IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // e^ j>' > A7 y ><^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEftT f^iAIN STRUT WnSTIkVKY. M5«0 (716) •/'i-4S' , :1>^ iV iV ^\ ^. ^>. ^ ^ '<5^ «^ \ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Bound with other material/ RbM avec d'autres documents D D Ti^ht binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut qun certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dens le texte. mais. lorsque ceCa dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ix6 filmies. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvsnt modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. n n n n D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained o^ foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es. tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualitd in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppidmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiliet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6tik film6es d nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. B Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: Wrinkled pages may film slightly out of focus. This <^em is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est U\mi au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. lOX 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X lex 20X 24X 28X J2X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity off: Library off the Public Archives of Canada The Images appearing here are the best quality possir^fl considering the condition and legibiiitv off tha original copy and in Iceeping with the ffiiming contract speclfflcations. Original copies in printed paper covers are ffilmed beginning with the ffront cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are ffilmed beginning on the ffirst page with a printed or Illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfflche shall contain the symbol —t^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be ffilmed at difffferent reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire ffiimi fut reproduit grflce A la gAnArosltA de: La bibiiothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soln, compte tenu de la condition at de la netteti de l'exemplaire fiimd, et en confformitA avec les conditions du contrat de ffilmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont ffilmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illLstration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont ffilm6s en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la deriiidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfflche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signiffie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signiffie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre ffilmte A des taux de reduction diffff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est ffilm6 d partir de Tangle supArieur geuche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6 15. \i V *^,- * ''** "^^ ' . A. ~>| ^^^9^^,.^ <».'■ REPLY ''i • ''XX o» Tire CANADA WESIEYAN CONFEREKCE JUNE, 184f, TO THB PROCIWIDINOS OP THR '.'■-'(m 1ENOLISH WESLEYAN CONFERENCE ' •'ti AND ITS COMMITTEES, AUGUST AND SFJPTEMBER, 1840. WITH AN -.' APPENDIX, » obNTAnriNO thb rev^. e. byerson's replies to the wbsleyam COMMFirrBE, REV. DR. ALDER, REV. W. LORD, ETC t.*"^ Vi4 :M. r- » •n f-'-'t^vf' w LONDON: Printed for thomas teog, 73, cheapside. 1841. *; £*•.•:-•». .1 lOUVOfi: \ PRUfTBD BT J. HADDON, CASTUt ITRBBT, FINSBCHY. ii\, "ippi PRE FAC E. In the body of thte foUbWitig pamphlet, the Confei-encfe of ) the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Upper Canada ^eaks for itself; in the Appendix the Rev. E. Ryersou speaks for hiiti£relir, ftnd upon his owii responsibility. The British ptiblic, : as an impartial jury, is called upon to decide on the matters of appeal. Any one who may desire to acquaint himself fUUy with the history of th6 que^tiohs discussed in the fol- lowing pages, is referred to a pamphlet published by Thomas Tegg, 73, Cheapside, entitled, " Wesleyan Methodist Con- ference: its unk)n tvilh the Confereniie of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, in August 1833, and its sepa- ration from the Canada Conference, in August 1840 : con- sisting of the official proceedings and correspondence of both Bodies and their Representatives. By W. and E. Ryerson, Representatives of the Canada Conference. Published in consequence of the publication of the proceedings of the English Conference in the printed minutes." * City of Toronto, Canada, Jime 26, 1841. IV PREFACE. The following address to the Governor-General of Canada, together with his Excellency's reply, will explain the civil position of the Wesleyan Methodist church in that pro- vince. To his Excellency the Right Honorable Lor& Sydenham, one of her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Councillors^ Governor- General of British North America, ^c. ^c. May it please your Excellency — We, her Majesty's faithful and loyal subjects, the ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist church in Canada, in conference assembled, having, at our first annual meeting after your arrival in Canada, approached your Excellency with the ex- pression of our dutiful regards, feel it our duty on the com- pletion of the union of the Canadian provinces, and your assumption of the government of United Canada, to renew the expression of our cordial esteem for your Excellency personally, and our unabated confidence in the justice, im- partiality, and wisdom of your Excellency's administration of the government. j^ Whilst we have not been indifferent either to the objects i or success of your Excellency's important and arduous mis- sion, we have deemed it most accordant with our vocation, and duty to abstain from any interference with the secular politics of the day — devoting ourselves wholly to the less imposing but equally important work of teaching men to " fear God and honor the queen " — of imparting the in- structions and consolations of our holy religion to the desti- tute settlers and aboriginal Indian tribes of this country. In the unwearied prosecution of these labors, amidst many privations and difficulties, — ministering to about eight hun- dred and fifty congregations,. — we trust we continue to merit the favorable opinion which your Excellency was graciously pleased to express on a former occasion, as the result of your inquiries in Upper Canada. PREFACE. V During the past year, the Wesleyan conference in England has thought proper to abandon those articles of union which existed between the Wesleyan conferences in England and Canada at the time of your Excellency's arrival in this pro- vince, and which had existed during seven years. In conse- i quence of this proceeding on the part of the Wesleyan con- ference in England, the Wesleyan Methodist church in Canada occupies the position of an independent body, as it existed before the adoption of the conventional union with the conference in England in 1833. Though the agents of . the London Wesleyan body have induced 1257 church com- municants to secede from our pastoral charge and unite with them, yet such have been the extent and success of our work, that there has been an actual increase of several hundred j^^ church communicants under our pastoral care : embracing in all upwards of seventeen thousand souls, exclusive of a popu- lation of at least one hundred thousand who sit under our ministry. All the Methodist Indian missions in Upper Canada^N with one exception, have been established by our labors, and, except in two instances, i ;main under our pastoral care. As one of the religious denominations of Upper Canada, ^ second to no other in labors and in Christian loyalty to her Majesty's royal person and government, and having the charge of numerous missions to the new settlements and Indian tribes, and the education of many youth and minis- ters, and having no jther pecuniary resources but those which benevolent contributions in Canada furnish, we con- fidently trust that our just rights and interests will be duly protected and considered by your Excellency. We have heard with coiJCern and alarm of your Excel- lency's severe and protracted indisposition during the last few months. Our supplications have mingled with those of other classes of Christians and true friends to Canada to the Divine Being for the preservation of your valuable life. We rejoice to hear of your Excellency's returning health ; and our earnest prayer to Almighty God is, that your Excellency's patriotic and responsible mission may be as successfully ac- complished as it has been thus far auspiciously commenced VI PRSFACfi. and pursued, that when you shall have resigned the seals of your high offices into the hands of our beloved sovereign, your Excellency may enjoy the merited reward and elevated satisfaction of beholding in the province of Canada a united, a prosperous and happy, as well as loyal people. Signed by order and on behalf of the Confexience of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada. WILLIAM RYERSON, Prestdent. ANSON GREEN, Secretary. City of Toronto, June 16, 1841. Ammer of his Ettcellmcy^ Lord Sydenham, to tki Addrest of the Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada^ pre^ sented June 25, 1841, by Revs. Amson Green and John Carroll in behalf of the Conference. Rbverend Gentleman — ^ request you to accept, and convey to the body by whom you are deputed, the expression of my best thanks for the address which you have presented t^ me. I have had occasion more than once to testify to the value of the services rendered by the body to which you belong, and to express the respect and esteem with which I regard your laborious exertions for the good of the people. These feelings remain unaltered, and I am therefore the more gratified by the kind expressions of confidence in my administration, and of regard for myself which you have now renewed. , , \ z' CONTENTS. PAOB No. I. Answer of the Canadian conference to the address of the English conference . . 9 No. II. Resolutions of the Canada conference in reply to the resolutions of the English conference . ^ No. III. Resolutions of a Special Committee of the Canada conference, in reply to the resoluti by the conversion of sinners, the numbers which your agents have drawn away from our ranks have been moi'e than made up. Last year our Societies numbered 16,354; this year tliey number 17|017 members. We have received this session, into full connexion with the conference, six young men of promising talents and excellent qualifications. The secessions from our ministry during the past year have been more than supplied by the early and voluntary presentation of young men, whose labors have already proved highly acceptable and useful. The liberality of our people has enabled us to support our superannuated preachers better than they were ever supported — to pay them their full salaries with the exception of less than four pounds? each. The same liberality has also enabled us not only to maintain all our Missions and Schools, both amongst the new settlers and Indian Tribes, but also to assist a number of new and feeble Circuits, and to undertake several new Missions. You lament that our last Address, presented to you by our Re- presentatives, should have contained " so brief and unsatisfactory an allusion to the important subject of the continued Union of the British and Canadian conferences." We supposed a deputation of ministers from us would have suggested to you the reason why our Address contained but an " allusion ;" to the deputation we refer, red you for the fullest information on the " important subject of the Union," by the articles of which we declared, both in our Address and in the Resolutions which accompanied it, our willingness and determination to abide. You deeply regret that, " in disregard of all courtesy and pro- priety," we should have sent a brother, as one of our Representa- tives, of whom your committee had complained. This imputation, we think, you will not repeat, when we assert that the ordinary etiquette of ecclesiastical bodies we had not the slightest disposition to offend ,* and that the sole reason of our deputing the brother referred to, as or 3 of our Representatives, was, that he might afford you, by ais explanations, corroborated by official documents, the same satisfaction which he had afforded us. We think the fact of our having incurred the expense and inconvenience of sending two Representatives to you, and of pur associating your own appointed ih- a President with them, proves the reverse of '* a disregard of all cour. tesy and propriety." "" You unhesitatingly express your '' deep conviction that a fearful responsibility rests upon those who have rendered necessary the decisions " of the English conference in dissolving its connexion with the Canada conference. Permit us to reply, 1. That we have not seen, nor do we see, that your ** decisions " were " rendered necessary." 2. That the " fearful responsibility " must rest upon that portion of your conference which adopted those " decisionb," and not on us, as we have strictly and faithfully observied the Articles of Union, to which both parties agreed in 1833. Nor are we even charged with having violated either of the seven general Articles. Having kept the vnritten agreement, and no breach of fiaith being proved, or even specifically charged, where was the necessity of dissolving the connexion into which you had so so- lemnly entered ? 3. lliat there does appear to us to have been *'a disregard of courtesy and propriety," as well as of obligation, for a part of your conference to renounce solemnly-ratified Articles of Agreement, not only without the consent of, but even without con- sulting, the other contracting party. This assumption of power, by a part of your conference, we cannot but consider unlawful in its nature, rash in its exercise, and, in the highest degree, disrespectful to a co-ordinate conference of ministers who, from their numbers, labors, and character, deserve something more than mere contempt. Against both the lawfulness and propriety of your decision we enter our solemn and continued protest. - You also declare, that you " regard it as your bounden duty to occupy with zeal and diligence those posts which the Providence of God assigned to you previously to the Union, and to maintain the positions which, in all fairness and equity, belong to you on nf- count of the labor and expense you have bestowed upon them." Whilst we regret the act and manner of your secession from the solemn agreement of 1833, we exceedingly regret that you should alao decide on creating a new body of Methodists in a country already too much distracted by sectarian strife. On this your de- clared purpose suffer us to remark — 1. That whether the " Provi- dence of God " have assigned you t.ie posts referred to, and whether 12 it be your " bounden duty to occupy them with zeal and diligence," is to us a subject of very great doubtfulness, knowing that " God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints ;" that it can never be the "bounden duty " of any body, or any individual, to authorize or perform that which is against the peace and unity of Christian societies, and which even sets tribe against tribe, and chief against chief amongst the aboriginal Indian converts. 2. We lament, on this ground, that your agents should re-occupy the three posts (Kingston, Toronto, and St. Clair) which you gave up by the Union to the Canada conference. 3. But we lament still more, that you resolve " to maintain the positions which (you assume) in all fairness and equity belong to you on account of the labor and expense bestowed upon them." You doubtless allude to the Mis- sion stations, the responsibility of supporting which you agreed to assume by the articles of union. That union having been broken by yourselves, without our consent or knowledge, we think those stations should remain under our pastoral care. Every Christian tribe of Indians in Upper Canada was converted through the in- strumentality of members of our conference — men who were never preachers in England, but who were brought into the ministry in Canada. This fact gives us a claim to those missions stronger than that which can be created by any pecuniary expenditure. Seven out of nine Indian missions still remain in connexion with us ,- the other two your agents have wrested from us. And we submit whether our contiguity to the Indians in Upper Canada, as well as our past and almost exclusive success amongst them, does not imply our "bounden duty "to care for their souls, and whether "the Providence of (Jod " does not assign to us this momentous work ? In&tead of the " labor " you speak of increasing your claim to the missions, we think it greatly increases ours ; for by the articles of union, the whole of the missionaries employed were to be members of our conference — instructed during their four years of trial, re- ceived into full connexion, ordained, and appointed, by the Canada conference. Your appointing a superintendent to overlook them, is a very small part of " the labor '* of keeping the missions of Upper Canada. The labor of members of the Canada conference does not belong to you, and cannot be justly set down to you;* Irtv Id credit. You also claim the missions on the ground of expense. This, at least, is a very doubtful title to the original and inherent property of another. The sum expended on account of missions in Upper Canada, during the seven years of the union, according to Dr. Alder, is £17>806 18s. lid. Towards raising this sum, the government ho a paid out of the revenue of Upper Canada, £3,670 ; your missionary committee, £9,147 2s. 6d. ; and the Canada con- nexion, £4,989 16s. 5d. This statement shows, that, apart from the government grants, you have paid, during the seven years of the union, £4,157 6s. Id. (but placing the grants out of the Canada revenue to the credit of Canada, only £487 6s. Id.), more than the Canada connexion. The simple and plain statement of the case is this — that you have, during the last seven years, contri. buted, towards supplying the gospel to the Indians and destitute settlers of Upper Canada, little more than one man and about £9000 ^ whilst we have contributed, on an average, about fourteen missionaries a year, and put into your funds nearly £5000. Nearly your whole claim to the missions rests then on you^ pecuniary con- tribution being about £4000 larger than ours. But if we deduct from that £4000 what we think is improperly put to the account of the Canada missions, such as the incomes of your presidents in Canada, the expenses of Dr. Alder's visits to this country, the ex. penses of Messrs. E. Ryerson, P. Jones, and J. Sunday, while in England extensively pleading in behalf of your missionary funds, and other similar items of charge, there will be nothing left, and the contributions of the Canada conference will be equal to your own. You can derive no argument, therefore, either on the ground of labor or expense, for claiming the missions belonging to the Canada conference. In addition to this, let it be observed, that one of the two Indian missions, which your agents have wrested from us (namely, Rice Lake, including Alnwick, called " Aldersville " in your Report), was established and supported by us for a period of seven years before the union. In view of the whole case then, might we not as righteously claim your missions in India, as you ours in Canada ? 4. But your agents have not only taken posses sion of several of our missions, they have also unadvisedly (to use no harsher term) penetrated into the very heart of our regular work 14 —deranging our circuits, increasing our expense, diminishing our resources, lessening the value of our church property, perplexing our plans, troubling our people, dividing our societies, backbiting our ministers, — thus prosecuting a work which genders strife and division rather than love and unity. During the last nine months, your agents have commenced their dreadful work upon no less than fifteen of our circuits, where there is no more need of forming se- parate societies and expending missionary money, than there is within your own circuits in London, Bristol, or Manchester. We understand they are making arrangements to pursue this awful work upon others of our regular and peaceful circuits — proclaiming to the whole province, that the English conference — that useful and venerable body — authorizes such work, and becomes responsible for the expense incurred in the prosecution of it. We submit to you, whether such proceedings are not in complete opposition to Mt. Wesley's Sermon on Schism ; and especially to that part of it which says — *' O beware, I will mot sat of form- ing, BUT OF COUNTENANCINO, OR ABBTTINO, ANT PARTIES IN A Christian Sooiett ! Never encouraoe, much less cause, EITHER BT WORD OR ACTION, ANT DIVISION THEREIN." " Be NOT CONTENT NOT TO STIR UP STRIFE, BUT DO ALL THAT IN YOU LIES TO PREVENT OR QUENCH THE VERT FIRST SPARK OF IT." Supposing there were discontent in some individual societies of our connexion— it were no more than has existed in many societies in your connexion : and it would be the duty of all Christian ministers— -especially those of a kindred body— to allay rather than increase, and even create, that discontent, ^a^r > The proceedings of your agents in Upper Canada are also in direct opposition to the advice which Mr. Wesley gave to his preachers :— *' Qo always not only to those that want you, but to those that want you most.** No one can deny they are far more wanted in other parts of the world, and even in some parts of England itself, than they are wanted on the circuits oif the Canada connexion. The work of your agents here Is like\vise in direct opposition to the Wesleyan principle of unity. Twenty-nine days before his death, Mr. Wesley thus wrote to the American preachers, through the ¥ •^»t,^,< /■ 15 Rev. Ezekiel Cooper : — ** Lose no opportunity of declaring to all men, that the Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it is theirjulldeterminationso to continue." This principle ulearly means far more than merely fraternal affection, as Mr. Wesley cherished and taught fraternal affection between the Methodists, pious Bap. tists, Moravians, Presbyterians, &e.yWho were never represented by him as one with the Methodists in the sense in which he declared » '* the Methodists are one people in all the world." In 1820 you acknowledged, as a conference, this principle in its true Wesleyan sense, and magnanimously acted Tipon it, by withdrawing your agents from the very ground in Upper Canada on which you have agents now. Allow us to produce your own expressions, found in your Minutes of the Liverpool Conference of that year — *' That as the American Methodists (who first planted Methodism in Canada, and subsequently authorized the independent organiza- tion of the Canada connexion) and ourselves are but one hody^ it would be inconsistent vsith our unity^ and dangerous to that affection which ought to characterize us in every place, to have different societies and congregations in the same towns and villages, or to allow of any intrusion on either side into each other's labors." Your missionary secretaries of that year (one of whom was the late excellent Richard Watson) in carrying out your views, further explained them as follows : .■■.,^ i*^i«, ^' We have long thought it a reproach, and doing more injury by disturbing the harmony of the two connexions than could be coun- terbalanced by any local good, that the same city, or town, should see two congregations, and two societies, and two preac'.ers, professing the same form of Christianity, and yet proclaiming themselves rivals to each other, and, in some instances, invading each other s societies and chapels, and thus producing party feelings."