Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

THE COMMISSIONERS UNIVERSITY REFORM DEFENDED, IN REPLY TO EDITORIALS IN THE GLOBE AND THE LEADER, BY A COMMITTEE OF THE METHODIST CONFERENCE, 1863.

In addition to the Resolutions of censure, proposed in the Senate by Mr. Adam Crooks, the leading Newspapers in Toronto joined in the attack upon the Commissioners' Report. In reply to these strictures, an elaborate defence of the suggestions in the Report was prepared by a Special Committee of the Methodist Conference and published in pamphlet form. The following is a copy of this Defence:

The Committee appointed by the Wesleyan Conference to advocate a National System of University and Collegiate Education, upon the basis of equal rights to all Denominations and classes of the community, feel ourselves called upon to vindicate the University Commissioners and the Denominations advocating University Reform, from the strictures of The Globe and The Leader newspapers and to present a summary view of the equitable and patriotic grounds on which that Reform is advocated.

Importance of the Question; its History.

The great importance of the question is such as to invite the best attention of every friend of his Country, of education, of Religion. And when we speak of Religion, we speak of it not in reference to any Religious Persuasion, but in relation to those great principles of truth and morals which are common to all Religious Persuasions, and which form the chief elements of individual and national character, the only basis of confidence between man and man, and without which no neighborhood, or Country, can be happy, or prosperous. Religious Persuasions are the only agencies of teaching these principles, and are, therefore, the greatest benefactors of society. To employ towards them terms of opprobrium and contempt must be the offspring of a feeling opposed to the principles and practice of religious truth and morals.

The University Question presents itself historically and practically as follows: In former years the public Endowment for higher education was employed in establishing one College, virtually in the interests and under the control of one Church. This caused great dissatisfaction; to remove which the Legislature passed an Act, in 1849, extinguishing the very name of the College, and establishing a College under the name of an University, excluding all recognition of Religion, and prohibiting every kind of Religious Worship in the Institution. It was as revolting to the feelings of the people generally to exclude all Religion, as to establish one dominant Church. What the Country needed, and what was largely demanded, was, not the exclusion of Christianity from our System of University Education, but the comprehension of all the influences of Christianity through the Religious Persuasions upon equal terms to all, upon equal conditions, without the exclusion or domination of any. This was the origin and object of the University Act of 1853, as stated in the preamble, and as avowed by Members of the Government who introduced it. Both the Acts of 1849 and 1853 sought the affi'iation of all the Colleges of the Country in one University. The preamble of the second Act states that no College had affiliated under the first Act, and, therefore, proposed other provisions for the attainment of that object and the wider diffusion of Collegiate Education in the Country. But the mode in which the Act of 1853 has been administered, or rather mis-administered, has virtually perpetuated the repealed Act of 1849. Hence the dissatisfaction with the present system, and the renewed advocacy of University Reform.

The Practical Nature of the Question.

The practical question now is, whether our Systern of University Education shall include one endowed College only, or several Colleges in one University, teaching the same subjects of Literature and Science, and up to the same standard, yet varied in their religious oversight and modes of instruction, suited to the different sections of the community, and adapted to secure a wholesome emulation; whether all the means provided for Collegiate education, should be expended in supporting one set of Professors for all Upper Canada, or several sets of Professors; whether one College,that is, a School next higher than a Grammar School,-with its Teachers, without emulation, without oversight, with Salaries secured independent of Pupils, or amount of labour, is likely to do more for either the quality, or diffusion of higher education in the Country, than several Colleges erected by voluntary effort, and developing and combining the influence and energies of Religious Persuasions, and their several bodies of Teachers animated to duty by mutual emulation, and largely depending upon their exertions and success for their remuneration, and guaranteed to the community as to character and principles, as well as ability, not by a Government appointment, but by the character and oversight of the Religious Persuasions establishing Colleges interested in their efficiency and success. This is the practical question at issue in the present discussion. All the dust raised about "sects," "spoliation," "vandalism," etcetera, are the mere tactics employed by partizanship to prejudice the question in the minds of the misinformed, just as Reformers were called Revolutionists, and the advocates of equal rights used to be called spoliators, in former days in this Country. What the Country at large, and what every good friend to it, is interested in, is not whether Collegiate education shall be given in Toronto alone, or in other Towns also, or by any one, or more, Religious Persuasion, or by no Religious Persuasion, but how, by a given amount of public aid, can the means and influences in behalf of University Education be most extensively developed, and University education most widely imparted, with the best precaution and provision possible for the principles and character of the young men educated. Such is the practical question for the reader's consideration and decision.

