The Story of My Life / Being Reminiscences of Sixty Years' Public Service in Canada

CHAPTER LVIII.

1859-1862.

Denominational Colleges and the University Controversy.

One of the most memorable controversies in which Dr. Ryerson was engaged was that on behalf of the Denominational Colleges of Upper Canada.

Unfortunately, at various stages of the discussion, the controversy partook largely of a personal character. This prevented that clear, calm, and dispassionate consideration of the whole of this important question to which it was entitled, and hence, in one sense, no good result accrued. Such a question as this was worthy of a better fate. For at that stage of our history it was a momentous one—worthy of a thoughtful, earnest and practical solution—a solution of which it was then capable, had it been taken up by wise, far-seeing and patriotic statesmen. But the opportunity was unfortunately lost; and in the anxiety in some cases to secure a personal triumph, a grand movement to give practical effect to somewhat like the comprehensive university scheme of the Hon. Robert Baldwin, of 1843, failed. Mr. Baldwin's proposal of that year was defeated by the defenders of King's College, as a like scheme of twenty years later was defeated by the champions of the Toronto University. The final result of the painful struggle of 1859-1863 was in effect as follows:—

1. Things were chiefly left in statu quo ante bellum.

2. An impetus was given to the denominational college principle; and that principle was emphasized.

3. Colleges with university powers were multiplied in the province.

4. Life and energy were infused into the denominational colleges.

5. Apathy and indifference prevailed (and, to some extent, still prevails) among the adherents of the Provincial University.

I have already stated that the issues raised in the memorable university contest of 1859-1863 were important. So they were, as after events have proved. The question, however, was unfortunately decided twenty years ago, not by an independent, impartial and disinterested tribunal, but by the parties in possession, whose judgment in the case would naturally be in their own favour. Besides, members of the Government at the time felt no real interest in the question, and were glad, under the shelter of official statements and opinions, to escape collision with such powerful bodies as the Wesleyan Methodists and the Church of Scotland.

This discussion originated in the presentation to the Legislature of a memorial from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, dated November, 1859, to the following effect:—

That the Legislature in passing the Provincial University Act of 1853, clearly proposed and avowed a threefold object. First, the creation of a University for examining candidates, and conferring degrees in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine. Secondly, the establishment of an elevated curriculum of University education, conformable to that of the London University in England. Thirdly, the association with the Provincial University of the several colleges already established, and which might be established, in Upper Canada, with the Provincial University, the same as various colleges of different denominations in Great Britain and Ireland are affiliated to the London University—placed as they are upon equal footing in regard to and aid from the state, and on equal footing in regard to the composition of the Senate, and the appointment of examiners.

In the promotion of these objects the Conference and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church cordially concurred; and at the first meeting after the passing of the University Act, the Senatorial Board of Victoria College adopted the programme of collegiate studies established by the Senate of the London University, and referred to in the Canadian Statute. But it soon appeared that the Senate of the Toronto University, instead of giving effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature, determined to identify the University with one college, in contradistinction and to the exclusion of all others, to establish a monopoly of senatorial power and public revenue for one college alone; so much so, that a majority of the legal quorum of the Senate now consists of the professors of one college, one of whom is invariably one of the two examiners of their own students, candidates for degrees, honors, and scholarships. The curriculum of the University studies, instead of being elevated and conformed to that of the London University, has been revised and changed three times since 1853, and reduced by options and otherwise below what it was formerly, and below what it is in the British Universities, and below what it is in the best colleges in the United States. The effect of this narrow and anti-liberal course is, to build up one College at the expense of all others, and to reduce the standard of a University degree in both Arts and Medicine below what it was before the passing of the University Act in 1853.

Instead of confining the expenditure of funds to what the law prescribed—namely, the "current expenses," and such "permanent improvements or additions to the buildings" as might be necessary for the purposes of the University and University College—new buildings have been erected at an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the current expenses of the College have been increased far beyond what they were in former times of complaint and investigation on this subject.

Your memorialists therefore submit, that in no respect have the liberal and enlightened intentions of the Legislature in passing the University Act been fulfilled—a splendid but unjust monopoly for the city and college of Toronto having been created, instead of a liberal and elevated system, equally fair to all the colleges of the country.

