^r^% IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 L4 128 ■ 50 ^^ I.I ^ m ^ tiS, u tut 1.25 III ^'^ I 2.5 12.2 I 2.0 III 1.6 -► ^ /i /J 7. y /^ Photographic Sdences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ? CIHM/ICMH ^ Microfiche t Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes I "lyPages restored and/or laminated/ L—f Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes I T/Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Lkd Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es The to li The posi of tl filmi Orig begi the I sion othe first sion or ill I I Coloured maps/ D D D D D Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es I 1/^howthrough/ llA Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ D D Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel suppl^mentaire The shall TINl whi( Map diffe entii begi right requ metl Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 film^es 6 nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ire details es du modifier ler une filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire f ilmi f ut reprodult grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le "■us grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. §es Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboSes suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtie film6s d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reprodult en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. y errata id to nt ie pelure, 9on d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 • „!• ^^ "v^-^-- • ■-.:'' '"f- •^ * « - LI C '1' T E K ,S ON K 1 N G ' S a O L 1. E G E , 1)Y THE REV, JOHN llcCAi; L, L, L, ])„ f'ritid'-iii ./ /Afl c;.vii'c/.w/y, AN D JOHN MAC ARA, ESQ., J.arrister at Late, TO i; () N T O. PRINTED AT THE EXAMINER OFFICE, KING STaELT. JclS. / INTRODUCTION. ,^n May, 1844, a Paniplilet was published in Toronto, entitled "The Oriri;?, jiilisroRv, AND iMan'aokmknt ok King's Collkgk, Tokonto," and containing ihe following par!i;jrapli : — ' During the Cli.incellorship of Sir Charles Bagot, a Schedule of Salaries and Dnlit-s Wiis hiiil hefnre his late tlxcellency l)y Dr. iMc(^anl. ami which wa.-. pro- fessedly fr lined in reference to a staieinent of the income of the Uiiiver-ily. In that ricliedule Dr. .Vl^Canl esliinated his own services, as a I'rofessor, ai £400; ' while the snin of £250 was attached ^o the otficeof Vire-1'iesident. Sir Cliarleti Bagot reduced tlw salary of Vice-l'resideiU to £150, and raised tiiai ol thd Professorship to £500— ;t!nis meeting .\n aiiother form Dr. McCanl's own ideas of his importance. A Statute yyas i»i;cpr.red l)y Sir Charles Uagol in accordance with tliis appropriation, iind tr:\tismitted 10 the Council 'I'lus sUitntc was inter- ccpte.ll anil cancelled — tlie^Chancellor's severe illness having otVered a (avonrahle opportunity for defeating his intentiona. On the arrival of Sir Charles Meicalfe, a new Statute was framed hy tlie parties in Toronto, in which, taUiiig advantage of the addition made by Sir Charles IJajjot to Dr. ^I,cCan^s salary, as a Professor. the sum stated was £500. and also taking advantage of Sir Charles Meiialle'a ignorance of die former Chancellor's arratigement of the salary of Vice-President, 'tlie Slim stated was £200. Will Dr. McCaul ItuKurd an explauvition uf tiie diiicrepancy ?" Although the Pamphlet attracted general attention, and wps noticed by ^Imost •very newspaper in the Province, no answer to the Tery serioiiij (jl.arge above quoted, emanated frptp Dr. McCaul tjll two years after tjie publication. At length, on ^Oth April, 4846, the Hon. Adam Fergusson took occasion, when moving for certain papers relative to King's College, to call the attention of the Legislative Council and, the Country to the fact that a charge deeply aflecling the character of Dr. McCaul, as wijll as of the Institution itself and the youth under Ills charge, remaif^ad unausyv,ered. 31 r. Fergusson's speech in tlie I^egi^Iative Council having caused considerable excitement, Dr. iMcCaul, en 14tti .lilay, 184(5, addressed a letter to that gentleman, justifying himsejf from the charge, but without expressing any wish to have the letter placed before the ^ouse. Mr. Fergus-son, not feeling himself warranted in laying a privateJetter befoi;e the country, without the sanction of Dr. McCaul and his friends, placed the document at the disposal of the gentlemen uf the Legislative Council, when the Speaker ruled. that it could not be read. On the retirement of the Bishop of Toronto from the Presidency of the University, Dr. McCaul was, in February 1848, elevated to that ofiice: and a few of his friends undertook to get up an address of congratiilatinn and to have it privately circulated for subscription among the citizens of Toronto. The address being of considerable length, a few of the lleformers were induced to give their signatures without a perusal, and it was not till the document appeared in the public prints that they became aware that it contained a short sentence expressive ,»f their satisfaction with Dr. McCaul's mauageuitnt of the University, while hit // I, held the oiTice of Vice-President. The great body of the Reformer declined to join in the address until J)r. AfcCanl made a public jnstification of the charges contained in tiie pamphlet, and Mr. Forgiisson's speech- The necessity for explanation having become urgent, Dr. McCaul at h^ngth placed a copy of his letter to Mr. Fergnsson before the public, by inserting it in the Toronto Jlcruld of (i:h March, 1848. The following pages comprise Dr. IVlcCaul's letter ami tlie reply made by Mr. Mucara, the author of the pamphlet ?n which the charge originally appeared. ( \ i declined to the cliurges 111 at length serting it in ompnse Dr. ho j)iin)phlet I LETTER FROM THH RKV, .milX McCAUL. LL.l).. TO Till', IIOVIILE ADAM FERGUSSON, ME.MIW'.R or THE LEUlriLATiVE COUNCIL, &e., &c., &c. Sir, King's Coi.t.kge, Toronto, May iAtIt, 184(j. In the last number of tlic Toronto Herald, I saw, for the first time, a report of the observations made by you in the Legislative Council on April 30th, when moving for certain returns relative to the University. As the tendency of these observations is to injure my reputation, and the place, in which they were utteted must give them authority in public estimation, I feel that I cannot permit them to pass without notice. My object, then, in the present communication is to prove that the charges, which have been advanced against me, are untrue ; and I have not hesitated to address the vindication of my character to you, as I learn from your remarks that you will be happy to find, that what has been alleged to my prejudice is false. Before I enter on the consideration of the extract, which contains the charges, it seems proper, that I should advert to the observation, with which you intro- duced it. *' For more than two years," you remarked, " a charge has been left unanswered by a Rev. Doctor in charge of the young men attending this Institu- tion — a charge, be it observed, not made by an ephemeral writer in a newspaperi but gravely and seriously pubUshtd in a work upon University affairs.'