*-— " We have recog- nized the principle, that the Methodist body is one throughout the world ; and that therefore its members are bound to cordial affection and brotherly love." This great principal of Wesleyan unity, and your own recognition and elucidation of it, and the practical influence it produced upon your conduct in 1820, forms the very ground of our present position 16 I of defence and resistance against the aggressions of your agents in Upper Canada. We need not say how needful to preserve your own consistency and dignity it will be, that your conduct in 1841 do not oppose your conduct in 1820. At the present time, how- erer, this sacred principle of Christian and Wesleyan unity, so clearly stated and enforced, both by Mr. V/esley and your conference, is most glaringly violated by your agents in Upper Canada. Thus have we felt it our duty to reply to that part of your ad- dress which states it your bounden duty to occupy posts because of alleged labor and expense bestowed upon them. If our remon- strance be strong, you will not, you cannot, believe it stronger than the painful and singular position in which we are placed, warrants and requires. And the very strong expressions adopted in your own address, and in the resolutions of your committees, afford us examples of even stronger language than we have ventured to employ. Though your agents have molested us in our work, and divided our societies in various places, we have refrained from retaliating or imitating their example, by going to your societies and into your fields of labor in Lower Canada, although we have not been without strong inducements to do so. Our opposition to the divisive pro- ceedings of your agents has been defensive, not aggressive. We have not invaded their spiritual habitations and vineyards ; but they have invaded ours, and that in your name. For the angry discus- sions to which these invasions have given rise, the invaders are pro- perly responsible. And whilst we disclaim and repudiate any ex- pressions of reproach or bitterness against you or your agents, which their conduct may have provoked, in any of the public journals, we cannot but complain of the attacks and vituperations against our character as a body, and individual members of this conference, which Itave, at various times, appeared in the official organ of your agents in Canada (" The Wesleyan "), as well as in several other provincial prints, from the pens of your agents and partizans. We implore you to desist from a course of proceeding so fruitful of " envying, and strife, and confusion, and every evil work." Considering the great debt of your Missionary Society, and the J' MV 17 increasing demands upon it, and that you require (according to the Report of 1840) " a regular and permanent addition '* to its in. come "to the extent of at least ten or twelve thousand pounds per annum," we wonder at the unnecessary and pernicious expenditure of your funds in Upper Canada. For a repl^ to the resolutions of your last conference, printed in your Minutes, we refer you to the annexed resolutions (marked No. II.), which we adopted in October last, after a protracted and, calm investigation of the whole subject, and which, after several months' further consideration, we have unanimously re-affirmed. An answer to the resolutions of your special committee, adopted the 8th and 9th of last September, and printed by your secretary in January, will be found in the annexed resolutions of a special com- mittee of this conference (marked No. III.), adopted on the 9th end 1 0th of May, and which we have also tmanimoutljf affirmed. In the documents referred to will be found a brief and explicit statement and exposition of our unanimous sentiments and feelings in regard to your proceedings on the subject of the Union— your establishment of separate congregations and societies within the boundaries of ou: church in Upper Canada — ^the statements which your special committee have promulgated in England to our pre- judice and injury — and our present position and duty as a body of ministers and as a church. ' You will perceive that, whilst we have maintained what we con. scientiously believe was secured to us by the Articles of Union, and what is due to our character as a body of ministers, and a regular branch of the great Wesleyan family, we continue to cherish towards you those sentiments of esteem and affection which are due to the elder and more extended branch of our common Methodism. We rejoice in your prosperity in the Home work, and in the sue cess of the labors of your agents and missionaries in every part of the world, except in those of schism and division on our own fields of labor in this province. A large majority of the members of this conference, as well as of our societies, are natives of Great Britain and Ireland ; and we once more submit to you, how unnatural, as well as unseemly and unchristian it is, for brethren in blood, as well as in faith, and discipline, and name, to occupy a position of open 18 and avowed hostility to each other — for you to employ your strength and resources to agitate and divide our othervidse peaceful and prosperous societies, and that without sending a single additional laborer into the deititute parts of this country. We submit to your serious consideration, whether you will employ missionary men and missionary money to divide regular Methodist societies and newly converted Indian tribesj instead of supplying gospel ministrations to destitute neighborhoods— whether you will afford peace or continue war amongst a Christian people forming a large part of the population of Upper Canada. With a view of terminating a state of things in Upper Canada, so unnatural, so unchristian, so disgraceful, we are ready, and we propose, to submit the matters at issue between yoi and ourselves to the decision of any tribunal which may be equally selected by committees of the English and Canada conferences. We have ap. p at leasts inexpedient — involving as it does a wide field of political discussion, and calculated to produce much contention and division amongst the people — and especially as Mr. Wesley him- self and his conference regarded a national church as having no ground in the New Testament, but as being " a merely political institution." 8. That the assumption by the Weslcyan conference in England of the right and power of an ''official inHuence" and "efficient direction " over the " public proceedings " of this conference, is repugnant to the express provisions of the articles of union, which declared that the " rights and privileges of the Canadian preachers and societies should be preserved inviolate," and is inconsistent with the obligations and responsibilities of this conference to the societies and work providentially committed to its pastoral over> sight. 9. That the avowed dissolution of the union by the English con- ference on the ground of the non-compliance of our representatives with requirements and assumptions not authorized by the articles of the union, is a plain and lamentable violation of solemnly ratified obligations to this conference and to the Wesleyan Methodist church in Canada. 10. That this conference protests against the Methodistic or legal right or power of the conference in England to dissolve, of its own accord, articles and obligations which have been entered into with this conference by mutual consent. 11. That in the foregoing expressions of our views and feelings relative to the proceedings of the authorities of the Wesleyan con- ference in England, we disclaim any imputation upon their character or motives. It is their acts only of which we complain. We rejoice to know that the great majority of the members have taken no part in these proceedings of the authorities of the English con- ference J and we deem it alike our duty and our privilege to esteem them as fathers and brethren in the ministry of the Word and in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Question II. — What is the judgment op this Conference ON the establishment by the Wesleyan Missionary Com- mittee IN London op separate Congregations and Societies • «2 WITHIN THE B0UNOARIB8 OF THE WkBLEYAN MbtHODIST Church in Upper Canada. Answer 1.— The adoption of such a course of proceeding is sub- versive of the great and sacred principles of Methodistic unity, as laid dovni by the venerable Wesley himself, and as has heretofore been formally, and officially, and practically recognized by the Wesleyan conferences in England and in the United States. The following extracts from the Minutes of the English Wesleyan con- ference, held in Liverpool, August, 1820, and signed " Jabez Bunting, Prendent," and " George Marsoen, Secretary," con- tain an explicit statement of these principles : — " On ihe subject of the unpleasant circumstances which have oc- curred in the Canadas between the American preachers and our mis- sionaries, referred to the conference by the missionary committee in London, with their opinion that Upper Canada shall be left in pos- session of the American brethren, and that our missionary exertions shall be confined to the Lower Province, this committee recommend to the conference the adoption of the following principles and ar- rangements :— " 1. That, as tbe American Methodists and ourselves are but one body, it would be inconsistent toith our unity^ and dangerous to that affection which ought to characterize us in evert/ place^ to have different societies and congregations in the same towns and villages, or to allow of any intrusion on either side into each other's labors. ' " 2. That this principle shall be the rule by which the disputes now eaAsting in the Canadas between our missionaries shall be terminated. ** 3. That the simplest and most effectual manner of carrying this rule into effect appears to us to be, to accede to the suggestion of the American conference, that the American brethren shall have the oc- cupation of Upper Canada, and the British missionaries that of Lower Canada, allowing sufficient time for carrying tibis arrangement into effect, with all possible tenderness to existing prejudice!^ and conflicting interests on both sides ; the arrangement to be completed within a period to be fixed as early as possible by the missionary committee. But should insuperable difficulties occur in the attempt to execute this plan (which, however, we do not anticipate), either party shall be at liberty to propose any other mode of accommodation which shall assume as its basis the great principle laid down in the i.i\' 88 fir$t of thete retolutiont^ and which tee are of pinion tAould be hd^ moat tacred in every part of the norld. " 4. That if hereafter it shall appear to any of our brethren there, either British missionaries or American preachers, that any pb^e on either side the boundary line, now mentioned, needs religious help, and presents a favorable opportunity for usefulness, the case shall be referred by the Canada district meeting to the general conference, or by that body to the Canada district ; and if either shall formally de- cline to supply the place on their own side the boundary, then the other shall be at liberty to supply the said place, without being deemed to have violated the terms of this friendly compact. " 5. And it shall be explicitly understood in this arrangement, that each party shall be bound to apply with preachers all those stations and their dependencies which shall be relinquished by each of the connexions, that no place on either side shall sustain any loss of the ordinances of religion in consequence of this arrangement. " 6. That the missionary committee be directed to address a letter to the private and official members, trustees, &c., under the care of our missionaries in Upper Canada, informing them of the judgment of the conference, and affectionately and earnestly advising them to put themselves and their chapels under the pastoral care of the American preachers, with the suggestion of such considerations, to incline them to it, as the committee may judge most proper. " 7« That the bishops of the American coimexion shall direct a similar letter to the private and official members, trustees, &c., under the care of the American preachers in the province of Lower Canada, requesting them to put themselves and their chapels under the care of the British missionaries." The following extracts of a letter of instructions from the mis- sionary committee in London to their missionaries in the Canadas, signed, " Joseph Taylor, Richard Watson, Secretaries," and dated, " Wesleyan Mission Houae^ 77, Hattan Garden, London, 23rd August, 1820," furnish a clear exposition of the application of the above avowed principles to the case of Upper Canada " Extracts of a letter of Instructions from the missionary committee %n London^ to the Rev. Messrs. R. Williatns, and the other British missionaries in the Provinces of Canada. "Dear Brother — Herewith we transmit you a copy of resolu- tions, passed at our late conference, on the subject of the disputes. which have unhappily existed between our American brethren and us, relative to our missions in Canada. " We have given you the resolutions in full, that you may see that vre have recognised the principle that the Methodist body is one throughout the world, and th"t therefore its members are bound to cordial a£fection and brothui^/ union. " The resolutions of the committee, passed some time ago, and forwarded lor your guidance, prohibiting any interference with the work of the American brethren, would show you that the existence of collisions between us and them gave us serious concern, and that the committee were anxious to remove, as far as they, at that time, were acquainted with the circumstances, every occasion of dispute. " CertaL Jy the case of Montreal chapel was one which we could never justify to our minds, and the committee have in many instances had but a partial knowledge of the real rdigious wants of the Upper Province^ and of its means of supply. The only reason we could have for increasing the number of missionaries in that province was, the presumption of a strong necessity^ arising out of the destitute condition of the inhabitants, the total want, or too ffreat distance of ministers. *^ On no other>ffround could we apply money raised for missionary purposes for the supply of preachers to Upper Canada. The infor- mation we have had for two years past has all served to show that the number of preachers employed there by the American brethren teas greater than ne had at first siupposed^ and was constantly increasing. '^ To us, therefore, it now appears, that though there may be places in that province which are not visited, they are within the range, or constantly coming within the range, of the extended American itinerancy ; and that Upper Canada does not present to our efforts a groxmd so fully and decidedly missionary as the Lower Province, where much less help exists, and a great part of the population is involved in popish superstition. " "We know that political reasons exist in jnany minds for supply- ing even Upper Canada^ as far as possible, with British missionaries ; and however nat*aral this feeling may be to Englishmen, ?nd e-^^en praiseworthy, when not carried too far, it will be obvious to you that this is a ground on which, as a missionary society, and especially as a society under the direction of a committee which recognizes as brethren, and one with itself, the American Methodists, we cannot act. " 1. Because, as a mii^sionary society, we cannot lay itdowr as a principle that those whose object is to convert the tco:\d shall be prC' n and 26 vented from seeking and saving sotda under a foreign government^ for tee do not thus regulate our own efforts. " 2. To act on thig principle voould he to cast an odium upon our American brethren^ ax though they did not condttct themselves peaceably under the British gonemm*i , which is^ toe believe, contrary to the fact. '* 3. That if any particular exceptions to this christian and submis- sive conduct were, on their part, to occur, we have not the least right to interfere, unless, ladeed, the American conference obviously neglected to enforce upon the offending parties its own discipline. Upon any politic(U feeling which may exist, either in your minds or in the minds of a party in anyplace, we cannot therefore proceed. Our objects QXG purely spiritual, and .,' r American brethren and ourselves are one body of christians, spruhg from a common stock, holding the same doctrines, enforcing the same discipline, and striving in com- mon to spread the light of true religion through the world. " In conformity willi these views, ive haise long thought it a re- proach, and doing more injury, by disturbing the harmony of the two connexions, than could he counterbalanced hy any local good, that the SAME CITY OB TOWN should See TWO CONGREGATIONS, and TWO SO- CIETIES, and TWO pbeachbrs, professing the same form of Christianity and yet thus proclaiming themselves rivals to each other, and, in some instances, invading each other's societies and chapels, and thus producing party feelings." " The committee, previous to the conference, went with him fully into the discussion of the disputes in the Canadas, and recommended those principles of adjustment, which the conference, after they had been referred to a special committee during the time of its sitting, adopted, and which we now transmit to all the brethren in the Ca- nada Citation . •' You will consider these resolutions as the fruit of a very ample inquiry, and of serious deliberation. " None of the principles here adopted by us do indeed go farther than to prevent interference with each other's labours among the American and Britsh missionaries, and the setting up of '-altar against aciar,' in the same city, town, or village ; but, knowing that circum- stances of irritation exist, and that too near a proximity might, through the infirmity of human nature, lead to a violation of that union which the conference has deemed it a matter of paramount importance to maintain, we have thougat it best to adopt a geo- graphical division of the labour of each, and that the Upper Pro- i 26 vinee ahould be l^ to the American brethren^ and the Lower to you." " Feel that you are one with your American brethren, embarked in the same great cause, and eminently of the same religious family, and the little difficulties of arrangement will be easily surmounted ; and if any rearm spirits (which is prohahle) rise up to trouble you^ remember that you are to act upon the great principle sanctioned by the conference, and not upon local pr^udices." ' ' 2. That the application of the Scriptural and Methodistic prin- ciples stated in the foregoing resolutions, is, if possible, of more sacred and paramount obligation in regard to Upper Canada now than it was in 1820 — as the ministers of our church in this pro- vince were then sent by the Methodist conference in the United States, and were under a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction; but they are now all bond jide. British subjects, and our conference is as much a British Wesleyan conference as the conference held in England. ', 3. That upon these Wesleyan and Scriptural principles we take our stand, as a body of ministers and as a regular branch of the great Wesleyan fsimily, and protest against its violation on the part of the Wesleyan Missionary committee in London, and deprecate the ruin to souls, the injury to Methodism and to religion, which must result from setting up altar against altar, dividing families, societies, and neighbourhoods, and creating contentions, schisms, and divisions in the church of Dhrist. 4. That, as it appears that the Wesleyan confere lJC in England has not rescinded the resolutions which it adopted in 1820, and could not therefore have intended that the committee in London should contravene and violate them in establishing rival preachers and congregations in Upper Canada, when the carrying out the dis- solution of the Union was referred by the cooference to the com- mittee, we will not hold the conference in England, as a body, blameable for such a course 6f proceeding, unless, on its being sub- mitted to them, it shall receive their sanction — which we will not persuaue ourselv^ss can be the case. 5. That, on the return to and recognition of these hallowed and Inviolable principles of christian and Wesleyan unity on the part of ilv 27 tjie committee in London, we will rejoice to avail ourselves of the first opportunity thus afforded, to bury in oblivion all the differences and unhappy feelings of the past, and to cultivate those sentiments and feelings of fraternal respect and affection which have heretofore so happily and honorably characterized the relations and intercourse of all branches of the Wesleyan family. Questum III. — What is the Judgment op this Conpbrbncb in regard to our present position and duty as a body of Ministers and as a Church ? Answer 1. — That we adhere to our doctrines and discipline, which have been recognized even by the conference in England as truly Wesleyan, and which have been signally owned of God in promoting the interests of true religion in this province. 2. That we permit no discussions of political questions amongst us in conference as a church ; that our official organ enter into no political discussions, but that it continue to pursue its present neu- tral course in matters of civil polity; our Editor occupying its columns with religious and literary subjects, with articles of re- ligious and general intelligence, and with such defences of our institutions and character as occasion may require. 3. That we do most solemnly and heartily recognize the original purpose of Methodism, " to spread Scriptural holiness over the land," as the first and great calling of the whole body, and especially of the preachers ; and determine, in the strength of Ood, to make this the great rule of all our other designs, and to renounce or subordinate all other plans and pursuits to this our special call- ing ; so that by our living, as well as ' our preaching, we may hold forth the word of life, and rejoice in the day of Christ, that we have not run in vain, neither labored in vain. 4. That under a deep persuasion that the unity, order, purity, edification, and good feeling of our societies may be greatly pro- moted by our pastoral intercourse with them, we resolve to give ourselves more fully to this branch of our work ; and more especially that we will care for the sick, the afllicted, and the dis- tressed, and will endeavor to obtain the help of our brethren in order to secure to our people, of every class and condition, that c2 28 christian oversight of their spiritual interests which is so beneficial and so essential to their spiritual comfort and prosperity. 5. That we determine^ by God's gracious assistance, to be more fervent and importunate in supplicating upon ourselves, and upon all our official members, societies, and congregations, that rich effusion of the Holy Spirit which is always necessary to the success of the labors of christian ministers and pastors, and which is pecu- liarly needed, at the present time, to prepare both ourselves and our people for the trials, duties, and labors of the present year. 6. That, being fellow-residents in the country with our congre- gations, and identified with them in our interests, feelings, and christian principles, we entreat them to unite with us in this renewed dedication of ourselves and our all, as a people, to the great work o' promoting glory to God in the highest, peace on earthy and good will amongst men. r No. III. Resolutions of a Special Committee appointed by the Conference to protect the rights and promote the interests of the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion in Canada, adopted at a meeting held in the City of To- ronto, Canada, the lOtA and 11th of May, and afterroards unani- mously affirmed hy the Conference, June 1841, in reference to cer- tain Resolutions which had been adopted and published by a Special Committee of the Wesleyan Cmference, held in London the Qth and 9th of September, 1840. The Resolutions of the Special Committee of the English Con- ference, adopted at its meetings held the 3rd, 8th, and 9th of September, 1840, were read, and the subjects of them, together with the documents to which ihey refer, were attentively con- sidered. After anxious and mature deliberation, the following Re- solutions were adopted : — I. That this Committee regrets to observe that so large a portion of the fourteen lengthened Resolutions of the Special Committee of the English Conference on Canadian affairs, are occupied with personal references to the late Representatives of the C- nada Con- ference. This Committee especially regrets to witness, in the Re- !iV, 29 solutions of the London Committee, the repeated' and successive application of criminating epithets against the Rev. Egerton Ryer- son ; when the primary original charge of the London Committee against him was, not any moral crime or private delinquency, but an alleged official irregularity in his communication with the Go- vernment in behalf of the Canada connexion. Yet the London committee employ epithets against Mr. E. Ryerson which are only applied to characters of the deepest moral turpitude. Such an ob> vious disproportion between the original allegations of the London committee and the vituperative epithets which ♦hey employ against the individual, appears to this committee .' .insistent with the calmness, dignity, and propriety which ought to characterize the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies, and to have little affinity with that charity which is recommended and portrayed by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. II. That whilst in their second resolution the London Wesleyan committee deprecate the publication of the pamphlet by the late representatives of the Canada conference, and express their regret that " the Messrs. Ryerson should have appealed to the public at all in the present stage of the business ;" it is clear, that the pro- ceedings of the English conference against the Canada conference and its representatives had been previously sent to the press ; the information of which fact induced the publication of Messrs. Ryer- son's pamphlet. Hence, *' appealing to the public at all, in that stage of the business," was commenced on the part of the English conference. III. That this committee would consider it irrelevant and inex- pedient, in the discharge of its duties, to enter into the discussion of the several circumstantial matters which have grown up between the London Wesleyan committee and the late representatives of the Canada conference, from their respective publications ; yet we can- not pass over in silence the leading statements of the London Wes- leyan committee, contained in their fourth, fifth, and sixth reso- lutions. 1. In their fourth resolution, they impugi: the integrity of the statement made by the Messrs. Ryerson n,specting the discrepan- cies between the amount of expenditure in Canada, as stated in the 30 "society's general and local reports. They deny the Messrs. Ryer'. son any " excuse on the plea of ignorance." The London com. mittee admit the correctness of Messrs. Ryerson's statement as to the unount of expenditure and the amount of discrepancy between the two reports ; and then enumerate certain items to which they say this amount of discrepancy has been applied. But^ unfortu- nately, the principal items of expenditure enumerated by the com- mittee, though they may be found in the private ledger of the committee, are not contained in the printed general report. For ezample, the following item stated by the committee, viz. " Ex- penses of Mr. Egerton Ryerson, during his stay in England, in 1837," is not contained in the Society's General Report, any more than several other items mentioned by the committee. So that the statement of Messrs. Ryerson, that " the manner in which this sum of £ 4,331 178. ^d. sterling had been expended, has not been stated in the society's reports, either in London or in Canada," — is strictly correct, and the all^ations of the London Wesleyan com- mittee to the contrary are unfounded, as every man in England or in Canada may satisfy himself, who chooses to examine the Society's 6«ieral Reports of Expenditure, under the head of Upper Canada, in connexion with the committee's present statement. 