A Provincial University should be what its name imports, and what was clearly intended by the Legislature—a body equally unconnected with, and equally impartial to every college in the country; and every college should be placed on equal footing in regard to public aid according to its works, irrespective of place, sect, or party. It is as unjust to propose, as it is unreasonable to expect, the affiliation of several colleges in one University except on equal terms. There have been ample funds to enable the Senate to submit to the Government a comprehensive and patriotic recommendation to give effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature in the accomplishment of these objects; but the Senate has preferred to become the sole patron of one college to the exclusion of all others, and to absorb and expend the large and increasing funds of the University, instead of allowing any surplus to accumulate for the general promotion of academical education, as contemplated and specifically directed by the statute. Not only has the annual income of the University endowment been reduced some thousands of pounds per annum by vast expenditures for the erection of buildings not contemplated by the Act, but a portion of those expenditures is for the erection of lecture-rooms, &c., for the Faculties of which the Act expressly forbids the establishment!

But whilst your memorialists complain that the very intentions of this Act have thus been disregarded and defeated, we avow our desire to be the same now as it was more than ten years ago, in favour of the establishment of a Provincial University, unconnected with any one college or religious persuasion, but sustaining a relation of equal fairness and impartiality to the several religious persuasions and colleges, with power to prescribe the curriculum, to examine candidates, and confer degrees, in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine.

We also desire that the University College at Toronto should be efficiently maintained; and for that purpose we should not object that the minimum of its income from the University Endowment should be even twice that of any other college; but it is incompatible with the very idea of a national University, intended to embrace the several colleges of the nation, to lavish all the endowment and patronage of the state upon one college, to the exclusion of all others. At the present time, and for years past, the noble University Endowment is virtually expended by parties directly or indirectly connected with but one college; and the scholarships and prizes, the honors and degrees conferred, are virtually the rewards and praises bestowed by professors upon their own students, and not the doings and decisions of a body wholly unconnected with the college. Degrees and distinctions thus conferred, however much they cost the country, cannot possess any higher literary value, as they are of no more legal value, than those conferred by the Senatus Academicus of the other chartered colleges.

It is therefore submitted that if it is desired to have one Provincial University, the corresponding arrangement should be made to place each of the colleges on equal footing according to their works in regard to everything emanating from the state. And if it is refused to place these colleges on equal footing as colleges of one University, it is but just and reasonable that they should be placed upon equal footing in regard to aid from the state, according to their works as separate University colleges.

It is well known that it is the natural tendency, as all experience shows, that any college independent of all inspection, control, or competition in wealth—all its officers securely paid by the state, independent of exertion or success—will in a short time, as a general rule, degenerate into inactivity, indifference, and extravagance. In collegiate institutions, as well as in the higher and elementary schools, and in other public and private affairs of life, competition is an important element of efficiency and success. The best system of collegiate, as of elementary education, is that in which voluntary effort is developed by means of public aid. It is clearly both the interest and duty of the state to prompt and encourage individual effort in regard to collegiate, as in regard to elementary, education and not to discourage it by the creation of a monopoly invidious and unjust on the one side, and on the other deadening to all individual effort and enterprise, and oppressive to the state.

We submit, therefore, that justice and the best interests of liberal education require the several colleges of the country to be placed upon equal footing according to their works. We ask nothing for Victoria College which we do not ask for every collegiate institution in Upper Canada upon the same terms.

We desire also that it may be distinctly understood that we ask no aid towards the support of any theological school or theological chair in Victoria College. There is no such chair in Victoria College; and whenever one shall be established, provision will be made for its support independent of any grant from the state.[148] We claim support for Victoria College according to its works as a literary institution—as teaching those branches which are embraced in the curriculum of a liberal education, irrespective of denominational theology.

We also disclaim any sympathy with the motives and objects which have been attributed by the advocates of Toronto College monopoly, in relation to our National School system. The fact that a member of our own body has been permitted by the annual approbation of the Conference to devote himself to the establishment and extension of our school system, is ample proof of our approval of that system: in addition to which we have from time to time expressed our cordial support of it by formal resolutions, and by the testimony and example of our more than four hundred ministers throughout the Province. No religious community in Upper Canada has, therefore, given so direct and effective support to the National School system as the Wesleyan community, but we have ever maintained, and we submit, that the same interests of general education for all classes which require the maintenance of the elementary school system require a reform in our University system in order to place it on a foundation equally comprehensive and impartial, and not to be the patron and mouthpiece of one college alone; and the same consideration of fitness, economy and patriotism which justify the state in co-operating with each school municipality to support a day school, require it to co-operate with each religious persuasion, according to its own educational works, to support a college. The experience of all Protestant countries shows that it is, and has been, as much the province of a religious persuasion to establish a college as it is for a school municipality to establish a day school; and the same experience shows that, while pastoral and parental care can be exercised for the religious instruction of children residing at home and attending a day school, that care cannot be exercised over youth residing away from home and pursuing their higher education except in a college where the pastoral and parental care can be daily combined. We hold that the highest interests of the country, as of an individual, are its religious and moral interests; and we believe there can be no heavier blow dealt out against those religious and moral interests, than for the youth of a country destined to receive the best literary education, to be placed, during the most eventful years of that educational course, without the pale of daily parental and pastoral instruction and oversight. The results of such a system must, sooner or later, sap the religious and moral foundations of society. For such is the tendency of our nature, that with all the appliances of religious instruction and ceaseless care by the parent and pastor; they are not always successful in counteracting evil propensities and temptations; and therefore, from a system which involves the withdrawal or absence of all such influence for years at a period when youthful passions are strongest, and youthful temptations most powerful, we cannot but entertain painful apprehensions. Many a parent would deem it his duty to leave his son without the advantages of a liberal education, rather than thus expose him to the danger of moral shipwreck in its acquirement.

