FOOTNOTES:

He never thought of pledging Dr. Ryerson to silence on any of these questions, and he was sure the Conference would not ask him to do so, as the Conference never gagged any man.

TheIndependentthen proceeds:—

Dr. Ryerson has been most unfairly treated. He has not denied having made application for re-admission, but only an application with pledges of silence. The resolutions of Conference, in 1854, accepting his resignation and warmly acknowledging his past services, and, in 1855, consenting to his re-admission, were never communicated to him, and were suppressed by theGuardian. This was most unmanly and unjust.[145]The matter now before the Conference was introduced at the Toronto District Meeting in his absence, and without notice being given him.[146]He uttered some memorable things in his eloquent defence.I believe the true foundation or test of membership in the Church of Christ is not the acute angle of a Class-meeting attendance, but the broad bases of repentance, faith, and holiness. I can have no sympathy with that narrow and exclusive spirit, the breadth of whose catholicity is that of a goat's track, and the dimensions of whose charity are those of a needle's point, whether inculcated by the Editor ofThe Churchon the one hand, or by the Editor of theGuardianon the other. He would give no pledges, had no concessions or promises to make; would be accountable to the rules of the Church as others, and would stand in that Conference on the same footing as other members, or not at all. While he subscribed to all that had been said as to the utility of Class-meetings, and reiterated the grounds on which he had recommended and maintained them; yet, on the ground of Scripture obligation he demurred, and averred, in the language of Mr. Wesley, with whom they originated and who best knew their true position in the Church, that they are merely prudential, not essential, not of Divine institution.

He uttered some memorable things in his eloquent defence.

I believe the true foundation or test of membership in the Church of Christ is not the acute angle of a Class-meeting attendance, but the broad bases of repentance, faith, and holiness. I can have no sympathy with that narrow and exclusive spirit, the breadth of whose catholicity is that of a goat's track, and the dimensions of whose charity are those of a needle's point, whether inculcated by the Editor ofThe Churchon the one hand, or by the Editor of theGuardianon the other. He would give no pledges, had no concessions or promises to make; would be accountable to the rules of the Church as others, and would stand in that Conference on the same footing as other members, or not at all. While he subscribed to all that had been said as to the utility of Class-meetings, and reiterated the grounds on which he had recommended and maintained them; yet, on the ground of Scripture obligation he demurred, and averred, in the language of Mr. Wesley, with whom they originated and who best knew their true position in the Church, that they are merely prudential, not essential, not of Divine institution.

The Editor of theIndependent, in conclusion, said:—

We congratulate Dr. Ryerson on his successful defence.... We should esteem it a dire calamity, could any dishonour be attached to his name. He is one of the most devoted, conscientious, able and successful officers in the public service. In the school system of Upper Canada, he has built for himself an enduring monument, as a benefactor of the Province. He is a brave yet courteous champion for some of our most precious rights. May those who watch for his halting be confounded and put to shame!

After a reference to some personal matters, Dr. Ryerson, in the course of his remarks, showed that he was prepared to sacrifice much for the maintenance of the truth. He said: Shortly after the occurrence to which I have just referred, an act was got through the Legislature at the end of the Session of 1849, which excluded clergymen from visiting the public schools in their official character, and which would have excluded the Bible from the schools. What was my conduct on the occasion? Why, I forthwith placed my office at the disposal of the Head of the Government sooner than administer such a law. The result was the Government authorized the suspension of the Act, and caused its repeal at the next Session of Parliament.

The debate lasted over two days, and was finally closed by the adoption of an amendment by the Rev. A. Hurlburt, recognizing the application of the previous year as admitted by Dr. Ryerson, and as understood by the Conference. The amendment was passed by an immense majority, only 23 out of 150 members present voting against it.

FOOTNOTES:[143]Dr. Ryerson left Toronto for Quebec immediately after Conference, to confer with the Government there on matters connected with his Department. While there he wrote to me a private letter as follows:—At Mr. Attorney-General Macdonald's suggestion I have been appointed Honorary Commissioner at the Paris exhibition. Mr. Macdonald also endorsed my recommendation for your appointment as Deputy Superintendent with an increased salary. His Excellency appointed you yesterday according to my recommendation, and you will be gazetted on Saturday.... Sir Edmund Head has given me very flattering letters of introduction to Lord Clarendon and Lord John Russell.... I leave here for Boston on my way to England.... I have no doubt but that you will do all things in the best manner, and for the best. I fervently pray Almighty God greatly to prosper you, as well as guide and bless you in your official duties.[144]The antagonism between Mr. Spencer (now Editor of theGuardian) and Dr. Ryerson was of long standing. Thirteen years before the date of this attack upon Dr. Ryerson, Mr. Spencer was proposed, in 1842, as a candidate for a Mastership in Victoria College. Dr. Ryerson advised him to attend the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn., so as to fit himself for the post. He did so. But the Board of Victoria College refused to appoint him. He was very indignant, and so expressed himself to Dr. Ryerson. He afterwards wrote to him a letter (in 1842) as follows:—You were no doubt surprised at the remarks I made to you, and perhaps you thought they were unnecessarily harsh and severe, and made under the momentary impulse of excited feelings. If so, you are mistaken. I spoke deliberately, though strongly. You know the circumstances under which, at your request, I went to the College, and that the situation, though congenial to my feelings, was not sought for by me. Of the decision of the members of the Board, to give the Principal permission to employ me part of the year, I express my decided disapprobation. Now, Sir, I consider such a resolution a downright insult. Had I come before that Board as a stranger, or under the character of a mercenary hireling, and one concerning whose qualifications you were entirely ignorant, then there would have been some appearance of propriety in making such a proposition, as a safeguard, and against imposition. But I am a member of that Conference under whose direction the affairs of that institution are placed; its interests are closely connected with those of the Church of which I am now, and expect to remain, a member. I believed I could render greater service to the Church in labouring to promote the prosperity of that institution. I trust I have yet too much of public spirit, and too ardent a desire for the prosperity of our College, to wish to remain there if my labours were not conducive to its efficiency. But what is the spirit of that resolution? "Why, we wish to get rid of you, and the easiest way to do it is, to employ you for a specified time, and then we can dismiss you with propriety. But the absurdity of that resolution is its most prominent feature. I intend, at the first opportunity, to express my mind more fully to you personally upon this subject." In one of his letters in this controversy, Dr. Ryerson thus refers to this Victoria College episode. He says: In regard to Mr. Spencer, I am aware of his feelings toward me during these many years; ever since he failed to procure an appointment to the Chair of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in Victoria College, for which he had devoted a year of special preparation. I believe he has attributed his disappointment to me, and that I had not acted toward him in a brotherly way, in not securing his appointment, as he supposed I could have done from my connection with the College. The fact was, I recommended his appointment, at least for a trial, but my recommendation was not concurred in by any other member of the Board, as Dr. Green and others know.[145]Dr. Ryerson, in his speech at the Brockville Conference, referring to this omission, said:—The Conference passed a resolution complimentary and affectionate towards myself, and expressive of its high sense of my long services in defending the rights and advocating the interests of the Connexion. The copy of that resolution has never been communicated to me to this day; Mr. Spencer suppressed the publication of it in theGuardian, and thus defeated the noble and generous intentions of the great majority of the Conference in regard to myself.[146]To this proceeding, Dr. Ryerson also referred in his speech as follows:—How did my opponents bring up their charge against me? Did they inform the defendant of the approaching ordeal, and secure his presence in an ecclesiastical court prior to his attempted execution? No, Sir; the defendant obeys the call of duty, at personal sacrifice, to attend to a meeting of the senate and annual public exercises of the students of Victoria College; and, while absent, these professed advocates of Methodistic rule, arraign him without notice, and seek to get a resolution passed against him. Is that Methodism? Is that old Methodism? If these, my assailants, believe, as they say, that the interests of the Church will be greatly promoted by my expulsion, then let them do it on Methodistic principles. Now, although I was well aware that they were opposed to me personally, yet I thought, though I was absent from the district meeting, they would treat me, at least, honourably. If I had done wrong, let them accuse me—give me a specific charge and due notice of trial, and let me prepare for my defence. This would be the manly course—this would be Methodism; and if I had committed no offence, if no charge could be brought against me, why seek to exclude me from this body without a charge and without a crime? Is not this course opposed to all proceedings of civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, and to every principle of civil and religious liberty—to true Protestant freedom and to genuine Methodism, whether new or old?

