<».

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

t<»-

f/.

1.0

I.I

'rfilM ilM
: K III 21

12.0

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

-* 6" -

►

/>^

■^^/ ^\

o>. ■■>

■r# •>■

z;^

Photographic

Sdences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. U580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions

Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

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 endommagee

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

□ 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/

La reliure serr^e peut causer de t'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

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 ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.

The
tot

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 mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

D
D
D
D

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es

Pages detached/
Pages d^tach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualitd in^gale de I'impression

□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

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 6t6 filmdes d nouveau du fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

The
pos
oft
filnr

Orii
beg
the
sioi
oth
firs
sioi
or i

Th€
sha
TIN
wh

Ma
diff
ent
beg
rigl
req
me

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:

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

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grflce A la
gAnArositA de:

La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du 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.

Les images sulvantes ont At6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmA, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

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 imprim^e sont film6s en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmis en commengant par la
prem^Are page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par
la derniire 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 symboles suivants apparattra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

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 dtre
film^s d des taux de reduction diff6rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, 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 mithode.

^mJKH

4^'

LETTERS

AND

SPEECHES

ON THE

UNIVERSITY QOESTION

TORONTO :

T. Hilt, & Sow, Caxi-on Prkss, Cor. KrNO and .Tarvis Strrkts.

1884.

■Mb

■Ji"

^*i--i!. ■-'*" '■. I'.,.

'\'.'f'.- .'*

-.*

.-V^i#*i#«-:tA

LETTERS

AND

SPEECHES

ON THE

UNIVERSITY QDESTION

TORONTO :
T. Hill St. Son, Caxton Press, Cor. Kino and Jakvis Strkbi-h.

1884.

PREFACE.

The following selections from letters and speeches on
the University Question have been made in response to
numerous requests for information on the part of those
who did not follow the discussion during its progress in
the press. No attempt at revision, beyond a few verbal
corrections, has been made. The selections here offered
will form an important contribution to the history of our
national system of higher education. The progress of that
system has depended on the Provincial University as its
main spring. During the discussion the defence of the
national .system was so complete, and the responsibility
of the Province to maintain its University in a state of
the highest efficiency was made so manifest, that further
argument on these points is at an end.

It is hoped that one good result of the discussion has
been to correct mistakes, if not to remove misconceptions,
into which certain members of some of the religious deno-
minations have fallen with reference to the State University.
There seems some reason to ex[)ect that the Methodist body
will now loyally assist the State in strengthening the na-
tional institution. To this end two courses are open to them.
They may follow the economical plan already adopted by
Knox and other Colleges ; or, as Chancellor Blake points
out in his Convocation Address, if there are reasons which
seem to them to render that courae impossible, let them
come into the union with their Arts and Theological
faculties intact. The present State system is in principle
adapted to meet their wants in either case. Any modi-
fications of detail, consistent with the principle, which
may be found advisable, would doubtless be readily
conceded ; and if they are disposed to give a genuine
support to that system, their union with the Provincial
University will be a real addition to its sti'ength.

Decebibbr, 1884.

CONTENTS.

LETTER BY FABIUS '""J

«• <• „

" WM. CAVEN 3

•I t( ,,

•• J AS. P. SHERATON JS

" VINDICATOR ..'...... 28

•• GEO. E. SHAW ^

" ALFRED BAKER

" " <i

" " " 49

*' HISTORICUS

•• i« <(

'« •• «

•« •« i<

" HENRY MONTGOMERY gg

•I << ,,

'« •• <(

«« «« <<

" HALIFAX

ADDRESS OF VICE-CHANCELLOR MULOCK 97

" CHANCELLOR BLAKE ,oq

THE

UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

THE PROVINCIAL UNIVERSITY.

To the E' 'itor of the Mail.

Sir. — The qticHtiou of further State aid to the Univemity of
Toronto in just now rweiving so much attention at the hands of
Principal Grant, and other authorities of the denominational col-
leges, that T have felt it to bt; my duty to contribute something
towards the discussion, in order that jHtople may be induced to ex-
amine more closely the present attitude of the learned Principal
towards the State institution. It is to be regretted that the very
first argument used by that gentleman was, that Vice-Chan<!elIor
Mulock's pi'ojwsal for further State aid was certain, if pressed, to
re-awaken old feelings of hati-ed and jealousy. '* A paltry grant,"
he says, " would cost the country dear if it iod to the renewal of
hard feelings between the colleges." I should have expected that
a new comer like Principal Grant, who was not concerned in for-
mer quarrels, would have been disposed to argue a question of such
public interest without an api)eal at the outset to sectional or sec-
tarian feeling. Instead, however, of inquiring into the actual
necessities of the provincial institution he, in the guise of " a
friend," forthwith raises the cries of " the aggtundizement of
Toronto," and " the spoliation of Queen's." 1 hope the learned
Principal will restrain his wrath for a season, and allow me to
".•efresh his memory on some ))oints which he appears to have for
gotten. I am aware that he asserts that it is " worae than a waste

of time to revive ( some of ) these former memories ;" but as I do

not agnnt with him in that opinion, I hope h«^ will allow othum, at.
any rato, to liHtfii tt) th«> cohv. I will nicrrly pi-cnuHt; thut the word
(InivorHity iH to ho tiiktui in what t'ollowM hh including toauhing
funutionH.

A huge portion of tin* pvopjc of this proviiic(\ including a ma-
jority of the I'rcHbytorianH, hold that tho Statu uhould oontinut) to
provido univurnity uducation of tho highcHt order, aa it haa <lon«i
Hxucii the aliolition of KingH (!olhig«j in 184U. Otht'is, for variouM
roaHouH, Imvc profcrrod the dononiinHtional NyHtcm of education ;
l»ut i am not aware that it was evei- neriously propoHed hy any
even of theHU that the State should ^i\e up its functions in this
regard. Now it is ini|M>rtant to be asHur<'«l thut th«' State has In-en
right in supporting its University since 1850, l»ecause if it was
justified iik creating such an institution, then it follows that it is
its duty now, us it has always b(H>n, to see that it is maintained in
a state of oHIciency. On this point we have the unbiassed opinion

of Principal Grunt himnelf, who in his inaugural address, delivered
in 1877, says : —

" As far OH pruviucial action was conooriiuii, it was surely well, it seeius
to me, tliat Ontario slioiild devote tlie whole endownient uccniing from the
lands set apart for univerHJty e<hieation to one good college, rather than
fritter it away on several institutions. If otliers are in existenee from loeal,
denominational, or other nt'oessitieH, let the neuussity he proved by the
saeritice their friends arc willing to make for them, and the real extent of
the necessity hy the survival uf the tittest. The existence of one amply
endowed from provincial resources will always be a guarantee that provin-
cial educational interests shall not be sacrificed to the clamcmrs of an endless
number of sects and localities, and a guarantee also of the efficiency of the
various colleges, the provincial one include<l. "

If in 1877 it was well that the University of Toronto should be
amply endowed and made thoroughly etficient by the State, is it
the part of wisdom in 188.'i to refuse to onquii-e if it be still amply
endowed, or if it can be maintained in efficiency with its present
means : and if the answer to that enquiry should be in the nega-
tive, does it not follow from the (xisition taken by Principal Grant
in 1877 that the endowment should be increased and the institution
made efficient 1 I agree with him that the Provincial Univensity
should not only be " amply endowed from provincial resources,"
but that it should " not be sacrificed to the clamours of an endless
number of sects and localities."

But thi8 namo Principiil Qra.it now Hays that what he objects to
iH the State " pampering " and fiirniHhing ita University with fur-
ther montsy for " luxiirioH." Let uh uoe what aome of these luxuries
are to which ho alhuleH. In u rejiort of th(» Senate of Toronto
Univei-sity, ilated January, 1882, tlie Government wixa advised that
it wotild be in the interests of that institution to create st^veral
new chairs. It was proposed, for instance, to sepanite Mathemat-
ics from Physics, and to appoint a teacher of Political Economy.
It was also suggested, that in the event of the University becoming
possessed of an observatory at some remote jieriod, it would be
necesnary to create a professorship of Astronomy. Tluwe improve-
ments, of which the first two were considered of more pressing
im|M)rtance by the Senate, Principal Grant may call luxuries, if Im
will, but he should in fairness add that they are luxuries which
are now enjoye«l by Queen's College The separation of Latin and
Greek, of History and Kiiglish Literature, the creation of profes-
sorships in Constitutional I^w and Jurisprudence, Modern Ijan-
guiiges. Physiology and Botany, and the erection of a new exami-
nation hall, were also recommended. These are what the Senate
classes as among the necessaries for the healthy growth of the
Univereity. Indeed, if Toronto IJnivei-sity possesscul all the new
chairs which the Senate sut^gested, its faculty would not numb(;r
one-half of that of Michigan Univin-sity, a State institution like
itself, and not to be classed amongst those more wealthy institutions
named by Principal Grant, where luxuries may perhaps be found.
Of course, we are all aware that it is difficult to avoid at times
extravagant statements, such as have been made with regard to
what the Senate considei-s the requirements of the University.
Even the Minister of Education at the University dinner in 1882,
months after these requirements were made public, expressed the
opinion that the Univereity endowment was ample — nay, splendid.
I have a very vivid recollection of a vigorous attack being made on
him for venturing that opinion, by one of the guests of the evening,
Principal Grant to wit, who evidently at that time did not hold
the view that the University of Toronto was on the verge of luxury.
I need scarcely say that the episode in question gave rise to con-
siderable applause.

In his address of October 17, 1883, Principal Grant is kind

enough, " as a friend," to hint that the provincial institution has
more needs than I have referred to above. According to him it is
" not Government interference, patronage, or subsidies, but the
chivalrous, self-sacrificing support of its own children " that it
requii-es. May T ask in return what proportion of the endowment
of Queen's College wjis contributed bv its graduates 1 There is a
general impression that the bulk of it came, as Principal Grant
seems himself to admit, from two sources : firstly, from the wealthy
citizens of Kingston and vicinity, and, secondly, from the mem-
bers of the Presbyterian Church throughout the province. Do
not suppose that I am implying any want of interest or liberality
on the part of the graduates of Queen's College towards their Alvia
Mater ; but it is a well-known fact that the graduates of Canadian
universities are not as a bodv in a position to make large benefac
tions to their colleges. May I remind Pi-incipal Grant that it is
(juite consistent to hold, as the graduates of the Provincial Univer-
sity and the supporters of McMaster Hall, Knox, Wycliffe ana
other colleges here do, that it is the duty of the State to provide
them with a university education of the highest order, whilst it is
their duty, as it has been their privilege, to contribute according
to their means, to the support of the theological colleges and
Churches to which they belong. Is it proposed that the graduates
of Toronto University, wliilst discharging their duty towards the
denominational institutions of their various Churches, shall also
bear the burden of supplementing the revenues of the State
University, in the benefits of which all denominations are equally
entitled to share ? * * * =<=

November 15, 1883. FABIUS.

THE PROVINCIAL UNIVERSITY.

To the Editor of the Mail.
Sir. — With your permission I shall now resume the considera-
tion of the remaining [)oint8 in the recent addresses of Principal
Grant on which I have not yet touched. In his address of No-
vember 9, 1883, he dwells at considerable length on the necessity
for more than one college for Ontario, although he docs not state
precisely when that necessity arose, or under what circumstances

it becomes necessary for the State to found a new college. On this
point let me once again recur to his address of 1877, in which he
says : — " If othei-s are in existence from local, denominational, or
other necessities, let the necessity be proved by the sacrifices their
friends are willing to make for them and the real extent of the
necessity by the survival of the fittest." If one ]>rovincial (lollege
was sutticient, according to Principal Grant, in 1877, he will not
assert that two are required now ; and if there are others in exis-
tence from local, denominational, or other necessities. Principal
Grant says they have no claim upon the State, but must depend
upon " the sacrifices their friends are willing to make for them."
As for the Pi-ovincial University, if its lecture-rooms should at
some future day become too sn7"dl, surely the sensible and economi-
cal plan would be to enlarge them, not to found a new institution,
as Principal Grant now seems to hold. Universities are not dupli-
cated, like schools, wjuni the classes reach a certain size. All the
students of all the universities in Ontario do not yet equal in num-
ber those in attendance at Harvard, or the Sttite Univei-sity of
Michigan ; so that, even were there no denominational colleges in
the province, the time would not yet have arrived for the creation
of a secoufl State College.

In the growth of a univei-sity like the provincial one, the size of
the classes and class rooms will ofler comparatively little difficulty,
even were the students many times their present number. The
main requirements will be, as they now are, for additions to the
staff and the maintenance of the library, museums, and laboratories.
Could all the denominations follow the good example set by McMas-
ter Hall, Knox, and Wyclifte Colleges, all patriotic citizens would, I
imagine, desire to see but one univei-sity and college in Ontario,
jjossessed of large and complete facultit^s in law, medicine, and
arts, and furnished with a splendid library, valuable museums and
well equipped laboratories. Unfortunately the realization of this
ideal is rendered all the more remote by the existence of the de-
nominational colleges.

With regard to the suggestion that the University of Toronto
should increase the fees, it may be stated that it is only a short
time since such a step was taken. I have no doubt that if the
fees were raised as high as some people would recommend, the

result would be a diminution of students instead of an increase of
fees. Possibly this is the result which Principals Grant and Nelles
would like to bring about. In this matter it will not be contend-
ed, I imagine, that the provincial institution should deal less liber-
ally with students than the denominational ones. The present scale,
I am informed, was adopted by the Senate after a careful inquiry
into the fees charged at the various Canadian universities ; and, so
far as I can learn, it does not difiVr materially from that of the prin-
cipal denominational institutions. And there is this to be added,
that the Univei-sity of Toronto is not permitted to make exceptions
in the ca.se of students of narrow means, whilst it is said that some, if
not all the denominational colleges, not only extend a liberal consid-
eration to their students under such circumstances, but give free
tuition to a considisrabie number. I am futher told that there is
no chai'ge for tuition to any person, of either sex, at the University
of Michigan ; but on this point Principal Nelles will correct me if
he has more accurate information.

The question of scholarships in the Provincial University, is
one, I take it, to be decided by experience. If the class lists show
that many of the brightest students who have rendeied good ser-
vice to the country could not have obtained a university education
without the assistance rendered by scholarships, can it be asserted
that the time has come to discontinue these prizes 1 On this sub-
ject I have made careful enquiry, and I am in a position to answer
that question in the negative, and to affirm that a serious blow
would be inflicted on the province if scholarships were abolished
iiL the present time. Such a step, moreovei", would be in direct
opposition to the practice of British and Canadian universities, for
it is a well known fact that not only in this young province, but
in the Mother Country, where wealth abounds, the tendency is
not to abolish scholarships but to multiply them. The proposal
that the province should not devote money to perpetuate the
scholai"ship system comes, I observe, not from Principal Grant,
but from his distinguished lieutenant, Principal Nelles and others,
who are solicitous to point out " the more excellent way " in sev-
eral matters besides this.

"A fellow feeling makes them wondrous kind."

May I ask what is the opinion of Principal Nelles about scholar-

ships in denominational colleges 1 If, as he says, " the value or need
of such incentives is greatly doubted by many persons," why does he
not apply the doctrine (o Victoiia College, where there is a goodly ar-
ray of them ? Why does he not attemj)t to convert to this view Prin-
cipal Grant, who in 1877 said that he wanted for Queen's College
" additional bursaries and some really good scholarships V If, as
Princijjal Nelles thinks, there is no occasion for State subsidies to
young men preparing for the learned professions, does he hold that
denominational colleges alone should oflei such subsidies ? ''' *

Principal Grant a])parently does not like Queen's College to be
styled " denominational " inasmuch as it was estaldished, as he
states in his last address, '• not foi- nieic denominational ends, as is
ignorantly asserted, but from the highest j)ublic motives." I con-
fess that I do not see anything inaccurate, still less anything oft'en-
sive, in the term. The founders of that institution were not, at
any rate, ashamed of its denominational character, nor was Princi-
pal Grant himself in 1877. when he used the following language,

" But here the question conies up, is it wise for the Church to undertake
the burden of a Faculty of Arts in connection with Queen's ? * * * The
i]uestion of consolidating our various institutions (Knox, Montreal, and
(Queen's) delayufl the union of the t'hurchcs for two or three years. • * »
The Church in accepting Qu-en's of course nit ant to preserve, cherish, and
honour her. Her special friends, in insisting upon the niaiuteiiance of
her integrity, of course meant to develop and strengthen her in every
department. They considered tliat * * * there was an undoubted ad-
vantage in a combination of the Arts and Divinity Faculties ■when the
constitueniiy was large enough to supi>ort l)otli ; * ♦ * that she
(Queen's) was retiuired by the Church now, and might be still more required
in the future."

If such language does not indicate a denominationsd institution,
then there are no such institutions in existence.

The question of State aid to denominational colleges is one with
" bich the University of Toronto has no concern at present, and
with which it did not meddle when the grants to them were with-
drawn by the Government of the late Hon. Sandtield Macdonald.
Principal Grant may now assert the claims of Queen's College if
he will ; but, if he thinks his claims just, why does he not apply
directly to the Legislature ujion the merits of his own case, with-
out attempting to embarrass the just claims on the State of the
Provincial University ? In the event, however, of such an appli-

cation on his part, I would advise him not to quote in its support
his own words ; —

" If others (than the provincial college) are in existeuce from local, de-
nominational, or other necessities, let the necessity be proved by the
sacriHces their friends are willing to make for them, and the real extent of
the necessity by the survival of the fittest."

And perhaps it would be just as well for his own sake that he
should not allude to the fact that the Scotch colleges, though all
of them have thelogical faculties, derive assistance from the State.
People in Ontario will be apt to suspect that the system of an
established Church in Scotland has had something to do with the
present state of things there.

It seems obvious from the utterances of the principals of Queen's
and Victoria and of the chancellor of Trinity University that
their present hostile attitude is the result of concerted action. It
becomes, therefore, all the more lu'cessary for the friends of the
Provincial University, numerous and influential as they at a in all
the denominations, and not least so amongst the denominations
maintaining separate colleges, to rally to the support of that in-
stitution, and the great principhss of which its existence is the
embodiment. ''''' * '■' "'

Yoius, ifec,

November 17, 188:i. KAHIUS.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Sir, — The question of ai)plication to the Provincial Legislature
on behalf of the University of Toronto and University College, is
one of great importance, not only in relation to higher education,
but in my opinion, to the entire educational system of the Prov-
ince. In common with many, I should not like to see that system
destroyed or marred, nor any principle sanctioned, the application
of which might eventually prove fatal to it. There is no reason
to believe that the gentlemen who opj)Ose the seeking of further
aid to the University are hostile to our public school system ;
nevertheless, it seems to me, that most of them argue upon princi-
ples which are inconsistent with any Stiite system of education,
whet' imary, secondary, or highei- ; unless, indeed, a system

whic . ould 8ubsi<lize the churches in doing ediicational work. If

uriiici-
|atioii,

necessary aid given to a Provincial University means " robbery "
of those who have their own university to support, then clearly a
Church — Episcopal, Methodist, Presb y tei'ian — should it see fit to
withdraw from the common school system, and establish separate
schools, may, on the ground of " injustice," object to the Govern-
ment supporting the common schools. As to high schools and colle-
giate institutes the case is the same. In fact our Provincial
Educational System, from top to bottom, is threatened when this
j)lea of injustice is put forth by the representatives of denomina-
tional colleges.

Now I shall not take the ground that in all circumstances the
State, and not the (!hurch, should conduct education. On the
contrary, I earnestly hold that the Church may find hereelf in cir-
cumstances in which it is hei duty to maintain schools and colleges.
She must always be allowed to do whatever is necessary to her
existence and well being, and it has often happened that unless the
Church had exercised the oP" > of educator there would havti
been no education at all .prejudiced students of Canadian

history will not hesitatci tu say that the Methodist and Presby-
tei'ian churches did a right and necessary thing in founding Vic-
toria and Queen's Colleges. An exclusive and tyrannical reginte,
now happily quite passed away, left these Churches no option in
the matter, and most praiseworthy exertions were made to establish
the Colleges named. Their record is highly honourable, and no sup-
porter of the Provincial University has any interest in depreciating
the excellent work they have done, or the eminent teachers
connected with thein. It will, however, be very unfortunate
should these univtirsities consider the position which they have
come to occupy a reason for opposing the adequate development of
the Provincial Institution by the party under primary obligation
to care for it. Should thej' do tliis, impartial history will regret
their narrowness of view, even as it has condemned the arrogant
exclusiveness of old King's College.

But tinless it can be shown that th(* University and College
retjuire additional revenue, which no practicable measures of I'e-
trenchnient or economy can adequately provide, there is no case
with which to go to tht> Legislature. As to the first point — the
need of increased revenue — it is only necessary to say that the Uni-
c

veraity requireH enlarged accommodation tor examination purposes,
and that the teaching faculty of the College is undeniahly defective
as long as Latin and Greek are entrusted to one chair, Mathematics
and Physics to one chair, Logic, Psychology, and Ethics to one
chair ; wliile there is no provision at all for teaching Political
Science oi- Jurisprudence. It may, of course, be replied that the
other colleges are not more fully eqiiipped, or have even fewer
chairs. But this is nothing to the purpose ; for surely no enlight-
ened man will say that because all our colleges cannot receive ade-
«juate development, therefore none of them should, and that
Ontario — Canada — should not have a singh' college that can claim
to rank in its outtit with the great seats of learning in other lands.
It seems too clear that we cannot at present have live or six col-
leges that shall do so ; and I must say that I cannot admire the
policy, which for fear of placing other colleges at a disadvantage,
would not allow us to have one. It is quite true that for a long
time we cannot have a university with 225 professoi"s, as Berlin
has ; but it will not be creditable to us should we not aim at a
reasonable progress in academic, as in othei- mattera.

But, it is alleged, a good deal of the funds of the University is
wasted in fellowships and scholai-ships. Should the University
retrench in these and increase tuition fees, sutticient revenue, we are
told, would be provided for all neces.sary purposes. I rej)ly that the
Fellows are all tutors — assistants of the professors in whose depart-
ments they are, and that after very deliberate consideration these
fellowships have been lately instituted as an economical method of
increasing the teaching power of the College. This action may be
thought wise or not, but certainly the fellowships should not be
referred to as an instance of extravagance. As to scholarships,
the Senate sonu^ months ago resolvcnl that " there shall be no
scholarships, or prizes, or medals awarded, except at the examina-
tions for junior matriculation and tir«t y«'ar."

If, as many still think, scholarhips really promote the ends of a
university, they shoidd not be stigmatized as a waste of funds; but,
in any case, the Senate has shown its anxiety to economize. I
may add, that were the remaining scholarships al)<)lished the sum
released would still be totally inadequate to the necessities of the
Univei-sity and College. Fees are now as high, I think, as in other

Canadian universities, and to ruise them very much would be to
change the character of the Uuivoi'sity as a popular institution.
It is quite possible, as it has been declared, that some of the pro-
fessions are overcrowded, but to make fees high with the view of
limiting the ntimljer of those who shall take a university courae, is,
in my judgment, a very doubtful remedy for the evil. Would it
not be better to raise the literary standard for the professions, and
secure that an increasing proportion of candidates for them should
become university men ?

Again, it is said that the endowments of Upper Canada College
should be reclaimed by the University and applied to their proper
pui'pose ; thus $10,000 would be added to the aimual revenue, and
application to the Legislature rendered unnecessary. Now, I shall
here offer no opinion as to whether Upper Canada College should
be maintiined in its present character or not. It is sufficient to
say that the Univei-sity Senate has no power to reclaim these en-
dowments. They are entirely in the hands of the Provincial
Government. If, on application for funds being made, the
Government shall entertain the matter, it will be for the Govern-
ment itself to determine from what source the funds shall be sup-
plied. The introduction of U.C.C. into the discussion is quitti ir-
relevant. But why those who object to the University " putting
its hand into their pocket " should suggest this solution I cannot
see, for the endowments of U.C.C. are as certainly their |)roperty
as any other funds at the Government's disposal.

Still further, we are told that if the University must have
more money it must look to its friends, as the denominational col-
leges do. It is injustice, robbeiy, to give provincial funds for the
benefit of a section of the community : and how can we exi>ect
those who are maintaining their own colleges to submit to taxation
for the sake of a college which they do not patronize ] Either,
therefore, no college must draw upon the public treasury, or all
the colleges must partici})ate.

Now, it is sufficiently obvious that if injustice would be done to
the supporters of denominational colleges by giving increased aid
to University College, injustice exists sis long as the College and
University remain in the possession of their present endowment.
The argument, if good for any thing goes the length of breaking up

the endowment, ami distributing it among tlie several collegun, or,
at all events, of reclaiming it by the Province for general purposeH.
Those who demand that U.C(J. endownieutH Hhuuld be restonid to
the University, may Hurely demand that the entire (Jniversity en-
dowment should be restored to the Frovince, I.e., the people. But
if we are told that this is not sought, and that i-ather than cause
too much disturbance a measure of injustice will be quietly endur-
ed, then I beg to ofler the following remarks on the entire position
assumed : —

1. The University is a Provincial institution, and is therefore
entitled to Provincial su})port. It belongs to the Province, and
the Province should see that it is adequately provided for. It is
the child of the Province, and naturally looks to its parent U)
nourish it. One may take the ground that the State should not
have a University, but having conceded this point, he is bound to
admit that the State should give proper development to its Uni-
vei-sity and make it as efficient as possible. Unless kept in a con-
dition of efficiency it cannot serve the purpose of giving assurance
that university education shall be conducted by all the colleges
according to a high standard — the ground on which some would
tolerate, or even approve, its existence. The Province should do
its work well, and not allow a timid parsimony to keep so great
an interest as the higher education in a state of depression.

The denominational colleges are not in the same position as Uni-
versity College, and have not the same claims for Provincial sup-
port. It is no indignity to them to say this. I am not suggesting
that their work is inferior to that of the Provincial Establishment,
or their usefulness less. But they do not belong to the State, and
are not under its control, and hence they have no claim upon the
public purse. It is no " ultra voluntary ism " which leads me to say
this, but my desire to see a principle, for the recognition of which
Canada has toiled and suffered not a little, consistently applied.
It is poor patriotism that would throw the old apple of discord
into the midst of us again. Let Ontario, let Canada, conserve the
fruits of her victory over a system which, more than anything else,
embittered both her public and her social life for over thirty years.
What the duty of the Province toward the colleges now denomina-
tional might be in the event of their oflfering themselves to the

StJite aH a part of tlie jmhlic syHtHiii, I am not hei*e called to con-
Hulor. This question is not before >is, and T fear ^'^'■^8 offence \>y
even n'ferrinj^ to it; for tlic^ advocates of the denominational sys-
tem evidently rej^ard tlieinselves as on the higher ground. Fiut in
any (?ase till these colle<,'Ps an; ort'en^l to the State an<l accepted hy
it. I would n(fver consent to aid them from pul)lic funds.

Tt is not proposed that the (Tovernment should do everything for
the University. Graduates and friends may well signify their in-
terest in it by bearing a part in the cost of its more complete
equipment. It is believed that they are not unwilling to do so.
Betpu'sts, also, will in <lue time be made to the University of To-
ronto, as they have been made to the great European Colleges con-
nected with the State. Whether any change in the constitution of
the University would tend to open the springs of liVjerality is an
important question but hardly germane, perhajts, to the present
discussion.

2. If the majority of our peojtle prefer the denominational sys-
tem, and resolve against additional aid to the Provincial Univer-
sity, their views will doubtless prevail. Nothing can hinder, or
should hinder, the will of the peoi)le from having efl^ect given to it.
But on the othei- hand, if the Province determines to uphold a
university on a pubic foundation its right to do so is beyond ques
tion. There is an end to all national action if the Government
must never do anything which sections of the community think
they can do better for themselves. , Liberty of conscience must of
coui-se be respected, and the State should not exceed its functions ;
but it is not here alleged, on either side of this discussion, that the
State has no nglit to educate.

3. If a general or public system of higher education can give
adequate guarantee for its religious character, there are great and
manifest advantages belonging to it. It is a good thing to unite
the couimunity^the body politic — in the promotion of so great an
interest. Sectionalism, mere partyism, undue denominationalism
are thereby discouraged. Students of all classes and persuasions
mingling freely together, under high auspices, learn to respect and
esteem one another, and they acquire a breadth of view and sym-
pathy which is full of beneficence in after life — profitable to the
State and the Church equally. I say this in perfect remembrance

of the ftict that muHt, if not all, ot the (lenomiiiatiniial cullegoH are
opim to HtudtMitH, irrt'spectivo of church connection. For whilst
locality will to a ci)nHid»!n''»l«i extent detonniiie tlir college which
Hiiall bu attended, a religious ceuHUH of the denoniiniitional colleges
— in the United .States and in Canada — will show that lUch colhiges
t(Mid to separate the denominations in academic work. Should
such separation be deenuid a desirable tiling my argument here
wUl of course, go tor nothing ; but many patriotic and ( 'hristian
men are longing for the time when every department of iiuuian
life shall not be claimed by the spirit of separation. As a friend
and advocate of Church union, I must vot(^ in favour of union in
education.

It is not, [ trust, the fact that 1 teacli in a college which is
merely theological which leads me to express the earnest desire
that our Churches would concentrate their resources and energies
upon theological (education, and thus make it possible to provide a
training for the ministry such as the |)resent state of theological
learning demands. Divinity schools, with adcnpjate start's of teach-
ers and adequate libraries, we cannot have for many years to come,
if the Churches shall deem it their duty to carry the excessive bur-
den of university education. I enunciate (as already said) no
principle which forbids the Church to conduct Arts colleges when
the.se are not otherwise supplied ; but when these are provided,
and the Church has good grounds for confidence in them, it is a
question worthy of serious consideration, whether she is making
the best use of her funds, and doing the most honour to her Lord,
by charging herself with the maintennii'^R of universities while her
theological schools are so poorly furnished, and her missionary rev-
enue so much in neetl of increase.

