In a letter from Dr. Ryerson, published in the Guardian, and dated 28th October, 1843, the character of Mr. Baldwin's University Bill is thus described:—
It is a measure worthy of the most enlightened government; and is, I have reason to know, entirely the production of Hon. Attorney-General Baldwin.... In the discussion [on the University question] the authorities of Victoria College have taken no part. We have remained perfectly silent and neutral, not because we had no opinion as to the policy which has been recently pursued in converting a Provincial ministry into a Church of England one[124] ... because we, as a body, had more to lose than to gain by any proposed plan to remedy the abuse and evil complained of. As a body, we gain nothing by the University Bill, should it become a law; it only provides for the continuance of the small annual aid which the Parliament has already granted; whilst, of course, it takes away the University powers and privileges of Victoria College—making it a College of the University of Toronto. Our omission, therefore, from the Bill would be preferable, as far as we, as a party, are concerned, were it consistent with the general and important objects of the measure. But such an omission would destroy the very character and object of the Bill. As a Provincial measure, it cannot fail to confer unspeakable benefits upon the country. Viewing the measure in this light, the Board of Victoria College have consented to resign certain of their rights and privileges for the accomplishment of general objects so comprehensive and important.
In a written statement on this subject prepared by Dr. Ryerson for this volume he says:—
Towards the close of 1843, Sir Charles Metcalfe determined to prepare and give effect to a liberal measure on the University question—on which subject Hon. Robert Baldwin had proposed elaborate and comprehensive resolutions. Sir Charles Metcalfe sent for me to consult with me on the University question, as I was then connected with one of the colleges. I explained to His Excellency my views, and added that the educational condition of the country at large was deplorable, and should be considered in a system of public instruction, commencing with the Common School and terminating with the University; being connected and harmonious throughout, and equally embracing all classes without respect to religious sect or political party. Sir Charles was much impressed and pleased with my views, and expressed a wish that I could be induced to give them public effect.
Dr. Ryerson then goes on to say:—I remarked to Sir Charles that Lord Sydenham, a few days before his sudden death, had proposed the same thing to me, and that had he survived a few weeks, I would likely have been appointed, with a view of organizing a system of Elementary Education; but that as Lord Sydenham died suddenly, and as I scorned to be an applicant to Government for any office, I mentioned the fact to no member of the Government. In May, 1842, another gentleman was appointed Assistant to the Provincial Secretary as Superintendent of Education. He was treated as a clerk in the office of the Provincial Secretary, having no clerk himself, and having to submit his drafts of letters, etc., to the Provincial Secretary for approval. [For particulars of this appointment, see p. [347].]
After this interview Dr. Ryerson, on the 26th February, wrote to the Governor-General on the University Question. Mr. Secretary Higginson replied, and at the conclusion of his letter repeated the offer which Sir Charles Metcalfe had made at the close of the year:—The Governor-General is so sensible of the great value of the aid you would bring to the Government in the intellectual improvement of the country, that he anxiously hopes, as suggested, that some arrangement may be devised satisfactory to you to obtain your co-operation; and His Excellency will keep his mind bent on that object, and will be happy to hear any further suggestion from you with a view to its accomplishment.
Early in this month (February, 1844), Dr. Ryerson's appointment as Superintendent of Education has been talked of. His brother John wrote to him on the 6th of March, recalling the fact of that appointment having been the subject of conversation with Sir Charles Bagot and some members of the Cabinet in 1842. Rev. John Ryerson then went on to say:—
You know that when your appointment to the office of Superintendent of Education was talked of in Toronto, in 1842, I was in favour of your accepting the appointment. The appointment that was made I thought a most unwise one, and the late Executive greatly lowered themselves in making it. Whenever I have thought of the thing since, I have felt disgusted with the late Government, that they should have been guilty of such a shameful dereliction of duty and honour as not, at least, to have offered the appointment to you.
In reply to this letter, Dr. Ryerson said:—
As liberal as the Council of Sir Charles Bagot were in many things, they rejected the application of every Methodist candidate for office. Making appointments upon the principles of party, they must be given only to one of the party; a system of appointment which holds out a poor prospect to the Methodist who makes religion first, and party not more than second—especially when he may have as a rival candidate one who makes party everything, and religion nothing.