2. It is surprising to hear the London Wesleyan committee assort, in their fifth Resolution^ that the Messrs. Ryerson were received with the *' respectful and friendly courtesy" due to the official representatives of another body ; while, at the same time, the English conference, in its address to the Canada conference, (p. 8,) vindicates its not having received one of the Canadian representatives in that manner, and adds respecting the other — " We are sony that the first visit of .he Rev. William Ryerson to oar conference shoold have been made under circumstances which precluded the pombUity of giving him that very cordial reception wliwh he would otherwise have received, and to which his character end talemts ao well entitled him.** Now, if the statement of the committee be correct, this explanation and apology on the part of the ooaferenoe must be superfluous and absurd. In the sixth resoHtion, the London Wesleyan committee deny any " wilful misarrangement or designedly partial summary of the M 31 contents of documents" in the report of the Newcastle committee, and add, " Nor is it true, as the Messrs. Ryerson insinuate, that certain documents are omitted. They are comprised in number 20 of the list of documents, under the general but sufficiently explicit title of ' Correspondence of the Rev. Egerton Ryerson with the Governor-General of British North America.' " On referring to the list of documents alluded to, (pp. 10, 11,) it appears, that the contents of the documents against the Canada conference are given; but not the contents of documents in favor of the Canada confer- ence. If the " general title" given to the documents in behalf of the Canada conference was " sufficiently explicit," then an impar- tial enumeration of the documents of the London committee would have placed them under the general but equally explicit title of " CoiTespondence of the Rev. Joseph Stinson with the Wesleyan Missionary committee." But instead of this general title, the Newcastle committee enumerated the documents on their own side, with a summary of their contents, but omitted both on the side of the Canada conference. Then an address of the Canada conference to the Governor-General, together with the Vice-regal reply to it, in which the " Governor-General of British North America," June, 1840, bore the strongest testimony to the loyalty, devotion, and usefulness of the Methodist conference and church in Canada, in contradistinction to one of the charges of the London committee, and the insinuations contained in Dr. Alder's first letter to Lord John Russell, could not surely, with any propriety or correctness, be said to be included under the title of " Correspondence of the Rev. Egerton Ryerson with the Governor-General of British North America." IV. That this committee would be sorry to impugn the integrity of the London Wesleyan committee ; but the cimfident and " unani- mous" utterance and promulgation of such obvious errors and mis- statements as have been above pointed out, indicate a culpable want of attention to facts, and, apparently, an improper confidence in the partial representations of interested individuals. V. That it is also matter of surprise and regret to witness the London Wesleyan committee, in their 9th resolution, using lan- guage which conveys the impression that Mr. Egerton Ryerson has 32 been editor of the Guardian during the whole period of seven years; whereas he has been editor little more than half that period. It is likewise surprising to hear the London committee saying, that they had invariably objected to political discussions in the " Christian Ouardian/' when the Rev. £. Evans, during his editorship of the Guardian^ from June^ 1835, to June, 1838, entered decidedly into the discussion of secular party politics in Canada ; and Dr. Alder, as representative of the Wesleyan Missionary committee to Canada in 1839, expressed himself highly pleased with Mr. Evans's editorial career. It is further matter of equal surprise, to see the London committee refer to " the letter of the Missionary Secretaries to Sir George Arthur, (dated February 8, 1839,) and that addressed by Dr. Alder to Mr. Stinson, under date January 14, 1839," to prove that remonstrances had been sent to Canada " against the habitual intermeddling of Mr. Egerton Ryerson and of the Christian Guar- dian in matters of party politics." It appears, on referring to these two letters, that there is not a word in either of them about " secu~ lar ]pa.Tty politics ;" but the former refers to " certain ecclesiastical questions of great importance and difficulty," and the latter is wholly devoted to condemning the Guardian for opposing a " Na- tional Church establishment in Upper Canada." The evidence, therefore, adduced by the committee wholly fails to establish the assertion they have made. In his letter to Lord Jonn Russell, pub- lished in this pamphlet, Dr. Alder has endeavored to show, that, from the beginning, the Canada conference and the Christian Guardian have not only discussed " ecclesiastical questions," but have been opposed to a national church establishment in Upper Ca- nada. From these facts one of two inferences is undeniable. Ei- ther the London committee have from 1833 to 1839 compromised th<;ir own professed principles on the question of a church establish- ment ; or they began in 1839 to interfere with that question in Upper Canada, respecting which, by mutual agreement and uniform practice, the Canada conference had reserved and exercised its own discretionary right of discussion and action. This interference on the part of the Wesleyan Missionary secretaries with the reserved and acknowledged rights of the Canada conference on the question pf a church establishment in Upper Canada, commenced the dif- B 33 . ficulties which have resulted in the present position of the two hodies. VI. That we have read with equal regret, the declaration that the Canada conference *' disregarded all courtesy and propriety " in appointing Mr. E. Ryerson as one of its representatives to England. The proceedings of the London Committee against him, April, 1840, were either a decree of condemnation and consequent disqua- lification, or a matter of complaint. If the former, then did the London committee assume and exercise the power of arraigning and condemning a member of the Canada conference, both without a hearing and without regard to the judgment of his own confer- ence. If the latter, then it were unjust and unchristian to proscribe him before he had been condemned by his conference, and especially after he had been acquitted by it. When the-Canada conference had found, after the fullest investigation, that the complaints of the London committee had been founded in misapprehension and error, who more suitable than the one thus concerned to explain the whole matter to the committee and conference in England ? It is per- fectly obvious that this was the christian and ingenuous spirit and intention of the Canada conference in appointing the delegation, as is evident from the following resolution, adopted at Belleville, June, 1840 :— " That firmly believing, as we do, that the resolutions of the com- mittee in London have been adopted upon erroneous impressions ; and being satisfied that our fathers and brethren in England have not intended, nor could intend, any thing unkind towards the mem- bers of this connexion, or unjust to its interests; and deeply anxious as we are to maintain inviolate and imimpaired the principles and articles of union between the English and Canadian conferences ; and being determined to do all in our power to prevent the dissolution of the union, therefore resolved. That a delegation be sent to the Wes- leyan conference in England, to lay all the matters referred to in these resolutions before that venerable body, and to use all proper means to prevent collision between the two connexions." VII. That the assertion of the London Wesleyan committee, that the resolutions of the Canada conference adopted at Belleville, June, 1840, were a virtual dissolution of the union, is a most unjust 7 I li ' 34 misrepresentation of the motives and feelings of that body. For, 1 . In each of those resolutions the Canada conference expressed its determined adherence to the articles of the union. 2. That the English conference and its representatives should possess and exer- cise all the Ttnwers for which the articles of union provided. 3. That the Canada conference claimed nothing more than was ex^ plicitly secured by the articles of union. The London Wesleyan committee have specified no single article of the union which has ever been violated or infringed by the Canada conference, or any member of it. The allegation of the London committee is therefore as groundless as it is hasty and uncharitable. VIII. That notwithstanding the London Wesleyan committee propose, in their 10th and 11th resolutions, not to interfere with the societies of the Canada conference, but to extend their opera- tions amongst the destitute settlers and heathen tribes, yet the ope- rations of their agents and missionaries in Upper Canada are, for the most part, of an opposite character; as, ou£ of from fifteen to twenty missionaries here, only five of them are labouring in fields which are not occupied by the preachers of the Canada conference ; the other fifteen are labouring as missionaries within the bounds of our regular circuits, dividing neighbourhoods, societies, and families, and producing all the other evils of schism, strife, and division. As examples of this len-missionary work, and the extont to which it is pursued, the following statistical facts have been communicated by the superintendents of the several circuits named : — City of Toronto circuity 267 members of the Canada Wesleyan church. Nearly one half have been induced to secede by the agents of the London Wesleyan committee. Yonge Street circuit (near the city of Toronto), 602 members, i ''ints of the London committee have drawn away 26, and have one appointment on the circuit. Newmarket circuity 300 members. The London Wesleyan mission- aries have drawn away 45, and have two appointments on this cir- cuit. ToTimto circuit (near the city of Toronto), 470 members. The London Wesleyan missionaries have three appointments on this cir- cuit, and have induced 54 members to secede from the Canada con- nexion. Whiihy circuity 387 members; 14 have withdrawn and joined the London Wesleyan missionaries, who have some three or four occasional appointments on the circuit. Barrie Mission, Ca- /■ 36 nada conference has two missionaries on this mission, and 137 mem- bers. There is one London Wesleyan missionary, who has drawn away eight from the Canada connexion, and has four or five appoint- ments. IVartvick and Adelaide Miation. Between 80 and 90 have joined the London Wesleyan missionaries; 51 belong to the Canada connexion. Gtielph Mission. 59 remain with the Canadi^ con- nexion ; about 70 or 80 have withdrawn under the labors of the London Wesleyan missionaries. Oxford circuit, 214 members. The London Wesleyan missionaries have four appointments on this cir- cuit, and have taken 28 members from the Canada connexion. Ha- milton circuit, 550 members. There are two London Wesleyan missionaries on this circuit, who have two appointments on it, and have taken off 80 members from the Canada connexion. From several other circuits, which have been invaded in like manner by the London Wesleyan missionaries, no returns have been received. IX. That it is much to be lamented^ that whilst the London Wesleyan committee have pressed into their service almost every circumstance which was calculated to excite recrimination and hos- tilities, and justify the aggressions of their missionaries upon our societies in Upper Canada, they seem to have passed over, with little or no notice, those considerations which might tend to promote the unity of methodism in Canada. They do not deny that the repre- sentatives of the Canada conference had expressed a readiness to agree to every demand on the score of non-interference in politics — to drop the church establishment question in silence — to disclaim to the secretary of state having made any application for the disputed grant — to allow the English conference all the power over the Ca- nada connexion provided for by the articles of union — to grant them all the control in Upper Canada they possess in other British pro- vinces, provided they would assume the same responsibility in sup- porting the preachers in Upper Canada they do in other British provinces. The only two practical points on which the representa- tives of the Canada conference seem to have opposed the demands made upon them were, their refusal to make the Guar tained several months in New York. I received it the very day on which I received the " extract" from the pen of the missionary secretaries. How different were Mr. Marsden's impressions and feelings in the perusal of the Guardian from those of the London committee ; and what a singular contrast to, and comment upon, their imputations and proceedings does his letter afford J Had the London committee consisted of George Marsobns, the Union would have remained inviolate ; and we would have been at this hour living, as we would wish to live, in peace, unity, an^love with our venerable fathers and brethren in England as well as in the United States. Mr. Marsden's letter is as follows : * / 43 To the Rev. E. Ryerson. Dear Brother, — It appears to me a long time since I had the pleasure of hearing from you, or even of you, excepting from the Christian Guardian which you kindly send me. From some of the statements which are in the papers, I hope that the good work of our God is prospering in Upper Canada. Several of the circuits seem to have been visited with a gracious influencs from on high ; and I trust that, on the whole, it will be found that the year, up to the time of your conference, has been a year of mercy and prosperity. You have had many difficulties to grapple with, both before and since the Union ; but the Lord has kindly an^ graciously supported you. Your enemies have been many, and some of them have been subtle and determined, but the Lord sitteth above the waterfloods,. and will finally overrule every thing for the good of His cause. The founder of Methodism was remarkable for his confidence iu God/ firmly relying on his faithfrilness and love, not only with respect to his own personal salvation, but also in reference to the great work in which he was engaged. When the clouds were dark, and the storms were high, Mr. Wesley firmly relied on the Lord his God, and never was he confoimded. So it must be with you in Canada ; you will ever have the world and the devil to oppose you, and sometimes you may have pious but mistaken men who will rise up against you ; but so long as you keep firm to your doctrines, close to your discipline, and the preachers are united in love, neither earth nor hell can do you much harm. I do hope that no attempts will in friture be made to alter your discipline ; keep on that ground which divine pro- vidence has given you. You know that we have had some violent attempts made on our discipline in this kingdom, but the Lord pre- served us, and now our connexion is in peace ; love and harmony prevail, and we have general prosperity. I feel deeply interested in your welfare in Upper Canada; my heart's desire and prayer to God is, that you may ever prosper, and ' that you may continue a spiritually-minded, happy, and holy people, so long as the sun and moon endure. Please to remember me very afiectionately to any of the preachers you meet with, •© ***** * I send you a copy of the third edition of a little work which I pub- lished ; if it would be of any use to publish it in Canada, you are welcome. I am. Dear Brother, yours, affectionately, I- G. Marsden. Nottingham, June 10, 1840. D 2 44 P.A-r-Vour plan respecting the appropriation of the Centenary money is very good ; and I was thankful to see that your subscrip- tions are so remarkably liberal. They are a blessed proof of the lore of our people, and of their attachment to Methodism. G. M." ^Considerable discussion ensued as to whether 'any newspaper slander deserved the notice of the conference. It was at length de- cided that such a document as a communication from the Wesleyan missionary secretaries, under present circumstances, ought to be no- ticed. A committee of five was appointed by ballot, and reported as follows :] REPORT of the Committee to whom was re/erred the extract of a letter addressed by the " General Secretaries of the Wesleyan Missionary Society" in Jjyndon^ to their agents in Upper Canada. The committee appointed to examine the allegations of the General Missionary Secretaries of the Wesleyan Methodist connexion in England, against the Canada conference in general, and one of its distinguished members in particular, (the Rev. Egerton Ryerson) contained in an extract of a communication from that committee to the Rev. Joseph Stinson and his ** colleagues/' published by him in the Montreal Wesleyan, (a paper " published under the direc- tion OF A COMMITTEE OF WeSLEYAN MINISTERS AND FRIENDS IN Lower Canada, in connexion with the British con- ference,") of May 26, 1841, beg leave respectfully to present the following report ; — 1. Your committee have read with surprise and regret the follow- ing violent and unwarrantable language and statements in the organ of the British conference agents in this province, from the pen of " General Secretaries of the Wesleyan Missionary Society," viz. " We deeply sympathize with you" (Messrs. Stinson, Richey, and others) " under the very painful and trying circumstances in which you, with the societies under your collective care, have been, and we fear are still placed, in consequence of the unmanly the dis. Aonowaft/e— and the unrighteous proceedings of your adversaries proceedings which cannot fail, in the end, to defeat those very pur- poses which they are designed to promote. The desperate character of the measures which they have adopted prove the doubts which (At 46 they themselves entertain of the goodness of th6ir oM(n cause, and of the issue of the cause upon which they have entered. Guard against the temper which they display. Do not descend to their level." On this extract your committee would make the following remarks. By the "adversaries" of whom it speaks, are plainly meant the members of the Canada conference, whose acts are characterized as " unmanly, dishonourable, and unrighteous." — It does not appear, after careful examination and review, that this conference deserves the name of an " adversary" of the British conference, or its agents, its members never having cherished any other feelings than those of respect and love for that venerable body, and sincere desire for the prosperity of its appropriate work — though they are conscientiously opposed to some of its measures, in Upper Canada, the tendency of which is to spread discord and ruin throughout a once peaceful and ■ prosperous religious community — while those measures to which we refer distinctly point out their instigators and agents as our ** adversaries," and the adversaries of Wesley an Methodism in Canada. And further, the epithets '' unmanly, dishonourable, and unrighteous," will apply to the insidious, unkind, and un.Wesleyan proceedings which have been employed to rend away from us our flocks, and divide our societies, rather than to that open, fair, and manly resistance which we have made against their unbrotherly aggressions . 2. We observe likewise with grief that the Rev. Egerton Ryer- son is charged, in the same communication, with the ''circulation of slanderous statements amongst the ministers and friends" of Methodism in England, and with the use of " violence and threats/' to which they avow their determination not to " concede.'* On this your committee would observe, that we have no evidence, after a careful inquiry, that the Rev. Egerton Ryerson has published or dis- seminated any statements, of any description, in England, since the publication of the pamphlet put forth by our delegation to England, just after the last session of the British conference, much less that his statements have been ** slanderous." And as to the " Voice'* which the London committee Sf.ppose to have been published " under his direction," there is positive evidence that he had not 46 l;'ji ¥. ! ths slightest hand in its composition, publication, or dissemination ; nor do we think the " statements" of that voice are " deceptive," but distinguished for accuracy and truth. 3. That though we observe with sorrow the reckless determination of the British conference, (as expressed by tliose who profess to be the exponents of its intentions) never to recede from the un- Wesleyan and divisive position it has assumed towards the " Wesleyan Metho. dist church in Canada," it is our opiuion that its threats of excommu- nication should be treated with silent neglect — the Canadian Metho. dist church having its origin and orders from those who were imme- diately authorized by Mr. Wesley to organize a church, and who received regular ordination at his hands ; and having had the authority and attributes of a church during many years before we had any formal connexion with the British conference. And us to the editor of the Christian Ouardian, whom, if the conference does not censure, it is the opinion of the '* missionary secretaries" that the British conference will cease to " recognize" our church " as forming any part of the great Wesleyan community," your com- mittee is of opinion that 90 far from deserving a censure at our Itands for his general course, he is justly entitled to the warmest thanks of the oonference for the decided and fearless conduct he has evinced in his prompt and faithful vindication of the views and proceedings of the conference during the progress of this painful controversy. All of which is respectfully submitted. H. Wilkinson, Chairman. Cityof Toronto, June lQ,\8il, / APPENDIX. No. I. To the Canada Committee of the English Wesleyan Conference. Reverend Gentlemen, I have read with attention your pamphlet of eighty-four closely printed octavo pages, published in January, by John Mason, 14, City Road, entitled, " Documents relating to the recent determination of the British Wesleyan Conference, to dissolve its official Union with the Provincial Conference of Upper Canada ; to which is sub- joined an Appendix, containing a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Alder to Lord John Russell, in Answer to the JRev. Messrs. Ryerson's Letter to that Nobleman ; with other Illustrative Papers." I sit down with the utmost calmness, and, I hope, with a tolerable spice of good nature, to answer your pamphlet; confident that,, al- though I am one, and a little one, and ye are many, and very large, yet that " Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel jwt ; And he but naked, though locVd up in steel. Whose conduct with injustice is corrupted; and that the teitimony of official documents is stronger than the reso- lutions of a committee, and that the evidence of truth is more weighty than the multiplication of abusive tpithets, such as you have had the singular dignity and taste to employ with amazing profusion, through- out your pamphlet. But, gentlemen, I hope you will not charge an humble Canadian with arrogance, if, in this respect he should have the temerity to dissent from your example ; for, if I fail to support my cause by facts and arguments, I shall not attempt to strengthen it by abusing you ; although, as Dr. Young says, " To reciinunate is just." 48 But, if, in the course of this discussion, I should be betrayed by my feelings into the use of any intemperate expressions, I crave the English reader's forgiveness from the consideration that I am the absent, the feeble, the assailed, and the injured party ; that I have, during the last ten years, lost the friendship of many hundreds of individuals in Canada, for Tvhat I wrote in favour of the English conference and its missionary committee, in reply to public writers in this province ; that I never uttered a word other than that of re- spect and affection for them, until the agents f the London committee commenced, in 1839, to interfere with questions and interests which had always been admitted to belong wholly to the Canada conference ; and until the London Wesleyan Committee itself commenced a series of proceedings against me for maintaining the rights and interests of my own body — proceedings which, for harshness, bitterness, scurri- lous insinuation, and downright personal abuse, have no parallel, as far as I know, in the official proceedings and decisions of any eccle- siastical or civil court in Protestant Christendom, since the days of Laud and Jeffries. This is my conviction and feeling (of the cor- rectness of which the reader will of course judge, after having exa- mined for himself) ; and if, in such circumstances, and under the influence of suua views, I should " rebuke too sharply," I beg the in- dulgence allowed to the feelings of the man, though I should unhap- pily los6 th^ higher advantages and satisfaction of approval awarded to the graces of the Christian. Gentlemen, when I think of your costly and magnificent Centenary Holly your great wealth, your numerous missions, your