WM. CAVEN.
Knox College, 5th Dec, 1883.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Sir, — Little good would come of making detailed rejjly to the
criticism with which my previous letter on the University Ques-
tion has been honoured. Of the tone of this criticism, with slight
exceptions, I have no cause to complain. There is no reason why a

fliscusHion of thiH nature should n«)t bo conclucted with courtesy
and good fVfling.

A hirgi! iiunihcr of orrora as to niiittdi's of faot have bwiti fallon
into by thoH»( who havo written a;L;iiiuHt Provincial aid to tho
University. In sotnt' instancies tliosc wiio comniittod tht'se nuH-
takoH have, on bettcir knowlodgf, btwn honourabh; enough to cor-
i"oct thf-ni ; in otln^r instiinces, I iH!gret to Hay, orroi-s which Imvo
l)ef!n clearly pointed out are still made to do service. The argu-
nients founded upon scholarships and fellowships are pretty nearly
abandoned. The matter of Upper Oinada < loiieg)! is understfiod
by all who wish to undei-stand it, and no fair-miniled man will
contintie to reproach the present Senate of the llniversity with
the alienation of its funds to that institution, or maintain that the
Senate can reclaim these funds. Mi*. Woods and othei-s have so
clearly traced the financial history of the I'niversity. and shown
that the (jrovernment itself was responsilde for impairing its
sources of revenue, that it rerjuires a good deal of courage to
repeat the charges of mismanagement brougiit against the Senate.
Most interesting and instructive to Trinity (Jollege is the letter of
" Historicus." Mr. leaker's statement as to the number of gradu-
ates of Toronto University and the other univei-sities, and the
attendance at University College and the other colleges, has com-
pletely disposcid of the atHrmation so freipiently and confidently
made that Toronto was doing only forty per cent, of the work of
higher education. Tiie slight corrections which Mr. Baker's sta-
tistics have received have but little modified his results. The
President of University (College has spoken with authority of the
pr(!S(!nt attendance at the college and tin; capacity of the class-
rooms. If the old figures continue to he repeated it will not be
creditable to those who use them.

ft is a real pleasure to discuss a question with one who tries to
appreciate your arguments and to meet them honestly ; who will
not misrepresent you, nor pass by your real defences to attack
positions merely subsidiary ; who is willing to have a caust^ fairly
go to proof. But what shall we say of the controvoi-sialist who
scorns reasoning and contemptously puts aside as doctrinaires all
who would ascertain the principles on which they should act? I
complain of some of your correspondents on this ground. When

I triod to hHow thtit th«* roiiHoningn of thoso whom I oppoHrd would,
if conHiHtAiitly applind, hroak up our entir« educational hystem,
thoy unHW«u-«;d :

TIiIh uiay do W(*ll onough for tlio profcHHor in Iuh claHM-rooni, hut
nuMi of pruotical mmmi know lit'ttrr tlian lo reithon on hucIi a <|ut>H-
tion in tluH Hlmti'a(;t way. Who dn-aniH of touching our Connnon
HcIiooIh or High ScIiooIh / Dr. KyciHon, thu founder of ('omiuon
ScIu)oIh, approved of denominational colleges. 1 had, indeed, ex-
presHly Haid that I gave the gtMitlemen on the other hide credit for
loyalty to our Common School HVHtem, and <lid not ajipreheiid any
speedy attempt upon it. But my logic is more than vindicated,
and my apprehiMiHion of poHaihle conHe(|uenccH hIiowu to be nu
dream, by the letter of Provost Body. It Keemed hingular, indeed,
that thiu lett(;r Hhould appear in the v(>ry number of the AJuil in
which my theorizing was ridic\ded. The provost writes an fol-
lowH : —

" Christian nion tleoui the I'uldic .School sjHtoin unmitiHtiiotoiy. * *
It may of oourbe come alunit it the (iovuriuuent rufuwcB to accede to the
maHoiiablc ilemandis of CliriHtiiiu people of the I'roviiice, liaHed, &n thiit
demand Ih, njion the Connnon .Soliool .Act, that they may be forced into the
formation of Separate Schools on a large Hcale. In thi« case they would
certainly claim exemption from the ordinary taxation."

The Provost says that the Church has been forced to withdraw
from a "secular Univei*sity,' ami in like manner she may be
forced to act separately in Common School education. Is our
educational system then not threatened i For surely the allies of
the Provost will not allege that he, too, is a dreamer. 1 am not
saying whether Provost Body is right or wrong in his estimate of
our Common School sy.stem, but merely directing attention to the
far-reaching consequences of my opponent's argument, as legiti-
mately applied by the Provost. I trust therefore, that my friend,
Dr. Sutherland, will not conthiue to think that I " attempt to
excite groundless alarm." It can only be groundless if certain
tendencies plainly revealed are not of sutHcient inxportance to come
into consideration. Oi- would Drs. Dewart and Sutherland prefer
to lighten the ship by casting the Provost overboard i

I must repeat the " truism " that the Provinces is under obli-
gation adequately to support its own University. The whole case
Ib gained if this be admitted. If the Provinu? will not provide for

tlu) >id<>qiiHt(! <luvclo|)ni(mt of tiu^ Univitrxity and OuUogo it Hhotild
rflin<|iiiHli itn triiHt. Should volnntaiy nH.sistunco coxiw (wliicli, 1
liopo, it Nuuii will), good mid wt-ll, Init lUv Prnvinut* wliiU; inviting
tiHMiHtunru niuut itHolf nrv. tliai tlit> work in donr. The fiiuiulH of
U.C uiHinUun that its t't|iii|iin«'nt '\h inad»'i|iiuto— not with refer-
ence to any ideal eoinphtteni'HH, Init in view of the work which Huch
a College Hhonld he |ii'e|i)irtHl to do in the present eirciiinstanceH of
th(! country. I cainiot for a nioiuent allow that Ontario is in the
rudimentary «'ondition which Hoint? of our o|)|ionentM allege— a mere
l)ackwoods .settlement- and that it in presumptuouH to conttmiplate
anything beyond the IteginningN of a colh^ge. It in time that we
Hhoidd lift up our eye,s to the great heiitage bestowed upon uh, and
shouhl ftfei, too, the res|>onsibilities involved. Vast suma are
anniuilly expended for material improvements, but a high destiny
we cannot reach unless intellectual pn»gress shall keep jtace with
material. A college that shall adetjuately represent the prtssent
wealth of Ontario muHt be better furnished than the college which
was our pride when it entered upon its new career thirty years
ago.

No person desires the Legislatun; to take on tru.st represen-
tations aH to the wants of U.C, which its friends may see tit to
uuike, nor to give it whatever sum they may ask. Who, 1 wish
to know, haa ever .said anything like this ? It will be the duty of
the Legislature to make careful enquiry Ijt^fore taking action. The
frieiul.s of U.C. court the most thorough invtjstigation. If it turns
out that the college needs no additional profes.sors, or that rev-
enue Hutlicient to meet all rea.sonal)lo demands is being wasted, its
advocates will be reduced to silence. In the meantime they insist
that the University and College have undeniable claims foi- further
support.

Dr. I)ewart is surely iu error when he argues that because the
denominational Colleges " were called into existence by the same
authority as King's (JolK'ge," tlu^y an; therefore not " private
affairs," but j»ublic institutions, and as such entitled to (Jovern-
ment aiil. Many chartered instituticms do not belong to tht*
country. McMiUster Hall and Knox College are incorporated, but
they do not imagine that they are part of the educational system
of the Pi'uvuiix; aoid. cutitiud tu public luuuuy. The " btutc " duca

not mean any class or section of the people — as the Methodists or
Presbyterians — but the whole body of the people united under a
Government. Dr. Sutherland, too, falls into error here, arguing
that the Colleges are State institutions because they are doing
work for the people.

The relation of uiost European Universities to the State is by
no means »o intimate as is that of Toronto University to Ontario.
Many of these — as Glasgow and F]dinburgh (specially named by
your correspondents) — were founded by i)rivate munificence ; and
though the State has seen fit to assist them, it has never stood so
closely related to them as our Provincf* docs to its University.
Hence you cannot argu»' that Ontario, in granting aid to the
University of Toronto, should impose conditions such as the Im-
perial Government imposed upon the Scotch Universities, viz.,
that an equal amount should be raised by themselves. I say this
while avowing my desire that the government of the Univei-sity
should be made still more popular, and stronger incentives fur-
nished to private liberality.

Provost Body thinks it his duty again to denounce the University
of Toronto as " secular." Secular means nothing damaging unless it
stands for irreligious. I know not on what ground it is asserted
that the " majority of the people of the Province " have strong
objections to the purely st^cular character of the University. A
charge of irreligion is easily preferred, but its very gravity shouKl
make one extremely careful as to the grounds ou which it is based.
Whilst University College does not teach theology, I have no
reason for thinking that its discipline and influences are less
favourable to religion than those of the otliei- Colleges. No one
can attest the faith and morals of all the students in any large seat
of learning, but I have lieard men who had the bi'.st opportunities
of comparing University College with denominational Colleges
both in ("anada and the United States, assert that the atmosphere
of the former was not less Christian than that of tlu^ latter. 1 may
be j)ermitted to say that so far as my own ex))erience go{;s 1 have
come to the same conclusion. But after the vindication of Univer-
sity College from the charge of hostility or neutrality towards
religion, contained in the late convocation address of its President,
and in the admirable letter of Dr. Sheraton, it is superfluous to say

anything. There should really be an end to this reckless hurling
of accusations ; and believing men, thankful that our largest
College is so much under Christian influences, should lend generous
aid in making it more and more a place where religion and true
learning shall walk hand in hand. The spiritual thermometer will
rise or fall in our universities in accordance with the religious
temperature of the community ; and the Church herself is affected
in the same way. In a country where nearly all the people have
some Church connection, the Church cannot preserve a high and
pure life unless religion is a pervasive element in society ; and if
religion is j)ervasive the universities are safe whether conducted by
a single Christian ilenomination or under general auspices, by men
belonging to several denominations. I ask pardon for insisting on
a view so elementary.

When denomiii itional colleges assert the catholicity of their
spirit and jtrocedure, they do but strengthen the ai'gument for
making the higher education if [wssible non-deuominational. If
nothing 'ax their teaching is sectarian, and if students and even
professors represent a variety of religious persuasions, why should
the governing body be all of one denouiiiiatioii ! The door is half
open and no evil lias followed ; why not op-en it entirely ?

It is not for me to offer an opinion as to whether the Methodist
Commission on University consolidation was authorized to speak
on the question under discussion for the large and influential
communion which it represented. That the Methodist people are
not a unit in opposing the claims of the University is sufficiently
obvious. Queen's (College, if under the Presbyterian Church will
be careful, doul>tless, not to anticipate the General Assembly by
entering u])on a line of procedure which the supreme authority in
that Church may not sanction. If the Council of Queen's College
has com}»lete autonomy it may, of course, seek for the College
relations towards the State different from those which existed at
the union in '7o ; and in that case the College is no longer
denominational. Tiio unofficial expression of opinion, whether by
individuals or by bodies of men, no one has a right to object to.

The Province has dticided against giving aid to denominational
colleges, and there is every reason why the decision should remain
undisturbed. Nothing but strife and contention would arise from

another policy. Clnirclies would be sure to enter the political
arena, ecckwiastical lobbying would prevail, and the rights and
interests of the. smaller denominations would be overlooked and
disregarded. The Church and the State would both suffer by such
Jin arrangement ; the simplicity that is in Christ might not be
exhibited by the Churches in their negotiations with Government,
and the politicians would be under continual leni))tation to seek
Church support by doubtful methods. I do not here discuss the
question whether the Chui-ch of Christ, accoi-ding to the consti-
tution which her F'ounder gave her, should st^ek Governmental aid
in doing her work : whether if this work be really hers she should
not herself entirely provide the means for carrying it on. It were
here out of place to discuss the question in its purely scriptural
and ecclesiastical bearings. We may be content to hiive the mat-
ter decided in the light of our own expei-ience, and if (Canadian
experience is not conclusive against the subsidizing of churches,
T despair of history teaching us anything.

It is easy to say that " no person in his senses " dreams of setting
up an Establi.shed Church in Canada. Tlie fact is that it is
proposed to have a number of quasi-established churches without
the bonds for good behaviour wliich most State Churches are
required to furnish. Do we really wish to see Methodists, Epis-
copalians, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians in eager strife pressing
their respective claims for aid to their several colleges, and dealing
as skilfully with their educational statistics as some of the parties
in this discussion have been doing already? And whilst all this is
proceeding, the denominations too small or too poor to have
colleges will be made to feel that they are of no account in the
land ; with the blessed compensation no doubt that they escape the
temptations to which their wealthier sisters are exposed.

It is purely gratuitous to complain that the adherents of U. C.
claim a monopoly of collegiate education, and will tolerate no
college outside Toronto. Local seltishness (;annot account for
gentlemen in Peterboro' a!id St. Tliomas advocating University
College Many certainly think that it were an advantage to have
but one University for Ontario, but not many maintain that there
should be only one College ; though it can hardly be denied that
our Colleges are so numerous as to make it almost hopeless to

parties
this is

expect general efficiency in their work. T cheerfully recognize the
fact that several colleires besides U. 0. nn' doins; work from which
the country derives essential benelit ; and could they offer them-
selves to the State, free from denominational control and i-estric-
tions, T would willin<,dy, as the solution of a i)ractical difficulty,
see the Province recoj^nize those ot them whose e^juipraent might
really qualify them to advance the work of University education.
But this could not l)f' safely done if they remain denominational.
It is no silly alarm at the epithet denominational which cau.ses us
to keep this ground ; it is our anxiety to maintain the sound
principle, that State control must be coextensive with State
supj)ort, and that no ensnaring alliances should exist between the
Churches and the civil Government.

Bt'sides, if denominationalism is not present in the teaching and
life of these colleges, why the anxiety to retain denominational
connexion? It cannot be that the Church is valued merely as the
source and instrumcMit of revenue. Should the reply be, that we
cannot without strict denominational connexion have adequate
guarantees for the religious character of the college, negotiations
for transference are not to Vje thought of ; for the Church cannot
consent to any arrangement which would jeopardize the religious
interests of students, and tiie State cannot consent to pay money
for work done by parties not responsible to it. With a few
exceptions, those who have written on the side of the denomina-
tional colleges, have not so emphasized the religious superiority of
their system, as to preclude hope of mutual understanding.

The question of giving necessary aid to the Provincial Uni-
versit)^ does not lecpiire that, as preliminary to the consideration
of it, the wider question of the whole j)olicy of the Province in the
matter of higher education should be determined. The duty of
the Province towards its University and College is clear, i)rovided
only the wants of these institutions are what their friends allege.
No inju.stice is committed by Crovernineiit doing what is HMpiisite
to mak(! its one recognized University efficient, even should the
larger and more difficult question not be rais(»d. But, for my own
part, I am not unwilling fairly to look at that question, with
api)reciation of the history ami work of the other Colleges and of
their legitimate aspirations. It was injustice and bad policy which

forced two of them at least into being, and on this account we are
the more bound to be ready for conference. I would not decline
the challenge to attempt the solution of this problem, and to
consider what is best for collegiate education in view of the state
of things actually existing. There are certain conditions of re-
ceiving public money which must be respected. One is that direct
denominational control shall cease, and auotliei that nothing shall
be expended on any theological department. Farther, the sum
which the Province may warrantably bestow for higher education
must not be frittered away by unnecessary sub-division.

I have not outlined a scheme, but merely indicated the direction
in which I would be willing to .see solution of the problem attempt-
ed. In the case of a College in which the Arts department is not
under Church supervision there should be little difficulty in adapt-
ing itself to the requirements of a public sy.stem. Should the de-
nominational colleges not set down the foot and declare that they
will suffer no change, a Commission of the Legislature might be
appointed, with instructions to consider the whole subject, putting
itself into correspondence with the Colleges, and thus preparing
the case for the intelligent action of the House of Assembly.

Ontario i-eally wishes, I am sure, to unite all good citizens in
the important work of higher education. Tliere is need of combin-
ing in its promotion the wealth, exptnience, and zeal of all sections
of the community, and anything wliich divides our counsels is a
serious evil. No considerable number of people in this country
prefer a system fr3e from the presiding influence of religion, and I
cannot imagine how Dr. Sutherland allows himself to say that the
present policy of Ontario '' lefuses recognition and aid to these
Colleges simply because they are based on Christian principles."
Is it impossible to convey the idea that the ditiiculty is not
their religious character but their ecclesiastical dependence ] If
the patrons of the denominational colleges are willing to co-operate
in developing a truly national .system of higher education — a sys-
tem which shall not traverse the principles of public action, which
are firmly established in Ontario— they will be met, I am sure,
with frankness and sincere pleasure.

WM. CAVEN.
Knox College, Dec. 22nd.

THE REAL ISSUE IN THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Sir, — The position of Wycliffe College as one of a brotherhood
of theological halls environing University College, and its great
indebtedness to that institution, furnish ample reason why I
should address you upon this important topic. The real points at
issue, as they appear to me, I will endeavor, with your kind per-
mission, to indicate as briefly as possible.

1 . Many of the letters of those who oppose the increase of Pro-
vincial aid to the University, so far as I have read, have been
taken »ip with matters of detail relative to the administration of
the University of Toronto and University College, the economy of
management, the expediency of establishing fellowships and schol-
arships, the past history of the endowment, the position of Upper
Canada College and kindred subjects which only indirectly touch
the real question at issue. Doubtless all these points are of great
importance, and deserve thorough discussion and candid considem-
tion. If the University comes before the country claiming en-
larged endowments, the people have a right to know what is being
done with the present income, what is the quantity and quality of
the work carried on, and whether all the resources of the Uni-
versity are administered in the most etticient and economical man-
ner. But while these questions must be discussed, they can not
be settled by the mere dicta of ex-pai'fe wiiters, nor can they be
allowed to cover up the radical principle at stake, and upon which
the whole discussion turns. By all means let us have these mat-
ters discussed upon their real merits, but let us not permit them
to set aside the real point at issue.

2 The real issue turns upon the principle which forms the basis
of the whole educational system of Ontario, from the Common
Schools to the University of Toronto — the cope-stone of this mag-
niticent structure. That principle it is not now necessary to dis-
cuss. It was vindicated through conflicts, and has been more than
justified by its results. Any objection taken to a Provincial Uni-
versity applies with equal force to the High Schools and Common
Schools of the country : to oppose the former is to condemn the
latter. There are but few who have the hardihood openly to take
this, the only logical and consistent position. Some obscurely
mutter vague threatenings ; but the majority strongly disclaim

'i:

any opposition either to State-supported schools or to a State-sup-
ported University. It is, therefore, at present unnecessary to
vindicate the principle : but it is necessary to .show that the princi-
ple is inevitably involved in the position now taken by those who
oppose additional assistance fur the University of Toronto.

3. For, if the principle of a State-sup^^orted University is grant-
ed, it is the boundt;n duty of the State to make it as etiicient and
complete a university as its resources admit, And tht; standard
of efficiency and completeni!ss must not be that of a local and de-
nominational institution, but one commensurate with the true idea
of a general university, and with the position, culture and neces-
sities of the complex life of the Province, for whose well-being and
at whose expense it is maintained. Therefore the })osition of those
who admit that a Provincial University is right in principle, and
necessary for the best developuH iit of our educational interests,
and who yet refuse to allow the Province to make proper and
siirticient provision for the maintenance; and development of her
own child appears to me to be illogical and contradictory. The
opponents of requisite Provincial aid to the University of Toronto
must in all consistency op|)0.se the existence of the University it-
self And then they must logically proceed to another inevitable
stej), and confess themselves the enemies of that National system
of which the people of Ontario are justly proud. Otherwise, their
own admissions condemn their present attitude towarils the Uni-
versity.

4. Some of those who have recently discussed this subject in
your columns apj)ear to advocate the ]jlan of concuirent endow-
ments, viz., that the State should bestow assistance upon each of
the denominational colleges, as well as upon the Provincial Uni-
versity, in proportion to the amount of actual work performed. T
fail to see the consistency or justice of this proposal. Just as
Government control involves Government support, so in like man-
ner Government support involves (jiovernuient control. By what
..>,^r>dard is the amount of actual work to be determined t Wlm
is to iost and verify the quality of the work done in the indepen
dent donominational colleges] And quality here is much more
iuipf>''tant than quantity. The mere oonii)arative statement of the
aaiaixi of studeuts iu attcudauce upon Icotui'es, or of graduatus in

tate-8U[»-
jssary to
le piinci-
loae who

is grantr
ient aud
standard

and de-
true idea
id iieces-
teiiig and
1 of those
ipie. and
interests,
oper and
it of her
ry. The

Toronto
ersity it-
nevitahle
system
ise, their
the Uni-

iihject in
L endow -
each of
ial Uni-
raed. T
Just as
ke uuin-
iy what
Wh..
iudepen-
ch more
It of the
uatou in

Arts, is utterly fallacious. The stiidies, examinations and various
requirements in such competing colleges must be brought int«i
harmony and controlled by one centi-al authority, in order to ap-
l)roximate to justice in any such method of apportionment.

The only plan for the attainment of such an end wotild be to
abolish the examining and degree-conferring ] towers of the various
denominational colleges and to athliate them all, as teaching bodies,
to th(i Provincial University ; and even this plan, in vi(^w of the
existing vested rights aud inveterate jtrejudices, appears almost, if
not altogether, inipracticable. The great difficulty would be found
in so ordering the constitution of the supreme governing body that
its autliority would be unimpaired, while the various colleges iiad
their fair rejiresentation and intluence, and in maintaining the
present high standai'd in matriculation and graduation in the face
of any tendency to lower it in order to meet the exigencies of the
feebler institutions.

5. The undenominational and non-sectarian character of Univer-
sity College has most unjustly exi)osed it to the charge '^f irreligion
and agnosticism, and comparisons have been drawn between it and
the denominational colleges, liy no means flattering to th(( foinier,
which has even been stigmatized as a " godless " institution. A
careful analysis of the claims to superiority in this respect made by
the denominational institutions fails to disclose any substantial
ground upon which they can justly assert it. If they possess as
teachers reputable Christian men, so does University College. If
a large number of tlieii- students are j)reparing themselves for the
sacred ministry, much more is this the case in University College.
If upon their councils sit Cliristian laymen and ministers of religion,
in like manner is the University Senate largely constituted. If
they have daily piayers, so is the Divine blessing invoked daily
upon the work in Univei-sity College, and prayers are ottered morn-
ing and evening in the Residence. If they require of their stu-
dents regular attendance upon the ministry of some Christian pastor,
so also does University College, unless a student be exempted upon
the written requisition of his parents.

Perhaps the denominational colleges found their distinctive
clairrs to religion nyton the exaction of religious tests from their
irujtructoi-s. Such tests have long proved utterly falla^jioua. They

«^

have not secured the ancient universities of England from the in-
roads of the most advanced rationalism on the ono hand, nor have
they protected them against a reactionary and anti-Christian niedi-
BBvalism on the other hand. Or, do these colleges rest their claims
upon the fact of the association of the faculties of arts and theology
under the same roof and control ] True, the latter faculty does
not exist in the University of Toronto itself, but it is surrounded
with four theological colleges, whose students throng University
College. The difference, therefore is far more in name than in
reality.

The Christian credentials of our Provincial University are much
more ample and satisfactory than any mere external and formal
tests could furnish. On the one hand, we can point to the influ-
ence exerted upon the Christian thought and culture of the land,
and through its Christian activities, by graduates both clerical and
lay ; and, on the other hand, we rejoice in the many tokens of a
genuine and fruitful religious life among its undergraduates, all
the more valuable that they are voluntary and spontaneous. Some
of these may be mentioned : — a CUiristian association which num-
bei"s upwards of two hundred students ; an active temperance or-
ganization ; a weekly prayer-meeting open to all undergraduates ;
another weekly prayer-meeting in the residence attended by a
large proportion of the resident students ; cottage meetings, and
other benevolent and Christian work carried on in ditf'erent parts
of the city. These are altogether apart from the work done in
connection with the theological colleges.

Moreover, that the influences resulting from the commingling of
students of various denominations, and destined for various profes-
sions are powerful for good both in strengthening and broadening
Christian character, and in dt^veloping Christian unity and co-op-
eration is attested by those who have the best opportunities of judg-
ing. In fact it would be difficult to overestimate the benefits
resulting from this association in the ardent years of youth with
those amongst whom the life work is afterwards to be carried on.
The very fact that our theological students are thus brought into
contact with so large a body of men, among whom we may reason-
ably expect to find the keenest intellects and the greatest divei-sity
of culture and thought, must prove a powerful factor in their edu-

ing of
jrofes-
iening

C0-0|)-

)enefit8
with
ed on.
it into
eason-
.^ei-sity
edu-

cational preparation, stimulating and arousing the sluggish and
indolent, and on the other hand correcting both the self-sufficiency
of the conceited, and the intolerant excluniveness of the narrow-
minded. Nor will this contact tend to produce a feeble and spuri-
ous lil)erali8ni. But it will bring together those who are to be the
future leaders both in the State and in our various churches. They
will understand one another better, and have a more correct appre-
ciation of each other's po.sition, belief, and aajjirntions, of the essen-
tials in which we are agreed, and the non-e.ssential8 in which we
diffei-. The result will be genuine mutual riispect ; a closer draw-
ing together, and a very solid and practical preparation for that
Christian unity and co-operation which we should seek to promote
not merely by wordy discussions but by such living and potent
factors as this very co-education.

6. In bringing this long letter to a conclusion, thei-e is another

important point to which T must ask permission to draw the atten-
tion of your readere. It has been stated that the Provincial sup-
port extended to University College unfairly burdens the supportei-s
of the denominational colleges who are taxed both for their own
and the Provincial institution. This assertion will not bear exam-
ination In considering the maintenance of the denominational
colleges we must separute the faculties of arts and theology. In
the support of the latter they are obliged to do simply what the
friends of the Provincial Univei-sity are doing and no moi'e. The
latter are contributing as generously for the support of their theo-
logical colleges as the friends of the denominational colleges are
for theirs. The buildings and annual income of McMaster, Knox,
and Wycliiir! Colleges represent a capital of at least three-quarters
of a million of dollars. The sup[iorter8 of these institutions be-
lieve that they act most wisely in providing for themselves the
special theological training, and in utilizing for the general literary
training the unrivalled resources of University College. The sup-
porters of the denominational colleges, on the contrary, desire the
luxury of having their Classics and Mathematics taught denomina-
tionally, and I presume, religiously. And for this luxury they
certainly have as good right to pay, as those who. from unwill-
ingness to make use of the Public Schools, secure private and spe-
cial tuition for their children at their own expense.

Wycliflfe College, Dec. 18th. JAS. P. SHERATON.

f^ .* *■{

A,^,. /■;^/<<

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Sir, — The quostion of Lt^ginlutive iiid to the Univei-sity of
Toronto huH now uHHumod couHidomble importiuico, if wo arc to
judge by the amount of dihcuHsioii which it receiveH. You will
kindly allow me some Hpace in youi* cokuiuiH to refer to one feature
of the Kubject which KeuureH a Hluue in the e()ntn)V(!rHy. I refer
to the viewH of many well-disposed peinouH who still appear to
think that educational institutions that are not under the control
of some religious denomination are of necessity defective and even
objectionable, when considered from the side of morality and
religion.

There was a time when " Godless," as apjjlied to State schools
and colleges, frightened a few sincere individuals It did good
service in the gooil old days of the B'amily Comj)act, when " Church
and State " was vainly struggling against iis impending doom. lu
the light of Canadian history we may spare ourselves the thought
that any serious contests are likely to be fought on the old battle
grounds. The logic of facts and personal observations are convinc-
ing. Ontario was wiser than some of tlie older countiies, in not
leaving etlucation to be controlled by the different religious bodies.
Our entire system of education is Christian, but unsectarian in
character. From the elementary school to the Provincial Univer-
sity, our institutions of learning have been an admitted success.
Still we hear occasionally the whisper of former days, and now and
then it is asserted that schools of a denominational character are
preferable to those of which the majority of us are quite proud.
It is well to consider how little such suspicions should weigh with
intelligent and thoughtful people.

So far as our public schools are concerned, thej have become so
popular in all parts of Ontario that private oi- denominational
schools for elementary education are now, in most places, nearly
unknown. I venture to say that even where such schools are
kept the training imparted in them from a moral and even from
a religious point of view, is not superior to that given in our public
schools. Fiom the nature of his position the teacher in a national
institution has better opportunities for exercising proper <liscipline.
In a private or church school the whims of patrons have often to
be tolerated to such an extent that good moral training is out of

the quoHtion. Our |)iiV)lic Hchool teaoliei-s — iit least moHt of tliein
— are men and women wIiohp aims arc f^encially to give right
moral and religiouH impresNionH.

The |»roH|Mfrity of our high schools and collegiate InHtitutcs has
almost virtually killed all ed'ortH to t(stalilish denominational schools
for secondary education. At hundas, London, Weston, and other
jdacen, bcIiooIh of this kind wer«^ at different times startetl to do
work, under denominational control, similar to that jteiformed in
our high schools. Little siiccess has followed such efforts, and the
Churches have, in most cases, .seen the folly of undi'rtaking duties
that really did not belong to them. The j)ul)lic have faith in the
high schools, and hence their continued prosperity. In them all
classes, even the wealthiest and most religious, pref«M' to have their
childien educated. Their success from a moral and religious point
of view may well be recognized in tlm great numliers of u.seful citi-
zens they are every year ttn-uing out. In this respect the high
schools will compare favourably with any denominational institu-
tions.

