.^J^o. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^SsM A. -my;/! 1.0 I.I 11.25 EM ^^* ■■■ 122 1^ |2.2 US. 12.0 11 iMIi 1.8 U 11.6 Sdences Corporation '^V^ 23 WEST MAiri STREET WEBSTf«,N.Y. 14SS0 (716) S72-4S03 '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHM/ICIVIH Coilection de microfiches. Canadian Institute i^or Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or .vhich may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ D D D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques 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 I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restorf:tion may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; 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 m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. D D D D 0- Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ D D D Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially ob«nured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have beet: refitmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiliet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 filmdes i nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. The to tl The posi of tl film Ori{ beg the sior othi first sior or il The sha TIN whi Mai diff enti beg righ reqi met This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est ii\m6 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: University of Toronto Library ARCHIVES 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. 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 endir^g on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grAce A la giniroslti de: University of Toronto Library ARCHIVES Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenqant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". !8 symbols y signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de rdduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droits, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Victoria College, Queen's Park. Toronto, May 9t/t, 1898. l\ My Dear Mr. Walker, Your favor of the 29th ult. is before me, and I shall at once proceed to give its contents my most careful and serious consideration. For that purpose I may bo permitted to analyse its arguments under the following topics : — 1. Considerations affecting personal consistency. 2. Extended arguments, in which you proceed to refute various inferences which you have drawn from my letters. 3. Your reply to one or two positions which I have really taken in my letter, and which I believe to be correct. After I have dealt with these arguments I may then ask leave to call your atten- tion again to the fundamental facts and principles of my former letter, on which we stand, and which you seem to have entirely overlooked. First, as to the personal question in which Dr. Carman, Dr. Potts and Dr. Hough are involved as well as myself, I may call your attention to the opening ptaragraph of my letter of May 8tli, 1897. I t'.iink that it will be conceded that, from the beginning, I have striven to make the federation machinery run smoothly. Only once before have I felt myself forced to oppose an imposition of fees, which I considered inconsistent with the provisions of the Federation Act, and I have always striven with a feeling of sympathy and loyalty to support every project which promised to advance the best interests of the University. In this I have never been conscious of q^ feeling of Ulifriglidljness toward University CulJ^ge. My one desire and policy has \ieeh to unite the two (^alleges in friendly co-operation for the advancement of our common efficiency and repiTcation. But during the last three years several facts have given me not a little uneasiness, and yet I put them aside saying to myself, we will outlive these things, and in a little time English good sense and fairplay will develop a college system in which independence and equality, and yet unity of University interest will prevail as they do at Oxford or Cambridge. I was therefore willing, for the sake of friendly co-operation, to yield to the extent proposed, as were my colleagues on the committee. But when we reported back to our governing body we found ourselves alone in this position, and ■ wo were met by the challenge,'"^xainine this matter thoroughly and you will find that it is only part of an organized movement which must result either in our being forced! out of federation, or in our being extinguished as an Arts College." Under these circumstances we could do nothing else than withdraw from the concessions which we were disposed to favor, but which we found it beyond our power to carry with our constituency. Our mistake was in being too pliable, and th.at we were mistaken we are now finally and fully convinced by what you and President Loudon have since written. But after we have already made a fair and square acknowledgement on this point, I think a generous opponent should scarcely refer to it again. In any case, we cannot sacrifice public interests for the sake of maintaining our personal reputation for consistency. J Turning now to tho consideration of your inferences, the first of these you have expressed in these wonis ; " Tlie legitimate inference from your letter of 31st May seems to be, in short, that you hold that whilst before federation the duty was laid upon the State of making provision for all the subjects of higher education, under federation this duty is only binding as regards certain subjects (the so-called ' Univer- sity ' subjects), and that this duty is no longer imperative as regards certain other subjects (the so-called 'College' subjects). In other words, that in 1887, on the pas- sage of the Federation Act, the State abandoned its previous policy of providing instruction in all necessary branches of higher