* ' It appears that you are disposed to considcrmy not having replied to the charges advanced against me in the publication, entitled, " The origin, history, and management of the University, &c.," as a presumption, if not a proof, that I could not deny their truth. Of the character of the assertions made by the author oi authors of that pamphlet, you will be better able to form an opinion, when I shall have answered the particular charges, contained in the extract, to which you drew the attention of the Council. At present I shall content myself with observing, that I wholly dissent from your opinion, that it was either necessary or proper for me to notice the statements advanced in that pamphlet. As it was published anonymously, it had not the sanction of any name to i ',ommend it to attention, and its intrinsic merits did not seem sufficient to clain. '. onsideration. Who the author was I had no means of knowing, nor do I know how ; and on reading it I could not discover any grounds for conjecturing, that it was the pro- duction of a person, who was either a scholar or a gentleman. The chief charac- teristics, which I observed in it, were, strong eflbrts to pervert truth, without the capacity to rise above the common level of ordinary falsehood— heavy attempts at sarcasm, sinking into dull invective or coarse abuse— and pnrticulary scrupu- lous care to vilify the characters of none, but those, whose position or circum- stances warranted the hope, that they could not, or would not, punish insult. The publication was certainly calculated to effect the object, which the writer peemed to have in vi«w, viz,— the excitement of popular prejudice against the « Jnstitution o,nd its principal oflicers ; but tlic ability, m&riirestetl l)y the author in making out a ciise, was nierely of tliat siiecies and amount, \\ hicii would quality its possessor for succeeding as a Icj^al sharper. Hut an 1 have no wi.-ii to dilate on a )vo^k, of which I regret that circumstances have compelled me to take any notice, 1 shall proceed to the charges, contained in the extract, which you read, find to which 1 should assuredly have never ollered any rejily, if yon had not condescended to bring them under tJie notice of llu' llonoinable lloufc of which you are a member. The charges are — iFt. That in a srhedule of triiarie-i laid by Tin; before Sir .Charles Bagot, as Chancellor of the University, 1 esiimntcd ni> own services as professor at £400, while the sum of iJ'JJI) was attached to iliat of Nicc-Prcfident. 2nd. That a statute was prepared by Sir Charles Bagot, in w hich the salary of Vice-President was reduced to jCi.>0, wlvich statute \». as iuificeptod and cancelled • -the Chaticellor's severe illness having' otiered a liivoiiiable opi)oilunity for de- feating his intentions, iird. That on the arrival of Sir Chailes Metcalfe, a new Btalute was prepared by the parties in Toronto, in which, taking advantage of the fitidition Ridde c(l in tlifin, were at variance not merely with the schedule, whii h had been siibmiued to J I is K.xcellency, but with statutes then in force. Amonyj-t tiic immeroiis clianges aileetingthe number of Professor- chilis, and the duties, eniolunieni, and rank of those, who had been appointed, that which related to myself, was lint of minor importance. The statement of your author, however, that this arrange inent was but another form of that, which had been proposed in the schedule, is false, for the Professorships of Rhetoric and Logic were added to those olllccs, for which tlio salary of jCGaO per annum had been proposed in that document. I felt, T admit, that the arrangement relating to myself was unjust, but the pro-' posal to alter it did not originate with me. It had been noted by the President, before I had any communicaUon on the subject with him ; and I had not evenr seen tlie statutes, until they were handed to me by his Lordship, with that altera- tion suggested on the margin in his own hand-writing. But it is asserted that " the statute was intercepted and cancelled." This assertion is false, and as I* am desirous that the fullest information should be uflbrded. 1 shall give a detailed account of all the circumstances. In the preparation of these Statutes, no atten- tion had been paid (in consequence, I believe, of the illness of the Chancellor) to^ the direction of the Charter, that the Chancellor should consult the President and next senior member of the Council before proposing any Statute, Rule, or Ordi-, nance, for the consideration of the Council. Consequently tlie President was not aware, until he received them, of the provisions whjch they contained. On a. careful perusal, his Lordship found many things to which he could not assent, and' requested me to proceed to the Seat of Government, and explain his views to the Chancellor, if His Excellency could admit me to an interview. Accordinglyi'. ^t the earliest opportunity, 1 proceeded to Kingston, and waited on Sir Charlev Bagot. But His Excellency was evidently too ill to attend to business. 1 there- fore did not introduce the subjects which the President had requested me to bring under his consideration, but mtrely presented to Captain Bagot the packet, which I had received from his Lordship, containing the gialutes, and, I believe,, sortie memoranda relative to them. Those Statutes, which were then presented by me,' were subsequently submitted to His Excellenry Sir Charles Metcalfe, as Chan- cellor of the University. By his authority, copies were made (with the amend- ments introduced) and transmitted for the consideration of the College Council,' by whom they were passed. Biigof, in the Profes- -tiie severe feat in g hie The third, and most serious charge is— that "on the arrival of Ch^rlss Met-' calfe, a new Statute was framed by the parties in Toronto, in which taking advantage of the addition made to my salary as Professor, the sum stated \va^» £500 ; and also, taking advantage of Sir Charles Metcalfe'a ignorance of the, former Chancellor's arrangement of the salary of Vice-President, the sum stated' win £250 !" s It is not true, that there? Vas any new Statute prepared hy any parties iri Toronto. All the changes in the provisions of the Statutes, pent by Sir Charles Bagot to the President, were written by his Lordship on the margin of those Statutes, nor was there one letter, or number, of the original provisions erased or altered. Again, ihe changes had been made before Sir Charles Metcalfe arrived, and the htithor, whose statements you have cited, cannot uphold his credit by the evasion, that he regarded the introduction of them as virtually framing a new Statute. It is impossible, that any advantage could have been taken of Sir Charles Metcalfe's ignorance on any point, for the two arrangements, that proposed by Sir Charles Bagut, and that by the President, were both before him m full as to every particular. They were in His JLxcellency's possession for, I believe, almost two months, before he decided which he would adopt, and the difficulties Vvhich then existed, rendered reference to those Statutes necessary, even regarding those points, of which it is asserted that Mis Excellency was ignorant. Ulti- mately those same Statutes were returned to the President, with a letter containing a long and able discussion of the difficulties relative to t^c University, and the Chancellor's approval of the changes proposed by his Lordship. I have now, Sir, I trust, satisfied you that the charges, which have been ad- vanced against me in the extract which you quoted, are false, and as such un- •Worthy of your countenance. I am well aware that 1 have no right to offer any observatidns on the statements made by you, or any other member of the Legis- lature who in the course of his Parliamentary duty, may animadvert on my