found the different Churches dragged into the discussion of this question-most improperly. But here to-night, honourable Gentlemen on both sides of the House,speaking upon this question, although differing on minor matters, according to the peculiar standpoints from which they are individually viewed, have taken the broad, patriotic ground that there is a grievance requiring amendment, and that we must take that grievance up. But while we have had University College, and the various grievances connected with it, discussed,-while Upper Canada College has been spoken against, and while the other Colleges and the other branches of our educational system have been commented on,-one feeling was prominent, that the time had come when either the Government, or some Member under their sanction, should take up this question of Collegiate Education. With but one exception, all felt that we were bound to deal with this question as a Legislature, on public grounds and without regard to sectional feelings and differences, and I must say I was surprised at this one exception, I mean the honourable Member for Lincoln. I was astonished at the remarks of that honourable Gentleman. He held up one particular Denomination in the Province to ridicule for having carried on what he called a crusade against the University.

I have heard it stated, Sir, that this agitation originated and has been carried on by a certain class of the community in hostility to University College; and, again, over and over, I have heard that disclaimed on the floor of this House, and we are told, Sir, that we are seeking to put our hands in the public chest, we who are seeking a re-organization of the University and College system of the Country.

The whole history of the Methodist organization, indeed, shows it to have been based on the voluntary principle. But to say that supporting a College under their control for secular training, and receiving a grant of public money in aid of such training, is to be associated with State aid, and characterized as a remnant of a State Church system, is simply talking from prejudice, and assuming that he proved that which has not a vestige of argument to support it. Honourable Gentlemen do not need to be told that it is no new thing, this controlling of Education by the Religious Denominations. What do we find in our Common School System? A certain class object altogether on principle, to secular teaching in our Common Schools, unless associated with Religious teaching. I believe a section of the people share that feeling, although the Legislature only sanctions the Religious control of Common School Education by one class of the community, the Roman Catholics. Their scruples had been sanctioned and recognized by the Legislature in times gone by. In other Countries, too, we find that nearly all the Denominations represented in this Province, control their own Schools And what do we find to be the case here? Notwithstanding the establishment of University College years ago, nearly all the Denominations in the Province have their own Colleges. Victoria College has been founded some twenty-five years and upwards; and the Church of England not only supports its own College in this City, which has been in existence for many years, but Episcopalians have established new Colleges in London and Picton. The Church of Scotland has Queen's College; the Baptists have established a College in Woodstock, and other Denominations have their own Colleges; all clinging to the idea that for reasons which they no doubt deem well founded their Denomination should control its own College.

The fact is, that the vast majority of the people of the Province, through the heads of their Denominations,-sanction and support their own Colleges, send their children to them, and in every way maintain these Institutions vigourously and well; while, on the other hand, we find University College, on which such a vast amount is expended, is attended by a mere fraction of the youth of the Country seeking superior education. And yet honourable Gentlemen try to persuade themselves that there must be no extension of our College system. I was very glad to hear the Member for South Bruce disclaim such an idea. Judging from what we had heard and seen before, that honourable Gentleman might have been expected to take different ground. But what does he say? He does not say that University College is perfect. He does not assert

it to be pure and free from all abuse and mismanagement, nor yet that we must not interfere with it. No, but he takes the broad ground, which I hope Members of the House will follow, and which the Government itself ought to occupy. He argues that of there are abuses connected with that Institution, they ought to be remedied; that if the Country declares for more than one College, that they should have them,-that if a proper scheme were presented for the organization of a Provincial University with affiliated Colleges he would entertain it and discuss it. Honourable Gentlemen get up in their places and tell us that one College has been established by the Government and that there shall be no more, and in fact they say there is no need of more. I say, taking the history of that Institution, there can be no pretence of any judicious careful management of the Endowment; but quite the contrary. I have no desire whatever to throw odium on any particular individual connected with that Institution. Men of great learning and ability are associated with it. They command the respect of the Province, as far as position and learning are concerned. But this Province is not prepared to endorse the action of the managers of the Institution with regard to the Fund committed to their control, and you have but to refer to the Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry to find them condemned for their mismanagement. Reforms were suggested and determined on by that Commission; and now that we are as a Province controlling our own affairs, are we to shut our eyes to this state of things, and say we will do nothing? Not even make enquiry, or extend, where needed, the benefits of that Endowment to other sections of the Province? The Province does not desire that the outlying Colleges, which have been doing such good work for the youth of the Province, should be shut up in this summary way. Having received aid from Government for the past twenty-five years, these Institutions had grown up and flourished, and to cut them off from all Government support now, was neither a statesmanlike nor politic act. You may change their management and remove everything which could be considered sectarian before giving aid, but do not destroy them.

