ned for months between Dr. Ryerson in Europe and
myself, in Canada.

It was clear to my mind at the time that the Editor took an unfair
advantage of Dr. Ryerson's absence from the country to injure (as he
supposed) his brother in the ministry. In this he was mistaken; and, in
his chagrin, he attacked me personally in the _Guardian_ for my zeal on
behalf of Dr. Ryerson. Events proved that my interposition was opportune
and just; and that, had I not done so, the Methodist people would have
been improperly and cruelly misled, and irreparable injustice would have
been done to the character and motives of a noble and generous man, who,
in this instance, ought not to have been held responsible for the
utterances of warm hearts, but of possibly indiscreet tongues.

I speak advisedly when I say that I understood perfectly well the two
men with whom I had to deal. Rev. James Spencer was well known to me,
when I was a student at Victoria College forty years ago. He was a good
man, no doubt; but no student at that College ever thought of comparing
him with the Principal of the College. How he ever got to be Editor of
the _Guardian_ was always a mystery to me. I never had the slightest
difference with him--quite the reverse; but no comparison could be
instituted between James Spencer and Egerton Ryerson.

In this matter I had no personal feeling. Both men were Methodists,
while I am an Episcopalian, and both have gone to their final account.
Moreover, the question was not one of doctrine, or of denominational
preference. It was one of simple justice and fair play between man and
man. Hence, I took the earliest opportunity of apprising Dr. Ryerson of
the unjust and anomalous position in which he had been placed by the
Editor of the _Guardian_.

* * * * *

The following private letters were successively received by me from Dr.
Ryerson while he was in Europe:--

_Paris, 23rd August._--I enclose my answer to Rev. James Spencer. I wish
you would have it inserted in the _Globe_ and _Colonist_. As you are
acquainted with all the circumstances in Canada, being on the spot, if
you think it best to abridge, omit, or modify the words of any part of
my communication, I would wish you to do so. Whatever course I may think
it my duty to pursue in future, I wish in this communication to preserve
that tone of remark which can give no offence to any minister or member
of the Wesleyan Church. I will not be the offending party, and the
r