conduct as an officer of a public Institution ; but I cannot believe, that any mem- ber of either Hotise would decline to receive correct information on any subject, which he had noticed— particularly one, involving the reputation of a person, who was not present, when the charges were brought forward — or would hesitate to make the defence of any individual, whom he had unintentionally wronged, as public as the accusation by which he had injured him. Into the general charges which have been against the management of the University, I do not feel myself at liberty to enter in the present communication. But I must respectfully protest against our being condemned withodt examination into the truth of the accusations which have been advanced against us, most generally by those, who have neither practical knowledge ef such institutions nor accurate acquaintance with facts. I beg to assure you that my most earnest desire, and, I may add, that of every officer of the University is, that the most minute and scrutinizing enquiry may be instituted into all the affairs of the establishment. I am per- suaded that the result of this investigation, if conducted by men, whose object is to arrive at the truth, will be to satisfy even those who now suspect and distrust us, that we haVe honestly and laboriously endeavoured to discharge the heavy duties of the responsible situations, in \\'hich we are placed— that unremit- ting attention is paid to the interests of the trust committed to us-that the provi- sions of the Act of 1837, whereby the original charter was altered, are being fairly and fully carried out— that the Institution is at present in successful operation, numbering amongst its f'rofessors and Students members of different denominati- ons, on none of whom (eicept those who belong to the United Church of England and Ireland) is there any religious restriction whatever— that as it now exists it is capable of conferring on the Province the benefits which its Royal Founder con- iny parties Jri y Sir Charles argin of those lions rrused or tcalfc arrived, his credit by raiiiinc a now teinplttted— ftud tlint It is likely to continue tol)e u hlessiagBnd an honour to Can* ada to the remotest jjosterity, uiilcHPcripiiled or destroyed in its itit'ancy by lh« feckless experiments of educational enipilics. I have the honour to be, Voiir obedient servant, JOIJN McCAUL. f Sir Charles t proposed by 1 m full tia to or, I believe, the difficultiea jvcn regarding norant. Ulti- tter containing ?rsity, and the have been ad- nd as such un- [ht to offer any r of the Legis- nadvert on my that any mem- )n any subject, n of a person, would hesitate ally wronged, to the general ;y, I do not feel ust respectfully le truth of the by those, who e acquaintance d, I may add, id scrutinizing »t. I am pcr- , whose object w suspect and discharge the —that unremit- •that the provi- are being fairly ssful operation, ;nt denominati- irch of England now exists it ie Founder con- L K 'I' T E R f'RoM John macaha, kh(i., Isakristeh at i-au', to tiir no\, ada^K FERUUsJSON, or WOODHILL, MKMUKR OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, &c., &c., Scci Sin, — After a suspense of nearly two years, public cnrio?ity has at length been grniitied by tiie publication, iti the Toronto Herald, of Dr. McCaiil's letter to you, in answer to certain charges made in your place in the Legislative Council, on the authority of a pamphlet published in Toronto in the year 1844. As iho author of the oi'iginal charge, and having no desire to avoid the public tribunal which Dr. McCaul has sought, I deem it a duty which I owe towards you to substantiate its truth: but before adverting to the defence thus tardily brought fbrward, I may be permitted to congratulate the friends of the Reverend Pro- fessor on their happy selection of an organ whose immaculate Editor evinces, in his recent publications, a perennial interest in the affairs of Upper Canada College, and whose sympathy with the cause of his learned patron is sure to grow warm in proportion to the aggravation of the charge and the labour of the vindicatioQ. I may also embrace the occasion to settle one or two personal preliminaries with the learned Professor himself. Dr. McCaul justifies his silence for upwards of two years on the ground that the pamphlet in which the charges are contained was published anonymously; and in tho letter now before the public he says with enviable simplicity of expression "who the author was I had no means of knowing, nor do 1 know now." I do not apprehend that much curiosity can be felt as to the motives which induced ine to wiilihold my name from the title page. Perhaps they were not dissimilar to those which subsequently actuated the learned Professor himself as the putative author of a pamphlet in defence of the University management, which fell still-born from the press and whose memory only survives in the envenomed scurrility with which he assailed certain of his colleagues at the Council Board. But the question as it respects Dr. McCaul is — how far the name of the author of the charge was unknown in Toronto, and to hiui, vvheiihc addressed his letter to you on the 14th May, 1846 7 Now as I had on all proper occasions openly avowed the authorship, and had, in reference to the very charges in question, expressly instructed the Publisher to atfoid evtfry fucilily to Dr. McCuul in obtaining my 2 % M ».l i In 10 name, it must amuse tlie Reverend gentleman's friends whom he so frequently regaled with much cheering ahuse directed against myself to find him, in all the innocence of a heart apparently devoid even of suspicion, acknowledging at the distance of more than two years, ignorance of a fact well known to every one else in Toronto within the first week after the work had issued from the Press, and yet suggesting, with that moral instinct peculiar to the highest order of intellect, that the a!)ility maniiested by the writer was of that respectable characier "which would qualify its possessor for succeeding usalegal sharper!" Dr. Mc.Caul is of opinion that the general character of the Pamphlet in question may be estimated by the truth of the particular charges to which public attention has been called ; and that the weight of his own judgment may not be withheld in turning the scale of public opinion, he observes that one of the chief characteristics of the author is incapacity "to rise above the common level of ordinary fiilseliood .'" What precise signification the Professor of Rhetoric may attach to this expression, 1 have no means of ascertaining. Perhaps, like tlie hero of a well known metrical satire, — " Of Rlictoric, he could not ope Iliy iiioutl), l)ut out tlicre flew a trope." But if the phrase is not a. mere rhetorical flourish, and can be made to assume the dignity of common sense, the doctrine of gradations of falsehood must be dismissed as unsound in Ethics, and the allusion to a common standard of mendacity, must be construed as referring to the idiosyncracy of a particular mind. For instance, were I to aay that in any speciiied letter the writer exhibited incapacity to rise above the common level of his ordinary falsehood, the expression, although rather tautological, might derive some significancy from the comparison that might be instituted between the production referred to and' the other mendacious delinquencies of the writer; but Dr. McCau), as an instructer of youth, ought to be aware that in the estimation of a gentleman, all