This danger does not so much apply to that very considerable class of persons whose home is in Toronto; or to those young men whose character and principles are formed, and who, for the most part, are pursuing their studies by means acquired by their own industry and economy; or to the students of theological institutions established in Toronto, and to which the University College answers the convenient purpose of a free Grammar School, in certain secular branches. But such cases form the exceptions, and not the general rule. And if one college at Toronto is liberally endowed for certain classes who have themselves contributed or done nothing to promote liberal education, we submit that in all fairness, apart from moral patriotic considerations, the state ought to aid with corresponding liberality those other classes who for years have contributed largely to erect and sustain collegiate institutions, and who while they endeavour to confer upon youth, as widely as possible, the advantages of a sound liberal education, seek to incorporate with it those moral influences, associations, and habits which give to education its highest value, which form the true basis and cement of civil institutions and national civilization, as well as of individual character and happiness.

The various statements and propositions in this memorial were fully and ably discussed on both sides at the time before a Committee of the Legislature. The discussion itself and voluminous papers and documents on either side were published in pamphlet form and in the newspapers, so that no further reference to them is necessary. The only other point raised in the discussion which is not mentioned in the memorial, is one on which Dr. Ryerson has expressed himself clearly. That is the relations of denominational colleges to the national system of public schools. On that point he says:—

The denominational collegiate system which I advocate is in harmony with the fundamental principles of our Common School system.... The fundamental principle of the school system is two-fold. First, the right of the parent and pastor to provide religious instruction for their children; and to have facilities for that purpose. While the law protects each pupil from compulsory attendance at any religious reading or exercise against the wish of his parent; it also provides that within that limitation "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents and guardians shall desire, according to the general regulations which shall be provided according to law." The general regulations provide that the parent may make discretionary arrangements with the teacher on the subject; and that the clergyman of any Church shall have the right to any school house being within his charge for one hour in the week between four and five, for the religious instruction of the pupils of his own Church. Be it observed, then, the supreme right of the parent, and the corresponding right of the pastor in regard to the religious instruction of youth, even in connexion with day schools, where children are with their parents more than half of each week day, and the whole of each Sunday, is a fundamental principle of the Common School system. The less or greater extent to which the right may be exercised in various places, does not affect the principles or right itself, which is fundamental in the system. The second fundamental principle in the school system is the co-operation and aid of the State with each locality or section of the community as a condition of, and in proportion to local effort. This is a vital principle of the school system, and pervades it throughout, and is a chief element of its success. No public aid is given until a school house is provided, and a legally qualified teacher is employed, when public aid is given in proportion to the work done in the school; that is, in proportion to the number of children taught, and the length of time the school is kept open; and public aid is given for the purpose of school maps and apparatus, the prize books and libraries, in proportion to the amount provided from local sources. To the application of that principle between the State and the inhabitants of localities there is no exception whatever, except in the single case of distributing a sum not exceeding £500 per annum in aid of poor school sections in new townships, and then their local effort must precede the application for a special grant.

Such are the two fundamental principles of the school system, on which I have more than once dwelt at large in official reports.

