THE HINCKS ACT voluntary effort with the aid of the state. The fundamental principle of the new bill was that the state alone should control and maintain education, and that all alliance of the churches with the state was to be avoided. It cut loose from all past history of education in the province, ignored all church institutions, and built upon a purely secular foundation. In four years' time the exclusive rigidity of this bill was broken, and a bill apparently more liberal in its attitude to outlying colleges was introduced by Mr. Hincks in 1853. Dr. Ryerson, who had strongly opposed the Baldwin Bill in 1849, in 1850 had secured legislative authority for the removal of Victoria College to Toronto; and in 1852 he addressed a series of open letters to the Hon. Sir Francis Hincks, now the head of the Canadian government, outlining a most comprehensive and patriotic plan for the establishment of the provincial university upon a basis which might secure the cooperation of all the sections of the community. The Hincks Bill of 1853 did not follow Dr. Ryerson's outline, which anticipated some of the most important features of the Federation Act of 1887, but was modelled on the example of the London University, and possibly implied, though it did not specifically enact, the partition features of Mr. Macdonald's bill of 1847. It made more liberal provision for the affiliation of the outlying colleges, separated the teaching faculty of arts from the university, making provision for its support as a state college from the university endowments, and provided that the balance of income from the university endowment after meeting the wants of the university and college should be at the disposal of the legislature for the aid of higher education. These provisions were accepted by the outlying colleges as a promise of more harmonious relations, and they all accepted affiliation with the reconstructed university, and for a time their representatives took their places on the university senate. Parliamentary acts, however, can change names and constitution, but not spirit, policy or nature; they can constitute an institution the provincial university in form and theory without making it such in the affections and support of the people or in its spirit and attitude toward the other educational institutions of the country. The new university and state college consisted still very largely of the same men; its policy was still the policy of the old state church college, to use the provincial endowments as the rival of the outlying colleges. The Baldwin Act had, as we have seen, converted this policy into one of extinction; and although the new act pointed towards a better way, there was under it not the slightest effort toward a combination of resources and colleges for the building up of a truly provincial university. If such a result was ever to come it could under this policy come only when the outlying colleges had been destroyed by the force of an unfair financial competition. These CONTEST OF 1860 colleges had from the very first maintained the attitude of willingness or even desire for friendly cooperation in some form to build up a truly provincial university. They were now doomed to see all hope in this direction extinguished. Dr. Ryerson had from the first been a leader in this movement. He had throughout opposed all sectional and exclusive policies, whether ecclesiastical or political. When, therefore, the sectional character of the university policy-for the policy rather than the constitution was at fault-culminated in the conflict of 1860, he threw himself with all his force and ability into it and in favour of a comprehensive policy. The particular form of that policy was not the best. It still clung to the old partition scheme of John A. Macdonald, which would have been a fatal mistake. The conflict resulted for a little time in increased legislative aid to the denominational colleges, in itself a very doubtful advantage. But it embittered the state university party, and at the first opportunity all state aid was taken from the denominational colleges, their affiliation with the provincial university was cancelled, and they were left, as was supposed, to die, but in reality to renew their youth when once they were left to live by the merit of their work and the truth of the principles upon which they were founded. Dr. Ryerson was their consistent friend and supporter by pen and tongue and purse to the end. He believed in religion and morals in all education. He believed in a comprehensive unity of all forces in a truly provincial system. His chief mistake was, perhaps, that he did not unflinchingly apply the voluntary principle to the religious side of the work. It, perhaps, was financially impossible in his time. If so, then even this was not an error on his part, for in maintaining the religious principle even at the compromise of the other he has preserved for us a goal which is most abundantly vindicated by the strength and influence of the religious colleges to-day, and the reflex influence of which has been of the greatest benefit to the state college itself. CHAPTER VII FOUNDING THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM N Mr. Ryerson's last interview with Lord Sydenham, shortly before the accident which resulted in His Excellency's death, the governor discussed with him his contemplated measures for the improvement of popular education, and proposed that Mr. Ryerson should take charge of that important work. The matter was again considered under Sir Charles Bagot's administration in 1842, but the Rev. Mr. Murray was appointed. Near the close of 1843 Sir Charles Metcalfe conferred with Dr. Ryerson on educational matters and again suggested that he should undertake the necessary work, which had made no progress under Mr. Murray's tenure of office. A few weeks later the rupture took place between the governor and his cabinet. At first Mr. Ryerson was disposed to take a view unfavourable to the position assumed by the governor. But after a careful study of the question involved, as it was set forth by the newly organized Reform Association, he took up his pen in defence of Sir Charles, at the same time avowing his intention to accept no office until this question had been settled by the voice of the people at the polls. At the election in the autumn of 1844, the new |