[143]Dr. Ryerson left Toronto for Quebec immediately after Conference, to confer with the Government there on matters connected with his Department. While there he wrote to me a private letter as follows:—At Mr. Attorney-General Macdonald's suggestion I have been appointed Honorary Commissioner at the Paris exhibition. Mr. Macdonald also endorsed my recommendation for your appointment as Deputy Superintendent with an increased salary. His Excellency appointed you yesterday according to my recommendation, and you will be gazetted on Saturday.... Sir Edmund Head has given me very flattering letters of introduction to Lord Clarendon and Lord John Russell.... I leave here for Boston on my way to England.... I have no doubt but that you will do all things in the best manner, and for the best. I fervently pray Almighty God greatly to prosper you, as well as guide and bless you in your official duties.

At Mr. Attorney-General Macdonald's suggestion I have been appointed Honorary Commissioner at the Paris exhibition. Mr. Macdonald also endorsed my recommendation for your appointment as Deputy Superintendent with an increased salary. His Excellency appointed you yesterday according to my recommendation, and you will be gazetted on Saturday.... Sir Edmund Head has given me very flattering letters of introduction to Lord Clarendon and Lord John Russell.... I leave here for Boston on my way to England.... I have no doubt but that you will do all things in the best manner, and for the best. I fervently pray Almighty God greatly to prosper you, as well as guide and bless you in your official duties.

[144]The antagonism between Mr. Spencer (now Editor of theGuardian) and Dr. Ryerson was of long standing. Thirteen years before the date of this attack upon Dr. Ryerson, Mr. Spencer was proposed, in 1842, as a candidate for a Mastership in Victoria College. Dr. Ryerson advised him to attend the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn., so as to fit himself for the post. He did so. But the Board of Victoria College refused to appoint him. He was very indignant, and so expressed himself to Dr. Ryerson. He afterwards wrote to him a letter (in 1842) as follows:—You were no doubt surprised at the remarks I made to you, and perhaps you thought they were unnecessarily harsh and severe, and made under the momentary impulse of excited feelings. If so, you are mistaken. I spoke deliberately, though strongly. You know the circumstances under which, at your request, I went to the College, and that the situation, though congenial to my feelings, was not sought for by me. Of the decision of the members of the Board, to give the Principal permission to employ me part of the year, I express my decided disapprobation. Now, Sir, I consider such a resolution a downright insult. Had I come before that Board as a stranger, or under the character of a mercenary hireling, and one concerning whose qualifications you were entirely ignorant, then there would have been some appearance of propriety in making such a proposition, as a safeguard, and against imposition. But I am a member of that Conference under whose direction the affairs of that institution are placed; its interests are closely connected with those of the Church of which I am now, and expect to remain, a member. I believed I could render greater service to the Church in labouring to promote the prosperity of that institution. I trust I have yet too much of public spirit, and too ardent a desire for the prosperity of our College, to wish to remain there if my labours were not conducive to its efficiency. But what is the spirit of that resolution? "Why, we wish to get rid of you, and the easiest way to do it is, to employ you for a specified time, and then we can dismiss you with propriety. But the absurdity of that resolution is its most prominent feature. I intend, at the first opportunity, to express my mind more fully to you personally upon this subject." In one of his letters in this controversy, Dr. Ryerson thus refers to this Victoria College episode. He says: In regard to Mr. Spencer, I am aware of his feelings toward me during these many years; ever since he failed to procure an appointment to the Chair of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in Victoria College, for which he had devoted a year of special preparation. I believe he has attributed his disappointment to me, and that I had not acted toward him in a brotherly way, in not securing his appointment, as he supposed I could have done from my connection with the College. The fact was, I recommended his appointment, at least for a trial, but my recommendation was not concurred in by any other member of the Board, as Dr. Green and others know.

[145]Dr. Ryerson, in his speech at the Brockville Conference, referring to this omission, said:—The Conference passed a resolution complimentary and affectionate towards myself, and expressive of its high sense of my long services in defending the rights and advocating the interests of the Connexion. The copy of that resolution has never been communicated to me to this day; Mr. Spencer suppressed the publication of it in theGuardian, and thus defeated the noble and generous intentions of the great majority of the Conference in regard to myself.

[146]To this proceeding, Dr. Ryerson also referred in his speech as follows:—How did my opponents bring up their charge against me? Did they inform the defendant of the approaching ordeal, and secure his presence in an ecclesiastical court prior to his attempted execution? No, Sir; the defendant obeys the call of duty, at personal sacrifice, to attend to a meeting of the senate and annual public exercises of the students of Victoria College; and, while absent, these professed advocates of Methodistic rule, arraign him without notice, and seek to get a resolution passed against him. Is that Methodism? Is that old Methodism? If these, my assailants, believe, as they say, that the interests of the Church will be greatly promoted by my expulsion, then let them do it on Methodistic principles. Now, although I was well aware that they were opposed to me personally, yet I thought, though I was absent from the district meeting, they would treat me, at least, honourably. If I had done wrong, let them accuse me—give me a specific charge and due notice of trial, and let me prepare for my defence. This would be the manly course—this would be Methodism; and if I had committed no offence, if no charge could be brought against me, why seek to exclude me from this body without a charge and without a crime? Is not this course opposed to all proceedings of civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, and to every principle of civil and religious liberty—to true Protestant freedom and to genuine Methodism, whether new or old?

1854-1856.

Dr. Ryerson's Third Educational Tour in Europe.