Proceedings of the Wesleyan and Other Churches on the University Question.

The Wesleyans, as a Body, and some other large Religious Persuasions, believe that several emulating Colleges will do more work and educate more youth, than one monopolist College; they believe that youth are more likely to be good and useful citizens if they are religiously taught and watched over at the same time that they are secularly instructed; and, believing this, they believe the past and present system of expending the University Endowment is unjust and impolitic, and that a one-college monopoly is at variance with the best interests of the Province, and with the just rights of large sections of the community. They embodied the expression of their convictions in Petitions to the Legislature, and asked for inquiry. Inquiry was granted, and proofs were adduced in support of the justice of their complaints. A Commission was issued to investigate the management of the University Endowment, and the working of the University System, and report the results, with such recommendations as the investigation might suggest. That Commission has reported. The Report has been printed, and attacked by the advocates of monopoly. We now proceed to answer these attacks.

Reply to Attacks on the University Commissioners.

The Globe of the 20th ultimo says:

"The chief result of the inquiry seems to us to be the establishment, almost beyond question, that Messieurs James Patton, of Toronto, John Beaty, of Cobourg, M. D., are the most impudent men that the Province contains. The only doubt which remains on our mind, arises from the question whether Messieurs Patton, Beatty, and Paton are

really the Authors of the Report bearing their name, or whether they have not been used as the plastic tools of Doctor Egerton Ryerson, whose hand may, we fancy, be traced in many of its pages."

We can state, in reply, on the best authority, that "Doctor Egerton Ryerson" did not write, or suggest, one line of the Report, and that every line of it was suggested and written by one, or the other, of the Commissioners themselves.

Mr. Paton is a scholar and Member of the Senate of Queen's College; Doctor Beatty is a Member of the Senate of Victoria College; and Mr Patton is Vice Chancellor of Toronto University,-made so, not by Government appointment, but by election of the Senate, and against Mr. Langton, who was proposed and stoutly advocated by Doctor Daniel Wilson. Such a Commission could not have been more fairly selected. The Globe of the 30th ultimo make repeated and lengthened attacks upon Mr. Paton personally. The Globe represents Mr. Paton as a "self-appointed Member" of a Committee of which he was not a Member at all, and at not one meeting of which he was ever present. The Globe also sneers at the "Honourable James Patton" for receiving $800 per annum for "doing the little bit of formality" of conferring Degrees on Students entitled to receive them; but The Globe does not mention that Mr. Langton had received the same sum per annum during four years for performing the same duties of Vice Chancellorship; and which duties involved the preparation of all business for the Senate and conducting all Correspondence in behalf of the University.

It is also just to observe that Mr. Patton, after two years of service in the office of Vice Chancellor, has, within the last two months, been unanimously re-elected to that office by the Senate, on motion of Doctor McCaul, (President of University College), seconded by Mr. Adam Crooks, Barrister-at-Law.

The Commissioners acted quite within the varied objects, and Visitorial powers of their Commission. The Globe cannot object to the Questions they proposed, or the fairness of their selection of parties of whom answers to the questions were requested; yet The Globe calls the Commissioners the "most impudent men that the Province contains," because they adopt the suggestions which the replies to their questions warrant, and make those suggestions almost in the very words which the Senate of the University had unanimously adopted. The Globe's imputation, therefore, upon the Commissioners, is most unjust and unfounded, whether it comes, or not, from "the most impudent men that Canada contains."

