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

CHAPTER XLI.

1844.

Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended against his Councillors.

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

Rev. Egerton Ryerson ... proposes ... to prove [from the] testimony of his late Advisers ... that His Excellency is entitled to the verdict of the country on every count of the indictment got up against him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been alleged again and again, that Sir Charles Metcalfe was opposed to responsible government and that I supported him in it. The only pretext for this was, that in the contest with Sir Charles Metcalfe his opponents introduced party appointments as an essential element of responsible government, which they themselves had disavowed in previous years when advocating that system of government. The doctrine of making appointments according to party (however common now, with its degenerating influences) was then an innovation upon all previously professed doctrines of reformers, as I proved to a demonstration in my letters in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe.

Sir Francis Hincks, in an historical lecture delivered at Montreal, in 1877, has revived this charge against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has attempted to create the impression that there was a sort of conspiracy between the late Earl of Derby and Lord Metcalfe to extinguish responsible government in Canada. For such an insinuation there is not a shadow of reason, though the author may have thought so, from his strong personal feelings and former party views, as one of the actors in the struggle.

I was in England during the latter part of 1844 and 1845, when the Earl of Derby was Colonial Secretary, and had more than one conversation with him on Canadian affairs; and I know that the Earl of Derby had no more intention or desire to abolish responsible government in Canada than had Sir Francis Hincks himself. The Earl of Derby had, indeed, fears lest the party in power, under the new system, should act upon the narrow and prescriptive principles and spirit of the old tory party, and wished to see that with the new system an enlarged policy would extinguish the hatreds, as well as the proscriptions, of the past, and unite all classes in the good government and for the advancement of the country. This was the view of Lord Metcalfe; and this was the view advocated in my letters in his defence, which may be appealed to in proof that the essence of that contest was not responsible government, but as to whether or not the distribution of the patronage of the Crown should be dispensed upon the principles of party, or on those of justice and morality.

I may add an illustrative and curious incident on this subject:—On the passing of the Imperial Act for confederating the British North American Colonies into the Dominion of Canada, and its proclamation, I wrote and published an address to the people of Upper Canada in 1868, suggesting to them to forget the differences of the past, and the principles and spirit in which they should introduce the new system of government, and build up for themselves a united and prosperous nation. A few days after the publication of this address, I met in the street, an honourable gentleman, who had been one of the party opposed to Sir Charles Metcalfe, a member of a Liberal government, a life-long Reformer. He complimented me on my recent address to the people of Upper Canada; but added, "The great mistake of your life was the letters you wrote in defence of Lord Metcalfe." I answered, "Do you think so?" "Yes," said he, "that was the great mistake of your life." "And," said I, "you approve of my recent public address?" "Yes," he answered, "I think it is the best thing you ever wrote." "Well," said I, "do you know that that address with the exception of the introductory and concluding paragraphs, is a reproduction, word for word, of my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe, counselling my fellow-countrymen as to the principles and spirit in which they should act in carrying into effect the then new system of responsible government!" He exclaimed, "It cannot be! I have these letters." I said, "It can be; and it is so; and if you will compare my third letter in defence of Lord Metcalfe with my recent address, you will find that I have not omitted an illustration from Greek, or Roman, or English history, or an authority from standard writers, on political or moral science, or a petition or address from Reformers from the rebellion of 1837 to the establishment of responsible government under Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot in 1840-42; that I have not added to, or omitted, a word, but have repeated verbatim et literatim in 1868, in regard to confederate government, what I advised the people of Canada in 1844 in regard to responsible government." And now, I continued, "who has changed? you or I?" "Oh," he said, "circumstances alter cases." "Truly," I said, "circumstances alter cases; but circumstances don't change principles; I wrote on the principles and spirit of government irrespective of party." On such principles I have endeavoured to act throughout my more than half a century of public life—principles, the maintenance of which has sometimes brought me into collision with the leaders of one party, and sometimes in opposition to those of another party; but principles which I have found higher and stronger than party.

