w- 
 
 ''■s*V\r'tti,^,f^Jiu-i^.;^ 
 
 
 The Upper Canada College Question. 
 
 MR. HUNTER'S REPLY TO A RECENT ARTICLE IN 
 THE TORONTO TELEGRAPH. 
 
 To the Editor of the TeUr;raph, 
 
 Sir, — You bare (bought fit to give insertion ia the Telegraph of the 
 ?rd November to a quasi editorial containing a moat malicious and a 
 most dai'tardl^ attack upon the author of the Upper Canada College 
 Pamphlet. As you have, in your generosity, furnished to your quaei 
 r litor at least the assassin's mantle, il' not the assadsin s dagger, I trust 
 iliatyou will, in justice to the author of the assailed Pamphlet, afford 
 him an opportunity of defence. 
 
 Tbp writer of th% article to which I have alluded, and who, in more 
 than one eense represents Upper Canada College, sets out with a wilful 
 I'nlsification of my Pamphlet. In that document, (p. 25), I had, while 
 illustrating the very i^cagro character of the provision at present made 
 for thi "famraar Scbiols, roraurked that, except the sum arising from 
 fees, u...a was no revunue available for repairs, for fuel, or for the o'her 
 expenses connected with the comfortable occupation of Grnrnmr^r School 
 premises. I had then added, ' But these fees are, except in a few ichouli, 
 'of the most trifling character, and are annually becoming more dis- 
 " tasteful, on account of the happily increasing number of Fkkb Com- 
 " mon Schools,'' (p. 25), Will it be believed that my treacherous re- 
 viewer substitutes for the word "free,' which contained the whole gist of 
 the passage, the word " our ;" and that then this .Master of Artifice spends 
 much the greater part of a coluira in ringing changes on the assertion 
 falsely attributed to me, ttiat the Grammar Schools are found to be prac- 
 tically superseded by the Common Schools. This disposes at oucu of 
 about a third part of the Telegnipli't urticle. 
 
 The title-page &f the Pamphlet sets forth that Upper Canada College 
 was established in defiance of the Legislature ; and in the body of the 
 Pamphlet it is, I trust, made sufficiently pliilo that Tj-p-' Canada College 
 was ostlillighed in defiance of the condUtoi:s precedent insisted on by 
 the Legislature. Nevertheless, the reviewer finds some imaginary coii' 
 tradiction as regards this matter, between the title-page and the body of 
 the statement. 
 
 Then comes a charge of forgery, to wit : " In quoting the Duke of 
 "Portlands Despatch of the 4th -November, 1197, authorizing the a|w- 
 " propriation of lands for support of Orammar Schools — we have this 
 " honest assailant of the College, deliberately substituting the word 
 " 'free' for the word 'four' in the passui^e where the Duke says that 
 " on the government grants /our Grammar Schools were to constitute 
 "the first charge." My reply is, that in the Duke of Portland's Despatch 
 the word four does not once occur, but that on the coi trnry the following 
 passage doi'S occur : "He, [His Mnjesty George III.,] has condescendi>d 
 "to eijpress His .Most Gracious intention to comply with the wishes of 
 " the Legislature of his Province of Upper Canada in such manner as 
 "shall be judged mot effectual' first by the cstablidhment of Free 
 " Grammar Schools in the districts in which they are called for." I trust 
 that our Legislators will, while within easy distance of the journals 
 verify this quotation. It will be found in the journal of tht. Assembly 
 tor 1831, appendix page 105, (York : John Ca-ey, 1831.) 
 
 The Telegraph's reviewer then declares that he finds it stated (falsely) 
 in the Pamphlet, (p. 9), that tha Governor referred in the opening speech 
 of 1830, to the support of Dpper Canada College. My reply is, that the 
 reviewer finds in the Pamphlet no statement of the kind, but that he 
 .tnd every one else may find (on page 9), a statement to the effect that 
 the Governor in a Message (sent down to the House on F«>b. 4, 1830), 
 suggested the maintenance of Upper Canada College by Parliament — 
 which, «■ a matter of fact, he did. 
 
 My accuser charges that, in citing an Aildresi of the Ilou^e of 
 Assembly in 1831, I have quoted the Address as containing the words 
 " Grammar School Reserves." My reply is, that here, as in other places, 
 my amiable reviewer generously supplies the quotation marks, •\ntl then 
 charges that the manufactured quotation is not correct. The exact words 
 of the Legislative Address are, that His Excellency " may be pleased to 
 " communicate to the House copies of all such documents at His Excel- 
 " lency may be in possession of, which authorize th} survey, reservation, 
 " salft or appropriation of certain lands in this Province called School 
 "Townships;" (Journal of Assembly, 1831, Friday, Jan. 31). Now, 
 does my reviewer on the one hand deny that the Grammar School Re- 
 serves are, by the language of the Legislature, intended : or does he, on 
 the other hand, affirm that any school reservation other than that for 
 Grammar Schools existed in this Province in 1831 7 If he does not deny 
 the one, or affirm the other, wherein can I be justly accused ot falsifying 
 the records of Parliament, when I say in my Pamphlet, (p. 10), without 
 professing to give an exact quotation from the Address, that " ^n Ad- 
 " dress toa* passed requesting His Excellency to lay before the House alt 
 " documents relating to the Grammar School Reserves." 
 