expansive operations (and Qod grant you still more abundant success in them !), the numerous calls upon your pious and benevolent exertions, from Europe, Africa, Asia, the West Indies, &c. ; and yet that you cannot allow your poor lal^rious brethren m Upper Canada to live in peace, but must waste your resources in waging an expensive and wanton warfare against them ; employing from twelve to twenty missionaries (so called), not one of whom, as far as I have learned, has formed a new society, since you dissolved the union without dividing a society of the Cai^ada Conference, and the majority of whom do not preach in a single neighbourhood where the Canada preachers are and have not been accustomed to preach. I say, when I think of these things, I am reminded of ihe exclamation of Caractacus, when exhibited as a captive at Rome : " Alas ! how is it possible that a people pos- sessed of such magnificence at home, could envy me an humble cot- tage in Britain." Your Canada brethren, in labours, and perils, and 49 poverty, have erected more chapels, and collected more converts and congregations in Upper Canada, than your missionaries, with your assistance, have done in all the other provinces of British North America, yet are our cottages envied ; and you commence a war, and that on political grounds too, against the Canada conference, at the very time Her Majesty's representative says^to them, in answer to an address presented to him, June, 1840: ** During my administration of the affairs of Upper Canada, it was my anxious desire to make myself acquainted with the opinions, with the conduct, and with the affairs of that portion of the people of the province of whom you are the spiritual leaders ; and I have been most happy in being able to bear my testimony to their loyalty and good conduct, not less than to your zeal, energy, and self-devotionin the pursuit of your conscientious labours. This testimony will, I feel no doubt, render vain the attempt which I regret to find is made by some of your own society, to represent you and those committed to your charge as disloyal to your sovereign and averse to British insti- tutions ; and I am conurmed in this belief by the address which I now acknowledge being concurred in, and presented by the official representative in the Canadas of the British Wesleya^Hbody, whose testimony is thus unequivocally added tc mine. " It is not my province to enter into any questions which may con- cern the management of the internal afiairs of your body. ^ Still it was with regret that I learned, when in the upper province, from the representatives of the London society, that differences of opinion pi-e- vailed amongst you ; and I shall be glad to find that they have been satisfactorily arranged. My course, however, is dear.' Whilst I admi- nister the affairs of the Canadas, it is my duty to look to the wishes and to the feelings of the people o:^ that country ; and you will find me ever ready and willing, whenever any question connected with the executive government may arise, to support the reasonable views and maintain the just rights of your society, as expressed through your recognized authorities within these provinces." - I have reason to know that the strong expressions cont^ed ii). this reply were called forth by Dr. Alder's first Letter to Lord John Russell, a copy of which had been received by His Bxcel- lency two days before he wrote the above reply to the address of the Canada conference. This is a much stronger and more flat- tering declaration than Dr. Alder boasts of having received from the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick ; and the testimony of 60 • • U Lord Sydenham is certainly of as much weight as that of Sir John Harvey. Gentlemen, your crusade against your Canada brethren may ac- cord wiA the resentment of wounded pride and disappointed ambition ; but can that which is, in the mouths of infidels, a reproach to our common Christianity, and, in the judgment of all candid Christians, a deep disgrace to our conunon Methodism, be the noble generosity which history declares, and which I know glows in Britith bosoms ? Can it be the outgoings of a charity which says, *' Grace be with all them that love our God Jesus Christ, in sin- cerity?" Gentlemen, you may felicitate yourselves on the amplitude of your resources, and the zeal of your i^ents in scattering, tearing, and de- vouring the labors of your Canada brethren ; but I venture to pre- dict the arrival of a day, when reason will be no longer drowned by passion, and truth lost in the spirit of party, and then will flash upon your minds, and upon the minds of the candid and sincere amongst your Canadian agents, the conviction that your Canada brethren have merited your embraces rather than your execrations, your assistance rather than your spoliations. In proceeding to answer your pamphlet, I beg to make one preli- minary observation. In whatever I may say, or may have said, I disclaim any imputation of your motives. You have indeed, in the strongest and most offensive language, impugned my motives^ my tincerityj and my intt^rkyy as well as my pubMc conduct ; but, even under such circumstances, I can admit the the purity of your mo- tives; and my conviction is, that your reprehensible proceedings cri^natedf not in unworthy motives, but in mistaken assumptions ; a Charies-the-First notion and tenacity of prerogative, and strong but ill-founded personal jealousies, suspicions, and prejudices ; and that yowc perteveranee in these reprehensible proceedings is attributable to the same causes, strengthened by a fear of the imputation of falli- bility, a pride of consistency, and the blinding and exciting spirit of party. Ecclesiastical history fiimishes us with many examples of good men and learned men having been parties to proceedings as un- just and cruel as those which you have set on foot against your Ca- nada brethren. Even the amiable and apostolic Cranmer so far erred fix>m the principles of Protestantism and the spirit of the New Testament, as to advise, on account of religious error, the execution of Joan Bocher. 61 To proceed with your pamphlet. — It appearsto have been prepared > with a view of justifying your proceedings, more by exciting preju- dlc3 against the representatives of the Canada conference, than by a fair and dignified investigation of the questions at issue. This is ap- parent, not only from your multiplied epithets and insinuations against me personally, but by your statement of circumstances which have no connexion with the merits of the affair, and are only calcu- lated to awaken suspicion and hostile feeling against my brother (who is absent in a distant part of Canada) and myself. In these statements you, also, either omit, or conceal, or mis-state important facts. I will select a few such Examples op Unfairness, Mis-statement, and Inconsistency. I. On page 18, in condemning our abrupt departure from England, you say that, the " Messrs. Ryerson could not be prevailed upon to accept of the invitation which was sent to them that they might, be- fore their departure, meet such members of the sub-committee as were then in London, for the sake of so necessary an object," " as to arrange the terras of separation in the most fair and amicable manner." Now, here arc several omissions, and tw ^ mis-statements. (1.) You omit the facts that, on Monday evening, a week before otu: departure, I proposed to Dr. Hannah, the secretary of your conference, to meet and converse with such members of your sub-committee ^ were in the neighbourhood' of London ; and that Dr. Hannah, when he called on us the next day, to deliver a copy of the official proceedings of your conference, informed us that it wonld not be convenient to have a meeting of the kind, as the missionary secretaries were absent (2.) We never received any such " invitation" as you mention, and therefore could not have refused to comply with it. Two or three days after our last interview with Dr. Hannah, in which he informed us the meeting we proposed would not be convenient, we received a note from the Rev. Mr. Hoole, inviting us to a friendly dinner with him (on the Saturday before our departure), in company wiih Mr. Scott and some other friends.- But no mention was made of any other person but Mr. Scott, much less, as you represent, *' such mem- bers of the sub-committee as were then in London; * nor was any other object intimated by Mr. Hoole than that of a '* friendly " or " family dinner." Gentlemen, it is unworthy of yourselves to repre- sent such a circumstance as an invitation to us, and a refusal by us, " to meet such members of your sub-committee as were then in Lon- 62 doib" We understood it as an expression of personal friendliness on the part of Mr. Hoole (with whom I had always been on friendly terms), and as a salye to our wounded feelings on our leaving Eng- land. By no species of casuistrfr could it be fairly represented as any thing more ; nor had we the remotest cuspicion that any thing more was intended. II. On the same (18th) page, you say, the Messrs. Ryerson's "intention to hasten their departure ,/Wm the conference before its sittings were closed, and before it had time and opportunity, finally, to conclude its proceedings and decision on the afiairs of Upper Ca- nada, was alike surprising and irreconcileab!? with the views enter- tained by this committee concerning the importance uf the business which then remained to be adjusted." On this extraordinaiy sf;ate< ment (which has no reference to the general merits of the afiair) suffer me to remark, (1.) that I never cLarished, nor heard of the *' intention" of which you speak, until I read it in your proceedings. (2.) That we repeatedly and eamer.dy urged the early and fullest consideration of our business at your conference. (3.) That we did not take our places at Newcastle for London until after the close of the annual session o^ j'our conference. (4.) That we did not Ipnve Newcastle until the morning after the close of that annual session ; and then left and travelled in company to York (eighty miles), with several senior members of your conference. Of these facts the Rev. Richard Reece, and several other members of your conference, are eye-witnesses ; of their bearing upon your statcmen.*; the reader can judge. III. On pages 18 and 19, you express yourselves *' at p. loss to un- derstand why the Messrs. Rycrson should havo deemed it proper to consign their papers to the press in such haste." Why. gentlemen, your understanding must be short indeed, if it be as short in other matters as you state it to ue in this ; for in the short advertisement to our pamphlet we assigned a reason which na ordinary mind could be " at a loss to understand," namely, that we had, either to let your one-sided proceedings go " to the press," and before the public, uncontroverted, or unaccompanied by the proceedings on the other side, or. we had to " hasten our papers" (occupying upwards of 100 pages) through the press in four daye ; the only time we had to reply to all your proceedings, as well as correcting the proof, beside preparing for our voyage, previously to the sailing of the steam packet in which our passage had been taken and paid for, before we had any idi&a of your intention to publish any thing on the subject, much / 63 less to publish any thing ourselves. You also condemn us for hav" ing '' appealed to the public al all in the present stage of the busi- ness." To each of you might I not say in the language of St. Paul, '^Thou art inexcusable, O man ; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest doest the same things?" You know that we had no intention of publishing our pamphlet, until we were informed by the secretary of your own conference, that your own proceedings had gone to tJte prett. The very haste with which our pamphlet was passed through the press is indubitable evidence of this. You had never, nor have yet, published the article of union between the two bodies ; but you publish the proceedings dissolving that union, and implicating the Canada conference and its representatives; and then, as if still further to add insult to injury, and injury to insult, you ^ ^ndemn those very representatives for appealing to the public at all, in reply to your own published proceedings. Your censure conveys to the uninformed reader the impression that we had commenced ap- pealing to the public, at that stage of the business, when you knew that cur appeal in print was prompted by what you had printed. Then, again, you charge us with having sent forth ^^& partial pamph- let, from which the public cannot possibly decide on the whole merits of the case." How triumphantly may this charge also be retorted. Let facts speak — ^facts which you can neither deny nor evade. Every reader of our pamphlet will see that we went to the expense of publishing every document and proceeding, on your side of the question as well as on our own. We published, (1.) the correspcmdence on both sides, which preceded the union, and led to thp formation of it. (2.) The articles of union. (3.) Your allega- tions and decisions against the Canada conference and myself, together with the proofs you adduced in support cf them. (4.) The replies and testimony of the Canada conference and its representatives against those allegations and decisions. Now, what more could we have published, to have enabled the British public to " decide on the whole merits of the case ? " And let me now, in reply, ask you, or any man in England, whether tb ., public could " possibly de- cide on the whole merits of the case," from the published proceedings of your conference, in its printed minutes, when you withhold from that puulic tho very articles of union which you say have been vio- lated, — when you withhold from that public the very proceedings of the Canada conference which you condemn as reprehensible ; when jov withhold from that public the very testimony, in defence of the 64 Canada cjuference, which you pronounce unsatisfactory. Perhaps, gentlemen, you may regard the decreet of your conference quite sufficient for ^ the puhlio " to ** decide on the whole merits of any case" in which you are concerned. However, amongst us poor uninitiated Canadians, we are still accustomed to regard the exa- mination of both sides of a case as necessary to an impartial deci- sion upon its " whole merits.** And I will ask you, again, whether, from your reiy pamphlet, to which I am now replying, " the puhlic can possibly decide upon the whole merits of the case ? " You still keep from the view of your readers the article* of union which secure the rights claimed by the Canada conference. Why do you this, if you wish " the whole merits of the case ** to be understood ? Can " the public " judge whether the Canada conference has violated those articles, or whether what you a!lege is a violation of those articles, until they read the articles themselves ? We published
rewcastle committee and conference, alongside of your answer to them. We had likewise published Dr. Alder's first elaborate letter to Lord John Bussell alongside of our reply to it. The same justice to us that we had meted out to you, would have required you to publish our reply alongside of Dr. Aider's answer to it, contained in your pamphlet. But, such a course, however Christian and honourable, would have defeated your object — would have spoiled, for your purpose, your pamphlet — as the antidote would have accompanied the poison. A comparison, in juxtaposition, between your answers and our replies, would have shovvn, that, while you have occupied many pages upon pages in discussing the circumstances of the case, you have entirely evaded the vital merits of the case, — that, while you have voluminously carped at incidental statements, you have not taken up one of the leading positions of the Canada conference, nor grappled with one of the principal arguments which we employed in support of those positions, as I shall hereafter show. I confidently leave any candid English reader to judge between the asserted partiality of the pamphlet of the two Canadians, and the as- sumed impartiality of the London Wesleyan Committee's pro- ceedings. 56 But your charge of our having prematurely left England, without . conferring with your sub-commi^t<>e, requires a more specific notice. An examinati m of it ifvill elicit another example of your unfairness and injusttcb. (1.) You have not pretended to deny that yfe pro- posed to the Secretary of your conference, eiffkt days before we left London, to meet any members of your sub-committee who might be assembled. And I may add, that, a day or two after that, we ex- pressed a similar sentiment to the Rev. Edmund Grindrod (one of the ex-Presidents of your onference), and informed him that we were preparing a pamphlet for the press, as we had learnt that the proceedino;** of your Newcastle Committee and conference had been sent to the press. Here was another opportunity for you to have pre- vented any " appeal to the ptiblic at that stage of the business ;" for, if you had withdrawn your proceedii^s from the press, we should not have sent ours to it; and if any members of your sub-committee had been disposed to meet us, we were ready to meet them. (3.) But any man who reflects upon the posture of the important interests with which we were identified, will be surprised that we remained in England so long, rather than that we left so soon. Your Conference had abandoned the union ; you had determined to comu within the territory of the Upper Canada conference, and set up rival pulpits, and establish separate interests here. The shock, the agitation, and confusion which would be created, in the Methodist societies in Upper Canada, by such an announcement, may easily be conceived by every English reader. After such a termination of our mission to your conference, and in such a posture of our Canadian interest.., what would common sense and commc prudence dictate, but that we should hasten back to our charge,, ind to the scene of action and counsel, vtiihout a m&menis delay; and more i^^pooiiiUy when your proceedings rendered a special session of the ' anada confertuce in- dispensable — when the members of that conference could not as- semble later than October, on account of the badness of the roads in Canada in the autumn and spring; and when it were utterly impos- sible for a hundred men, spread over a region of new cou'^'iy, nearly as large as England and Scotland, to receive notice, and prepare, and assemble together in October, if we should leave London later than the Ist of September. Of course, you would have been glad to Imv pre- vented any meeting of the Canada conference, or any prepii ons in Canada, against your schismatic aggressions upon our congregations and societies. (3.) There is another fact connected with this part of the affair which you adroitly keep out of sight ; it ii the fact, that the w HQ ■ &6 Canada conference had recorded its solemn declaration against the dissolution of the union, jand, therefore, as we said to you, again and again, ive^ as its representatives, could not assent to that measure, much le'js be a party with your sub-committee to " carry, out the dit- tohttion of the I'lion." The Canada conference had, from the begin- ning, based that union upon more comprehensive principles than a few conventional rules ; they based it upon the principles laid down by your conference in 1820, by which you recognized the rightful and exclusive pccupancy of Uppw Canada by the Canada conference, while the rightful and exclusive occupancy of Lotoer Canada was conceded to you. The resolutions of your conference, adopted tmani- morsly in Liverpool, 1820, and signed " Jabez Bunting, President" and " George Marsden, Secretary" are as follows : — "1. That, as the American Methodists and ourselves are but one BODY, it would be incomutent with our unity.^ and dangerous to that affection which ought to characterize us in every place, to have dif- ^^Jf^ent societies and c(mgregaiions in the same towns and vilk^es^ or, to '] allow of any intrusion on either side into each other's labours. ^'That this principle shall be the rule by which the disputes, now existing in the Canadas, between our missionaries, shall be termi- nated." In the instructions of your missionary committee to your Canada missionaries, dated August 23, 1820, and signed '* Joseph Taylor" and '* Richard Watson," Secretaries^ the same sentiments are held, as follows : — " In conformity with these views, we have long thought it a re- proach, and doing more injury by disturbing the harmony of the two connexions than could be counterbalanced by any local good, that the same city or totcn should see two congregations^ c id two societies^ and two preachers^ professing the same form of Christianity^ and yet thus proclaiming themselves rivals to each other, and, in some in- stances, invading each other's societies and chapels, and thtts producing party fedings, " You will consider these resolutioh .v the fruit of a very ample inquiry, and of serious del^eration."* How noble and Christian are such sentiments ! who could have he- lloed that that same missionary committee would, in 1841, be em- * See these resolutions in a former part of this pamphlet, p. 19, under the head of " Resolutions of the Canada Conference, adopted at a special Session held in the City of Toronto, U.C., Oct. 23 — 29, 1840, and unanimously re-affirmed in June, 1841. 57 ploying some twenty missionaries in Upper Canada, in of^osition to such sentiments; and that fifteen of those missionaries would he wholly employed in establishing rival pulpits, congregations, and so- cieties in the same cities, and towns, atad villages, and neighhourhoods, which have, from the beginning, heen occupied by the ministers and missionaries of the Canada conference, and invading the societies of the Canada conference ! Now, in view of these facts, and proceedings, and principles, how could the representatives of the Canada conference sanction, even by their presence, the proceedings of your sub-committee ? (5.) And this brings me to another part of your proceedings under this head, which exhibits your conduct towarcis us in a still more dubious and ques- tionable light. Though, in all courtesy, and propriety, and justice, we should have been iiimished, within a day after the close of the session of your conference, with an official copy of its proceedings on the subject of our mission, they were withheld from us for ten dayti and, during that timey your Canada committee held a regular meeting at Manchester, August 19. Now, gentlemen, common sense, and propriety, and decency teach that this was the meeting which the re- presentatives of the Canada conference ought to have been invited to attend. This was the com. 'ttee which had power to decide and 8'*t upon the whole affair, in any and every view of it ; this was the meet- ing at which the propriety and expediency of your occupying Upper Canada at all, was taken into consideration and decided upon. This was the meeting, therefore, to which the Canada representatives should have been invited ; this was the meeting which they could and would have attended. Why, then, did you exclude them from this meeting ? Why did you invite and Haten to all the ex parte statements which could be made agairst the Canada conference, and in favor of in- vading its fields of labor ; and hear nothing, and consult nobody on the Canada side of the question ? You here resolve upon what you would do ; you appoint a sub-committee to carry your will into effect ; and you then invite the Canada representatives to meet that sub-com- mittee. That is, in national language, on the 19th of August you declare war againsi; Canada; you appoint a commission in London, called a sub-committee, to carry out your declaration ; you invite the Canadian ambassadors to wait upon that commission, and consult upon carrying on the Canadian voar most peacefuXly ; and, because those ambassadors, having, on expenses, at their own boarding-house, already danced attendance upon your pleasure, from the 15 th to the 30th of August, feel that the crisis to which the affairs of their s / 58 country are brought demands their earliest return to Canada; yoQ denounce their non-compliance with your *' invitation," and their de- parture, as hasty and reprehensible ; and condemn their publishing a protest against your war, eren after you had commenced printing the alleged grounds of it ! I know this practical mode of answering and repdling your charges will be offensive to you ; for " A keen reproach, with justice on its side,' Is always grating." The painful necessity has been forced upon me. Self-preservation is the first law of nature ; and even a Canadian worm will not be trodden upon with impunity. Your undignified and pitiful evasion about the unfiur enumeration of documents in the report of the Newcastle committee, has been suf- ficiently exposed In the resolutions of the Canada conference com- mittee, which form the third document in this pamphlet ; as have also yovac_^nancial (mis-) explanation, your self-contradictions about your reception and treatment of the representatives of the Canada con- ference, your groundless imputations against the Canada conference in regard to the dissolution of the imion, and your mis-statements and the fiulure of your evidence to prove your allegations against me in my editorship of the ^'Christian Guardian." There are, however, some items made under these heads which require a specific notice fix>m me. In the financial statement of your fourth resolution (pp. 19, 20), in which you profess to account for the expenditure of 4,331/. IJg. 