While in Europe in 1854 and 1856, Dr. Ryerson, under the authority of the Government, commenced the collection of objects of art for the Educational Museum in the Education Department. While there he met Hon. Malcolm Cameron, who after Dr. Ryerson returned to Canada, wrote to him from London on the subject of his mission. In a letter, dated 3rd of January, 1857, Mr. Cameron said:—

I have myself witnessed the result of the labour and reading which you must have gone through with in order to obtain the information and cultivation of judgment necessary to get the things our young Canada can afford; things, too, of such a character and description as shall be useful, not only in elevating the taste of our youth, but of increasing their historical and mythological lore, as well as inform them of the facts of their accuracy in size and form. I was much flattered to find that my humble efforts to begin, in some degree, a Canadian gallery—by securing a few of Paul Kane's pictures in 1851—had been followed up by you in your universally-acknowledged enlightened efforts for education, which (in my bitterest moments of alienation from you, for what I esteemed a sacrifice of Canadian freedom, and right to self-government), I have ever cheerfully admitted.Your determination to obtain a few works of art and statuary, a few paintings, prints of celebrities, and scientific instruments, has cost you much labour, anxiety and thought, which I never would have conceived of had I not met you, and gone with you, and seen your notes and correspondence.You have passed through many trials, and in most of them I was with you. The period that presses on my mind (as Lord Elgin said of Montreal), I do not want to remember. God grant that we may see, in all matters for the rest of our few days, eye to eye, as we do now on all the subjects in which you are now engaged, publicly and privately. I think God is with you, and directing you aright in that Conference matter which is nearest to your heart, and I am confident that you will have a signal triumph.

Your determination to obtain a few works of art and statuary, a few paintings, prints of celebrities, and scientific instruments, has cost you much labour, anxiety and thought, which I never would have conceived of had I not met you, and gone with you, and seen your notes and correspondence.

You have passed through many trials, and in most of them I was with you. The period that presses on my mind (as Lord Elgin said of Montreal), I do not want to remember. God grant that we may see, in all matters for the rest of our few days, eye to eye, as we do now on all the subjects in which you are now engaged, publicly and privately. I think God is with you, and directing you aright in that Conference matter which is nearest to your heart, and I am confident that you will have a signal triumph.

Dr. Ryerson has written the following account of a distinguished physician whom he met at Rome:—

One of the most remarkable men with whom I became acquainted in Italy, in my tour there in 1856-7, was Dr. Pantelioni, a scholar, physician, patriot, and statesman; to whose character and banishment from Rome the LondonTimes'newspaper devoted about three columns.Prefatory to the circumstances of my acquaintance with this remarkable man, I may observe, that when in England in 1850-1, I had a good deal ofcorrespondence with Earl Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and through whom I was able to procure maps, globes, and essential text-books for Canadian schools, at a discount of forty-three per cent. from the published selling prices. Earl Grey was much pleased in being the instrument of so much good to the cause of public education in Canada; wrote to the English booksellers and got their consent to the arrangement, shewed me much kindness, and invited me to dine at his residence, in company with some distinguished English statesmen, among whom was Sir Charles Wood (afterwards a peer), and the late Marquis of Lansdowne, the Nestor of English statesmen, and beside whom I was seated at dinner. The Countess of Grey shewed me many kind attentions, and the Marquis of Lansdowne invited me to call the next day at Lansdowne House, and explain to him the Canadian system of education, as he was the Chairman of the Privy Council Committee on Education, and wished to know what had been done, and what might be done for the education of the labouring classes. I called at Lansdowne House, as desired, and explained as briefly and clearly as possible the Canadian school system, its popular comprehensiveness and fairness to all parties, its Christian, yet non-sectarian, character. At the conclusion of my remarks, the noble Marquis observed, "I cannot conceive a greater blessing to England than the introduction into it of the Canadian school system; but, from our historical traditions and present state of society, all we can do is to aid by Parliamentary grants the cause of popular education through the agency of voluntary associations and religious denominations."Five years afterwards, in another educational tour in Europe, myself and daughter spent some months at the Paris Exhibition in 1855. The Earl and Countess of Grey, seeing our names on the Canadian Book of the Exhibition, called and left their cards at our hotel. We returned the call the following day, when the Earl and Countess told us they had an aunt at Rome devoted to the fine arts, who would have great pleasure in assisting us to select copies of great masters for our Canadian Educational Museum; that they would write to her, and, if we left our cards with her on our arrival, she would gladly receive us. We did so, and, in less than an hour after, we received a most friendly letter from Lady Grey, saying that she had been expecting and waiting for us for some time, and writing us to come to her residence that evening, as she had invited a few friends.[147]In the course of the evening, I was introduced to Dr. Pantelioni with this remark, "Dr. Ryerson, if you should become ill, you cannot fall into better hands than those of Dr. Pantelioni." I replied that "I was glad to make his personal acquaintance, but hoped I should not need his professional services." But the very next day I was struck down in the Vatican while examining the celebrated painting of Raphael's Transfiguration and Dominichino's Last Communion of St. Jerome, with a cruel attack of lumbago and sciatica, rendering it necessary for four men to convey me down the long stairway to my carriage, and from thence to my room in the hotel, where I was confined for some three weeks, requiring three men for some days to turn me in bed. Language cannot describe the agony I experienced during that period. Dr. Pantelioni was sent for, and attended me daily for three weeks, and never charged me more than a dollar a visit. After two or three visits, finding that I was otherwise well, and had knowledge of government and civil affairs in Europe and America,he entered into conversation with me on these subjects. I found him to be one of the most generally read and enlightened men that I had met with on the Continent.He frequently remained from one to three hours conversing with me; and in the course of these frequent and lengthened visits, Dr. Pantelioni related the following facts:1st. That he was one of the liberal party in Rome that opposed the despotism of the Papal government, and contributed to its overthrow, when Garibaldi for a time became supreme at Rome.2nd. That he, with many other liberals, became convinced that the government which Garibaldi would inaugurate, would be little better than a mob, and would be neither stable nor safe.(Garibaldi was a bold and skilful party leader, but no statesman. I witnessed his presence in the Italian Legislature, then held in Florence; he could declaim against government, and find fault, with individual acts; but he seemed to have no system of government in his own mind, and commanded little respect or attention after his first speech.)3rd. Dr. Pantelioni stated, that under these circumstances, he, with several liberal friends, agreed to go confidentially to the Pope, who was then an exile at Gaeta, and offer their offices and influence to restore him to power at Rome, provided he would establish a constitutional government, and govern as a constitutional ruler. The pope agreed to their propositions, but when they reduced them to writing for his signature, and those of the gentlemen waiting upon him, he declined to sign his name; in consequence of which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends felt they had no sufficient ground upon their own individual word, without a scrap of writing from the pen of the pope, to influence their friends, and risk their lives; they, therefore, retired from the presence of his holiness, disappointed but not dishonored.4th On my recovery Dr. Pantelioni invited me to visit him at his residence. I did so and found him possessed of the best private library I had seen in Italy, or even on the continent. It filled three, large rooms; one of which contained books (well arranged) of general history and literature, comprising the latest standard works in English (published both in England and America), French, German, Italian and Spanish. The second room was equally filled with shelves and books, beautifully arranged, on medical and scientific subjects of the latest date, and highest authority, in English, French, Italian, German, and Spanish, &c. The third room contained a fine and extensive collection of the latest standard works which had been published in England and the United States, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy, on Civil Government. I was not before aware that the Italian language was so rich in political literature. I selected the titles, and ordered several books in that language for myself.5th. In the course of these conversations, Dr. Pantelioni related the efforts of himself and friends to establish a constitutional government, despairing, as they did, of any competence of the Garibaldi party to establish such a government. A deputation (of whom Dr. Pantelioni was one) went from Rome to Florence to consult the Right Honourable Richard Shiel, then the British Ambassador, or representative of the British Government, at Florence, as the British Government had no diplomatic relations with Rome. Mr. Shiel asked them what they wanted? They replied, nothing more than the protection of the British Government for twelve months, during which time they could establish a just and safe government, if protected from the interference of other governments. Mr. Shiel agreed to support their views, and Dr. Pantelioni and one or two others of the deputation took letters from Mr. Shiel on the subject to the late Viscount Palmerston and Lord John Russell, who encouraged their undertaking, entirely agreeing with the recommendationsof Mr. Shiel, who, although a Roman Catholic, was a constitutional liberal. But it unfortunately happened that on the very day on which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends, after their mission to England, had intended to carry their plans into operation, the French army landed at Civita Vecchia, and having subdued the Garibaldi party at Rome, restored the Pope to the Vatican, with all his former pretensions and power.6th. Some time afterwards, when the King of Italy overran the Papal territories, Dr. Pantelioni was nominated to the Italian Legislature for one of the new electoral divisions, but declined at once the acceptance of the nomination, and sent his resignation by the first post, well knowing the effect it might have upon his personal safety and interests at Rome, which was still under the rule of the Pope. But the partiality shown to Dr. Pantelioni by his newly enfranchised fellow-countrymen enraged the Court of Rome, which banished him from his city and country on a notice of only twenty-four hours! The LondonTimesnewspaper devoted some two articles to Dr. Pantelioni's history and banishment, eulogizing him in the strongest terms.7th. Dr. Pantelioni then took up his abode at Nice, in the south of France, and there pursued his profession.Some years afterward, when making my last educational tour on the Continent in 1867, I stopped a day with my son at Nice, and learned that there was an Italian physician residing there, an exile from Rome. I knew it must be my old physician and friend, and immediately called upon him. We were, of course, both delighted to see each other again; and he invited myself and son to spend the evening at his house, which we did. He had, since I saw him at Rome, married an English lady, who seemed in every respect worthy of him.When in the course of the evening I expressed my sympathy with him in his exile, privation of his beautiful residence and fine library, he replied with energy, bringing his hand down strongly on the table, "I have such faith in the principles on which I have acted, and in the providence of God, that I shall just as surely go back to Rome, as that I am sure I am now talking to you." Some one or two years afterwards I learned from the newspapers, that Dr. Pantelioni had been recalled to Rome by the King of Italy, and appointed to the head of all the Roman Hospitals.

