ed there in the form of a hand-bill. Mr. E. C. Griffin, of
Waterdown, writing from Hamilton on the same subject, said: I have
learned from brother Edward Jackson what are the feelings of the Society
in Hamilton, respecting the letter of Dr. Alder. He says, that if the
leaders' meeting is any index of the views of the entire Society here,
they are a "unit" to a man (except the preacher) in their determination
to support you in your principles and proceedings.

[101] The following incident in connection with this vote is mentioned
by Dr. Ryerson: Dr. Alder (he said) appeared disappointed and depressed;
and, after the close of the Conference I said to him: Dr. Alder, you see
how entirely you have mistaken the state of Canadian society, and the
views and feelings of the Methodist people. Now, I do not wish that you
should return to England a defeated and disgraced man. I purpose to
write a short editorial for the _Guardian_, stating that the differences
and misunderstandings which had arisen, after having been carefully
considered and fully discussed, were adjusted in an amicable spirit, and
the unity of the Church maintained inviolate. Dr. Alder appeared
delighted and thankful beyond expression. I prepared the editorial. Dr.
Alder used and interpreted this editorial on his return to England, to
show that the Canadian Conference and its Editor had acceded to all of
his demands, and that he had been completely successful in his mission
to Canada! The English Committee adopted resolutions complimentary to
Dr. Alder in consequence; but I did not imagine that Dr. Alder's
fictitious representation of the results of his mission would afterwards
be made the ground of charges against myself!

[102] Dr. Ryerson gave full expression to these views in a letter
addressed to the Governor-General in April, 1840. (See chapter xxxiii.,
page 266.)

[103] See letter from Mr. Howe to Dr. Ryerson on page 258.

CHAPTER XXXI.

1839.

Strategy in the Clergy Reserve Controversy.

The year 1839 was somewhat noted for the prolonged and animated
discussions which took place in and out of the Legislature on the clergy
reserve question. There were some new features in the discussion of the
preceding year which had their effect on the clergy reserve legislation
of that year. And while they partially ceased to be influential in the
discussions of 1839, yet the legislation of that year was practically
brought to the same issue as that of 1