  1839. Strategy in the Clergy Reserve Controversy. The year 1839 was somewhat noted for the prolonged and animated discussions which took place in and out of the Legislature on the clergy reserve question. There were some new features in the discussion of the preceding year which had their effect on the clergy reserve legislation of that year. And while they partially ceased to be influential in the discussions of 1839, yet the legislation of that year was practically brought to the same issue as that of 1838, only that it was more decisive. It may be interesting, therefore, to refer to these special features in the discussion of 1838-9. The first was the final change of tactics on the part of the leaders of the Church of England party in the contest. The second was the persistent and personal efforts which Lieutenant Governor Arthur put forth in behalf of that party, so as to enable them to accomplish their object, and, at the same time, to counteract the efforts of those who were seeking to uphold Canadian and popular rights. The third was (as shown in the last chapter) the plan adopted to foment discord in the Methodist body—which was by far the most formidable opponent of the scheme of monopoly and aggrandisement which the ruling party was seeking to promote. At this distance of time it is easy to survey the whole field of conflict, and to note the plans and strategies of the combatants. Although efforts had hitherto been made to shift the battle-ground from Upper Canada to England, yet, as the Colonial Secretary had discouraged such efforts as unwise, and as an unnecessary interference with the rights of the Provincial Legislature, the matter was not openly pressed in 1839. Nor was it pressed at all to a conclusion in 1838. For, by a singular coincidence, the very day (29th December, 1837) on which Mr. Cartwright had moved to bring a bill into the House of Assembly to revest the clergy reserve in Her Majesty, Sir George Grey penned a despatch to Sir George Arthur, in which he disclaimed, on behalf of the Imperial Government, Such interference would tend to create a not unreasonable suspicion of the sincerity with which the Legislature have been invited to the exercise of the power [to vary or repeal] reserved to them on this subject by the Constitutional Act of 1791. It is likely that the publication of this despatch prevented the House of Assembly from proceeding any farther with Mr. Cartwright's bill, than ordering it to a second reading on the 26th February, 1838. In this dilemma the ruling party were evidently at a loss how to act. It required much tact and skill to break the ranks of the chief forces arrayed against the scheme to revest the reserves in the Crown—a scheme distasteful to Canadians generally, and subversive of the legislative independence of Upper Canada. Two methods were therefore adopted: The first was to divide the Methodists (as shown in the last chapter). The second and more astute one was to appeal to the professed loyalty of that class which hitherto had been held up to scorn as disloyal, and denounced as republican in its tendencies, as well as seditious in their conduct. The appeal was varied in form, but it was in substance that as those who made it were not themselves afraid to trust their interests in the hands of the Sovereign, their opponents should be equally trustful in the equal and entire justice which would be meted out to all of her Canadian subjects. The two other methods adopted (already referred to) were only partially successful; but the three combined, no doubt, strengthened the hands of the advocates of the scheme for the re-investment of the reserves in the Crown. They, however, ceased to press the matter upon public attention, being determined to bide their time, and (as events proved), to carry their point in another and more skilful way. In the meantime, and early in 1839, Dr. Ryerson was deputed by several important circuits to present loyal addresses to Sir George Arthur. This he did on the 2nd February; and in enclosing them to the Governor's secretary, used language which sounds strange in these days of religious equality. He said: I feel myself fully authorized, by various communications and my official position, to assure His Excellency that the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church will not be contented with subordinate civil standing to any other church, any more than the members of the Church of Scotland. They do not, and never have asked for any peculiar advantages; but they feel that upon the principles of justice, by labours, by usefulness, by character, by numbers, and by the principles laid down in royal despatches, they are entitled, in the eye of the law, and in the administration of an impartial government, to equal consideration, and equal advantages with any other church. I am confident that I but state a simple fact, when I express our belief that the Methodist Church, in its doctrines, ministry, and institutions, furnishes as formidable a barrier against the irreligion and infidelity of the times as any other section of Protestantism. Nor is it possible for us—notwithstanding our unfeigned respect for His Excellency—to feel ourselves under any obligations to tender our support to another section of the Protestant Church, whose clergy, in this Province, collectively, officially, and individually (with solitary exceptions), have resisted the attainment of every civil and religious privilege we now enjoy—have twice impeached our character and principles before the Imperial Government—who deny the legitimacy of our ministry, who, in their doctrines respecting Church polity, and several points of faith, do not represent the doctrines of the Church of England, or of the established clergy in England as a body, but that section only of the established clergy that have associated with all arbitrary measures of government against various classes of Protestant non-conformists which have darkened the page of British history, and also the dark ages, notions of rites and ceremonies, and the conductor of whose official organ in this Province has recently represented the Methodist ministry as the guilty cause of those divine chastisements under the influence of which our land droops and mourns. I am sure my brethren, as well as myself, freely forgive the great wrongs thus perpetrated against us; but we feel ourselves equally bound in duty to ourselves, to our country, and to our common Christianity, to employ all lawful