Now apply these principles to the collegiate system of the country. First, the united right and duty of the parent and pastor. Should that be suspended when the son is away from home, or should it be provided for? Let parental affection and conscience, and not blind or heartless partisanship, reply. If, then, the combined care and duty of the parent and pastor are to be provided for as far as possible when the son is pursuing the higher part of his education, for which he must leave home, can that be done best in a denominational or non-denominational College? But one answer can be given to this question. The religious and moral principles, feelings, and habits of youth are paramount. Scepticism and partisanship may sneer at them as "sectarian," but religion and conscience will hold them as supreme. If the parent has the right to secure the religious instruction and oversight of his son at home, in connection with his school education, has he not a right to do so when his son is abroad? and is not the State in duty bound to afford him the best facilities for that purpose? And how can that be done so effectually—nay, how can it be effectually done at all—except in a college which, while it gives the secular education required by the State, responds to the parent's heart and faith to secure the higher interests which are beyond all human computation, and without the cultivation of which society itself cannot exist? It is a mystery of mysteries, that men of conscience, men of religious principle and feeling, can be so far blinded by sectarian jealousy and partizanship, as to desire for one moment to withhold from youth at the most feeble, most tempted, most eventful period of their educational training, the most potent guards, helps, and influences to resist and escape the snares and seductions of vice, and to acquire and become established in those principles, feelings, and habits which will make them true Christians, at the same time that they are educated men. Even in the interests of civilization itself, what is religious and moral stands far before what is merely scholastic and refined. The Hon. Edward Everett has truly said in a late address, "It is not political nor military power, but moral sentiments, principally under the guidance and influence of religious zeal, that has in all ages civilized the world." What creates civilization can alone preserve and advance it. The great question, after all, in the present discussion, is not which system will teach the most classics, mathematics, etc. (although I shall consider the question in this light presently), but which system will best protect, develop, and establish those higher principles of action, which are vastly more important to a country itself—apart from other and immortal considerations—than any amount of intellectual attainments in certain branches of secular knowledge. Colleges under religious control may fall short of their duty and their power of religious and moral influence; but they must be, as a general rule, vastly better and safer than a College of no religious control or character at all. At all events, one class of citizens have much more valid claims to public aid for a College that will combine the advantages of both secular and religious education, than have another class of citizens to public aid for a College which confers no benefit beyond secular teaching alone. It is not the sect, it is society at large that most profits by the high religious principles and character of its educated men. An efficient religious College must confer a much greater benefit upon the State than a non-religious College can, and must be more the benefactor of the State than the State can be to it by bestowing any ordinary amount of endowment. It is, therefore, in harmony with the first fundamental principle of the Common School system, as well as with the highest interests of society at large, that the best facilities be provided for all that is affectionate in the parent and faithful in the pastor, during the away-from-home education of youth; and that is a College under religious control, whether that control be of the Church of the parent or not.

I have already given on page 344, Dr. Ryerson's opinions in regard to the provisions of Hon. Robert Baldwin's University Bill of 1843. From the extract there inserted it will be seen that the practical objection which he raised in 1859, to the administration of the University Act of 1853, was in general harmony with the views and opinions on University matters which he had expressed fifteen or sixteen years before. A fuller expression of these opinions was given in a letter which Dr. Ryerson wrote to the British Colonist on the 14th of February, 1846. From that letter I make the following extracts:—

The Board of Victoria College took no part in the University question until after the introduction of a Bill into the Legislature which affected the chartered rights and relations of Victoria College. On that occasion a special meeting of the Board was called, to decide whether it would, under any circumstances, acquiesce in that Bill, and upon what terms. The Board expressed a strong opinion in favour of the general terms of the Bill, but expressed an unfavourable opinion respecting some of its details, especially the project of the "Extra mural Board," and the non-recognition of Christianity. The Board also objected to the smallness of the amount proposed to be given to Victoria College. It stated that Victoria College, having been erected by public subscription, for the purpose of "teaching the various branches of science and literature upon Christian principles," could not cease to be a literary institution, as some supposed the Bill contemplated; it stated the peculiar hardships of the aspect of the Bill to the Methodist institution, under all the circumstances (which it explained), and submitted them to the honourable and generous consideration of the Government.... Mr. Baldwin's Bill proposed to grant the sum of £500 per annum each for several years to no less than four seminaries [besides the University].... It was objected to on the part of both Presbyterians and Methodists, that its application to them was not liberal enough; it was objected to on the part of King's College Council that it gave even a farthing to any of them.

Afterwards King's College Council objected to the Bill, and employed counsel to oppose it, on the ground that the Legislature had no right to interfere with their charter, or to divert any portion of King's College funds in aid of other institutions. To this plea of the King's College Council an individual member of the Victoria College Board offered an argumentative reply, contending that the endowment of King's College was the property of the Province, and upon legal, constitutional, and equitable grounds, came within the limits of Provincial legislation. This principle, I believe, is now generally admitted.

