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 with his 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 of the 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 the British Colonist on the 14th of February, 1846. From that letter I make the following extracts:—
The Board of Victoria College took no part in the University question until after the introduction of a Bill into the Legislature which affected the chartered rights and relations of Victoria College. On that occasion a special meeting of the Board was called, to decide whether it would, under any circumstances, acquiesce in that Bill, and upon what terms. The Board expressed a strong opinion in favour of the general terms of the Bill, but expressed an unfavourable opinion respecting some of its details, especially the project of the "Extra mural Board," and the non-recognition of Christianity. The Board also objected to the smallness of the amount proposed to be given to Victoria College. It stated that Victoria College, having been erected by public subscription, for the purpose of "teaching the various branches of science and literature upon Christian principles," could not cease to be a literary institution, as some supposed the Bill contemplated; it stated the peculiar hardships of the aspect of the Bill to the Methodist institution, under all the circumstances (which it explained), and submitted them to the honourable and generous consideration of the Government.... Mr. Baldwin's Bill proposed to grant the sum of £500 per annum each for several years to no less than four seminaries [besides the University].... It was objected to on the part of both Presbyterians and Methodists, that its application to them was not liberal enough; it was objected to on the part of King's College Council that it gave even a farthing to any of them.
Afterwards King's College Council objected to the Bill, and employed counsel to oppose it, on the ground that the Legislature had no right to interfere with their charter, or to divert any portion of King's College funds in aid of other institutions. To this plea of the King's College Council an individual member of the Victoria College Board offered an argumentative reply, contending that the endowment of King's College was the property of the Province, and upon legal, constitutional, and equitable grounds, came within the limits of Provincial legislation. This principle, I believe, is now generally admitted.
From this summary of well known facts it is evident—1. That Mr. Baldwin's Bill did contemplate giving aid to other institutions than the Toronto University. 2. That the friends of Queen's, Regiopolis, Victoria and King's Colleges did expect to derive assistance from the University funds. 3. That the objections to Mr. Baldwin's Bill on the part of the Presbyterians and Methodists were, not that any portion of the University funds should be applied in aid of their institutions, but that the portion proposed was entirely too small. 4. That those who supported Mr. Baldwin's Bill cannot consistently object to aid being given from the University funds to institutions in connection with the Church of England, Roman Catholics and Methodists. The amount and duration of such aid is a mere prudential consideration; the principle is the same, whether the amount of aid be five hundred or five thousand pounds, whether the duration be five years or five hundred years....
That there should be a Provincial University, furnishing the highest academical and professional education, at least in respect to law and medicine; that there should be a Provincial system of common school education, commensurate with the wants of the entire population; that both the University and the system should be established and conducted upon Christian principles, yet free from sectarian bias or ascendancy; that there should be an intermediate class of seminaries in connection with the different religious persuasions, who have ability and enterprise to establish them, providing on the one hand a theological education for their clergy, and on the other hand a thorough English and scientific education, and elementary classical instruction for those of the youth of their congregations who might seek for more than a common school education, or who might wish to prepare for the University, and who, not having the experience and discretion of University students, required a parental and religious oversight, in their absence from their parents; that it would be economy and patriotic on the part of the Government to grant liberal aid to such seminaries, as well as to provide for the endowment of a University or a common school system;—these are views which I explained and argued at length when the University question was under discussion, from 1828 to 1834; these are the views on which the Methodists asked in establishing the Upper Canada Academy, now Victoria College; these are views, by pressing which, a royal charter and government aid were obtained for that institution; these are the views which received strong confirmation in the recommendation of a despatch from Lord Goderich to Sir John Colborne in 1832, and which greatly encouraged the friends of the Upper Canada Academy in their commencing exertions. That institution was not originally intended to be a University College; nor was it sought to be made so until after the establishment of a Presbyterian University College at Kingston; when, prompted by example and emulation, and encouragement of aid, it was thought that the operations of a University might be grafted upon those of the academy, without interfering with the more extended objects of the latter....
More than a thousand youth have received more or less instruction at the Cobourg Institution; very few of them, apart from other considerations, have gone from it without forming a high standard of education, and a deeper conviction of its importance than they had before entertained; it has prevented hundreds of youth from going out of the country to be educated, upon whom, and upon hundreds of others, it has conferred the benefits of a good practical education. Its buildings present the most remarkable monument of religious effort and patriotic energy which was ever witnessed in any country of the age and population of Upper Canada....
The Wesleyan Methodists have not, like the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome, derived any assistance from the clergy reserve fund, or other public aid to their clergy or churches. It is much easier to figure upon a platform than to establish educational institutions, or to preach the Gospel throughout new countries. Those who have been in Canada twelve months can do the former, and sneer at the latter. The flippant allusions of certain speakers at the late Toronto meeting to the Methodists and to Victoria College ... were as unfounded as they were unbecoming.
The discussions on the University question at Quebec in 1860 were, as I have intimated, bitter and largely personal. Dr. Ryerson, being in the fore front of the University reformers, was singled out for special attack by some of the ablest defenders of the University. I shall not enter into detail, but will give the opening and concluding parts of Dr. Ryerson's great speech, which he made before the Committee of the Legislature on the 25th and 26th of April, 1860:—