means to prevent such exclusive, repulsive, and proscriptive sentiments from acquiring anything more than equal protection in the Province. I might appeal to circumstances within His Excellency's knowledge, to show that from 1836 to the close of the last session of our Provincial Parliament, I have spared no pains—without the remotest view to personal or even Methodistic advantage—to second, to the utmost of my humble ability, any plan to which the Province might, under all circumstances, be induced to concur, in order to settle the protracted controversy on the clergy reserve question; and that it has not been, until I have had indubitable proofs that there was no disposition or intention on the side of the Episcopal clergy to yield a single iota any further than they were compelled. It was not until all these circumstances had transpired, that we reluctantly determined to appeal against the exclusive and unjust pretensions of the Episcopal clergy, to the bar of public opinion—a power recognized by our free constitution, and which no party or administration can successfully resist many years. The reply of the Governor was friendly and conciliatory; but in it he expresses his Surprise to find that his appeal on a late occasion to the Wesleyan Methodists, to give the Church of England their most cordial support, had been misunderstood and construed into an expression of sectarian preference. By inviting the Methodists to such a course of conduct, His Excellency thought that he was only appealing to a feeling of attachment for the Church of England, which he had always been induced to consider—especially from Dr. Ryerson in his remarks on this reply, said:— The questions at issue about the clergy reserves do not involve the principle of "attachment for the Church of England" from the well known fact that many respectable members of that Church, in every district throughout the Province, concur in the views advocated in the Guardian on that question—therefore an appeal to "attachment for the Church of England" as the rule of judgment in this controversy, much less as a "badge of legitimate Wesleyan Methodists," is the very climax of absurdity. The discussions on the clergy reserve question up to the time when the House reassembled (27th February, 1839), must have convinced the dominant party that it was, and ever would be, hopeless, in the face of the determined opposition which their schemes encountered, to obtain that which they wanted from the local legislature. They could not again openly bring in a bill (as they did last year) to revest the reserves in the Crown, in the face of the declarations of the Colonial Secretary, that— Imperial Parliamentary Legislation on any subject of exclusively internal concern, in any British colony possessing a representative assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional. It is a right of which the exercise is reserved for extreme cases, in which necessity at once creates and justifies the exception. (Lord Glenelg to Sir F. B. Head, 5th December, 1835.) They therefore adopted what events proved to be a ruse, to accomplish their object. It is true that Sir George Arthur, in his opening speech, urged that— The settlement of this vitally important question ought not to be longer delayed.... I confidently hope, that if the claims of contending parties be advanced ... in a spirit of moderation and Christian charity, the adjustment of them by you will not prove insuperably difficult. The Governor then adroitly added— But, should all your efforts for the purpose unhappily fail, it will then only remain for you to re-invest the reserves in the hands of the Crown, and to refer the appropriation of them to the Imperial Parliament, as a tribunal free from those local influences and excitements which may operate too powerfully here. Both Houses, in apparent good faith, sought to carry out the wishes of the Governor as expressed in the first part of his speech. The managers of the scheme indicated in the latter part of the speech initiated a totally different bill in each House, apparently liberal and comprehensive in character, but yet objectionable in detail. Dr. Ryerson felt this so strongly that he petitioned to be heard at the Bar of the House of Assembly against the bill which had been introduced into it. His request was at first granted on the 7th April, by a vote of 24 to 22, but afterwards refused by a vote of 21 to 17. After The moneys to arise, and to be procured and henceforth received for any sale or sales [of clergy reserve lands] shall be paid into the hands of Her Majesty's Receiver-General of this Province, to be appropriated by the Provincial Legislature for religion and education. The bill thus constructed needed but the alteration of the last five words to adapt it admirably to the object and purpose of the Church party. The Legislative Council, therefore, changed the concluding words in the last clause into the words "Imperial Parliament for religious purposes." In this apparently simple way, but in reality, fundamental manner—and without any attempt at a conference between the Houses, with a view to adjust differences—the Legislative Council, taking advantage of a comparatively thin House of Assembly, made the desired change on the last day of the session. By adroit manoeuvring the agents of the Church party carried the bill in the House of Assembly thus altered. In this way they succeeded in destroying the whole object of the bill, as passed by the House of Assembly. Sir George Arthur, in his despatch to the Colonial Secretary, virtually admitted that the passage of the altered bill was due to the fact that it was carried in the House of Assembly by a majority of one vote [22 to 21], in a House of 44 members, and at a late hour on the night preceding the prorogation! Such were the discreditable circumstances under which the bill re-investing the clergy reserves in the Crown was passed. It, however, required the assent of the Queen before it became law. This it was destined never to receive, owing to a technical objection raised in England in the following October, that such a delegation to the Imperial Parliament could not be made by a subordinate authority. This defeat, however, proved to be a moral victory for the vanquished, as it gave them time for farther deliberation; it incited them to greater caution in their mode of warfare, and induced them to adopt tactics of a more secret and, as it proved, effective character. FOOTNOTES: |
|
