The Story of My Life / Being Reminiscences of Sixty Years' Public Service in Canada

CHAPTER XL.

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 London Wesleyan 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 Montreal Gazette, and in a pamphlet which lately appeared in the Kingston Chronicle, 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. Though I 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.

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 Lord Chancellor 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 resignation of 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 scrupulous as 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 arguments seriatim—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.

Clyx.com