CCHA, Report, 26 (1959), 81-92 Reaction of the Toronto Globe to the Vatican Council – Dec. 1869 – July 1870 Richard C. KINSKY, C.S.B. St. Basil’s Seminary, Toronto, Ont. While research work on this paper was being done, the present Holy Father proposed that a new ecumenical council be convoked. The first official act of this new assembly will likely be to declare the General Council of 1869-1870 dissolved (it was only prorogued at that time), and then to vote itself into existence as the Second Vatican Council of 1962. The paper will certainly be of interest to the present-day citizen of Toronto. He will see how his ancestors of 90 years ago reacted to the First Vatican Council, and then judge for himself how different or similar the reaction is to the Second Vatican Council. Though it has become the fashion nowadays to be indifferent to religion, to keep Church separate from State, it will be surprising if Toronto remains neutral towards the new General Council. The aim of this paper is to see how one little corner of this world, namely Toronto, Ontario, in Canada, as seen through the columns of the Globe, was affected by, and reacted to, the Vatican Council. Much has already been put into print about the Council. Writers of all shades of opinion have remarked on it. Books and pamphlets, mostly of a polemic nature, have appeared which discuss its sessions and its decrees. All textbooks in Apologetics and Fundamental Theology treat of the Council, and especially its declaration of Papal Infallibility. The present paper proposes to avoid such disquisitions, and hopes rather, after some preliminary remarks on the background of the Council, to limit itself to the reaction of the Toronto Globe. Pope Pius IX’s announcement on June 26, 1867 that he was going to convoke a General Council aroused the interest of the whole world. Ecumenical Councils are not called very often. The 300 year gap between the Vatican Council and the Council of Trent only the more served to excite men’s interest and perhaps anxiety. Tremendous changes – religious, political and social – had taken place in Europe and in the world in those 300 years. How would the Council act in the face of these changes? The eyes of the world focused on Rome for the reply of the Catholic Church. Newspapers and periodicals sent correspondents direct to Rome to get first-hand information on it. The telegraph wires, only recently laid on the Atlantic floor, never failed to carry items of interest concerning it from European centers to American and Canadian newspapers. Practically all this, at least as it regards historical accuracy, was ink wasted. Often only rumours and whispered untruths could be sent. More often what was relayed flowed from excited, prejudiced minds and imaginations. Yet, — 81 — they indicate true attitudes, in spite of their inaccuracies, and they did cause people to react. The decade 1860-1870 was a vital period for Canada and for Toronto. It falls just about midway in the period 1850-1890, described as “of crucial importance in the development of the two.”1 Originally, Toronto was a trading post established by the Sulpician Missionary Père Joseph Mariet around 1690 at the mouth of the Humber. Later, forts were built on the site, first French and then British. In 1793 it was named York by Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe who established it as the capital of Upper Canada. Staunchly Loyalist at this time, it became even more so in 1813 when York was captured and burned by the Americans. Yet by 1837 there was a radical movement, neither Tory nor Loyalist, strong enough to precipitate the Rebellion of that year. Professor Frank Underhill, in a lecture of some five years ago, described it as “the shooting up of some taverns on Yonge Street.” The details of the conception and birth of the Canadian nation are another story. Officially, Canada became a nation by the proclamation of the British North America Act of 1867. The nationalism that paved the way for it had been strong and vigorous in Toronto and in Upper Canada. The new nation faced severe trials during the next few years following Confederation. Externally, there were the Americans and the Fenians to contend with. These Irish revolutionaries actually made raids on Upper Canada in 1870 through the St. Lawrence River valley. Internally, the Louis Riel rebellion and the natural rivalry, religious and political, between Upper and Lower Canada also contributed to the situation. There were many factors contributing to Toronto’s growth in size and importance in the nineteenth century. Geographically, its situation gave it inestimable advantages over other cities and ports in Upper Canada. Behind it was the immense hinterland which produced the grain, lumber and minerals which made possible the development of the country. In front were the markets