The students who attend a university, it is stateil, are away from
parental discipline, and hence the reason for (hMiominational super-
vision. If this should be a valid argument in the case of univer-
sity students, should it not also have weight in the case of high
school students'? If the hundreds attending University College
are suffering because it is a State institution, it should follow that
the thousands enrolled at high schools, and who ar«^ away fiom
home, are exposed to similar danger. The advocattss for denomi-
national universities, if consistent, should favour denominational
high schools.

It is also stated that a State college furnishes no guarantee for
sound religious teaching. The danger should l»e just as great in
our high and public schools. Trustees are no more likely to en-
gage " orthodox " teachers than the Provincial Uoverimient to ap-
point professors of satisfactory religious principles. The responsi
bility of making a proper selection is not likely to be ignored l»y
any Cabinet Minister, and any Government appointing an unsuit-
able professor would soon endanger its poj)ulurity. Our most
learned men are far from being sceptical. It is to the superficial ly
trained men, and not to the cultured persons who become profes-

HurH, that wo ure to look fur iiguoHticH. I liavt) yvi to h^arii that
the training at IJniverHity College Iuih ever betsn regarded aH religi-
oumIv niiHound by one of itH studentH, VVlion HcoroH of clergymen
of variuiiH religiouH denontinationH have been educated there we
may Hurely conclude itH tone iH not mseptical. When our most
[iromiiK nt ministers in the Methodist, IVesbyterian, liaptist, Kpis-
copalian, and other Churches entrust their sons to the same insti-
tution, wo may readily believe our leading (Jhurches have confi-
dence in its teaching.

To hear the utterances of some, one would supjwHe that State
colleges were the nurseries of infuhdity. The facts of history tell
UH (juite ditl'erently. Tom Paine* rec(uved his education in Kngland
long before unsectarian schools wt^-e started, (iibbon was not
saved from intidelity by the fosterinj, caro of denominational edu-
cation. Hume received none of that training in a State college
which fitted him to make his attack on tlje miracles of the Bible.
Some good people entertain too much dread of the Htat(*mentH of
prominent scientists. It should be rocollected that Darwin, Tyn-
dall, and Huxley are the products, not of undenominationid but of
denominational schools. France believed in sectarian education,
but France produced Voltaire and Rousseau. Spain and Italy have
had exemption from our type of a university — is tlu'ir position
better than ours ? Quebec, after Confecleration, adojjted the sys-
tem of sectarian .schools. Ontario moved in a different direction.
Will it be contended that the sister Province acted more wisely 1

In defending the truths of Christianity, State universities have
often taken a front place. Harvard College, in educating the Rev.
Joseph Cook has produced a champion who liaw been more than a
match for the whole band of Boston " Freethinkers." The Princi-
pal of McGill Colk'g(!, Montreal, is well known as a leading scien-
tist of this continent. Dr. Dawson is ever ready to meet success-
fully the opponents of divine revelation. In your own city of
Toronto no person has been more active in furthering every good
Christian cause than the learned President of University College.

In the interests of religion those who give our national univer-
sity the cold shoulder act very injudiciously. That institution
belongs, not to the irreligious, but to the religious portion of the
community. As Christians we hold the citadel at the present time.

Why Rhould wo withdraw and It^avo our stronghold to tho enemy ?
It wouUI \w H miHfortuiiH to rrlij^ion Hhoidd our Churches Ioho faith
in our national HyHtem of educutioii. Hy fHtnldishinj? denotnina
tional HchoolH they give vimtitj;*^ fjround to tht^ enemy. By firmly
Hiipportinj^ the Stiitf iiiHtitulioiis tlicy drive ajjiioHtiiiism from the
field and mould the Heiitimeiit of the eonntry in favour of ChriH-
tian prineipleH. Why hIiouM we {vnr infidelity in our liigheHt seats
of learning { The more this matter \h examined tlie more fully it
will )i))|>ear that religioiiH (leiiomiuHtionH, if wiw;, will loyally sup-
port our entire wyHtc^m of nationiil edumtion from the elementary
school to the Provincial UnivtirHity.

V^INDK.'ATOK.
Ontario, Nov. 20th, ISM.

THE UNIVEUHITV QUESTION.

Sir, — In your issue of Monday, Nov. L'Oth, I referred to the
injury which the op|iotuMits of non-denominational education are
doing to the cause of Christianity. I might have followtnl up my
remarks by stating that the religious body which has most fully
(Unbraced the advantages of the national \uuversity stands first at
the present day as regards the number of prominent positions held
by its adherents. The Methodist ministers who lately ]»resumed
to speak for the entire Church on the matter of university educa-
tion, are evidently determined to perpetuate, if possil)le, a j)olicy
already condemned by many of the denomination. The worthy
editor of the (/hrisfiau Guanlian is not free to allow his columns
to be tised for the expre.ssion of sentiments opposed to those of the
Church on this question. For the benefit of the thousands of
Methodist who read The Globe and admire its yeai-s of advocacy
in favour of unsectarian education, I .shall, with your permission
make some; referencs to the matter.

I find no fault with those clergymen in giing ex[)ression to
their own views by way of resolutions. 1 strongly object to their
attempt to commit the Methodist body to a j)osition of antagonism
to our national university. The friends of Queen's College would
not have so V)lundered. Principal Grant is too cautious a man to
urge any such resolutions in the General Assembly of the Presby-

terian Church. Tlic supporters of the Kingston institution would
have consented to leave! the matter an open question. It would
have been in better taste had Dr. Sutherlanil exhibited a similar
spirit. The members of the English Church Hynod are not likely
to be urged to pass resolutions hostile to national education.
Would it not have been better to seek supj>ort for Victoria College
without rousing up that old feeling which did the Methodist body
much harm ? Have Drs. Nelles, Rice, Sutherland, and othei-s, foi-
gotten the old fights? Have tliey any recollection of the memor-
able contests of ISOO ? Do they recollect how a valiant attempt
was made at that time to brt'ak uj» our Provincial University by
dividing its endowment among the sectarian institutions'? Tlie
Metliodist ministers tried to h'ud the (Jliurch, but the laity would
not follow. The blundtu' was felt, and it did the church an injury.
Such men as Mr. John Macdonald, of Toronto, n^cognised the mis-
take, and came out in 1S6'2 as defenders of Toronto University.

Again, in 18(18, the ministers of the Church had petitions circu-
lated for the purpose of inducing the Hon. John Sandtield Mac-
Donald to give grants to the denominational colleges. Counter
petitions, with Methodist names by the thousand, were sent in,
urging the Government to adhere to its dechtred j)rincijiles. Me-
thodist re])resentatives supjiortcd ihe Covernment, and the Church
never called them to account lor their actioii.s.

Methodist parents continued in greater numVievs to send their
sons to University College. Tlif "godless" cry ceased to alarm,
and then another stej* had to be taken. It was thought the High
Schools worked in the interest: of the Toronto University. Even
graduates of Victoria did not urge pupils to go to Cobourg. An
institution must be established at Dundas, which would be denomi-
national and a feeder of Vicioria. It was started. It failed. One
was put uiuler way in another place. It also went down. Metho-
dist parents had faith in the High Schools, and hence the reason
for the failure of the Church Schools.

Within a few years the undergra<luates of Toronto University
have greatly increased in nund)ers. This has been the case not-
withstanding the fact that many Methodist Ministers considered
they were in d\jty bound to speak unfavourably ol' it. Even the
clergy of the McthoUibt body have not been afraid to soud theii'

a Colleyc

sons there, as the names on the Univeraity records — Ryerson,
Pimshon, Jeftei-s, Dewart, Milner, Blackstock, etc. — testify. The
University of Toronto flourishes. It needs additional funds. The
last foolish crusade is to be made against our national system of
education. It will fail in its objects as all previous attempts have
failed. It will show that the Methodist body cannot be dragged
any more now than in 186U and 1868 by those who are arrogating
to themselves the right to speak for the Church.

And now for a few plain truths for Methodists, of whom I am
one, and for subscribers to the endowment of Victoria College, of
whom I am also one. It is just as well that we should recognize
the fact that we are jtut to a large unnecessary expense for edu-
cational purposes. It is just as well that we should know that we
are doubly taxed for university education. We pay our share,
like all good citizens, towards the Provincial University. We
are asked to pay also sufficient to compete with the State insti-
tution. The contributions gathered l)y the Rev. J. Johnson
and others, which might, if properly expended, have given us a
theological hall second to none in the Dominion, ai'e used to pay
the salaiies of professors in the different departments of secular
education. As members of the Methodist body we pay not
merely for instructing our ministers in Theology, but also in Al-
gebra, Latin, Chemistry, Botany, etc. But this is not all. We
are not asked merely to educate our ministers, but we are urged to
provide facilities so that teachers, lawyers, doctoi-s, etc., may be
instructed at the expense of our Church. Still further. The ob-
jectionable scheme (?) for inducing students to go to the Toronto
College, by providing scholarships, is brought into play. Our
stations and circuits have such abundant funds that district schol-
arships ai'e urged upon us, so that Methodist youths may find Vic-
toria College the place to go to.

Many of us may well begin to enquire why the policy of the
Presbyterians, in the case of Knox College, could not be adopted
by our Church. Many Methodists wonder how it is that the Bap-
tists — not half so wealthy a body — have succeeded in equipping a
theological school equal, if not superior, to that of ours at Cobonrg.
The reason is clear. The Baptists confine their efforts to tho le-
gitimate aims of their Church. We pay for suculax iu addition to

theological education, and hence the latter must suffer.

Dr. Douglas had the coiii-age some years ago to urge the estab-
lishment of a Wesleyan School of Theology at Montreal in affili-
ation with the University of McGill College. Opposition was
given by some of the friends of Victoria. The proposition carried,
and the institution was started. It soon proved a success. The
elegant building erected a short time ago and opened last month is
a result of the sensible views of Dr. Douglas. The success of the
institution has convinced even Di*. Nelles that young clergymen
may safely secure their .secular education at a non-denominational
university. If they can do so with security in Montreal, why not
in Toronto i Will l)i'. Rice or Dr. Sutherland answer? Did Dr.
Withrow, the talented editor of that bright monthly, the MethoJis/
Mfujazine, suffer any contamination while attending University
College I If not, why might not other students for the Methodist
ministry attend the same institution ?

These are facts which it would be well to ponder, and we shall
soon tind we are making a great mistake in not adopting the coui-se
of the Baptists and Presbyterians in the case of Knox College. We
siiould not be deceived by supposing that Queen's College and
Trinity (^ollege stand in the same relation to their respective
churches that Victoria does to the Methodist body. Many minis-
ters of the Presbyterian and Episcopalian Churches are firm friends
of the University of Toronto. The same cannot be said of our
denomination. Many clergymen of those churches come out boldly
in favour of further State aid to the Provincial Institution. Many
of our ministers would do the same if the matter were an open
question. Neither the Presbyterian nor the English Church re-
gards itself as under obligations to sustain the Universities I have
referred to. At the j)resent time, when the different elements of
the Methodist body are tar from being fully reconciled to union, it
would have been far more politic for our ministers to have held
back the brands which occasioned such political warfare in former
years. Had the Methodist ministers adopted some such language
as the following : — " The Univeraity of Toronto requires more
financial assistance ; our peoi)le patronise that institution ; we be-
lieve that Methodism will gain by the existence of a well equipped
national univomty ; our Chui-ch is the fiieud of higher education ;

we have no fear that the people will become too well educated (I
have heard Dr. Nelles use this language) ; we urge now upon our
Church the advantage of making an additional efi'ort to sustain
Victoria College " — it would have secured unanimity among us on
this question, which now appeal's by their injudicious course to di-
vide the entire Church.

Had the clergymen taken some such position as this it would
have been far better for Victoria College. Dr. Ntilles must surely
see this now. The institution would probably have still received
assistance from many like myself, who do not at all approve of the
Church being obliged to do what the State is doing for us. I ob-
ject, however, in the strongest terms to the assumption on the
part of those ministers that the Methodists are opposed to further
State aid to the University of Toronto. We — J am safe in speak-
ing for the majority of Methodists — will supjioit the Government
of Mr. Mowat, as we did that of Sandtield Mucdonald in 1868,
when the National University requires additional assistance from
Provincial funds. VINDICATOR.

Ontario, Dec. 3, 1883.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Sir, — It is to be regretted that no friend of denominational
colleges has favoured us with an estimate of the burden he must
bear in case the national University should receive the assistance
it requires. Dr. Sutherland, with his acknowledged ability in the
region of statistics, might surely have submitted a tabulated state-
njent to .show the rate of adtlitioual taxation to which the Metho-
dists stand in danger of being subjected. At the risk of infringing
upon the mathematical ground where the figures of Mr. Baker
have caused his opponents to beat a hasty retreat, I may, for the
benefit of Dr. Burwash, make a few calculations.

Accoidijig to the census of 1881 the population of Ontario was
1,923,228. For convenience we may, perh.vps, say that it now
reaches 2,0U0,0UU. Assuming that each additional professor for
University College will lecjuiie a salary of from .$2,000 to !§3,000
per annum, we are in a position to ascertain the average cost to
each citizen. The appointment of four additional professors

will coat every Methodist about half a cent. If we can stand
another half a cent, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that
we have contributed our full share to provide as many as eight
more professors. Should we be able to endure the burden of two
cents a piece, we shall enable the authorities to build a new
convocation hall, and equip the college to the satisfaction of its
most ardent friends.

It is just possible some persons may wonder why sucii a fuss is
made for the sake of half a cent. Unless something else is at the
bottom of the whole business, the friends of Queen's, Victoria,
Trinity, and Albert would never make such a row. The motive is
not difficult to find. The people of Ontario do not believe in
denominational education, and the friends of these colleges are
finding it out. Sectarian education received its first bluw when
King's College, controlled — and badly too — by one Church, became
non-denominational in character. It received a .second blow when
a formidable attempt was made to divide the endowment of
Toronto University among a nuin'ier of deuouii national colleges.
It I'eceived its third blow whi-ii Ontario, liaving secured the
management of its local affairs, determine I that public money
should no longer be expended in maintaining Church institutions.
And now the fourth great contest approaches. The tocsin has
been heard from the cloistered halls of Queen's, Victoria, and
Trinity. An echo is heard, but faintly, from Presbyterian and
Episcopalian Churches. Louder it comes from those of the Me-
thodist body, but it is only the sound from the pulpit. The
refrain is not taken up by the pew. The br.ttle will be sharp and
decisive, but it would show little knowledge of the past and small
hope of the future, to imagine that non-denominational education,
flushed with the victories of three campaigns, will be obliged to
yield the field.

As the hosts are gathering, it is not difficult to comprehend the
strength of the motley force arrayed against l^oronto University.
Principal Grant will fail to bring to the charge any considerable
section of the Presbyterian Church. That denomination has stood
too firmly in defence of our national system of education to go
back on its record. Senator Allan will scarcely be able to muster
a corporal's guard of Episcopalians. Tlie Low Church element is

too strong even in Toronto Diocese, to expect a grand rally around
Trinity. Very few Methodists — Dr. Sutherland to the contrary
notwithstanding — will fail to stand by the Provincial University.
[t is safe to say there will not be a Grit or Tory Methodist M.P.P.
who would dare to advocate legislative aid to Victoria College.

The Presbyterian lately gave the Methodists credit, as a denom-
ination, for possessing wonderful readiness for adapting themselves
to circumstances. As a Methodist 1 am thankful for the compli-
ment. But I am sorry to say we have been too slow to recognize
the signs of the times as regards this University question. It is a
pity our ministers cannot understand that in lighting for denon)in-
ational education we ate fighting in a losing game. Denominational
education has been largely a failure in Ontario. Every Protestant
body that has undertaken the work of elementary education has
given it up. Even the Roman Catholics have not always found it
a success. Dufterin Colieifc in Ijoudon and the Wesleyan Collegi-
ate School at Dundas furuiKJi wholi'som<' li^ssons as applied Lo High
School work. In spitt; of tiic ellorts of ih-' Methodist clergy, al-
ways friendly towards Victoria an<l to.) ofti-n unfriendly towards
Toronto, the number of Methodists attending the latter institution
(candidates for the mihistry excepted) is greater than the number
attending the former. The number graduating at Victoria is not,
I believe, greater than it was a flozen years ago, while that of
Toronto is about three times what it was then. I admire the nolile
work of Victoria as much as anyone, and have contributed, and
intend to contribute my share to its maintenance, but I cannot
shut my eyes to the fact that in attempting the work of secular
education we are behind the age. When it is seriously contem-
plated to remove the institution from Cobourg and tax the Church
to erect one " grand Methodist University " for the Dominion, it
is time the laity should speak out.

The calm letters of Principals Caven and Sheraton should be
read by every Methodist. Their arguments are unanswerable.
The " godless " cry will do service no longer. I am sorry to find
an attempt made to form an unnatural alliance of the Methodist
body with the High Church section of the Episcopalians. I should
prefer to see Dr. Dewart allying himself with the Evangelical ele-
ment that has been ready to show more than a " strict acquain-

tance " with Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. In my
devotion to the principles of my Cl)urch, I had cherished the belief
that Knox, McMafiter Hall and W'yclifle were more to my way of
thinking than Trinity. I had been accustomed to find my minis-
ters fraternize ho frequently with Presbyterian, Baptist. Congre-
gational and E{ii^;ilian (Low (!hurch) clergymen that I often
ventured t'l hope Jiac the great " union movement " might take in
more than mere Methodist bodies. In the matter of education I
had ho|>ed we could meet as brothers in one common University ;
but it seems Provost Body is a more faithful friend of my church
than Drs. Caven, Castle and Sheraton !

In a former ie' i.yr / |»uiiitf'd out the difference which the Uni-
versity qiiestion pros iiu i jur 'Jliurch as compared with its as-
pect among T'resbyteiians cno i'.jjiscopalians. The English Churcli
clergymen me divid d. So arf 'mo adherents of that church. The
Presbyterian clergyman u- ■ dividt ', •av. majority being friendly to
Toronto. The great majority of th.? ad". . i." its of both these churches
will support the Provincial University. NV^itli us the ministers are
supposed to be a unit, although many of the younger men would
like to see the Church assume a more friendly tone regarding the
University of Toronto. The members of our Church are divided,
but it is quite evident were it not for the influence of the clergy
the •rrowinj' frieiuishii) for non-denominational education would
soon manifest itself in resolutions in our quarterly boards, district
meetings, and conferences. At every move we are urged to main-
tnin the "historic" policy of the C'hurch. Few take the troul)le
of making themselves acquainted with the subject, and those who
are familiar with it have seldom a desire to oppose the wishes of
clergymen whom they respect. The lay delegates to district meet-
ings would find themselves in hot water were they to urge a de-
parture from the " historic " policy. At the annual conferences,
where none but ministers assemble, the question never comes up
as a matter of course. I can well imagine what would be its fate
if it came before the General Confereruie. The letters of Dr. Suth
erland in reply to some Methodists who questioned, through your
columns, the wisdom of adhering any longer to the " historic " policy,
show vei'y clearly what these correspondents would be obliged to
receive, were they delegates to the General Conference and were

kd were

they to suggest the pi-opriety of saving the Church thousands of
dollars by allowing Methodist undergraduates to attend University
College. Under these circumstances many good Methodists prefer
to contribute to the support of Victoria College, but it is going a
little too far to assert that their liberality furnishes any evidence
of want of confidence in Toronto University or acquiescence in any
move to prevent the latter institution from receiving the assistance
which it requires.

1 have one suggestion to otter. It would not be amiss for the
clergy to take the laity a little more into their confidence in con-
nection with this matter. A statesman shows tact wluai he watches
the drift of public sentiment. If our clergy are wise they will
grasp the situation. The Presbyterians hav»^ gained financially as
well as educationally in utilizing Toionto University. Is there a
Baptist who regrets that their School of Theology was moved from
Woodstock to Toronto '{ To say, as the Christian GuanHan puts
it, that the matter should have been brought up before, i.s the next
thing to nonsense. I have pointed out ilic almost insuruiouutable
obstacles. The worthy editor knows that the laity had to accept
or reject the " Basis of Union." The friends of denominational
colleges had taken care to have an aiticle in the *' basis " which
committed the United Church to their policy. We were told that
alterations in the agreement would not be impossible after the con-
summation of union. The friends of non-denominational eilucation
are willing to put their views forward in a constitutional manner
after the union is fully eti'ected. Dr. Hutheiland and other mem-
bers of the Methodist Commission are so anxious to injure Toronto
University that they presume to give expression to views that
were embodied in no article of the basis of union, and which if
they had been embodied in that basis would have killed the union
project itself.

I am sorry to find Dr. Burwash in his lettei-s endeavoring to
enlist as allies the enemies of all higher education. We have too
many already who take up the arguments of levellers and socialists
against State support to University education. If Dr. Burwash is
not sure that the sons of poor men should have any chance to tit
themselves so as to become lawyera, doctors, teachers, <fec., at the
tixpeiuie of Uiti State, is he coitain the Church should uudortoke

the task 1 He may, perhaps, find his arguments telling in another
diroction. Sliould the eHtimable theological professor seek aid for
Victoria College, some may venture to ask whether it is to make
lawyers or ministers f Can it he that, connected with the depart-
ment of theology, he has less sympathy with that of arts, and hence
this new issue is raised I Dr. (xrant thinks all the Universities
might wisely receive help from the Jjegislature. Dr. Nelles, when
urging contributions from Methodists in aid of Victoria College,
has l)een known to express himself unable to agree with Bystander
with reference to the danger of " over education " and the excessive
tendency of young men to seek the df^gree of B.A. at Victoria,
(Queen's, Trinity, and othr^r places. If there is any apprehension
that too many are seeking to obtain a university cours*-, would it
not be well for the denominational colleges to be the tirst to slacken
up] If the manufactured article is already in excess of the demand,
it might be well for those who think that way to be the first to
diminish the supply. Perhaps Dr. Burwush believes that the
graduates of Toronto University are inferior in quality hs manufac-
tured arti(?les, and that so far as Victoria is concerned its graduates
will always command a lair price. In either case the point raised
is full of interest whether we consider the diversity of attitude
among the friends of the (lenonuuational colleges or the awkward
position in which it plact's those who, like Dr. Burwash, fear that
too much will be expended by the State for higher education, while
they solicit sub.scriptions so that the Church may keep pace with
the Province in carrying on the work of secular education.

VINDICATOR.
Ontario, Jan. 1.

AID TO THE UNIVERSITY.

To the Editor of the Mail.
Sir, — Allow me to draw attention to a phase of the Univei-sity
Question which, so far as it has been discussed at all, seems to be
very little understood In the oppontjnts of further aid to University
College. I refer especially to the standard of B.A., and the re
quirements of Univei-sity College t« enable her to pei-form the work
of that staudard. Would that this matter were the only one in

another
aid for
,o make
depart-
id henw
versitieH
3S, when
College,
ystander
fxoeHsivf
Victoria,
elKMision
would it
3 slucken
demand,
J tirst to
that thf
maniifac-
jmduates
int raised
attitude
dwkward
fear that
on, while
)ace with
I.
R.

biveniity
Us to be
^liversity

the re-
the work

one in

which our op[X)nent8 are mistaken ! Every letter they send to the
press, every meeting they hold, in which our College affaiif) are dis-
cussed, every resolution they carry with stich surpiising unanimity,
is so full of misinformation, that one is astonished that learned
professors and others are so ready to rush into |)rint with such cru-
dities. Surely a tendency to accuracy should be almost an instinct,
at least, with the occupant of a professor's chair.

The present desire for additional aid to University College arises
from a sense that the degree of B.A. should be such as the present
prosperous and intellectual condition of Ontario impei-atively de-
mands. Now, though the University of Toronto desires such a
high standard, her ett'orts are checked, there being no College
equal to the task of working out her plans. It is of no conse-
quence to the University what other institutions may consider a
sufficiently high grade of excellence ; she has outgrown long ago —
the Province has outgrown — the old standards, and now Ontario
cannot afford to lag behind in the intellectual race. Other univer-
sities may be satisfied with theii- results ; the University of Toronto
is tiot satisfied with hers. Nor is her dissatisfaction unreasonable.
It is not merely that some sulijects are not fully treated, but
there are necessary subjects that are not taught at all. University
College, then, needs a separation of the departments of Greek and
Latin, of Mathematics and Physics, of History and English, of
Zoology and Botany ; she needs a Professor of Political Economy,
one of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence, one of Physiology,
and one of the Romance Languages ; she cannot long afford to
do without a wider range over the Teutonic tongues ; and Logic,
Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy are too much for the shoulders
of one professor. Though she occupies " a palace," she requires a
larger examination hall, and all this without the slightest approach
to what has been so inconsiderately styled " luxuries." Now, in
this improvement in the standard of B.A., there is no thought of
post graduate courses, of 225 professors, or of "luxuries." To a
hungry man, perhaps, plain bread is a luxury, and it is only such
a " luxury " that University College calls for. What Ontario
needs, then, is not " luxuries," but an adequate provision for the
highest B.A. course in whatever depai'tmont the student elects to

graduate. But this can never be attained if all the subjects be not
a

fully lectured upon, or if the? profcHsor hv weighted down with
three or four ilitferent HubjeetH. One writer coiiiptireH the Pro-
vinciul UniverHity to a "stall-fed ox," another lodges her in a
" palace." To my mind it would be hard to call up a more
gorgeous picture of pampered opulence than by the excpusite
metaphor — or two (■ond)ined — of a stall-fed ox residing in a palace.
A BtatcMuent in the Calendar of Victoria University has been
shown to lup, ; it is to be found on page 2(5. " The science depart-
ment of Victoria is supplied with complete sets of apparatus of the
latest construction, recently purchased from the best makers in
iiondon, Paris, Leipsig, and Berlin, illustrating electricity, static
and dynamic, and magnetism. " Of course University College iloes
not envy Victoiia this cumpleie set of magnificent apparatus, l)ut it
would be a sort of " luxury " to her to have one like it. Farther
on we tind allusion to "elegant" tables for laboratory work.
Suiely if University College reside in a " palace," Victoria has
uiuch of the furniture ot one.

.\re Political Kconomy, Constitutional History, Physiology
among the subjects that Prof. Burwasii would .seek in a foreign
land I And now take an example of the manner in which he would
impo.se his methoils on University College. He a.sks : — " Will
there be any ne»)d of instructors in Kreiich, Italian and 8i)anish if
a profes.sor of Komance languages is appointed !" It is an odd
(piestion, but easily answered. Yes, certaiidy I Does the Pro-
fessor really suppose that the occupant of such a chair could give
between twenty and thirty real College lectures every week I It
is not generally thought so; and it is as fatal ti) high-class .scholar-
ship to require the .same professor to lecture on two or more
distinct subjects as to expect him to give to the lecture-room so
many of his waking hours in one department. We can never
separate the professor and student. 80 again it is asked " if
eminent professors, at large salaries, are to be appointed to chaiis,
while a stati of tutors and assistants are employed to do their
work." The italics are mine. Evidently there is here a disapproval
of the system of the division of labour, and souiething that I am
unwilling to consider a slur cast upon the iiulustry or hone.sty of
the whole stati of Profesaors. But we can all'oid to pass over this
among a scoic of other things of the same general nature, which

are said even when writers disclaim anytliing Itut unbounded
friendHhip for University College.

A f»reiit iniiny grave olFenceH are jtist now laid to the charge of
the Provincial College. Many of these "facts" and fancies have
been siiccesHfully ni(^t, hut, Mr. Kditor. to iinswer them all we
should need an unreasonable amount of your space. Prof. Burwash
puts this question. " Is the demand made for the purposes of
maintaining an unfair rivalry with other Colleges by the aid of
unlimited drafts upon the ])ublic purse 1" To my knowledge there
is no rivalry- -fail- or unfair — on the j)art of University College
towards any institution in the province. This is shown l)y the
lack of detinite information on the ])art of our graduates concern-
ing the inward working of (Queen's and Victoria. Put my slight
experience tells me that gmduates of these Colleges are " |K)sted "
on many points concerning University College which are unknown
to ourselves. Their graduates seem to have a distinct attitude —
how developed I do not know — towards University College ; and
not only so, but some of their leading men do not hesitate to dis-
play their hostility officially in their Convocation halls. Now, I
may be mistaken, but this seems to me a breach of academic eti
quette ; but whatever it shows, it proves how much we are in their
thoughts. The Rev. Dr. Huthcrland re])eats the charge, but he calls
it a " somewhat unscrupulous rivalry." This charge of unfair or
unscrupulous rivalry is as baseless as the mean insinuation that
University College " allures students to her halls," and I shall
certainly not attempt to defend her from the unworthy charge.

But exaggeration plays an important part in all these attacks
against our College. No one has asked for " unlimited drafts upon
tne public purse"; and Principal Grant knows perfectly well, or
ought to know, that she does not desire " 225 [jrofessors. " All
that the friends of TTniversity College ask for — if they will allow
me to state their case — is that the ordinary work of a College
course, setting aside altogether post-graduate courses, shall be done.
There is the whole matter. But Professor Burwash has at least
one correct statement : — " What Ontario really requires is thor-
ough painstaking work upon the subjects of the B. A. counse, with
an alternative of science course for those who may prefer it." We
ask no more.