'Jd. (a bungling and defective account, as I shall hereafter show), you add the following item in CAPITALS — ^* Toteards the ea!penge8 of Mr. Eg&rton Rjferson during his stay in England in the year 1837*" Making such a statement is certainly a very small affair for an assemblage of doctors of divinity; and it is a still smaller affair for you to make such a statement without stating the amount ; and it is a smaller af- &ir still for you to make such a charge against me personally, when you knew that I had no more personal interest in the matter than you had, and when you knew that all my expenses were paid by the body on whose behalf I acted. Besides, you never paid a farthing on my account in 1837, for, early in that year, I left England for Ca- nada. And notwithstanding your assertion, that as "the Messrs. Ryerson had seen the society's general report published in London, as well as the local report published in Canada, they can plead no ex- 59 as ex- cuse on the ground of ignorance," I deny that any such item appears in your reports. Of the justness of this denial any man may satisfy hiidself liy examining the reports themselves. From this chaxge you evidently desire the reader to infer, that you had not only conferred upon me an act of princely generosity, but th^t that charge had gone far to absorb the unaccounted-for sum of 4,331^. 17'- Id.^ when you knew that it did not exceed ^(il. Your own agents in Canada have, in a printed pamphlet, set it down at "between 501. and 100/. cur- rency^ that is, between 45/. and 90/. sterling. Furthermore, you with- hold one half of the facts of the case ; and you know that mis-state- ments and slander can be published as well by omitting faetSy as by stating falsehoods. The facts are briefly these : in the latter part of the year 1835, the representative of your conference in Canada got into serious pecuniary difficulties with your missionary committee in London,* difficulties which were like to ruin him in Canada, as bills to the amount of some 1,800/. sterling, on the Wesleyan committee in London, had been dishonored. In these circumstances he implored me to go to London and arrange the affair between him and the com- mittee, and get him out of his pecuniary responsibilities, by borrowing or getting by subscriptions, or government grants the sum which he had engaged to advance. At great private inconvenience I undertook the arduous mission, and arrived in London on the Ist of January, 1836. In the correspondence part of that mission, I was partially em- ployed until the Ist of August following. During that interval I sup- plied, in various chapels, in the Great Queen-street circuit, for Mr. Waterhouse, the superintendent, who was ill the greater part of the time. I also preached special sermons, and attended various mis- sionary meetings in the neighbourhood of London, and in various towns in the kingdom. In return for these services, your missionary secretary, Mr. Hoole, agreed to pay my board (a guinea a week) from the time of my arrival in England until the Birmingham conference, 1836, a period of seven months; and, for that amount, paid under such circumstances, and for such consideration, you now tax me with having been a pauper upon your generosity, and as guilty of in- gratitude ! But Dr. Alder advances a step further. In his letter to Lord John Russell (p. 61) he not only taxes me again with this charge, but charges against me the *' expenses incurred by the missionary com- mittee" on account of my first risit to England, 'in 1833* It will * He had agreed to advance 2,500/. to the trustees of the U.C. Academy, in spe- cified instalments, upon the security of a mortgage upon the premises. E 2 60 hereafter be seen, that I undertook that mission in accoirdance vvith Dr. Alder's earnest recommendation and remonstrance, after I had determined to give it up. I was in England, as representatire of the Canada conference, from Aprjl to August, in 1833, a period of between three and four months. Of that period I was at the mission-house about eight or nine weeks, at a charge to the committee of 1/. per week. During my stay at the mission-house, I preached and attended^ more or less, missionary meetings every week^ at the request of the missio aiy secretaries. During the remaining period of that short visit tu England, I travelled upwards of 1,000 miles, attended be- tween thirty and fifty missionary meetings for the committee, em- bracing the distant regions from London, of Exeter, Bath, Bristol, Nottingham, &c. It is very true, the strength, and time, and such labours of a despised Canadian may now be estimated by you as worth nothing in comparison of eight or ten guineas paid by your committee on account of my board at the mission-house ; but they were said by you, in former years, to be otherwise, as the official addresses of your conference to the Canada conference will testify. Gentlemen, — In accordance with your magnanimous conduct to- wards me, you ought to send over your account to the United States, for the expense incurred by your missionary committee, on account of the Rev. Dr. Fise's visit to England in 1836 ; for he also was entertained at the mission-house. Perhaps the honorary titles of D.D. conferred by Dr. Fisk's university upon Messrs. Bunting and Alder may be considered an equivalent; but still I see no good reason why those things should be paid for by your missionary com- mittee, any more than my few months' board, without a public charge by you, in expiration of the manner in which unaccounted-for sums of money had been expended. As to myself, the expression of my feelings is unimportant to the English reader ; he can only feel interested in the facU of the case ; but I may be permitted to say, gentlemen, that, if you will make out your bill for my board at the expense of your missionary committee, and forward it to Canada, I will pay every farthing of it; nor will I charge any thing for my scores of humble but sincere efforts to plead for the funds of your society ; nor will I charge, as a set-off, the^^», that, in the domestic mansion of one of my own parents, the successive representatives of the -English Wesleyan conference, with their families, have been hospit- ably entertained nearly as long as I was lodged at your mission house, and that the representatives of your missionary conmiittee, while travelling and pleading for the funds of your society, have been ^ra- ?;v. 61 tuitously entertained by members of the Canada connexion more months than I ever stopped weeks at your mission-house. Gentlemen, such trumpery to injure and degrade me betrays the extremity to which you are reduced. At best, for such great men as you are reputed to be, it is an unclean as well as a little businei^; and I would sooner be the object of your vehement reproaches, than be the sharer of your acquired honors in this part of the afiair. There is, however, to your supporters in England a more important view of the matter ; it is this : That after all your charges against me — after all the items enumerated by you in your fourth resolution (pp. 19, 20), and by Dr. Alder in his letter to Lord John Russell (p. 61), you fall more than fifteen hundred poundt sterling short of p.ccounting for the expenditure of the whole sum of £4331 178. 7d., without adding the difference in exchange, which is ten per cent, and upwards, in favour of your agents, but of which no public account has yet been given. I repeat, therefore, that the manner in which thai sum of £4331 17s. ^^i. has been expended, is yet unac counted for in any printed report. That sum may have been ex- pended ; of that I say nothing ; but how a great part of that sum has been .upended has never yet been stated in print; and though your abuse of me may throw dust in the eyes of some readers, yet that does not account for the expenditure of the money. ' There may be many hundred pounds of that sum expended, which no Canadian committee could conscientiously allow, and of the propriety of which no London committee can judge, from their necessary ignorance of the localities of Canada, and of the ordinary expenses of travelling and living in it. Besides, some items of charge have leaked out in Dr. Alder's letter, which excite increased inquiry and surprise in this country. We, who live on the spot, never heard of such a thing as a " president's young man," or an occasional " assistant to the super- intendent of missions." "We know not who such persons can be; nor should we have ever known that such persons ever existed in Canada, had not Dr. Alder informed Lord John Russell that a part of the £4331 17s. 7<1« bad been expended to support such officers, f know there is such a thing as secret service money in civil govern- ments ; but you are the first Protestant ecclesiastical body, that I know of, which has incorporated into its proceedings that feature of state policy. I doubt the usefulness or propriety of such a system of patronage in a religious community. I am not surpr ^ed at your sensitiveness on this point, especially the vehement declamation of Dr. Alder, who weU knows the bearing of my inquiry. But, gen~ I 62 tlemeiif when you shall have rendered any thing like a decent detailed account of the expenditure of the whde sum of ^4331 17si 7d., togethei: with the amount of gain by the difference of exchange, then you may abuse me as much as you please. As yet you hare fur- nished no such account; you hare only "darkened counsel by multi- plying words without knowledge." The foregoing panifpraphs may account in part for the unparalleled abuse which you have poured forth upon my private character in fifth resolution (p. 20). Your charging upon me, as a private indi- vidual, ^'unfaithfulness," " slipperiness," &c. &c., and denouncing me as unworthy of the intercouse of social life, without specifying a single fact, so that I might answer for myself, may be in accordance with your feelings and doctrine, that might is right, — ^may be worthy in your cause and object ; but it cannot exalt you in the estima- tion of Chrbtian and thinking persons, how much soever it may debase me. For you to descend from the legitimate ground and topics of public discussion (where I could meet you on equal ground by an appeal to documentary evidence, however inferior I am in number and talent), to the scandal of private life (where I could have no shield of defence against your thrusts), speaks loud enough, without a note from me, to the Christian and honourable feelings of every intelligent Englishman. ' We spoke of our official reception, as representatives of the Canada conference, at your conference. You reply by attacking my private character. If I had be^d a Talleyrand, I should have been received, not according to the opinions which might be entertained of my merits as a man, but according to my official Nation. You have not denied a single fact which we adduced to show wherein we had not been received with common courtesy ; and our statement of the facts, connected with every possible qualifi- cation and the strongest expressions of personal respect and affection, may be confidently contrasted with your personal attacks and vitu- peration. Although the reader may not be able to judge of the merits of every conflicting statement, he can easily judge of the terms and gpirit in which our respective statements have been made.* But in * The boarding house at which we lodged in Newcastle was a very comfortable one — as much so as could be desired. To the quality of the place no exception has been taken. It is known that the appointments of preachers to lodgings at Methodist conferences are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians ; and in no instatice had the representatives of one cenfereiice to another been kept at a boarding house. Our .pamphlet (pp. 84, 85) states hew representatives have uniformly been recei -A in Engltuid, the United StateSi and Canada. II I V teference to your personal attacks upon me, as unworthy of the con- < fidence and intercourse of social life, I may say with Socrates to his executioners, " You may kill fN«, but you cann*t kurt tne." All I haTe to remark on this point is, that, without age to command respect, or money to purchase influence, I haye been confided \\ and sustained, through many successive years of trial, by the ministers and members bf the Wesleyan connexion in Canada, with a unanimity not equalled by that which any, or all, of my London impugners have been supported by the Wesleyan body in England ; that when your own representa- tive in Canada got into overwhelming difficulties with you in 1835, I was the chosen man to undertake a confidential and difficult mis- sion ; that when your own representative thought, in 1838, that the *"*■ high church " oligarchy in Canada should be humbled, and Me- thodist rights and interests more firmly advocated, he was the first and most active in drawing me firom my beloved obscurity as the one above all others to be confided in and called to that work (see this proved in a subsequent page). And I may add, the junctttre of your present imputations is a sufficient comment upon their origin and motives, and object and-ffiSnl^ Again, on page 22, you say ''these remonstrances have been equally directed against all the various interferences of Mr. Egerton Byerson as a Christian minister, and the 'Christian Guardian' as the official organ of a religious community ecclesiastically identified by the union with British Methodism, which have occurred during the last seven years, during which period Mr. Egerton Byerson and the 'Guardian' have successively and in turn supported difierent adminis- trations, and opposite systems of colonial policy." To this, I answer, 1. The idea involved that I have been editor of the Guardian during the last seven years is incorrect ; fi)r, firom June 1835 to June 1838 I had no connexion whatever with the Guard>an. 2. From the con- tents, as well as the dates of the' letters from your missionaiy secre- taries, quoted by you (pp. ^ — 71 )» it is perfectly clear that you never sent out any ''remonstrances" against the "interferences of Mr. Egerton Byerson " before January, 1839. Your charge, there- fore, respecting those all*»3ed "interferences" is unfounded; or you have, by your silence up to 1839, proved false to your own professed principles of Methodism. In the former alternative, the inference is, without being stated, obvious ; but if your charge be true, two inferences are undeniable: j^rsty That you tacitly approved for several years of what you now complain ; teeondly^ That you now denounce me, and profess to dissolve the union, for what you yourselves parti- 04 cipated in during the period of sereral years I But you also state, that during that period of seven^ years I " have successively and in turn supported different administrations." It appears then, by your showing, that I was not very factious, but very subservient. But you seem not to have understood the import or application of your own language ; or jrou have employed terms which convey a fidse idea of facts, in order to fix upon tne as deeply as possible the stigma of inconsistency. You know, or ought to know, that the word adminittrationy as commonly used in England, designates those to whom the reins of government are for the time committed, and who are depending upon their influence in parliament for their existence in office. In a colony, or in Canada, the application of that term does not extend beyond the governor, who alone is responsible, the same executive counsellors continuing in office under successive governors. Whatever, therefore, I may have done, I could neithet oppose nor support any ** administration " in contradistinction to the governor — ^for thttre was none. Your charge, therefore, is, that I " have, successively and in turn supported different" governors ; and yet Dr. Alder tells Lord John Russell (p. 34), that I have opposed every governor in Canada except Lord Sydenham! Such, gentlemen, are the disgraceful dilemmas and self-contradictions in which your unjust course of calumny and persecution involves you at every step — a circumstance that ought to make you pause. You likewise say I have supported " opposite systems of colonial policy." Strange that I was doing all this for so many years, and you were silent until 1839, afler Lord Sydenham assumed the government of Canada. But, gentlemen, how many of you who have gravely put forth this charge, ever read the Guardian in your lives, much less read it con- stantly, so as to know what '* system of colonial policy" I supported, or whether I advocated any. Dr. Alder has asserted and employed a laige space to prove (pp. 39 — 43) that I have uniformly, from 1832 to 1839, opposed the erection of a church establishment in Canada. When any one of you will show, that, from 1832 to 1839, 1 have, as editor of the Guardian, written one column in support of or against any other question of colonial policy, I will show that I have advo- cated but one view of it. And Dr. Alder himself is witness to my consistency, and even tenacity, on the church establishment ques- tion. You again, therefore, ftimish the refutation of yoiir own charges. YI. I have thus disposed of the principal matters in which you have impugned me personally i I leave the candid reader to judge ^ ! 65 between us without further note or comment. But I must advert to some other parts of your resolutions in which I am not so exclusirely concerned. On page 23, you say, " This committee maintains that the British conference alone has the right of deciding with what class of principles it can honorably, and with a due regard to its own consistency and long cherished views, be publicly identified, and a correspondent right to d:9> olve a union with any other body what- ever, which deliberately and tenaciously persists to advocate by its recognized agent, or in its official organ, otk&r and opposite principles of which it conscientiously disiipproves." Now the undoubted truth of one part of this declaration is only equalled by the unscrupulous sophistry of the other part. The right you claim for the British conference is undoubtedly true in the ab- stract ; and belongs as much to every private individual as it does to your conference. Your assertion of right is also true in respect to a " union with any other body," provided the temu of that union allow each body to dissolve the union at its own pleasure. The Canada conference, before the union, was as independent a body as the English conference ; its right was therefore as extensive and as sacred. But as an individual, when he enters into the union of civil tocietyy gives up certain of his naturtU rights ; so, when the English and Canada conferences entered into a union, then their undoubted inherent rights became circumscribed by the articles of that unions the same as the independent rights of two individuals become cir- cumscribed by the articles of co-partnership. For you then to deny the obligations of contract upon the theory of natural rights is un- worthy of Christian and honorable men, and involves the very essence of chartism and anarchy^ — is subversive of all law and government While it was the unquestionable right of your con- «> ference, in forming a union with the Canada conference, to judge and decide whether with any, or with what class of principles it would b, come identified, yet, when that union voas formed, your conference, as well as the Canada conference, became bound by the terms of it. As great as you may be, or may assume to be, you are not above lan^ and the law of contracts too, as you will probably learn during the next five years. But your general assertion of natural right involves an insinuation that the Canada conference " deliberately and tenaciously persists to advocate by its recognized agent, or in its official orf;an, other and opposite principles of which it Qthe English conference] conscientiously disapproves." Now, in every view this insinuation is unfounded. In relation to secular 66 politics, the rosolutions of the Canada confeteKce in June last, the iresolutions of even your own Newcastle committee and conference, aaJ our pamphlet (pp. 103, 104), show that we in no respect dis- sented from you on that ground, and that you cannot therefore, with any truth or sincerity, plead that as a reason for abandoning the union. And even in respect to the question of a church tsstablish- ment in Ganarla. r^ur pamphlet (p. 104) shows that we were ready for the sake of peace to drop the question in silence, but your Newcastle committee and conference required that we should beoovM odvoeatM of the affimuUive tide of it. But the inconsistency, as well as the injustice of your insinuation, and assumption, and requirement, on this point, will be more apparent from the following &cts, which we have heretofore stated, and which you have not denied, nor can suc- cessfiilly deny, as the eVidence of their truth is documents />nn<^ at the time the teoeral mcUt^t r^^red to transpired. (1.) That while I was in England negotiating the formation of the union in 1833, 1 pre'sentevi a petition to Mr. (now Lord) Stanley, who was then colo- nial secretary, to be laid before the king, signed by 20,000 inhabitants of Upper Canada, cgainst any church establishment in this province, and in fikvour of the appropriation of the clergy rcserres to educa- tional purposes. (2.) TheA I read to Mr. Beecham (then the only suryiving missionary secretary) the communication I made to the gOTfcmment, advocating the prayer of that petition. (3.) That the whole matter of the Canada clergy reserves and church establishment question was H'^vght up before the Canada committee of your Man- chester conference in 1833, at the time the union was agreed to by your conference. (4.) That the Canada conference was left free to maintain its position and views, as is clear from the Canada repre- sentatives' report, which ^vas submitted to and ccncurred in by the representatives of your conference and missionary committee, both before and at the time it was laid before the Canada conference. (5.) That the "official organ" of the Canada conference advocated the same views from 1833 to 1839, without a single word of complaint from you or you? representatives in Canada. (6.) That successive addresses and resolutions, adopted by the Canada conference on the suDJect during that period, have been both concurred in and signed by the representatives of your conference and missionary committee. Now for you, in the face of such facts, to insinuate that it was a crime and breach of good faith for the Canada conference to oppose the erection of a church establishment in Canada, is an outrage upon consistency, truth, justice, and hodor, which it would be fatal to 67 tile reptttation of any private indiyidual to commit. Numbers may lessen individual responsibility, and embolden to acts of oppression and injustice ; but they cannot justify vm>ng, any more than they can extinguish the sun. VII. Again, on the same (23rd) pi^e, you say, **This committee, with perfect confidence, reiterates the sentiment expressed by the committee on Canadian afiairs to the last conference (see minutes of 1840, p. 134), that the British conference * cannot safely be identified in views and responsibility with any body, however respected, o««r whote public proceedings it is denied the riffkt and pomer of exerting any official influence, so as to secure a reasonable and necessary co- ordinate but effieient direeHum^ during the continuance of the union.' The peremptory denial of any such right by the Canadian conference was of itself a virtual (UHindonment of the union, and rendered jmt and ne&stfary its recent and formal dissolution." The doctrine of the proposition which you " reiterate " is, that the British conference ought not to be connected with any body of which it is not master. On the modesty or correctness of this doctrine I have nothing to say. It may be as true in itself as it is agreeable to your inclinations ; but, is it tiie question at issue ? Is it not a pitiful evasion of the question ? The real question is, not one of theory^ but ai fact. It is not what you may as6ert to be pvper and wise and expedient in the formation of a union between the British conference and any other ecclesiastical body ; but it is, vohcU were the terms ), disproves both of these statenienls. From that correspondence it is clear that the Canada 78 W conference never suggested the measure of union until its remon- strances again -.t your establishing separate societies in Upper Canada, as you are now doing, proved unavading; and when the Canada con- ference did suggest that measure, its reasons were, (1.) To prevent collisions. (2.) To enlarge and extend the work, not to *' save it from ruin " where it had been commenced. The following resolu- tions, adopted by our missionary board, May 29, 1B32, and which were afterwards approved by the conference at which you were pre- sent, distinctly state the grounds on which the union was proposed. " 7- That the establishment of two distinct connexions of Metho- dists in this province would, in the opinion of the board, be produc- tive of unpleasant feelings, litigation, and party disputes, to the dis- credit of Methodism, atid the great injury of religion; but that the energies of the English and Canada connexions, if combined, would, under the blessing of God, close the door against all collision and party feeling, and contribute greatly to the extension of the work, both amongst the white population and the Indian tribes. "8. ThaX in order io prev(mt misunderstandings ; to preserve peace and harmony in our societies; to supply every part of the work throughoiU the province ; to enlarge the field of missionary operations among the aboriginal inhabitants ; the board respectfully suggests to the conference, at its approaching session, the propriety and impor- tance of proposing such a coalition with the English conference as will accomplish these objects." In these resolutions there is a virtual refufcition of your assertion (p. 57), that the union was proposed to you because our " missions must be ruined for want of funds to support them." Our conference admitted its inability to enlarge its labours commensurate with the wants of this country ; but it asserted its ability to support the work already commenced within its boundaries ; for, in the correspondence above quoted, and read and approved at the very conference at which the union was proposed, where you were present, oiu: board said, " There is little doubt but the funds of our own society can be in- creased to a sufficient sum to meet the wants of all the Indian tribes within the present boundaries of our conference." In support of your assertion that our missions must be " ruined for want of support," and that you had been, as you say, instrumental in saving the missions of Upper Canada from ruin (p. 58), you quote a passage from my evidence before a court of justice, in a cha- pel case in 1837. I^ut have I said a word there Avhich sanctions such an assertion ? What I said is in perfect accordance with the above quoted resolutions, to which I referred in the very passage which you have adduced. My words were, as cited by yourself^ " Our board admitted our inability to supply the religious wants of the country, but stated at length to Mr. Alder, and in writing to the Committee in London Qsee resolutions^ quoted above], the evils likely to arise from the existence of two bodies of Methodists in this province ; its infringement of the hitherto universally acknow- ledged principle, that *the Wcsleyan Methodists are one body through- out the world;' and the desirableness of uniting the means and - 79 energies of the two connexions to promote the religious improvement of the aboriginal tribes and new settlements of the country. Now, every man of common sense knows that to " supply the re- ligious wants of a country," and to support certain missions already established in a country, are two different things. A body may be unable to do the former, but may^ be able to do the latter. Your assertion and representation, thcreforo, are as wide from fact, as " saving" certain "missions from ruin," and " supplying the religious wants of a country " are different from each other. Your elaborate financial statement, and professed exposition of our errors (pp. fiG, 57), is borrowed verbatim without credit, from a pamphlet published in this city last autumn, by Messrs. Stinson and Richey — a pamphlet which I had rcfuteil, and which is regarded here as a proverb of error and folly. I replied to that pamphlet the day after its publication, in an address to the conference, which was then in session. My reply was published at- the unanimoua request of the conference. Ihe reply which I then m;ide to the financial part of their pamphlet, I quote in answer to the same statement plagiarized by you. It is as follows : " Mr. Alder had stated in a letter to Lord John Russell, that when the Wesleyan committee assumed the responsibility of supporting the Canada missions (Oct. 1833), the various sums raised by the Upper Canada conference amounted to the small sum of 177^. 