Prefatory to the circumstances of my acquaintance with this remarkable man, I may observe, that when in England in 1850-1, I had a good deal ofcorrespondence with Earl Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and through whom I was able to procure maps, globes, and essential text-books for Canadian schools, at a discount of forty-three per cent. from the published selling prices. Earl Grey was much pleased in being the instrument of so much good to the cause of public education in Canada; wrote to the English booksellers and got their consent to the arrangement, shewed me much kindness, and invited me to dine at his residence, in company with some distinguished English statesmen, among whom was Sir Charles Wood (afterwards a peer), and the late Marquis of Lansdowne, the Nestor of English statesmen, and beside whom I was seated at dinner. The Countess of Grey shewed me many kind attentions, and the Marquis of Lansdowne invited me to call the next day at Lansdowne House, and explain to him the Canadian system of education, as he was the Chairman of the Privy Council Committee on Education, and wished to know what had been done, and what might be done for the education of the labouring classes. I called at Lansdowne House, as desired, and explained as briefly and clearly as possible the Canadian school system, its popular comprehensiveness and fairness to all parties, its Christian, yet non-sectarian, character. At the conclusion of my remarks, the noble Marquis observed, "I cannot conceive a greater blessing to England than the introduction into it of the Canadian school system; but, from our historical traditions and present state of society, all we can do is to aid by Parliamentary grants the cause of popular education through the agency of voluntary associations and religious denominations."

Five years afterwards, in another educational tour in Europe, myself and daughter spent some months at the Paris Exhibition in 1855. The Earl and Countess of Grey, seeing our names on the Canadian Book of the Exhibition, called and left their cards at our hotel. We returned the call the following day, when the Earl and Countess told us they had an aunt at Rome devoted to the fine arts, who would have great pleasure in assisting us to select copies of great masters for our Canadian Educational Museum; that they would write to her, and, if we left our cards with her on our arrival, she would gladly receive us. We did so, and, in less than an hour after, we received a most friendly letter from Lady Grey, saying that she had been expecting and waiting for us for some time, and writing us to come to her residence that evening, as she had invited a few friends.[147]In the course of the evening, I was introduced to Dr. Pantelioni with this remark, "Dr. Ryerson, if you should become ill, you cannot fall into better hands than those of Dr. Pantelioni." I replied that "I was glad to make his personal acquaintance, but hoped I should not need his professional services." But the very next day I was struck down in the Vatican while examining the celebrated painting of Raphael's Transfiguration and Dominichino's Last Communion of St. Jerome, with a cruel attack of lumbago and sciatica, rendering it necessary for four men to convey me down the long stairway to my carriage, and from thence to my room in the hotel, where I was confined for some three weeks, requiring three men for some days to turn me in bed. Language cannot describe the agony I experienced during that period. Dr. Pantelioni was sent for, and attended me daily for three weeks, and never charged me more than a dollar a visit. After two or three visits, finding that I was otherwise well, and had knowledge of government and civil affairs in Europe and America,he entered into conversation with me on these subjects. I found him to be one of the most generally read and enlightened men that I had met with on the Continent.

He frequently remained from one to three hours conversing with me; and in the course of these frequent and lengthened visits, Dr. Pantelioni related the following facts:

1st. That he was one of the liberal party in Rome that opposed the despotism of the Papal government, and contributed to its overthrow, when Garibaldi for a time became supreme at Rome.

2nd. That he, with many other liberals, became convinced that the government which Garibaldi would inaugurate, would be little better than a mob, and would be neither stable nor safe.

(Garibaldi was a bold and skilful party leader, but no statesman. I witnessed his presence in the Italian Legislature, then held in Florence; he could declaim against government, and find fault, with individual acts; but he seemed to have no system of government in his own mind, and commanded little respect or attention after his first speech.)

3rd. Dr. Pantelioni stated, that under these circumstances, he, with several liberal friends, agreed to go confidentially to the Pope, who was then an exile at Gaeta, and offer their offices and influence to restore him to power at Rome, provided he would establish a constitutional government, and govern as a constitutional ruler. The pope agreed to their propositions, but when they reduced them to writing for his signature, and those of the gentlemen waiting upon him, he declined to sign his name; in consequence of which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends felt they had no sufficient ground upon their own individual word, without a scrap of writing from the pen of the pope, to influence their friends, and risk their lives; they, therefore, retired from the presence of his holiness, disappointed but not dishonored.