I shall not review Prof. BurwiiHh's reHearches into the ancient
hintory of UniverHity College, though I hope Honie one will under-
take to Hcrupe ofl" u little of the " local colouring " of IiIh Hketchen.
It is enough for my i)reHent purpoHe to Htalo that we have to do
with the present and the futiire and not with the past. Ontario
of to-day in not the Upper Canada of long ago, nor should fhe be
called upon to win her triun)|)hH over again. How could the men
of to-day have prevented the actH of the men of 18251 If they
could, they would ; but the learned profea.sor wished to " score a
point " against us, and the historical method was tempting. Apply,
however, this " historical method " to the British constitution, and
it might be proved that that great body of principles was unde-
serving of our respect. In its younger days it suffered from its
nurses, its doctors, its most ardent friends, and it is as much rais-
ing a false issue to accuse the present defenders of our Provincial
University of being guilty of acts done before they were born, as
it would be to visit upon Lord Coleridge the acts of Judge Jeffreys.

Yours, etc.,

Toronto, Dec. 13, 1883. GEO. E. SHAW.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION— LETTER FROM THE

REGISTRAR OF THK PROVINCIAL UNIVERSITY.

Sir, — In your issue of November 8th, there appeared a letter
from the Rev. Prof Burwash, of Victoria College, professing to
furnish statistics respecting the University of Toronto, University
College, and the denominational colleges of Ontario. These statis-
tics are so erroneous that, as one who is possessed of information
on the subject, I feel it my duty to reply.

I. Prof. Burwash says : — " In the Province of Ontario we have
the Government returns for 1880 before us, as well as the official
publications of the Colleges. The total number of graduates in
Arts (B.A.) up to that date is 1,270. Of these 467, or 37 per
cent., had availed themselves of the magnificently endowed Pro-
vincial University."

Prof. Burwash has here, inadvertently J believe, fallen into an
eiTor. In these Government returns the B.A.'s who have taken
their M.A. ai-e classed as such, and not included in the number

/e have

official

kates in

l37 per
Id Pro-

|nto an

taken

lumber

467. In conHequonce, th« nunilier of HtiitlentH of Univt^raity College
on whom the Univei-sity of Toronto liaH coiiferrwl the degree of B.
A. becoin«'8 very iifai-ly 700, i.e., about 47 per cent, of the total of
• " 'egrces conferred in the Province. I hav«i the retuniH from the
.ersitieH up to 1HM2 (.Xibt-rt to 1881 ), and find them as follows :-
B.A.'s conferred by the Uni varsity of Toronto, 818 ; Victoria, 333 ;
Queen'H, 311 ; Trinity, 224; Albert, 59; total, l,74f5. In this
list are included ad eunJpin degrees, which occur more frequently
in the denominatioiud colleges than in the University of Toronto ;
and honorary degrees, which are unknown in the Provincial in-
stitution. I have also included all graduates (B. A.) of the Uni-
versiiy of Toronto, because, with very few excej)tion8, they have
been educated in University College, and because 1 have included
in the numbers credited to the other colleges all on whom they
have conferred the B.A., whether such attended lectures or not.
If we wish to arrive at the ntimbers actually trained in the colleg-
es "1 proportionate numlter must be deducted from each of the
I leaving the pei-centages unchanged. F'rom these facts and

uj, .1 I conclude that University College, in 1882, coulH claim
50 per cent, of the graduates (B.A.) of Ontario.

But it is in the extraordinary increase in her numbers of late
yeai*8 that University College shows her strength. In 1882 (Al-
bert, 1881) the graduating classes were as follows : —

Students from University College on whom B.A. was con-
ferred 65

B.A.'s conferred by Victoria Univei-sity 12

•• " Queen's " 15

" " Trinity " 7

«« " Albert " 6

Total 105

giving University College 62 per cent. In 1883 the number from
Univerjiity College was 74. Thus, using Prof. Burwash's own
reasoning, it may be claimed that at present University College is
doing between 60 and 70 per cent, of the University work of the
Province.

No doubt in the early history of the University of Toronto and
its affiliated College the high standard exacted by them had the

effect of lessening the number of their graduates ; but now, thanks

to the ethcicuicy of our High Schools, and thanks also to the effect

of that high standard on the intellectual life of Ontario, the result

is in a contrary direction.

11. Again Prof. Bni-wash says: — "There wei-e, in the year

1881, yOO students enrolled in the Ai'ts classes of the various col

leges ; of these 351, or 3'J per cent., were enrolled in Univeisity

College ; 550, or Gl per cent, were found in the colleges of the

Churches."

Let me say that this number (351) were in actual attendance at

Univei-sity College. Indeed, if occasional students be included,
the number becomes about 400. 1 find that the calendars of the
other colleges do not clearly distinguish between those present at
lectui'es during the yeai', and those who were at the time under-
graduates. Thus, in Queen's calendar, in the " List of students
in Arts — session 1881-2," there are 174 names. But on making
an analysis of the class lists for the same year I find that only 103
underwent examination. Of these 29 underwent examination in
1 subject; 25 in 2 subjects ; 41 in 3 ; 7 in 4 ; and 1 in 5. These
class lists include both pass and honour men. It will thus be seen
that even these 103 were not stuflents at Queen's in the sense that
300 undergraduates were, in the same year, students at University
College. If it be meant that the 174 were students associated
with Queen's who were liable to present themselves for examina-
tion at the end of the year, the University of Toronto can present
for the same year a list of 849 matriculated students who were in
tlic same position.

The calendar of Victoria for 1882 gives 129 as the number of
its students in Arts. What the effect of such an analysis of these
as I have made in the case of Queen's woiild be I am unable to
say, the class lists not being given in the calendar. But I learn
from a member of Victoria University that ** there are always
some (whose names are in the calendar) absent, most of whom
intend at some futuie time to return and graduate, some never
return. Their names are kept in the calendar for some time, the
list there simply showing their standing as undergraduates, but
not indicating the size of the class of each year." It wouM thus
appear that this list of 129 students corresponds more .early to
that of the University of Toronto, which includes 849.

, thanks
le effect
e result

,he year
OUB col-
livej'sity
s of the

iance at
ucluded,
8 of the
esent at
e under-
students
making
only 103
lation in
, These
s be seen
jnse that
nivei'sity
ssociated
^xamina-
present
were in

[mlier of

I of these

liable to

I learn

always

If whom

le never

Ime, the

[tes, but

)'d thus

jarly to

In Trinity College calendar for 1882-83 the list of " undergradu-
ates in Arts" gives 90 ; but includes the names of several who, I
know, have long since ceased to attend lectures ; and in conse-
quence appears to be simply a list of undergraduates of that Uni-
versity.

Albert College calendar for 1881 gives a list of 105 '"under-
graduates in Arts ;" but as several of these aie marked " deceased,"
it is evident that such record corresponds to that of the University
of Toronto, which includes 84!) names, from which, however, the
names of those deceased are omitted.

From these returns I am at a loss to know how Prof Burwash
obtains his !K)() students in attendance at lectures. Very many of
those included in the preceding enumerations of the denominational
colleges corresjjond to those included in the University of Toronto
list that gives 84U names ; and others correspojid to tlu' class that
at the end of each year present theuiselves at tlie Provincial Insti-
tution for examination, in 1881 numl)eiiiig over 4(>().

Thus using Prof. Burwash's own reasoning, and having regai'd
to the number of students in Arts actually attending the colleges
of Ontario, 1 believe it may again lie claimed that University (Jol-
lege is doing 60 pei cent, of the university work of the Prc^vince.

It may be ol interest to the friends of the University of Toronto
and University College to know that for the last three years there
has been an average attendance of 222 at the matriculation exanii-
nations,— a fact which suthciently evidences the extent to which
the country " believes in " these institutions.

ALFRKD BAKKR.
Toronto. Dec, 7th. 1883.

THE UNIVEHSITV t^UESTlON.

8lR, — Plot. Burwash, of Victoria College, is not disposed to ac-
cept the conclusions of my letter of 11th inst., in wiiich I l)elieve
1 showed that Univei'sity C-ollege is at present doing 60 per cent,
of the University work ot Ontario. He replies in your issue of
yesterday. The first part of his letter is occupied with an explana-
tion of his mistake in the matter of the number of B.A.s educated
in Uiiivcrbity College. 1 believe he fell into his onx)r without

any wish to do injustice to the Provincial institution. But it was
an error none the less, and I felt it my duty to correct it.

In the second part of his letter he deals with tlie question of the
number in attendance at lectures. In reply I refer him and those
interested in this discussion to my letter of the 11th inst. He ad-
mits that the 129 names given in the Victoria calendar of 1882
did not represent the number actually attending lectures, and this
was all I contended for my words being " this list of 129 students
corresponds more nearly to that of the University of Toronto which
includes 849."

When, further on in his letter. Prof Burwash alludes to the
number of High School masters in Ontario, he touches on a mat-
ter that confirms in a remarkable way my 60 per cent, contention.
If I am correct I ought to find that in tliose occupations to which
the graduates of our Universities natvually betake themselves, e.g..
High School work, this precentage is maintained. 1 have found
my antici])ation completely fulfilled. In applying this test, Prof.
Burwash quite imj)roperly counts against the Toronto graduates
those of Cambridge, Aberdeen, etc.: we uuist confine ourselves to
the graduates of Ontario Universities. The report of the Minister
of Education for 1882 gives of head masters of High Schools 47 to
Toronto, 18 to Victoria, 8 to Queen's, 5 to Albert, and 5 to Trinity,
i. e., 57 j)er cent, to Toronto. Jn the Report two Trinity graduates
are credited to Toronto ; but two marked " certificate " are Toronto
graduates, leaving the 47 unchanged. If the graduates of these
colleges who at present are assistant masters in High Schools be
included, this percentage rises to 03 ; and if the undergiaduates
who occupy like positions be added, it increases to 68. Again, if
the number of scholars attending High Schools presided over by
gi'aduates of these colleges be considered, it will be found that the
Provincial institution can claim 6.'{ per cent.

Prof. Burwash is not correct in saying that in estimating the
present graduating strength of these colleges I selected 1882 to
secure a " snap judgment." 1 selected it without knowing what
the graduating class for 1883 numbered ; but 1 believe that if this
last year be taken my conclusions will not materially change.

ALFRED BAKER.
Toronto, Dec. 18, 1883.

it was

I of the

d thoBe

Head-

)f 1882
md this
tndents

which

1 to the
a inat-
tention.
D which
ves, e.g.,
e found
It, Prof,
laduates
ielves to
Minister
dIs 47 lo

Trinity,
raduates
Toronto
of these
ihools be
raduates
^gain, if
over by
,hat the

ting the
ll882 to
|ig what
It if this
^e.

Er.

WHAT COLLEGE REPRESENTS THE CHURCHES.

To the, Editor of the Mail.

Sir, — It has been asserted in behalt of the Church Colleges that

ithey represent the denominations whose name they bear. I ask

your leave to present a few statistics which may serve as a test of

"the validity of this claim. I take for this purpose the graduates of

1883, the first year in which University (!olI<(ge ceased to use what

her opponents call the " unfair inducement " of lower fees (and

here let me express en pnrentheae my surprise that no one has yet

shown, what is notoriously the fact, that the competing colleges

use the much more " unfair," nay, tlie dishonourable, inducement

of a lower standard of examination, as shown by their calendars

and examination paj)tus) ; and I take the students attending the

Arts courses in this current academic year 1883-84. These figures

will therefore show what j)ro|tortion of the secular education of

the various denominations each college is now doing.

I may add that close examination of the religious returns of
University College has convinced me that the figures of any other
year would, on the whole, be just as favourable to her, if not
auore so.

(a) University College sent out, as B.A.'s of the University of
Toronto, in 1883, 29 Presbyterians ; Queen's, only 24 B.A.'s, of
whom an unknown j)roportion Ijelonged to other denominations.
University College now has l.')0 Presbyterian students in Arts ;
Queen's College, according to Principal Grant, 13") of all denomi-
nations. So that the former is now educating more Presbyterians
than Queen's is students of all denominations.

(6) Methodism is alleged by Dr. Sutherland to be a " unit " in
support of the sujterior claims of Victoria College on that body.
Now, University College graduated 8 Methodist B.A.'s in 1883,
while Victona graduated 20 of all denominations ; and University
College has this session 63 Methodist students in Arts taking the
full course ; while Victoria has 80 of all denominations. No
doubt on examination of Victoria's religious statistics it will be
found that there are not many more Methodist students in her
halls than in our own.

(c) That Trinity College is still farther from representing ti
religious " unit" will lie seen from the following figui-es : — l^inity

College turned out in 1883 the imposing nunibei' of 9 B.A.'s,
while University Colk'gr graduated 20 KpiHcopalian li.A.'s alone,
or more than double the number. Trinity College has now,
I believe, 33 students in Arts : University College has 62 Episco-
palians, or nearly double. No doubt the Rev. Provost will say
that these figures " do not materially alter the 40 per cent,
theory," for in his last letter, when forced to admit that University
College was doing 55 per cent, instead of 40, he coolly declares
that " Mr. Baker's 60 per cent, is as far off as ever."

(d) The •ther religious denominations, IJoniiin Catholics, Bap-
tists, Congregational ists, etc., are beyond dispute a practical unit in
fheir support of Uni\ersity College.

It is plain, then, from these figures, that Univtusity College has
a better right to call herself a representative of the Presbyterian
and Episcopalian bodies, respectively, than Queen's or Trinity ;
that she has as good a right to s|)eak for the Methodists as
Victoria ; and that she has no rival in the representation of the
other religious tlenomiiiations.

(Jommending the.se figures to tlie attention of Messrs, Cirant «t
Co., 1 remain.

Yours, &c.,

PI.
Toronto, Dec jntli

I'HK UNIVERSITY QUESTION.
A RETROSPECr.

7'u /he Editor of the Mall.

SiK, — ^in the xMail of December 14th Provost Body asserts that
the land set apart in 1798 for the purposes of higher education in
Ontario, sliould. if properly managed, have been ani])ly suthcient
for the University to-day, and suggests a searching enquiry into
the way that institution has husbanded this oriuinal endowment of
" princely i)ro}u)rtions."

As the learned Provost seems anxious to get information, per-
haps he will allow me to contribute (as a first instalment) a few
facts which may not be familiar to one who is not yet acclima-
tized : —

1. The endowment of 225,000 acres, altliough originally in-
tended for a national University, open to all classes and creeds,
became for a time the property of King's College, an exclusive
High Church University, whose charter was obtained by Bishop
Strachan in 1828 on representations whidi wcmc not in strict iw-
cordance with the facts.

2. From 1828 to 1850 the management of the endowment was
in the hands of the Council of King's College, whilst the Council
was in the hands of Bisliop Strachan. During this period iibout
134,n00 acres were sold, realizing ai)out $670,000, all of which
was either spent or lost by the year 1850. During the first 15
years (1828-1842) Ujiper Canada College received about $160,000,
and the management of the estate cost about $60,000. Indeed,
before a single lecture was delivered, the High Church compact
had spent upwards of S;300,000, and during the years 1843-1850,
their expenditure exceeded the income by upwaids of $77,000.
The following extract from a letter dated May 2, 1840, from the
Right Hon. C. Poulett Tliomson to Lord John KusselJ. will furnish
a sample of the way in which the High Church party administered
the trust : —

" In the course of last year an investigation having been instituted by
Sir ({corge Arthur into the management of King's College, the fact that the
pre.sident (Bishop Strachan) was annually drawing from its funds an income
of Jt'J.'iO sterling was brought to his notice. Considering that no duties of
any kind, beyond those of other unpaid members of the council were attach-
ed to the ofiice ; that there was no immediate prospect that the institution
would be put into operation, and that every shilling taken from its rev-
enues was so much deibicted from the means of education in Upper Canada,
already nicjst deticient, it aj)peared to him impossible any longer to permit
such an appropriation of its funds. In this opinion I entirely concur : and
1 am contident that your Lonl.-ihip will approve the course which Sir
George Arthur ado]ited. It is, indeed, diliicult to understand how the
consi<lcrations by which he was actuated should so long have escaped the
notice of the bishop himself.

" Hut the eiupiiry into the state of King's t^ollege and the jtroduction of
some returns called for by the .Assembly brought out other irregularities in
the management of the institution. Thus it appeared that the accounts
of the bursar were very much in arrear, and it became necessary, therefore,
to remove him and t') appoint another otHcer in his place ; and it was also
shown that a very considerable sum had been borrowed from the funds of
the L'niversity by the president for his private purposes, on the security of

at the
' ill-got

various notes of hand, and that several of these notes had not been pan)
when due."

Provoat Body will accordingly perceive that the endowment of
the University of Toronto, which waa founded in 1853, was merely
the remnant which was wrested from the grasp of the High Church
party, whose hold of their " ill-got advantage " during twenty-two
years was aa unrighteous as their opposition to further aid is now
" unreasonable and unpatriotic." The wondei-, indeed, i.s that the
►State recovered anything from the party who maintained

" The right divine of ' King's ' to govc wrong ;"
and if they were anything more than a mere remnant,
present time, they ought to be compelled to pay for the
advantage " of the past. For twenty-two years the ecclesiastical
compact enjoyed the endowment in spite of the protests of the
Assembly, and none opposed their arrogant claims more per-
sistently than the Methodists, who contended for the broad
principle that the endowment was public money, and that all
classes of the community had an equal right Ct eiijoy tlie pi-ivileges
of King'a College.

Yet some of these same Methodists, from whom, according to
Bishop 8trachan, " the mass of the population " were in danger of
" imbibing opinions anything but fa^^ourable to the political insti-
tutions of England," have now joined hands with their High
Churcli slanderers, and this novel alliance is not only concerting
measures against the Provincial University, but is pi'epared, as
Provost Body indicates, to advocate " the formation of separate
schools on a large scale." As a sample of the high sense of honour
possessed by some of these crusaders, take the following extracts
from the letter of Dr. Sutherland, which appeared at the same
time as that of his fiiend the Provost : —

" The Senate of the University loaned to Upper Canada College
* * upwards of $160,000." After thus unscrupulously
attributing the act of Bishop Strachan and the High Church
party to the present governing body of the Provincial University,
this model minister of Truth clenches his misrepi'esentation by the
following illustration : — " The directois of a banking corporation
loan $160,000 of their capital to another institution. Subsequently
they are consenting parties to an act which changes the loan into a

lllStl-

High

ously
Church
eraity ,
by the
iratiou
uently
into a

permanent gift. After a time they come to the shareholders and
say, ' We must have more capital to carry on the bank.' The
shareholders ask, ' Wliy then did you give away so much.' ' Oh,'
say the directors, ' the introduction of that matter into the dis-
cussion is quite irrelevant.' " The public would have better under-
stood the illustration if Dr. Sutherland had informed them that the
present bank was started in 1853 with a new set of directors, and
with a capital greatly reduced by the old High Church directors ;
that he and the old directors have now formed a ring, and that
although they may not ruin the bank as they attempted in 1860,
they are at any rate bound to " bear " the stock.

Yours, &c.,
Dec. 16, 1883. HISTORICUS.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.
A RETROSPECT.

To the Editor of the Mail.

Sir, — In my enumeration of certain interesting facts in the his-
tory of higher education in this province I had arrived in my
former letter at the year 1849, when the High Church party were
driven out of King's College, and the remnant of the endowment
saved for a national University. On the retirement of the ecclesi-
astical compact the University' of Toronto was founded with its
faculties of Law, Medicine and Arts. In 1853 the Act establish
ing the University of Toronto and University College was passed
and has continued in force, with slight changes, until the present
time. According to this Act the function of the college is to pro-
vide teaching in the Arts coui'se only, the function of the University
being to prescribe the curriculum and conduct the examinations in
all the faculties. Unlike the Council of King's College, however,
the Senate had no control of the eiulownient, the management of
which was entrusted to the Bursar under the immediate direction
of the Government.

I am unable to give the income and expenditure from 1850 to
1853; but from 1853 to 1861, inclusive, the average income was
about $57,000. In 1853 the expenditure was about $55,000, and
in 1861 about $62,000. At the latter date the balance of unsold

lands was about 18,000 acres, which wcro valued by tlu; bursar,
the late Mr. Buchaii, at SHm.OOO.

Ill order to fjive an idea of the precarious condition of the insti-
tution for some years after ISf).'}, it may \t(' mentioned that the
l)ulk of the park had been appiopriated by an Act tii" Parliament
for Parliament and Departmental buildin<^s and a Cioveiiiment
House, an<l that the (lovt^'ument had assiimtnl jiosscssion of the
entire property, the University bt^inj,' depriveil of the buildini,' pre-
viously erected for King's (,'ollttge. Indt ■ d, in ISO') no Convoca-
tion could bt^ held for want of a room ; :iiid, as a compcttent au-
thority informs me " the evils arising from inadequate accommoda-
tion were such as to paralyze the most earnest efibrts of the friends
of the University, and to lieget in the jiublic mind a feeling highly
unfavourable to the stability of the institution." In his address
iiefore a parliamentary (;ommittee at Quebec, in 1860, Dr. Wilson
says : —

"Since the Act nt' IS.')!! was pas.setl wo have been ttu'iied out of the ol<l
King's* t'ollege l)iiililiiig and estai)lishe(l in the I'arlianieiit l)uil(linga on
Front Street. I'arlianient retuiiiing to Toronto, we were sent back to the
ohl huilding ; r!i(veriini('iit i'ec|tiiring that, we were thrust into a little brick
cililicc iiriL;inally built lor a nuMHcal Hchool ; ami before wo at length moved
into our present permaneut buililing.s we had boon compelled to wa.ste
thouaands of dollars on removals, fittings and temporary makeshifts, as
distasteful to us as they were wasteful and extravagant.'

Early in 1854 the Senate presented an Address to the (iovern-
ment praying for permanent buildings, in this Dr. liyerson, who
possibly entertained hopes at that time of getting supreme control
ut the University, concurred.*

Thanks to the zealous efforts of the Chancellor, (Hon. William
Hume IJIake), Chief J\istice Draper, and Mr. Justice Morrison
(then solicitor genei'al), the sum of .^^JiOO.OOO was, on the advice
of Attorney-Generikl Macdoiudd, appropriated for the new build-

* I am informed by a gentleman, who was present at the meeting, that
Dr. Ryerson w:'.s extrenuly anxious to second the Address, ami that the
sum of §.'}()0,()(H) was ask<Ml [or therein. His request, however, coultl not
be complied with, owing to another arrangement made by Mr. Chief .Instice
Draper, who moved the Address. The same gentlemen also informs me
that the chief credit in obtaining the appropriation in question was due to
Chancellor Blake. H.

waste
ifta, as

lovern-
, wlio
jiitrol

illiiun

Di-rison

advice

build-

ig, that
lat the

ulil lUlt

.liustice

iiiis ine

due to

ing, and the went side of the park set aside for acndeniio i)Ui{)OHeH.
This Mtt'p saved tht' ITiiiversity.

llislory n^pcats itself. The old (.'liar^'a of extrava^'ance on the
Ijiiildiiif,', which was mad** in 1S()I), is now iviiewcd by tiioso who
have lieeii prepariii;,' tiuMiiselves for a second assault. If Dr. Suth-
erland and others eall the aliove sum " extr.ivaj,'ant," how, pray,
will they eharactorizc the old pi'o|)()sal wliirh was made l)y his
present allies to spend !?S()0, 0(10 of the people's money on a Hii^h
Church College ? Js it pieteiidrd tliat tht^ (lovei-nment of the day
acted without due consideration I Does not everyone. excei)t, por-
liaj)s, Provost Body, know that if that nion(>y liad not been spent
in building, it would have gorie with the whole (*n<losviiient to per-
petuate sectarian strife and mtdtijily petty colleges] The head of
tlie (lovernnicnt knt^w that i?."U)0,000 worth of hrii-ks and mortar
could not easily be carried otl', and I.e also knew — -none lietter —
the real designs of the new denominational conijiact. Said Ih:
Ryerson in 18r)2, ' Self-defence, as well as other considerations,
will prompt them (the jNIethodists) to unite with that portion of
the people who deem no State univei.sity necessary to abolish it
ftltogether." In this Dr. liyer.son sliowed his ])ropheti<: powers,
although he ovia'cstinuited his own inlluence ; for no sooner was
the new building completed than the attack connnenced. The
fonnal complaint made before the (lovmiment at Q\iehec involved
the same charges as are niacU; luiw. Indeed the Ictteis and ad-
dresses against the claims of the University n\f mere repititions of
what was urged with greater ))Ower in ISIiO. The rharge of giving
SUiO.OOO tu Upper Canada College was. I think, omitted ; for al-
though there was a \U'\ . Clerical l''rror in the |)ers(in of a Mr.
Poole, the aj)pellants had not then tla- sevvices of Dr. Sutherland.
The compact, however, was the sam(^ and tlu; informal charg(!s
might fairly be styled Sutherlandish. A specimen of the latter is
referred to in the addicss of Dr. Wilson at (.Quebec. 1 give it for
the s}tecial benefit of Provost Body.

" 1 only know from luiiinur nf .such acuusations an the famous story of
Si!2,0()n cxiit'iiiliMl on a ohanccllm's jrown- a iierfectly true Mtory— only it
(Iocs not happi.ii to refer to our Toronto Inivcrsity. 'I'oronto, in tlie lux-
ury of its mo(<' rn civilization, actually rejoices in two independent univer-
sities with a host of collej^cs. And one of these tlid resolve on doing titting
honour to its chancellor ; and, entrusting his dignity to a Cambridge tailor,

got out 50 magnificent jk/nv-dviilt of Prince Albert's robes, that its chan-
cellor could not be ptrsuaded to wear it till tbey had clipped off its super-
f itous tail. And thiH Htory * * has been gravely retailed to you as one
of the many proofs of university extravagance."

This is wortliy of Dr. Siuhcrland and Profcasor Burwush in their
youngfr (iays when they were working for their |)roH])ective hon-
oui-H.

Yours, etc.,

Dec, 24. HISTORKUS.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

A RETROSPECT.

To the Editor of the Mail.

Sir, — In my last letter I referied to th(i fact tliat on the comple-
tion of the new building, charges were biouglit against the Senate,
which are now revived against their successors. Notliiiig, indeed,
shows the hollowness of the jnesent o)))iosition to the Provincial
University so much as this revival of duirges which weie success-
fully met nearly a quarter of a century ago. Even the old leaders'
hollow protestation is lepeated that the denominational colleges
are forced to attack the State institution on account of the attitude
of its friends, who, after being smitten on one cheek, are so un-
christian as not to turn the other also. But though this "tradi-
tional policy " is kept up, the old leaders are gone, and their suc-
cessors are running a muck, each reckless what he strikes, so long
as it is not his own. From Bishop Strachan to Bishop Sweatman
it is poK.sible to trace the line of succession, but it does not incline
upwards. Provost Whittaker's policy is ignored by his visionary
successor, who is anxious that High Churchism should run a tilt
against the public to the extent of destroying our national school
system — the pride and boast of Dr. Ryerson's life.

It now becomes necessary to devote some space to clearing up
certain misrepresentations which have been made with regard to
the action of the Senate in 1862, In your issue of Dec 20th, Dr,
Sutherland says : —

" Between 1859 and 18(52 the Senate of Toronto University, which at
that time included representatives from some of the outlying colleges,
agreed to a scheme of college cuusolidatiou with one university, to be called

•ing up
;ard to
th, Di.

[hich at

loUeges,

I called

the University of Upper (^anada, and all the collegeH connected therewith
to receive aid from the .State, 'Ihis wiBc and patriotic arranKcniunt was
ptTHiHtf-ntly and, I rujjrct to aild, HUcccsHfiilly oppimud by grailuatitH and
friundu of University (.'ollegc. Tlie Senate reverseil itH action in «pite of
earneHt protest« from the representativeM of the outlying ecillegcH, and the
Hcheine was al)and(>ned."

Ill The Mail of Dec. ,'?, Proffssor BmwaHh gives sitbstiintially
the HHine story. Now I |)ni|K)se to sliow that, instcail of" one
Hfheiiie, there were two sehenieH siigge.stiMl at the time, one hy tlie
Senate, involving the jneservation of the endownieiit of University
College, and the other l)y a eeitain ('(iiiiini.ssioii involving its parti-
tion. Our clerical roniiincers make it appear that there was lnit
one scheme — that oi the ( 'onimission — that it was carried through
the Senate, and that the Senate Huliseiiuently ri'Versed its action- ■
all of which statements are fals(^ The Senate was no more respon-
sible for thesclienie nf the Commission than it was for the deeds of
Hishop Strachan, and the attempt to make them so is worthy of
tliose who attriliiited the rxtravagaiice of the High Church Conncil
of King's (!ollege to the present Senate of the University of Toron-
to. But to proceed.

The attack nuide on the Provincial University in iStid at Que-
bec was followed by the ap|)ointuient of a commission, consisting
of Mr. John Paton, of Kingston, Dr. Beatty, of Cobourg, and
Hon. .James Patton, of Toronto, the first a partisan of Queen's Col-
lege, the second of Victoi'ia College, and tlie third Yice-Chaiicellor
of the I^niveisity of Toronto. Theses commisHioners were appoint-
ed " to enquire into the expenditure of the funds of the University
of Toronto and into the state its financial affairs," and " to enquire
into the expenditure of the a])piopriations made annually for Uni-
versity (.'ollege, its current expenses, and the general state of its
financial affairs." T am not aware what consideration the (iovern
ment gave to the financial labours of the commissioners ; but it
does not appear that any material change of policy was imposed on
the Senate ; nor is it clear that the i-eduction of expenditure which
was afterwards effected in the management of the Imrsar's office
was due to the rejiort, in which the commissioners, after sjjeaking
in flattering terras of the bursar and cashier, go on to say : —

"The bursar is not in any way answerable to the Senate, and it may be add-
ed that he has not, under the present system, control over the expenditure

of hiH own otlit'o. Hf ciuinot, thoreforo, )>o oonniilert'd n-Rponnililc for the
prusciit Mcalti iif ixpeiitlituro, and indued liaH ropronuntcd to (iovtrnniont
tliHt it may bo rednoud."