Reply to Attacks on the Wesleyan and other Petitioners for University Reform.

The Globe and The Leader can scarcely find epithets of odium strong enough to designate the Wesleyan and other advocates of University Reform. They are "greedy sects," "spoliators," "plunderers," enemies of our Common School System, and indeed everything that is selfish, mean and mercenary.

We may ask, in reply, whether the very Writer of some of these assailing articles in The Globe and The Leader is not a salaried Officer in the very College whose. monopoly he advocates, and whether he is not largely profiting by that monopoly? We may also ask, whether The Globe and The Leader establishments have not also profited not a little by that same monopoly? Are these the parties to impute mercenary motives to others, and especially to whole communities? And is a resort to such imputations the proper style, and spirit, and method, to discuss the great question of the higher education of a Country? The Globe descends to personalities, and names three Heads of Colleges who have for several years been Members of the Senate, as objects of attack. He speaks of "the Reverends Doctors Nelles and Leitch, and the Very Reverend Vicar General McDonell," as charging for their "board, lodging, and travelling expenses to the University fund" "every time they favour the Senate with their presence." Now, although nothing is more just and reasonab'e that Members at a distance should be paid their Travelling expenses, while attending the Senate,-although the Legislature

provides for the payment of the Travelling expenses of its own Members,—although both Victoria and Queen's Colleges, and, we dare say, the other Colleges, pay the Travelling expenses of the distant Members of their Boards of Trustees and Senate, and do so as a matter of economy, as well as of justice, as the distant Members of such Bodies are generally more economical in the expenditure of the funds, than local Members resident where the funds are expended, and who may have some interest in their expenditure, yet those Toronto Members of the Senate who have wished to keep the control of University affairs in Toronto hands, have resisted every measure which has been proposed to pay the Travelling expenses of non-Toronto Members of the Senate, (although said Toronto Members have provided for paying the Travelling expenses of non-Toronto Examiners of the University), and neither Doctor Nelles, nor Doctor Leitch, nor Vicar General McDonell, has ever received a farthing from the "University fund" in payment of their "Board, Lodging, and Travelling expenses" while attending Meetings of the Senate. The Globe's statement is, therefore, as untrue as his attack is unworthy of a public journalist.

Then as to the Wesleyans being a "greedy sect, spoliators," etcetera, to whom do these epithets most justly apply? To those who largely profit by the monopoly which they advocate, or to those who advocate equal rights upon equal terms, among all sections of the community according to their works? The Wesleyans have ever been the earnest advocates of equal rights and privileges among all classes, and that long before most of their Assailants had a name, or a habitation, in this Country. Every time a Minister of any other Church than that of England, of Scotland, or of Rome, solemnizes matrimony in behalf of his own, or other, people, or performs a funeral service over their remains in Grounds regularly secured by law, he, together with all parties concerned, enjoys fruits of the many years' labour in the cause of civil and religious liberty of some of those very men, sustained by the Wesleyan Body, who have been most traduced by the advocates of monopoly as University Reformers. The Wesleyan Body has a character and a history in the Country which its Assailants may envy and asperse, but cannot destroy.

Reply to Remarks of "The Globe" and "Leader" on the Commissioners' Report as to Expenditures.

The Globe and The Leader both affirm that the Report of the Commissioners contains no proof of the extravagant Expenditure complained of. The Petitioners had complained that a large portion of the Capital of the Endowment had been spent, at variance with law, for the erection of College Buildings, and that much of the Income Fund had been lavishly expended. The Leader, as usual, deals in vague and general denials, and imputations of "monstrous vandalism." The Globe says:-"We are happy to find that the Commissioners, imbued, as they undoubtedly were, with the strongest desire to find fault, have been unable to point out a single case of either jobbery, or culpable extravagance, on the part of the Authorities of the University."