Before sitting down I would like to say that I have always objected, ever since I knew anything of the bearing of the question on our Colleges,-to the system of annual Grants. It is wrong in principle and injurious in practice, that Colleges should be obliged to come here from year to year to apply for Grants. In no other Country in the world is such a system in existence. This thing should be put on a Legislative basis, should be regulated by public enactment, and in such a course the great majority of the people of the Province would concur.

Doctor McGill said, in the discussion it has been acknowledged that we have a Provincial national University. That ought to be distinctly and clearly understood. But if we were to be governed by the Letter of the Resolution before the House, and if we were at liberty to draw from it its legitimate inference, we would infer that we have not any Provincial University, but we have this University. Confessedly it is a credit to its founders, no matter who they were, or what Country they were from; and not only is it a credit to its founders, but is the delight and beauty of this City, and the glory of the Province. I say, sir, we ought to be proud of it,-not alone on account of its exterior beauty, but because if its adaptability to the end for which it is designed. And not only have we this University, but all the Colleges have the privilege of affiliating with it. That they have not availed themselves of that privilege is plain to all, and the reason why is that it was because the Colleges found they were not going to receive as much from affiliation as they expected. I was sorry during the debate to hear it so often insisted upon that Toronto ought not to be a point of centralization. Now, there must be some point of centralization in the Province, and can any honourable Gentleman point to one more fitting than the City of Toronto,-the Capital of the Province,-and in every way favourably situated for being a point of centralization. And if Toronto is a point of centralization, one central Institution ought to be here. I do not say it is the point where all the Colleges ought to centre,although even in that case it might be better. From information which I have, I 4-XXI.

believe there has been formerly a good deal of extravagance; but that is all past and gone; and I say, let by-gones be by-gones. I am satisfied that at present the expenditure of University College is prudent and well managed.

Instead of being satisfied with the old Grant, the Colleges now come forward boldly and ask a larger amount, and they ask that that amount shall be made permanent; and they ask all this without giving up their Denominational character.

We have in Ontario now, besides University College, six graduating Bodies; and I maintain that that is a much larger number than we require. The Statement I am going to make is this, that if these six graduating Bodies were blotted out of existence, as graduating Bodies, it would be a great boon to the cause of higher education. I have arrived at the conclusion that it would be a decided advancement of the cause of higher education, if these six graduating Bodies,-as graduating Bodies,—were blotted out of existence. Let them all be transformed into good High Schools, and they would be of incomparably more public benefit than at present.