4th On my recovery Dr. Pantelioni invited me to visit him at his residence. I did so and found him possessed of the best private library I had seen in Italy, or even on the continent. It filled three, large rooms; one of which contained books (well arranged) of general history and literature, comprising the latest standard works in English (published both in England and America), French, German, Italian and Spanish. The second room was equally filled with shelves and books, beautifully arranged, on medical and scientific subjects of the latest date, and highest authority, in English, French, Italian, German, and Spanish, &c. The third room contained a fine and extensive collection of the latest standard works which had been published in England and the United States, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy, on Civil Government. I was not before aware that the Italian language was so rich in political literature. I selected the titles, and ordered several books in that language for myself.

5th. In the course of these conversations, Dr. Pantelioni related the efforts of himself and friends to establish a constitutional government, despairing, as they did, of any competence of the Garibaldi party to establish such a government. A deputation (of whom Dr. Pantelioni was one) went from Rome to Florence to consult the Right Honourable Richard Shiel, then the British Ambassador, or representative of the British Government, at Florence, as the British Government had no diplomatic relations with Rome. Mr. Shiel asked them what they wanted? They replied, nothing more than the protection of the British Government for twelve months, during which time they could establish a just and safe government, if protected from the interference of other governments. Mr. Shiel agreed to support their views, and Dr. Pantelioni and one or two others of the deputation took letters from Mr. Shiel on the subject to the late Viscount Palmerston and Lord John Russell, who encouraged their undertaking, entirely agreeing with the recommendationsof Mr. Shiel, who, although a Roman Catholic, was a constitutional liberal. But it unfortunately happened that on the very day on which Dr. Pantelioni and his friends, after their mission to England, had intended to carry their plans into operation, the French army landed at Civita Vecchia, and having subdued the Garibaldi party at Rome, restored the Pope to the Vatican, with all his former pretensions and power.

6th. Some time afterwards, when the King of Italy overran the Papal territories, Dr. Pantelioni was nominated to the Italian Legislature for one of the new electoral divisions, but declined at once the acceptance of the nomination, and sent his resignation by the first post, well knowing the effect it might have upon his personal safety and interests at Rome, which was still under the rule of the Pope. But the partiality shown to Dr. Pantelioni by his newly enfranchised fellow-countrymen enraged the Court of Rome, which banished him from his city and country on a notice of only twenty-four hours! The LondonTimesnewspaper devoted some two articles to Dr. Pantelioni's history and banishment, eulogizing him in the strongest terms.

7th. Dr. Pantelioni then took up his abode at Nice, in the south of France, and there pursued his profession.

Some years afterward, when making my last educational tour on the Continent in 1867, I stopped a day with my son at Nice, and learned that there was an Italian physician residing there, an exile from Rome. I knew it must be my old physician and friend, and immediately called upon him. We were, of course, both delighted to see each other again; and he invited myself and son to spend the evening at his house, which we did. He had, since I saw him at Rome, married an English lady, who seemed in every respect worthy of him.

When in the course of the evening I expressed my sympathy with him in his exile, privation of his beautiful residence and fine library, he replied with energy, bringing his hand down strongly on the table, "I have such faith in the principles on which I have acted, and in the providence of God, that I shall just as surely go back to Rome, as that I am sure I am now talking to you." Some one or two years afterwards I learned from the newspapers, that Dr. Pantelioni had been recalled to Rome by the King of Italy, and appointed to the head of all the Roman Hospitals.

In a letter from Dr. Ryerson dated London, 30th October, 1857, he said: "On the 28th inst. we witnessed the consecration of Dr. Cronyn as Bishop of Huron, and were afterwards invited to lunch with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Several bishops were present. Afterwards we went with Dr. Cronyn to Woolwich, and dined with him at his son-in-law's (Col. Burrows)."

FOOTNOTES:[147]These evening parties are conversazioni on a small scale. There were no suppers, but cups of tea and biscuits, chiefly for ladies; the gentlemen did not take off their gloves or sit down, but kept their hats in their hands or under their arms. We were introduced to, and conversed with various parties. Lady Grey seemed to be ubiquitous, and to know everybody, and to make all feel at home. She is the widow of General Grey, and is said to have been in early days a belle and bright star in the highest London society.

[147]These evening parties are conversazioni on a small scale. There were no suppers, but cups of tea and biscuits, chiefly for ladies; the gentlemen did not take off their gloves or sit down, but kept their hats in their hands or under their arms. We were introduced to, and conversed with various parties. Lady Grey seemed to be ubiquitous, and to know everybody, and to make all feel at home. She is the widow of General Grey, and is said to have been in early days a belle and bright star in the highest London society.

1859-1862.

Denominational Colleges and the University Controversy.

One of the most memorable controversies in which Dr. Ryerson was engaged was that on behalf of the Denominational Colleges of Upper Canada.

Unfortunately, at various stages of the discussion, the controversy partook largely of a personal character. This prevented that clear, calm, and dispassionate consideration of the whole of this important question to which it was entitled, and hence, in one sense, no good result accrued. Such a question as this was worthy of a better fate. For at that stage of our history it was a momentous one—worthy of a thoughtful, earnest and practical solution—a solution of which it was then capable, had it been taken up by wise, far-seeing and patriotic statesmen. But the opportunity was unfortunately lost; and in the anxiety in some cases to secure a personal triumph, a grand movement to give practical effect to somewhat like the comprehensive university scheme of the Hon. Robert Baldwin, of 1843, failed. Mr. Baldwin's proposal of that year was defeated by the defenders of King's College, as a like scheme of twenty years later was defeated by the champions of the Toronto University. The final result of the painful struggle of 1859-1863 was in effect as follows:—

1. Things were chiefly left instatu quo ante bellum.

2. An impetus was given to the denominational college principle; and that principle was emphasized.

3. Colleges with university powers were multiplied in the province.

4. Life and energy were infused into the denominational colleges.

5. Apathy and indifference prevailed (and, to some extent, still prevails) among the adherents of the Provincial University.

I have already stated that the issues raised in the memorable university contest of 1859-1863 were important. So they were, as after events have proved. The question, however, was unfortunately decided twenty years ago, not by an independent,impartial and disinterested tribunal, but by the parties in possession, whose judgment in the case would naturally be in their own favour. Besides, members of the Government at the time felt no real interest in the question, and were glad, under the shelter of official statements and opinions, to escape collision with such powerful bodies as the Wesleyan Methodists and the Church of Scotland.

