, Mr. John Macdonald and Rev. Dr. Evans having asked Dr. Ryerson to enclose to Rev. W. M. Punshon a letter urging him to continue his noble work in Canada, he did so most heartily, as the letter to be enclosed expressed the real sentiments not only of the ministers and members of the Church generally, but those of the country at large. Dr. Ryerson accompanied the letter with a note from himself, in which he said to Mr. Punshon:—To have the power, as God has given you, to mould, to a large extent, the energies and labours of six hundred ministers, and developments of the Canadian Church, and to control largely the public mind in religious and benevolent enterprises—looking at the future of our country—appears to me to present a field of usefulness that Mr. Wesley himself might have coveted in his day. All that God has enabled you to do already in this country is but the foundation and beginning of what there is the prospect of your doing hereafter by the Divine blessing. You know this is the old ground on which I first proposed to you to come to this country, and which I am sure you have no reason to regret. This is the only ground on which I ought to desire your continued connection with it.

A pleasing episode in the Globe controversy respecting Dr. Ryerson's "First Lessons on Christian Morals," occurred in June, 1872. Bishop Bethune, in his address to the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, spoke of the increasing spread of evil, and of the duty of the Church, under her Divine Master, to cope with it. He said:

In response to this portion of his address, Dr. Ryerson addressed the following note to the Bishop on the 1st of July.

I feel it my bounden, at the same time most pleasurable duty, to thank you with all my heart for your more than kind reference to myself in your official charge at the opening of the recent Synod of the Diocese of Toronto; and especially do I feel grateful and gratified for your formal and hearty recognition of the Christian character of our Public School System, and of the efforts which have been made to render that character a practical reality, and not a mere dead and heartless form.

It has also been peculiarly gratifying to me to learn that your Lordship's allusions to myself and the school system were very generally and cordially cheered by the members of the Synod.

My own humble efforts to invest our school system with a Christian character and spirit have been seconded from the beginning by the cordial and unanimous co-operation of the Council of Public Instruction; and without that co-operation my own individual efforts would have availed but little.

Since the settlement of the common relationship of all religious persuasions to the State, there is a common patriotic ground for the exertions of all, without the slightest reasonable pretext for political jealousy or hostility on the part of any. On such ground of comprehensiveness, and of avowed Christian principles, I have endeavoured to construct our Public School System; such, and such only has been my aim in the teachings of my little book on Christian Morals; and such only was the aim and spirit of the Council of Public Instruction in the recommendation of it,—a recommendation to which the Council inflexibly adheres, and which it has cordially and decidedly vindicated.

The Bishop replied on the 3rd of July, thus:—I have to thank you for your letter of the 1st instant, received last evening, and to express my gratification that I had the opportunity to bear my humble testimony to your zealous and righteous efforts to promote the sound education of the youth of this Province.

I believe that in the endeavours to give this a moral and religious direction, you have done all that, in the circumstances of the country, it was in your power to accomplish. I was glad, too, to give utterance to my protest against the shameless endeavours to hold up to public scorn the valuable little work by which you desired to give a moral and religious tone to the instruction communicated in our Common Schools. If more can be done in this direction, I feel assured you would assume any allowable amount of responsibility in the endeavour to effect it.

Wishing you many years of health and usefulness, I remain, dear Dr. Ryerson, very faithfully yours,

A. N. Toronto.

This correspondence affords a striking instance of the fact that the very earnest discussions between the writers of these notes in past years, had not diminished in any way the personal respect and kindly feeling which happily existed between them. And it was so with the late venerable Bishop Strachan, with whom Dr. Ryerson more than once measured swords in days gone by. Among his very latest utterances on the Separate School Question in the Synod of 1856, he thus referred to the Head of the Education Department and his labours:—

One new feature, which I consider of great value, and for which I believe we are altogether indebted to the able Superintendent, deserves special notice: it is the introduction of daily prayers. We find that 454 schools open and close with prayer. This is an important step in the right direction, and only requires a reasonable extension to render the system in its interior, as it is already in its exterior, nearly complete. But till it receives this necessary extension, the whole system, in a religious and spiritual view, may be considered almost entirely dead.

I do not say that this is the opinion of Dr. Ryerson, who no doubt believes his system very nearly perfect; and so far as he is concerned, I am one of those who appreciate very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and his administrative capacity. I am also most willing to admit that he has carried out the meagre provisions of the several enactments that have any leaning to religion, as far as seems consistent with a just interpretation of the law.—Charge of 1856, pp. 15, 16.