Neither the Commissioners, nor the Petitioners, had anything to say, nor any desire to say, anything about "the Authorities of the University." It was the expenditure complained of and investigated, without reference to those who directed it. The Commissioners state as follows in respect to the diversion of the Endowment for the erection of buildings:

"Had the University Funds been always strictly applied to the purposes for which they were intended, namely, to create a permanent Endowment, the annual proceeds of which should be devoted to sustaining the cause of higher education in Upper Canada, the result would have been very different from that which we have now to consider. The chief diminution has arisen from the large Expenditure on the new University and College Buildings, Museums, and Library, amounting to $355,907 for Buildings, and $65,569 expended on Library and Museums.

"In the opinion of the Commissioners, the Act appears especially to provide that the Endowment should remain intact, and the only Expenditure from the permanent

fund appears to be authorized in clauses 78 and 84, where provision is made for 'maintenance and ordinary repairs of the property assigned for the use of the said University, or College, and for such permanent improvements and additions to the Buildings, as may be authorized by the Governor-in-Council.' Even a liberal construction of the clauses referred to, as well as of the spirit and tenor of the Act, would seem to afford grounds for doubt as to whether so large an Expenditure as has been permitted, was in accordance with Legislative enactment. A careful examination of the University Building has convinced the Commissioners that the expenditure has been upon a scale disproportionate to its uses and requirements, as well as inexpedient, when the necessity for public aid to sustain the higher educational interests of the Country is considered. Comfort and utility have, it is feared, been less studied than appearance and decoration; and even now, when the number of Students is far smaller than in this growing Country may reasonably be expected to assemble within its walls, complaints are made that the accommodation afforded to University College is greatly limited.

"It is obviously too late to offer further objections to this Expenditure, and the Commissioners merely point to the facts as showing that they afford some ground for dissatisfaction on the part of those other Institutions for Academical Education, whose claims to a share of the Surplus Income funds are provided for by clause 81 of the Act of 1853. The sum of nearly $55,000, taken from the Endowment, is also invested, as already stated, in the Building occupied by the Branch Lunatic Asylum.

"The total amount realized from the sales of Lands is $1,129,178, and according to the intentions of the Act, this should have been invested as the Permanent Fund, or Capital, of the University, and would have produced an annual revenue of $67,750. This will be seen from a 'Statement of Capital invested and amount expended on account of the University of Toronto, up to the 31st December, 1861,' and from a Return, giving subjects of Expenditure and modes of investment. On looking, however, at investments productive of revenue, the Commissioners find that out of the above amount derived from the sales of Endowment Lands, the following five items form the chief sources of income:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"Presuming that from the above five sources an income of $28,188 is derived, it will be seen that the annual income of the University has been reduced to the extent of $39,562 per annum."

Thus a vast Building for great show, but with slender accommodations, has been erected, when the law only authorized repairs and improvements in the existing Buildings; the Capital of Lands sold to the amount of twelve hundred and twenty-nine thousand dollars has been reduced to four hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars; the Income Fund has been reduced to the amount of thirty-nine thousand dollars a year; and yet we are told these facts prove no "culpable extravagance" in the expenditure of the University fund! We may appeal to any candid man of any party, whether these facts do not more than justify and establish all that the advocates of University Reform have complained of and alleged in regard to unlawful and extravgant Expenditures of the University fund.

But these are only a part of the facts relative to extravagance. On the 16th page of the Commissioners' Report, we have the following statement:

"As an instance of the want of proper adjustment of Expenditure to the Income actually collected, reference may be made to the first year in which a deficiency occurred, videlicet: 1859-when the excess amounted to the large sum of $18,569.36. In this one year the following sums are charged to Income Fund.

[blocks in formation]

"Of the expediency of spending so large a sum on the Residence now occupied by only nineteen Students, and also upon the Grounds, at a time when the Income fell short, very great doubts may be entertained; and the Commisioners are strongly of opinion that the last item of expenditure, for the benefit of the Observatory, was not a legitimate application of the University Funds."

« PreviousContinue »