18*. \d. ster- ling. We shoAved from the Canada missionary report for the yeai" ending October, 1833, that the various sums raised by the conference during that year amounted to 1,322/. c\u:rency. But though this is the sum total stated in the report, there are two items on the debtor's side of the treasurer's report which ought to have been deducted. The one was the sum of 286^. 5«. Ad. advanced by Mr. J. R. Armstrong, treasurer; the other, 129/. 7*« o-^df-, being a balance in the treasurers hands from the surplus receipts of the preceding year. In these itema we stand corrected by Messrs. Stinson and Richey. "My brother has stated to you how the error occuiTed, as- he pre- pared the financial part of our statement ; that I had neither time nor strength to examine its accuracy ; that it never occurred to him to de- duct any of the items given under the head of receipts. But it is clear, that the amount we stated was available, to the Canada conference for its missionary operations during the year ending Oct. 1833, though not all raised that year. ' • It also appears from a careful scrutiny that there were 96/. more collected in the United States that year than was credited by us to oiir American brethren. The entire amount, however, was raised by the exertions of this conference. " Now these are all the errors which Messrs. Stinson and Richey have been able to detect in our report and pamphlet ; although the latter contains a series of financial statements, embracing a great va- riety of items and calculations! " They have, indeed, imputed these errors to the worst of motives ; but what are the facts of the case ? I hold in my hand a financial table, in my brother's hand-Avriting, prepared by him with a good deal 80 of labor, embracing the receipts, from various quarters, of missionary monies from 1832 to 1839, and various appropriations, &c. This table was prepared, not for publication, but to aid me in replying to Mr. Alder's letter to Lord John Russell, which was read as part of his speech to the committee of the English conference. I was not, how- ever, allowed to reply to Mr. Aiders letter before the committee of the English conference. I then invited an investigation of Mr.' Alder's financial statement by any three members of that committee, who were experienced accountants, and offered to prove to them, from printed reports, that Mr. Alder had mis-stated facts to the amount of hun- dreds of pounds. They, however, declined the investigation which I desired. It is obvious, that when such were the circumstances under which my brother prepared our financial statement, and such the ob- jects of it, it must have been prepared with a view to accuracy. And when oui letter to Lord John Russell, containing the statement, was transmitted to his lordship, we also enclosed, for his lordship's exami- nation, all the reports referred to in our letter ; which was intended for Lord John Russell alone, and with no view to publication, as in- sinuated by Messrs. Stinson and Richey. The publication of that letter in England, as well as the whole of the proceedings of the English and Canada conferences, was suggested by circumstances which transpired several days after it was writtf^n and delivered to the Secretary of State for the colonies. "But what object do Messrs. Stinson and Richey gain by this rao(!e of argumentation in behalf of Mr. Alder, whom they propose to vin- dicate ? Mr. Alder had stated that when the Wosleyau committee in London assumed the responsibiUty of !"xpportiiig *\ve Indian missions in Upper Canada, this conference raided the himall sum of 1771.; Messrs. Stinson and Richey say it ' was orily ^J07L (is. 7\d.' — thus convicting Mr. Alder of mis-stating the facts of the case to the dis- advantage of this conference to the amount of nearly seven hundred pounds! Such is their own vindication of Mr. Alder on this point! " Messrs. Stinson and Itichey have employed considerable labor to ascertain and exhibit the receipts of our missi(»nary society from 1829 tf> 1832 ; thus diverting attention from the real question at issue ; which was the amount raised hy this conference for missionary pur- poses at the time the union took plac*'. If it were true that the re- ceipts of our missionary society during those years were so small in comparison of what they were in 1832 and IQ'XS, it only proves that our missionary collections and subscriptions were incTcasing at the rate of from Jiftf/ to one hundred per cent, a year, up to the time of th' union, when they fell off more than five hundred per cent., and have only gradually been raised to their origimil amount. Messrs. Stinson and Richey ought also to have added that, during those years, several tribes of Indians were converted from heathenism to Chris- tianity, and that we had a net increase in the membership of our chuich, during that very period, of more than 4000 soul-, and raised nearly all our subscriptions for tlie erection of the buildings of tlic Upper Canada academy ; and that in 1J1.32 we had twenty-live per cent, more Indians in church commimiun, anil forty per cent, more 81 Indian children in our missioji schools than wo have at the present time. These are very serious omissions on the part of Messrs. Stinson and Richey ; and the truth is as often mis-stated by omitting essential facts, as by inventing imaginary ones. "But one object of Messrs. Stinson and Richey, in their proposed ex- hibit of the receipts of our missionary society from 1829 to 1832, ap- pears to be, to show that large sums had been obtained from the United States ; and they have sedulously collected together items of that description. Suppose all these statements were true, are they disreputable to any of the parties concerned ? When the first Indian missions were established in this province, we had an ecclesiastical connexion with the United States Methodist conference, and our mis- sionary society was auxiliary to the missionary society of the Methodist episcopal cliurcli in the United States. When we, by mutual consent, became an independent church, and our missionary operations inde- pendent, our American brethre'i still continued to feel Ji deep interest m the cause of Indian missionii ;a this province, and forwarued liberal contributions towards their support, without asking any control over them, or any other return than a few copies of our missionary re- ports ; whilst we, on the other hand, aided them in some of their north western Indian missions with Indian interpreters and speakers. "There is, however, another view to be taken of this part of Messrs. Stinson and Richey's pamphlet. Mr. Alder stated to Lord John Russell that there were more '■pvlhical than religious sympathizers in the United States,' and that our etibrts to obtain assistance from that quarter were 'found to be ineffectual.' According to Messrs. Stinson and Richey, larga assistance was obtained from the United States. If their statements are correct, Mr. Alder's letter to Lord John Russell is untrue. "Another view still. According to Messrs. Stinson and Richey, frequent and large donations were made by the Methodist missionary committee in New York, in aid of Canadian missions — a liberality which we gratefully appreciate and rejoice to acknowledge ; in con- nexion with which was a permission for our missionary agents to hold meetings and make coll' ctions in various Methodist chapels in the United States. But, i ovding to Messrs. Stinson and Richey's own showing, the Wcsleyau missionary conuiiittee in London made but one donation, a donation of 'M)()l. sterling. And according to the cor- respondence which took place betwecMi our missionary board and tho missionary secretaries in London in 1832, that solitary donation was made in connexion with one declaration and two conditions. The declaration was, that if we ever again sent agents to apply for assist- ane(! in England, the Wosleyan missionary committee in London would discountenance them. The conditions were, 1. That the Rev. Peter Jones should not apply to any of the friends of the Wesleyan mission- ary society in England in aid of Canadian missions. 2. That Mr. Jones should attend as many missionary meetings in England as the com- mittee might ro(iuest him to attend. The contrast between tho pro- ceedings f'i the London and New ^'ork missionary committees in these respects is very striking and significant." f 4 82 ■M I Your unsatisfactory statement of the expenditure of dBl 7,806 18». lid. (pp. 59 — 61), and your trumpery charges against me in that statement, I have ahready disposed of in the preceding letter to your " special committee." I will, therefore, next advert to your attempt (pp. 41, 42) to prove that the Canada conference could not accept of a government grant " without an utter abandonment of their own re- corded and repeated sentiments and declarations" in regard to the "voluntary principle." My answer will furnish a specimen of your unfairness, as well as a refutation of your statement. In proof of your statement you say : — " In the year 1837, th^^ following resolution, in connexion with others, was adopted by the Upper Canadian conference : — " ' That, at its last two annual meetings, this conference has ex- pressly stated that no public or government grants have ever been made to this body, and that it desired no other support for its mem- bers than the voluntary contributions of christian liberality.' " Your assertion was that the Canada conference bad declared it " wrong for churches to receive aid for religious purposes from the state :" your proof from our conference is tliat it desired no state sup- port " for its oton members." Now, you knew that, in i^ne of the re- solutions passed by the Canada conference, in conncaon with the one quoted, it expressed a readiness to receive grants from the state for the purposes of hdUing chapels and parsonages and religions edtieation. You know perfectly well the position and views of the Canadian conference on this question, as you had heard them ex- plained both in Canada and in England, and as you had read them in print. You knew that the reasons it assigned for not accepting support for " its otcn members " from the state were, the elfect it would have upon their relations with their congregations, and th? apprehensions he purpose of a.Fording instruction to the maw of {\u< people." Y<»i» say, " ttie Messrs. Uyerson VA. the opposition to tbi« resolution." But, sir, as a man of n V 83 fairness and truth, yon onglit not to have misrepresented the nature and ground of that opposition. (1.) That it was not neceetary to express any opinion /or or cufairmt such a doctrine of your resolution. (2.) That what you asserted as a " wise and christian duty," we asserted as a right, the exercise of which might, or might not, be a "wise and christian duty" according to circumstsmces, like other human plans for spreading religious truth and knowledge. It is thus that you resort, at every step, to the concealment of some facts and the misrepresentation of others, to make out even a plausible case against the Canada conference. The truth of this remark is strikingly illustrated in two additional instances. On pTige 44 you quote a passage from the address of the Canada conference to the English conference in 1832, to show that "one of the principles of the union" was to bring the former under the official influence and direction of the latter. Now, sir, had the uniou first proposed by the Canada conference in 1832 been the same as the union ultimately agreed upon in 1833, there would have been some fairness and truth in your quotation. In our pamphlet (p. 45) we gave an extract from your own written address to the Canada conference, dated August 16, 1832, proving that the union proposed^ and tnen desired by you, contemplated the assumption, by your committee and conference, of the making up of the iuU allow- ances of all oui" circuit preachers as well as missionaries. And it has always been admitted by us, that if you assumed the entire responsi- bility of supporting the work in Upper Canada, you dught to have the entire direction of it. But your committee ds;dined assuming any responsibility in regard to the support of our circuit preachers, and, to make " assurance doubly sure, ' required it to be inserted in the first article of the union, that " the Canadian preachei-s should have r > claim upon the fimds of the English conference," Then, as an offset to this it was required by the representative of the Cimada conference, that it should be inserted in the same article, that the "' rights and privileges of the Canadian preachers and societies should be preserved inviolate." For you to quote an address which referred to a proposed union lo prove the nature of a ratified union — dif- ferent from the one proposed — is as unfair as it is unworthy of the office you occupy. Again, on the same (44th) page, you represi^nt me as the advo- cate of " the late Lord Durham s views of colonial responsible govern- ment," and as " condemning Lord John Russell's constitutional and moderate sentiments on that question." Now, sir, you have said much about non-intorference with politics ; but is it not as much an inter- ference with politics, and as much a breach of good faith, for you, in your ofricial capacity, to write and publish that Lord John Russell's views of colonial responsible government are " constitutional and moderate " as for me to write and publish the same respecting the views of the late Lord Durham ? Or is the right of political inter- ference a monopoly of your committee ? Then, sir, your statement is as unfound'd as your conduct is inconsistent. When Lord Dur- ham's vitf jjs we^e first published I approved of them ; nor was it 84 - then known but that they were the views of her Majesty's goyem- ment. When Lord John Russell expounded the views of her Ma- jesty', government in a despatch dated October 14, 1839, which was published in Canada the following March, — views wliich were a modification of those of the late Lord Durham, — I not only inserted the despatch in the Guardian (March 8 and 15, 1840), but also two elaborate editorial articles (one of them written by a high functionary in Canada) expressing ray submission to the decision from the throne, and showing that it conferred all that was necessary to the welfare and happiness of the people of Canada. And those are the last words I ever wrote on the question of " colonial responsible government." There are two other points in your letter on which I shall say a few words. The one is the government grants about which you have said so much. I shall make but two remarks on this point, in addi- tion to what I have said in my letter to your " special committee." 1. The first is., that not one ivord passed between his Exctllency tlie governor- general of Canada and myself relative to the placing of any part of that grant xmder the control of the Carnla conference, until ^er Messrs. Stinson and llichey had informed liis Excellency that the union would be dissolved, and prayed him in a written memorial — "In any settlement of this important question (clergy reserve question) that nr-y be made we regard it of vital importance to the permanent peace and prosperity of the province as a British colony, that the sum to be appropriated to us, be given to the Wesleyan Methodists who are now, and icho mag be hereafter connected with the British Wedegan Conference. (signed) "J. Stinson, President of the conference. " M. RicuEy, Superintendent of Toronto Citg'' " Toronto, Januarg 3, 1840." Here was a m serial which Avas signed by Mr. Stinson as the president of the Can v'' r^mference, which went to deprive that confer- ence of every farthing's interest in the Clergy Reserves, and which was kept c .'led by its authors for Jive months, and the existence and purport, of which never would have been known but for his Ex- cellency the governor-general. A volume of your resolutions iu favour of Messrs. Stinson and Richey will not alter these facts. 2. My second remark is, that at that time there was a bill brought be- fore the Upper Canada legislature, providing to transfer the religious grants from the crown revenue to the Canada clergg reserve fund, and to charge them as a set-off against the claims of the religious bodies receiving them. That provision was introduced into the bill in obedience to the instructions of her Majesty's government. With the cr&icn revenue we luid uotbinK to do; with the clergy reserve fund we had every thing to do, The Canada conference and the English conference were regarded as one body. While the grant was paid to your committee out of the crown revenue, it did not affect as, nut when it cume to be transferred to the clergy reserve fund, as a set-off' to that amount against the claims of the Wesleyan Methodist church, it was then erjuivalent tn takinu' the sum of iij^ii) per annum out of our pockets and giving it tft vou. Your New- !lv 85 castle committee and conference required my adcocarif of this gross injustice ivs a condition of perpetuating the union ; my refusal has been made the pretext of much personal calumny, and of your breaking up the union. The alleged irregularity or discourtesy of my interviews with the govei-nor-general need not be again discussed. You have repeated your allegations, but have not attempted to answer one of my argu- ments. 1 will therefore merely repeat, 1. That I had been appointed sjecial rejiresontative of the conference to confer with government on all its financial interests, and h^d therefore a right to intercourse with the government independent of the president, or any body else, for the time being. 2. That each of my interviews with the go- vernor-general complained of, took place in compliance with his Ex- cellency's icritten request. 3. That my letter complained of was written fourteen days after Messrs. Stinson and Richey's memorial. 4. That whereas, in their memoiial, they had prayed that all grants intended for the Wesleyan Meth<^dist church in Canada should he " given to the Wesieyan Methodists who are now, and who may be hereafter in connexion with the British Wesieyan conference ; " my * letter went to establish the principle, as I stated in the concluding sentence, " that any grants intended for the benefit of the AVesleyan Methodist church in Canada ought undoubtedly to be placed at the disposal of the conference of that church." The principle itself is so obvious and reasonable that you dare not attack it ; but to prevent the application of it, and thus to replenish your own coffers at the ex- pense of the Canada conference, you make war upon me for stating and explaining it. You found that you could get no more grants out of the revenue of Upper Canada, except on the account of the Methodist church of that province ; and because T, in the discharge of n\y official duty, prevented you from making gain of your Canada brethren, you must proscribe and excommunicato me. But your power is limited. The last topic of your letter on which I will remark- is, the grounds on which you urge the payment of the grant to your committee, in opposition to the Canada conference. You represent us as desiring the grant "for the benefit of the Wesieyan Methodist church in Canada ; " and yourself as desiring it for the benefit of the " Indian and the emigrant." You knew that aid was desired in behalf of " the Wesieyan Methodist church," not as a matter of gain to its members, but as an agency for the instruction of the ignorant and destitute. Your representation to the contrary is worthy of your crusade of spoliation against the Canada conference. You elaborate a page (49) in stating that you want the grant for "the benefit of the In- dian and the emigi'ant." But why did you not also inform Lord John Russell, that seven out of the n?«c Indian Missions in Upper Canada were under the care of the Canada confevence ; that the Canada con- ference had Jive preachers to your one employed among the destitute " emigrants ; " that four out of five of your mif^sionarios in Upper Canada wore employed within the boundaries of regular circuits of the Canada conference, to divide its societies and retard its labours ; 86 that (as we had shown in our letter to Lord John Russell, and as you have' not denied, and cannot successfully deny) you employed just as many missionaries when the grant was not paid, as when it was paid ; so that the payment or non-payment of the grant to your committee^ made not a fig's difference to " the Indian and emigrant" of Canada ; that the chief importance of its continued payment to you is to furnish you with the sinews of the war of schism and di- vision against your Canada brethren. These are important and incon- trovertible facts, which you ought not to have omitted in your long letter of 44 pages. The various imputations and insinuations which are interwoven with the texture of your entire letter are unworthy of notice. They are the necessary cement of a bad cause, and the essential crutches of a feeble reasoner. Sir, allow me to say, in conclusion, that your own arrogance and folly, the proceedings, you have recommended, and the letters you have writen out to Canada, have given rise to this controversy and all its attendant evils, and wasteful expenditure. I would ten thou- sand times sooner bear your heaviest execrations than share your re- sponsibility in this aiiair. It involves the peace of a noble country ; the character of Methodism ; and the blood of souls. I forgive you freely, while I rebuke you sharply. There is still an opportunity for you to retrieve the errors and wrongs of the past, as there is a dispo- sition in my mind to bury them in oblivion. Yours respectfully, E. Ryerson. City of Toronto, Upper Canada, June 23rd, 1841.. f P IM No. III. To the Rev, William liom), of Hxdl, in answer to his tkreeeial Committee" of the WeS' leyan Conference in Enyland. Sir, — In our pamphlet (page 84) we employed and recorded grate- fiil expressions of regard towards you ; your response in the pamphlet of your " special committee" (page»65), by imputing to us an " utter want of sincerity, ingenuousness, and honor," is only in keeping with the conduct of t»ro other persons whom the English conference has appointed presidents of the Canada conference, and who have been treated with all possible courtesy and kindness in Canada. To most of your statements I have substantially replied in the foregoing articles of this appendix. A few of them require a more specific notice, and on them I shall bestow but a few lines. M\. 