that "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 known that the Buildings were specially erected for University College; that the name of the University was used as a means of getting a larger expenditure and more magnificent Buildings for the College. The Senate Chamber, so called, is the Council Chamber of the College; the Convocation Hall of the Senate, so called, is the Convocation Hall of the College. The Senate does not meet in the College at all, but in a Class-room in Upper Canada College, where even Degrees have been conferred on Students of the University. The Globe is right in saying that the Expenditure in relation to the cumbrous machinery of the University, as heretofore managed, is needless waste. Yet after all the Expenditure for College accommodations at Toronto, the College Classrooms are already crowded to excess. Suppose then, that all the Students attending the several Colleges of the Country, were to come to University College at Torontɔ, as the Advocates of monopoly contend, where would they find room, and what one Professor could teach them all Classics, what other Professor could teach them all Mathematics?* To deny aid, therefore, to other Colleges, is either to provide additional College accommodations and employ additional Professors at Toronto, or leave more than half of the now College going youth of the Country without any facilities of higher education, unless provided for them by voluntary exertion. The Globe has admitted, that "the University Lands were set apart to afford higher education to the youth of Upper Canada, not to give places to incapable servants'; but not one-half of the youth of Upper Canada now pursuing Collegiate education can be educated in the one College at Toronto, with its present accommodations and present corps of Teachers, notwithstanding the immense expense incurred in providing them. The only just and effectual, as well as most economical method of providing facilities for the higher education of all the youth of Upper Canada seeking it, is through the several Colleges appertaining to and established by different sections of the people.

Objections Answered.

A few words, in conclusion, in answer to objections.

Objection 1. "To aid the several Colleges is to encourage sectarian education." Answer. Suppose this were the case, would it not be better that the youth of the Country, educated, or uneducated, and the more so if highly educated, should be carefully taught and trained in the doctrines, principles and duties of Religion, as believed by their Denomination, than to have no Religious tendency, or training, at all? What would soon be the state of our Country, if its youth were not nurtured in the doctrines, principles or practice of any Religious Persuasion,-for that is the simple import of the objection against what is called "sectarian education." If the youth of the Country are taught in Religious Doctrine and Worship at all, must they not be taught and trained in the Doctrines and Worship of some Religious Persuasion ? Is there any such thing as Non-denominational Religion, or Worship? Have not all the great good men that have blessed Great Britain, or America, been Members of some "Sect," and received, earlier, or later, a "sectarian," that is a Religious, education? There is no such thing as Religious Instruction which is not given by the Member of some "Sect," that is a "sectarian." To oppose an education, which involves Religious Instruction by some Sect, is, therefore, to oppose all Religious Instruction of youth. If "sectarian" worship, (that is Worship, according to the forms of some Sect,) teaching, habits, are good on Sabbath, are they evil on other days? If a Parent wishes his Son to be nurtured in Christian Doctrines, Worship and duties, does he wish that Son to be without any such nuture, or even oversight, during four years of his education,-four of the *For what Mr. C. F. Adams, Overseer of Harvard University, says on the evils of overcrowded Colleges, see page 321 of the 15th Volume of this Documentary History.

most critical years of his life? Will the Objector answer these questions? Besides, are Classics, or Mathematics, or Chemistry, or Natural, or Mental and Moral Philosophy, sectarian, because taught in a Denominational College? Is not a bushel of wheat grown by a sectarian as good and worth as much as one of like weight and quality grown by a non-sectarian? And is not a given amount of Classics, Mathematics and other prescribed subjects of an University education, of as great value to the Student and to the Country at large, if taught in a Denominational College as if taught in a Non-denominational one? And is not the Religious Worship, Religious Instruction, and Religious oversight of a Denominational College as useful to a Student and likely to be as useful to the Country, as no Religious Worship, no Religious Instruction, nor Religious oversight of a Non-denominational College? When both Colleges teach the same subjects of Literature and Science and up to the same standard, if the College of nɔ Religion is supported with both Buildings and Income, and the College of some Religious Denomination is denied even an income, is not the conclusion irresistible that no Religion is to be endowed and some Religion is to be proscribed when connected with higher education? For a man of no Religion to make the objection in question is quite consistent; but for a man professing Religion to make it, does it not prove beyond doubt that his bigotry to his own Denomination and his jealousy and hatred of other Denominations having Colleges are stronger than his convictions of Religion itself? When the Objector shall have answered these questions, we will be prepared to give a still more ample answer to his objection.

Objection 2. "To grant public aid to Denominational Colleges is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our non-denominational Common School System."

Answer. The reverse is the case, as will presently appear. But observe, there is a wide difference in the circumstances of pursuing Common School and University education. In pursuing the former, the Pupil is with his Parents sixteen hours out of twenty-four, and the whole of Saturday and Sunday, and has, therefore, the security and benefit of ample parental and pastoral instruction and oversight; in pursuing the latter he is not with his Parents, or Pastor, from one month's end to another.