A day or two after the issue of Dr. Ryerson's first paper in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, Hon. Isaac Buchanan sent to him copies of letters which he had written to Hon. Joseph Howe, Halifax, and to Civil Secretary Higginson, Kingston, on the Metcalfe controversy. In this letter he said:—

It is with infinite pleasure that I see you have publicly come out to tell the truth as to politics and public men. The fact is, politics in a new country are either the essential principles of society or parish business. In both cases every man is interested, and to a less extent than in an old state of things, where in a hereditary educated class, there are natural guardians of the public virtue. Is it objectionable that clergymen interfere in the arrangement of detail for the happiness of the country? But it is, as I have always maintained, their most imperative duty to hold and express an opinion on constitutional politics. The priests in Lower Canada, from not doing so, permitted the rebellion of 1837. I, myself, care nothing, and never did care anything, for party politics in Canada; and, in my mind, the distinction has always been more marked between these and constitutional politics than I have been able to explain.

Dr. Ryerson did not attend the opening of Conference at Kingston, in June, 1844. Mr. Higginson wrote to him on the 12th to express his disappointment at not seeing him there, and added:—

Of your letters—your admirable letters—I only hear one opinion, that they are most powerful, unassailable; and this the opposition press appears to find them, for I can perceive no attempt to answer the convincing arguments adduced by you. They merely abuse you and impugn your motives: lying and misrepresentation are their favourite weapons.

You will have heard of the discovery of the Orange Plot, the conspiracy between Sir C. Metcalfe and Ogle R. Gowan to upset the Government!

We had a very satisfactory communication from Lord Stanley, by the last packet, entirely approving of the "dignified and temperate" conduct of the Governor, and assuring him of the strenuous support of Her Majesty's Government, in resisting the "unreasonable and exorbitant pretensions of the late Cabinet." Shall we see you again before we move to Montreal? Sir Charles goes to the Falls, and then returns to Kingston, which he leaves on the 20th for Montreal.

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

As you will no doubt think it right, after you complete the series of your admirable and unanswerable letters, to expose the fallacy and falsehood with which Hon. R. B. Sullivan, as "Legion," endeavours to bolster up his arguments in reply to them, I think the enclosed prÉcis of a conversation that took place between the leader of the French party in the late Council and myself, early in May last, will convince you that His Excellency did not write his despatch of the 23rd of that month, quoted in the debate by Lord Stanley, upon insufficient grounds, or in ignorance of the real sentiments and inclinations of his then advisers. Letter No. 5 of "Legion," in referring to this despatch, charges His Excellency with what he calls paraphrasing, or, in other words, misrepresentation, as no men in their senses could have made such demands as the late Council are stated to have urged. The words made use of by His Excellency are not theirs, it is true; but did not the opinions expressed by Mr. Lafontaine, their leader, bear out the assertion? I regret that Lord Stanley did not quote what followed. I have given the meaning, rather than the words, of the dictatorial Councillor; but I have not in the slightest degree exaggerated the substance of his discourse. I ought to add that the conversation originated in a rumour of His Excellency's intending to appoint a Provincial Aide-de-camp, of whom Mr. Lafontaine did not approve; and that, although addressed to me, I could only suppose that it was intended for the ears of His Excellency. You will, of course, not believe the newspaper statements of Sir Charles having sent for Mr. Lafontaine. Ever since our arrival here the French party have been urging that the only way of getting out of our difficulties is by allowing Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin to resume their places—as the French people believe that they cannot enjoy responsible government without them. To this His Excellency cannot consent. What the result may be is not quite clear; our future plans have been delayed by this negotiation, which, though still pending, must terminate in a day or two. I hope that under any circumstances we shall be able to meet the present Parliament, if not with a majority, at least with a strong minority.

