LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

      Nov. 6th.—In the Guardian of this day Dr. Ryerson inserted an extended reply to Mr. Mackenzie, and, in calm and dignified language, gave the reasons which induced him to publish his "Impressions." He said:—

      We did so—1st, As a subject of useful information; 2nd, To correct an erroneous impression that had been industriously created, that we were identified in our feelings and purposes with some one political party; 3rd, To furnish an instructive moral to the Christian reader, not to be a passive or active tool, or the blind, thorough-going follower of any political party as such. We considered this called for at the present time on both religious and patriotic grounds. We designed this expression of our sentiments, and this means of removing groundless prejudice and hostility in the least objectionable and offensive way, and without coming in contact with any political party in Canada, or giving offence to any, except those who had shown an inveterate and unprincipled hostility to Methodism. We therefore associated the Canadian ultra tory with the English radical, because we were convinced of their identity in moral essence, and that the only essential difference between them is, that the one is top and the other bottom. We therefore said, "that very description of the public press which in England advocates the lowest radicalism, is the foremost in opposing and slandering the Methodists in this Province."

      That our Christian brethren throughout the Province, and every sincere friend to Methodism, do not wish us to be an organized political party, we are fully assured—that it is inconsistent with our profession and duty to become such. Out of scores of expressions to the same effect we might quote quite abundantly from the Guardian, but our readers are aware of them.

      That the decided part we have felt it our duty to take in obtaining and securing our rights in regard of the Clergy Reserve Question, has had a remote or indirect tendency to promote Mr. Mackenzie's political measures, we readily admit; but that we have ever supported a measure, or given publicity to any documents from Mr. Mackenzie, or any other political man in Canada, on any other grounds than this, we totally deny.

      Mr. Mackenzie's attack rests on four grounds: 1. That our language was so explicit as to remove every doubt and hope of our encouraging a "thick and thin" partizanship with him, or any man or set of men in Canada; or, 2. That we did not speak in opprobrious, but rather favourable terms, of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor; or, 3. That we expressed our approbation of the principles and colonial policy of Lord Goderich (now Earl Ripon), and those who agree with him; or 4. That we alluded to Mr. Hume in terms not sufficiently complimentary. If Mr. Mackenzie's wishes are crossed and his wrath inflamed, because we have not entered our protest against His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, we could not do so after we had learned the views of His Majesty's Government, in a reply of His Excellency to an address of our Conference about two years ago,[42] when every unfavourable impression had been removed, and when good-will was expressed towards the Methodists as a people; we have not so learned to forgive injuries—we have not so learned to "honour and obey magistrates,"—we have not so learned our duty as a minister, and as a Christian. We, as a religious body, and as the organ of a religious body, have only to do with Sir John Colborne's administration, as far as it concerns our character and rights as British subjects; His Excellency's measures and administration in merely secular matters lie within the peculiar province of the political journalists and politicians of the day. If our offering a tribute of grateful respect to Lord Goderich, who had declared in his despatches to Canada his earnest desire to remove every bishop and priest from our Legislature, to secure the right of petitioning the King to the meanest subject in the realm, to extend the blessings of full religious liberty and the advantages of education to every class of British subjects in Canada, without distinction or partiality, and in every way to advance the interests of the Province;—if honouring such men and such principles be "hoisting the colours (as Mr. Mackenzie says), of a cruel, vindictive, Tory priesthood," then has Mr. Mackenzie the merit of a new discovery of vindictive cruelty, and with his own definition of liberty, and his own example of liberality, will he adopt his own honourable means to attain it, and breathe out death and destruction against all who do not incorporate themselves into a strait-jacket battalion under his political sword, and vow allegiance and responsibility to everything done by his "press, types, and all?"

      Mr. Mackenzie did not reply to Dr. Ryerson in the spirit of his rejoinder. He was a master of personal invective, and he indulged in it in this instance, rather than discuss the questions raised on their merits. He, therefore, turned on Dr. Ryerson, and, over his shoulders, struck a blow at his venerable Father and his eldest Brother. He said:—

      The Father of the Editor of the Guardian lifted his sword against the throats of his own countrymen struggling for freedom from established churches, stamp acts, military domination, Scotch governors, and Irish government; and his brother George figured on the frontier in the war of 1812, and got wounded and pensioned for fighting to preserve crown and clergy reserves, and all the other strongholds of corruption, in the hands of the locusts who infest and disturb this Province.

      Dr. Ryerson's simple rejoinder to this attack on his Father and Brother was as follows:—

      The man who could hold up the brave defenders of our homes and firesides to the scorn and contempt of their countrymen, must be lost to all patriotic and loyal feelings of humanity for those who took their lives in their hands in perilous times.

      Nov. 14th.—As to the effect of the "impressions" upon the country generally, the following letter from Hallowell (Picton) written to Dr. Ryerson by his brother John, may be safely taken as an example of the feeling which they at first evoked. It is characterized by strong and vigorous language, indicative of the state of public opinion at the time. It is valuable from the fact that while it is outspoken in its criticism of Dr. Ryerson's views, it touches upon the point to which I have already referred, viz: the separation into two sections of the powerful party which was then noted as the champion of popular rights. Mr. Ryerson says:—

      Your article on the Political Parties of England has created much excitement throughout these parts. The only good that can result from it is, the breaking up of the union which has hitherto existed between us and the radicals. Were it not for this, I should much regret its appearance. But we had got so closely linked with those extreme men, in one way or another, that we cannot expect to get rid of them without feeling the shock, and, perhaps, it may as well come now as anytime. It is our duty and interest to support the Government. Although there may be some abuses which have crept in, yet, I believe that we enjoy as many political and religious advantages as any people. Our public affairs are as well managed as in any other country. As it respects the Reformers, so called, take Baldwin, Bidwell, Rolph, and such men from their ranks, and there is scarcely one man of character or honour among them. I am sorry to say it, but it is so. The best way for the present is for us to have nothing to say about politics, but treat the Government with respect. Radcliffe, of the Cobourg Reformer, and Dr. Barker, of the Kingston Whig, have come out in their true character. Radcliffe is preparing a heavy charge against you. But let them come; fear them not! I hope they will show themselves now. I thought that you, in your reply to W. L. Mackenzie, did not speak in a sufficiently decided manner. You say you have not changed your views; but I hope you have in some respects. Although you never were a Radical, yet have not we all leaned too much towards them, and will we not now smart for it a little? But, the sooner it comes on, the sooner it will be over.

      Rev. John Ryerson then gives the first intimation of the existence of that germ of hostility to the recently consummated Union on the part of the British Wesleyan Missionaries in this country—a hostility which became at length so deep and widespread as to destroy the Union itself—a union which was not fully restored until 1847. Mr. Ryerson points out the political animus of the movement, and proceeds:—

      You see that the Missionaries are making great efforts to have Kingston and York made exceptions to the general arrangements. Should the English Committee listen to them, confidence will be entirely destroyed. Their object is to make the British Conference believe that we have supported Radical politics to an unlimited extent, and that, therefore, the people will not submit to the Union with such people; they (the Missionaries) are, however, the authors of the whole trouble. Rev. Mr. Hetherington told me that they were

Скачать книгу