This discussion originated in the presentation to the Legislature of a memorial from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, dated November, 1859, to the following effect:—

That the Legislature in passing the Provincial University Act of 1853, clearly proposed and avowed a threefold object. First, the creation of a University for examining candidates, and conferring degrees in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine. Secondly, the establishment of an elevated curriculum of University education, conformable to that of the London University in England. Thirdly, the association with the Provincial University of the several colleges already established, and which might be established, in Upper Canada, with the Provincial University, the same as various colleges of different denominations in Great Britain and Ireland are affiliated to the London University—placed as they are upon equal footing in regard to and aid from the state, and on equal footing in regard to the composition of the Senate, and the appointment of examiners.In the promotion of these objects the Conference and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church cordially concurred; and at the first meeting after the passing of the University Act, the Senatorial Board of Victoria College adopted the programme of collegiate studies established by the Senate of the London University, and referred to in the Canadian Statute. But it soon appeared that the Senate of the Toronto University, instead of giving effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature, determined to identify the University with one college, in contradistinction and to the exclusion of all others, to establish a monopoly of senatorial power and public revenue for one college alone; so much so, that a majority of the legal quorum of the Senate now consists of the professors of one college, one of whom is invariably one of the two examiners of their own students, candidates for degrees, honors, and scholarships. The curriculum of the University studies, instead of being elevated and conformed to that of the London University, has been revised and changed three times since 1853, and reduced by options and otherwise below what it was formerly, and below what it is in the British Universities, and below what it is in the best colleges in the United States. The effect of this narrow and anti-liberal course is, to build up one College at the expense of all others, and to reduce the standard of a University degree in both Arts and Medicine below what it was before the passing of the University Act in 1853.Instead of confining the expenditure of funds to what the law prescribed—namely, the "current expenses," and such "permanent improvements or additions to the buildings" as might be necessary for the purposes of the University and University College—new buildings have been erected at an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the current expenses of the College have been increased far beyond what they were in former times of complaint and investigation on this subject.Your memorialists therefore submit, that in no respect have the liberal and enlightened intentions of the Legislature in passing the University Act been fulfilled—a splendid but unjust monopoly for the city and college ofToronto having been created, instead of a liberal and elevated system, equally fair to all the colleges of the country.A Provincial University should be what its name imports, and what was clearly intended by the Legislature—a body equally unconnected with, and equally impartial to every college in the country; and every college should be placed on equal footing in regard to public aid according to its works, irrespective of place, sect, or party. It is as unjust to propose, as it is unreasonable to expect, the affiliation of several colleges in one University except on equal terms. There have been ample funds to enable the Senate to submit to the Government a comprehensive and patriotic recommendation to give effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature in the accomplishment of these objects; but the Senate has preferred to become the sole patron of one college to the exclusion of all others, and to absorb and expend the large and increasing funds of the University, instead of allowing any surplus to accumulate for the general promotion of academical education, as contemplated and specifically directed by the statute. Not only has the annual income of the University endowment been reduced some thousands of pounds per annum by vast expenditures for the erection of buildings not contemplated by the Act, but a portion of those expenditures is for the erection of lecture-rooms, &c., for the Faculties of which the Act expressly forbids the establishment!But whilst your memorialists complain that the very intentions of this Act have thus been disregarded and defeated, we avow our desire to be the same now as it was more than ten years ago, in favour of the establishment of a Provincial University, unconnected with any one college or religious persuasion, but sustaining a relation of equal fairness and impartiality to the several religious persuasions and colleges, with power to prescribe the curriculum, to examine candidates, and confer degrees, in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine.We also desire that the University College at Toronto should be efficiently maintained; and for that purpose we should not object that the minimum of its income from the University Endowment should be even twice that of any other college; but it is incompatible with the very idea of a national University, intended to embrace the several colleges of the nation, to lavish all the endowment and patronage of the state upon one college, to the exclusion of all others. At the present time, and for years past, the noble University Endowment is virtually expended by parties directly or indirectly connected with but one college; and the scholarships and prizes, the honors and degrees conferred, are virtually the rewards and praises bestowed by professors upon their own students, and not the doings and decisions of a body wholly unconnected with the college. Degrees and distinctions thus conferred, however much they cost the country, cannot possess any higher literary value, as they are of no more legal value, than those conferred by theSenatus Academicusof the other chartered colleges.It is therefore submitted that if it is desired to have one Provincial University, the corresponding arrangement should be made to place each of the colleges on equal footing according to their works in regard to everything emanating from the state. And if it is refused to place these colleges on equal footing as colleges of one University, it is but just and reasonable that they should be placed upon equal footing in regard to aid from the state, according to their works as separate University colleges.It is well known that it is the natural tendency, as all experience shows, that any college independent of all inspection, control, or competition in wealth—all its officers securely paid by the state, independent of exertion or success—will in a short time, as a general rule, degenerate into inactivity, indifference, and extravagance. In collegiate institutions, as well as in thehigher and elementary schools, and in other public and private affairs of life, competition is an important element of efficiency and success. The best system of collegiate, as of elementary education, is that in which voluntary effort is developed by means of public aid. It is clearly both the interest and duty of the state to prompt and encourage individual effort in regard to collegiate, as in regard to elementary, education and not to discourage it by the creation of a monopoly invidious and unjust on the one side, and on the other deadening to all individual effort and enterprise, and oppressive to the state.We submit, therefore, that justice and the best interests of liberal education require the several colleges of the country to be placed upon equal footing according to their works. We ask nothing for Victoria College which we do not ask for every collegiate institution in Upper Canada upon the same terms.We desire also that it may be distinctly understood that we ask no aid towards the support of any theological school or theological chair in Victoria College. There is no such chair in Victoria College; and whenever one shall be established, provision will be made for its support independent of any grant from the state.[148]We claim support for Victoria College according to its works as a literary institution—as teaching those branches which are embraced in the curriculum of a liberal education, irrespective of denominational theology.We also disclaim any sympathy with the motives and objects which have been attributed by the advocates of Toronto College monopoly, in relation to our National School system. The fact that a member of our own body has been permitted by the annual approbation of the Conference to devote himself to the establishment and extension of our school system, is ample proof of our approval of that system: in addition to which we have from time to time expressed our cordial support of it by formal resolutions, and by the testimony and example of our more than four hundred ministers throughout the Province. No religious community in Upper Canada has, therefore, given so direct and effective support to the National School system as the Wesleyan community, but we have ever maintained, and we submit, that the same interests of general education for all classes which require the maintenance of the elementary school system require a reform in our University system in order to place it on a foundation equally comprehensive and impartial, and not to be the patron and mouthpiece of one college alone; and the same consideration of fitness, economy and patriotism which justify the state in co-operating with each school municipality to support a day school, require it to co-operate with each religious persuasion, according to its own educational works, to support a college. The experience of all Protestant countries shows that it is, and has been, as much the province of a religious persuasion to establish a college as it is for a school municipality to establish a day school; and the same experience shows that, while pastoral and parental care can be exercised for the religious instruction of children residing at home and attending a day school, that care cannot be exercised over youth residing away from home and pursuing their higher education except in a college where the pastoral and parental care can be daily combined. We hold that the highest interests of the country, as of an individual, are its religious and moral interests; and we believe there can be no heavier blow dealt out against those religious and moral interests, than for the youth of a country destined to receive the best literary education, to be placed, during the most eventful years of that educational course, without the pale of daily parental and pastoral instruction and oversight. The results of such a system must, sooner or later, sap the religious and moralfoundations of society. For such is the tendency of our nature, that with all the appliances of religious instruction and ceaseless care by the parent and pastor; they are not always successful in counteracting evil propensities and temptations; and therefore, from a system which involves the withdrawal or absence of all such influence for years at a period when youthful passions are strongest, and youthful temptations most powerful, we cannot but entertain painful apprehensions. Many a parent would deem it his duty to leave his son without the advantages of a liberal education, rather than thus expose him to the danger of moral shipwreck in its acquirement.This danger does not so much apply to that very considerable class of persons whose home is in Toronto; or to those young men whose character and principles are formed, and who, for the most part, are pursuing their studies by means acquired by their own industry and economy; or to the students of theological institutions established in Toronto, and to which the University College answers the convenient purpose of a free Grammar School, in certain secular branches. But such cases form the exceptions, and not the general rule. And if one college at Toronto is liberally endowed for certain classes who have themselves contributed or done nothing to promote liberal education, we submit that in all fairness, apart from moral patriotic considerations, the state ought to aid with corresponding liberality those other classes who for years have contributed largely to erect and sustain collegiate institutions, and who while they endeavour to confer upon youth, as widely as possible, the advantages of a sound liberal education, seek to incorporate with it those moral influences, associations, and habits which give to education its highest value, which form the true basis and cement of civil institutions and national civilization, as well as of individual character and happiness.