learning, and bound itself to furnish adecjuate instruction in only a part of these." Now, I will ask any candid man to read my two letters carefully and say if in a single sentence or argument I have expressed or implied any such theory as is here set forth. Instead of a legitimate inference, the whole thing is a fabric of your imagination, for which I certainly must most respectfully decline to be held responsible. At the very outset it begins with an assumption for which I can find no foundation in the facts of our University history, and the correctness of which I should feel very much inclined, as a citizen of Ontario, to dispute, and which certainly three-fourths or nine- tenths of our electors would dispute at the polls if it were propounded as a political doctrine to morrow. This assumption is purely your own, and in your own words reads as follows : " That before federation the duty was laid upon the State of making pro- vision for all the subjects of higher education." When, where and by what compact or principle was that duty laid upon the State, either before or since federation ? So far as I know, the Parliaments, Legislatures or governments of our country have done nothing to engage them to such a responsibility. They have recognized the need of such a provision, and they have set apart a public property which has now become a trust fund to make some degree of provision for that need, but they have never engaged themselves or the State to provide any specific measure of instruction, either in University subjects on the one hand, or in College subjects on the other, to all who may desire it or apply for it. On the contrary, the principle has always prevailed in higher education, of supplementing individual or local effort by State aid. Again, you say, setting forth this time your own opinions, not inferring mine, " From the beginning the Province was admittedly responsible for the teaching of all the subjects of higher learn- ing. This responsibility was unchanged by federation." The first sentence of this statement .should open the eyes of our legislators. It is a statement which I have never made and would not presume to make. While there are many departments of higher learning which are absolutely necessary to the State, and which, as I have endeavored to show elsewhere, it is true economy for the State to provide for those of its young citizens capable of using them for her advantage ; there are other elements of the higher learning that are purely matters of personal, ecclesiastical or sectional interest, and which it would be obviously unfair to tax the people at large to pi'ovide for a favored few. I am quite ready to luimit the second sentence above, that whatever duty did lie upon the State previous to federation still remains, althlugh the method and extent of provision may have been changed by the terms of the Federation Act. As to the assertion that "the allotment of the subjects to the one side or the other" (i.e., to College or University) "appears to be in itself unnatural and illogical, and was apparently determined by mere expediency in an endeavor to meet the exigencies of Victoria College at the time," both predicates are incorrect. A twofold principle of the deepest significance in education determined the general line of cleavage. Literature and philosophy are and must ever be the instruments of personal culture. These were selected for the College. They are also the subjects in which the moral sympathies, the taste, and all the human impulses of the teacher are brought to bear upon the scholar. They are the point at which religion and morals enter into education, not formally, but as a spirit and power. They are therefore the subjects in which it is most necessary for teacher and scholar to come into living contact, to know each other. They are thus, again, the subjects for the smaller class in the College. i\. lecture in chemistry is as good for five hundred as for five. There are few who could hold and impress five hundred in the study of Shakespeare. This general principle was clearly recognized in the limita- tion of classes to twelve and thirty. Two departures were made from it, Italian and Spanish wore honor subjects taken by few ; it was thought wasteful to duplicate classes in those. This was conceded to Victoria. On the other hand, Dr. Younj,', whom wo all Held in honor, desired to be associated with the University staff. This wo conceded at once, holding the remedy in our hands that if we wished we could resume at any tinui the full work in philosophy. By a careful estimate of the liours of instruction under the various courses for the B.A. degree I have found that the work thus assigned to the College constitutes about fifty-seven per cent, of all the teaching ro(juired by our present time tables. In that respect, therefore, the division as between College and University was not unfair. On the other hand, with the single exception referred to, you will find that the subject.s assigned to the University are mainly those l)earing on the great industrial, commercial and political life of the Htate, and which thus touch the great common interests of the community. The division was thus not illogical or unnatural, but one constructed upon clearly defined principles. Hut, after all, this has no Ijearing on the question between us. At least 1 am not disposed to press it in that direction. The next inference which you attempt tf) impose upon me is what you call the " theory of a first charge." Now, it is true that 1 did in my last letter use the expres- sion " first charge " once. But I used' it with careful Umitntion. I asserted that by the very fact that certain lectures were made free to the students of both colleges they were ''virtually placed on the original endowments of the University" I was very