 My accuser charges that in a quotation from an Address of the 
 Ho;i»e in 1836, I have interpolated the word "stcrel." My reply it that 
 
 my reiiewer here s'^les what he must be fully awara is ft malicious un- 
 truth. The quotation supplied in the Pamphlet, (p. 17), ia strictly cor- 
 rect, and may be found on the journal of the House of Assembly, 1836, 
 Wednesday, Jan. 20, p. 41, (Toronto : M. Reynolds, 1836 ) 
 
 The next count in the indictment charges that I havs attributed to 
 the Legislature what was the mere individual opinion of Mr. Mackensie 
 regarding Upper Canada College. My reply is. that in this matter I 
 have the honor to agree with the fmperii.1 Qovernraent, and the misfor- 
 tune to differ from my sagacious reviewer. In the Imperial Despatch 
 appointing Sir F. B. Head, Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, dated 
 Downing street, 8th Decdmber, 1835, and signed "Olenelg," the passage 
 quoted in the Pamphlet, (p. 16), is given in full, and is mostly distinctly 
 referred to by the Colonial Secretary as expressing the opinion of the 
 House of Assembly of Upper Canada. In fact the question of the furlhtr 
 maintenance of Upper Canada College occupies no inconsiderable part 
 of the whole Despatch — an importance which it would be absurd to sup- 
 pose tliHt the Secretary for the Colonies wculd have attributed to the 
 Indivhlual opinion of any man. This Despatch has been printed in the 
 form of a small duodecimo, bearing the following title : "Message from His 
 " Excellency the Lieut. Gov., of the 30th Jan. 1836, transmitting a 
 " Despatch from Her Majesty's Government. Printed by Order of the 
 Hon the Legislative Council. R Stanton, Printer." A copy will, no 
 doubt, be found in the Parliamentary Library, where, I trust, it will be 
 copiously consulted. 
 
 The charge, however, on which my reviewer lays most stress relates 
 to the atteudunce of pupils at U. C. College. He says: " Again we 
 "are told that all the pupils that could be drummed up for the College 
 " in 1832, numbered only forty— these being the sous of pei»on» enjoying 
 " government favors." Here, as elsewhere, the reviewer flrat falsities the 
 narrative, and then complains that it is false. In the first place the^ycar 
 1830 and not 1832, is tnost distinctly referred to both in the contextallrt 
 notes. In the second place I state the number of pupils as nearly 90. 
 The words of the Pamphlet are : " Sir John Colborne drummed up as 
 " recruits for his new regiment, the sons of all enjoying Government 
 " ''avora, or who might expect atlerw;udo to do so, and then boasrul to 
 '■ Parliament that the nam-js of nearly 90 boys were on the Roll." (pafe 
 10) Then how, it will be asked, could this mendacious reviewer repre- 
 sent the passage as saying 40 pupils ? The explanation is as simple as 
 it is discreditable 1 He affects to misunderstand one of the very numerous 
 note-references [40] for a integral part of the text, and he has then tho 
 cfl'roiitery to base on this falsification of his own conceiving, bia crowning 
 evidence of the falsity of my Pamphlet 1 
 
 We have, doubtless, in this newspaper article the very cream of the 
 U. C. College defence, which is aiiuouiiced as about to appear uuder the 
 same auspices as that veracious epistle of Jan. 1868 After so remarkable 
 au effusion, the public may very fairly have demunded of Toronto Kditors, 
 a little more caution in the acceptance of fairtbi;r statements from such a 
 source — but a Toronto monopoly was to be sustained and under such 
 circumstances the end is held to abundantly sanctify the means. On 
 luch a dastardly act » j your journal has permitted, retr">uti<^u is sure to 
 follow, and so it may happen that your literary aaaajsin, wuile inleading 
 murder, has really but committed suicide. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Dundas, Nov 6, 1868. J. HOWARD HUNTER. 
 
 RECENT ARTICLES m tim "GLOBE" AND ^'LEADER". 
 
 On the fifth day of November,— .rather an ill-omened ('ly for conspi- 
 rators against the welfare of the state '—articles on the ij. 0. College 
 Question, simuItHueously appeared iu the Globe and Leader. The Leader 
 especially deal- in "villanous saltpetre," and evidently, in the present 
 couspiracy, divides with the Telegraph the exalted honor of carrying the 
 dark lantern. 
 
 The article in the Leader of the 5th of November, is chiefly amusing 
 as being the exact contradiction of an article on the same subject which 
 appeared in the same journal, on Oct. 31. Under these circumstances I 
 am content to wait uulii the Leater shall have settled this (J. 0. College 
 question with his own troubled conscience, and given the world the 
 benefit of his matured convictions. It would not be a profitable occupa- 
 tion of my time to reply to an article tc which the Leader may itself, In 
 all probubility, ou the morrow, supply the inostampio and the mostaatis- 
 factnry confutation. 
 
 The Globe expreses its unqualified abhorrence of all auch antiquarian 
 researches as the U. 0. College Pamphlet enters upon. And yet not many 
 years ago the Constitutional Act of 1791, and the Clergy Reserves pos- 
 sessed inexhaustible attractions for our journalist. But when as in thit 
 instance the question concerns not the Clergy Reserves but the Grammar 
 School Reserves— Ah I my friend, that is a different, because a Toronto, 
 matter I It was not always so. If i were that unkind parson that the 
 Globe so feelitigly pourtrays to its readers, I might wake once more to 
 life, the echoes of former years, — eolioes of manly atterancea that have 
 long since died away among tho dusty volumes of that journal — I might 
 astonish the Province with the rlagiug periods in which the Globe da- 
 claimed against tnis present monopoly. But all that is past, and the 
 Globe lovetb not antiquarian reaearchea I 
 
 J. H. H.