Now the objection is founded upon the assumption that the fundamental principle that our Common School System is Non-denominational,—an assumption founded upon an ignorance of the School Law; for that Law provides, and has provided during twenty vears, that there may be a Denominational School in every School Section, if desired; it provides a'so that the Board of School Trustees may establish Denominational Schools, and Denominational Schools only, if they please, in every City, Town and Incorporated Village in Upper Canada. The Law leaves it with the electors and their Trustee Representatives in each of these Municipalities to decide for themselves whether their Schools shall be Denominational, or not. What is optional cannot be fundamental, but must be contingent, or incidental.

The fundamental principles of our Common School System are two. First, the right of the Parent and Pastor to provide Religious Instruction for their children, and that they shall have facilities for that purpose. For this express provision is made in the Law and General Regulations. Apply this principle to the Collegiate System of the Country. Should the United right of the Parent and Pastor not be provided for during the years that the Son is away from home pursuing his higher education, or should it be provided for as far as possible? Let parental affection and conscience reply. Then, can the combined care and duty of the Parent and Pastor be best provided for in a Denominational, o1 Non-denominational, College? This question admits of but

one answer.

The second fundamental principle of our Common School System is, the aid of the State upon the condition of, and in proportion to, local effort in each School Section. This is a most vital principle of the System, and as a chief element of its success, no public aid is given until a School-house is provided, and a legally qualified Teacher is employed, when public aid is given according to the work done in the School; that is, in

proportion to the number of children taught, and the length of time the School is kept open; and public aid is given for the purchase of School Maps and Apparatus, Prize Books and Libraries in proportion to the amount provided from local sources.

Now, apply this vital principle of our System of Common School Education to our System of Collegiate Education. A section of the community,-a Denominational, or not,-provides College Buildings and employs the Professors. The State, through a University Board, prescribes the kind, or Curriculum, of Collegiate Education to be given and decides upon the amount and merits of the work done in each College by examining its Students and determining their Degrees, and then aids each College in proportion to the number of Students taught and approved. This is the System of Collegiate Education which we have advocated; and is not this the fundamental principle of our Common School System instead of being opposed to it? On the contrary, the advocates of a One-college monopoly repudiate, in relation to the System of Collegiate Education, this fundamental principle of our Common School System. They have provided no College Buildings, nor employed Professors, nor done a certain amount of Collegiate work, and then asked for public aid in proportion to the work done. They have contributed nothing, have done nothing as a condition of public aid in the great work of Collegiate Education, yet, although drones, and standing with folded arms, they claim to consume all public aid given for its promotion, and have even the hardihood to denounce, as sectarian and selfish, the bee-like industry of their fellow-citizens for insisting upon sharing in the bread of the common hive in proportion to their own contributions of educational honey to it! Now, if the principle of public aid combined with local effort is so vital to our Common School System, and has produced such wonderful results, why should it be repudiated in our Collegiate System? Whether it be a Municipal, or a Denominational section of the community that puts forth the efforts and fulfills the conditions of public aid, involves no principle, is merely incidental, is no part of the concern or business of the State; the principle of co-operation is the same; the work is the same; the education is the same; the public benefit is the same; and the public aid should be the same.

We may also add, that while the System of Collegiate Education we advocated, thus accords with the fundamental principles of our Common School System, those Denominations and parties who have most earnestly advocated University Reform, have been from the beginning, most earnest promoters of the Common School System.

Objection 3. "Your System will lead to the establishment of too many Colleges." Answer. The supply in this respect never has exceeded, and in the nature of things, never will exceed, the demand. No Denomination, or section of the community, will incur the heavy expense and obligation of providing Buildings and an adequate staff of Professors to teach the subjects of the prescribed University Curriculum, unless they can command a sufficient number of Students to require a College. In Cambridge University there are sixteen competing Colleges, and the average number of Students annually matriculated in each College is thirty-one. In Oxford University there are twenty-six Colleges, and the average number of Students admitted per annum into each College, is nineteen. The number of Colleges, when not independent Universities, but competing Colleges in one University, increases the competition, and therefore elevates the standard and character of the University Education given.

Objection 4. "The Denominations that have no Colleges will not share in the University funds."

Answer. Certainly not, when the apportionment is upon the condition of work, any more than a School Section that does no work can share in the apportionment of the Common School fund. But no one ever proposed to apportion the University Fund to Denominations, but to Colleges, whether Denominational, or not, doing publicly prescribed University work, and on account of doing that work, irrespective of their Denominational character, or control. The Denominations not having, or caring to have, Colleges of their own, can send their Sons to the Colleges of other Denominations

most agreeing with them, or to the Non-denominational College more amply provided and endowed in proportion to the numbers of Non-college Denominations than any other Colleges in the Country.

Objection 5. "The Heads and representatives of the several Colleges being Members of the University Board, will lower the standard of University Education."

Answer. The Heads of those Colleges have been Members of the Senate in past years. It has been proved and admitted that the standard of University education has been materially lowered since 1853, but has been lowered entirely by parties connected with or advocating the monopoly of University College; and not one of the Heads of other Colleges has ever suggested, or advocated, lowering the standard of University Education, and some of them have lamented that it has been done.