falsehood has but one level, and thnt the slightest deviation from the truth must find a palliation, not in its rhetorical embellishment, but in the ordinary habits of the person charged with the lie. Of the merits of the original charge, and the defence now set np, there can, I think, be but one opinion, inasmuch aa nearly all the material facts are admitted. The only controverted point seems to be the philological propriety of the words " intercepted and cancelled," as applicable to the facts charged ond admitted; and the only material fact in issue is the alleged ignorance on the part of Sir Charles Metcalfe of his predecessor's arrangements. In reference to the first part of the chorge. Dr. McCanl admits it to be per- fectly true " that a schedule of Salaries and Duties was transmitted by him to be laid before Sir Charles Bagot. as Chancellor of the University." He does not deny that the schedule was named in reference to a statement of the University income, also prepared and submitted at the same time by him, for the purpose of guiding the Chancellor in assigning those salaries and duties. Ilo iilinits that thf> ' 'tiuiato oti'tfoiui-. and the schedule of salaries and duties wcif? so frequently lud him, in all nowledging ut own to every sued from the 2 highest order at respectable s^'a/ sharper!" Pamphlet in > vvliicii public int may not be e of the chief TOwion level of Rhetoric may haps, like tiie n be made to ilsehood must )n standard of a particular 'iter exhibited dsehood, the mcy from the irred to and' Caul, as an gentleman, rom the truth the ordinary , there can, ial facta are al propriety charged and 'ante on the to be per- d by him to " He does lent of the him, for the dntios. lie duties were 11 prepared " after co7isultnlion icilh the Presitltnt." He admits it to be also triu) that in the schedule his salary as a PfoTessor was estimated by himself at dG400, and that of Vice-President at j£:2")0; but he says, •' liie question is, whelhcr any blame attaehes to ni« for tliiso'iiiiiiato ; wlietlier / was giiilly of any indelicacy in adiviiij; ihe sums, ;is I did, to tlie oflicns whicli T hold." " Tn llio first place it was my duly to prepare lliat scliednie"; "in the second place the nppoi'lioumeut of ssilaries was made after cousiiilalion wilh iiie President" ; and in thelhiid place I he re was no room fur deiicuey, inusiiuieii as llie College Council had already (i.-.rd the salary of Vice-I'reaiiieut at jJToO. and in the esliuiale fmni-iiied l»y Di'. ]\Jc(';iiil, tlie sulai-ies of all the ollices wiiicli lie held, were acinally placed by him £J0(( uelcnv flio sum which had been lixed by the Council more tliau two yeiiis Lteibie, for one of them, namely, llieoilice of Vice-President. Itisoflilile importance to the present inquiry whether it formed a part of ©r. McCaul's duty to prepare die Estimate and Schedule referred to, for their preparation formed no part of the charge brought against Inm. If the President of the University delegated to Dr. McCaid, the duty of furnishing die requisite infermation to the Chancellor, which the Charter enjoins on the President and Senior Professor, the result of (heir conjoint and several labours became the act of both. 'J'o the manner in which Dr. MrCaul performed that duty I shall yet have occasion to advert ; but at present the simple question is. Did Dr. McCaul in that schedule estimate his Professorial services at £400, and his services as Vice-President at £250? and Dr. McCaul's answer is — in the iijinn- ative. Dr. McCaul further admits or does not deny, that on the basis of the Estimate of Income furnished by him, statutes were pre])ared by Sir Charles Bagot, in which the salary attached to the Professorships assigned to Dr. IVlcCaul, was raised to £500, while the salary attached to the odice of Vice-President was reduced to £150. But he affects to qualify the charge by affirming that the arrangements of Sir Charles Bagot were contained iu two statutes instead of one, as originally alleged in the Pamphlet — that these arrangements " were at variance not merely with the Schedule submitted to his Excellency, but vsith statutes then in force'' — and that the additional duties of " the Professorship of Rhetoric and Logic were addsd to those offices, for which the salary of £G50 per annum had been proposed in that document." The precise number of the statutes by which Sir Charles Bagot carried out his arrangements will scarcely affect the accuracy of the charge in the public mind. The charge is not as to the number of the Statutes, but as to the arrangements contained in them. Nor was there any question raised as to the actual amount of duty which Sir Charles Bagot attached to the salary of £500. The simple facts requisite to be proved were — did Sir Charles Bagot in his statutes, attach the salary of £500 to the Professorships which Dr. McCaul now holds, and the salary of £150 to the olTice of Vice President— and Dr. McCaul's answer is — in the affirmative. 12 The firit pavt of llie cliargo tLeu is adniitteil.— But tlio entire dtifeiica rests not 80 much on a dcniiil of tiie particular facts ns on au attempt to introduce, by way of qualification and justification, collateral circumstance^, which it vvill bo necessary for me to shew, have either been grossly misrepresented or have uo real bearing on the question before the public. The circumstance in palliation which claims priority in Dr. McCaul's esti. mntion is that, " more than two years before, the salary of the Vice-President had been fixed at £750 per annum," and " in the Estimate furnished by me, tho nalaries of all the offices which I held are placed at £100 below the sum which had been fixed by the Council for one of them." If any inference can be legiti- mately drawn from this circumstance as stated, it must be, not that Dr. McCaul is absolutely honest, but that he is excessively modest ; and it can bo allowed no greater weight, either in evidence or in judgment on the specific charge, than one of these certificates of previous good behavour which a criminal is permitted to use aAer his conviction, not in palliation of the crime, but in mitigation of tho punishment. If Dr. McCaul here alludes to a resolution passed by the College Council at an early period of its history, when the TJ'jiversity Endowment presented the pleasant prospect of sinecure oflices, to be distributed under Episcopal patronage — a resolution which never went into operation and for which the Council never dared to claim a statute — then Dr. McCaul's own schedule is virtually a condemnation of the wasteful extravgance by which that Council was characterized — for the duties which the Council estimated at £750, he undertook to perform, and has actually performed, for £250 per &iinum. Dr. McCaul is silent indeed on the fact that subsequently to that very resolu- tion being passed, one of the late Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, and the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom the point was specially referred, gave it as their deliberate opinion that the office of Vice President was illegal and repugnant to the provisions of the Charter. But whatever opinion may be formed of the illegality of that office, or of the duties attached tQ'it, Dr. McCaul's allusion to a resolution practically admitted by himself to have beep extravagant, can have no effect on the question whether he did or did not estimate the salary at £'250 in his schedule, and whether Sir Charles Bagot, after