Oiir cliit'f iiitfiTHt at prt'Ht'iit, however, lies witli tlio luhoiirs of
t.lif crjiiiinissioiH'rH in (inotlicr ilii(H;tion. Ah tlicy itniceodfd " tliey
ht'camt' stiniiL'ly coia inccd tliat ti mere tiimncial it-port, " such hh
thf ( Joveniiiniit fxidiciily askt'd for, " would fall far sliorl of what
was roquirfd, and that a much more important service would be
inndcred if tlicv coulil accompany tht^ir report with a scheme by
which the obvious defects of the present system in Upper Canada
could be remedied." They accordint^ly " j^'nve a wide ranj^e to their
in(|uiriea witli jnost i^ratifyiii;,' and satisfactory results."

\Vi' are not informed who or what prompted tliese eminent edu-
cationists to act ii/frd vireK, or to attempt to stpiare the University
circle ; nor is it clear why they thoui,dit it unnecessaiy to inform
either the (Joveinment or the Senate of their pious fraud. Possi-
l)ly the eiul jiistilied the means, and a hint mij,dit have interfeied
with "those i;ratif\ iiifj; and satisfactory results," to accomplish
wiiich must have been the leal object of the (Commission, although
tlif ( iovernmeut fori^ot to say so. Alliircil by " tlie substantial
benetils to be secured," the commLssioners accordingly proceeded to
lay their train. '" Having been led to understaiul that the heads
of colleges were very desirous of a real instead of a nominal atHlia-
tion," they addressed a series of questions to the Senate and heads
of colleges, and on the re))lies received based what they called their
scluMue " to harmonize the great interests of higher education."
Before stating this scheme it nuiy lie well to explain the meaning
of ■• affiliation," as detint-d by tlu' act of 1S.").'1, and to give the sub-
stance of the rei)lit\s of the Senate.

.\cconling to that Act '' affililiation " secures to a colleg*- repre-
sfMitation on the Senate, whilst its students have the right to com-
|Mtr for honouis, .scholarships and nu^dals offered by the university.
In the faculty of .\rts there is at present the further incidental
privilege? that the college jtass examinations of the tirst and third
veais are accei)ted in lieu of the univer.siry examinations.

To the (juei'ies of the Commissioners, the Senate replied to the
eti'ect that it was desirable to have but one university for Upper
Canada, and tliat the existing system of aiHIiatioii did not provide

IC S

III.

I to the
Upper
)iovidt'

Hufficient induoprncnts to other imiversitioH to give up or hold in
ulHjyance their univerHity powerH. The Semite further HtJj,'>?eHte(l
II phui of (liHtrihntinj; h-^iHlutivc iiiil to nil (•ollci,'es, except Univer
sity (!oll('<^e, and in niakinj^ thiw .siit;j,'estion added ; —

" It in to 111) uiuleiKtiKid tliat this Hii;;^oHtion is imt intfiiil(Ml to iiitfi-fero
with till! I'liilowiiu'iit of I'liivc'i'Hity ( 'olln^f, it \>u'nm tiu^ o|iiiii(iii of tli«;
Senati- that UiiivtTHity CdlU'j^o has a first claiin to a fixed I'lulovvinoiit ainjily
Hiitiicient to its HU|i|iort in it.s iirt'sciit stati' of clUcMi'iicy, and that it Mhoiild
have tho power to eMtaliliHli faeiiltii'H of hiw niiil nKMlioiiic. '

These are the chief points in the reply of the Senate with which
wu are concerned at present. Having received this and the other
replies, the Coinniissioners proceeded to formulate fhcir plan " to
induce all the colK'ges having univeisity powers to nnife upon a
common platform."

In the tirst place, it was proposed to give S*'' >.()<)(> to each of the

four colleges — Victoria, Queen's, Trinity, and Hegiopolis — for build-
ing, library, and museum purposes. In the second place. Univer
sity College — licence-forward to lie called King's College, to make
it jiopidiii — was to receive $138,000, and each of the other four col-
leges .f 10,000 annually. A further annual sum of ."?;i,500 was set
apart for scholarships— .SI, 000 to the University, and !?r)00 to each
of the five colleges. Th(! ( 'ommissioners had assum(>d that the in-
come from the endowment would amount to ii<H4,.'i')(i. There was
thus left the sum of .*12,8;")t) for the expenses of the new Univer-
sity of Upper Canada, and the management of the endowment.

Moreover, it appeared to the Commissioners that whilst cejtain
professorships should be abolished, the number might be further
reduced by combination "without les.sening the efliciency of Uni-
versity College," and as an example of the chairs which they
thnii'dit in- lit be so combined thev mentioned Natural History,
,doM(iph\{!) and Mineralogy, and Geology; but their mode
g these they did not specify. Modern Languages and
nta iitMature they recommended to be taught by tutors at a
: ,.iry oi .'^GOO and fees to each tutor. They also quoted — merely
f-n passant — the opinion of Dr. Cook, that the professorship of His-
tory and English Jviterature should be aliolished, Mr. Langton's
opinion to the contr being added as a set off.

Such was the si ne recommended by the Commissioneis in
their report of ]\I '. 1862. That it differed toto ccelo from the

affiliation scheme suggested by the Senate, !i]jpear.s not only from
their reply to the Comniissioners, but from the action they took
when they learned tin; purport of the report. Having met, the
members of the Senate, whilst calling attention to the " pious
fraud," recorded their opinion that the suggestions contained in
their reply to the (.'onimissioners did not sanction, and were not in-
tended to sanction, any scheme for the partition of the endowment.

Such is the history of the spoliation scheme of the; Commissioners.
And it is this .scheme of more tools which Professor Burwash and
Dr. Sutherland would have the public believe was " passed through
the Senate " and subsequently rejected. It was *' an honest effort
for university consolidation," notwithstanding the " pious fraud."
says Professor Burwash. Miiy I enquire if these gentlemen are
specially commissioned to hoodwink the j)ublic l Is it pait o( their
" traditional policy " to slander the Senate I And can they not
make an "honest effort" to avoid misrepre.sentation and correct
their statement 1 Perhaps a few plain wt)rds would help them to
mend their ways. Verbum sapliudi sat.

Dr. Sutherland informs us that the representatives of the de-
nominational colleges approved of the wise; and patriotic arrange-
ment" proposed by the (Commissioners in IS()2. If so, will he
please inform us how they were induced to iijtpiove of offering
$3,500 for scholarships i Surely the " substaiiU;il inducements off
ered" by the Comniissioners could not have led l)r. N'elles to ap-
prove of that "extravagance" he now londinniN-'' State subsi-
dies to young men."

Yours, ifec,
Dec. 20, 1883. II IS Ti )RICUS.

GRANTS TO DENOMINATIONAL COLLEGES.

Tu the Editor of the Mail.
Sir, — In view of the claims which have been recently advanced
in behalf of the denomin itional colleges to receive aid from the
State, it may not be without interest to direct attention to the
action of the Ontario Legislature on the occasion of its dealing for
the first time with the question of grants to the.se institutions.
Without entering minutely into the history of those grants before

r'iinced
)ni the

to the
kng for
lutions.

before

Confederation, it may be sufficient to jioint out that theii- origin is
due primarily to the scictarian charactt;r of King's College ; and
that perhaps, as tlie present HUi)])ortei's of some of the denomi-
national colleges contend, these institutions would not have been
estay)lishe(l had all classes of tin; ])eople been permitted oiiginally
to participate in the benefits of a non-denominational university.
That, however, tin; founders of Queeu's and Victoria Colleges were
not contending altogether for the cause of non-denominational
education, seems to be evident from the fact that these same
colleges transferred their enmity froui King's College to the non-
denominational nnivpvsity. And that denominational colleges con-
tinued to receive aid fi-om the State, is to be attributed to the
peculiar position of this province under the iniion. It seems
strange that there should be any doubt about the real opinions
entertained by the people of Ontario on the (pu'stion of State aid
to sectarian colleges. Whatever misapprehension may have existed
before 1868, one would have expected that it would have been
removed by the unanimous ilecision of a House, the wisdom of
whose policy has not been questioned for sixteen years. It seems,
however, that there are still some who pretend to believe that the
action of the first Parliament of Ontario was a mere freak, and
that the with(lraw;d of the giants to denominational colleges was a
step taken without due notice and delibe'ration. Amongst those
who make this pretence is Dr. Sutherland, who, in his malicious
hostility to the University of Toronto, .so unscrupulously distorts
the facts as to make it appeal- that the withdrawal of the grants
was due mainly to the graduates and friends of that institution.

In one of his letters hi; says : —

" When the grants in aid of donoininational colleges* were withdrawn
with such .su.s])icioas suddenness by the Parliament of (hitario, the people
came forward and supplied by voluntary (.dntributions the funds necessary
to carry them on, thus declaring in the most emphatic way, ' the denomi-
national colleges must and shall he maintaint'd,' The withdrawal of the
grants alluded to took place at a time when public opinion on the (piestion
was very indefinite, and so suddenly that there was little time for remon-
strance ; but the action, though subinitteil to, has never beon aciiuiesced
in ; and the opinion, I venture to affirm, is very general to-day that the
policy then inaugurated was as unjust as it was shortsighted, and as
unpatriotic as it was unjust."

In another letter the same falsifier of the record says : —

" The withdrawal of the State grants was the result of a deliberate
attempt, in which graduates and friends of University College conspicuously
figured, to compel the outl'yinj,' colleges to close their doors, dismiss their
professors, and send their students to Toronto. Some? of us have not
forgotten the attempt, nor have we forgotten the men who supported it."

And of course Professor Burwasli must also have liis luuliciouR
ding. " The first Legislature of (Ontario," he says, " embraced a
numbei" of graduates and friends of Toronto University. iJy the
influence and support of these men the dcnominiitioiial colleges '

' were deprived of all State aid." Now, as similar
misrepresentations have been frequent in this discussion, it may be
well to show, by appealing to the records, that the Government
announced its policy in the first session, when grants for a year and
a half were put iu the Act of Supply for the last time ; and that
the question was again introduced by the friends of the denomi-
national colleges in the second session, the most strenuous efforts
having been made in the interval, by ciiculating petitions and
otherwise, to influence the House. Public opinion could not have
been more definite or decided when the cpiestion again came up,
for not only was there an overwhelming expression of opinion
against the continuance of the grants, but this view was concurred
in by those members who were the warmest friends of the denomi-
national colleges. But this fact Dr. Sutherland and Professor
Burwash find it convenient to ignore ; and in order to have their
fling at the University of Toronto, they attribute an Act which
was proposed by the Government of Hon. Sa)idfield Macdonald.
Mild passed unanimously, to the graduates and friends of the
University of Toronto, whose character they attempt still further
to maliciously slander by calling the Act in question " an attempt
to compel the outlying colleges to close their doors."

The following clause in the Act of Supjily passed dui'ing the

first session of the fii st Parliament of Ontario indicates the policy

of the Government from the outset : —

"And whereas it is inexpedient that moneys shall be paid out of the
public treasury of this province for the support of collegiate institutions, be
it therefore declared and enacted that the sum of $;i-, 100 hereby granted to
certain colleges specitied in the schedule to this Act, is no granted to save
these institutions from the endiarrassment which might ensue were tliey
suddenly deprived of the assistance hitherto afforded by the Legislature of

the late Province of Canada, and that it shall not be hereafter lawful to
continue such grants."

The colleges referred to in the jireceding clause with their an-
nual grants were as follows: — RegiojH)lis, Kingston, ($3,000);
Queen's, Kingston, (i?5,()00) ; Bytown, Ottawa, ($1,400) ; St.
Michael's, Toronto, ($2,000) ; Trinity, Toronto, ($4,000) ; Vic-
toria, Cobourg, ($0,000) ; L'Assoniption, Sandwich, ($1,000.) The
bill was passed unanimously ; V)ut. as hinted above, the denomina-
tional colleges were not satisfied with the foregoing announcement
of the Government's policy, acquiesced in and ajiproved by the
whole House, and, after agitating the matter, urged their friends
to test the question. Accordingly, after a whole year of prepara-
tion and agitation, and after the pr«'sentation of their petitions to
Parliament in the following session, their champion, Mr. Clarkci
gave notice of a resolution to the effect that the collegiate institu-
tions of Ontario should continue to receive subs'^antial aid and
support from the public treasuiy. This projwsition however, was
withdrawn and the following substituted by him: "That in the
opinion of this House it is necessary and eN))edient, in the inter-
ests of collegiate education, that .'■onie compifhensive scheme be
devised and adopted for giving eHect to the objects and for extend-
ing the operation of the Act 10 Vic, cap. 8'J, in the establishment
of a Provincial University, and the athliation of colleges to be sup-
ported in connection therewith." In amend nient to this Mr. Ry-
kert moved : —

That all the words attei •• lliat " be sti m k out and the following
be inserted in lieu thereof: — "While tlir litiuse n>coguizes the
im|)ortance of educational interests, it is .^till of the opinion (as
expressed by the Act of Ia.st session) that no college or educational
institution under the contiol of iiny leligi()^l^ denomination should
lecieve aid from the j)ul)lic treasury."

In amendment to this amendment Mr. IJlake moved, that all
the words in the amendment after " thereof " be left out, and the
following words added; —

"This Hou.se. while firmly adhering to the view that denomina-
tional colleges should not be supported by Htate aid, is prepai-ed to
give its best consideration to any schenu' which may be laifl before
it for the imi)rovement of superior education and for the establish-

(54

ment and maintenance, through the Provincial Univemty, of a
uniform and elevated standartl of graduation."

The amendment to the amendment having heen put, was carried
on the following division : — Yeas, 58 ; nays, 12; and the amend-
ment, as amended, having been put, was carried on the following
division : — Yeas, 59 ; nays, 12. The oi-iginal motion, an amended,
having been then put, was cairied on the following division : —

Yeas. — MesHrs. Barber, Baxter, Heatty, Hlake, Houlter, Boyd, Caineron^
Calvin, Carling, Carnegie, Clarke, (Jloniens, Cockburn, Colqiihoijn, Cook,
Coyne, Craig [(ilengarry], Craig [liiissell], Crosbie, Cumberland, Carrie,
Evans, Eyre, Finlayson, Kitzsimnions, Eraser, (Jibbons, (miw, Graham
[Hastings], (irahanie [York], (ircely. Hays, Hooper, bander. Lount, Luton,
liyon, Mac(b)nald, Matcliett, MonttitL. Mcliouyall, McCill, MeKellar,
McLeod, McMurrich, I'ardee, l^axt.m, Terry, liead, Kiehard.s, Kykert,
Scott [Grey], Seaton, Shaw, Sinclair, Smith [Kent], Smith [Middlesex],
Springer, Supple, Swniarton, 'i'row, Wigle, Williams [hurhain], Williams
[Hamilton], Wilson and Wood. — ()().

Navs. — Messrs. Ferguson, McCall [Norfolk], MuColl [Elgin], and
Secord.— 4.

Among the 66 yeas above will be louud every member of the
Government, and (as Dr. Sutherland well knows) such staunch
Methodists as Messrs. JiJiuder, J3ejitty an<l others.

Before the iinal vote was taken, Attorney-General Macdonald
rose and said that " before the motion was put he hud the high
satisfaction of feeling that the (lovei-nment policy of List session
had been sustained by the Ho\ise. Tbey had athrmed that the
policy which Government had submitted to the House among the
tirst Acts of last session, and which the Government had resolved
to .stand b)^ was the right one. The (ioveiiunent had been hand-
somely sustained ; and he de.sired to .state exiilicitly that the Gov-
ennnent still adhered to the policy brought down last year on this
question." It subsequently appeared that the memljers who voted
nay quite as much oitj)osed the gratiting of Htate aid to denomi-
national colleges as those who voted ye • Mr. Ferguson, for
example, " had steadily opposed these grant. I'oi' the last eleven or
twelve years * and was as strongly opix).sed to sectarian

grants as anj^ member in the House." And, after a similar declara-
tion from others, Mr. Calvin said that 'he ilid not believe a
member in the House wished to support sectarian colleges. He
believed that by voting against the amendment he best evinced his

ouaM
high
session
[it the
the
solved
hinul-
Gov-
1 this
voted
■nomi-
1, fo!'
^en or
tariiiii
ichtra-
leve a
He
■d his

determination to opj)ose these grants." It follows, then, that the
House was unanimously oi)posed to the principle of granting State
aid to denominational colleges.

Does not this plain statement of the facts show how disingenuous
is the averment that tlie action of the first Le<,'islatiire of Ontaiio
was hasty and unconsidered, and due to the eftbrts of the graduates
and friends of the University of Toronto l Have I not established
that the result in question whs the act of a Government containing
not one graduate of Toronto University, and not numbering among
its general 8U])porters, as I believe, a single graduate of that
institution ; that it was unanimously agreed to by the Legislature,
and that after a year of agitation and preparation th(> attempt on
the part of the denominational colU'ges to reveise the policy was
unanimously repelled 1 Who are those who presume to aver that
the peojjle of Ontario did ncit desire and approve of the action so
taken in their name by their elected representatives 1 What
fuller or more satisfactory proof of the jtolicy being theiis then can
be given than my recital atibrds ? What fuller proof of the policy
being still theirs can be given than the fact that the few advocates
of a diflerent policy have never for sixteen years once ventured to
raise their heads in its defence 1

Yours, tfec,

January 9, 1884. HISTORIOUS.

THE SECTARIAN v. THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OK

EDUCATION.

7'o the Editor of the Mail.
Sir,- -The present discussion on the Univei-sity Question has not
only evoked the latent hostility of the sectarian colleges to the
Provincial University, but it has also disclosed the fact that the
various parts of our national system of education are threatened
with attack from the same quai'ter. Tiue, some of those who are
opposed to the claims of the Provincial L^niversity profess con-
fidence in the system of Public and High Schools, and would not
object to further aid to the State Univei-sity were they restored to
the favours they enjoyed under the old Province of Canada.
Others, however, entertaining no such expectations, openly avow

theii- hostility, not only to the University but to the Public
Schools. To the latter belongs the Anglican High Church party,
who, driven into the obscurity of Trinity College, and indifferent
to the growth of our national system of education, can see no
connection between its various component parts from the Public
School to the University. This party evidently sighs for a return
of the good old times of Bishop Strachan. Apparently, too, the
existence of the Separate Schools has led them to believe that the
national system not only lacks cohesion, but that a denominational
secession is all that is required to dissif)ate a treasure which has
cost the country many a struggle to amass. Now, without ex-
pressing any opinion, favourable or otherwise, on the action of the
Legislatiire of the old Provin(;e of Canada in granting Separate
Schools to the Koman (Jutholics, 1 de.sii"e to point out that this
juivilege is secured to them by the Act of (Confederation, and that
in i-espect of this privilege the Roman Catholics are on a diffei'ent
footing from other (](!noniinations, inasmuch as the Legislature of
Ontario could not interfere with them if it would. With this
exception, however, tlie Lc^gislature of Ontario has supreme control
of educational matter.s : and notwithstanding the existence of Sepa-
rate Schools, it is nc!vertheless substantially true that we have
a complete national system of education, commencing at the Public
Schools, and ending at the University, as the following statistics
amply prove : —

1. In the year 16^\ the number of pii|)ils attending the Public
Schools was I76,2()8 ; the number of Ivoiuan Catholic pupils at-
tending the Separate Schools, was "24,81 SJ, whilst there were 50,533
Roman Catholic pupils attending the Public Schools.

2. The Public Schools number 5,238, and the Sepai'ate Schools
195. In the former there are (5,922 teachers and in the latter 374.
Of the teachers in the Separate Schools, it is to be I'emarked that
most of them have attended the Normal or Model Schools ; whilst
many of the Public School teachers are Roman Catholics.

3. There are 104 High Schools with 13,136 pupils and 333
teachers.

4. There are two Normal Schools, and one University.

Now, as the above figures amply show, notwithstanding the privi-
lege confirmed to them by the Act of Confederation, the Roman

Public
)ila at-

id 33:5

e pnvi-
Rornau

CatbbolicB have to a very considerable extent recognized the Public
School system. More than two-thirds of their children attend the
Public Schools ; less than one-third the Separate Schools. And the
Public School Hvsteni may receive even a larger measure of support
especially in the rural districts, as Roman Catholics become more and
more persuaded that it is strictly non-denominational, and posses-
ses, from financial considerations, advantages which the Separate
Schools cannot offer except in cities and towns. In the action of
the Legislature in withdrawing grants from the denominational
colleges, in 1868, the Roman Catholics acquiesced, and they now
loyally recognize the High Schools, the Normal Schools, and the
University. In view, therefore, of the foregoing facts and consid-
erations one is amply justified in affirming that we have substanti-
ally a national system of education, complete and continuous, ex-
tending from the Public Schools to the University. And it is in
respect of this systeu) that certain ecclesiastics now desire to raise
the question whether it is to be retained in its integrity, as it at
present exists, or is to be weakened and ultimately destroyed by
incorporating with it more and more the elements of a denomina-
tional system. Even the least aggressive of these opponents advo-
cate measures which would be destructive to the giowth of the na-
tional system and fatal to its higher development. They have
written much and spoken loudly about the necessity for one uni-
versity founded on a basis which would recognize tlie work of all
the denominational colleges ; and, without giving one useful hint,
they have suggested that it is the duty of the Legislature to under-
take the task of devising such a scheme. Now, it is well to re-
mind those who propose this course of pioceeding that it 'has been
recommended before, and the Legislature emphatically declined to
undertake the task. Is it not odd that now, as in 1868, the very
men who know the enormous difficulty, if not imi)ossil)ility, of de-
vising a scheme of affiliation which would not impair the elevated
standard of graduation at the Provincial University, urge the Leg-
islature to pledge itself to solve the difficulty 1 What scheme has
ever been suggested in which the real difficulties surrounding the
question of an elevated standard of graduation have been even con-
sidered 1 The j)lan of ♦^^he Commissioners in 1862 recommended the
partition of the endowment. That was the " common platform " on

which the weakest college was to unite with the strongest ; whilst
the question whether the standard was to be elevated or depressed
was one which it was thought might be comfortably settled by a
senate composed of eight representatives f^om the denominational
colleges, two from University College, and five nominated by the
Crown. Pray, is that the " wise and patriotic " plan which the
advocates of the denominational colleges have still in view I Or is
it one of the many indefinite schemes to which their friends in the
House referred in 1868, but which they failed to submit for consi-
deration, although urgently pressed to do so 1 Ever since that
date there have been vague references to a workable plan, but none
has yet appeared which will stand criticism ; and we are still, in
this matter, where we were in 1808, when, as I have already stat-
ed, an attempt was made to commit the Legislature to undertake a
task impossible for it, in the belief that some ailvantage would
come to tht* denominational colleges. But independently of the
difficulty of arranging the details of such a scheme, there is the
further and more importiint question of the danger of initiating a
policy which would lead to the multiplication of aspirants for Leg-
islative aid, and open the door to all sorts of political and ecclesias-
tical compacts. If denominational colleges are to be recognized,
on what principle is the Legislature to proceed? Is the Anglican
High Church party at 'i'rinity to be aided whilst the Anglican Low
Church party at Wyclift'e pi-otests ? What would be the respective
claims of the Western University which has recently got a charter,
and Woodstock College, which is equally entitled thereto? Is
Queen's College to be recognized in spite of the protests ot the
great bulk of the Presbyterians? And what aie to be the claims
of the Methodists, the Baptists, the Friends, and other Protestant
sects possessing educational institutions ? And what of the Roman
Catholics ? Is it imagined that under such a system the Roman
Catholics with their political influence would be content with aid
to their colleges at Toronto and Ottawa, and would not ask aid for
Regiopolis and L'Assomption, and demand the establishment of Sep-
arate High and Normal schools I Is this the policy which the Leg-
islature is asked to inaugurate ? Do we not remember the assaults
made on the Local Government by the Orange Vtody and other op-
ponents who accused them of pandering to the Roman Catholics 1

Have we forgotten the complaints of the syHtem of granting aid to
charitieH (although it seems to he based on general and just
principles) because of the amount received by the Roman Catholic
institutions'? When one remembers that the question of amount
ot aid to a college or tinivej-sity must always be depended on many
considerations besides that of numbers, and in deciding which it is
so diflScult to establish, and so much more difficult to act on, a prin-
ciple of efficiency, can any one doubt that there would be endless
trouble as between the different sects, and that the odium, theologi-
cum would introduce into our politics a new element of bitterness
and discord which would be fatal alike to good government and the
interests of higher education 1 Is it not then clearly the duty of
Parliament to maintain by its legislation and encourage by its ma-
terial aid the efficiency and development of the national and non-
denominational system ?

HISTORICUS.
January yth, 1884.

ler op-
Iholics 1

UNIVERSITY EQUIPMP:NT AN1> FEES.

8iR, — Although posae.ssing great respect for some of the denom-
inational colleges of this Province, and thoroughly recognizing the
high qualificatious and carefrl vork of two or three gentlemen
who till chairs in Victoria and Queen's, yet, under the present cir-
cumstances, I cannot refrain from exj>r<!HHiag my views on the
question of State aid to the University of Toronto and University
College in oppositioa to the vigorous and emphatic protests made
V)y some of the professors and friends of the denominntional col-
leges. With your permission, I shall ivfer to a few points of the
case, and in connection therewith lay before your readers a brief
statement of facts and figures that may he pertinent to the subject
in hand.

Rev. Principal Grant in his address at the opening exercises of
Queen's Theological School opposed legislative aid to University
College, and, as one method of increasing the income of that col-
lege, he proposed that the students' fees should be greatly ijicreased.
In making the statement that the fees at present exacted by Uni-
versity (/'ollege are too small and should be raised. Dr. Grant said,

" Indeed I wuuld vote for putting up such a fence in the hope that
it would keep some men from coming to college."

Now, Sir, it in my desire to call the attention of the people of
this Province to Dr. Grant's statement as above quoted. Think of
it, you who have been led to regard the Principal of tjueen's Uni-
versity as a liberal gentleuaan ! The head of a university and a
Professor ot Divinity in the most deliberate and decided manner
declares himst'lf in favour of a money qualification on the part of
candidates for a colhigf education ! In other words, Principal
Grant has publicly (3X|)resssd his opinion that the sons of the rich
alone should receive u training in colleges, and that all those who
have not a well-lined pur.se, however eligible in other respects,
should be fenced out, and deprived of the advantages atforded by a
properly equipped college.

Then, notwithstanding the fact that the fees of Toronto Univer-
sity and College are no higher than the fees of Victoria University
and College, Prof. Uurwash, in his letter of 8th ult., writes in a
similar strain, declaring the fees of the Provincial University and
College to be too low, " almost free " tuition, although, strange to
say, farther on in the same communication he admits that the fees
of the denominational colleges are '• somewhat onerous."

And again, I am am.i/ed and grieved to read in the public prints
the text of a most extraordinary resolution carried by the Method-
ist Confererence Commission lately assembled in this city. That
resolution charges the authorities of Toronto University and Col-
lege with " a luck of ecououiical and ju Ucious management of the
haancial affairs of the aforesaid institutions, notably in the matter
of tuition fees," jfec. The speeches in support of this resolution
contained some strong language.

Now, Sir, I am anxious to emphasize this matter. There ought
not to be any qualitications other than intellectual and moral look-
ed for or recjuired by any institution of learning worthy the name ;
or if, from want of sutticient income, the authorities should find
themselves obliged to exact a fee, such fee should be as small as
possible, merely nominal, and most certainly not so large as to
enter in the most remote degree into the question whether or not
any candidate for university, secondary, or primary instruction
shall be allowed to attend school or college. I go with Rev. Prin-

cipal Cftven and Mr. W. J. Robertson, both of whom (the one a
Prefibyterian and the other a Methodist) liavo written clearly and
forcibly upon this point. Wlien one thinks of the numbers of
University men of the middle classes and the poor who so ably
discharge the functions of high oHices, and who, through hu;!? of
means, could never, by any muount of striving and struggling have
been able to pay their way through Ilarvard, the rich man's col-
lege, he is forced to the conclusion that s«ciety and the State do
receive marked benefits in return for the free education furnished.
Nor does Ontario in her ett'orts to maintain and develoji numerous
Public Schools, fewer High Schools, yet fewer Collegiate Insti-
tutes, and one University, occupy a unicpie position. We are not
by any means alone. There can be given numerous examples of
State Universities in Europe and America, many of whi(;h stand
head and shoulders above the denominational colleges of Ontario,
and some of which (I say it with regret) are undoul)tedly in pos-
session of more ample endowments and more coinpI(>te e«|uipmentH
than those of our Provincial University. Moreover, if the charge,
so seriously made, be true that the authorities of the University of
Toronto and its teaching College arc guilty of 'gross mismanage-
ment" (as some of the sjieakers and writers have assertefl), " not-
ably in the matter of fees," then a grt^at many other college and
university authorities are likewise guilty ot a similar chaige, as
the following analysis will fully show : — The figures here represent
the Arts and Science departnuMits taken together. No professor or
tutor is counted if he belong to the faculties of Law, Medicine, or
Theology. The word '' tutors " is employeil to denote instructors,
lecturers, and jissociate, assistant, or adjunct i)rofessors. Since the
number of students varies from year to year I give, in round num-
bers, the average attendance in Arts and Scitiices during the |)ast
two or three years : —

Profewont.

TutorH,

HtudenU.

Tuition Kwt, *c.