of the United States, and the rest of the world. Close political ties with England undoubtedly contributed to her economic advantages. Immigration was almost exclusively English, Irish and Scottish. Out of a total population in 1881 of 86,000 over 80,000 were of those three races.2 Besides being strongly British, the Toronto area was also strongly Protestant. The strength of the Orange Order and the strong Tory bent in her local politics are clear indications of the city’s attitude to French Canada and Roman Catholicism. Her antagonism toward Lower Canada was equalled only by her anti-Americanism. “The play of forces – geographic, economic, political, and religious – to which Toronto was subjected has produced a social structure which is in some ways distinctive. Such derisive terms as “Tory Toronto” and “Toronto the Good” are much too sweeping, but they contain an element of truth. 1 Masters, D.C., The Rise of Toronto, 1850-1890. (Toronto, U. of Toronto Press, 1947), p. 2. 2 Ibid., p. 211. — 82 — Charles Dickens was merely setting the keynote for many subsequent dicta when he wrote in 1842, “the wild and rabid Toryism of Toronto is appalling.”3 Culturally, Toronto in 1830 was still a frontier outpost. Her culture, like her trade goods, was imported and distributed. But within 20 years great strides forward had been taken by the founding of now-important universities and colleges, learned societies, publishing houses and newspapers. In 1844 the Globe was established as a weekly Liberal newspaper by George Brown. It was devoted to the cause of reform in Upper Canada, “a crusading paper which always sounded a stern moral note.”4 By 1870 it was a daily, and in the style of the times, was largely given over to parliamentary debates and political editorials. Only four pages were printed. Local news was kept to a minimum; advertisements were short but indicative of what was going on in the city. It was also the practice to publish poems and novels in serial form. The Globe’s two novels running in 1870 were “Man and Wife” and “Gwendolyn’s Harvest.” The Globe was George Brown’s personal political organ. “The high moral tone of the paper, and its growing excellence as a newspaper, did much for its circulation among all classes of the population. George Brown and the Globe became, in fact, convertible terms.”5 George Brown, both because he was editor-in-chief of a leading newspaper, and an important citizen of Upper Canada and of Toronto, became a key figure. He invariably took a stand on every controversial political and religious issue. He was a strong advocate of separation of Church and State, particularly as it applied to the established churches, the clergy reserves, and religious education. As might be expected he antagonized a large majority of Roman Catholics, in Toronto and in French Canada. Once, the latter, so enraged at the support Brown was giving to an apostate priest, stormed the legislature in Quebec City shouting dire threats against him. Catholics in, Toronto were not quite so outspoken, but they certainly must have taken offence. One biographer has tried to temper this: It is not to be denied that deep offence was taken at many articles in the Globe by a large majority of Roman Catholics, who did not come into personal contact with Mr. Brown personally and appreciate his kindly and honest nature. Looking back, it is impossible to deny that many harsh words were 3 Ibid., p. 20. 4 Ibid., p. 47. 5 Mackenzie, Alexander, Life and Speeches of Hon. George Brown (Toronto, Globe Printing Co., 1882), p. 53. None of the earlier biographies of Mr. Brown quite measures up to the standards of modern historiography. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, cites this one as being “decidedly partisan.” (Vol. IV, p. 264, art, on Brown, George). A more adequate, and more up-to-date, biography on Brown by Professor Careless of the U. of Toronto History Department is now in print and will soon be published. — 83 — written which had better not been written; but no one article ever appeared which bore the character of intolerance.6 Brown would even go out of his way to put his views on the Roman Catholic Church into print. In 1850 he printed Cardinal Wiseman’s pastoral letter which divided England into sees of the Roman Catholic Church and gave territorial rights to the bishops. It of course threw England into a ferment of religious excitement, and Brown had no qualms about bringing the same over to Canada. Another sphere in which Brown entered into combat with Catholics was the school question. The present-day system of separate schools was being hotly debated, Brown opposing the denominational schools “because he feared they would weaken or destroy the general system of free education for all.”7 Brown loved to fight and he recognized in the Catholic Church a formidable opponent.