mature deliberation, did not reduce that salary to £ 150, and embody such reduced salary in his statutes. Dr. McCaul's next averment in qualification is, that the arrangements contained In the statutes of Sir Charles Bagot " were nt variance not merely with the Schedule which hail been submitted to his Excellency, but u;ith statutes then in force,'* It can be readily conceived that Dr. McCaul found it difficult t« jnslify the suppression of statutes transmitted by the Chancellor to the College Council, merely because they were at variance with certain suggestions, previ- ously made by himself. He, therefore, retreats to a firmer position, and, by way of recrimination, charges the Chancellor with a violation of statutes already in force. Before this charge can avail him to any extent, it would be necessary to show that tho Schedule submitted by Dr. McCaul, was in strict accordance with tho statutes referred to— but this he dare not aflirui. And in leaving such an dofunco rests to introduce, irliich it vvill bo ted or iiavc no ^cCaiirs esti> President had ed by nie, tho le sum which e can be legiti- itDr.McCaul bo allowed no c charge, than al is permitted igation of the ly the College r Endowment ributed under 'ation and for IcCauI'a own by which that nated at £750, ) per annum. It very resohi- rt of Queen's was specially l^ice President But whatever uties attached )y himself to er he did or Ilharles Bagot, embody such nts contained rely with the statutes then it difficult t« :o the College ;stiona, previ- , and, by way tis already in be necessary :t accordance leaving such 13 an inference to be mailo, ho in guilty of dccoptiou, as to the true nature of the previous statutes: for, in so far ns regards Dr. McCaul, the Scliodnle submitted by him was a complete subversion of tlicso very slain les, while the statutes transmitted by Sir Charles Bagot, reverted to " the statutes then in force," in every particular. In order to maUo this matter plain it is necessary that I should enter into fonie detail, for the exculpatory facts which Dr. McCaiil has adduced, derive their plausibility from the maimer in which he has involved U'u own position in the statutes, with the changes which were made on the salaries and duties of the otlier Professors, In the year 1840, a Statute was transmitted by the Chancellor to the College Council, by whom it was passed, establishing several chairs in t!ie University, and classifying )hem under a certain order of precedence. By this statute the first chair established was that of Divinity: the second was that of Classical Litera- ture; and the eighth in rank was that of " Belles-Lctlres, Illieloric, and Logic," the three last mentioned subjects having been united, and assigned to one Pro- fessorship. At the time Dr. McCanl's estimate and schedule were framed and submitted to Sir Charles Bagot, the statute referred to was in operation ; and it is to this statute he refers when he says that Sir Charles Bagot's arrangements "were at variance with Statutes then in force." When Dr. McCaul's Schedule was prepared and submitted, he held by letter of appointment from the Chan- cellor the chair of Classical Literature. In the Schedule he separated with magical dexterity, " Belles-Letlres" from the sister arts of " Jllictoric and Logic,'' with which it had been as.40ciated in the Statute then in force, and created the former into an independent Professorship, with a salnry of £200. In the same Schedule he assigned £200 to the Professorship of Classical Litcra* ture, and with it he associated the independent chair of " Belles-Lettres," thus created by himself in violation of " the Statute then in force." With peculiar delicacy he transferred the duties of '"Rhetoric and Logic" to the Professor of Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy ; and tho happy result was an addition of £200 to the expenditure of the Institution. Dr. McCanl may allege that no deception was practised in the preparation of the Schedule; he may be able to justify the subversion of " the Statute then in force." on grounds not personal to himself; he may be able to establish that he was influenced by no mercenary considerations in disjoining Arts previously united by a solemn Statute, but until he places that justification before the world, tho assumed purity of his motives will scarcely protect him from the siiBpicions induced by Uie pecuniary advantages which he derived from the change. So far from Sir Charles Bagot having violated that statute in reference to Dr. McCaul's emoluments and duties, he positively adhered to it and reverted to the original arrangement by which the .-\rts of Belles Lettres, Rhetoric, and Logic V/eto united under one chair. As it will be necessary to recur to these statutes when I shall advert to Dr. McCaul's claims for additional emolument, on the ground that additional offices were imposed on him, beyond those originally contemplated, tho whole matter Ni (1 %i v:\ ■ k ■ > ! l i! 14 iti:iy be simplified by a tabular viovv of his salaries and duties under the scLediile •and the two several slaiutcs respectively. By the statute of ISlfl ihe ofl'ices now iield by Dr. Mc Canl were ranked thus: 2. CliHsical Literature. S. Helios l.ettres, J.Micloric and Logic. In the scborinle siibinilled by Dr. 31cCaid to Sir Charles Bagot the several Chairs, with the salaries and duties were inserted as follows : the chair of Rhetoric and Logic was nnifod wilh that of Metaphysics and 3Ioral Philosophy now held by the Professor of Divinity. t. (.'lassiriil l.ilpraiiiii; a. nelles Uatri's 7. iMfi:i|iliysicy & .Moral Pliilosopliy 8. KlM'luiic & \,iy^)r £'JO(t. I'Y'os or .C2') tit oplioii ai)0. do 2(10, 'Jt)0. do do 3 hours perdiiy. C 3 hours I per day. By the Statutes of Sir Charles Bagot which were intercepted and cancelled, Dr. McCaul's professorial offices and emoluments were thus represented : — 2. Classical Literature ii'^SOO 3. Belles Leltres, Rhetoric and Logic. 5 So much for the charge prefernid by Dr. McCaul against Sir Charles Bagot of having violated the " statutes then in force."' Dr. McCaul well knows that he has, with signal ingratitude, withheld the real motives which induced that respected Chancellor Im raise his Professorial salary to the sum of £5U(). and that the re-union of chairs which had been improperly and illegally disjoined in Dr. McCaul's schedule was a very subordinate induce- ment. Long before that schedule was prepared or submitted, Sir Charles Bagot, in pursuance of the scheme, set forth iu the statute of 1840, had entered into arrangements with the Professor of Divinity, then resident in England, under vihich it was agreed that that gentleman should receive a salary of £500 per annum. During the preparation of Sir Charles Bagol's Statutes Dr. Beaven, who had previously received his letter of appointment, arrived in Canada, and, as I shall afterwards show, he took a prominent part as Senior Professor of the University, in the deliberations and consultations which took place previous to these Statutes being framed. When Dr. McCaul's estimate and schedule were submitted to Sir Charles Bagot, that Chancellor felt a strong disinclination to place the emolument of the Professor of Classical Literature below that of the Professor of Divinity, and being aware that the office of Vice-President had been deliberately declared by the report submitted by the Law Officers of the Crown to the College Council to be illegal, and that it was liable to be swept away by