87 Your denial (page 65) that I had for ten years exercised tlie office of guarding the rights and communicating with the government on the affairs of the Canada conference, is refuted by facts ; as that was at the beginning considered part of my duty when editor, and as I have had verbal communications every year^ and written communica- tions every year but two, for twelve years with successive governors, on the afllairs of the Canada conference, and had interviews with them of precisely the same character with those complained of which I had with Lord Sydenham, during ecery year but one of the union. You represent (pp. 79, 80) the members of the Methodist church in Upper Canada as having, before and at the time of the union, sup- {)orted " political measures," the " tendency" of which Avas " revo- utionary." Never was there a more unfounded statement uttered. Even Mackenzie's politics at that time were no more what they were in subsequent years, than were the politics of Oliver Cromwell, at the time he commenced resisting the arbitrary encroachments of Charles the First, identical with the politics of the Protector when he beheaded that unfortunate monarch. As well might you term the immortal Richard Baxter a man of " revolutionary politics," as to impute them to the Methodists of Upper Canada at the period of the union. At that time politicians of no class complained of other than 'practical grievances. The advocacy of theoretical changes of a "revolutionary" tendency in Canada commenced subsequently to my first visit to England in 1833, after the removal of the most material practical grievances complained of. And the only serious diversity of sentiment on poli- tics there ever was amongst the Methodists in this province, related not to their nature., but to the fa4;t as to whether certain public men held politics of a revolutionary character. Both the ministers and members of the Methodist church in this province were as loyal at the time of the union, and before you ever saw Canada, as they have ever been since. I deny your assertions in toto, and challenge you to the proof of them. Your various and abusive imputations respecting my " evasions" and "insincerity," and "guilt" in relation to (f e government grant, I have sufficiently answered in my letters to the special committee and Dr. Alder. If the English language is more explicit than I have been, I know it not. To scurrilous appellations and insinuations, I have no other answer than tlie facts I have adduced. On page 75 you deny that Dr. Bunting, or any other person, used expressions (at Newcastle) which implied that tis Excellency, Lord Sydenham, was not to be relied upon. You say the word '■^testimony" was never used. I did not say it was : I said, " the testimony of the governor-general of Canada was very little regarcUd by your com- mittee." I say so still ; and the proceedings of your committee have proved it. You state twice (pp. 77 — 81 ) that you laboured with me with "great pleasure and cordiality" during your residence in Upper Canada. How can this be true if your other statements are true ? How can this be true if the allegations of your " special committee" are true ? You say that you acted with me with " great cordiality ;" you say, at the same 11 88 ! 'i I \ < :\ time (pp. 76, 77)? that I opposed a church establishment in Canada and state appropriations to churches. How haj)pened it that your missionary secretaries in a letter, dated 14th January, 1839, and the president of the English conference, in a letter dated March 23rd, 1839, should send out charges against me, as violating the union, for my al- leged opposition to a church estahlishment in Canada ? You must have been violating the union in acting with " cordiality" with me ; ox i/our president and missmiary secretaries must have violated the union by- commencing war with me on that ground. You acted with " cordiality" with me when I was, as you say, opposing a church establishment and state appropriations to churches in Cnnada ; you act with " cor- diality" with the missionary secretaries in their opposition to me for doing so ; you act Avith " cordiality" with the Newcastle committee in requiring, as a condition of the union, the advocacy, as a principle of Wesleyan Methodism, that it is the duty of civil governments to appropriate of their resources to the support of religion. Your " cor- diality" comports curiously with your consistency ; and your consistency stamps the value of your representations. Such self-contradictions in the statements and conduct of my accusers, fm-nish no feeble defence, and argue something wrong and " rotten in Denmark." You ask (p. 76), "Will he (Mr. E. Ryerson) deny that it "was in con- sequence of the course taken by the Canadian conference and the 'Guardian,' that the payment of the grant was suspended by Sir F. B. Head, and afterwards by Sir George Arthur ?" Yes, sir, I will deny this in every particular ; for the payment of that grant was reduced in 1834, and discontinued in 1835, by Lord Seaton, under instructions from Lord Stanley, at the very time you were president of the Canada conference, and acting with me " with great pleasure and cordiality." It also happens that Sir F. B. Head restored that grant, under instructions from Lord Glenelg, which I took considerable pains when in London, in the spring of 183(5, to procure, for which I received the thanks of the Wesleyan missionary com- mittee, at the lips of Dr. Bunting. It also happens that Sir G. Arthur never " suspended" that grant, but continued to pay it until he left Canada. Again, (pp. 65 — 79) you^ state as your opinion that had "the Guardian abstained from party polities," your "missionary income would have been much larger in amount." — Now, it so happens also, that during the year of my editorship, oi" which your missionary se- cretaries have so lustily complained, that the income of the INIissionary Society was 1,450/-., — nearly t7vo hundred pounds more than during any other of the seven years of the union. Tliis fact disproves your charges ; proves that my course was approved by the Methodist pub- lic of Upper Canada, and most advantageous to the interests of the missionary society ; but it was not sufficiently spiced with Toryism to suit the Canadian correspondents of the missionary secretaries, and hence their letters of condemnation and threats against me, and hence the difficulties which have ensued. Such, sir, are tolerable samples of your statements, and the state- ments of your London colleagues, to justify and sustain your crusade - I J:. 89 against me. You have settled upon my overthrow as a necessary means of accomplishing your objects ; and ^ou allow your imagina- tions full range in the accumulation of matenals to excite the Metlio- distic public against me. I envy not the distinction you will acquire as a volunteer recruit in the service of Dr. Alder and the *' special committee." One can hardly imagine why such an army of great men should be employed to put down a poor Canadian. However, policy, and selfishness, and injustice, need the support of numbers and names ; but truth and liffhteousness stand calm, erect, and immoved against names and numbers, even in the condition of intellectual wemcness and personal poverty. I owe you nothii^, sir, but forgiveness and good-will, and remain, yours respectfully, E. Ryerson. City of Torcnto^ Canada^ ? iV • Jnm 25th, 1841. '' ' 1 1 i ' ■\' - No. IV. -•../■..;.^.:::r;A4 Letter to the Editor of The Patriot, in Reply to the attackt cf " Obsbrvator," and The Watchman. f s^' •■ Sir, — In three numbers of your paper, published in October and November last, you have inserted elaborate communications, some ten columns, and signed " Observator," who, I suppose, is no other than Dr. Alder himself, and who has employed his best efforts to implicate me, and to justify the hostile crusade of the Wesleyan com- mittee against the Canada conference. Extensive iourneys and constantly pressing labours during the last few months, have prevented me from replying to " Observator ;" nor have I time, nor inclination, at present to do so at any length. In this province, where I am known, such articles as those of " Obser- vator" can do me no harm; nor should I notice them here. It is only where my life and labours are unknown, that they can, in any way, promote the unworthy designs of their author. As the editors of the Watchman have inserted the communications of " Observator," and have attacked me at various times, I request as an act of common justice between man and man — and especially to an absent man, that they will insert this brief reply — brief in pro- portion to the length of " Observator's " commimications. I will in the first place make a few remarks in reply to the pro- fessed selection of political passages from the columns of the Christian Guardian, and then address myself to the general charges preferred against me, of political interference and violation of pledges. 1. The passages which "Observator" professes to select from the o ii 90 columns of the Chrittian Guardian are without date ! Why ia this ? The simple reason is, that giving the dates would have eom- })letelv defeated " Ohservator's " object, and proved that what he ad- duced as specimens, were exceptions. The passages adduced by " Observator " are also quoted as from •* my OT^Ti pen ; whereas some of them are selected from a depart- ment of the Guardian, headed " Opinions of the Press," consisting, like similar departments in some of the London papers, Qf selections from the contemporary press. During the latter part of the time . that department was continued in the Guardian, I selected an equal amount of matter from presses of opposite views, and with so much fairness, that even my opponents did not complain. But is it fair, or honest, to go to that department of a paper for specimens of the views and spirit of the editor ? This fact sufficiently proves the strait into which " Observator " was brought to collect materials against me ; and is a vindication of me, rather than proof of " Observator's " allegations. The principal " specimen " given by " Observator," and which he evidently intended should make the strongest impression to my dis- advantage, deserves a more particular notice. The heading is " Pro- gress of free government .n England ; its absolute necessity in Upper Canada." On " Observator's " specimen, with this heading, I beg to remark three things : — Firstly, It is not from an editorial of mine, but from the depsurtment on the last page of the Christian Guardian, headed " Opinions of the Press," selected from the Upper Canada Herald. Secondly, The author, in that very article, showed at large, both on scriptural and prudential grounds, the wickedness and im- propriety of adopting physical force, such as the chartists were re- sorting to, in order to obtain any constitutional or valuable object desired. These parts of the article "Observator" has, of course, sup- pressed, and given two isolated paragraphs. Thirdly, The author of » that article was bom and educated in England — ^is, and has been for twenty years and more, an imblemicl'ed religious character — is at present the editor of the Canadian Monthly Review, the only publi- cation of the kind in British North America devoted to the civil go- vemment of Canada, and published under the patronage of the go- vernor-general ; a publication, the editorship of which was pressingly offered to myself, by the parties concerned, and that upon terms and with the assurance of literary aid, such as would have prevented in- terference with my ordinary ecclesiastical duties. In the editorial management of such a periodical, under such auspices and circum- stances, I should have advanced my own worldly interests — should have bad the discretionary and dignified occupation of a field of dis- cussion, to which " Observator " and his friends attribute to me an uncontrollable attachment, and should have had the proud satisfaction (if it be one) of expounding, diffusing through these proyinces, and of aiding to bring into practical operation, that very system of colonial government, which I have for many years desired to see established. \< But, whilst I desired the success of such a publication, and was not indifferent to its establishment, I felt myself, under all the circum- # ^» 91 'A* stances, precluded from its direction, Ly my stronger obligations to the church. I might multiply and enlarge upon facts of this kind. But 1 forbear stating more than delicacy may justify, and absolute ne- cessity requires. I am painfully ad[monished, that these and kindred facts will but inflame the hostility, rather than convince the judg- ment of "Observator" and his party — as I verily believe before God and man, that other reasons, than those which they have alleged, are the real grounds of their hostility against the Canadian conference and myself. I refer chiefly to the feelings and objects of the instigators of these movements. The grounds of my belief can be stated at another time. These facts, however, may have some weight in the minds of Christie and candid men, even now, and, when I am dead and gone, may afford satisfaction to my friends and successors, that I had not made "gain of godliness," and that the Wesleyan committee were drawn into this crusade by the jealousy and ambition of indi- viduals, rather than by the interests of truth or the calls of necessity. I now proceed to notice " Observator's " general charges ; the principal of which is, that I have long and obstinately violated a pledge which was given by the Canada to the English conference in June, 1834, that the " Christian Guardian shall not be the me- dium of discussing political questions, nor the merits of political par- ties." I am avrare that I labor under every possible disadvantage in dis- cussing this matter before the English public, to whom Canadian aflairs are entirely unknown. But should the Rev. Peter Jones (Indian chief) and myself visit England this year, we shall be able to satisfy all who may feel a desire to become thoroughly acquainted with this Canadian business. However, on this asserted pledge of 1834, let the following things b(' observed : — 1. There were a consi- d^^rable portion of the ( lada conference opposed to the union with the English conference * na the beginning ; and ^vere opposed to my editorial course after tin mion, froir' October, 1833, to June, 1834. 2. T' at portion of the conference, at the session of 1834, were op- posed • my lemarking upon civil matters at all, except on the ques- tion of the clergy reserves, and ins ^ted upon a declaration of con- ference to that effect. In the course of these discussions, not only did Dr. Alder and his colleague justify my editorial course, but insisted that my continuance as editor was necessary to maintain the union. To the resolution prepared by the liberals in the Canadian conference I objected, and proposed to prepare one which would meet the views of all, and promote the obi' ot desired. Dr. Alder insisted in favor of piy propossitl as a courtesy due to me. The reso- lution prepared by me was s^ acceptable, that the two leading liberals (who were opv-( sftd to Dr. Alder) moved and seconded its adoption, which was atiai'^mously agreed to by the conference. Such were the origin q\\-X ci ject of the pledge of 1834, on which " Observator " and his employer- found their charge. I state these circumstances G 2 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ■ 4 ^ y^Ts' ^ 4i. 1.0 I.I l^|2£ |2.5 |50 *^™ IIIHI ||I.25||U ,.6 4 6" ► 0> % 7 V Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WIST ^'.A.')4 STREST WEBSTIR, 4.y 145110 (716) 8/?.''''.0S "^^ ■■ m Upon the unanimous testimony of the Canada conference, as embodied in a resolution adopted at their last session. Let us now look to the events which followed the adoption of this anti-political resolution. I continued editor from June, 1834, to June, 1835, to the satisfaction of all parties, but reused to remain in the office any longer. The Rev. Ephraim Evans was then chosen, and continued until June, 1838. During his three years' editorship, he did '' discuss political questions, and the merits of political par- ties ; " and to such a degree at length, as to excite strong dissatisfac- tion amongst both our preachers and people ; whilst he was consi- dered as leaning too strongly to the high party, to maintain, with proper vigor, the rights and interests of Methodism against high church pretensions and encroachments. But Dr. Alder and his col- leagues were pleased with Mr. Evans's politics, lauded his editorship, and never hinted at the violation of any anti-political pledge of 1834^ or the existence of it. Now, had "Observator" been disposed, he might have furnished your readers with many a startling specimen of Mr. Evans's political articles ; but this would have told on the wrong side. It will thus be seen that, whatever may have been the resolution or " pledge " of 1834, or for whomsoever intended, it was neutralized and abrogated, not by me, but by Mr. Ephraim Evans, and that with the tacit concurrence and well-known approbation of Dr. Alder and his colleagues. I was solicited to accept the editorship of the Gtiardian again in June, 1837, but refused, and begged my friends to try Mr. Evans one year more. In the course of^that year I was reduced to the al- ternative of treating the most earnest entreaties of the principal preachers wi^h indiflference, resisting the appointment of the confer- ence, or accepting the editorship of the Giiardian. And amongst the most earnest of those preachers, with whom my remonstrances were unavailing, was the Rev. Mr. Stinson, the Wesleyan committee " superintendent " in Upper Canada, with whom also agreed the Rev. Mr. Richey, the committee's assistant superintendent here. It was their opinion, as well as that of others, that high church domi- nation required a more decided opponent, and Methodist rights and religious equality a mere energetic advocate, than' Mr. Evans. This will appeal evident from th'e following extract of a letter addressed by Mr. Stinson to a leading preacher, a few weekS' before the session of the conference, at which I was elected editor. It is dated April 7f 1838. The extract is as follows : "I am quite of your opinion, that brother Egerton (Ryerson) oimht to take the Guardian next year, if he do not go home. Brother Evans has done well upon the whole ; but there is a crisis approach ing in our afiairs, which will require a more vigorous hand to wield the defensive weapon of our conference. There can be no two opinions as to whom to give that weapon. We now stand on fair grounds to maintain our own against the encroachments of the oligar- chy, and we must do it, or sink into a comparatively uninfluential body. This must not be." . 93 fsax ial It will therefore be seen, thaf my appointment as editor was not only promoted by the rep7esentai..'.e of tne Wesleyan committee, but with the express view of resisting the "encroachments of the oligar- chy " — that is, the high church party. Messrs. Stinson rmd Richey had npt, at that time, received instrucaons from Dr. Alder to suppori; the pretensions of the high church party in Canada. As the justification of the committee's hostile proceedings turns, in a great measure, and as the merits of " Observator's " and the com- mittee's charges against me, depend entirely, upon the conditions on, and the objects for which I was appointed editor of the Guardian, in June, 1^8, it is important that I state them. If I were appointed with a view to carry out the anti-political resolution of 1834 (which the committee now adduce as a " pledge," but which Mr. Evans had, for three years, with their consent, nullified), then I plead guilty to the charges preferred against me, and acknowledge the Canada con- ference to be blameable ; but, if otherw ise, if I were appointed for the very objects, religious and civil, that I afterwards pursued, and appointed by the suffrages of the committee's present agents in this province, then are their attacks upon the Canada conference and myself for pursuing those objects, inconsistent, unjust, and un- clmstian. Here, then, let the following things be noted. 1. Messrs. Stinson and Richey voted for me as editor. 2. Previously to my appoint- ment, I stated at large to the conference my intended course in regard both to religious and civil affairs. 3. I then embodied, in an editorial prospectus, the substance of what I had stated to the conference. 4. When I published that exposition of my views and intended editorial course, it was objected to by no party or individual that I ever heard of, but seemed to satisfy our preachers and societies universally — even those who have since been drawn away from us — and was never objected to by Dr. Alder or his colleagues in London. The following extracts from my editorial prospectus, published in the Guardian of the 11th of July, 1838, will show whether I concealed my sentiments, and subsequent events are my witness whether I have not consistently, firmly, and honorably maintained the views and purposes I then stated and avowed. The extracts are as follows : From the Upper Canada Christian Guardian, Julv 11, 1838. " In respect to the ecclesiastical affairs of this province, notwith- standing the almost incredible calumny which has in past years been poured upon me by antipodes party presses, I still adhere to the principles and views upon which I set out in 1826. I believe the endowment of the priesthood of any church in the province will be an evil to that church, as well as impolitic in the government. I have never received one personal favor, nor one farthing for my own gain or use from the government, or public treasury, or any political man or party whatever j and, by the grace of God, I will not rob myself, or allow myself to be robbed, of this ground of glorying, whatever may be my views of general measures. In accordance with the declaration put forth by several principal ministers of the Methodisti ^4 church in January last, I believe that the appropriation of the pro- ceeds of the clergy reserves to general educational purposes will be the most satisfactory and advantageous disposal of them that can be made. In nothing is this province so defective as in the requisite available provision for, and an efficient system of, general education. Let the distinctive feature of that system be the union of public and private effort, through the medium of the several religious denomina- tions; and with public appropriations will be united individual liberality, and to government influence will be spontaneously added the various and combined entire religious influence of the country in the noble, statesmanlike, and divine work of raising up an educated, intelligent, and moral population. If in the way of 6uch a disposal of the dergy reserves insuperable objects should be thrown and found to exist (although I believe nothing is politically impossible with the Earl of Durham in these provinces), I think the next best settlement of that question will be to divide the proceeds of the clergy reserves among different religious denominations (according to the plan proposed by several Methodist ministers last winter) in proportion to what is raised by each; leaving to the discretionary disposal of each religious body its own appointment. In connexion with such a possible adjustment of the question, I think proper to observe that in the event of any part of the proceeds of the clergy reserves being appor- tioned to the Methodist church, it has been determined to apply that amount, 1. To f iucational purposes, that the means of education may be brought within the reach of as large a number of youth as possible. 