The following is the PrÉcis to which I refer:—

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

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

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

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

I have written these papers ... as a man who has no temporal interest whatever, except in common with that of his native country—the field of his life's labours—the seat of his best affections—the home of his earthly hopes;—up to the present time I have never received one farthing of its revenue. I know something of the kinds and extent of the sacrifices which are involved in my thus coming before the public. If others have resigned office, I have declined it, and under circumstances very far less propitious than those under which the late Councillors stepped out.... I have no interest in the appointment of one set of men to office, or in the exclusion of any other man, or set of men, from office. I know but one chief end of civil government—the public good; and I have one rule of judging the acts and sentiments of all public men—their tendency to promote the public good.... I am as independent of Messrs. Viger, Draper and Daly, as I am of Messrs. Baldwin, Sullivan and Hincks.... I might appeal to more than one instance in which the authority and patronage of the Governor did not prevent me from defending the constitutional rights of my fellow-subjects and native country.... The independent and impartial judgment which I myself endeavour to exercise, I desire to see exercised by every man in Canada. I believe it comports best with constitutional safety, with civil liberty, with personal dignity, with public duty, with national greatness. With the politics of party—involving the confederacy, the enslavement, the selfishness, the exclusion, the trickery, the antipathies, the crimination of party, no good man ought to be identified.... With the politics of government—involving its objects, its principles, its balanced powers, its operations—even against the encroachments of any party—every British subject has much to do. Civil government, as St. Paul says, "is an ordinance of God." Every Christian ... is to see it not abused, or trampled under foot, or perverted to party or sectional purposes; but he is to seek its application to the beneficent ends for which it was designed by our common Creator and Governor. Such have been the ends for which the people of Canada have long sought its application; such have been the ends sought by the Governor-General.

Dr. Ryerson, in his letter to Mr. Higginson (26th July) said:

I have now concluded my defence of His Excellency against the attacks of his late councillors. I have done the best I could. As to its influence upon the public mind, I am, of course, not responsible. I cannot compel persons to read, think, or reason, however I may do so for them. In some places, I am told, a most essential change has taken place in the public mind, in consequence of the perusal of my letters. In other places, passion has prevented the perusal of them, and numbers of persons have just become calm enough to desire to peruse them, and are anxiously waiting for the pamphlet edition.

I have not yet heard of any one who has read them all, who has not become convinced of the correctness of my reasoning. But it is the opinion of persons who have far better means of judging than I have, that the effect of them the next two months will be much greater than during the last two months. The violent feelings which the whole party of the Leaguers sought to excite against myself have, to a great extent, subsided, and a spirit of inquiry and reflection is returning to the public mind. I believe nothing has been done to circulate my articles among the mass of the people—beyond the ordinary newspaper agency. I believe that were my ninth number itself printed and widely circulated in Upper Canada in tract form, it would prepare the way for the success of a just administration, consisting of any persons whom His Excellency might select—at least so far as the great majority of the people of Western Canada is concerned. I think the decision of the Imperial Government on the whole question should be laid before the Legislature in a despatch. The matter would be thus brought to a single issue, and I doubt not but the prerogative would be placed upon the true foundation.

To proceed again to legislation, without a distinct settlement of this question, appears to me derogatory to the dignity of the Crown itself (both in England and Canada) and unsafe in every respect; and unjust to both His Excellency and to all who have supported him. I think also that the Hon. Mr. Draper ought (if necessary) to be supported as strongly as ever George III. supported Mr. Pitt. Mr. Draper has thrown himself into the breach, and defended and supported the Government in no less than three emergencies, when others have abandoned, and even sought to overthrow it. I think that Mr. Draper ought not to be made a sacrifice, without an appeal to the people. Much prejudice and passion have, of course, been excited by the Leaguers since last January, and they have formed a regular and extensive organization; but a reaction has already commenced; the backbone of their power is broken. They can form branches, associations, and threaten us as they did a few months ago; but not a few amongst themselves are wavering. If the Government will act with liberality and energy, and the Home Government transmit an official decision on the question at issue, to be first submitted to the Legislature and then to the people, I believe His Excellency's exertions will be crowned with a glorious victory, to his own credit, the honour of the British Crown, the strengthening of our connection with the Mother Country, and the great future benefit of Canada.

As to myself: when I commenced this discussion I did not know what might be my own fate in respect to it. I wished, at least, to do my duty to my family; to quiet their apprehension, and not embarrass and distrust my own mind, while undertaking a task of so great magnitude.

