And when the Bishop p.r.o.nounces the University "essentially unchristian,"
he must have known that not only a Parliamentary law, but a University statute, exists for the religious instruction and worship of all the students of the University; whereas, when the Bishop had the management of it, no provision whatever existed for the religious instruction and worship of any of the students except members of the Church of England.
The statement, therefore, of the Bishop, that--
There is at present no Seminary in Upper Canada in which the children of conscientious churchmen can receive a Christian and liberal education,
is contradicted by the fact that the children of many churchmen, as "conscientious" as the Bishop himself, are receiving such an education at a "Seminary in Upper Canada."
The lands out of which the University has been endowed were early set apart by the Crown, not on the application or recommendation of any authority or dignitary of the Church of England, but on the application of the Legislative a.s.sembly of Upper Canada; and the cause of all the agitation on the subject is, that the Bishop, unknown to the Canadian people, and by representations which they, through their representatives, declared to be incorrect and unfounded, obtained a University Charter in England, and the application of those lands as an endowment, which the Legislative a.s.sembly never would recognize. And now that that a.s.sembly has at length got these lands restored to the objects for which they were originally appropriated, but from which they had for a time been alienated, the Bishop seeks, by the most unfounded imputations and representations, to do all in his power to damage a Seminary which he ought to be the first to countenance and support.
In his recent charge to his clergy, the Bishop has sought to damage the public elementary schools; and here his statements are equally at fault with those noticed in regard to the University. The Bishop says, "Christianity is not so much as acknowledged by our School law." This statement is contradicted by the 14th section of the School Act, and the general regulations which are made under its authority, headed, "Const.i.tution and government of schools in respect to religious instruction," and which commence with the following words:--
As Christianity is the basis of our whole system of elementary education, that principle should pervade it throughout.
The Bishop says again:--
To take away the power of parents to judge and direct the education of their children, which is their natural privilege from G.o.d, as our schools virtually do, will never be allowed in Great Britain.
The Bishop makes this statement in the face of the express provision of the 14th section of the School Act, which declares that "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents or guardians shall desire."
The Bishop furthermore states that "the Bible appears not among our school books," and says also that the "system is not based on a recognition of the Scriptures." It would be strange if the Bishop were ignorant that in a lengthened correspondence, printed by order of the Legislative a.s.sembly, the Chief Superintendent of Schools objected to any law or system which would exclude the Bible from the schools,--that the Government sanctioned his views,--that his annual reports show that the Bible is used in the great majority of the schools in Upper Canada.
By the returns of last year, the Bible was used in 2,067 of the 3,059 schools reported--being an increase of 231 schools over those of the preceding year in which the Bible was used.
The Bishop likewise says:--
A belief of Christianity is not included among the qualifications of school-masters; and I am credibly informed that there have been instances of candidates for schools disavowing all religious belief.
There is no law to prevent the vilest person from being "candidates" for any office, even that of holy orders; but "candidates for schools," and "school-masters," with legal certificates of qualification, are two very different things. According to the school law, no person can be a legally qualified teacher, or receive any portion of the school fund, without appearing before a County Board of Examiners (who consist, in all cases, more or less of clergymen), produce to them "satisfactory evidence of good moral character," and be examined and approved by them.
Even the name of the church to which the "school-master" belongs is specified, and the annual reports of the Chief Superintendent of Schools include this item of information. A teacher may also, at any time, be dismissed for intemperance or any immoral conduct. It is notorious that the standard of qualification for teachers, both moral and intellectual, and the provisions and regulations for religious instruction in the schools, are much higher, and more complete and efficient, than under a former school law which the Bishop himself introduced into the Legislature, when he was Chairman of the Provincial Board of Education.
Again, the Bishop states that
All that is wanting is, to give power to the different boards or authorities to grant separate schools to all localities desiring them.
This is precisely what the school law provides; for the 24th section of the Act expressly authorizes and empowers the Board of School Trustees in each city or town, "to determine the number, sites, kind and description of schools which shall be established in such city or town."
The Boards of School Trustees may therefore establish as many "separate schools" in all the cities and towns in Upper Canada, as they shall think proper. But they are not willing to establish such separate schools as the Bishop desires; and when an amendment to the school law was proposed at the last session, to compel the local "boards or authorities" to do so, it was almost unanimously rejected. The Bishop says, indeed, referring to this circ.u.mstance, that "when the Church of England requested separate schools for the religious instruction of her own children, her prayer was rejected by the votes of Romanists." The fact is, that that proposition received the votes of but five members of the Legislative a.s.sembly, in which there are upwards of fifty Protestants.