In a note dated Toronto, 2nd October, 1872, Hon. W. B. Robinson sent to Dr. Ryerson an extract from the Barrie Northern Advance containing an obituary notice of Dr. Ryerson. In enclosing it, Mr. Robinson said:—

The extract from the Barrie paper is as follows:—

Hon. Marshall S. Bidwell died in New York shortly after his visit to Canada in 1872. Hon. Judge Neilson, his friend, wrote to Dr. Ryerson for particulars of Mr. Bidwell's early life, with a view to publish it in a memorial volume. This information Dr. Ryerson obtained from Sir W. B. Richards, Clarke Gamble, Esq., Q.C., and Rev. Dr. Givens, and, with his own, embodied it in a communication to Judge Neilson. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated 30th April, 1873, the late Rev. Dr. Saltern Givens said:—

The following is Mr. Bidwell's letter to Hon. W. B. Robinson, dated 24th February, 1863:—

I thank you for your kind and friendly letter, and for the particular account of the closing scenes of the life of your honoured and lamented brother. The wound inflicted by his death can never be altogether healed. The grief which it produces is natural and rational, and is not inconsistent with any of the precepts, or with the spirit of the Gospel. It is a duty, however, to keep it within bounds, and not to allow murmurs in our heart against Divine Providence. The language of our hearts should be that of the Patriarch, "The Lord gave, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord." Gratitude for the gift should be mingled with our deep sorrow for the loss of it. In my own case, a consideration of the unspeakable goodness of God in having bestowed upon me such an inestimable blessing has been continually present to my mind, and trust such feelings will abound in the bosom of Lady Robinson, her family, and yourself. He, whose removal from earthly scenes your hearts deplore, was all that you could have desired, in his public and private character, and in the homage of universal veneration and esteem. Where will you find one like him? Was there not great and peculiar goodness in God's bestowing him upon you? Was he not the joy and pride of your hearts continually? Did not his presence irradiate his home, and make it like an earthly Paradise? Every pang which you may suffer attests the value of the blessing which you have so long had. Your gratitude to God, the author of every good and perfect gift, ought to be in proportion to your grief. It is to be remembered, also, that he was not cut down prematurely in the midst of his days, but had passed the period which Moses, the man of God, in his sublime and pathetic prayer (Psalm xc.) considers as the ordinary boundary of human life, and retained all his powers and faculties to the last; and that during this long life he had not been absent from his family, at least not from Lady Robinson (if I am not mistaken) except during the transient separation when he was on the circuit. It is natural that your hearts should yearn for him, should long to see him again, and enjoy the pleasure of his company; yet death must sooner or later have separated you, and longer life might have been a scene of suffering. Would it not have been inexpressibly painful to you all to have seen his mental and bodily powers decay and fade away? Such a spectacle would have been distressing and mortifying. Now his memory is associated with no humiliating recollections; but you remember him as one always admired, respected and loved. Death has set his seal upon him, and although he is removed from you to return no more to earthly scenes, you know that it is only a removal, and that he is now in a state of exalted and perfect, though ever progressive, felicity. I trust you have the most consolatory evidence that this is now his present and unalterable state, and that you constantly think as David thought and said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." In the meantime you have the consolation of knowing that while you remember him with the tenderest affection and interest, he has not forgotten you, but has a more distinct and perfect recollection of you than you have of him. That this is literally true is the conviction of my understanding, founded not only upon reason and analogy, but upon the irrefragable testimony of divine revelation. There surely is nothing in such a thought that is improbable. We have daily experience of the revival in our minds of past events long forgotten; they lived there, though dormant. Then how many well authenticated and well known instances, where persons recovered from drowning have stated that before they lost consciousness, all the scenes and incidents of their lives flashed instantaneously, as it were, upon their minds, and appeared to be present to their view. They had been treasured up there, though latent. Death does not extinguish the mental faculties, thought does not cease, but the conscious and thinking being passes from scenes present to scenes eternal. "Mortality is swallowed up of life." There would be good ground for this conviction, if revelation gave us no higher proof; but it is explicit. "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." This necessarily implies a perfect recollection of our lives. We are to answer for all the deeds done in the body; for every idle word, for every secret and sinful thought and feeling. This requires a perfect recollection of every event, sentiment, and emotion of our lives. The soul, therefore, must carry into the unseen world a perfect recollection of its associates and friends; and as there will be no decay then of mental powers, this will be an abiding, ever-present recollection. Every holy feeling will also continue after death—conjugal, parental, filial, fraternal affections are holy; they are expressly enjoined upon us by divine authority. Love, indeed, pure, fervent affection, is the characteristic element of Heaven. It is impossible, therefore, that the holy affections should cease at death. I have, therefore, a conviction that our departed friends, whose death we mourn, remember us distinctly and with tender affection. I have dwelt upon this subject because it has afforded me in my great affliction much consolation, and if I had time, I might expatiate more fully upon it, and adduce further evidence in support of its truth.

