Education In Upper Canada From 1783 To 1844-(continued)

DURING the Legislative session of 1836, Sir John Colborne was replaced by Sir Francis Bond Head as Lieutenant-Governor. It would seem that the difference of opinion between Sir

John Colborne and Lord Glenelg of the Colonial Office was responsible for the former’s asking to be recalled. His last official act as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and one intimately connected with educational controversy at a later date, was to sign patents for the endowment of forty-three Anglican rectories out of the Clergy Reserve lands.

In the Legislature no real progress was made in education, although a lengthy report and a draft School Bill were presented by a member of the Assembly, Doctor Charles Duncomb. This report was based on a visit paid by Doctor Duncomb to the Eastern, Middle and Western United States. It is interesting and emphasizes the importance of a suitable education for women.

The most important event of the year in its after effects upon education in Upper Canada was the formal opening of Upper Canada Academy* at Cobourg, under a Royal Charter secured by Egerton Ryerson.

In resigning his position as editor of The Guardian, the official organ of Methodism, Ryerson referred to the condition of education in Upper Canada, emphasizing the supreme importance of elementary instruction for every child in the country. It is also interesting to note that at this date, when he had probably never dreamed of having any official connection with elementary education, he should have touched the very root of the problem by pointing out the utter impossibility of making any real progress without a body of educated and trained teachers.

The Legislature of 1837 set at rest for a few years the vexed question of an amendment to King’s College charter. The majority of the Legislative Council were stoutly opposed to any modifications that would lessen the control of the Anglican Church, but they saw that public opinion was strong enough to prevent the opening of the college until amendments were made. They also saw that they were running a risk of having the charter cancelled and a new one granted by the Crown. They accordingly accepted certain amendments proposed by the Legislative Assembly. These amendments* gave ex-officio seats on the College Council to the Speaker of the two branches of the Legislature and to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of Upper Canada ; they removed from members of the Council and from professors every semblance of a religious test except the following declaration : ” I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I believe in the authenticity and Divine Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments and in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity “; they removed absolutely from religious tests all students and candidates for degrees; they made the judges of his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench visitors instead of the Lord Bishop of Quebec, and vested the appointment of future presidents in His Majesty instead of conferring that office ex-officio upon the Archdeacon of York.

Steps were taken at once to place the college in a position to begin work. A very able and comprehensive scheme f of studies and courses was drawn tip by the President, Dr. Strachan, and everything promised favourably, when the Rebellion broke out and all operations were suspended.

The following sketch of the Common Schools of this period, written by Mr. Malcolm Campbell, an old teacher of Middlesex, is inserted because it is believed to be typical of Upper Canada conditions. Mr. Campbell began to teach in 1835 :–

” The School Houses, during the time I taught, were built of round logs about 14 X 16 ft., with clapboard roufs and open fireplaces. A window sash on three sides for light, a board being placed beneath them, on which to keep copies and slates. There were long hewn benches without backs for seats. There were no blackboards or maps on the chinked walls. There was a miscellaneous assortment of books, which made it very difficult to form classes. Cobb’s and Webster’s Spelling-books afterwards gave place to Mavor’s. The Testament was used as a Textbook, a supply of which was furnished by Rev. Benjamin Cronyn, afterwards Bishop of Huron. The English Reader, and Hume and Smollett’s History of England were used by the more advanced classes. Lennie’s Grammar, and Dilworth’s and Hutton’s Arithmetics, and the History of Cortez’ Conquest of Mexico were used, also a Geography and Atlas, and a variety of books. Goose-quills were used for pens, which the teacher made and mended at least twice a day. The hours of teaching were somewhat longer than at present, and there was no recess. The number of scholars varied from 15 to 30, and school was kept open eight to ten months in the year with a Saturday vacation every two weeks. Teachers, after having taught school for some months, underwent a pretty thorough oral examination by the District Board of Education, and were granted First, Second, or Third Class certificates according to their merits, real or supposed. They had the Government grant apportioned to them according to their standing. Mr. Donald Currie, in the section west of me, drew annually $12 on the ground of his high qualifications as well as his teaching Latin. My share of the grant was $80. Mr. Benson east of me drew $50 . . . The Government grant was what the teacher mainly depended on for cash. The rest of his pay, which varied from $10 to $16 a month, Government grant included, was mostly paid in ” kind,” and very hard to collect at that.