It is lamentable to see the Bishop making such statements to damage and pull down the educational inst.i.tutions of the country, merely because they are not under his denominational control, and subservient to his denominational purposes,--a system of schools which he has, from the commencement, endeavoured to establish in Upper Canada, and for which he has agitated the country these many years. That I do the Bishop no injustice in this statement, I may remark, that in his letter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1827, applying for the so-much-agitated Charter of the Provincial University, he states his object to be, that the clergy of the Church of England in Upper Canada may "acquire by degrees the direction of education which the clergy of England have always possessed." Now that the Legislative a.s.sembly, since the establishment of free const.i.tutional government, have defeated the peculiar objects of the Bishop, he labours by groundless imputations and statements to bring the whole system of public instruction into contempt. It is to be hoped that such efforts will be as unsuccessful in England as they have been in Canada, where his appeals for agitation have not been responded to by one out of ten of the congregations of the Church of England, and are not sustained by the greater part of the members of the Church of England in both branches of the Legislature.
Not a pet.i.tion has been presented by members of the Church of England against the present system of public schools, except one, adopted by a meeting presided over by the Bishop, and signed by himself; and the Legislative Council within the last few days, by a majority of more than two to one, concurred with the Legislative a.s.sembly and Administration in regard to the clergy reserves and University. The Bishop"s extreme policy and proceedings have been and are a great calamity to the Church of England in Canada--a calamity which can only be mitigated and removed by the discountenance of such proceedings, and by the adoption of a more Christian and judicious policy on the part of members of the Church, both in England and in Canada.
In reviewing the history of this question from 1840 until its final settlement by the Canadian Parliament, in 1854, Dr. Ryerson said:--
Messrs. William and Egerton Ryerson had been appointed representatives of the Canadian to the British Conference in 1840.
On their arrival in England, they found Lord John Russell"s Bill for the disposal of the Canadian Clergy Reserves to the Churches of England and Scotland before Parliament; and, as representing the largest religious denomination in Upper Canada, they requested an interview with Lord John Russell on the subject of His Lordship"s Bill before Parliament. In the interview granted, they pointed out to His Lordship the injustice, impolicy, and danger of the Bill, should it become law, and respectfully and earnestly prayed His Lordship to withdraw the Bill; but he was inflexible, when the Messrs. Ryerson prayed to His Lordship to a.s.sent to their being heard at the Bar of the House of Commons against the Bill; at which His Lordship became very angry--thinking it presumptuous that two Canadians, however numerous and respectable their const.i.tuency, should propose to be heard at the Bar of the British House of Commons against a measure of Her Majesty"s Government. But the Messrs. Ryerson knew their country and their position, and afterwards wrote a respectful but earnest letter to His Lordship against his measure, and faithfully warned him of the consequences of it if persevered in; they went so far as to intimate that the measure would prove an opening wedge of separation between Great Britain and the people of Upper Canada; and lest they should be considered as endeavouring to fulfil their own predictions, they did not publish their letter to Lord John Russell, or write a line on the subject for more than ten years--knowing that a wound so deep would, without any action or word on their part, fester and spread so wide in the people of Upper Canada as ultimately to compel the repeal of the Act or sever their connection with Great Britain. The result was as they, Messrs. Ryerson, had apprehended; for in 1853 the Act was repealed by the British Parliament.[136]
Early in 1852, the Government of which Earl Grey was Secretary of State for the Colonies, was superseded by that of the Earl of Derby, with Sir John Packington as Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in a despatch to Lord Elgin, dated April 22nd, 1852, says:--
By a despatch from my predecessor, Earl Grey, of the 11th July last, you were informed that Her Majesty"s then servants found themselves compelled to postpone to another Session the introduction of a Bill into Parliament giving the Canadian Legislature authority to alter the existing arrangements with regard to the clergy reserves.
With reference to that intimation, I have to inform you that it is not the intention of Her Majesty"s present advisers to propose such a measure to Parliament this Session. "The result would probably be the diversion to other purposes" of the clergy reserves than "the support of divine worship and religious instruction in the colony."
Sir John Pakington was soon undeceived as to the continued Canadian sentiment on the subject, for Sir Francis Hincks, then Inspector-General and Premier of Canada, who happened to be in London on official business on behalf of the Canadian Government, enclosed to Sir John Pakington an extract from a report, dated 7th April, 1852, approved by His Excellency, in which the Executive Council said:--
The a.s.surances of Her Majesty"s late Government that such action would be taken, had prepared the people of Canada to expect that no further delay would take place in meeting their just wishes upon a question of such paramount importance to them; the Council, therefore, recommend that their colleague, the Inspector-General, be requested by the Provincial Secretary to seek an interview with Her Majesty"s Ministers, and represent to them the importance of carrying out the pledges of their predecessors on the subject of the clergy reserves, and thus empower the Colonial Legislature to deal with the question in accordance with the well-understood wishes of the people of Canada.
The Derby ministry resigned office in December, 1852, and the Duke of Newcastle succeeded Sir John Pakington as Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the 15th January, 1853, the Duke addressed a despatch to the Earl of Elgin announcing the decision of the new ministry to propose the repeal of the Imperial Act of 1840, which was successfully accomplished.
