the proceeds applied simply and
solely to educational purposes.... This is unattainable, and is
rendered so by an original provision of our Constitution (of 1791),
as stated by the Governor-General.

The bill was fiercely attacked by the then newly-appointed Bishop of
Toronto. He denounced it as--

Depriving the National Church of nearly three-fourths of her
acknowledged property, and then, in mockery and derision, offering
her back a portion of her own, so trifling as to be totally
insufficient to maintain her present Establishment; it tramples on
the faith of the British Government by destroying the birthright of
all the members of the Established Church who are now in the
province, or who may hereafter come into it; it promotes error,
schism and dissent, and seeks to degrade the clergy of the Church
of England to an equality with unauthorized teachers, etc.

The Bishop then uttered, that which events proved to be a memorable and
true prophecy, that the Church--

Need be under no great apprehension in regard to any measure likely
to pass the Provincial Legislature on the subject of the
reserves:--reckless injustice in their disposition will not be
permitted; although the Church may appear friendless and in peril,
from the defection and treachery of some professing members.... If
any of her children incline to despondency, let them turn their
eyes to England, where we have protectors both numerous and
powerful, watching our struggles, and holding out the hand of
fellowship and assistance. [See next page.]

Dr. Ryerson at once joined issue with the Bishop, and--

Confuted the pretensions of "John Toronto" by the doctrines and
statements of "John Strachan," who, when in England in 1827,
published a pamphlet in which he stated that "the provincial
legislatures have nothing to do, either directly or indirectly,
with the Romish Church; but the same legislatures may vary, repeal,
or modify the 31st Geo. III., cap. 31, as far as it respects the
Church of England."

Dr. Ryerson pertinently asked the Bishop--

How could a "birthright" be "varied, repealed, or modified," as he
had admitted that the constitutional act could do, "as far as it
respects the Church of England?" Can (he asks) the Legislature
"vary or repeal" the deeds by which individuals hold their