any Chancellor by whom he might be succeeded; but having in view at the same time Dr. McCaul's estimate of University income, to which he was necessarily restricted, he reduced the salary of the uncertain office of Vice- President to £150, and raised the salary of the Professorship as the more per- manent appointment to £500 — " thus meeting in another form Dr. McCaul's own ideas of his importance." That the addition of the Professorship of Rhetoric and Logic to the chairs occupied by Dr. McCaul in his own Schedule, could form in Sir Charles Bagot's mind a very small inducement for raising the salary, is obvious from the circumstance, that the chair of Metaphysics and le schedule nked thus: the several oflJhetoric iophy now >• irs 1 cancelled, ited : — arks Bagot Id the real orial salary improperly lute induce* Sir Charles ad entered 1 England, iryof£500 )r. Beaven, ida, and, as ssor of the previous to edule were ination to that of the sident had cers of the ;o be swept in view at cb he was of Vice- more per- McCaul'g of Rhetoric dule, could raising the hysics and e 15 Moral Philosuphy, which, in the statute of 1840, occupies the position of » distinct Professorship, was annexed to the duties of the rrol'essor of Divinity without any increase of emohiinenf. But perhaps the most satisCactory test of the gross misrepresentiition by which Dr. WcCiuil has endeavoured to protect himself from the charge, is to be found in the fact, that so far from bis actual duties as a Professor having been increased by Sir Cliaries Bogot's Statutes beyond those submitted in the Schedule, these duties were vuiitrlaUydiviinishtd. The portion of Dr. McCaul's Sciiedule already quoted, shows that he estin)ated the lime occupied by the Professor of Classical Literature and Belles Lettres at 18 hours per week, and by the Professor of Rhetoric and Logic at 9 hours per week. A glance at the University Calendar for the year ]S48 will prove that the whole time occupied by Dr. McCaul in the performance of his professorial duties in the Chairs of Classical Literature, Belles Lettres, Rhetoric & Logic, with a Salary of £500 per annum, is IG hours per week — being 2 hours less than the time estimated in his own Schedule for the two chairs of Classical Literature and Belles Lettres, at a salary of £400 per antuim. The circunislances to which I have referred have no bearing on the present enquiry beyond the use to which Dr. McCaul has applied tiiem in justification of the charge of suppressing the Statutes; and if I am forced into apparent digressions, it is owing to the peculiar course which Dr. McCaul has pursued in the attempt to exculpate himself by vague references to circumstances having little connection vvhh the charge itself, but which being but imperfectly known, he has flattered himself into the belief, would have all the argumeutative cogency with the public which he has found to attend a mere hint among his admirers. Thus the question is not as to the expediency of Sir Charles Bagot's arrange- ments, but as to the fact whether the arrangements were actually made; and whatever view may be taken of Dr. McCaul's exculpatory circumstances, the propriety of these arrangements, if their existence be admitted, cannot affect his position. For if Dr. McCaul procured an enlargement of his salary from £400 to £500 on the ground that an additional chair was assigned to him beyond those suggested in the schedule, that enlargement was made by Sir Charles Bagot in die very statutes in question, and it can have no connection with the subsequent enlargement of tlie salary of Vice President under the chancellorship of Sir Charles Metcalfe. The salary of £500 assigned to Dr. McCaul by Sir Charles Bagot was attached to all the chairs which he now holds. Sir Charles Metcalfe never deviated in the smallest particular from Sir Charles Bagot's arrangement of Dr. McCaul's professorial duties or emoluments, and Dr.McCaul must therefore justify the enlargement of his salary of Vice President beyond that contemplated by Sir Charles Bagot on other grounds, than the addition to his professorial duties made by Sir Charles Bagot, which addition to his duties would have been amply recognised in the additional salary, if such had been Sir Charles Bagot's sole motive for granting it. I now come to the charge that the Statutes prepared by Sir Charles Bagot wore iutnrconted and cancelled during that Chnncollors illness, which terminated in death. This is denied by Dr McCttul in terms— but take his own stutcnicnl J I r "I ' ; 1 ■ 1 IM i.l »i ! . I Id of the ti'dtiBnctioH, eirip It of its etcessive verbiage, and ittimnuiifsfoaconfessiAM^ going beyond the charge iniido by me — namely, that he himself was accessory td the interception and cancellation of thedocnments in question. He admits that Btatntes were prepared by Sir Clirtries Bagot atrtctingthe duties, emolnment and rank of all the Professors and some of the oflicera;then appointed. He does no( deny that these statntes were transmitted by the chancellor to the propef officer, in order that they might be laid before the College Council and passed by that body. He says that the firt^t timo he saw those statutes was in the hands of the President; he admits that these statutes never were laid before the Council, but that, tvilh his (J)r. UlcCanl's) knowhdge and permissioh, alterations were intidb oil them: and thflt; without bciligliiid before tiie Council, he (Dr. MfeCaul) Conveyed them to the seat of fjiovenmiedt. i3ut he says, "The proposal to alter it did not originate \VitIi me. It had been noted by the President on the margin befftre 1 had any commnnidniion on the subject with him." ''On a careful pernsfti, his f^ordship fonnd many things to which /le could nttt assent.'' "All the change* were written by his Lordship on the margin." He admits that be did notreceivd Sir Charles Bagot's sanction to the alterations proposed on the statutes — he ddniitsihat the identical Statutes of Sir Charles Bagot never were laid before the College Cottncil, but that copies, with numerous changes and amendtnentH, ufiectingthe number, duties, emolument and rank of »// the Professors introduced^ tvere transmitted for the consideration of the College Council by whom they Vvere passed. I know not with what feelings his Lordship, the Bishop of Toronto, may hare pefnsed fhisi miserable revelation made by his associtate in the transaction, nor' will I attempt to decide a nice point in ethics, as to the comparative guilt of the suppressor and his agent-^but, if there be any truth in the statement by which this mean attempt is made to transfer the odium of interception to the Bishop of* Toronto, he must be acquitted at least from the imputation of sordid motives, foi' the result shows no pecuniary advantage derived by him from tl>e transaction. The qualifying circumstance by which Dr. ftlcCaul attempts to palliate the charge of interception, is thus set forth i " In the preparatioti of the.se statutes, no attention had been paid (in consequence, I believe, of the illness of tto Chancellor) to the direction of the Charter, that the Chancellor should consult with the President and next senior member of the Council before proposing rtny statute, rule, or ordinance, for the consuleration of the Council." It is pleasant here to advert to that peculiar delicacy of mind which characterises Dr< McCaul throughout the transaction. Statutes of the Chancellor, atlccting the duties, rank and emoluments of «// the Professors, are