” The Trustees in these early days assumed duties beyond what they now possess. In engaging a teacher, they examined him as to his qualifications in the three R’s and as much farther as any of themselves knew. They fixed the rate bill which each scholar should pay, usually at a dollar and fifty cents a quarter ; and any family sending more than three scholars should go free, as well as the children of widows. . . . The teacher was expected to ‘board round ‘ at that rate of pay. He usually boarded in one or two houses near the school, doing chores morning and evening. The Trustees assessed each scholar with half a cord of wood during winter, which was scantily supplied; sometimes the teacher and bigger boys went with an axe to the woods to make up the deficiency. The trustees were to examine the school quarterly, and sign the Quarterly Reports so that the teacher might draw the Government grant.”

The following ” Rules for the Government of Common Schools ” prescribed by the Board of Education for the Niagara District is taken from Gourley’s ” Statistical Account of Upper Canada, 1817-1822,” Vol. II.; Appendix, pp. 116-119 :

” 1. The Master to commence the labours of the day by a short prayer.

” 2. School to commence each day at 9 o’clock and five hours at least to be given to teaching (luring the (lay, except on Saturdays.

” 3. Diligence and Emulation to be cherished and encouraged among the pupils by rewards judiciously distributed, to consist of little pictures and books, according to the age of the scholar.

” 4. Cleanliness and Good Order to be in-dispensable ; and corporal punishment seldom necessary, except for had habits learned at home—lying, disobedience, obstinacy and perverseness—these sometimes require chastisement ; but gentleness even in these cases would do better with most children.

” 5. All other offences, arising chiefly from liveliness and inattention, are better corrected by shame, such as gaudy caps, placing the culprits by themselves, not permitting anyone to play with them for a day or days, detaining after school hours, or during a play afternoon, or by ridicule.

” 6. The Master must keep a regular catalogue of his scholars and mark every day they are absent.

” 7. The forenoons of Wednesday and Saturday to be set apart for Religious Instruction ; to render it agreeable the school should be furnished with at least ten copies of Barrows’

Questions on the New Testament,’ and the Teacher to have one copy of the key to these questions for his own use; the teacher should likewise have a copy of Murray’s ` Power of Religion on the Mind,’ Watkin’s ‘ Scripture Biography,’ and Blair’s ‘Class Book,’ the Saturday Lessons of which are well-calculated to impress religious feeling.

” Note.—These books are confined to no religious denomination, and do not prevent the Masters from teaching such Catechism as the parents of the children may adopt.

” 8. Every day to close with reading publicly a few verses from the New Testament, proceeding regularly through the Gospels.

” 9. The afternoons of Wednesday and Saturday to be allowed for play.

” 10. A copy of these Rules to be affixed up in some conspicuous place in the School-room, and to be read publicly to the Scholars every Monday morning by the Teacher.”

No doubt much good teaching was done in schools nominally governed by similar codes of instruction. The teacher is always the real force in a school and good teachers are never slaves to mechanical rules.

These ” rules,” however, suggest a form of punishment that was largely used in those days even by good teachers and has not yet been wholly banished from the schoolroom—ridicule. Here we see it offered as an improvement upon corporal punishment. It may have had its advantages over the brutal punishments sometimes inflicted in the old days, but I think Dr. Johnson was right in saying that a reason-ably severe corporal punishment was better for both teacher and pupil than either ” nagging ” or ridicule. No doubt the systems of Bell and Lancaster were responsible for the use recommended of ridicule in the Niagara District in 1820.

One important Bill, ” An Act to Provide for the Advancement of Education,” became law during the session of 1839. This Bill set apart 250,000 acres of waste lands for the support of District Grammar Schools, made provision for additional schools in districts where they were needed, and provided for the erection of new buildings and assistant masters. The Bill also placed the revenue and management of these schools under the Council of King’s College. In this way King’s College, Upper Canada College, and the District Gram-mar Schools—all the machinery of higher education—were brought under central authority.

From a careful reading of a despatch t sent by Sir George Arthur to the Colonial Office, in connection with the Act referred to above, it seems quite clear that the land grant of 250,-000 acres now set apart for District Grammar Schools was the balance of the original 549,-217 acres granted by the Crown in 1798 for the endowment of Free Grammar Schools and a University. Thus, after forty years, the intentions of the Crown regarding Grammar Schools were to be realized. But only in part, because the Act of 1839 did not make the Grammar Schools free.