careful not to say that they were placed there by statutory enactment, but that such must be the effect of the enactment by which they were made free. This I call the " federation free franchise," It is, in fact, the right which we actjuired or supposed we acquired by federation, and stands in the preamble of the Act as the very object of its enactments. Of course I knew very well that they were not made a first charge in technical law or by statutory enactments, though the Tory order in which the charges on the common fund are named might give countenance to such a contention — "The University endowments and all additions thereto shall be applied to the maintenance of the University, the Universily Fnculli/, and University College." But we have never for a moment insisted on any such construction of the Act or agreement as would exclude University College from rea^onuble claim on the common endowment. What we do object to is such a policy as rohx the University Faculty of its reasonable claim, and then, in the face of both Act and agreement, seek^ to impose fees for maintenance on our students. As to your inferences that we would deprive University College of " effective claim upon the endowment," or that we would force it to " receive from the common fund even less than the amount of the fees contributed by it thereto," or that we "claim that University College does not enjoy equal rights with the University as regards the endowments," they are all of a piece with the inference already examined. So also with your " logical (?) inference" that "University College exists only by sufferance or until the cll>.i,ms of the University subjects shall have extinguished this semblance of a claim." A man 'who is one of the very ablest masters of finance on this continent can surely not fail to see the difference between denying a right to a reasonable share of the endow- ment and resisting such an exclusive appropriation of it as infringes upon the rights of others. In raising this imaginary inference of danger to University College you are creating false alarm and sowing the seeds of antagonism such as I had done my utmost to avoid by express admission of the rights of University College, although to you this admis.sion is only "apparent and amounts to nothing." The same perversity of inference appears in your next paragraph. Speaking of my reference to the staff agreed upon at federation for the College and the University, you .say "your assumption evidently is that this is to be regarded as a maximum staff, and as imposing for all time the limits beyond which University College may not expand." Now, I neither made, nor implied, nor did I require for the purposes of my argument any such assumption. I simply called attention to a certain.definite provision, laid down in the agreement, though slightly veiled in the Act, as to the two faculties, College and University. I did not call this provision the maximum, nor did I call it the initial. All that my argument required was the contention that the two faculties should reach this V poHitioii piiri /MiMni*. All tiuit you say aliout tli« limiting of instruction in KngliHh, otc, and unliinit(;(l expansion of luitrononiy, niatlicnialics, inotapiiyHioH, (^tc, is ,siiii]i)y waHttni rhetoric, and not good logic. No on»s has niado any such proposition. Anrl your ImaHted rei/nrtio ad nhnnrilam is simply the reiiuHio itil tilinuri/um of an absurd ivj'erenre. Far from any such contention or idea, we of Victoria hi.ve felt an honest pride; in such men as llutton and Dale, Fletcher and Alexander and McCurdj' as ornaments not only to Univerjiity College, iiut to the wlioli; Univtu'sity ; whihi, on the other hand, the lettei- before me almost foices me to the conclusion that you and President Loudon and the others wlio have inspired its contents would wipe out Victoria to-morrow if you could. The last of these creatures of your fancy to which I shall reftir is the most sur- prising of all. It is expressed in these words, " How are you justified in saying tliat University College should bo supported wholly by its fees than that the University of Toronto should be wholly supported by its fees ? " Now, where do I .say that? T did say this, "It," the Act, "placed in the hands of the College? the right to charge fees for instruction, implying that it was to be in purl, maintained from that source and to he Hiijipleinente.d from the endowment ;" and again, " I should be very sf)rry to deny to University College a fair share of help from the provincial endowments." Surely such direct statements should have imposed a limit u{3»)n your imaginary inferences. I shall now invite you to return to the consideration of the real points of difference between us which you have honored with reply. The first ([uestion on which you call me to account is this, Have the provisions of the original federation agreement been carried out as fully for the University side as for the College side 1 Or have the shortcomings all fallen to the University side 1 Now, first of all let me call your attention to the fact that this is not a fundamental point of my argunient. I have laid no special emphasis upon it. It occupies about eight lines in a letter of nearly four pages, and you devote three pages to its (iemolition. But your own letter contains all the evidence necessary on this point. To fill out the nineteen departments of the University faculty you are obliged to reckon lecturers as professors, while in the College they take the place of tutors, and even then you must admit that three of these departments are not fully furnished, and that while fellows have been entirely discarded in the College, they are still retained in the University faculty. You will see that as compared with the College staff the University staff is under-ranked and