After the pa.s.sing of the Imperial Act transferring the final settlement of the clergy reserve question to Canada, a coalition Government was formed by the aid of Sir Allan McNab, called the Hincks-Morin Ministry.
After protracted negotiation (with the beneficiaries under the Imperial Act) and discussion in the Legislature, a Bill was pa.s.sed providing for the interests of these claimants, but "secularizing" the remaining proceeds of the reserves to munic.i.p.al purposes. This was the last of the Acts a.s.sented to by Lord Elgin previous to his departure from Canada.
Sir Edmund Head, his successor, speaking on this subject, said:--
An Act a.s.sented to by my predecessor has finally settled the long pending dispute with regard to the clergy reserves, and it has done so in such a manner as to vindicate liberal principles, whilst it treats the rights of individuals with just and considerate regard.
Thus was a struggle of more than twenty-five years ended, equality before the law of all religious denominations established, and const.i.tutional rights of the people of Upper Canada secured, to their great joy. But the Bishop of Toronto, whose policy and measures had caused so much agitation in Upper Canada, regarded this settlement of the clergy reserve question as an irreparable calamity to the Church of England in Canada. On the 16th of March, 1853, the Bishop addressed a letter to the Duke of Newcastle, of which the following are extracts:--
Power and violence are to determine the question; vested rights and the claims of justice are impediments to be swept away. Hence the spoliation sought to be perpetrated by the Legislature of Canada has no parallel in colonial history. Even in the middle of the American Revolution, the old colonists, during the heart-burnings and ravages of civil war, respected the ecclesiastical endowments made by the Crown against which they were contending....
The grants made by the Crown were all held by the same tenure--whether to individuals or corporations--not reservations for certain purposes, with power expressly given to Colonial a.s.semblies to "vary or repeal"
them. The Bishop proceeded:--
I feel bitterly, my Lord Duke, on this subject. Till I heard of your Grace"s despatch, I had fondly trusted in Mr. Gladstone and his friends, of whom you are one, notwithstanding the present doubtful Administration; and I still argued in my heart, though not without misgivings, that the Church was safe, I have cherished her with my best energies for more than half a century in this distant corner of G.o.d"s dominions; and after many trials and difficulties I was beholding her with joy, enlarging her tent, lengthening her cords, and strengthening her stakes, but now this joy is turned into grief and sadness, for darkness and tribulation are approaching to arrest her onward progress. Permit me, in conclusion, my Lord Duke, to entreat your forgiveness if, in the anguish of my spirit, I have been too bold, for it is far from my wish or intention to give personal offence. And of this rest a.s.sured, that I would most willingly avert, with the sacrifice of my life, the calamities which the pa.s.sing of your Bill will bring upon the Church in Canada.
There is a touching pathos in the close of this letter; but the Bishop himself lived to see his apprehended calamities turned into blessings; for the most prosperous and brightest days of the Church of England in Upper Canada have been from 1853 to the present time.
FOOTNOTES:
[136] Earl Grey had intended to propose its repeal in 1850-51, and had requested the writer of these papers (who was then on an educational tour in Europe) to remain in England in order to furnish His Lordship with data and details to enable him to answer objections which might be made to his Bill in the House of Lords, and wrote to Lord Elgin, then Governor-General of Canada, requesting the protracting of Mr. Ryerson"s leave of absence for two or three months. But the Bill had to be deferred until another Session, and Mr. Ryerson returned immediately to Canada. (See page 455.)
CHAPTER LIII.
1851.
Personal Episode in the Clergy Reserve Controversy.
Dr. Ryerson made another educational tour in Europe in 1850-51. While in London, early in 1851, Earl Grey sought Dr. Ryerson"s counsel on the clergy reserve question, which had been lately re-opened in Canada. The proceedings and result of the interviews which he had with Earl Grey, are detailed in several letters which he wrote to me from London during a period of four months. I give such extracts from these letters as will explain the nature of Dr. Ryerson"s conferences with Earl Grey on the subject. His first letter was written on the 7th February, in which he said:--
You will rejoice to learn that Her Majesty"s Government have adopted the prayer of the Canadian Legislature on the question of the clergy reserves, and have determined to bring forward a measure on the subject. Whether Lord Grey will desire me to remain longer on account of the question I have not had time to learn. Mr.
[afterwards Sir Benjamin] Hawes says that he will procure me admission to the speaker"s gallery to tear Lord John Russell bring forward his measure on the Papal Question.
In a letter written by Dr. Ryerson the following week, dated 14th February, he enclosed to me a confidential letter on the clergy reserve question, in which he explained the likelihood of his being detained in England by Lord Grey in connection with it. He said:--
I send this to you, so that you may know all the circ.u.mstances which are likely to protract my stay for some months in this country; and for the same reason, and that you may co-operate with me, I entrust you with the perusal of my confidential letter--another proof of my unreserved confidence in your prudence and fidelity. I think it would not be well for you to mention anything as to my probable delay in England, and especially as to the reasons of it, until it becomes known to the public.