Yes! it is a truth, and therefore it is full of consolation. While we are thinking of our departed friends with grief, they, too, are thinking of us, with at least equal affection, and this they will continue to do until we meet. In the meantime we may comfort ourselves with the thought that, to use the language of a sober and judicious commentator on the sacred Scriptures, "The separation will be short, the re-union rapturous, and the subsequent felicity uninterrupted, unalloyed, and eternal."

I have felt peculiar sympathy for Lady Robinson. I am sure her affliction must be extreme. I hope the Son of God is with her in the furnace, and that she has a consciousness of His presence. He can give both support and consolation, and both she must greatly need. He can gently, and imperceptibly, bind up and heal her wounded and bleeding heart.

I wish that I could furnish reminiscences that would be interesting to you, for I should be glad to testify my respect for the memory of your brother, but I cannot tell you anything with which you are not familiar. I remember distinctly his appearance the first time I saw him. He had just returned to Canada, after his first visit to England. I was a student at law, and had gone from Bath to Toronto, to attend the Court of King's Bench at Michaelmas Term. He, and Lady Robinson, came from Kingston in the steamer "Frontenac." I think that Mr. Hagerman was on board also. From another passenger, I heard that on the voyage they were overtaken at night by a storm, which stove in the dead-lights, and poured a flood of water into the cabin. It was a time of alarm, probably of danger; your brother was perfectly composed. He came into court on his arrival, and upon that occasion I saw him. His appearance was striking. His features were classically and singularly beautiful; his countenance was luminous with intelligence and animation; his whole appearance that of a man of genius and a polished gentleman, equally dignified and graceful. Altogether his features, figure and manners filled my youthful imagination with admiration, which subsequent acquaintance, and opportunities to hear him at the Bar and in Parliament, only strengthened, and which was not diminished by the difference between us in our views and opinions on public affairs. I heard him frequently at the Bar, and upon some occasions, I had the honour to be junior counsel with him.

He was a consummate advocate, as well as a profound and accurate lawyer. He had extraordinary powers for a speech impromptu, and needed as little time for preparation for an address to a jury, or an argument to the Court, as any one I have ever known. But he was never induced by this readiness to neglect a patient and careful attention to his client's case.

No one could be more faithful. He studied every case thoroughly, examined all the particular circumstances, made himself master of its details, and considered it carefully, in all its aspects and relations. I do not think he ever delivered a speech from memory. He was self-possessed in the trial, his mind was vigilant, his thoughts flowed rapidly, he had rapid association of ideas, great quickness of apprehension, as well as great sagacity, and a power of arranging anything in his mind, luminously and instantaneously; his fluency was unsurpassed.

I was present upon those occasions in Parliament which aroused him to great exertions.

He was at all times a correct, elegant, interesting speaker, but upon those occasions he spoke with great force and effect.

The fire of his eye, the animation of his countenance and the elegance of his manner, combined with dignity, cannot be appreciated by any one who did not hear him. No report of his speeches, no description of his manner and appearance, can convey to others a just and adequate idea. To report him verbatim was impossible. His ideas flowed so rapidly, and he had such fluency of language, that no reporter could have kept pace with his delivery. He was an admirable parliamentary leader. He never exposed himself by any incautious speech or act, and never failed to detect and expose one on the other side. He was sincere and earnest in his opinions, uncompromising, frank and fearless in the expression of them. He never attempted to make a display of himself, or indulged in useless declamation; but spoke earnestly and for the purpose of producing an immediate effect. I heard that when he was in England in 1823 (I think that was the year), the ministry had under consideration introducing him through one of their boroughs into Parliament. If it had been done, I have no doubt he would have become a distinguished member of the House of Commons, and I think it probable that he would have attained to the highest honours of the land. During two years I had the honour to be Speaker of the House of Assembly, while he was Speaker of the Legislative Council; our official stations rendered it necessary for us to confer together concerning the business before Parliament. He was always courteous, communicative and obliging. The difference between us on political questions while I was in Parliament precluded intimate or confidential relations, but he was always pleasant and candid, and more than once did I share in that elegant hospitality which was dispensed so cordially and so gracefully by him and Lady Robinson.

I have had the honor to receive friendly letters from him occasionally since I have been here, and after my great affliction last spring he wrote to me two very kind letters for which I shall ever be grateful.

I should be sincerely glad to evince my respect for his memory. I have not space left to add anything respecting his judicial character and career, but this is unimportant. Every one in Canada knows it.