Objection 6. "The Senate so largely composed of Heads and Representatives of Colleges, will control the University Endowment and dispose of it as they please."

Answer. It is not proposed to give the Senate the control of the University Fund at all, but that the Endowment shall be managed, and the Fund apportioned, by the Government, through its responsible Officers, as are the Grammar and Common School Funds.

Be it also observed, that whatever has been said as to the composition of the Senate, or any other matter of University Reform, has been merely suggested for the consideration of the Government and Legislature, to whose judgment and decision the whole question is submitted.

To conclude. On reviewing the whole question, it must be seen how groundless and unjust are the statements that the advocates of University Reform are seeking to pull down a national University and destroy University College at Toronto. Many wellmeaning men have been misled by the frequency and boldness with which these truthless statements have been made by ignorant, or interested, partizans. The unanimously expressed judgment and recommendations of the Senate of the University on the subject are our ample vindication and complete refutation of the misrepresentations which have been propagated on the subject.

We confidently appeal to every candid and attentive reader, whether the System of University Reform, which we advocate, does not involve the true principles of nationality, of justice to all parties, of public co-operation with voluntary effort, of unity in what is essential, and liberty in what is circumstantial,—of a high standard of University Education, and the most economical and efficient means of widely diffusing it.

NOTE. In a Letter published in the Christian Guardian of the 2nd of March, 1864, a Correspondent writes as follows:

A leading American Journal has copied from the Report of the Regents of the University of the State of New York some statistics, showing the amount of Legislative aid in the aggregate, given in that State to the several Colleges. Nearly, if not quite, all of these Colleges are Denominational.

Several (Denominational) Colleges in New England have received even larger assistance. These facts sufficiently show that a total separation of Church and State is quite compatible with a liberal support of Denominational Colleges.

COBOURG, 25th of February, 1864.

VICTORIA COLLEGE.

CHAPTER IV.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHURCHES ON UNIVERSITY MATTERS,

1863.

I. THE METHODIST CHURCH REPRESENTING VICTORIA UNIVERSITY.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

May 14th, 1863. The Bursar, Mr. J. H. Dumble, presented his Financial State

ment.

Moved by the Reverend John Douse, seconded by the Reverend James Spenser, that the Report of the Bursar be adopted. (Carried).

The Reverend Doctor J. B. Aylesworth, Agent, presented his Report.

Moved by the Reverend R. Jones, seconded by the Reverend S. D. Rice, that the Agent's Report be received. (Carried).

Moved by the Reverend S. D. Rice, seconded by Mr. William Kerr, that matters of difference between the Victoria College Board and Mr. W. W. Dean be referred to arbitration, and that he be invited to concur in the same. (Carried).

Moved by the Reverend James Spenser, seconded by the Reverend S. D. Rice, that there be four Arbitrators, in the Dean case, (two on behalf of the Board,) who shall have power to choose a fifth. (Carried).

Resolved, That Mr. Merrick Sawyer, and Mr. John Lewis be requested to act as Arbitrators on behalf of the Board.

Moved by Mr. J. H. Dumble and seconded by the Reverend S. D. Rice, that the Mortgage held by the College against Mr. Smith's property in Guelph, be placed in the Solicitor's hands for foreclosure, or that necessary steps be taken to obtain a release of Mr. Smith's Equity of Redemption, also to obtain an assignment of the insurance policy, if possible. (Carried).

Moved by the Reverend S. D. Rice, seconded by Mr. William Kerr, that the Reverend R. Jones having called attention to a claim on him for $12 per annum, interest on $200 as principal,

Resolved, That the Board accept, in lieu of the aforesaid claim, $150, to be paid to the Treasurer in one month from this date. (Carried).

Moved by the Reverend John Douse, seconded by the Reverend G. R. Sanderson, That the President of the College, the Reverend Doctor Green and the Reverend W. H. Poole, be a Committee to confer with the Reverend John Ryerson respecting certain unsettled accounts. (Carried).

Moved by Mr. William Anglin, seconded by the Reverend S. D. Rice, that the Agent's Report, now discussed, be adopted. (Carried).

A Financial Statement from the Dean of the Medical Faculty having been laid on the Table it was,

---

Resolved, That the Report be referred to the Chairman of the Board, Reverend Doctor Enoch Wood, for consideration.

A Letter of resignation from Doctor Canniff, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, having been read, and also a Report relating to differences between Doctor Canniff and the Dean of the Faculty, it was moved by the Reverend John Douse, seconded by Doctor Cameron, that the resignation of Doctor Canniff be accepted. (Carried).

Moved by the Reverend John Douse, seconded by the Reverend Doctor S. S. Nelles, That the joint Treasurers be directed to prepare a detailed statement, to be submitted to Conference, of the probable Expenses and Income of the College for the ensuing year, and to suggest a plan for meeting the deficiency and for paying off the entire debt. (Carried).