From this summary of well known facts it is evident—1. That Mr. Baldwin's Bill did contemplate giving aid to other institutions than the Toronto University. 2. That the friends of Queen's, Regiopolis, Victoria and King's Colleges did expect to derive assistance from the University funds. 3. That the objections to Mr. Baldwin's Bill on the part of the Presbyterians and Methodists were, not that any portion of the University funds should be applied in aid of their institutions, but that the portion proposed was entirely too small. 4. That those who supported Mr. Baldwin's Bill cannot consistently object to aid being given from the University funds to institutions in connection with the Church of England, Roman Catholics and Methodists. The amount and duration of such aid is a mere prudential consideration; the principle is the same, whether the amount of aid be five hundred or five thousand pounds, whether the duration be five years or five hundred years....

That there should be a Provincial University, furnishing the highest academical and professional education, at least in respect to law and medicine; that there should be a Provincial system of common school education, commensurate with the wants of the entire population; that both the University and the system should be established and conducted upon Christian principles, yet free from sectarian bias or ascendancy; that there should be an intermediate class of seminaries in connection with the different religious persuasions, who have ability and enterprise to establish them, providing on the one hand a theological education for their clergy, and on the other hand a thorough English and scientific education, and elementary classical instruction for those of the youth of their congregations who might seek for more than a common school education, or who might wish to prepare for the University, and who, not having the experience and discretion of University students, required a parental and religious oversight, in their absence from their parents; that it would be economy and patriotic on the part of the Government to grant liberal aid to such seminaries, as well as to provide for the endowment of a University or a common school system;—these are views which I explained and argued at length when the University question was under discussion, from 1828 to 1834; these are the views on which the Methodists asked in establishing the Upper Canada Academy, now Victoria College; these are views, by pressing which, a royal charter and government aid were obtained for that institution; these are the views which received strong confirmation in the recommendation of a despatch from Lord Goderich to Sir John Colborne in 1832, and which greatly encouraged the friends of the Upper Canada Academy in their commencing exertions. That institution was not originally intended to be a University College; nor was it sought to be made so until after the establishment of a Presbyterian University College at Kingston; when, prompted by example and emulation, and encouragement of aid, it was thought that the operations of a University might be grafted upon those of the academy, without interfering with the more extended objects of the latter....

More than a thousand youth have received more or less instruction at the Cobourg Institution; very few of them, apart from other considerations, have gone from it without forming a high standard of education, and a deeper conviction of its importance than they had before entertained; it has prevented hundreds of youth from going out of the country to be educated, upon whom, and upon hundreds of others, it has conferred the benefits of a good practical education. Its buildings present the most remarkable monument of religious effort and patriotic energy which was ever witnessed in any country of the age and population of Upper Canada....

The Wesleyan Methodists have not, like the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome, derived any assistance from the clergy reserve fund, or other public aid to their clergy or churches. It is much easier to figure upon a platform than to establish educational institutions, or to preach the Gospel throughout new countries. Those who have been in Canada twelve months can do the former, and sneer at the latter. The flippant allusions of certain speakers at the late Toronto meeting to the Methodists and to Victoria College ... were as unfounded as they were unbecoming.

The discussions on the University question at Quebec in 1860 were, as I have intimated, bitter and largely personal. Dr. Ryerson, being in the fore front of the University reformers, was singled out for special attack by some of the ablest defenders of the University. I shall not enter into detail, but will give the opening and concluding parts of Dr. Ryerson's great speech, which he made before the Committee of the Legislature on the 25th and 26th of April, 1860:—

I am quite aware of the disadvantage under which I appear before you to-day. I am not insensible of the prejudices which may have been excited in the minds of many individuals by the occurrences of the last few days; ... I am not at all insensible of the fact that the attempt has been made to turn the issue, not on the great question which demands attention, but upon my merits or demerits, my standing as a man, and the course which I have pursued. This subject, of very little importance to the Committee, ... possesses a great deal of importance to myself. No man can stand in the presence of the Representatives of the people; no man can stand, as I feel myself standing this morning, not merely in the presence of a Committee, but, as it were, in the presence of my native country, the land of my birth, affections, labours, hopes, without experiencing the deepest emotion. But how much more is that the case when attempts have been made, of the most unprecedented kind, to deprive me of all that is dear to me as a man, as a parent, as a public officer, as a minister of the Christian Church. More especially do I thus feel because reading and arranging the papers on this subject, to which my attention has been called, occupied me until five o'clock this morning....