underpaid, and as a consetjuence subject to continual change, beside being very short in number of men in two or three of the eight departments. J should be sorry to think with you that the indefinite wording of the Act was designed to make such disparity possible, when the same standard of efficiency was in the agreement clearly applied to both. Again, as to the buildings and equipment. The Biological building was not the result of federation, nor was the Chemical building erected to provide for federation. The University could scarcely have held her own without them. One of them was projected and in part erected before federation was completed, and the other Kiis the outcome of the energy and ability of the head of the department, and is a credit to him and to the University, but as a provision for federation is of little use. The provision nuide for geology and mineralogy, as you well know, has never been satisfactory, and in connection with the limited staff, weakens that important department in the University curriculum. This has been clearly recognized by the Senate. But even your " minor retjuirements of the programme " are very different from the agreement, and to us far from being as satisfactory. They are all contrived so as to obscure the distinctive idea of federation, a^ommon Univeraiti/ with distinct coUeges^ onjmeinidj^'ootingi and the entire force of yoimeffeFIs to annihilate any such conception, especially when it is followed up by the suggestion that we might save our money and give up our Goll(!ge. The provision of a splendid library, of which we can make but little use, and of other splendid buildings, to which but few of our students find their way, are by no means an equivalent for those things which you have yourself admitted as not provided according to the original programme. However, these points I have not l)efore enlarged upon. We have recognized what has been done for the Biological Department, the Library the Chemical laboratory and the gymnasiumjv and in the general interests of the ?J« -/■ ^N7 \ I University we are quite ready to l)e reiwotiahle. Tt is only when the entire attitude nasumed towards us is of the hostil^ cliaracter now innnifust that we are forced to sfM^aic out. The next jtosition to whicli you take objection is " tlie complete piiralielisni of University Collefjts and Victoria Col lejje." This, you say, "lias no foundation so far as the Act is concerned, and is not supported l)y anytliing in tlio aj^retMnent. The only parallelism which 1 have drawn is to he found on |)a){e 8 of the printed corresjtondence, and this treats of two points, the rij^hts of University and Victoria eoiie>,'C's in ffderation as rulle(/en, and the rights of their H/w/ents as ttuilcnln and as rilizi'ns of Untario. Hiiro again your statement of my position is l>y no moans accurate. 1 liave not insisted on a 'complete parallelism.' I said 'wo have a free site in the University Park; University College has l)oth free site and free liuildings. Hotli our free site and the University College free site and huildings are guaranteed by the same Federation Act. Both are provided out of funds which belong to the whole country, and not to any Hection of it." Now, surely what I have said here is in harmony with facts and with both the letter and the spirit of the Act and the agrisemcMtt. As to students, I have said "Our students, as citizens of Cntario, have the same rights in the endowments of >■ the University as the students of University College, no more, and certainly no less." '^ '•'■'i''^ Again, "if we (referring to our students and not to the corporate college) have the free service of the University Faculty and efpiipment, .so have Univorsity College students. Victoria students have exactly the same rights guaranteed by the same law, and they pay exactly the same remuneration by way of fee.s. These things are our rights both in equity and law, and not matters of favor." But I have pointed out that under the law the students of University College acquire another right by becoming such students, i.e., the right of receiving college tuition, not grati.s, but at a fee to be fixed by the College Council on the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This right all students enrolling in Victoria College forego, and undertake, with the aid of their friends, to provide their College instruction in their own College ; and for this purpose their College is placed by the Act, so far as teaching and attend- ance on lectures and representation on the Senate is concerned, on exactly the same footing as University College. Now, I am entirely at a loss to understand what you mean by "this ,^r IHHl Iuih iMmii alrniuiy more than runli/.uci. The total income fund fur tliut year, enilinj,' Junf, IHHr), wiih about lJ70,8OO ; expenditure, $71, 59S. The estimated revenue thin year w #1 l.'i,'234. Here in an increane of over |40,000, and if you odd the income of Victoria and of your own special fundu, you havo my estimate of 9150,000 fully reali/.od. But still we are l)ehind. The question is how the deOcicnoy ihould lie raised. We appealed to the Oovcriinient,, and they have granted us 97,000, which they have ([uite spocificiilly designated for the aid of the University Faculty. (See Sec. 7, Chap, f)!), (JO Vic.) We have also ii.sked the aid of the three faculties to lesson the expenses of examination, and that uid has been given, the aid given by Victoria Ixiing fully pro- portionate to lior number of students. It is now proposed to raise the luilance by increased fees. Where should those fees bo imposed 1 is it not at the point wliere the deficiency lias b('on created 1 That has been the policy in the past. A few years ago we found that the cxiinii lation fees charged did not meet the expenses, and they were at once advanced and no ol)je