Going east, we find that the University at Kingston Graduates about ten, Victoria College about ten, Trinity about the same number, and the University about twenty every year; and is not that far more than is needed? And not only is this the case, but in the event of the Students all coming hither, they would receive their education under much more favourable advantages than at present. I charge upon the multiplication of these Colleges a great deal of mischief, in various ways. First, it does a great deal of harm to University College. If that Institution had not had to contend with all that it has had to contend with in this way, it would have been in a very different position to-day, and would have been beyond the cry of suspicion. I charge further upon the multiplication of these Colleges, that it is doing a positive injury in the way of lowering the standard of higher education." That is the legitimate tendency which always follows an undue multiplication of such Institutions in any Country. I charge also another evil on this undue multiplication of Colleges, and that is the precipitating, or inducing a larger number of young men to run after a higher education. It may seem paradoxical, but I state it as my conviction that we have too many young men in our Country running after higher education, trying to get "B.A." and "M.A." fixed to their names; adopting this course notwithstanding the more matterof-fact, stern realities of life. They spend time and means in this way, and leave undeveloped the real material interests of their own persons and the Country. What is the consequence? We are not improved in any sense by it. Our young men of the present day will not favourably compare with those of twenty-five years past. And that is not all; but this running after higher education, where it is not really needed, leads many young men into idleness. They would all be Teachers, Clergymen, Doctors. Lawyers, or Clerks; and the fact is that, if this state of things goes on, the important material interests of the Country must continue to remain undeveloped. What we have really to decide is whether there is any necessity for another University College. My candid opinion is that for fifty years to come there will not be any need for such an Institution; and that if we had High Schools, and our Common Schools and Grammar Schools, I am sure we would be as well educated a Country as is under the sun. England has been referred to, with her great number of Colleges; but I take it upon me to say that if England had not so many Colleges,-if she paid more attention to Common School education, the people would be better educated, with all her Colleges, -with thirteen affiliated round one University, and seventeen round another; and although having all these Colleges, England is by no means the educated Country that she ought to be. Considering her age and wealth and the amount she expends in education, she is far below the standard she ought to have attained.

Mr. Cumberland.-In referring to the amendment last put before the House, I think I may say, however, that the intent of the Act of 1853, was to recognize the

* How very different is this opinion on the multiplication of Colleges) from that expressed by Mr. Adams, the distinguished Graduate and Overseer of Harvard College, on rage 317 of the Fifteenth Volume of this Documentary History. One is the opinion of a novice, the other that of an experienced Educationist.

Toronto University as a central University. That Act had for its object the establishment of a Provincial University and the affiliation of Colleges therewith. That is the reading I put on it; and therefore I entirely repudiate the notion, so far as I am concerned, of interding any other than the existing University of Toronto, as the future central University. Under these circumstances, I would suggest to Mr. Clark, the Member for Grenville, whether it would not be wise frankly and straight-forwardly and above board, to accept the Resolution of Mr. Blake, the Member for South Bruce, hoping that at an early day the Government will take action on the question and bring it to the notice of the House.

Mr. Swinarton.-I desire to say that I believed, like many Members of the House, that when we rose last Session the Government had fixed on as their policy, that there were to be no more Grants to sectarian Colleges. I came back to sustain the Government in that stand, and I hope the Government will stick to their views of last Session, and I think the House will sustain them. I am very much surprised at the Member for Algoma to-day for four or five hours in speaking of superior education. It would look better if the honourable Gentleman would ask the Government to establish three or four Common Schools in the District of Algoma. Let us first of all see the people in our rural districts better provided with Common School education.

Mr. Blake. My amendment, I understood, could not be formally placed before the House until we had first disposed of part of the proposition of the Member for Welland; but the Attorney General informs me that the practice in our House, in this respect, is not that laid down by May. I, therefore, place the amendment in your hands at once.

Mr. Sinclair said, for my part, I altogether object to the sustenance of any educational Institution connected with, or under the control of, any Denomination, through the aid of State money. If there is any necessity for the Endowment of Colleges,-if University College is insufficient.-it would be right for the House to take that matter under consideration. But the Country requires that if they are endowed, it must be on the non-Denominational basis on which the Common Schools are founded. If any educational Institutions are required to supplement those in use, I think this House will be willing to give aid to such Institutions, but they must be formed on the nonsectarian principle.

Mr. Gow. I am opposed to sectarian, or Denominational Grants, and think that that sentiment prevails largely in this House and throughout the Province of Ontario, and the sooner the Gentlemen agitating this question become aware of this fact, the better for themselves and us. I am prepared to consider any well defined scheme to promote, extend and protect our present system of education.

Mr. Clark. As the mover of the original Resolutions, desired to say that these Resolutions affirmed the desirability of having a more efficient system of education than that which now exists.