It was confidently hoped by many of the King’s College Council, and especially by the President, Rev. Dr. Strachan, that when the college charter was amended in 1837 nothing would interfere with the immediate execution of plans for building and opening King’s College. Elaborate plans and models of a building were prepared and sent out from England, an architect was employed, advertisements for tenders for a building were inserted in various newspapers, and the contract was about to be awarded, when Sir George Arthur hurriedly convened the Council and ordered an investigation into the finances of the College.

His suspicions had evidently been awakened by some returns on College affairs presented in response to an Address by the Assembly. The report of the special audit committee* appointed by the Council revealed a startling condition of affairs and incidentally a strong argument against allowing any body or corporation to handle public funds without an annual audit by someone responsible to Parliament.

The Bursar, the Hon. Joseph Wells, a prominent member of the Legislative Council, had diverted to his own use and that of his needy friends some 16,374, and the sum of £4,312 had been loaned to the President, Dr. Strachan. There was in use a very primitive system of book-keeping, and on the whole just such management as might have been expected from the close corporation which had, up to 1837, made up the King’s College Council. There was also much mismanagement of the financial affairs of Upper Canada College. These revelations delayed building operations until I842.

On December 3rd, 1839, the last session of the Legislature of Upper Canada was opened by Charles Poulett Thompson, afterwards Lord Sydenham. A Bill was passed granting a charter to the ” University of Kingston.” When the Bill was introduced into the Assembly, the name was to be the ” University of Queen’s College.”* Why the change was made does not seem very clear, but perhaps it was because the promoters of the Bill were not certain that Her Majesty had given her consent to the use of her name in the Act. The Act placed the College largely under the control of the Presbyterian Church and wholly under control of Presbyterians, but no religious tests were to be exacted from students or graduates except in Divinity. The 15th section of the charter authorized the representative of Her Majesty in Canada to pay from the revenues of King’s College a sum sufficient to establish a Chair in Divinity. This arrangement doubt-less was the result of a despatch from the Colonial Office some years previous to the effect that any modification of King’s College charter should provide for a Divinity Professor of the Church of Scotland. Some readers of the present day may ask, Why not also for other religious denominations–Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists? The answer is simple. The Churches of England and Scotland were national churches in Great Britain and Ireland. The Anglican Church in Canada in 1840 claimed to be an Established Church. and as the Clergy Reserve controversy was then unsettled, her claim had reasonable expectation of realization. Had her claim been allowed, it would have strengthened any claim the Presbyterian Church might have made also to rank as an Established Church.

This Canadian charter to the ” University of Kingston ” was cancelled by the Crown with the consent of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and a Royal Charter issued to the ” University of Queen’s College.” By this Royal Charter, Queen’s lost the Divinity Professorship which, by the Canadian charter, was to be established out of King’s College foundation. The Crown had power to grant a charter but no power to interfere with the funds of King’s College, which were subject to the Canadian Legislature.

The Commission appointed by the Legislature in 1839 to prepare a report* on education gave a comprehensive account of the condition of schools, but without throwing much new light upon them. The total number of pupils in the District Grammar Schools was still about 300, but the number in the Common Schools was estimated at 24,000, or about one in eighteen of the total population. As to the nature of the schools attended by these 24,000, there is abundant evidence to prove that they were very inefficient. The Rev. Robt. McGill, of Niagara, says : ” I know the qualifications of nearly all the Common School teachers in this district, and I do not hesitate to say that there is not more than one in ten fully qualified to instruct the young in the humblest department.” The London District Board for 1839 says : ” The Masters chosen by the Common School Trustees are often ignorant men, barely acquainted with the rudiments of education and, consequently, jealous of any school superior to their own.’

The Grammar Schools had been gradually improving since their establishment, but were still very far from supplying the real needs of the people. They had no uniformity in course of study or textbooks, and were under no inspection. In fact, lack of supervision was the weakest spot in the whole school system.

Lord Durham, in his famous Report, refers to education in Upper Canada thus: “A very considerable portion of the Province has neither roads, post offices, mills, schools, nor churches. The people may raise enough for their own subsistence and may even have a rude and comfortless plenty, but they can seldom acquire wealth; nor can even wealthy landowners prevent their children from growing up ignorant and boorish, and from occupying a far lower mental, moral and social position than they themselves fill. . . Even in the most thickly peopled districts there are but few schools, and those of a very inferior character ; while the more remote settlements are almost entirely without any.”