transmitted with the usual forpiality of official documents to the Bursar's office. Not one of the Professors, or members of the Council, was informed of the arrival of documents having an important bearing on all their interests, except Dr. McCaul, the Professor of Classical Literature, who was not at that time the senior Professor of the Univer sity, and whose taste us to duty, rank, or emolument, had no more right to be consulted or indulged than that of any of his colleagues. Without their knowledge and without any couununication with tlicai he unsista in making on thebe stututea a conCtisaibtli accessory tof admits that inliiment and He does no( 'opet" officer, issed liy that hands of the ncil, but that, ;re inttde oil nl) conveyed ter it did not rgin befrtre 1 pernsttl, hia the changes d not receive statutes — he id before the nnendhientti, i intrordiiced^ \f whom they to, may hare isaction, nor' 1 guilt of the Mit by which e Bishop of* motives, foi' ansaction. palliate th« ese statutes, ness of tli0 nid consult proposing ncil." Itia iCterises Dr. itFecting the (h the usual Professors , liaving an rofessor of the Univer right to be knowledge et>e statutes .s 17 Humerous changes affecting the duty, ranii, and emohnnent of hi: colleagues — " that which related to myself being, ' as he confesses, '• of minor importance." : —These changes in the statutes are matle -viiile tiie Cliaiicellor was on his deatii bed— they were not communicated to him for Ur. McCaiil well knew tliut lie dared not to submit to Sir Charles Bagol these umlilated statutes— but Dr. McCaul succeeds in inducing Sir Charles Metcaife to subvert the arraiijiemeuts of his predecessor, arrangements which in some cases amounted to positive agreements with the Professors, The numerous changes are adopted. Mr. DIaUe the Pro- fessor of Law is shorn of his emoluments to the e,\tent of £:iO() per annum ; Dr. Gwynne the Professor of Anatomy and Pliys.ology who had surreiuJered a lucrative practice that he might deVote all his professional energies to his chair, loses £150 per annum; The salary of Dr. Sullivan, then Dfiuoiistralor of Anatomy, is reduced to the extent of £50 per annum; anrl the salary of the Vice President, without any increase of duty and without any change oCcircumslancea to justify enlargement either actual or alleged is increased by £100 per annura beyond the sum provided in the statuie of Sir Chas. Bngot. The simple statement of the transaction needs no commentary. iMy present purpose is to prove that the exculpatory circumstances alleged by Dr. McCaul are without foundation. The circumstance by which Doctor McCaul attempts to palliate the interception of the Statutes can only avail him in one of two ways — either on the ground that the " consultation" enjoined by the Charter was not completed — that is to say — that the statutes were iransmitted to the President in the form of a draft, in order to obtain the President's suggestions previous to their formal transmission to the Council; or on the ground that Sir Charles Bagot violated the provisions of the Charter and that the interception of the Statutes was a proper act of resistance on the part of the President. If the former ground he taken the evidence must he at hand, and the letter of the Chancellor to the President wdl solve the mystery, and, so far as this part of the charge is concerned, will terminate the controversy. Let the letter be produced Dr. McCaul has appealed to the tribunal of the public: assuredly the public will demand something more from him than mere assertions. But it is altogether untrue that Sir Charles Bagot violated the provisions ofthe Charter in not hhving consulted with the President and senior members of the Council before transmitting the Statutes: and the hypocritical allusion to the Chancellor's illtiess is a contemptible subterfuge without the vestige of foundation in fact. The Chancellor applied to the President for an estimate of the income of the' University, and a schedule of salaries and duties that they might form the basis of the proposed statutes. Dr. .^IrCaid prepared that estimate and scliediile, not altogether '• on my own authority, hut after consnlUition with the Picsifletit," and in violation ofthe duty thus iintiosed on him, he subverted the "statutes then in force" in respect both of the ninnber and rank ofthe chairs established by these statutes. Will Dr. McCaul pretend that these proceedings afford no evidence of consultation ivith the President, or that because some of the suggestions in his schedule were not adopted, the Chancellor violated the provisions of the Charier ? If there was one Institution more than another connected with the prosperity df this country in which Sir Charle? Bagot's feelings wore wound up, it was the 3 Il ''' Hr f!lf •'I m 'M II 18 tJniversity of King's College. On its advancement, lie bestowed a large portion of that brief period of health which he enjoyed in Cunnda; and even the last hours of his expiring energies were sednloiisly devoted to the lofty design whkh he had formed of making the Institution an object of attraction to the whole con- tinent of America. It is well remembered by the numerous persons whoill he Consulted in the preparation of those slalutes, that he regarded the arraiigemei>t» contained in them ns essential to theprosperity of the institution. I appe.d to Dr. Bcaven, the Professor of Divinity, at that time the senior Professor of the University, whether he was not consulted by the Chancellor in the preparation of those statates, and whether they did not form the sul)ject of several personal interviews and niucli deliberalion. I appeal to the Hon. Mr. Baldwin, at' that lime Attorney General and ex officio a member of the College Council ; to the Hon. Dr. Widmer, at that time a member of the College Council, and who furnished the scheme for the Medical School on which the Statutes were based : to Dr. Gwynne, also a member of the College Council, and to the Hon. Mr. Daly , the Provincial Secretary, in whose office these very intercepted statutes Were prepared, whether they were not framed after much anxious consultation' and deliberation, and whether they were not transmitted to the College Council with all the usual official formahty, and impres.sed with the high sr professed to have any academic experience, who had no acquaintance with his predecessor's views — and who was inlliieiiced by no more enlarged or higher considerations, than a sincere desire to restrict the expenditure of the Institution to its income. It maybe true that Dr. McCauI did not withhold the intercepted statutes of Sir Chas. Bagotfor several months, while he was speculating on that Chancellor's death. It may he true that when Dr. McCauI i)roceeded to Kingston, " ^ir Charles Bagot was evidently too ill to attend to business," and that he did not insult the death bed of the late Chancellor, by e.xliibiling the mutilated statutes as the evidenee of his frustrated srheines, but it is at least eanally trije, that Sir Charles Bagot was then no longer Chancellor of the University. It may be true that Dr. McCaul did not '• introduce the subject to his Excellency ;'' b"t it is also true, that the last act of his Excellency as Chancellor, perforuied on the very day of his successors arrival at the Seat of (ioveriiment, was to issi(e letters of appointment on tho basis of these very statutes, and under the full conviction, that they had been adopted and passed by tlio Council. It luay