Yale

820

$140.00

Oberlin

320

10.25

Cornell

500

75.00 or

luilligh

120

McGiU

200

22.25

DlllllOUHio

120

21.00

New BruuHwick 6

23. 1 7

MiHSomi

500

11.25

Towa

250

25.00 or

Wisconsin

330

18.00 or

Michigan

'2 '2

600

25.00 or 6.25

Virginia

350

25.00 or

California

220

31.25 or

Indiana

180

Mississippi

200

Ohio

250

Toronto*

400

28.75

Victoria

130

28.75

Queen's

175

27.00 to 33.00

More examples could be cited, but a sufficient number is given
to prove that the Provincial University and College are far
behind in endowment and in the number of professors ; that
the fees of these institutions, instead of being too small, are actu-
ally too great, practically the same as those of Queen's, and pre-
cisely the same as those of Victoria (which are admitted to be
" somewhat onerous " to the students) ; and that, if any change is
to be made in the matter of fees, it ought to be one of reduction
and not increase.

Yours very respectfully,

HENRY MONTGOMERY.
Toronto, Dec. 8th, 1883.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.
Sir, — Your issue of 2l8t ult. contains a communication from
Rev. Prof. Burwash which is offered as a reply to my letter of the

* There are also 8 Fellows.

from
lof the

8th. That gontlonuMi hiivinj;; minihored the pointB tfiken iip, I
hIdiII <1o!i1 with thcni in the siiiiic onlcr.

1. It is Htddoiu that two i'()lh'i,'t'H uho the It'iin " incidentaU " in
vxactly the Haine HenHe. Theretore, in oiih'i- pioperly to compare
the f'ceH of any txfo ^iven colleges one innut know the full aignifi-
uanee attached to the term hy each of them. In the ulmenco of
«ii('h iiiforniatiou I liave given Victoriii the l)rne(it of the inci(K'iit-
als, and, lo ! the total icsnltM for tour years are one and the «am«'
in Itoth coilegeN, viz., 811"». Hut j think tht- (puistion of alluring
stuileutH to Turoiitu i.s iuconiph'tely ctMLsidered unleisM wo compare
the coHt of hoard, nxiUis, etc., in Toioiilo, ('(jliourg. Hellevilh' and
Kingston. As Prof. Burwash says of " tees for tuition, incidentals,
graduation, exaniinations," "all are paid by the students." so umy
we say respecting lioiird, rooui rent, and other necessaries. Then,
let us compute the entire cost to the student each year in ( 'ohourg
and Toronto respectively, and the chargt- uuide hy the ( !onference
( 'ommihsion, and reiterated in numerouH addresses and lotttns, now
Itecomes converted from tin," gaseous to the v'Xtra-ga.seous condition.
IJy the way, Ih: Sutherland appearecl to take a difhueut view from
that last |)roniuIgate(l hy Prof. IJurwasli, for he ouiitted incidentals,
matriculation, graduation and examination fees from his calcula-
tions in the case of Toionto University.

2. To the statement that the endowments of the institutionH
mentioned in my letter are .so am|)le that tiie said institutions do
not need to exact fees, I have hut to answer, " That is just the
sort of endowment needed l)y IJniveisity T'ollege, and by any uni-
versity suited to meet the wants of the people of any Province or
State in North America."

In 3 and 4 Prof. Burwash says: — "The fact that fourteen or
tifteen American colleges out of 370 offer free, or neaily fi-ee, in-
struction, is no pioof that such a course is in the best interests of
the State or of the .student, or just to thegi-eat body of the citizens.
Some of these institutions may be forced, like Victoria and Queen's,
by the competition of a richly endowed State university, to reduce
their fees to the common level, and even to make temporary pro-
vision for scholarships. Others, like Dalhousie and Toronto, may
take advRutat'c of their rich cudowmtiiti; to drive lees fortunate

rivals out of the fn'M, as a wealtliy capitalist Homotimfs sells goods
below I'OKt to seeure in the end a monopoly of th<^ trade."

And again in the Tith paragraph, I'rof. Hnrwash says that the
txaiiiplc of Yale, Trinity, Laval, Edinburgh, and llelfast "is abun-
ilant pr(K)f that fi-es are ndl inconsistent witli a reasonable provision
of higlier education." Ah I F thought Dr. Sutherland and otheis
had a.sserted that the fees of Victoria and Queen's were far above
•' the coninum level." And why have the fees bc(Mi redueed ?
< Might evil to lie done that good nuiy conie ? Sii-, is there not a
sli<dit tinse of uneharitableness in thus fit civ attributin'' such mo
tives to the a>ithoriti<s of Toronto, Oalhousie. and othei- colleges I
Is not Principal Orant one of the (lOvernors of Dalhousit; ? And,
did nor Pi'inc ipal (Irant lately express his pleasure and pride in
being a member of that lioaid which Prof. I>urwash has accre-
dited with unworthy motives ( As to the scholarship (Question
gratuitously thrown in here in re)»ly to a letter which contained
no reference whatever to scliolarships, f have to expn'.ss the opin-
ion that it cannot piope'v enter into this disc-ussion. The sum
l)aid out by Toronto Utiiversity for scholai ihip purposes is very
small, so small that it would be only "a drop in the bucket" if
applied to the equipment of the six new chairs absolutely essential
to put the University on a proj)er footing. However, since it has
iieen introduced, and since tin- whole subject of fees, scholarshijis,
and fellowships is one of money, i.e., a scheme by which an appeal
to the fjegislature may be rendered uniu'ce.s.sary, I would re.s|)ect
ftdly suggest that Prof. Burwash, who (]uotes Yule and Harvard
as the gi'eat authorities on the subject of fees, should also quote
these same universities on the suiije(!t of scholarships and fellow
ships. It iiiay be in place for him to give a detailed accotint of
their premiums ; their 8100, .$200 atul S-'^iO ju'izes ; their medals.
scholarshi£)s, and S()0(), SlSOO and $1,000 fellowships, in his next
letter.

Again, it is somewhat remarkable that to Piof. Btirwash thi
"fact that fifteen colleges offer free instruction is no proof that
such a course is just," while the example of oidy tive colleges,
which he names, " is aSun'iant pr;;of " of the oi)})osite. The fees
of Laval University [$'Mj) are only $\.'2^ more than in Toronto.
Is there " :<buudant proof " here 1 Trinity, T tirraly and respect

fully decline to accept an an authority. How cau a college having
no uioie than $12,000 oi- .SIT), 000 annual income live without fees 1
If the statistics given Ijy " Pi " are correct, Trinity has only
thirty-three students in attendance in Arts this session. Do the
high fees account for the small number of students in attendance?
Is this " abundant proof?" The examples cited Ijy n\e are of good
standing, while a very large number of the rest of the 370 colleges
spoken of by Prof. Burwash as existing in the ITnited States are
nothing but l)adly equipped one-horse colleges, some of them being
denominational and sonif private institutions. Only four or live of
those not under the control of the State Iiave ever amounted to
anytliing. Ofthe.se, Harvaid, Yale, and Columbia had theii- origin
long iigo in the early days of America. They set out with an
endowment that happened to be large considering the age and
popuhition of the cuuniry. The springs of benevolence flowed into
two of them (mark, it was not systemati<' canvassing whicii aided
them), and in a long period of years tln-y grew up to Ite wealthy
and influential. But tlu' jtooi' man has had a poor chance in them ;
and in New York City, with two universities that were largely
denominational, Columbia ColKige and the "University of New
York,'' it has been found necessary to organi:.." the '* College of
the City of New York," wliich is dir^^ctly responsible to the
citizens, and in which instruction is absolutely free to hojta Jidf
residents of the city.

The late Mr. Johns Ho])kins gave such a large sum of money to
found the university which bears his name, th;it the trustees of that
itnivtM'sity aie enabled to make it a success without appealing to
the j)ublic or to their friends for a.ssistance, as Principal (Jrant has
incorrectly stated.

h would be a l)reach of academic etiquette to nainr any piii--
ticular colleges of the 370 whicli one would i'e;rard as badly
e(juipped, but I may be ])ermitted to remark that last year in a
certain Anieiican University there was a Professor of French.
(Jerman, Physics, Chemistry. Ueology, and .Mineralogy, wlio was
likewise Director of the Laboratory, and for his siTvices he re
ceived an annua! salary of .*?l,r)00 I .'\nother university, also in
an old and well settled State, had no profes.iorshii* in Knglish
or any of the modern language's ! J refu.se to acknowledge such as

institutions whose example in fees we would do well to imitate.

Let Prof. Burwash leave " the great body of the citizens " to
decide for themselves whether or not "such a course is just" to
them. The " great body of the citizens " have repeatedly declared
themselves in favour of such a course. The universities enumerated
by me are not only of high standing, having connected with them
such distinguished gentlemen as LeConte, DeVere, Mallet, White,
Wilder, Winchell, Williams, Stone, Orton, and Jordan, but also
institutions that are essentially ])0piilar. They have been estab-
lished and equipjjed by the representatives of the great majority
of the citizens of their lespective States, and they are governed by
trustees who are elected at regular inttavals by populai' vote.

The 6th and 7th paragraphs of Prof. Burwash's letter are rather
vague. At all events, the Gth requires exi)lanation and proof.
It is but a theory, and not an axiom. All education is com-
parative ; and it ill becomes anyone to say, " Thus far shalt thou
go and no farther." He might chance to say it to one who was his
superior, for all minds aie not equal although all should liavc-
equal opportunities for development. If the function of a Parlia-
ment or Legislature is to promote the prosperity of the nation, it
umst encourage the highest intellectual and moral culture, bccaust;
a nation cannot make material progre.ss without the aid of that
culture, and it ought not to be content with borroweil or rtitiected
light. It should possess a lamj) of its own, trinnned, and adapted
to its own atmosphere and soil, one that would shine on and give
impulse to public school instruction as well as to all trades, pro-
fessions and departments of lile.

In the concluding note there would seem to hv i mi take. Dr.
Dewart has asked for proof that University College is in need of
aid. Prof Burwash has here given ample and convincing proof, if
his statement be correct that " moderns," /. e. French, German, and
Italian are in charge of the A.ssistant to the Profes.sor of English.
\\\ readily admit ihiit l^nisiMsiiy College needs money for im-
proving the department of modern languaijtes, but there is no
necessity for putting thr case in .so strong a light as thai m which
our esteemed critic has prest'ntetl it. The ' moderns " in Toionto
ai-e not, and have not been, assigned to an a.ssistant ; Fiench and
Cerman are in charge of two intit uendent lecturers. Furtherinorf.

it is difficult to admire the method adopted in treating of the
Professorshij) of Modern Liuigvia^ns and English Literature in
Victoria. The writer criticised by Prof. Buj-wawh, instead of
stating that the " Modern Languages and F^nglish Literature are
taught l)y the Professor of Bildical and Ecclesiastical History,"
ought to have stated that " Biblical and Ecclesiastical History are
taught by the Frofes.sor of Modern Languages and English
Tjiteratuie." And this is tantamount to saving that there is about
one-(|uarter or on<;-liftli of the Pi'otessor's time devoted to each of
the sub-dejiai'tments therein c(jntained. The English Languagi! is
certaiidy of sutticient importance to require the undivided attention
of one fiill Professor ; and no University which pretends to stand
in the front or even the second rank on this continent can ati'ord to
be without a Chair of the South European Languages, a Chair of
North European Languages, and one of History. In the Victoria
announcement for last year it is recorded that the President is
Pr )fessor of Mental and Moral Philosophy, Logic, and the Evi-
dences of Religion, and also Professor of Apologetics and Homi-
letics in the Faculty of Theology. Sui-ely it cannot with fairness
be claimed that there is more than oue-tifth or one-sixth of a
Professor to each of the aforesaid subjects.

HENKY MONTGOMERY.

is no
kvhieh
jroiito
|i and

III lore.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

To the Editor of the Mail.

Sir, — In support of the cause of legislative aid to the Provincial
University, 1 beg to suomit the following ; —

I. University education should be furnished by the State.

(a) Any argument that can be adduced in favour of the State
supplying primary etlucatiou. has ('(jual force in the ca.se of higher
education, for tlaa-e are no ilistinct boundary lines separating prim-
ary, secondary and university education. The classiHc-ation is
made merely for convenience sake, an<l iu)t becau.se tliei'e is any
true, natural line of separation. If there is a natural dividing
line, who will take upon himself to determine the exact location
of that line and give his reasons for the determination thereof f

(b) Tke State should provide university education, liecause it

can be done much more economically bji a union ot forces than it
can be done by the denominations separately. Accommodation
and appliances for advanced studies in many subjects are very cost-
ly, therefore a dujilication of them is undefiirable, unless it can be
shown that the number of cundidates for university instruction is
very great, say 2,500 or 3,000, iind that the financial condition of
the Province is such as to justify the expenditure of monies in this
way. The University of Munich has alwut 2,000 students, Har-
vard has 1,000, Yale has 800, the (College of the City of New
York has over 800 students, and yet their teaching is satisfactory,
and no one thinks of establishing separate colleges to accommodate
these students. In (Ontario there are only about 700 university
students altogether ; hence, it can hardly yet be thought that the
province has reached that point at which it woulil be needful to
found a second college, much less a third or fouitli.

(o) Better rt^sults are ol)tained. The members and adherents
of all the various religious denominations unite to select from all
these denominations men best qualified to compose a board oi- senate
for the regulation and direction of higher education. The higher
the education sought to be imparted, the fewer are the persons
truly qualified to constitute a senate for the purpose of selecting
teachers, framing statutes, and otherwi.se aiding ii; the guidance
and control of such education. Consequently, it becinues Ut cessary
to search amongst all denominations for wise, experienced, and
able men, fitted in the highest degree to become the guardians of
this important tiust. And it is even more necessary that the
Held from which the professors and other instructors are chosen
should be a wide one. There is no distincton between Methodist
Mathematics and Presbyterian Mathematics, or between Episco-
palian and Baptist Botany. There is nothing in the nature of the
ordinary subjects of education which can be taken as a reason why
a professor of one denomination may not give instructions in any
of these subjects to students of oUu^r denominations. In the sec-
ond place, it is altog«lliei' unlikely tiiat any single denomination
possesses within itself a r'omplete staff of j)rof'essors eminent above
all otluu's in the country, not only in one or two tiepartments, but
also in everyone of the departments of learning for which provision
must be made in a tii-st, or even a second, class university And

71)

again, bottor results arc ohtaineil because the inenibers of tlie classes
are drawn from all the dt-noniinations. Thtu-e is a niuoh greater
varicity of talent in such a class of students. Each uiind in turn
is whetted, expanded and liberalized by coming in contact with
others superior in some particular Kubjtrt or line of thought. The
union of the religious sects in the study of the bran<;hes taught in
schools and colleges is conducive to mental activity, liberality and
charity.

(d) it is the duty of the State to aim at the development of
the people to the highest po.ssibl(! point intellectually and morally
as well as jiliysically. Without unrlut! interference with liomeaufl
family training, the State should make as full provision for carry-
ing on this work of development a,s the finances and retjuirements
of the country will allow.

2. State education should be practically free, in mih-r that the
brightest and strongest minds of the nation (the pour and middle
<'lasses no less than the rich) may be drawn out and fitted to do
service to the country.

Many examjiles could be cit<>d of individuals drawn from the
ranks, of the middle or 'Ovirer classes, who, without educational facili-
ties, woJild, in all prol>ability, have become " mute inglorious Mil-
Ions." or " guiltless ( "romwells," but, by education they became orna-
ments and blessings to their country. In this connection it may be
remarked, in passing, thiit an education which unfits a man for per-^
forming manual labour that may :it any time come in his way in
this new country, is a false education ; and ?io one may be misled
by remarks concerning it.

In my letter of Sth inst. I mentioned a ntimber of imiversities
in which instruction is free, oi- nearly free, (^f the fees charged
l)y universities having private or church endownu'ut I have little
to say. A private citizen is ai liberty to found a college upon
whatever basis may be in accord with his views or whim«. The
citizens of the State have no right to object to that basis ; ntdther
are they always bound to respect it. It may or may not meet
with the approval of the majority of the citizens, or of those whose
opinion is worth having vipon such matters. In short, a college
of this kind is tuider no obligation to provide free instruction for
the people, although some of them do so. Hence, I have quoted

universities that are not only in most instances of high standing,
having now, or having had, upon their professorial roils such
names as MaHet, iJoreuuis, Gildersleeve, (jiinian, DeVere, LeConte,
Stone, Winchell, Goldwiii Smith, White, Wilder and Orton, but
also univtirsitifs th.at are of the people and for the people, founded,
supported and controlled directly by the people ; their Senate.
Trustees or Regents being elected by popular vote at intervals of
from three to live years. Suiely the decisions of authorities wise
enough to select such gentlemen to till chairs in their colleges, and
authorities who are themselves the choice of the people of their
respective States, ought to merit our thoughtful consideration.
With regartl to British and European universities ipiote<l Ijy
writeiu in this controversy, it inusi l)e remembered that tiiey were
organized in other ages, and under conditions vt^ry (iifl'tjrent, from
those which ol)tain in Ontario. Indeed, viewing tht- interests o1
the people as a whole, very few of those universities have produced
satisfactory residts. Accordingly, J look to this continent for the
solution of the great problem of popular education.

3. The only limit to the development of the educational system
of a country is to be fouiul in her resovirces. A college income
that may be comparatively lai-ge and creditable in a country's in-
fancy, will, in all likelihood, be far fiom sullicient when that
country shall have grown populous and wealthy. This has been
the case iu other countries, and why may we not expect it in this
province 1

4. At present the Ontario Provincial Univei'sity stands in
great need of nu^aus for the istal)lishuuMit and equipment of sev-
eral chains, i do not mean to say that money is not needed by
her for other purposes, for (as was suggested by others as well as
myself two or three years ago) it most certainly is required for
placing the two museums in a condition satisfHctory at once to the
public at large and to the University graduates and undergriidu-
ates, without renu)ving thini from the supervisu)n of the Senate,
which rt^presents so large a constituency, and in whose delibera-
tions the voice of the grailuates is heard. Money is likewise need-
ed for enlarging and remodelling the libiary, as also for the erection
of an examination hall. But in this communication 1 shall confine
my atlcutiou riiieily to thu iicceasity thi^^ ciiats for the creation of

til is

8 in
sev-

1 as

toi

thf

,i(hi-

lliltC.

icra-
iced-
;tion
ifiiib
)ii of

atlrlitioiial cliniis in ihv University. To this end I set before your
reailt'i's, espfciiilly tliosc not intiiniitfly acqiiaintod witli university
work, tlie foUowiiiff stiitcnient, which sjieaks for itself. With the
exception of Yale and Lehij^h, all the universities named are sup-
})orted and controlled l)y the State, and nil, except Yale, offer
free instruction. They aie supplied with libraries, laboratories
and nnisi'unis, some of which ar(> exceedintfly j^ood. The annual
salary of their professors would probably average about $3,000 : — *
University of Wisconsin (State En<lownient) :— ;>0() students ;
1 Piofessor of English, 1 Professor of Mathematics, who is also
Vice-President of the University ; 1 Professor of Astronomy, 1
Pi'ofessor of Physics, 1 Professor of Latin and History, 1 Professor
of (I reek, 1 Professor of French, 1 Professor of fJerman, 1 Professor
of the Scandinavian Languages, 1 Piofessor of Rhetoric and (ora-
tory, 1 Professor of Civil Polity anil Political Economy, 1 Profes-
sor of Mental end Moral Philosophy, who is also Pr<;.sident of the
University ; 1 Professoi' of ( "heuiistry. 1 Proiessor of Agriculttiral
Chemistry, 1 Profes,sor of P>otaiiy, 1 Frofi'sstu- of Znology, 1 Pro-
fessor of (ieology and Mineralogy, 1 Professor of Agriculture, I
Pi-otessor of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. in addition to
these 19 Professors, there ar*^ i assistant Professors and 8 tutors
in Latin, (xreek, French, (iernian. Mathematics, Botany, Metall-
urgy, and Mechanics. There are also departments of Law and
Pharniaciy, with theii- leipiired Professors.

Observe that, while in other universities aforenamed, the de])art-
ment of E^nglish has a Professor (in Yale theire are 3) who devotes
his entire time to the duties of this department, and in some cases the
Professor is assisted by two or three tutors, in Toronto Univeifiity
College, Hi.story, Ethnology, and the Englisli Language and Litera-
ture are in charge of 1 Professor an<l 1 Tutor, and at the same time
this Professor fills the office of President. Li University College
there are only 1 Professor and 'I Tutors for Mathematics, Astrono-
my, and Physics ; whereas, in the State University of Michigan
there are 3 Professors and 2 Tutors, in Wisconsin Lhiiversity 3
Professors and 2 Tutors, in California ITniversity 3 Professors and
3 Tutors, Cornell University 3 Professors and 3 Tutors, Virginia

* For want nf space the statistics relating to the other universities arc
omitted.

University 3 Profossors and 3 Tutors, Columbia College 3 Profes-
sors and TiitniH. and Yale University 5 Professors and 6 Tutors
for these subjects. University College has 1 Professor and 1 Tutor
for Latin and (ireek. Indiana University has '1 Professors and 1
Tutor, Towa University has 1' Professors and '1 Tutors, Michis'an
(Tniv(!rsity has 2 Full Professors, 2 Associate Professors, and 1
Tutor, and Yale University has 5 Profissors, i Assistant Professor,
and 3 'i'utors for these subjects. Wisconsin University has 2
I'rot'cssors, 2 Assistant Piofe.ssors, and 1 Tutor for Greek, Latin,
and History ; and Virginia Uiiivetsity lias 2 Professors and 3
'i'utors foi' (rreek, Latin, an<l Hebrew,

Anil again, it nii v l)e noticed that each of the subjects. History,
( 'ivil Polity, and Political Economy, North European Langiuiges,
South Euroi»eaii Languages, Psychology, jNloral Philoso])hy, Bo-
tany, (ieology. Piiysiology. and Hygiene, Mineralogy, Zoology and
( 'omparative Anatomy, Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engi-
neering, has one or more Professors and several Tutors, while in
University ( 'nUege fither the subjects are entirely wanting or else
two or more oi tl.em are ))laced in charge of one Professor.

hi conclusioi!, Sii, I would say that the list, given in this and
my formei' letter, of Universities maiut-iined and controlled by the
State, in ])ossession of good equi)jnients, and furnishing free in-
struction, is by no means exhausted. If necessary, others can be
brought Forward. T have chosen some of the best in Ameiica
because, it has st emed to me that Ontario ought not to copy after
inferior models. I have chosen some of the Western Universities,
for examjile, those of iNlichigan and Wisconsin, for the reason that
from the age and geogiaj-hical position of these States their
(Mlucational institutions may oe legitimately compared with ours.
And the comparison apj)ears eminently calculated to prove the
truth of the pro])ositions : (1) That it is the duty of the State to
provide Univensity education ; (2) That this education should be
free; (3) That tiiis education should be pi'ogressive, developing
with the country and assisting to develop the country; and (4)
That the State Uiiiver.sity of Ontario is in pressing need of aid.

With many thanks for your kiiiihiess in pul)lishing these letters,
and for the noble stand you ha\e taken in th<' intei-ests of higher
F'1u<ation. I am, yours, d'c,

Toronto, Dec. 2Dtb, 1883. HENEY MONTGOMERY.

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.
Tu the Editor of the Mall.

Sir, — Dr. Grrant has said, " F'^vt'ryone tiow ailinits that Ontario
not only has, but it needs several eullegcs." " No one now tireains
that one college is sufficient lor Ontario." " Had it not l)een I'oi
the existence of the outside colleges, the State woidd have had Ut
establish others before this, either in Toronto or elsewhere, just as
it had to establish a Normal school in Ottawa in addition to the
one in Toronto," " IMore than one college is needed in Ontario."
And because " Oxford and Cambridge have between twenty ami
thirty colleges each," Ontario needs the denominational colleges
that at present exist in Kingston, Cobourg, Belleville, and Toronto.
An anonymous correspondent has also recently quoted Dr. Grant's
" Normal School " argument in suppo' '. of the view that Ontario
needs the denominational colleges in addition to [Jniversity (Joilege.

My o|)inion is that neither the " Oxfoi-d and Cambridge " nor
the " Normal School " argument is of the slightest importance in
the present discussion. What if Oxford and Cambiidge have each
twenty or more colleges? These colleges are all clustered in the
same city, thus avoiding the unnecessary expense, aye, exti'ava-
gance of duplicating the library, etc. In the second place, he who
knows anything of the system of professorships and tutorsliips in
Oxford and Cambridge, knows full well that it canuet be adopted
here, if for no other reason than that Ontario lias not the means to
pay a large staff' of Professois who do little or no teaching, in ad-
dition to the Tutors, Lecturers, and Professors who do the work.
And, in the third place, Oxford and Cambridge, however excellent
in some respects, are the products of centuries ; until of late they
had " sectarian tests," and they have been surrounded by many
conditions and influences which ai'e not likely ever to exist in this
province. Let it not be forgotten, however, that the fact of a num
ber of colleges being located in the same town in England, and
having one magnificent Bodleian library, as well as other things,
in common, can give no sanction to a scheme that woidd l»uihl up
five or six colleges in Ontario at distances that must necessitate a
multiplication of libraries, museums, and appliances. With refer
ence to the " Normal School " argimient, I desire to stat j that it
may be needful to establish t ^o Normal Schools in Ontario, and

.S4

yet not 1)0 needful to estaMisli two collcj^'cs for more advimrcd or
uuiverHity iiiHtructioii. MctiipliyHicH, Logif, MiiK-nilof^y, (Jeolo^y,
(lerinan, Freiicli, liHtin. nnd tlie liiglier portions of MtitlienifiticH,
Physics, Botany, Kajflinli, and other Hul)j('ct.s, niiist lie tauglit in a
college i)retendiiig to <,dve courses for degrees in Arts and Sciences :
but these are not taught in Nonnal Sdiools. The weak of a Nor-
mal School, as everyone knows, is the tiaining of teachers foi- the
primary or Puhlic Schools. Pulilic Schools are necisssariiy numer-
ous ; therefore their teachers must lie numerous (nearly 7,000),
and hence a reason for the estahlishnuMit of a second Nornud School
in Ontario. The work of a Normal School, as compared with that
of a university, is elementary, and the c(iuipment reqiiisitt^ is very
much less expensive than that of a college which is to ilo university
work. The diH'erence in cost of the establishment and nuiin-
tenance of the library alone would Ik; many thousand dollars.
The conijjarison attempted by Dr. Grant fails entirely, i)ecause the
work and e(juipment of a college are entiicly ditlerent fiom those
of a Normal School. And, if it do(!s not follow that beciuise there
are two Normal Schools in Ontario there ought also to be two col-
leges, much less does it follow that there ought to be (ive or .si.\
colleges in this province. Secondly, the existence of two Normal
Schools so far apart, one at Ottawa and the other at Toronto, does
not prove that there ought to be another college in the west end of
Toronto, a second college in ('obourg (7.'5 miles distant), a third
college in Bi'lleville, and a fourth college in Kingston, all much
nearer to University College than the two Nornuil Schools are to
each other. If the denominational colleges propose to anudgamate
or unite themselves so as to form one college out of the four, and
to remove to Ottawa or sonif; ])lace equally distant from the State
college ; and, if such college then pro,"),ses to offer itself, along
with half a million dollars for dujdication of buildings and equip-
ment, to the Governm(;nt, to be moulded and controlled Vjy the peo-
ple's representatives — I say, if all this l)e taken for granted, then per-
haps the Principal of Queen's University may have some slight
claim to " clearness of thought."

At the present time it appears from the statistics published that
there are not quite seven hundred university students in Ontario.
And it is more than probable that if the stamlard for matricula-

('(lUlJJ-

he peo-
eu i)ei'-
slight

1 tlmt
utario.
ricula-

tion cxniuijuitioiiH in tho diflTorent collP}:;f'H woro rai.st'd, hh iiulcod
it might be without injury to tho country, there would ho h'SH thim
Hix hun(h'('d university Htudcnts in the iirovince. Knowing this,
and knowini^ also that there are r(ille|,'e.s whieh receive within
their walls from S(MI to •_',()()() students each, and yet have etliicient
administrative and teachiiu,' ]»owers, one finds it extremely difficult
to believe that " Ontario needs several colleges."

Fiefore drawing; this note to a dose, i wish l)rietly to notice a
few passafjes in Dr. Cowan's last letter. Ife says, "The ({overn-
nient does not furnish all the nu-aiis of carrying; on the I'ublic or
High Schools. Why should it furnish all needed to keep tlie
University and {.'ollei,'e in an ethcient state ?" To this I respect-
f\dly oflVr the following; I'cply :~(>wing to the age of the pupils
there must be a Public School at every man's ilooi'. Rach Public
School draws all its juipils from its own inunediate nei<^hbouihood.
Therefore local taxes may bo imposed to assist in sup[»oi'ting the
school. High Schools are less munerous, because, as a matter of
fact, they have fcwci' pupils ; besides, High School pupils are. in
most instances, of stitKcient age to be allowed to attend school at a
reasonable distance from home. Yet there is demand enough for
High School instruction to i-e(piire a goodly number of them in th(!
province, say 1)0 or 100. Each High School diaws its pupils
mostly from its own county or riding. Accordingly, mnnicipal
taxes may l)e raised to pay a ])ortion of the expenses of such a
school. But University College draws its students frcun all parts
and sections of the Pi'ovince, and not from Toronto or the County
of York alone or principally, ilence University College should
look to the Provincial (iovei-nment, iind not to county, or town-
ship or city councils, for its support. To complete the national
sy.stem of (MliiciitiMii the Dominion (Government might C()iitril)Ute
somewhat to the suppoi't of a university for each of the provinces.
Somci years ago the United States (Government granted land for
such purposes, and we are well aware that University College has
had several students from the oilun- ))rovinces.

Yours, Arc,

Toronto, Jan. U. HENRY MONTGOMERY.

e>.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

12,5

12^

• 40

IIIIM

III 2.0

1.4

1.6

/>^

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

'<b^

FV <?^

THE UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

To the Editor of the Mail.