Sir, the position of the question which demands our consideration this day, is one altogether peculiar, and, I will venture to say, unparalleled in this or any other country. The individuals connected with myself—the party unconnected with what may be called the National University of the country, stand as the conservators of a high standard of education, and appear before you as the advocates of a thorough course of training that will discipline, in the most effectual manner, the powers of the mind, and prepare the youth of our country for those pursuits and those engagements which demand their attention as men, Christians, and patriots, while the very persons to whom has been allotted this great interest, this important trust, stand before you as the advocates of a reduction, of a puerile system which has never invigorated the mind, or raised up great men in any country; which can never lay deep and broad the foundations of intellectual grandeur and power anywhere, but which is characterized by that superficiality which marks the proceedings of the educational institutions in the new and Western States of the neighbouring Republic. Sir, I feel proud of the position I occupy; that if I have gone to an extreme, I have gone to the proper extreme; that even if I may have pressed my views to an extent beyond the present standing, the present capabilities of the Province, my views have been upward, my course has been onward, my attempt has been to invigorate Canada with an intellect and a power, a science and a literature that will stand unabashed in the presence of any other country, while the very men who should have raised our educational standard to the highest point, who should have been the leaders in adopting a high and thorough course, have confessed during the discussion of this question, that the former standard was too high, and that they have been levelling it down, incorporating with it speculations which have never elevated the institutions of any country, and adopting a course of proceedings which never advanced any nation to the position to which I hope in God my native country will attain.

The resolutions on which these proceedings have taken place, were adopted by the Wesleyan Conference in June, 1860. Now, whatever other changes may have taken place, I still adhere to the people of my youth, who were the early instruments of all the religious instruction I received until I attained manhood. Whether they are a polished and learned or a despised people, I still am not ashamed of them, nor of the humblest of their advocates or professors. I stand before you without a blush, in the immediate connection, and identified with that people. The resolutions that were adopted by the Conference, in pursuance of which the Conference appointed a large Executive Committee, consisting of nearly one hundred of the most experienced members of their body, to prepare the memorial which has been presented to Parliament, are these:—

Resolved. 1st. That it is the conviction of a large proportion, if not a large majority of the inhabitants of Canada, that their sons, in pursuing the higher branches of education (which cannot be acquired in day schools, and rarely without the youth going to a distance from the paternal roof and oversight), should be placed in institutions in which their religious instruction and moral oversight, as well as their literary training, are carefully watched over and duly provided for; a conviction practically evident by the fact that not only the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and other Methodists, but the members of the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome have contributed largely, and exerted themselves to establish colleges and higher seminaries of learning for the superior education of their children.

2nd. That no provision for instruction in secular learning alone, can compensate for the absence of provision, or care, for the religious and moral instruction of youth in the most exposed, critical, and eventful periods of their lives.

3rd. That it is of the highest importance to the best interests of Canada that the Legislative provision for superior education, shall be in harmony with the conscientious convictions and circumstances of the religious persuasions, which virtually constitute the Christianity of the country.

4th. That the exclusive application of the Legislative provision for superior education, to the endowment of a college for the education of the sons of that class of parents alone who wish to educate their sons in a non-denominational institution, irrespective of their religious principles and moral character, to the exclusion of those classes of parents who wish to educate their sons in colleges or seminaries where a paternal care is bestowed upon their moral and religious interests, at the same time that they are carefully and thoroughly taught in secular learning; is grossly illiberal, partial, unjust and unpatriotic, and merits the severest reprobation of every liberal and right-minded man of every religious persuasion and party in the country.

5. That the ministers and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, aided by the liberal co-operation of many other friends of Christian education, have largely and long contributed to establish and maintain Victoria College, in which provision is made for the religious instruction and oversight of students, independent of any Legislative aid—in which there are fifty-nine students in the Faculty of Arts, besides more than two hundred pupils and students in preparatory and special classes—in which no religious test is permitted by the charter in the admission of any student, or pupil, and in which many hundreds of youths of different religious persuasions, have been educated and prepared for professional and other pursuits, many of whom have already honourably distinguished themselves in the clerical, legal and medical professions, as also in mercantile and other branches of business.

6th. That Victoria College is justly entitled to share in the Legislative provision for superior education, according to the number of students in the collegiate and academical courses of instruction.

7th. That we affectionately entreat the members of our Church, to use their influence to elect, as far as possible, public men who are favourable to the views expressed in the foregoing resolutions, and do equal justice to those who wish to give a superior religious education to the youth of the country, as well as those who desire for their sons a non-religious education alone.