In the promotion of these objects the Conference and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church cordially concurred; and at the first meeting after the passing of the University Act, the Senatorial Board of Victoria College adopted the programme of collegiate studies established by the Senate of the London University, and referred to in the Canadian Statute. But it soon appeared that the Senate of the Toronto University, instead of giving effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature, determined to identify the University with one college, in contradistinction and to the exclusion of all others, to establish a monopoly of senatorial power and public revenue for one college alone; so much so, that a majority of the legal quorum of the Senate now consists of the professors of one college, one of whom is invariably one of the two examiners of their own students, candidates for degrees, honors, and scholarships. The curriculum of the University studies, instead of being elevated and conformed to that of the London University, has been revised and changed three times since 1853, and reduced by options and otherwise below what it was formerly, and below what it is in the British Universities, and below what it is in the best colleges in the United States. The effect of this narrow and anti-liberal course is, to build up one College at the expense of all others, and to reduce the standard of a University degree in both Arts and Medicine below what it was before the passing of the University Act in 1853.

Instead of confining the expenditure of funds to what the law prescribed—namely, the "current expenses," and such "permanent improvements or additions to the buildings" as might be necessary for the purposes of the University and University College—new buildings have been erected at an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the current expenses of the College have been increased far beyond what they were in former times of complaint and investigation on this subject.

Your memorialists therefore submit, that in no respect have the liberal and enlightened intentions of the Legislature in passing the University Act been fulfilled—a splendid but unjust monopoly for the city and college ofToronto having been created, instead of a liberal and elevated system, equally fair to all the colleges of the country.

A Provincial University should be what its name imports, and what was clearly intended by the Legislature—a body equally unconnected with, and equally impartial to every college in the country; and every college should be placed on equal footing in regard to public aid according to its works, irrespective of place, sect, or party. It is as unjust to propose, as it is unreasonable to expect, the affiliation of several colleges in one University except on equal terms. There have been ample funds to enable the Senate to submit to the Government a comprehensive and patriotic recommendation to give effect to the liberal intentions of the Legislature in the accomplishment of these objects; but the Senate has preferred to become the sole patron of one college to the exclusion of all others, and to absorb and expend the large and increasing funds of the University, instead of allowing any surplus to accumulate for the general promotion of academical education, as contemplated and specifically directed by the statute. Not only has the annual income of the University endowment been reduced some thousands of pounds per annum by vast expenditures for the erection of buildings not contemplated by the Act, but a portion of those expenditures is for the erection of lecture-rooms, &c., for the Faculties of which the Act expressly forbids the establishment!

But whilst your memorialists complain that the very intentions of this Act have thus been disregarded and defeated, we avow our desire to be the same now as it was more than ten years ago, in favour of the establishment of a Provincial University, unconnected with any one college or religious persuasion, but sustaining a relation of equal fairness and impartiality to the several religious persuasions and colleges, with power to prescribe the curriculum, to examine candidates, and confer degrees, in the Faculties of Arts, Law, and Medicine.

We also desire that the University College at Toronto should be efficiently maintained; and for that purpose we should not object that the minimum of its income from the University Endowment should be even twice that of any other college; but it is incompatible with the very idea of a national University, intended to embrace the several colleges of the nation, to lavish all the endowment and patronage of the state upon one college, to the exclusion of all others. At the present time, and for years past, the noble University Endowment is virtually expended by parties directly or indirectly connected with but one college; and the scholarships and prizes, the honors and degrees conferred, are virtually the rewards and praises bestowed by professors upon their own students, and not the doings and decisions of a body wholly unconnected with the college. Degrees and distinctions thus conferred, however much they cost the country, cannot possess any higher literary value, as they are of no more legal value, than those conferred by theSenatus Academicusof the other chartered colleges.

It is therefore submitted that if it is desired to have one Provincial University, the corresponding arrangement should be made to place each of the colleges on equal footing according to their works in regard to everything emanating from the state. And if it is refused to place these colleges on equal footing as colleges of one University, it is but just and reasonable that they should be placed upon equal footing in regard to aid from the state, according to their works as separate University colleges.

It is well known that it is the natural tendency, as all experience shows, that any college independent of all inspection, control, or competition in wealth—all its officers securely paid by the state, independent of exertion or success—will in a short time, as a general rule, degenerate into inactivity, indifference, and extravagance. In collegiate institutions, as well as in thehigher and elementary schools, and in other public and private affairs of life, competition is an important element of efficiency and success. The best system of collegiate, as of elementary education, is that in which voluntary effort is developed by means of public aid. It is clearly both the interest and duty of the state to prompt and encourage individual effort in regard to collegiate, as in regard to elementary, education and not to discourage it by the creation of a monopoly invidious and unjust on the one side, and on the other deadening to all individual effort and enterprise, and oppressive to the state.

We submit, therefore, that justice and the best interests of liberal education require the several colleges of the country to be placed upon equal footing according to their works. We ask nothing for Victoria College which we do not ask for every collegiate institution in Upper Canada upon the same terms.

We desire also that it may be distinctly understood that we ask no aid towards the support of any theological school or theological chair in Victoria College. There is no such chair in Victoria College; and whenever one shall be established, provision will be made for its support independent of any grant from the state.[148]We claim support for Victoria College according to its works as a literary institution—as teaching those branches which are embraced in the curriculum of a liberal education, irrespective of denominational theology.

We also disclaim any sympathy with the motives and objects which have been attributed by the advocates of Toronto College monopoly, in relation to our National School system. The fact that a member of our own body has been permitted by the annual approbation of the Conference to devote himself to the establishment and extension of our school system, is ample proof of our approval of that system: in addition to which we have from time to time expressed our cordial support of it by formal resolutions, and by the testimony and example of our more than four hundred ministers throughout the Province. No religious community in Upper Canada has, therefore, given so direct and effective support to the National School system as the Wesleyan community, but we have ever maintained, and we submit, that the same interests of general education for all classes which require the maintenance of the elementary school system require a reform in our University system in order to place it on a foundation equally comprehensive and impartial, and not to be the patron and mouthpiece of one college alone; and the same consideration of fitness, economy and patriotism which justify the state in co-operating with each school municipality to support a day school, require it to co-operate with each religious persuasion, according to its own educational works, to support a college. The experience of all Protestant countries shows that it is, and has been, as much the province of a religious persuasion to establish a college as it is for a school municipality to establish a day school; and the same experience shows that, while pastoral and parental care can be exercised for the religious instruction of children residing at home and attending a day school, that care cannot be exercised over youth residing away from home and pursuing their higher education except in a college where the pastoral and parental care can be daily combined. We hold that the highest interests of the country, as of an individual, are its religious and moral interests; and we believe there can be no heavier blow dealt out against those religious and moral interests, than for the youth of a country destined to receive the best literary education, to be placed, during the most eventful years of that educational course, without the pale of daily parental and pastoral instruction and oversight. The results of such a system must, sooner or later, sap the religious and moralfoundations of society. For such is the tendency of our nature, that with all the appliances of religious instruction and ceaseless care by the parent and pastor; they are not always successful in counteracting evil propensities and temptations; and therefore, from a system which involves the withdrawal or absence of all such influence for years at a period when youthful passions are strongest, and youthful temptations most powerful, we cannot but entertain painful apprehensions. Many a parent would deem it his duty to leave his son without the advantages of a liberal education, rather than thus expose him to the danger of moral shipwreck in its acquirement.