Sir, — I tnist those interested in this discussion will take anoth-
er look at the Rev. Dr. Burns' letter which appeared in The Mail
of the 10th instant. It will be noticed that Dr. Burns has not
even attempted to overthrow or modify a single statement of mine
respecting the professorships and equipments of the colleges named.
He has undertaken to show that these are not State colleges (or
have received so little from their respective States that they do
not deserve to be regarded as State colleges), that tuition in four
of them was not free until lately, and that Toronto University and
College possess sufficient income to furnish all the equipment now
asked for. These are the three main points which he claims to
have established.

We know not if, in employing the word " State " in a restricted
sense, Dr. Burns' " right hand forgot its cunning," but we do
know that his treatment of this subject is quite misleading. Here
are his words : —

" I have now examined all the institutions presented by Mr. Montgomery,
and not one of them owes its existence to State emlowmeut. They owe
very ';■ vtle to their own State. They were not started by the State. They
were not the first colleges of their State." " Some of the State universities
are entirely independent of private benefactions, but not because of State
appropriations. A few years ago Congress distributed several millions of
acres of lands to the different States for educational purposes, and from the
sale of those lands, not from State appropriation, some of these ci 'lieges are
so rich as to have a surplus after supporting heavy faculties." " Congress
gavf 'J.32,U00 acres of land to Wisconsin State for collegiate purposes, and
to this, nut to the State, the university owes its existence. It was opened
in 1850, but up to 180(j it never received a cent from the State.' "The
University of Nebraska owes very little to the State."

And thus he goes on with the others. Dr. Durns say he has
" examined all the institutions presented " by me. He has done
nothing of the kind. He has, for a most unsatisfactory reason,
omitted the College of the City of New York. This is undoubted-
ly a State College, and cannot be passed over in that manner. It
is not sectarian, denominational or private. So far as concerns
the principle contended for, it matters nothing whether it be found-
ed by a city, province, duchy, empire, kingdom or dominion. New
York City has a population nearly as great as that of our whole

lie has

OH done

reason,

oubted-

ler. It

loncerns

found-

, New

whole

Province, and its citizens are wealthier than those of Ontario.
Hence, it is in a position to found and maintain a college of its
own ; and it has done so upon a State basis without regard to
creed or party. Perhiips it did not suit Dr. Bum's purposes to
examine this college, for there is a large sun paid to its teaching
staff, viz., $70,500 to the Pre.sident and Professoi-s, and nearly
$40,000 to Tutoi-H, I.e., more than three times an much as in Toron-
to.

And what sort of an examination Iihk Dr. Burns given to Le-
high Univei-sity ? Not a word does he (;ffer about its endowment
and equipment in the way of coniparison with Toronto. Tn my
letter of Dec. 8th it was distinctly stated that Lehigh had private
endowment. I quoted it as a university of better equipment than
Toronto, and one of many colleges in which fees are lower than in
Toronto, which had been so recklessly and violently attacked on
account of alleged low fees. Mr. Packer (not Packard) gave a
site of 115 acres and the sum of $2,500,000 to Lehigli University.

In dealing with the remaining colleges, Dr. Burns dwells at
length upon Congress aid and private generosity, giving all the
figures he can to leave the impression that private gifts have done
nearly all for these colleges, but failing to give a single definite
statement of aid furnished by the Legislature of any individual
State. Most certainly the geneml Government of the United
States did set aside lands for schools and universities. They took
such action in 1787, in 1812, in 1820 and 1849, when certain Ter-
ritories and States were received into the Union. And, again in
1862, the representatives of the people of the various States in
Congress voted for a grant for such purposes. Thirty thousand
acres for each of its senators and representatives in Congress were
appropriated to eveiy State. Thus, the oldei- and more populous
States received a larger grant than the newer States in the West.
The share of the State of New York was 990,000 acres ; that of
Ohio was 630,000 acres ; and that of Nebraska was l.'U.OOO acren.
This grant was made in July, 1862, at the commencement of the
war between the North and South. As might be expected, very
little attention was given to university work until 1866. There-
fore the reference of D?-. Burns to individual State approjtriations
before that time, or even a few years later, can be of very little

value. It must alao be noted that in some instances tlie land was
sold during those troublous times for com para tively small amounts.
Ohio realized only .$342,450 for her 030,000 acres. Now, if aid
is given by the representatives of the i)euple in Congress, can such
aid be considered denominational 1 If an Act of Congress is not a
State Act, pray, what is it? Is it a piivate act ? Is it sectarian 1
I am much mistaken if the citizens of Ontario will allow them-
selves to be blinded by wi'iting tending to convey the idea that
Congress aid is not State aid. Would Dr. Burns say that, because
we have the terms province, dominion and nionareliy, theie is no
State in Canada or Britain I The University of Toronto and Uni-
veraity College are constituted under royal charter granted by
George IV., and they have been endowed with lands set apart by
George III. for educational purjio-ses. 1 have no objection to the
British or the Dominion Goveinment giving a grant for education-
al purpo.ses, in each of the provinces, proviiled it be for non-sec-
tarian and non-denominational institutions, liut this is not a
disputed point in tlu' controversy. The questiout* arising out of
the pro|K)sal to ask legislative aid are, as far as I have been able to
gather: — (1) Is it the duty of the State to furnish education <
(2) Shall this education be practically free t (3) To what degree
of development shall tiiis education be carried^ (4) Have Toronto
University and College (which are the only institutions of the
kind in the province entlowed by State and controlled by repre-
sentatives of all denominations) need of funds 1 (5) Has the
province both students and wealth enough to justify the establish-
ment and proper outfit of more than one college which shall be
responsible to the people ( These are the vital questions ; and we
must]not allow them to be obscured or hidden by questions like
the following : — How many chaii-s without endowment must be
set up in a private or denominational college in order to entitle it
to legislative aid J What age would entitle a private school or
academy^ to government assisUuice i Is tiie CJovernment in duty
bound to ratify ^.professorial appointments made by others ? Which
Government, British, Dominion or Provincial, should be the pat-
ron and organizer of colleges ? However, let us examine the State
relations of the colleges alluded to. Cornell University, as men-
tioued in my letter, was endowed in part by State and iu part by

private donation. The very large land grant — 990,000 acres — to
New York State, together with the nmnificeut jjit't of Mr. Cornell,
may have prevented the necessity for aid from the local legislature.
Notwithstanding Mr. Conieirs and other l)eiiffiictions, the univer-
.sity is almost t-ntircly under State control. Of the twenty-three
trustees but one represents the ('urnell family, live repre,sent tlu)
graduates, and the reuiaining seventeen are Stat«i and ex-othcio
members. V^irginia University is admitted by Dr. Burns to be a
State institution, but he claims that it has rec^eived large private
donations. The gifts of Virginia University have been, as in the
case of other Stat*' universities, chiefly for the :wtronomical ob-
servatory, which, in pro|K)rtion to the number of students, is the
most costly part of a univeisity. Of all the donations until 1882,
more than half, i.e., ^14.3,000, were for the observ -tory. L quote
the following from tlie respective university announcements for
1882 and 1883. They are the oiHcial statemiMits of the; se<!retaries
of the boards and presidents of the universities named : —

"The UiiivtTsity of Califoriiia in an uittgial part of the public edu-
cational syHtein of the State. As such it aimn to complete the work begun
in the Fuhlic Schools. Through aid from the State and the Ihiited States,
and by private niuniticence, it furnishes facilities for instruction in science,
literature, and the pr4ife88ions of law, medicine, <lentistry, and pharmacy.
In literature, agriculture, mining, civil engineering, mechanics, political
science, &c., these privileges are offered without charge for tuition to all
persons residents of the State who are ijualitied for admission. Persons
from other States are admittcil to eipia! privileges upon the payment of a
small matriculation and tuititm fee. The j)ri>fe8.si()nal courses recpiire as
reas(mable tuition fees as possible. The constitution of the State provides
for the perpetuation of the university under its present form of govern-
ment." "The resources from which the university is maintained include
the following endowments : — l. The Seminary Fund and l'uV)lic Building
Fund granted to the State by i'ongress. 2. The property received from the
College of California, including the site. 3. The fund derived froni the
Congressional land grant of July 'ind, 18()2. 4. The Tide [..and Fund,
appropriated by the State. 5. Specific appropriations by the Legislature
for buildings, current expenses, etc. 6. The gifts of indivi<luals." "The
university was instituted by a law which received the appr(»val of the
(iovernor, March 2.Srd, 1868."

Congressional endowment to University of California, $470,-
066.38.

California StMe appropriations np to 1882, 11,640,344. That is

nearly four tiiues oh much an the Congi-eAsional grant, and twelve
times a8 much tis the donations mentioned hy Dr. Burns.

" The governing body of the University of Nebraska is the Board of
Regents, who arc elected by poi)ular vote for a term of six years, as
provided by tlie conHtitution of the State. Through the liberality of Con-
gress and of the State IjC^islature ?84,800 acres of land (134,800 from
Congress, and 100,000 from the State Legislature) have been set apart for
the support of the University."

Congres&ional grant, 134,800 acres of land ; but up to 1882
these lands, had not been sold and no income lind been derived
from this source. Nebraska State appropriations up to 1882 were
$13,000 for equipment, $28,000 yearly appropriation, and 100,000
acres of land. Its exact income I do not know ; but that Mebraska
State contributes largely to its supi)ort is very certain.

" The University of Michigan is a part of the public educational system
of the State. The governing body of the institution is a Hoard of Regents,
elected by popular vote for terms of eight years, as provided in the
constitution of the State. In accordance with the law of the State, the
university aims to complete and crown the work begun in the Public
Schools, by furnishing facilities for liberal education in Literature, Hcience,
and the Arts, and for thorough professional tstudy of Medicine, Law, Phar-
macy, and Dentistry. Through the aid received from the United States and
from the State, it is enabled to oflPer its ])rivilege8, without charge for tuition,
to all persons, of either sex, who are qualiKcd for admission. While Michigan
has endowed her University primarily for the hijjher education of her own
sons and daughters, it must be understood that she also opens the doors of
the institution to all students wherever their homes."

The UniverHity of Wisconsin is governed by a Board of Regents,
consisting of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, two
representatives of the fUate at large, and one representative from
each of the nine Congressional Districts of Wisconsin, elected for
the term of three years. " The policy of the institution is deter-
mined by the Regents, who. as a body, re})re8eut the people, and
no particular sect or party." Congressional endowment to Wis-
consin Univei-sity, ;§271,'J38. Wisconsin State appropriations to
Univci-sity up to 1881, were $61)0,000, besides ijid 2,000 annual
tax. It is quite clear the people of Wisconsin do not believe the
sum of $271,938 (the proceeds from the sale of tiie Congressional
lands), to be sufiicient to support a ' heavy faculty," and afford a
surplus also.

1 am not aware that the friends of Toronto Univereity object to

free-will offeringH from private citizens to that institution, so long
as the benefactions be not accompanied by illiberal restrictions.
A provision for this pnrjwse has l)een made in the statute book,
but the springs have reiused to flow. Neither have they flowed
with great velocity into the Denominational Colleges : but the
authorities of the latter have put in pumps to force the water.
The private g'ifts of the American State Colleges have also been
small when compared with the aid given by the State Legislatures
and Congress. The fact that some citizens of affluence spontane-
ously contribute to a State College, shows clearly that the College
meets with their approval, and that the donors fully believe in
non-tlenominational Colleges. Else why do they not make their
donations and bequests to the denominational institutions ? There-
fore, the more examples of this kind that Dr. Burns can cite the
better. The niillioiiaires of Ontario are exceedingly rare. If
there are any willing to give to the University more than the
State has exacted of them, let them at once come forward and do
so. For years University College has been in nvd, yet wealthy
benefactors have not shown themselves. Is the College to be left
at a standstill for a decade or two longer until some benevolent
millionaire appears] We are told that the College need not wait,
but should send agents through the country to solicit support. This
plan has been thrust before us directly and indirectly so many
times, and apparently with all seriousness, too, that one is obliged
to notice it. Perhaps it would be a pleasant change for the learned
professors, Wilson and Young, to assume the garb of agents and
canvass the Province, returning once in three or four months
to be treated to a College dinner, and introduced to the students as
" distinguished strangers." But, really, the College cannot afford
tc^ dispense with the services of any of its Professors.. The
teacliing staff" is too small to admit this. Besides, it would be a
great pity to divert the energies of a scholarly Professor from his
life-long pursuits. What, then, is to be done 1 If funds must be
raised in this way, let the Legislature appoint agents for this
purpose ; or, perhaps better still, let there he constituted a Faculty
of Literary and Scientific Itinerant Mendicancy, with degrees and
honours thereunto attached.

Dr. Bums says that tuition in four of the Colleges " was not

free until lately." T answer that it is not worth while to look up
their histoiy to ancertain what were their ff^es twelve or fifteen
yearH ago. in tluH, aH in tin* matter of income ami equipment, it
is of infinitely gi-cater importance to gain information of Colleges
ill their matured coudition than in their embryonic and unde-
velo|»ed stages. JiiHtruction in said Colleges has heen free for
several yeai-s past. Eight of the Universities named charge no fees
of any kind. Not one of the seventeen given has fees as high as
in Toronto. This is the great truth to be remembered, and not
whether some of them had fees in 18(59 or 1873.

And now comes the third i>roposition, viz.: — Toronto University
and College have .sufficient income to furnish all the equipment
asked for. Dr. Pnrns intimates that he " letlects the sentiment of
neither Church nor college." Permit me to state that I, too, speak
for myself alone. The University authorities aro, no doubt, fully
competent to defend themselves without any outside assistance.
But, US a native and citizen of Ontario, I feel bound to assert that
not one of tlie specific charges thus far made against them has Vteen
sustained. Dr. Burns writes, " The present income of our Univer-
sity (.f 6.T,000) ought to furnish all the chairs now asked for. Mr.
Montgomery says that Toronto has seven professors and seven tu-
tors. The in.stitutions he has presented supjjort twice its faculty
on its income. When Wisconsin had a faculty of 27 her whole
income was only $42,671." " No amount of angry rhetoric will
satisfy those conversant with educational matters that .seven profes-
sors and seven tutors fully repre.sent an income of .f65,000." In
the beginning of the same letter. Dr. Burns writes as follows: —
" I do not wonder at the attitude of the faculty of Toronto Univer-
sity. They need additional help, additional appliances, and natur-
ally turn to the State." Let your readers draw what inference
they can flora the foregoing. Though these i)assages seem to con-
tain no specified charge, yet it may be well to consider them. No
one has said that seven j)rofessoi-s and seven tutors represent
.f 65,000. (Jan a college consist of a faculty only ? I respectfully
submit that 20 per cent. (Dr. Burns* estimate) of $6.'),000 would,
in any case, be tobilly insufficient for the current expenses of a
first-class college and iniiversity. From the buraar's statement of
the estimated expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1884, I

learn that the sum paiil for Halanen of proffiasom, president, tutora,
fellows, librarian, Hiih-curator, janitorH, and servants, is i|42,758.
Then there ure the salaries of twenty -eij^ht university examiners in
liHW, Medicine, and Arts (and they are |)oorly paid), the exjjenses
of the bursar's ottiue, printing examination pa])erH, fuel, bu'lding
and grounds, library, insurance, &c. With regard to Virginia Uni-
versity, Hr. Burns says that the income some time ago was 830,000^
It has 13 Professoi-s, H Tutora, and a Presi<lent. Pi-of. Stevens,
one of its graduates, informs me that each of its professors gets
$3,000. This would njake $.3'J.000 for the professors. Add to
this the salaries of the president and tutoi-s, and the amount can-
not be under $18,000 for the faculty, not to say anything of other
necessary expenses. According to the report of the Commissioner
of Education, the incomt; of the Lehigh University for the ye«r
1881 was $114,000. The income of the Univemty of Michigan
for the year ending September 30th, 1881, was $231,338.90 (in-
cluding yearly legislative a})propriation of $31,r)00), and the income
of the same University for the year ending September 30th, 1882,
was $271,762.78 (including yearly legislative appropriation of
$40,500). Of this $271,762.78, the income of Michigan Univer-
sity for 1882, the sum of $118,265 was devoted to payment of sala-
ries of professors and oHicials, $(5,000 to chemical laboi-atory sup-
plies, $3,800 to general library, $8,500 to fuel and lights, $7,000
to repairs, $1,500 to mechanical laboratory, and so on, with a host
of other necessaries.

The published report of Wisconsin University gives $82,069.81
(including $12,000 annual State appropriation) as the income of
that University foi- 1881. Observe that Wisconsin Univereity
library consists of but 12,000 volumes. Very little of the income
is required for the library, because the students and professors have
free access to the State Histoi'ic»l library of 80,000 bound volumes
and 20,000 pamphlets, to the Law library of 15,000 volumes, and
to the Madison City library of 8,000 volumes. Total number of
bound volumes accessible to the University, 115,000. Of these
the University has only paid for 12,000. Toronto Univereity
library consists of 25,222 volumes (exclu.sive of pamphlets).

The published report of California University gives $136,027
(including $36,597 of legislative appropriation) as the income of
this University for 1880. Comment is needless.

I have before me a letter recently received from a Professor in
Cornell Univeniity, in which he ntaten that " the total available in-
come of Cornell University for the present year is ^210,000."
Verily, Dr. Burns may ask of Cornell, us he asked of Toronto, how
can a faculty of 2G ProfesHurs and 24 Tutors fully represent an in-
come of $210,000] As a matter of fact the faculty of Cornell re-
ceive only about $100,000, the remainder of the income going to-
wanls equipment. Cornell University library contains 46,000
bound volumes and 14,000 pamphlets. Michigan University
library contains 42,000 bound volumes and 8,106 pamphlets. Har-
vard University library contains 277,700 bound volumes and about
300,000 pamphlets. Yale College library conUins 107 000 bound
volumes and many thousand ])aniphlf ts.

In every instance the location of the university must be taken
into account. $2,500 in one place may be equivalent to $3,000 in
another. For example, in Columbia College, New York, the sala-
ries ai*e : — President, $10,000 and house ; each Professor, $7,500 ;
and ea »h Tutor from $1,000 to $3,000. The whole faculty (Presi-
dent, 14 Professors, and 33 Tutoi-s) receives about $180,000. In
Cornell University, Ithaca, each Professor gets from $2,500 to
$2,750 ; each Tutor and Assistant Professor from $750 to $1,500.
The whole faculty (26 Professors and 24 Tutors) receives about
$100,000. When a difference of $500 is applied to a faculty of 20
professors and as many tutors, its importance is seen, for it means
au annual sum of about $15,000, which would pay the salaries of
five or six professsors. ('ornell, Virginia, Califoraia, Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Nebraska Universities are all located in small towns
or villages, where living is frugal. Tlierefore, the incomes of Wis-
consin, California, Cornell, and Michigan would be equal at least
to $90,000, $150,000, $230,000, and $280,000 in Toronto. I
have taken the foregoing figures from the refMirts of General Eaton,
Commissioner of Education for the United States ; the report of
the Michigan State Su|)erintendent of Public Instruction, and from
letters received by me from two gentlemen connected with said
colleges. Rev. Dr. Burns and " Elector " will be allowed the ful-
lest liberty to examine these reports and letters.

One word more. Dr. Burns says the denominational colleges of
the United States had the ground first. So much the worse for

them. If they had tho ground finit why did they not keep it ?
Why did they not do such work aH wo\ild have rendered it unneces-
sary for the peojde to organize and build np State CoUegeH upon a
liberal basis ? liCt the people of this province remember that with
all the |>opidation and wealth of Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, In-
diana, r'alifornia, and other Western and Northern States, each of
them possesses but one State College, and in none of them has a
federation of the denominational and State Colleges ever taken
place.

Yours, Ac,

HENRY MONTGOMERY.
January :M, 1884,

STATE AID TO DENOMINATIONAL COLLEGES.
GRANT V. GRANT.

To the Editor of Uie Mail.

Sir, — Out of his own mouth let the public judge Principal
Grant. On March 14, 1876, at a public meeting held in Halifax
to discuss the College question, I find, from the Halifax Chronicle
of the day following, that the Rev. G. M. Grant, after a few
introductory remarks, spoke as follows : —

" He agreed with Dr. Sawyer that the men who would put Dalhousie
( 'uUege on a provincial basis would deserve the thanks of the people. Let
the Legislature do it and deserve Dr. Sawyer's thanks. Regarding the in-
Hiienue uf sectarianism he must agree to disagree with his friends. The
capital did not want to injure the country, hut the capital must look after
itself, just as Windsor, or Wolfville, or Sackville would. If Dalhousie
went down the capital would suffer. Dr. .Sawyer had said there was no
sectarianism in tbu colleges. If there was not, it was strange that there
should l>e so much sectarian interest in tiieni. When he visited a school
taught by the Nuns or Sisters of Charity, they tnld him the doctrines of
the Catholic Church were not taught. He helieved them, and he believe '
Dr. Sawyer too, but he did not want to send his son to a monastery or to a
sectarian college.

" He would give some reasons for the establishment of a Provincial Uni-
versity :

" \. Our denominations are practically too small to get up proper col-
leges.

" 2. Every denomination has its own work to do, and should not have
State work to do.

"3. The State hftil itn own work to do, which wm not (lenominationa!
work.

"4. The prudent iiy«tem of grant* ia unjuHt to the dononiinationii, both
thoBu that havu colItguH, and tlwmo that havo not.

"5. It iH iinjunt to tho ]irof(!HHort. and HtuduntR. An eminent Haptiat
miniatcr, who wan educated at Ai^adia, naid to him : " When I went to
the Htatea and aaw what a college waa, I felt that I had been hoM. "

"The idea of denominational ctdlegen waa wrong in prinoiplo. The
Legialaturu hod no right to take the public money and give it to the demmi-
inationa ; f4,(KK) would aupport halhouxie, clearing the I'rcHbyttTiana out
of it. Thia would meet tho wimta of the country, and Have at leiiHt JH.OOO
a year. We ought to have a party to take a atand for thia and the people
would aupport tho principle. It waa not a ipieMtion of the intereata of l>al-
houaie, but of a central univeraity, call it by what naint! you like. The
pruaent ayatem waa putting ua deeper and deeper in the aloiigli of auctarian-
iam."

Dr. Alliwm * ^' " Hechiiwl that in ix^iiriy every tiaHe

where a central State-HU|»|K)rted teacliinfj univj^mity li»*i heen tried
on this continent it has failed. He clialh'iiged t.ln' oth«'r Hide to
name two exceptionH."

Rev. Mr. Grant — " Micliigan and Toronto."

Such are the principles wliidi guided Dr. (Jrant in 1876 in ar-
guing against State aitl to tienoniinational collegeH, an*l in favour
of a State-Hupportetl Uiaching univeihity. No woiider he depre-
cateH all references to the past I I'ray, are not principles iniinuta-
hle ? And if so, is not the idea of denominational colleges, which
was wrong in Nova Scotia, also wrong in OntJirio ? Have the
lights and duties of Legislatures change<l ? If the Nova Scotia
Legislature had no right to take ptihlic money and give it to de-
nominational colleges, how has the Ontario Legislature acfpiired
such a light? And what of the Nova Scotia system, which was
putting that jtrovince " deeper ami deeper in the slough of sectari-
anism 1" Is that the system best adaptetl to the interests of the
people of Ontario ? Is sectaiianism in Ontario different from what
it was ill Nova Scotia? If not, is there not sectaiianism in the
colleges of Ontario, as then^ was in the Nova Scotia colleges ? Is
not the assertion that there is no sectaiianism in the Oiitaiio col-
leges just as absurd as the like sttitement which Dr. Grant saw fit
to ridicule when in Nova Scotia? Does Dr. Grant still feel disin-
clined " to send his son to a monastery or a sectarian college " --

inRtitutionn which ho puts on a pnr as rpfi^nrdn the adviHahility of
(mtniRtin({ to th«'iii th<> education of hin ProHhyterian hoy? In it
not triiH now in Ontario, an it was in Nova Scotia, that " overy
denomination haH itH own work to do, and Hlioiihi not have Htatif
work to do]" Ih it not true now in (Ontario, hh it was in N(jva
Scotia, that " the State han itH own work to ihi, which in not de-
nominational work ?"

Beyond all manner of doiiht, in the preaent diHcuHaion, this moHt
learned Principal han at leaat proved, aa every achool hoy hIiouM he
informed, the falaity of the pro|H>Hition — Coelnin n<ni animum muf-
ant qui trunif mare curt-uvt.

Youi-H, ikc
.laniiary 10, 1884. HALIFAX.

> in ar-
favoiir
deprc-

DUDUta-

which
ivo the
Scotia
to de-
ipiired
L'h waa
sectari-
of the
m what
in the

8? l8

io col-
saw fit
diuin-

KXTRA(JT FROM TlIK CONVOC^ATION ADDHKSS OF

VK^KCJMANCKLLon MIJLOCK

Delivered June S, 1883.

Whilst, ladit'H and ^'entlemen, we can with pride review ihe
great work which this Univensity has accomplished and is accom-
plishing, can we with equal confidence anticipate its futui-e useful-
ness ? Is it in a position to extend its curriculum so as to keep
pace with this progressive age? To stand still is to he left hehind,
and to extend the curriculum beyond the teaching power of its
atiiliuted colleges would admittedly he a mistake. That we may
be free, then, to pursue an onward and an upwai-d couine, the time
has come when that institution, which stands at the head of our
Public School system. University College, the great Public School
of this I'rovince, should l)e further aided in its career ot usefulness.
Additional teaching power is tluMc rccjuired. The little band of
learned and able men now engaged there are accomplishing all that
can be reasonably expected of them, for there is a limit to every
man's capacity. Additional chaiis are urgently required. How-
ever unreasonable it may appear, even learned {)rofessoi'8 have
their material wants which must be su]>plic(l. They must there-
fore be paid, and the question is, who is to be the paymaster?
That question, I think, admits of but one answer. Who maintain
the Public Schools, including under that term the various Collegia

ate Institutes and High Schools of tlie Province 1 The people, and
why ? Because these institutions are the people's, established and
utilized for the common good of all. University College is part
of that school system, founded and maintained with the people's
money, ".governed hy the people's representatives, the Provincial
Parliament, and open to all the yojith of Ontario. Therefore, I
unhesitatingly give it as my individual opinion that the question
as to the source from which further aid sho\ild come is ans-
wei-ed by the facts. 'J'his State institution must look to the
State for aid. Some University men may have ventured to
shrink from exjjre.'jsing this view, not because this claim is not
well founded, but for fear of dreaded con«equeiices, such as political
embarrassments o>- rival jealousies. Such apprehcnisions arc not,
I think, well foiinded, and even if they were, it would be unmanly
on the part of those whose duty it is to place this question on a
proper basis to depose principle for the sake of expediency. There-
fore, fellow-gra<l nates and nil other friends of this University, let
us have the courage of our opinions on this qiiestion, and if the
position which I take is sound and in the interests of our people,
let us all join together in this movement, and the good which we
accomplish will win for us the gratitude of an intelligent, a pro-
gressive and an ambitions people. The fear of political embar-
rassment arising out of this position ought not to be seriously
entertained. Public opinion is agreed that it is the duty of the
State to place the means of State education within the reach of
those who elect to accept it from the State, and I am satisfied that
the people of Ontaiio. proud as tlu^y are, and have a right to be,
of the great intellectual strides which this Province has taken, will
hail with rejoicing any action on the part of her representatives
which shall have the effect of extending the usefulness of Univer-
sity College, the cope-stone of our Public School structure. Why,
if there are any institutions in this province which are absolutely
free from political leanings or embarrassments, they are this Uni-
versity and University College- The individuals connected with
them doubtless have their various views upon public questions,
but never in the history of these institutions, so far as I have been
able to learn, have such views influenced the action of the gov-
erning bodies. In the consideratiou of such educational questions,

the exclusion of party politics is unwritten university law, and so
faithfully has this law been lived up to, that I can point with pride,
yes with triumph, to the fact that year after year we find our
graduates electing to the Senate of this University men of the
most opposite political views, and I have yet to learn of the first
case in which any one of our fifteen hundred graduates, most of
whom, no doubt have strong political leanings, has so far forgotten
his duty to the University as to be influenced by political consid-
erations when determining for whom he would vote to represent
hira on the govorniiig body of this institution. If further evidence
were required to satisfy you that the people of this Province do
not desire that University mattera should ever be the subject of
party strife, it is rajiplied by the intelligent and enterprising press
of this province. What newspaper has ever for political considera-
tions attacked this University ? None. Newspapers have criti-
cised University matters from time to time as they have a right
to do, as I hope they will continue to do ; but these criticisms have
been intended for the advantage, not the disadvantage, of the
University. Therefore I think we are justified in drawing from
all these circ>mistances one satisfactory inference, namely, that
this University rests upon a sure foundation, the confidence
and aflfection of our people, and that whenever any question
touching its further usefulness shall occupy the attention of our
representatives in Parliament, we may rest assured that, as repre-
sentatives of public opinion, they will not jeopardize so sacred a
trust by making it a subject of [)arty strife ; rather, I think, we
shall find them each vieing with the other in friendly contest how
best to aid this work, which should be and doubtless is as dear to
them as it is to us. But this institution is in a pecvdiar position.
Once sectarian she had the right to lean upon a class. That pos-
ition is changed. It was right that it should be changed. The
State assumed the trust, and we have the State, and the State only,
to lean upon. Other institutions, in so'.ue re-^i^'ots more fortun-
ately situated, have supports that we are tiot entitled to look to.
We do not grudge them their good fortune, but rather rejoice
with them by reason of that good fortune ; and I am sure that
they in turn recognize it as our right to lean on our only prop —
the State — for this University alone, of all similar institutions, is
the only one in this Province \,u&t is controlled by the State.