Dr. Ryerson concluded his speech on the 26th April. Towards its close he said:—[One of the speakers] thought to amuse the Committee, by a reference to an expression of mine, used in a letter written by me several years since, that I had meditated my system of public instruction for this country—(for I contemplated the whole system from the primary school to the University)—on some of the highest mountains in Europe, and said, using a very elegant expression, it must therefore be rather "windy."... No one can have read the history of Greece or Scotland, or the Northern and Western parts of England, without knowing that, from elevated and secluded places, some of the finest inspirations of genius have emanated which have ever been conceived by the mind of man. There are mountains in Europe where the recluse may stand and see beneath him curling clouds, and roaring tempests spending their strength, while he is in a calm untroubled atmosphere, on the summit of a mountain of which it may be said,

"Though round his breast the rolling clouds are spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on his head."

And I ask whether it was unphilosophical for an individual who had examined the educational systems of various countries, and who was crossing the Alps, to retire to a mountain solitude, and there, in the abode of that "eternal sunshine," and in the presence of Him who is the fountain of light, to contemplate a system which was to diffuse intellectual and moral light throughout his native country, to survey the condition of that country as a whole, apart from its political-religious dissensions, and ask what system could be devised to enable it to take its position among the civilized nations of the world?...

After giving expression to his views on what he conceived to be a proper and suitable University system for the Province, he concluded with these words:—It is perfectly well known to the Committee that its time, for the last four or five days, has been occupied, not in the investigation of these principles, but by attempts to destroy what is dearer to me than life, in order to crush the cause with which I am identified; and a scene has been enacted here, somewhat resembling that which took place in a certain committee room, at Toronto, in regard to a certain Inspector-General. Every single forgetfulness or omission of mine has been magnified and tortured in every possible way, to destroy my reputation for integrity, and my standing in the country. A newspaper in Toronto, whose editor-in-chief is a man of very great notoriety, has said, since the commencement of this inquiry, that, in my early days, I made mercenary approaches to another church, but was indignantly repelled, and hence my present position. I showed the other day that I might have occupied the place of Vice-Chancellor of the University which Mr. Langton now holds, had I desired (and the proposal was made to me after my return from Europe in 1856), and I have similar records to prove that in 1825, after the commencement of my Wesleyan ministry, I had the authoritative offer of admission to the ministry of the Church of England (see pages 41 and 206). My objection, and my sole objections was, that my early religious principles and feelings were wholly owing to the instrumentality of the Methodist people, and I had been providentially called to labour among them; not that I did not love the Church of England. Those were "saddlebag days," and I used to carry in my saddlebags two books, to which I am more indebted than to any other two books in the English language, except the Holy Scriptures, namely, the Prayer Book and the Homilies of the Church of England. At this very day, Sir, though I have often opposed the exclusive assumptions of some members of the Church of England, I only love it less than the Church with which I am immediately associated.

I have been charged with being the leader of the present movement. I am entitled to no such honour. If I have written a line it has been as the amanuensis of my ecclesiastical superiors; if I have done anything, it has been in compliance with the wishes of those whom I love and honour; and my attachment to the Wesleyan body, and the associations and doings of my early years, have been appealed to, as a ground of claim for my humble aid in connection with this movement. Sir, the Wesleyan people, plain and humble as they were, did me good in my youth, and I will not abandon them in my old age.

I have only further to add, that whatever may be my shortcomings, and even sins, I can say with truth that I love my country; that by habit of thought, by association, by every possible sympathy I could awaken in my breast, I have sought to increase my affection for my native land. I have endeavoured to invest it with a sort of personality, to place it before me as an individual, beautiful in its proportions, as well as vigorous in all the elements of its constitution, and losing sight of all distinction of classes, sects, and parties, to ask myself, in the presence of that Being, before whom I shall shortly stand, what I could do most for my country's welfare, how I could contribute most to found a system of education that would give to Canada, when I should be no more, a career of splendour which will make its people proud of it. I may adopt the words of a poet—though they may not be very poetical:—

'Sweet place of my kindred, blest land of my birth,
The fairest, the purest, the dearest on earth;
Where'er I may roam, where'er I may be,
My spirit instinctively turns unto thee.'

Whatever may have been the course of proceeding adopted towards me in this inquiry, I bear enmity to no man; and whatever may be the result of this investigation, and the decision of the committee, I hope that during the few years I have to live, I shall act consistently with the past, and still endeavour to build up a country that will be distinguished in its religious, social, moral, educational, and even political institutions and character; to assist in erecting a structure of intellectual progress and power, on which future ages may look back with respect and gratitude, and thus to help, in some humble degree, to place our beloved Canada among the foremost nations of the earth.

The following private letters, written to me at the time from Quebec and Kingston, by Dr. Ryerson, throw additional light upon the nature of the contest in which he was engaged. They also reveal what the character of his personal feelings and the exercise of his mind during that eventful time were.