This danger does not so much apply to that very considerable class of persons whose home is in Toronto; or to those young men whose character and principles are formed, and who, for the most part, are pursuing their studies by means acquired by their own industry and economy; or to the students of theological institutions established in Toronto, and to which the University College answers the convenient purpose of a free Grammar School, in certain secular branches. But such cases form the exceptions, and not the general rule. And if one college at Toronto is liberally endowed for certain classes who have themselves contributed or done nothing to promote liberal education, we submit that in all fairness, apart from moral patriotic considerations, the state ought to aid with corresponding liberality those other classes who for years have contributed largely to erect and sustain collegiate institutions, and who while they endeavour to confer upon youth, as widely as possible, the advantages of a sound liberal education, seek to incorporate with it those moral influences, associations, and habits which give to education its highest value, which form the true basis and cement of civil institutions and national civilization, as well as of individual character and happiness.

The various statements and propositions in this memorial were fully and ably discussed on both sides at the time before a Committee of the Legislature. The discussion itself and voluminous papers and documents on either side were published in pamphlet form and in the newspapers, so that no further reference to them is necessary. The only other point raised in the discussion which is not mentioned in the memorial, is one on which Dr. Ryerson has expressed himself clearly. That is the relations of denominational colleges to the national system of public schools. On that point he says:—

The denominational collegiate system which I advocate is in harmony with the fundamental principles of our Common School system.... The fundamental principle of the school system is two-fold. First, the right of the parent and pastor to provide religious instruction for their children; and to have facilities for that purpose. While the law protects each pupil from compulsory attendance at any religious reading or exercise against the wish of his parent; it also provides that within that limitation "pupils shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as their parents and guardians shall desire, according to the general regulations which shall be provided according to law." The general regulations provide that the parent may make discretionary arrangements with the teacher on the subject; and that the clergyman of any Church shall have theright to any school house being within his charge for one hour in the week between four and five, for the religious instruction of the pupils of his own Church. Be it observed, then, the supreme right of the parent, and the corresponding right of the pastor in regard to the religious instruction of youth, even in connexion with day schools, where children are with their parents more than half of each week day, and the whole of each Sunday, is a fundamental principle of the Common School system. The less or greater extent to which the right may be exercised in various places, does not affect the principles or right itself, which is fundamental in the system. The second fundamental principle in the school system is the co-operation and aid of the State with each locality or section of the community as a condition of, and in proportion to local effort. This is a vital principle of the school system, and pervades it throughout, and is 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 in proportion 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 purpose of school maps and apparatus, the prize books and libraries, in proportion to the amount provided from local sources. To the application of that principle between the State and the inhabitants of localities there is no exception whatever, except in the single case of distributing a sum not exceeding £500 per annum in aid of poor school sections in new townships, and then their local effort must precede the application for a special grant.

Such are the two fundamental principles of the school system, on which I have more than once dwelt at large in official reports.

Now apply these principles to the collegiate system of the country. First, the united right and duty of the parent and pastor. Should that be suspended when the son is away from home, or should it be provided for? Let parental affection and conscience, and not blind or heartless partisanship, reply. If, then, the combined care and duty of the parent and pastor are to be provided for as far as possible when the son is pursuing the higher part of his education, for which he must leave home, can that be done best in a denominational or non-denominational College? But one answer can be given to this question. The religious and moral principles, feelings, and habits of youth are paramount. Scepticism and partisanship may sneer at them as "sectarian," but religion and conscience will hold them as supreme. If the parent has the right to secure the religious instruction and oversight of his son at home, in connection withhis school education, has he not a right to do so when his son is abroad? and is not the State in duty bound to afford him the best facilities for that purpose? And how can that be done so effectually—nay, how can it be effectually done at all—except in a college which, while it gives the secular education required by the State, responds to the parent's heart and faith to secure the higher interests which are beyond all human computation, and without the cultivation of which society itself cannot exist? It is a mystery of mysteries, that men of conscience, men of religious principle and feeling, can be so far blinded by sectarian jealousy and partizanship, as to desire for one moment to withhold from youth at the most feeble, most tempted, most eventful period of their educational training, the most potent guards, helps, and influences to resist and escape the snares and seductions of vice, and to acquire and become established in those principles, feelings, and habits which will make them true Christians, at the same time that they are educated men. Even in the interests of civilization itself, what is religious and moral stands far before what is merely scholastic and refined. The Hon. Edward Everett has truly said in a late address, "It is not political nor military power, but moral sentiments, principally under the guidance and influence of religious zeal, that has in all ages civilized the world." What creates civilization can alone preserve and advance it. The great question, after all, in the present discussion, is not which system will teach the most classics, mathematics, etc. (although I shall consider the question in this light presently), but which system will best protect, develop, and establish those higher principles of action, which are vastly more important to a country itself—apart from other and immortal considerations—than any amount of intellectual attainments in certain branches of secular knowledge. Colleges under religious control may fall short of their duty and their power of religious and moral influence; but they must be, as a general rule, vastly better and safer than a College of no religious control or character at all. At all events, one class of citizens have much more valid claims to public aid for a College that will combine the advantages of both secular and religious education, than have another class of citizens to public aid for a College which confers no benefit beyond secular teaching alone. It is not the sect, it is society at large that most profits by the high religious principles and character of its educated men. An efficient religious College must confer a much greater benefit upon the State than a non-religious College can, and must be more the benefactor of the State than the State can be to it by bestowing any ordinary amount of endowment. It is, therefore, in harmony with the first fundamental principle ofthe Common School system, as well as with the highest interests of society at large, that the best facilities be provided for all that is affectionate in the parent and faithful in the pastor, during the away-from-home education of youth; and that is a College under religious control, whether that control be of the Church of the parent or not.

I have already given on page 344, Dr. Ryerson's opinions in regard to the provisions of Hon. Robert Baldwin's University Bill of 1843. From the extract there inserted it will be seen that the practical objection which he raised in 1859, to the administration of the University Act of 1853, was in general harmony with the views and opinions on University matters which he had expressed fifteen or sixteen years before. A fuller expression of these opinions was given in a letter which Dr. Ryerson wrote to theBritish Coloniston the 14th of February, 1846. From that letter I make the following extracts:—

Back to Index Next