  1843-1844. Clergy Reserve Question Re-opened.—Disappointments. Extraordinary efforts were put forth (as shown in Chapter xxxiii., page 263) by the leaders of the Church of England party in Upper Canada to prevent the Royal assent being given to Lord Sydenham's Clergy Reserve compromise Bill of 1841. Equally strenuous efforts were successfully made to ensure the fulfilment of Bishop Strachan's prediction that the rejected Bill of Lord Sydenham would form the basis of an Imperial Act, which would secure to the national Churches of England and Scotland, for all time, the lion's share of the proceeds of George the Third's ill-fated gift to Canada of the clergy reserves. Lord John Russell, the pretentious and vacillating Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time, proved himself to be, in this matter, a pliant instrument in the hands of Henry of Exeter. This prelate endorsed, con amore, all the extreme views of the Bishop of Toronto; and with the aid of Lord Seaton (Sir John Colborne) and the Bench and Bishops in the House of Lords, compelled the Government to perpetuate an act of legislative usurpation and injustice, which even the tyros in constitutional law, as applied to the Colonies, were wont at the time to instance in the press as examples of history repeating itself—quoting, as an illustration, the ill-advised Imperial legislation in the case of the Stamp Act, etc. By a singular fatality, which often attends arbitrary and unjust proceedings, the success of the scheme, which had been so carefully prepared, and carried through the British Parliament in the interests of the Church of England, was destined to become a source of weakness to that Church, and a foreboding of financial disaster. On the 29th December, 1843, the Attorney and the Solicitor-General of Canada (as stated by the Bishop of Toronto in his pastoral letter of the 10th of December, 1844) reported that having attentively examined the provisions of the acts for this subject, it was their opinion that the proper construction of the law threw upon the revenues of Canada the burthen of making up any deficiency in the clergy reserve fund, in paying The Bishop then charges the Provincial Government with being the cause of this financial difficulty, and accounts for the deficiency in the fund by the mismanagement of that Government. He adds further on:— But, alas! the mismanagement has increased, pending these difficulties; and while my clergy are left in a state of destitution, large sums continue to be wasted in remunerating services which are really worse than useless, and this to such an extent as to render hopeless the expectation that the clergy reserve fund will ever answer the wise and holy purpose for which it was established. In this dilemma the Bishop states what he had done to extricate the Church out of its difficulty. In doing so, he uses language which partakes more of the character of a wail than of a simple statement of facts. He also draws a most gloomy picture of the prospective religious state of Upper Canada, should the dearly prized, and as dearly bought, Imperial Clergy Reserve Act prove, after all, to be an apple of Sodom. It is curious to notice how the Bishop, in his despairing outburst, studiously ignores the active and successful labours of the several voluntary churches—whose claims to a share in the reserves he had so strongly and selfishly opposed—churches which were even then actively engaged in "spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land," without the aid of a penny from the State. In his Pastoral, the Bishop says:— I applied to the venerable [Propagation Society] in England to advance, in the meantime, the salaries (only £100 per annum each) to my five suffering clergy,—assuring the Society that I had the fullest conviction it would be repaid as soon as it was decided which Government was liable.... The Society paid the stipends for the year ending 30th June, 1843, but have declined since that time to continue the advance.... In consequence, my five clergymen have been left without their stipends since June, 1843 [to December, 1844], ... and this large and increasing Diocese [then the whole of Upper Canada], already so destitute of the means of public worship (if the statute be allowed to operate as it has done for the last four years), will, in a spiritual sense, become, through half its extent, a wilderness. Not only are five clergymen in a state of want, but two parishes are left vacant, and the process is unhappily going on.... I have brought this disheartening and deplorable state of things under the notice of the Provincial Government.... I have pressed [the matter] upon His Excellency the Governor-General.... But all that was in my power to do has been without avail (page 6). I also quote the foregoing passages from this noted Pastoral, as they throw a vivid side-light upon the course of the Bishop in so vehemently pursuing the shadow of a state endowment for the Church of England in Upper Canada. The subsequent I represented to His Excellency, in May last, that, "on a review of this unfortunate subject ... the distress of my five clergymen, and the desolation with which it menaces the Church, it involves consequences so calamitous and imminent as to justify the representative of the sovereign in assuming more than ordinary responsibility in arresting their progress...." On the 31st October, I again brought this painful subject at great length before the Provincial Government, and stated that, having failed to receive relief, I could only see one way left of mitigating the evil, and that is by an appeal to my people on the present critical situation of the Church, and in behalf of my destitute clergymen. It is indeed a step which I take with extreme reluctance, and which, were it possible, I would most willingly avoid.... (page 6.) In a remarkable document, which the Bishop published in 1849, on "The Secular State of the Church in the Diocese of Toronto," he furnishes a painful and striking commentary on the effect of his own teaching: that it was the duty of the State to support the Church, and thus relieve the people of the chief obligation of supporting the