On the 20th April, Dr. Ryerson said:—I have had a very painful and laborious week; but I hope to-morrow to be able by divine help, to answer two of my principal opponents effectually. One of these gentlemen made a very plausible speech yesterday in defence of the University, and in reply chiefly to me, but full of fallacies and misquotations.

April 27th.—I finished my defence yesterday in the presence of a densely crowded room—consisting of a large number of Legislative Councillors and members of the House of Assembly—several of whom, I was told, were quite moved when I closed, and cheered me heartily when I sat down. I was congratulated on all sides by them in the afternoon, upon the manner in which I had triumphantly defended myself. I can only say, to God be all the praise. I felt myself as weak as water. I was so depressed and affected the night before, and the morning of commencing my defence, that I could not speak without emotion and tears; but I prayed and relied upon Him who had never failed me in the hour of trial, and my personal friends were also engaged in prayer in my behalf.

As soon as I commenced, I felt as if an army of such assailants were as so many pigmies, and, my friends say, I handled them as such. The remarks of members of both Houses are various, and some of them amusing—all agreeing in the completeness of the defence. All agree also as to the extravagance and defects of the system, and the unquestionable claims of denominational colleges.

I cannot review the great goodness of God to me during this mortifying week without an overflowing heart and tears of gratitude. More conscious and manifold help from above I never experienced. I hope I may never be called to pass through such another conflict. I spoke two hours and forty minutes on the day before yesterday, and one hour and three-quarters yesterday.

May 8th.—I shall be able to send you to-morrow a copy in slips of my reply to my two principal opponents. I know not what will be the result, but I trust in God, who has done better for us than all our fears or our hopes thus far. I hear that the general conviction of members is with me. One of the Senators told me that he had heard but one opinion on the subject. There are some who are satisfied that I have gained in the contest, but who are not in favour of dividing the endowment. All seem to feel that the present system is bad, and that something must be done, and that denominational colleges must be sustained. I think the House will refuse to do anything until the evidence, etc., on the subject is laid before the country. I thank you for your very kind sympathy in my conflicts.

Kingston, June 7th.—The Conference met yesterday, and seems to be in a very good spirit. A Committee was appointed, named by myself, and moved by Rev. Dr. Wood—to arrange for proceedings on the University question. The Committee met last night, and agreed to have a public meeting; and myself and one or two more to draw up resolutions to be submitted to it. I am desired to address the meeting in the evening, when it is expected there will be a great gathering. I find the preachers to be very cordial and grateful.

Kingston June 8th.—The official lay members of the Church in the city of Kingston presented a congratulatory address to the Conference this forenoon, in which they referred with great feeling and force to the University question, also to the representatives of the Conference at Quebec, and especially to myself—requesting that the Guardian might be more and more the medium of furnishing the connexion with facts and information on the subject, and that my Defence should be inserted in it for the information of our people.

Rev. G. R. Sanderson, seconded by Rev. W. Jeffers, moved a vote of thanks to the official members of Kingston for their address. Rev. J. Spencer, Editor of the Guardian, regarded the address as an attack upon himself, and said the lay members had been instigated to make the attack upon him. Dr. Wood showed that the address simply made a request. Mr. Spencer was considered to have made a great mistake for himself.

The feeling of Conference in regard to myself is very cordial and very enthusiastic on the University question. The article in The Canadian Church is much admired. A copy of it has been sent to the Montreal Gazette, also to the Kingston Daily News. It is an able and most scholarly article.

Kingston, June 13th.—Yesterday afternoon, the Conference considered and unanimously and cordially adopted a series of resolutions on the University question—thanking those who were at Quebec, especially myself—endorsing the memorial pamphlet. My name was received with cheers, whenever mentioned in the resolutions. In the evening, a public meeting was held, and it was a perfect ovation to myself. Some of those present thought that that was the object of the meeting. Rev. W. Jeffers, the new editor, made an excellent speech. Rev. Lachlan Taylor read extracts in a most amusing and effective manner from the Hamilton Spectator, Colonist, Echo, and Church Press. The Hon. Mr. Ferrier spoke most happily on the effect of the discussion, and also of the effect of my speech on the members of both branches of the Legislature. I was cheered throughout, and sat down with four long rounds of cheers. There was much laughter, and occasional deep feeling during my criticisms on the variations, and some of the topics of the speeches of my opponents at Quebec, especially the after-dinner speeches at the Toronto University gathering.

FOOTNOTES:

[148] Since established and supported, as is the one in Montreal, by contributions from the Methodist people.

Clyx.com