The Committee recommended better salaries, normal schools for training teachers, British textbooks, an Inspector-General of Education, and a Provincial Board of School Commissioners. Looking at the matter three-quarters of a century later, we can see that really good schools were not then immediately possible. Schools, like everything else, cannot be created at command. They are the result of evolution. Upper Canada College illustrates this. Ex-pensive buildings were erected and capable masters secured in England, and yet the school was not really efficient for many years. The country was largely a wilderness. The people were comparatively poor and their first care was to provide the necessities of life. The sad side to the picture is that there was among the mass of the people so little real interest in education and so little appreciation of its worth. People will never struggle to acquire that of which they feel no need. It seems quite clear, too, that the struggle for civil and religious freedom and equality hindered the development of a good school system. The Iatter could scarcely be possible before the former had triumphed. The natural leaders of the people and those who by superior attainments and education were fitted for leadership were straining every nerve and mustering every known resource to overthrow a corrupt oligarchy. Even among the spiritual leaders of the people there was no unity o f purpose. In-stead of working shoulder to shoulder with one another for the moral and intellectual growth of their people, they were in many cases sapping their strength through acrimonious and recriminating discussions of state church, sectarianism, Clergy Reserves, endowment and grants. When once it was finally settled that Upper Canada was to have responsible government and that all races and all creeds were to enjoy equal civil, religious and political rights, it was much easier to lay a solid foundation for the development of efficient schools.

To this nothing contributed more than the Municipal Act of 1841. It supplied the necessary local machinery, working in harmony and in close connection with a central government. It seemed to leave almost everything to local initiative and local control, thus appealing to local patriotism. In reality it gave a central authority power to direct by laying down broad general principles, and it stirred up a maximum of local self-effort by distributing Provincial grants.

Sydenham’s first Speech from the Throne to the Legislature of the United Canadas in 1841 referred to the necessity of a better system of Common Schools. During the session the Legislature passed an elaborate Act for this purpose, and although it proved not to be of a practical nature it showed an earnest desire on the part of the Legislature to improve the Common Schools. The Act appropriated £5o,000 per year to be distributed among the Common Schools in proportion to the number of pupils between 5 and 16 years of age in each district. It provided a Superintendent of Education for the United Canadas and prescribed his duties. It established popularly-elected Township Boards and passed certain rates to he assessed on the ratepayers.

The most significant feature of the Bill was that it contained the genii which later developed into our elaborate system of Separate Schools_ Early in the session, forty petitions were presented asking that the Bible be used in the schools. There was also a petition from Rev. Dr. Strachan and the Anglican clergy asking that Anglican children he educated by their own pastors and that they receive a share of public funds for support of their schools. The Roman Catholics also petitioned against some principles of the Common School Bill then before the House.

These things will probably explain why the Bill as passed contained a clause allowing any number of dissentients (not necessarily Roman Catholics) in Township Schools to withdraw and form a school of their own, and also a clause which created for cities and incorporated towns a School Board, half of whom were Protestant and half of whom were Roman Catholic. The Catholics and Protestants might work together and maintain schools in common, or they might constitute themselves into separate committees, each committee virtually controlling its own schools.

Thus we see that while the Assembly were fighting to break down a system of sectarian-ism in university education, they were introducing into the Common Schools a policy that led to divisions on account of religion.

During the session of 1841, the Upper Canada Academy at Cobourg secured incorporation as Victoria College with university powers, and also a grant of £500, which later was made annual. Here, too, the Legislature was granting public money to a sectarian institution, although it should be noted that no religious tests were to be exacted of any students, and that five public officers, the President of the Executive Council, the Speakers of the two branches of the Legislature, and the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Canada West were to be ex-officio visitors and members of the Victoria College Senate_

Early in 1842, Queen’s University was opened for the reception of students. Later in the same year the corner-stone of King’s College was laid with imposing ceremony by Sir Charles Bagot, the Governor-General. In 1843 the King’s College professors began lectures. This gave three colleges with university powers in active operation in Upper Canada in 1843.