100

ADDRESS OF HON. EDWARD BLAKE, M.P., CHANCEL-
LOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO,

A I the Annual Convocation, June. 10, ISS^-

Ladies and (jreiitlcinon, it devolves upon me, according to
custom, to say a few words with reference to the more immediate
past, and also to the prospects of this institution ; and to give you
in the tirst instance a few of the figures which indicate, so far as
figures can indicate, our present condition.

Several years ago the University took a great step forward in point
of numbers. It was not to be expected that progress should continue
at that rute ; the most that all of us hoped was that we had made
a new base, a new point from which to advance. There have been
obvious causes somewhat calculated to diminish the numbers in the
last year or two. In the first place, a large migration has taken
place to the North-West Territories of Canada; and, in the second
place, we know that the necessities of the University and College
have obliged us lately to increase the fees, with a view of ob-
taining additional facilities for imparting instruction ; and this
circumstance has been attended with a result which was perhaps
to be anticipated in this country, since it imposed difficulties not
immediately to be overcome on the part of those who were
participating in the benefits of the institution. I think it well to
observe that point, as it is a very grave indication of the danger of
any fui'ther step in the direction of increasing the charges.

Now the figures for the year 1882-83 are as follows : — There
matriculated in Law 15, in Medicine 17, in Arts 177, a total of
209 ; and the Graduates for that year in all branches were 91.
Last year there were 8 Matriculants in Law, 24 in Medicine, and
171 in Arts, or 203 in all ; and there were 78 Graduates in all, 63
being in Arts. I may add that the number of persons who have
given notice for Junior Matriculation is 185; and these figures
will probably be increased to 200 before the examination takes
place. So that we have reason to suppose that the Junior and
Senior Matriculants will be at least equal in number to those of
the previous year. The number of candidates examined for Junior
Matriculation in the year just closed was iGO; in the Local

101

—There

total of

vere 91.

ne, and

all, 63

lo have

figures

n takes

ior and

hose of

Junior

Local

Examinations for Women, 72 ; at the Supplemental Examinations
in September, 72 ; at the Arts Examinations in May, 342 ; at the
Law Examinations, 33; making a total of 736. Now of the 315
persons who attend University College, the denominations are
given as follows : —

Presbyterian, 146; Episcopal. 55 ; Methodist, 63; Baptist, 31 ;
Roman Catholic, 13 ; Society of B"'riends, 3 ; Congi-egational, 4.
I may also give you some statistics as to the Women Under-
Gradiiates : those of the standing of the fouitli year number 5 ; of
the third year 4 ; of the second yeai-, 18 ; of the first year, 54 —
a total of 82. They have obtained in all 307 honours, of which
159 are first class, and 148 second-class, and they have won nine
scholai-ships. With reference to the general standing of the
University there are just two points to which I will draw your
attention in the same line of information as that which I have been
following. The number of degrees in Arts conferred since the found-
ing of the University was 974, of which 14 were ad eundem, and
860 have been students in University College, leaving 100 original
degrees conferred npon non-attendants. These figures point elo-
quently to the very close practical relations existing between the
teaching and the degree-conferring body.

There is another statement which I wish to lay before you. We
have, as is known, not merely an official relation, but a very close
practical relation between this University and those institutions of
high training which are known as Collegiate Institutes and High
Schools throughout the Province. Now of the Head-Masters of
these institutions there are 51 Graduates of Toronto University
out of a total of 94 who have graduated from Ontario institutions.
Of the Assistant- Masters, Toronto University sent out 73 out of a
total of 98 ; and of 31 Assistants wlio are Under-Graduates of
Ontario institutions, 26 belong to Toronto University. From the
figures presented, we see that the share which the University is
bearing in supplying the higher echication of the Province is not
merely a large but an increasing one. It is quite obvious that
none but the best results may be anticipated for the future of the
University from the few figures I have given.

I i-ejoice to know that during last year, and the preceding years,
a greater degree of activity has been shown by those in various

102

relations to the University and its concerns. Convocation has
been more active. The body of the undergraduates and graduates
has also been more active, and, generally speaking, I think it may
be said that a new era, almost, has opened before us — that the
esprit de corps, the warm feeling for the institution to which they
owe so much has been, I will not say kindled, but brightened into
a more fervent flame than used to blaze, and we may hope from
this also the best results. There has been during the last year a
considerablit amount of discussion with reference to the University,
and with your permission I wish to refer to a few facts, which
have sometimes, I think, been rather overlooked in this discussion,
on the part of those who have taken part in it — I will not say in
hostility, but in modified opposition to the views which we enunci-
ate. It is never to be forgotten that with reference to the officers of
this institution, whether they be the Professors, the Council of Uni-
versity College, the Senate of the University, or the Convocation
of the graduates, that we are, in all positions which we take, the
creatures of the public will, established by the statutes of the land,
and that we are carrying out, to the best of our ability, the duties
which have been assigned to us under the laws of the land. Many
years ago the endowment, by virtue ot which this institution lives,
was formed ; but it was created not for the benefit of all, but for
the benefit of the adherents of one particular denomination. At
a subsequent period a considerable portion of that endowment was
withdrawn for an institution of great consequence indeed, but not
of the character of a univei-sity. Against the application of the
( lidowment to the purposes and objects of a single church there
arose naturally and properly a struggle, and ultimately the consti-
tution of the University was remodelled on a large and compre-
hensive basis. I have always regretted that the Church to whose
special use the endowment was at first applied did not accept the
situation, and avail itself of its denominational funds and energies
to create a great tlieological college in close connection with the
State University, and so to further that which had become the
settled policy of the co\mtry, and which I believe would have been
by its assistance at once rendered beneficial to the State at large,
and to the particular denomination to which I refer. But after
all it was not very unnatural that those who had originally

103

obtained this endowment should be very much disapi^ointed when
it was thus cut off from their exchisive enjoyment. It was
only the other day that we learned that Home peculiar ideas, which
I thought had vanished, still hold, for no less a person than the
Archbishop of Canterbury has declared that an act of confiscation
and spoliation was committed when the endowment was diverted
from the improper purposes to which it was at first applied, to the
only proper purpose, a purpose available for the general good of
all, whatever their creed or denomination. Owing to this, and
other circumstances, there were for many years those who were
dissatisfied with the new constitution of the Univereity. It had
been devoted to purposes of one denomination ; it became ap-
plicable to the purposes of all ; and there were those who insisted
that this, too, was a bad thing — who insisted that it ought to be
divided, ought to be cut uj) for the various denominations. An
organized effort, which sometimes threatened serious consequences,
was made to si'' ert the remodelled constitution. But this Uni-
versity has /ed those efforts, and survives them still. It has
grown in .spite of all opposition, and it will grow still. It is
strong in spite of all opposition, and it will, I believe, become
stronger still. The University, as such, has never had any hostility
towards any other educational institution. Its officers desire
to live on the most friendly relations with all such institutions.
We feel that it is our duty to forward the interests, to advance
the claims of this State University, of which we are the guardians,
but of that duty there is no part which obliges us to assume an
attitude of hostility to othei-s. Hut it is necessary, after all that
has been said, that a few words should be spoken from this
platform upon a great question which I had supposed was settled
finally, many years ago. I need not say to you that I do not
speak to you to-day as expounding the views of the Senate of the
Univei-sity of Toronto. I speak to you as official heads of other
universities in the Old Land are permitted to speak on their an-
nual celebrations — on my individual responsibility, and expressing
my own sentiments. Nor do I intend to enter into any argument
or reason upon certain points which are sometimes disputed, I in-
tend to recall to your recollection admitted facts. For many years
before Confederation the question of State aid to denominational

104

institutions agitated the minds of the jjeople of the old Province
of Canada. It was familiar to us at that day. Arguments jyro
and con were advanced, and it was pretty plain to those who looked
at the materials for forming a judgment as to the popular senti-
ment, that the sentiment of the people of Ontario was hostile to
that system. Confederation came and gave us freedom in local
aflairs.jincluding the great qiiestion of education. The people of
Ontario had settled down to the view that the voluntary system
shouKl be carried out in these institutions to the fullest extent,
and the proof of that conclusion is obvious. Up to that time seven
colleges in the Province weic^ receiving public grants, viz. :

Ivegiopolis, Kingston $3,000

Queen's, Kingston 5,000

Bytown, Ottawa 1,400

St. Michael's, Toronto 2,000

Trinity, Toronto 4,000

Victoria, Cobourg 5,000

L'As.somption, Sandwich 1,000

In the very first*session of the Legislature of Ontario, the Govern-
ment of HandHeld Macdonald i)!opoKed that, these grants should be
discontinued ; tliat they slio\ilil be paid for eighteen months, for
convenience sake, and thereafter discontinued on the ground of
their inexpediency ; and a law was proposed which declared that it
should not be lawful aftei- that time. That law was assented to by
the whole Legislature. There was no division of paities upon it.
1 do not mean to say there was no man in Parliament who did not
sympathize with that law. But the public and the parliamentary
sentiment was^overwhelmingly in favour of it. An attempt was
made to get up an agitation against this policy. The subject was
discussed duiiug the recess, and we returned to Parliament know-
ing that the subject would be brought up again ; and accordingly,
in December, 1868, it was proposed :

" That in the opinion of this House it is necessary and expedi-
ent in the interests of collegiate education that some comprehen-
sive scheme be devised and adopted tor giving effect to the objects,
and for extending the operation of the Act, 16 Vic, Cap. 89, for

106

|expe(ii-
i-ehen-
Dlijects,
), for

the establishment of a Provincial University, and the affiliation of
colleges to be sii|)|)ortetl in connection therewith."

To this resolution the following amendment was moved : —
" While this House recognizes the importance of educational in-
terests, it is still of the opinion, as exjjressed by the Act of last
session, that no college or institution under the control of any reli-
gious denomination should receive aid from the public treasury."

Now some who approved of the principle of the amendment, yet
wished to recognize the desirability of some improvement in our
existing provisions for sujierior education, and particularly did
they wish to recognize the expediency of providing for a uniform
and elevated standard of graduation through the medium of the
Provincial University. I had the honour of moving in that direc-
tion, but I felt that there were great dithculties in the way, which
could not be overcome without the cordial a.ssent of existing insti-
tutions whose chartered rights no one proposed to interfere with in
the slightest degree. Tins action, I felt, must be purely voluntary
or nothing could be done. I felt also that it was not for those
who stood in the relation in which the Government and Legislature
then stood and still stand to our educational system, to devise a
plan which they had not power to carry out, because, as I have
stated, no plan could be carried out except it should receive the
cordial assent and co-operatiou of these other institutions. I did
not agree with their view that we should devise the plan, but I did
agree with the view that we should express our willingness to con-
sider fairly and cordially any plan that might be devised by those
who complained of the existing state of things. I moved the fol
lowing amendment : —

" That this House, while firmly adhering to the view that de-
nominational colleges should not be supported by State aid, is pre-
pared to give its best consideration to any scheme which may be
laid before it for the improvement of superior education, and for
the establishment and maintenance, through the Provincial Uni-
versity, of a uniform and elevated standard of graduation."

Now, that amendment was carried by a vote of 6G to 4, and the
four who voted against it did so because they thought it was not
unfavourable enough to the denominational colleges, so that there
was practical unanimity, in the mind of the Legislature, in the re-

106

assertion of the view that the public intereHte required the adop-
tion to the full of the existing syHteni, that there was to be no
attempt to reHume a HyHtem of public aid to denominational col-
leges, and that it was important to make arrangements for the es-
tablishment of a uniform and elevated standard of graduation
through the medium of this, the Provincial University. Now,
since that time there have been in the Province four general elec-
tions, and I am not aware that any party or individual has at any
time raised the question whether the decision which was then
reached by the Legislature, was a sound decision. It has seemed
to be universally assented to. The offer was made at that day to
consider any plan, consistent with the fundamental principles which
are embodied in the resolution, that might be brought forward by
those who asserted there was a better mode of dealing with this
subject ; that offer has remained open ever since, but it has never
been accepted. Why not ] I leave that question to be answered
by those to M'hom the offer was made. I have only to say for my-
self — and I think I speak for others who are deeply interested in
the question of higher education — that we are as anxious to-day as
we were at that time to consider calmly and fairly, and if possible
to come to a favourable conclusion upon, any plan which shall not
involve the sacrifice of fundamental principles, and which shall not
involve the impairment or destruction of this, the crowning edifice
of our Providcial educational system. Now, much has been
said on the subject of union, and I am sure we shall all be
delighted if a plan should be brought forward which is adapted
to all the necessities of the situation, which is not inconsistent
with the fundamental principles which each holds, and which shall
promote a real and cordial union of sentiment and interests in the
establishment and perfecting of the new system proposed. J say
so for myself; I have always felt so. I have not seen my way
to reconcile the positions which are taken by those who take
ground opposed to that which I take on this subject, and therefore
I have not been able to pi'opose a plan : but if a plan can be pro-
posed, I am sure it will be considered with the desire to find that
it possesses the elements of success. But I say this, that it would
be infinitely better for all the institutions that the present condi-
tion of things should continue, than that a union should be consum-

107

mated which would be but a hollow union, which would not be a
real cordial union, which would not be a union in which each felt
that the bent had been done that was possible for each, and that
there was common work to be done by all in carrying out and for-
warding each part of the new plan. In the sixteen years which
have passed since the time of which I spoke, the constitution has
been further liberalized. The graduates elect a part of the Senate ;
convocation has been established with advisory powers ; but the
decision in all matters rests, as it rested formerly, with the respon-
sible representatives of the Province. The Government appoints
a large part of the Senate ; the Oovemment exercises its judgment
as to whether the statutes of the Senate are good or not, and with-
out the assent of the Executive Council they are inoperative. The
Government appoints the Professors and controls and decides on
the wisdom of the financial schemes with reference to the endow-
ment which may be proposed from time to time. This is a public
institution maintained out of public funds for public purposes, and
the essential condition upon which it can continue is that it be
under the control of the responsible Government of the day through
the media to which I have referred. Tt was the duty of those en-
trusted with the management of the institution loyally to carry out
the public policy, loyally to endeavour to give effect to the national
will, and that has been their effort. From time to time, various
provisions have been made by which several institutions in Arts
and Medicine have been formally affiliated, and others have been
placed in a relationship not so formal, but still in close and effec-
tive relationship with this institution. The hopes of the Legisla-
ture, dependent as these were on the assent of other colleges,
have not been fully met. They have to some extent been disap-
pointed, but still the objects it had in view have been largely effect-
ed. In carrying out the policy to which I have referred, no cru-
sade has been made by this institution against any other. Far
from ic. "We have only laboured to advance the State institution,
and with that view what has been done ]

At an early period these buildings, the chief ornament of this city
and province^ were erected. Even at this time we sometimes hear
murmurs as to the wisdom of their erection ; bub those who know, as
I do— though I was but a young man at the time — all the circum-

108

Rtancen of the UnivfrHity wlien that |M)licy whh Hiloj)t«^d, know that
these hiiiltlingH were in a niark'-il Henae the Hhei-t anchor of the in-
Htitution in the HtorniH which at one time threatened to Huhvert it,
tfow for a long time the realizittion of the i(h!al univeraity waa
very imperfect. Th«' h()[)e was to make this a central and focal
point in which the youth of the land, of whatever creed, or from
whatever part, who were c-apal)le of deep study, and whose hreasts
were lit with the sacred spark of learniufj, might meet together and
obtain a tirst-class university education— all the V)etter for the
multitude of those who should conie together in competition — all
the better for the circumstance that the multitude was to be drawn
from all classes, creeds, conditions, and localities in the Province
of Ontario. The hope was that the various denomiiuitions, »>stab-
lishing their Theological Colleges close to the University, might
avail themselves of the Arts coui-se in our institution, and thus not
mei-ely help forward the better culture and training of those whom
they intended to sujiply their pulpits and instruct their jjcople. but
also help forward by sictive supervision, by th>'^ as.sociation with
those of them who were most religiously inclined, the stuilents in
Arts of their own per.suasion. For many years only one de-
nomination took advantage of this vast benefit, which was held out
by the State to all. Our old and firm friends of Knox College — to
whom this College and University owe so much, and who also owe
not a little to this College and Univer>iily — did early take advan-
tage of our plan to a very full extent ; and partly perhaps it is due
to that cause, though also to the well settled and hereditary love
of deep learning and higher education which forms one of the most
honourable attributes of the Scottish nation, that a very large pro-
portion of our undergraduates of old days belong to the denomina-
tion with which that college is connected.

Latterly, as I have had occasion to congratidate yon from this
platform, the sound principle has spread. We find to the north of
lis McMaster Hall, a magnificent theological in.stitution, well
built, admirably manned and ecpiipped, and supplied with all the
educational appliances required for its particular purjiose, in close
relations with ihe University. Amongst the ])rovisions which are
made by its authorities is one to the effect that students of the
Baptist denomination who are attending the Arts course of Uni-

100

jni this
>rth of

well
ill the

close
[ch are
|of the

Uni-

versity Oollege shall be |»einiitted to reside in McMaster Hall ; ho
that they recognize the expedieiioy of carrying out the plan, and
of giving the greatest safcgmirdH that can be exactecl by parents
and all those interested in the religious training of the young
that they shall be well jookfd after, both by the circumstance
that they are umler tli*' same roof with the instructors of the
Theological Students, and by the circumstance that they are
intimately associated as fellow residents with those of their own
denomination who are about to V)e called to minister in their
)mlpits. Well, besides this, anotlier form of relation has l»een
created between the University and the denominations. Between
the State institution and the denominational Arts Colleges there
may exist the more intimate connection involved in aHiliation.
For example, one of the oldest of the Arts Colleges, which had
been in receipt of one of the grants to which I referred, became
formally affiliated to this University. St. Michael's College, one
of whose Students was a successful candidate for hijjh honours
last year, and hns just received a (Jold Medal from this platform,
is now formally affiliated. These facts show the expansive char-
acter of our scheme. You find therefore an informal but close
relation with Theological Colleges like Knox College and
McMaster Hall, and you find affiliation with an Arts College like
St. Michael's College. You tind the po.ssibility of such further
training as they chose to im])art being imjnirted by the College
staff, while the Students attend our lectures and receive the benetit
of the information impartetl, the standing obtained, and the
competition and association with the large body of the Under-
graduates of University College. Then Wycliffe College has been
established in relations somewhat similar to those of Knox
College for the purposes of the Ciiurch of England, and maintains
the closest and most friendly i-elations with the Stat' system and
with this University. And it is enlarging its borders and accom-
modations for the express purpose of giving the Students at the
University, although not going into the ministry, an opportunity
of residence in the Collejre of their Church, and association with
the Professoi-s and Students of the Theological Faculty.

I have pointed out that there is a vast number of all denomina-
tions — consideiing the total population of the Province, and the

number we may expect to undergo the sacifioee ao often neoesMrj
to attain a univeraitjr education — attending our lectures ; and I
have shown by statistics, I think, that the institution is in the
fullest and broadest sense a National and ProTincial institution.
It was but the other day that we welcomed an event which has
lately resounded through the religious world — the final consum-
mation of the union of the various branches of the Methodist
Church, and we know that their arrangements for higher educa-
tion are still unsettled. I took the opportunity a while ago, at a
banquet in connection with this University, of expressing my
humble hope and wiuh in connection with those arrangements. We
who believe this is the best system, are deeply interested in those
arrangements. We who have at this moment some sixty-three
Methodist Undergraduates in this institution, are deeply inter-
ested in any plan ".vhich that body may adopt with reference to
university or higher education, and I do hope that before finally
deciding they will dispassionately review the whole situation, and
will consider what the advantages are which the State plan now
ofiers. As I said on the occasion to which I referred, if we could
see that great denomination — great in numbers, great in energy,
great in the union which marks its deliberations, great in the
concert which marks the result of action on these deliberations —
if we could see that great denomination bend those energies undivid-
edly to the establishment of a great Theological College close to this
univei-sity, we should soon perceive a Theological College of such
dimensions and so eqtiipped as does not exist in connection with
uuy of the denominations of the Christian religion. And if the
whole exertions of that denomination were concentrated on a col-
lege of that kind ; if for the purposes of their church, they were to
use their funds, their resources, their energies, and to avail them-
selves of the State institution for those things which the State can
do and is offering to do, and is doing, in Arts training and secular
education ; I ask them, I ask you, I ask all, is it not certain that
greater results could be accomplished for them, and for all, than can
be possible on any other plan that can be suggested 1 As I have
said, one type is not tho only type. You have the case of a Theo-
logical College and the case also of an affiliated Arts College like St.
Michael's. There is much tu be said in favourof arrangements where-

Ill

by in the affiliated or aMociated colleges tutorn may be emplojed,
and amiHtance rendered to those reniding in those colleges who meet
in the common training school. But what T aliould like to see, in
the interests of this Province, and what I lielieve would be in the
interests of that denomination, would t>e that this occasion should be
taken advantage of, and that that great body should come heartily
into line with our system ; and hh we now posHess a large proportion
of those who undertake a university course from that >)ody, that we
should find them all within our walls. Now we are not a rich
people. We require, in order to have a great university, a great
expense. You cannot have it otherwise. Yon require two things :
you require a large expense for equipment and for staff, and you
require a large number of students in order to make a great uni-
versity. You must have the men and the means to teach, and you
must have the multitudes assembled together to learn. It is in
tlie great competition, in the great multitudes assembled together,
in the number of active intellects meeting together in friendly,
liberal and cordial comiietition in the race for distinction, that you
get one of the most im)X)rtant elements of a university. It is not
to be said that the denominatiouH which should join would lose.
On the contrary they would gain, because they would have an in-
fluence in the conduct of the concerns of this institution. They
would gradually become our graduates. They would elect along
with ours a large proportion of the Senate. They would support
the institution, they would mould its policy, and it is not absorp>
tion, but conjunction, which would produce increased strength.
We were sometimes called in the old da> s -ant? to-day there is
a faint revival of that cry — a godless colU^ge ; and I see we are
under the ban of the Arohbishop of Canterbury in this as in some
other particulars. It is not necessary on tluH occasion and before
this audience to repel that charge by argument It is the less
necessary, because within the last few months we have had ample
vindication and exiMsition on that subject from eminent men : from
the President of University College, Dr. Wilson ; from Principal
Sheraton and from Dr. Caven by speech and writing. I do repel
it however. I rej)el it as not mei-ely unfounded, but, I will not
say intentionally, but yet, insulting. We who are undergraduates
and graduates of this institution, belong, as I have shown you, to

112

various denominations ; we are true to our various denominations ;
we are doing our duty by them. We are not a sect of secularists
as is almost implied by this charge, but we are a Christian peoi)le
belonging to the vaiious denominations into which the Christian
Church is divided in this country, believing this is the best prac-
tical plan of carrying out the great object of higher education in
which we are all concerned. And those who so talk should remem-
ber that by going in cordially with that plan they would destroy the
faintest pretence — if such there be — for the tr'.;th of the charge,
because the more the Churches avail themselves of the State plan
the more intimately they . associate themselves with it, the more
they bind themselves up with it, the more they mould the churae-
ter of this institution, and give, as they alone can give, a rightful
place to religion by those proper methods which it is for them, and
not for the State, in a day of separate and divided creeds to apply.
Now, if I may be permitted to say a word on anotner subject,
it is this : I say that there has been an atteni})! in that same speech,
to which I have twice referred, by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
to intermingle the questions of common school education and uni-
versity education, and we have had an account, as inaccurate as it
was possible for an account to be, of the position of that question
so far as it is in controversy, I want to make one practical pro-
posal with reference to religion in the schools, and 1 maintain if
this proposal is not acceptable to the denominations it is to be re-
gretted, but it proves in the plainest way the impossibility of a
system on any other basis than ours. I see no reason why the
heads of the various denominations of this country, Piotestaiit and
Catholic, should not unite in a selection of passages of Sacred Writ
without note or comment, which it should be the duty of the mas-
ters to set for the scholars to learn and to repeat daily in the
public schools of the land. I think it perfectly possible in the
present more happy condition of sentiment which prevails among
those of ditferent religious creeds for suoh a compilation to be made
by them. The State cannot make it ; it cannot attempt it ; but,
if those who call for religion in the puLJic schools will meet to-
gether and will agree that certain pas.sages may be learned and
repeated^without note or comment, without exposition or explana-
tion by the master — leaving that to the pastor or parent or teacher

lis

at borne or in Church or in Sunday-school — then that can be done
which would be of very great connequence. It is of the last con-
sequence, not merely that the Bible should be read, but that while
the memory is young, fresh and retentive its words should be
burned in upon the mind, which will then retain the impression.
If this can be done, much will be done ; if this cannot be done by
common consent of the denominations, I ask you That can be
donel

Now, I want to point out to you that, as I have said, a great
University is an expensive institution in modern times, and the
work it has to perform evidences the reason for that expense.
The domain of science has been greatly enlarged ; whole realms
have been newly opened up. Take, for example, the science of
Electricity, and see what has been done in that in the way of
investigation and discovery, and in the application of those dis-
coveries to important uses. Indeed the whole domain of Physics
has been widely enlarged in all directions. You cannot, therefore,
have many good Universities. You have five thousand Common
Schools, one hundred High Schools, one great University. Other
Universities there are doing good and great work ; but that work
is being done under conditions which, as I have shown you, unless
there be a subvei-sion of the settled policy of the Province,
preclude them from being regarded as State institutions.

Some say that a University is a luxury for the rich. I deny it.
I say that it is a necessity for the poor. The rich man can
provide an education for his son if you destroy this institution
to-morrow. It is the poor man, the man of narrow circumstances,
whom you are really helping forward in the struggle to advance
his children, when you maintain a great University, with tuition
as nearly as possible free, and doors open to all, no matter of what
creed or how scanty their purse. I know that great sacrifices are
incurred even in our day by those who send their sons to this
University. I know that great labours are endured by young men
who take prominent places in their class lists, or who win prizes
or medals, and who help to maintain themselves by work while
they are engaging in their studies here. Even this institution
cannot be used by those of narrow means without those sacrifices ;
and it must not be forgotten that much haa been done — though

114

much remains to be done — for the masses of the people in the
maintenance of such an institution as this. This is a country in
which any man may hope that his son may rise to the highest
place ; and who doubts that a liberal education is one of the easiest
and most effective channels by which that place can be reached 1
This is a country of popular government, and popular government
is a difficult science. It requires learning, it requires training.
Our friend, the President, alluded to a chair of political science,
which we should all like to see established. I say it is a shame
that we have not such a chair. Our constitution, the constitution
of other countries like ours, the laws which regulate the growth and
progress, the rise and fall of free institutions, the general prin-
ciples of justice and jurisprudence, not the technicalities and sub-
tleties of the law which incrust and overshadow those pnnciples,
those general principles with which every educated citizen should
be familiar, which every legislator should know — the principles
of political economy, the general principles of history, so far as
they affect the growth and life of the State ; are not these the A
B C, the very alphabet of the statesman's career] And yet our
provision for that science is to-day of the most perfunctory charac-
acter. But while I speak thus, yet this institution does even now
to some extent supply that want, a want which it is essential
to the good government of the country should be supplied. If
you take this as a poor man's question, I say that the poor man
is infinitely more interested in good government than is the rich
man. The rich man can bear a bad government, but with the
poor man the margin between what is tolerable and what is not,
is BO nari'ow that a good government or a bad may make all the
difference. A few years ago the Senate decided, after two years'
consideration, that our changed circumstances as to numbers, as to
the domain of knowledge, apart from other considerations to which
I have alluded, rendered the funds inadequate, and they repre-
sented that fact to the Government. They did their duty. They
were responsible for the efficient management of the institution,
and they would have done less than their duty if they had not
pointed out to the authorities the requisites for its efficient man-
agement. No particular notice of that application was taken by
anybody. A year ago the Vice-Chancellor from this place reit-

115

erated the demand, and then arose a storm. It was said this
would never do. We were told that all the old questions were to
be brought up again, and that we were to be subjected to criticisms
and animadversions, not merely with reference to the funds of the
institution, but with reference tu the settled principles of this and
similar institutions. Now time passes, and I wish simply to say
that I am glad the discussion took place, for I believe the result
of it has been to explain and make clear to many people what
might have been obscure to some — what the position and the
strength of this institution are.

We do not object to criticism. We do not profess that no
mistakes have been made at the beginning and perhaps in later
days ; but I say that there has been no effective attack on the
conduct of this institution or upon its success as judged by its
fruits. And while we are prepared to vindicate our general
course, while we are prepared to justify our demand for more funds
on the proposition on which alone it can be justified, namely, that
the public good demands it, we shall always be found ready, should
!in attempt be made to subvert principles supposed to be settled,
to vindicate the honour, the reputation and the utility of the ins-
titution. We have no desire to live except on the condition of
proved continued utility. There are many points in agitation on
which I should like to say something — the higher education of
women, the question of Upper Canada College, and various points
attempted to be made against this institution — but for none of
these does time serve. I would only say this, that going on as we
have gone on with the earnest desire to improve by all criticism,
friendly and kind and candid, or hostile, unfair and uncandid,
going on as well as we may towards that measure of perfection to
which human things can go, we ask from the people of the Prov-
ince no more than this : that if they adhere to the theory of a
great State institution for univeitiity education, if they believe
that that which they establi.shed was well and wisely established,
they will persevere in their policy. And that if the circumstances of
the case demand further funds in order to the continued etHciency
of the institution, under changed conditions, they will not allow
this university to pass into the shade for want of those funds.
Whatever the result may be, the duty of those charged with the

116

affairs of this institution is clear. It is to administer its resources
to the best adrantage, to apply, so far as those resources allow, all
the most modern and approved methods, and to vindicate its exist-
ence in the future as thej believe they have done in the past.

iources
}w, all
i exist-
it.