2. To assist the members and friends of the church in the erection of churches tind parsonages ; but not a farthing of it to the endowment of the clergy m any way whatever. It would of course be premature, as well as impertinent, for me to enter into details ; I can only state these general principles. " To the very natural and important inquiry, in relation to civil affairs, * Do you intend to be neutral V I answer, No, I do not ; and for this simple reason, I am a man, and a British subject, am a pro- fessing Christian, and represent a British community. At one period in Greece, Solon enacted a law, inflicting capital punishment upon all neuters. The present is a period in the atfairs of this pro- vmce in which no man of intelligence or consideration can be safely or justifiably neutral. The fourumtion of our government is being laid anew ; the future character, and relations, and destinies of the country are involved in pending deliberations ; the last tchisper of rebellion is to he silenced in the land. My decision, however, is not one of party, but of principle — not one of passion, but of conviction — not of par- tial proscription, but of equitable comprehensiveness. To be explicit as well as brief, I am opposed to the introduction of any new and untried theories of government. As the organ of the Methodist church, I assume that the doctrines and discipline of that church are true aind right ; I take them for granted as far as the members of that church are concerned, and expound, and recommend, and act upon them accordingly. So in civil afiairs, I assume that this country is to remain a portion of the British empire, and view every measure. v,7 95 not ill reference to every or any abstract political theory, however plausible that theory may be, but in reference to the well-being of the country in connexion with Groat Britain. As in church afinirs, I take my stand upon the constitution of the church, in its doctrines and rules, as expounded by its fathers and ablest theologians, and illustrated by general usage ; so in civil afiairs, I take my stand upon the ettablished constitution of the country, as expounded by royal despatches, and illustrated by the usages of the British parliament, British courts of justice, and the common law of England. Nothing more is wanted to render this province happy and prosperous, than the practical and efiBicient application to every department of our government, and to our whole system of legislation, of the principles and instructions laid down in the despatch of the Earl of Ripon, addressed to Sir John Colborne, dated 8th November, 1832, and the despatch of Lord Glenelg, addressed to Sir F. Head, dated 15th of . December, 1835." *' If past partizanship, and party combinations, be forgotten — if the great body of the inhabitants will unite as one man to lay the foun- dation and erect the superstructure of an impartial and popular government, a few years, at most, will bring about. what his Excel- fency the Earl of Durham has avowed it to be the great object of his mission to accomplish — to lay ' the foundation of such a system of government as will protect the rights and interests of all parties, allay all dissensions, and permanently establish, under divine Provi- dence, the wealth, greatness, and prosperity, of which such inex- haustible elements are to be found in these fertile countries.' " In conclusion — It is but just that the readers of the Guardian and the public should know that the foregoing article contains n mere summary of what I avowed before the late conference, in a lengthened address of some hours, previous to being elected to my present office by a ballot vote of forty-one to sixteen : I feel there- fore strongly sanctioned in those principles, and views, and purposes, as well as strongly confident in my own mind. But I am deeply sensible of my fallibility; I pretend to no exemption from the ordinary errors and infirmities of humanity; I confess myself liable even to im- prudences. In promoting, therefore, the varied objects of the Guar- aian, I must crave the indulgence and forbearance of its readers, as well as hope for their confidence and support — depending primarily, ultimately, f»nd entirely, upon the favor of Him without whose blessing nothing is wise, or good, or strong. " EOERTON RyEHSON." I will appeal to every candid man in England, who may read this article, whether I could have been more frank and explicit in the ex- pression of my sentiments, and in the avowal of my mtended course of proceedings. A few months afterwards, it was found that Sir George Arthxir, late lieutenant-governor of this province, had thrown himself into the hands of the " oligarchy" on the question of the clergy reserves — would not consent to have them iipplied to any other purpose than the !' V 96 . support of clergy, and was anxious to get them re-invested in the crown. When Sir George Arthur's views and plans were brought before the provincial legislature, I opposed theni. The Wesleyan committee in London interposed to support Sir George Arthur on that question ; sent a letter to Sir George disclaiming all participation in tne views of the Canada conference advocated by me — and sent a letter also to Mr. Stinson instructing him to oppose me and support a church establishment in this province. Messrs. Stinson and Kichey turned roimd, and from that day forward supported the " oligarchy" which they had elected me to oppose. However, her Majesty's go- vernment subsequently set aside the proceedings of Sir George Arthur upon the very grounds on which I had opposed them ; but that made no change in the feelings of Dr. Alder and his colleagues. At the Canada conference of June 1839, Dr. Alder was present, when I vindicated the consistency and expediency of the course I had pursued, was sustained by the conference, and stated that I should feel it my bounden duty to pursue the same course again in like cir- cumstances. Lord Durham s Canada mission had terminated several months before that period, and the report of his mission had been laid before parliament ; and the latest intelligence then ( Jime 1839) re- ceived from England informed us, that, in accordance with Lord Dur- ham's uagent recommendation for the immediate adjustment of Ca- nadian a&airs, a bill for their settlement would be passed during that session of parliaxpent. In those circumstances, I stated to the con- ference, that the moment those questions aflfiecting our constitutioruJ and jast rights as British Canadian subjects, and as a religious body, were adjusted, we ought to abstain entirely from any discussions in reference to civil affairs. While Dr. Alder's resolutions were rejected by our conference, one prepared by myself was unanimously agreed to, in which our conference, though it disclaimed " any intention to interfere with the merely secular party politics of the day," avowed its " determination to maintain its sentiments on the question of an ecclesiastical establish nent in this province, and our constitutional and just rights and pri vileges.' A few weeks after this session of our conference, arrivals from ■England brought us the ^mexpected intelligence, firstly, that Sir George Arthur's clergy reserve bill had been disallowed, and that the question would be referred back again to Canada ; secondly, that ministers had abandoned the idea of passing a bill for the friture government of this country through parliament that session, but would introduce one, and send it out to Canada for consideration and discussion until the next session of parliament. The English reader, however little he may know of Canada affairs generally, will be able to judge, from what has been above stated, of the position in which I found myself placed, the duties which de- volved upon me, both in harmony with long avowed and universally admitted principles, as a colonist, and as a guardian of the ^* consti- tutional and just rights" of a large Christian community. In such cir- cumstances every Englishman of common sense M'ill see that I could not have been silent on a measure which proposed a new and entirely *. l\ .' " V,.-.. -"' • ^, ,■ ^'-V'- •; different constitution for the government of the country from that under which I had been bom and sworn allegiance, without sacrificing what is dear to every British subject — my public character as a man, and the very principles on which I had been supported by the religious public in this province. My remarks on that occasion are called by *' Observator" an '' attack upon Lord John Russell and his bill ;" and the changes have been rung upon them in almost every article or speech which has proceeded from Dr. Alder and his advocates. I therefore beg the English reader s attention, for the first and last time, to this oft-repeated charge, on which are based the most hostile attacks upon the (lanada conference. Let several things be here re- marked. (L) It was the first and last time, during a public life of sixteen years, that I ever wrote one line of animadversion on the con- duct or measure of a, secretary of state for the colonies ; although I have written columns, both before and since, in defence of both the Se- cretary of State for the Colonies and his decisions. Five months be- fore the last session of the English conference, I cancelled any un- favourable remarks I had made on the conduct of Lord John Russell; and in exposition and defence of his Lordship's decision on *' respon- sible government," I wrote two elaborate articles, which were copied into the principal Canadian journals, and for which I received the cordial thanks of the governor-general of Canada. Yet, in the face of these facts, and with my articles referred to before him, in the Christian Gewtrdfaw of April 8th and 15th, 1840, written to induce an acquiescence on the part of the people of "Upper Canada in Lord John Russell's decision. Dr. Alder asserts, in a pamphlet put forth by the "'.Vesleyan committee in January last, that I had " condemned his Lordship's constitutional and moderate sentiments on the question of responsible government !" I envy not Dr. Alder in the honor and satisfaction of such a state- ment, under such circumstances. However, it is only one of a kin- dred multitude from the same gentleman's pen that will be exposed in a forthcoming reply to the Wesleyan committee's pamphlet alluded to. (2.) But whilst it was the only instance, during sixteen years, in which I publicly dissented from any act of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, let the nature of the dissent in that one instance be considered. That was tv/ofold — the proposed delay and the provi- sions of the bill. I complained that the affairs of our country — in- volving the complaints of religious bodies as well as general interests — should be left another year unsettled : and that too when the state of the province was ihus described in a dispatch by Sir George Ar- thur — " The tide of immigration is turned from omr shores — the over- flowings of British capital are transferred into other channels — public credit is impaired — and the value of property of every description is depreciated." In these circumstances, I uttered one half column of complaint, which was but a gentle whisper in comparison with the long and loud denunciations of the entire Conservative press of Ca- nada. My thus giving utterance, on such an occasion, to the strong and unanimous feelings of Canada, against its being left paralytic another twelvemonth, is construed into a crime by the party of which 98 ' *' Observator" is the mouth-piece ! As to the provisions of the then proposed new constitution for the civil government of Canada, two of them were objected to. The one proposed dividing Upper Canada into five electoral districts, to be under the local management of mu- nicipal corporations. To this I objected as a piece of cumbrous de- moci-acy, fraught only with disputation and expense, without practi- cal benefit — a provision which ought not to be made a part and parcel of the constitution of the country, and which should be left to the consideration of the provincial legislature, whose local knowledge was absolutely essential to the iraming of such enactments. The second provision of Lord John Russell's first bill objected to was, altering the term for which members of the Legislative Council, or Canadian House of Lords> should hold their seats. His Lordship's bill pro- posed to limit it to eight years, instead of for life. I desired the con- tinuance of the old system, as most British and preferable. So that, in respect to the two grounds on which I dissented from Lord John Russell's first bill (of July 1839), I was more Conservative than his lordship. Yet the Wesleyan committee writers unjustly and auda- ciously represent me as having advocated democratic and unconstitu- tional views. Never was a charge more groundless. Instead of the changes in our constitution then proposed by Lord John Russell, I de- sired the continuance without change of the constitution given to Upper Canada by his Gracious Majesty King George the Third, under the Pitt ministry, in 1791, impartially and efficiently adminis- tered, as earnestly recommended by the late Earl of Durham. Here is the length and breadth of my " unconstitutional doctrines!" In the above extract from the Christian Guardian of the 11th July, 1838, the reader has seen the official exposition of my opinions on the civil government of Canada. At the English conference held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in August last, I challenged any one of my accusers to produce a single passage in all that I had ever written, containing doctrines or sentiments at variance with those stated in the above extract. I repeat the challenge. I leave any candid English reader of any party, after reading the extract, to say whether my doctrines, as editor of the Gtmrdian, were not as constitutional as they were just. Their capital error with the Wesleyan committee is, that they did not recognize a church establishment in Upper Canada ; although their own agents, the Rev. Messrs. Stinson and Richey, then voted for me as editor, with the express view of ifesist- ing the high church " oligarchy." In conclusion on this point, let the English reader imagine England situated as was Canada in 1839, as above described by Sir George Arthur, and that its affairs had been under the consideration of government for many months ; that ministers should then come down to parliament, and say that they did not intend to propose any mea- sure to be passed by parliament that session for the amelioration of the condition of the country, but would lay a draft of a bill before the public for consideration and discussion until the ensu- ing session of parliament ; let it also be supposed that that draft of II bill proposed a new constitution for the government of England /' 1\ m^^ r. id lof - Ift id Itering the divisions of every county in the kingdom — reducing the number one-half — incorporating every three of those couuties into a municipality to be governed and managed in all its internal affairs of rail-roads, canals, &c., by an elective corporation — changing the constitution of the House ot Lords, so as to subject the members to the appointment of government every eight years : — suppose this to be the state of England and the proposition of Lord John Russell, does the reader think the Wesleyan committee or conference would regard it a crime against God and Methodism for them to complain of such an in- cursion upon the established constitution, and express their adherence to it, equitably administered, in preference to any such sweeping changes f Aye, every man in England knows their voice would ba raised long and loud upon such n occasion. But my doing so once is construed into a sin of awful magnitude, and a just groimd for the declaration of ecclesiastical war on the part of the Wesleyan com- mittee against the Canada conference. But the real character of the Wesleyan committee's conduct, and the attacks of their writers, will appear still more obvious by what follows. As soon as Lord John Russell said that the press and peo- ple of all parties in Canada unanimously rejected his bill, and were much dissatisfied at being kept any longer in suspense, the right hon. C. Poulett Thomson (now Lord Sydenham) was sent out to Canada as governor-general. After a few months' residence and inquiry in Canada, his Excellency sends home a draft of a bill for the future government of Canada — that bill, with some modifications, is passed by parliament in 1840, but does not contain the clauses to which I and various other editors in Canada had objected, in his Lordshijt's first bill of 1839 ; and even after all this, the Wesleyan committee and their writers make war upon me for having objected to a bill which has long since been abandoned by government, and superseded by another bill on which I have never made a remark. Again : when his Excellency, Mr. Thomson (now Lord Sydenham), arrived in Upper Canada in the autumn of 1839, after having explained his general views and intentions, he desired my co-opera- tion and assistance towards restoring peace and harmony, and esta- blishing good government in the province. I consented, and aided his Excellency, to the best of my humble ability, to put down party- spirit, and to promote confidence and unity, where there had been distrust and division, and to carry out those important measures with which his Excellency had been entrusted by her Majesty's government, and which have since been brought into operation in this country. The objects which the governor-general desired to secure, and towards the accomplishment of which I rendered what aid I could, were three- fold. 1. The consent of the United States legislature to the union of the Canadas. 2. The settlement of the clergy reserve question. 3. The preparation of the public mind for an improved state of things, by abolishing past party distinctions and hostilities, and encouraging a spirit of forbearance, unity, and enterprise, for the common interests and happiness of the country. Hatting thus, from Noveutber 1839, to April, 1840, in the most eventful crisis of Canadian afiairs, per- ' 100 . formed a patriotic and Christian duty to my sovereign and native country, and seeing the great objects in progress of accomplishment on account of which I had been urged, even by the London com- mittee's agents, in 1838, to resume the editorship of the Guardian, after three years' retirement from it, I formally took my leave of public discussions, and in a few weeks, on the assembling of the conference in June, 1840, retired from the editorship of the Guardian, as I had always declared my intention of doing on the moment of settling the Clergy Reserve question. Since that time, April,. 1840, I have never written a line on civil affairs, nor in any way interfered in them. I It might be reasonably supposed, that, by such a six months' con- clusion of my editorial career, in which I had given great satisfaction to the government, and to my brethren and friends in Canada, my retirement would not be interrupted frjm England. Yet, within four days of the assembling of the Canada conference, in that very month, June, 1840, I was accosted with the London Wesleyan committee's grave and criminating charges. And during the very month that I was thus politically impeached by the Wesleyan committee, my brethren and myself received the following testimony from his Excel- lency Lord Sydenham, in a reply to an address of the Canada con- ference : — '^ During my administration of the affairs of Upper Canada, it was my anxious desire to make myself acquainted with the opinions, with the conduct, and with the affairs of that portion of the people of the province of whom you are the spiritual leaders ; and I have been most happy in being able to bear my testimony to their loyalty and good conduct, not less than to you. zeal, energy, and self-devotion in the pursuit of your c jnscientious labors." „ Dr. Alder introduces, with quite a flourish of trumpets, the testi- mony of the late lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick . .i favor of the labors of Wesleyan missionaries in that province ; but it is not so explicit and full as that of the governor-general in favor of the Canada conference ; and I think the testimony of Lord Sydenham is entitled to quite as much consideration as that of Sir John Harvey. But what a comment does the testimony of Lord Sydenham furnish upon the representations and aggressions of Dr. Alder and others against the Canada conference ! And then, after the separation took place, last autumn, when the metropolitan missionary meetings of the London committee and the Canada conference were held in this city (Toronto, my own pastoral charge), what was the manifest feeling of the heads of departments ? Did they act as if they regarded us as enemies, and the agents of the London committee as the only friends of the government ? At their mc^eting there was not a single officer of the government, not even a clerk in any public department, present. At our meeting the hon. president of the executive council (the premier of Canada) presided, supported on the right by the hon. receiver-general (chan- cellor of the Canada exchequer, and brother-in-law to Lord Glenelg), and on the left by the hon. solicitor-general, both members of the executive council or cabinet. And large majority newly-i ■•v,*\ * ", m i ^ elected members of the legislature in Upper Canada have expressed a decided opinion and feeluig in favor ot the rights and interests of the C'uiada body. Again: the Wixtchman has published scurrilous articles from a Canadian paper — Toronto Patriot — against me ; but the Watchman did not inform his English readers that the then editor of the Toronto Patriot had applauded the philosophy and philanthropy of Robert Dale Owen, and denounced the Bible and Religious Tract societies as base speculations. An editor of such views and feelings has always, under the most plausible pretences, assailed the Canada conference and myself, as enemies to his craft ; and has hence furnished the delectable flowers which have adorned and scented the columns of the Watchman. In the office of the same editor were prepared, in 1838, effigies of two of her Majesty's ministers. Lords Melbourne and Glenelg — which were burnt in a public square, with subsequent denunciations from the Toronto Patriot^ as numerous and as chaste as those which the Watchman lias copied from that journal against me. Such is the Canadian source of the Watchman's borrowed and adopted abuse. It has never been noticed by me in Canada, and it requires no further comment from me on the present occasion. Finally : the Watchman charges me with duplicity, and with a re- markable talent for concealing my sentiments, even when I appear to express myself with the greatest simplicity. Perhaps the Watchman may not suspect me of concealing my sentiments, when I say, that his charge is as mean as it is malicious — one which precludes the possibility of any other reply than an exhibition of its meanness — a charge which I presume no other professedly christian journalist in England, save the Watchman, would descend to make in likd cir- cumstances. It is true, I have never been able to speak much, espe- cially in public, without " much fear and trembling," and may not, therefore, have expressed myself with as much clearness as simpli- city ; but the disposition and quality which the Watchman has been pleased to ascribe to me, has never, to my knowledge, been perceived by my enemies or suspected by my friends in Canada. On the con- trary, I have received many a friendly admonition, especially during the earlier periods of my life, against my unreservedness in the ex- pression of my sentiments. And the insinuation of the Watchman on the subject of slavery is only another illustration of its authors cha- racteristic meanness, as he himself had, no longer since than the 21st of last August, published a refutation of his own slander on this point. It is true, that when I first heard of abolitionists in the Unit- ed states, I took it for granted that all who were not associated with them were supporters of slavery, and felt towards, and spoke of them as such; it is also true, when I became, from 1837 to 1840, a regular reader of the American Abolitionist and other publications on that subject, I arrived at the conviction that there were large numbers ani classes of persons in the United States not connected with the New England abolitionists, equally friendly and devoted to the moral and civil freedom of the slave ; it is also true that the representative of the British Wesleyan conference formed the same opinions from personal observation and intercourse with all parties, in 1840 (to a 102 much ffreater extent than ever I mingled with them), as he expressed himself to scores of persons in the United States ; it is likewise true, that all I had in my heart on that subject I stated fully to the last British conference, a copious summary of which was approy- in^y reported in the Watchman of the 21st of August Leaying the Watchman in the mire of his own meanness, I may simnly remark, that the Canadian authorities of the Watchman haye, in the midst of their abuse, ascribed to me an influence beyond that of any one resident in Canada — (a statement which I could wish were true) — an influence which they consider dangerous. They also speak, and the London Wesleyan committee complain, of the unan- imity and constancy with whicn I haye been supported by the body with which I am connected, by which I am best known, and which has no inducement to sustain me any farther than I contribute to the religious and moral interests of this country. It is also admitted, on all sides, that the inhabitants of Upper Canada are a moral, a loyal, and intelligent people. If in a country thus situated, I haye, at a comparatiyely early period of life, attained the fayorable standing which my enemies say I haye, is it likely that the imputations of the Watchman and its scribes against my principles and character are well founded ? In conclusion, I desire to say that, whilst I haye deprecated the Canadian proceedings of the London Wesleyan committee, I disclium the imputation of any nnwoithy motiyes to itsyarious members. I be- lieye they haye acted under the influence of impressions, of the erro- neousness of which they wil! yet be sensible. Though they seem unwilling to admit my fitness for the humblest place in the church of Christ on earth, I hope, through the great mercy of my Redeemer, to be permitted to meet them far firom a world of disputation and strife. In all their " works of feith and labors of loye " — except in those of schism and diyision in Upper Canada — I bid them God speed with all my heart. What says reason, and what says Christianity to the scene exhibited in Upper Canada, since the committee commenc- ed their crusade against the Canada conference, employing at great expense from twely© to twenty missionaries, not one of whom, as far as I haye learned, haye formed a new society withomt rending a so- ciety of the Canada conference, and a majority of whom do not preach in a single neighborhood where there is not, and has not been, regular preaching by the Canada conference ? Wbateyer may be said on the subject of moral destitution in Upper Canada, is the London Wedeyan committee, by such proceedings, contributing to the supply of that destitution ? It is one thing to raise a party out of a church — without the sembknce of improTing the morals or graces of such recruits — ^it is another thing to teach those whose souls are " perishing for lack of knowledge." Is it fOT the former or latter of these objects, that contribution® are made to the funds of the Wesleyan Missionary Society in -England ? It is the former of these objects that the committet) are chiefly accomplishing at the pre- sent time in Upper Canada. Yours yeiy respectfully, . Toronto, May Itt, 1&»1.' E«brton Ryeirson. s> ro It Lately PtMiihed. THE WESLEYAN CONFERENCES OF ENGLAND AND CANADA : their Union and Separation. Price Two Shillings. A VOICE FROM CANADA. An Address to the Canadian Committee of the English Conference, consisting of the President and Secretary of the Conference, the Missionary Secretaries, the Rev. Messrs. Reece, Treflry, Jackson, and twenty-nine others. Re- printed from the Christian Guardian. Price Fourpence. Ljndon : Thomas Tego, 73, Cbeafside. lADooM, OASTLi smsr, riNKBtimr.