In May, 1842, the Governor-General appointed the lion. Robert Jameson, Vice-Chancellor of Upper Canada, to be Chief Superintendent of Education, and the Rev. Robert Murray, of Oakville, to be Assistant Superintendent for Upper Canada. Mr. Murray was a scholarly gentleman, but possessed no special qualifications for so important an office. It seems probable that as early as 1841 Sydenham had some thought of giving the position to Ryerson. It also seems probable that Sir Charles Bagot knew of this and had some communication with Ryerson in respect to it. It is more than likely that Ryerson had been too active, both in opposing the arbitrary acts of the Legislative Council and in promoting the interests of his own Church, to be readily acceptable to His Excellency’s Council, nearly all of whom were Churchmen.

It was soon discovered that the Common School Act of 1841 could never be put into operation. It had only a single merit—good intentions. In 1843 it was decided to amend it and enact a separate Bill for Upper and Lower Canada. That for Upper Canada was introduced by Hon. Francis Hincks. Speaking of the Bill* he says : ” The principle adopted in the School Bill of 1843 is this: The Government pays a certain amount to each Township—the property in that Township pays an equal amount ; or if the Councillors elected by the people choose it, double the amount. This forms the School Fund, which is divided among the school districts, the Trustees of which raise the balance of the teacher’s salary by a Rate Bill on the parents of the children. The system is as simple as it is just.

In framing this system, gentlemen, you will observe that, as in all other instances, the late Ministry have divested the grant of all local patronage. Everything has been left to the people themselves; and I feel perfectly convinced that they will prove themselves capable of managing their own affairs in a more satisfactory manner than any Government Boards of Education or visiting Superintendents could do for them.

” The new School Act provides also for the establishment in each Township of a Model School—the teacher of which is to receive a larger share than others of the School Fund, provided he gives gratuitous instruction to the other teachers in the Township, under such regulations as may be established.

” There is also provision for a Model School in each county, on a similar plan, but, of course, of a higher grade. It is left to the people themselves or their representatives in the several municipalities, to establish these Model Schools or not, as they deem expedient. But it is provided that as soon as a Provincial Normal School shall be in operation (and the system will never be complete without one) the teachers of the Model Schools must have certificates of qualification from the professors of the Normal School.”

This Act of 1843 is much more elaborate in its provisions than any preceding legislation affecting Common Schools in Upper Canada.

It provided for county superintendents appointed by wardens and for township, town or city superintendents appointed by the municipal council. It would seem that in many points the duties of these two classes of superintendents would conflict, as both were allowed to examine and appoint teachers, and both were to visit schools. Every section was to have a Board of Trustees elected by ratepayers, and to these trustees was given charge of school property and the regulation of course of study, including choice of textbooks. It would seem that full local control was given except in the matter of certificating teachers and regulating the government grant.

Either Protestants or Roman Catholics might petition for a Separate School on the application of ten or more resident freeholders, but such schools when established were maintained and controlled by the same machinery as other schools. Model Schools were to receive a larger grant from the Legislature. A county superintendent could issue unlimited or limited certificates, but all certificates issued by a town-ship, town, or city superintendent were limited to the division in which they were issued and were valid for one year only.

The marked weaknesses of the Act may be summed up as follows:

1. Possible conflict of authority between county and local superintendents.

a No uniformity of course of study or text-books.

3. No accepted standard of qualification for teachers.

4. No method provided for training of teachers, as a Normal School was merely suggested, and Model Schools were optional.

5. No provision made to secure competent local superintendents. Any man might be appointed.

But with all its deficiencies the School Bill of 1843 was a proof that the Legislature earnestly desired to promote elementary education. It was, no doubt, felt by many public men, and especially by the Governor, that no man was so well qualified as Ryerson to direct that system at headquarters. To pave the way for Ryerson’s appointment, Rev. Robert Murray was made Professor of Mathematics in King’s College, and in September, 1844, Ryerson became Assistant Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada. He was to have leave of absence for travel and for investigation into the school systems of Europe.

As events proved, Ryerson’s appointment as Superintendent of Education soon bore fruit in a more efficient system of Common Schools. But university affairs were still in a state of chaos.