be true that Dr. McCanl handed the mutilated statutes "and, I hdicce, some memoranda relative to them," to Captain Batrot, rdthoitgli it is hard to believe that that estimable gentleman would feel himself justified in receiving such documents after Sir Charles Metcalfe as Chancellor of the University had undertaken the administrntioii of its affairs. It may be true that the mutilated statutes were placed before Sir Charles Metcalfe, and that two rnonihs were occupied by that Chancellor before lie decided which of the arrangements he should adopt ; but it is also true, that Dr. McCaul's successful operations on the new Chancellor were reported among his ownfriends in Toronto, witliin firo jccc/is after SirCharles Metcalfe's arrival iu thjq fto RtU by the Sll^ Mt Mt 21 isly afiects lii^ siibiilitutio^ serliuii ill tliQ be tlie cuse, ilrutig as tlitj ig coaeiicy tu )lace(l bel'ure ! ultoriitiuti of its oiilwurd tion wf u new ecise manner, iislied. — This iiur capacity, leswere ever s tlieniselves, lurles Dagot's pructicnl ntid on which hud much success nggested, and Id operate ou any academic -and who was sincere desire ay be true that las. Bagotfor til. It may arles Bagot It the death the cvidenee H Bagot was Dr. McCaul tliat the last IS successors tment on the ey had been Can! handed to them," to e gentleman Sir Charles nistrntion of- before Sir cellor before rue,tiiatDr. d among his rrival in tiii;} ftowatry. It may be true, that Sir Charles Metcalf«> transmitted the mutilate^ statutes of Sir Charles Bugot to tiie President, and that they were accompanied by a " long and able Intter," relative to the ditlicnitit's that had occurred, but if there is one lino or letter of tliat dociiiiicii: which will justify Dr. McCaul's siiggeslion, for an enlargement of iiis Salary as V'ie^e-I'residcnt, or Sir Cliurles Metcalfe's adoption of that suggestion, why islho letter withheld? Why does Dr. MuCanI withhold the only evidence on which his case must ultimately be judged . Dr. McCaul has appealed to the public on a charge of having obtained, by deception practiced ou Sir Charles iMetcalfe, an enlargement of his salary beyond that promised and soIeu)ii|y stttled by his predecessor. In this appeal he has adii)ittcd that his salary icus enlarged by Sir Charles Metcalfe, but he lias produced }\o evidence stronger ihuii his own very amhigiioiis assertions that Sir Charles Metcalfe was cognisant of his predecessor's views and arrangements. He ha^ nowhere asserted that Sir Charles Metcalfe ever saw the Statute of 1840, whici) was subverted by Dr. McCaul's arrangements, or that he knew that that Statute was "then in force" — nor does he assert that the Estimate of Income and the Schedule of Salaries and Duties, which were prepared for Sir Charles Bagot s guidance, were before Sir Charles Metcalfe when he "adopted" Dr. McCaul's suggestions. I am entitled then to conclude that the groui}ds upon which Dr. McCaul claimed froit) Sir Charles Metcalfe an enlargement of his salary as Vice President must have been the same as those upon which hp hi^.s since attempted to justify that enlargement to the public : for if he urged other and difl'erent (rounds upon Sir Charjes Metcalfe than those which he has r)iaintaincd in his public justifici^tion. it tolluws, eitht-'i* that hjs presctit d{iif«i)ce js incomplete, or that Sir Charles Metcalfe was deceived. Now, it is somewhat remarkable that you will search in vain through thif part of Dr. IMcCaul's letter for the shadow (if a reason justifying either tho suggestion or its adoption: and if Dr. McCaul's defence to " the third and most serious charge" were confined to the specific answer which he has made to it, the charge would be substantiated by his tacit adniission ; for unless Sir Charles Metcalfe held been conviiieed ou grounds substantially or apparently good, that his predecessor's arrangements were unjust, it must be presumed he would not l^ave interfered to disturb them. But notwithstanding Dr. McCaul's utter silence on the only grounds upon which he could have met thi^ part of the charge, I am willing to give him the benefit of every thing he has urged in any portion of his letter, whether directly or indirectly, whether by way of assertion, insinuation Qr implication, which can in any way be supposed to screen him from tiiia " most serious charge." The first circumstance recorded in the letter which could be supposed tq justify the enlargement, is contained in the soft insinuation apparently intended only to uphold Dr. McCaul's peculiar ''delicacy" — but really urged for a less illusory purpose. Two years before Dr. McCaul had prepared the .schedule ii^ which he assigned £41)0 to his Professorial duties and £250 to the office of Vice-President, and before Sir Charles Bagot's reductipn of the last-mentioned ^abry to .iiloO, "the salary of the Vice-President had been fi.xcd by the Cquncij II il I ' f ■ ^ I I li I ! i i ,;;-« 22 aX £7riO per nnnntii." And "in the vstimate furnit(l, and the .subsequent action taken upon it by the L'olle^'c Council, and perhaps the fact that the otlicc had been declared illegal by one of the Judges and the Law Olliccrs of the Crown, would to MiDsl minds have amply jusiilitMl either Sir Charles Uagol or Sir Charles .Muicall'i; iu depriving l^r. AlcCaul of both the rank and the eniolu- ment. Hut if Dr. .Me('(iurs "delicacy" was satisfied by attacliin;; to this olHce a salary of £'2.'0, wlicti bis Professorial duties were compensated, also to his own satisfaction, by the suui of £1(10, how can this discredital)le Resolution .•avail him oj'lcr the enlargemcMit of bis Professorial salary to £.')00 by Sir Charles Baijot, in cou^'ideralion partly of the very uucertnin tenure by which the olfice ,of Vico-l'resident was held, and after the reduction of the Vice-President's salary to £ir)0 in consideration of the very enlargement referred to. Afl some new ground must therefore besought on which Dr.^^cCau^8 claims (to •'delicacy" can be sustained, I shall allow iiiui to speak iu his own words. K)t\ referring to the iutereepted statutes, lie found that the "Professorship ot Jtbetoric and Logic was added to those for which the salary of £050 had been proiK)sed in that dociiinenl" (the schedule,) — " I felt, I admit, that the arrange anent relatiiig to luyself was unjust, but the proposal to alter it did not originate ■with me." But the Professorship of llhetoric and Logic had ii) " that document' been separated frein the l'rofe«sorsliip of Holies Lettres illegally and improperly and in violation ef " staluttis then iu force." And if in reverting to those statntee and re-uuiti|ig the Chairs, Sir Charles Bagot had considered that any additional duties tlms imposed required additional compensation, were these con- ijiderations not recogni.-ed m the enlargement of his Professorial salary from £4oO as proposed iiy Dr. McvCaiil in bis .schedule to £500 as established by Sir Charles Bagot in his statutes? On referring to the ITuiversity calendar, I find tiiat the time devoted by Dr. .McCaiil to the discharge of his duties as Profegsor of Belles Lettres, RiKitoric and Logic, is llirte hoursper week — being one hour to «ach of these Arts. For the peu'formance uf these laborious duties, Dr. JVlcCaul Hi^as entitled under Sir Cliarles Bagot's slvitute, which he "felt to be unjust" to (tie sum s estimated in that schedole. He thus attempts to leave out of view the adiimtcd facts iliat »Sir Charles I'ngot had assigned tJie snlary of £500 to all t'le l')ofe