In regard to the past: I have completed my task to the best of my humble ability. The satisfaction of having done my duty is all the acknowledgment or commendation I desire, or can receive. With my present experience, I might perform the task in a manner more worthy of the subject, and more to my own satisfaction. I hope, however, an occasion for such a discussion may not occur again in Canada. The hostile personal feelings excited against me in some quarters will, I hope, be lived down in time. The disclosures which have been made of the alleged sins of my public, and even private life, have not, I trust, brought to light one dishonourable act, one republican or unconstitutional sentiment, even under the severest provocations, and grossest abuse.

Dr. Ryerson had written to the Governor-General early in August on several matters. He received a reply from Mr. Secretary Higginson on the 15th of that month. In it he says:—

The Governor-General looks forward to the pleasure of seeing you soon, when he will have an opportunity of personally expressing his warmest thanks for your admirable and unanswerable letters in defence of the Queen's Government. His Excellency feels very much indebted to you for the zeal and ability that enabled you to perform, in so truly an efficient manner, the arduous task which your patriotism and public spirit induced you to undertake. Upon other important subjects adverted to in your letter, His Excellency will be very happy to have personal communication with you when you come down. Our object now is to complete the Council, as far as may be practicable, without the body of the French party, who doggedly refused to take part in any Administration of which Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin are not members. Mr. William Smith, of the Montreal Bar, accepts the Attorney-Generalship, for the duties of which he is said to be well qualified. He is a Liberal in politics, and has always been looked on as a friend of the French party. The Hon. Mr. Morris is willing to take the Receiver-Generalship, and I hope that Mr. W. H. Merritt will now find himself at liberty to join the Council. The Crown Lands Department will still remain unfilled; and perhaps it is well that that door should be still kept open.

Mr. Billa [now Hon. Senator] Flint, of Belleville, in a letter dated 14th August, in correcting an error in one of Dr. Ryerson's Metcalfe letters on a matter of fact, adds:—

I hope soon to read your pamphlet, but in not reading your letters heretofore, I have been enabled to answer the attacks of your enemies, not on the grounds of a consent, but upon other, and I trust better ground, that of not condemning a man unheard, as is the case in this part of the community, and as I have stated that you must be near right from the fact that your enemies dare not publish your productions.

With a view to aid Dr. Ryerson in his personal defence, Hon. Isaac Buchanan wrote to him on the 22nd August, and said:—

As I think you may feel called on to answer the personal attacks made upon you, or, at all events, to defend the ministerial character from those who deprive it of all manliness and independence, I send you Hetherington's "History of the Church of Scotland." On one page, and in the note referred to, you will find the methods and conduct of Knox explained. It will be the best, as well as the most truthful policy on your part, to show your agreement with this great character. The effect will be great, not only on the Methodist Scotch, but all other Scotch in the Colony, for we are all for national, instead of party, freedom; we prefer our country to our party.

It may be my fondness for my country; but I think no other country, or people, have ever shown that indomitable love of equal justice and rational, because national freedom, as opposed to party supremacy, as we have done in Scotland.

I feel sure that you may make some happy illustrations from Hetherington's History to enlighten the public on the present state of affairs, when we are about to be enthralled by party tyranny, and do much to revive the spirit:

"Ne'er will I quail with down-cast eye
Beneath the frown of tyranny;
In freedom I have lived, in freedom I will die."

The history of our Church is not only the history of Scotland, but the history of the world's freedom from the tyranny of men, or parties.

Dr. Ryerson had written to His Excellency in regard to the issue of his letters in a pamphlet with a full index. To this letter Mr. Higginson replied on the 19th August:—

I am desired by His Excellency to repeat his thanks for your continued exertions in support of Her Majesty's Government.

Your index to the pamphlet will be exceedingly useful. I should like very much to have the pamphlet translated into French, for the benefit of the Lower Canadians, and perhaps I shall be able to accomplish it. I should be obliged by your ordering a few hundred copies to be sent to me for distribution in the Eastern Townships.

FOOTNOTES:

[123] By a singular popular error, which this sentence may have suggested, it was stated and generally believed that the Defence of Lord Metcalfe by Dr. Ryerson was written and published under the nom de plume of "Leonidas."

Clyx.com