t that delay has been loss. Whether that
loss can be repaired presents to my own mind a problem difficult of
solution.

Speaking of his former relations with the Lieutenant-Governors of Upper
Canada, Dr. Ryerson said:--

I love liberty, personal and public, as much as any man. I have written
much in its defence; but as much as I love liberty, and as ultra liberal
as some may have supposed me to be, I have always regarded an
infringement of the prerogative of the Crown as a blow at the liberty of
the subject, and have, in every instance, resisted and repelled it as
such. I did so in support of Sir F. Head in 1836. I did so in support of
Sir George Arthur, in the difficult and painful task of administering
the criminal law after the insurrection of 1837. I did so in support of
the Royal instructions and recommendations of which Lord Sydenham was
the bearer and agent; but in each instance, after having been lauded
without measure, I was abandoned, or pursued, without protection or
mercy. Sir Francis Head took offence at certain communications which
Rev. Dr. Alder and Rev. Peter Jones justly made to the Imperial
Government respecting his treatment of the Indians, and swore that, "as
he had put down the radicals, he would now put down the Methodists;" and
the Bishop of Toronto avowed and rejoiced that, radicalism having been
extinguished, "the Church" would and should be maintained inviolate in
all its (assumed) rights and immunities. Sir George Arthur having got
through his many difficulties (in the course of which he gave me many
thanks) determined, when the Session of the Legislature came, not to
split with the Bishop of Toronto; not to grant, under any circumstances,
the Methodists more than a mouse's share of public aid, and none at all
except as salaries for their clergy, actually employed. He embodied
these views in resolutions, and employed Hon. R. B. Sullivan to advocate
them in the Legislative Council.

It was with extreme reluctance that I could at all assent to the measure
of Union of the Canadas. The agents of the London Wesleyan Committee
vehemently opposed it, and wished me to write against it. I wished to
remain neutral. Lord Sydenham most earnestly solicited my aid--promised
a just measure on the clergy reserve question, and assured me against
any hostility of the agents of the London Committee, of all the
protection and assistance that the Government could give. He died,--and
I have been left,