Gospel amongst them. Speaking of "contributions to the Church within the Province," he says: Till lately we have done little or nothing towards the support of public worship. We have depended so long upon the Government and the [Propagation] Society, that many of us forget that it is our bounden duty. Instead of coming forward manfully to devote a portion of our temporal substance to the service of God, we turn away with indifference, or we sit down to count the cost, and measure the salvation of our souls by pounds, shillings, and pence.... While we are bountifully assisted, and seldom required to do more than half; yet we are seen to fail on every side (page 19). On pages 34-40 of this pamphlet, Bishop Strachan is very severe on the clergy to whom Bishop Fuller refers, whom he accuses of putting forth efforts "to disturb the peace of the diocese—efforts which were rapidly being organized into something An agitation having been commenced by the Bishop and clergy in Western Canada, in 1843, for "better terms" and an amendment to the Imperial Clergy Reserve Act of 1840, the question was re-opened. The effect of this re-opening of the question was deprecated by Dr. Ryerson and others. Early in January, 1844, Mr. Surveyor-General Parke sent to Dr. Ryerson the copy of a letter written by Rev. Prof. Campbell, of Queen's College, Kingston, in which Mr. Campbell sets up the claim of the Kirk of Scotland, having a branch in Canada, as such, to a portion of the Canadian clergy reserves. Mr. Parke says:— The writer of the letter arrives at two other conclusions, which, I think, are based on error, and calculated to interfere materially with the rights of the other bodies of Protestant Christians: namely, that the Kirk in Canada participate in the clergy reserves, solely by the right it has as a branch of the Kirk in Scotland; and that other bodies of Christians participate in them merely as an act of favour. To the first of these conclusions I entirely object, on the ground that the Act confers the reserves, purely and solely, on Canada, and for the benefit of interests and persons, absolutely within Canada. To the second conclusion or statement of the Professor, that is, that other bodies participate as a matter of favour, I object on every ground on which it is possible for equity to place the subject. What! shall the unexampled toils, and incessant labours of the early and later Methodists, and other pioneers of the christianizing of Canada, have doled out to them, as a matter of simple grace, and a body in Scotland, who never knew nor participated in the labour of sowing the seeds of the Gospel through the length and breadth of the land, claim as a matter of absolute right, for one of its branches, a participation in lands, purely Canadian in fact and law? This I can never assent to; it was the question on which, as a Methodist, I first became a Canadian politician, and it is the question on which I yet feel the keenest. I desire to call your attention to the matter, and solicit a correction from you of errors which, I think, are insidiously calculated to mislead the public mind, and make uphill work in combating other questions which may arise in unfortunate Canada, bye-and-bye. Some of the Kirk folks would monopolize for themselves, as far as they dare, and the Church of England too; but the general community, who have borne the burden and heat of the day—fought and won the battle—should not in any way have their interests and feelings trifled with by the unreasonable claims of a few, who at comparatively a late day entered the field. As the agitation increased, Dr. Ryerson, who was in England in 1845, addressed a letter to Lord Stanley, Colonial Secretary, in January, on the injustice to the non-episcopal churches of the Act of 1840. He said:— There is a subject which, in connection with transpiring circumstances in Canada, deeply involves the future condition of the government of Canada, and which can be considered by your Lordship alone: I refer to the withholding, to the present time, from the Wesleyan Methodist body in Upper Canada all benefit of the Act passed for the settlement of the clergy reserve question—a question which certain parties in Canada propose to re-open, with a view of depriving the Church of England of what is considered a disproportionate share of the proceeds of the clergy reserves. The advantage I should deeply lament the re-agitation of the clergy reserve question in Canada. Such a step, on the part of the great Wesleyan body there, would doubtless be attended by the strengthening of the opposition in the Legislature, and to probable withdrawal of the support of several members from the present Government. In an interview with the official Committee of the Wesleyan body, shortly before I left Canada, I promised them to bring the subject before your Lordship during my stay in England. They, therefore, deferred appealing to the Local Legislature to interpose in their behalf, until they should learn the result of such an appeal to your Lordship.... I cannot suppose that it has been the wish of your Lordship, any more than the intention of the Crown officers, to perpetuate the exclusion of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada from their confessedly-just claim of which they have already been deprived for a period of four years. The amount of the claim is less than one-half of what has been secured to the Roman Catholic Church in Upper Canada—less than one-third of the amount paid the Church of Scotland, and less than one-tenth of what has been guaranteed to the Church of England. The Wesleyan body, whose members in Upper Canada have increased eight thousand during the last four years, will be satisfied on the payment of the sum admitted in their behalf. And I submit that the sanctioning of it by your Lordship will, in my humble opinion, be far better, even as a matter of policy—apart from higher considerations—than affording just ground for an agitation, the consequences of which cannot be easily foreseen. No relief was, however, afforded by a change in the administration of the Act of 1840. The Act itself remained unrepealed until 1853. FOOTNOTES: |
|