The amendments to the charter of King’s College made in 1837 were disappointingly unfruitful of any practical changes_ The College remained in charge of Anglicans, and was in reality, if not in a legal sense, a Church of England institution. The question may naturally be asked, why did the legislation of 1837 not effect greater changes? The answer is simple. In 1837 the seat of government was at Toronto, and the five ex-officio Government officers could easily attend meetings of King’s College Council. But after the Act of Union in 1841 the seat of government was moved first to Kingston and later to Montreal. It then became wholly impossible for the five lay members of King’s College to attend regular meetings in Toronto. The result was that the affairs of King’s College remained practically in the hands of the president and professors, who made no real efforts to adapt the College to the needs of the people of Upper Canada. Bishop Strachan, the President, could not forget his original plans in securing the charter, and was still trying to realize them as far as possible. In a petition which he presented to Parliament in 1845 against the Draper University Bill, he makes his real object very clear. He says : ” Above all things, I claim from the endowment the means of educating my clergy. This was my chief object in obtaining the Royal Charter and the Endowment of King’s College ; . . . . and was indeed the most valuable result to be anticipated by the institution. . . . This is a point which never can be given up, and to which I believe the faith of Government is unreservedly pledged.”* As time went on and the history of the Royal grant of 1798 came to be more fully discussed and understood, the determination of the people grew more and more fixed to secure such modifications in the King’s College Charter as would make it a national instead of a sectarian institution.

The proposal of Baldwin, introduced in 1843, was statesmanlike, and although it failed to pass owing to the early resignation of his Ministry, it is interesting because it outlined in part the principles upon which the University question was finally settled. The Bill proposed to create a University of Toronto, and leave King’s College as a theological seminary without power to confer degrees. Queen’s, Victoria, and Regiopolis t were to become affiliated in connection with Toronto University, and were to surrender their powers to confer degrees. In return they were to receive certain grants from the King’s College endowment. Toronto University was to become the only degree-conferring power in Upper Canada. Baldwin had the Governor’s consent to bring in this Bill, and had his Ministry remained in power it would doubtless have passed. The Bill had the active support of Queen’s and Victoria, and the bitter opposition of Dr. Strachan.*

Dr. Ryerson summed up the whole situation in a reply to an eloquent and very able argument of Hon. W. H. Draper, who appeared at the Bar of the House of Assembly as Counsel of King’s College Council, in opposition to the Bill. Dr. Ryerson concludes as follows : ” The lands by which King’s College has been so munificently endowed, were set apart nearly fifty years ago (in compliance with an application in 1797 of the Provincial Legislature) for the promotion of Education in Upper Canada. This was the object of the original appropriation of those lands—a noble grant, not to the Church of England, but to the people of Upper Canada. In 1827 Doctor Strachan, by statements and representations against which the House of Assembly of Upper Canada protested again and again, got 225,944 acres of these lands applied to the endowment of the Church of England College. Against such a partial application and perversion of the original Provincial objects of that Royal grant the people of Upper Canada protested; the Charter of King’s College was amended to carry out the original object of the Grant ; the general objects of the amended Charter have been defeated by the manner in which it has been administered, and the University Bill is introduced to secure their accomplishment ; and the Council of King’s College employ an advocate to perpetuate their monopoly. The reader can, therefore, easily judge who is the faithful advocate and who is the selfish perverter of the most splendid educational endowment that was ever made for any new country. . . . I argue for no particular University Bill: but I contend upon the grounds of right and humanity, that Presbyterians, Methodists and all others ought to participate equally with the Episcopalians in the educational advantages and endowments that have been derived from the sale of lands, which, pursuant to an application from the Provincial Legislature, were set apart in 1 797 by the Crown for the support of Education in Upper Canada.”

In looking back upon the situation from our vantage-ground, covering a lapse of nearly three-quarters of a century, we may marvel that all parties were not ready to compromise upon the basis of a purely secular and national university. But secular, state-owned colleges are a very modern growth, and few men among our grandfathers had the courage to champion such institutions. An educational institution without some religious basis had uncanny associations. Therefore, it is not a matter for surprise that many good men were prepared to mutilate the University Endowment of Upper Canada, and dissipate it among sectarian colleges. Such, to a large degree, would have been the result had the Draper Bill of 1845 become law.

The Draper Government made a further attempt to settle the vexed question in 1846. John A. Macdonald (afterwards Sir John A. Macdonald) made another unsuccessful at-tempt in 1847. The Hon. Robert Baldwin then became Premier, and after securing the Report of a Commission on University Affairs, he introduced and passed a University Bill in 1849. This Act lias been many times amended, but the final result has been to preserve for the people of Upper Canada the University Endowment, and to remove from the management every semblance of sectarian control. The University has become the property and the pride of all classes, irrespective of race, politics, or religion.