The amendment of the Member for South Bruce was then put and carried on the following division:

Yeas. Messieurs Barber, Baxter, Beatty, Blake, Boulter, Boyd, Cameron, Carling, Carnegie, Clark, Clemens, Cockburn, Colquhoun, Cook, Coyne, Craige, (Glengarry), Crosby, Cumberland, Currie, Evans, Eyre, Finlayson, Fitzsimmons, Gibbons, Gow, Graham (Hastings), Grahame (York). Greely, Hays, Hooper, Lauder, Lount, Lyon, Macdonald, Matchett, McDougall, McGill, McKellar, McLeod, McMurrich, Pardee, Paxton, Perry, Read, Richards, Sexton. Shaw, Sinclair, Smith (Kent), Smith, (Middlesex), Supple, Swinarton, Trow, Wigle, Williams (Durham), Williams (Hamilton), Wilson, and Wood.-59.

Nays.-Messieurs Calvin, Craig (Russell), Ferguson, Luton, Monteith, McCall (Norfolk), McColl (Elgin), Rykert, Scott (Grey), Secord, Springer, and Tett.-12.

Mr. Rykert's amendment to the amendment, was then put and carried, on the following division:

Yeas. Messieurs Barber, Baxter, Beatty, Blake, Boulter, Boyd, Cameron, Carling, Carnegie, Clarke, Clemens, Cockburn, Colquhoun, Cook, Coyne, Craig (Glengarry), Crosby, Cumberland, Currie, Evans, Eyre, Finlayson, Fitzsimmons, Gibbons, Gow, Graham (Hastings), Grahame (York), Greely Hays, Hooper, Lauder, Lount, Lyon, Macdonald, Matchett, McDougall, McGill, McKellar, McLeod, McMurrich, Pardee, Paxton, Perry, Read, Richards, Sexton, Shaw, Sinclair, Smith (Kent), Smith (Middlesex, Springer, Supple, Swinarton, Trow, Wigle, Williams (Durham), Williams (Hamilton), Wilson, and Wood.-59.

Nays.-Messieurs Calvin, Craig (Russell), Ferguson, Fraser, Luton, Monteith, McCall (Norfolk), McColl (Elgin), Rykert, Scott (Grey), Secord, and Tett.-12.

Attorney General Macdonald rose before the original motion was put and said,It is with high satisfaction I have noticed that the House has affirmed that policy which we placed on the Statute Book, and which was among the very first Acts submitted by the Administration to the House last Session. We have been handsomely sustained; and I have only to say that we still adhere to the policy of last year. The Government preferred on this occasion to take no part in the debates of the House.

The House divided on the original Resolution, as amended,-which was carried on the following division:

Yeas.-Messieurs Barber, Baxter, Beatty, Blake, Boulter, Boyd, Calvin, Cameron, Carling, Carnegie, Clarke, Clemens, Cockburn, Colquhoun, Cook, Coyne, Craig (Glengarry), Craig (Russell), Crosby, Cumberland, Currie, Evans, Eyre, Finlayson, Fitzsimmons, Fraser, Gibbons, Gow, Graham (Hastings), Grahame (York), Greely, Hays, Hooper, Lauder, Lount, Luton, Lyon, Macdonald, Matchett, Monteith, McDougall, McGill, McKellar, McLeod, McMurrich, Pardee, Paxton, Perry, Read, Richards, Rykert, Scott (Grey), Sexton, Shaw, Sinclair, Smith (Kent), Smith (Middlesex), Springer, Supple, Swinarton, Trow, Wigle, Williams (Durham), Williams (Hamilton), Wilson and Wood.-66.

Nays.-Messieurs Ferguson, McCall (Norfolk), McColl (Elgin), and Secord.-4. The House then adjourned.

CHAPTER IV.

A SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SYSTEMS AND STATE OF POPULAR EDUCATION ON THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE, IN THE BRITISH ISLES, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WITH PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. BY THE REVEREND DOCTOR RYERSON, CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR ONTARIO, 1868.

I have the honour to transmit herewith, to be laid before His Excellency, the Members of the Legislature, and the Country, a Special Report on the Systems and State of Popular Education in several Countries in Europe and the United States of America, with practical suggestions for the improvement of Public Instruction in this Province.

TORONTO, March 2nd, 1863.

EGERTON RYERSON.