^r^%

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

L4 128

■ 50 ^^

I.I

^ m

^ tiS,

tut

1.25

III ^'^

2.5

12.2

I
2.0

III

1.6

-►

Photographic

Sdences

Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

I "lyPages restored and/or laminated/
L—f Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes

I T/Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Lkd Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es

The
to li

The
posi
of tl
filmi

Orig
begi
the I
sion
othe
first
sion
or ill

I I Coloured maps/

D
D

Cartes g6ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

Lareliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

□ Pages detached/
Pages d^tach^es

I 1/^howthrough/
llA Transparence

I I Quality of print varies/

D
D

Quality indgale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du matdriel suppl^mentaire

The
shall
TINl
whi(

Map
diffe
entii
begi
right
requ
metl

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6x6 film^es 6 nouveau de fagon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

ire

details
es du
modifier
ler une
filmage

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

L'exemplaire f ilmi f ut reprodult grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
"■us grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

§es

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenqant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Un des symboSes suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtie
film6s d des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reprodult en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m6thode.

y errata
id to

ie pelure,

9on d

32X

•

„!• ^^ "v^-^-- • ■-.:''

'"f-

•^

C '1' T

E K ,S

K 1 N G ' S a O L 1. E G E ,

1)Y

THE REV, JOHN llcCAi; L, L, L, ])„

f'ritid'-iii ./ /Afl c;.vii'c/.w/y,

AN D

JOHN MAC ARA, ESQ.,

J.arrister at Late,

TO i; () N T O.

PRINTED AT THE EXAMINER OFFICE, KING STaELT.

JclS.

INTRODUCTION.

,^n May, 1844, a Paniplilet was published in Toronto, entitled "The Oriri;?,
jiilisroRv, AND iMan'aokmknt ok King's Collkgk, Tokonto," and containing
ihe following par!i;jrapli : —

' During the Cli.incellorship of Sir Charles Bagot, a Schedule of Salaries and
Dnlit-s Wiis hiiil hefnre his late tlxcellency l)y Dr. iMc(^anl. ami which wa.-. pro-
fessedly fr lined in reference to a staieinent of the income of the Uiiiver-ily. In
that ricliedule Dr. .Vl^Canl esliinated his own services, as a I'rofessor, ai £400;
' while the snin of £250 was attached ^o the otficeof Vire-1'iesident. Sir Cliarleti
Bagot reduced tlw salary of Vice-l'resideiU to £150, and raised tiiai ol thd
Professorship to £500— ;t!nis meeting .\n aiiother form Dr. McCanl's own ideas
of his importance. A Statute yyas i»i;cpr.red l)y Sir Charles Uagol in accordance
with tliis appropriation, iind tr:\tismitted 10 the Council 'I'lus sUitntc was inter-
ccpte.ll anil cancelled — tlie^Chancellor's severe illness having otVered a (avonrahle
opportunity for defeating his intentiona. On the arrival of Sir Charles Meicalfe,
a new Statute was framed hy tlie parties in Toronto, in which, taUiiig advantage
of the addition made by Sir Charles IJajjot to Dr. ^I,cCan^s salary, as a Professor.
the sum stated was £500. and also taking advantage of Sir Charles Meiialle'a
ignorance of die former Chancellor's arratigement of the salary of Vice-President,
'tlie Slim stated was £200. Will Dr. McCaul ItuKurd an explauvition uf tiie
diiicrepancy ?"

Although the Pamphlet attracted general attention, and wps noticed by ^Imost
•very newspaper in the Province, no answer to the Tery serioiiij (jl.arge above
quoted, emanated frptp Dr. McCaul tjll two years after tjie publication. At
length, on ^Oth April, 4846, the Hon. Adam Fergusson took occasion, when
moving for certain papers relative to King's College, to call the attention of the
Legislative Council and, the Country to the fact that a charge deeply aflecling the
character of Dr. McCaul, as wijll as of the Institution itself and the youth under
Ills charge, remaif^ad unausyv,ered.

31 r. Fergusson's speech in tlie I^egi^Iative Council having caused considerable
excitement, Dr. iMcCaul, en 14tti .lilay, 184(5, addressed a letter to that gentleman,
justifying himsejf from the charge, but without expressing any wish to have the
letter placed before the ^ouse. Mr. Fergus-son, not feeling himself warranted
in laying a privateJetter befoi;e the country, without the sanction of Dr. McCaul
and his friends, placed the document at the disposal of the gentlemen uf the
Legislative Council, when the Speaker ruled. that it could not be read.

On the retirement of the Bishop of Toronto from the Presidency of the
University, Dr. McCaul was, in February 1848, elevated to that ofiice: and a few
of his friends undertook to get up an address of congratiilatinn and to have it
privately circulated for subscription among the citizens of Toronto. The address
being of considerable length, a few of the lleformers were induced to give their
signatures without a perusal, and it was not till the document appeared in the
public prints that they became aware that it contained a short sentence expressive
,»f their satisfaction with Dr. McCaul's mauageuitnt of the University, while hit

held the oiTice of Vice-President. The great body of the Reformer declined to
join in the address until J)r. AfcCanl made a public jnstification of the charges
contained in tiie pamphlet, and Mr. Forgiisson's speech-

The necessity for explanation having become urgent, Dr. McCaul at h^ngth
placed a copy of his letter to Mr. Fergnsson before the public, by inserting it in
the Toronto Jlcruld of (i:h March, 1848. The following pages comprise Dr.
IVlcCaul's letter ami tlie reply made by Mr. Mucara, the author of the pamphlet
?n which the charge originally appeared.

(

i declined to
the cliurges

111 at length
serting it in
ompnse Dr.
ho j)iin)phlet

LETTER

FROM THH RKV, .milX McCAUL. LL.l).. TO Till', IIOVIILE ADAM FERGUSSON,
ME.MIW'.R or THE LEUlriLATiVE COUNCIL, &e., &c., &c.

Sir,

King's Coi.t.kge, Toronto,
May iAtIt, 184(j.

In the last number of tlic Toronto Herald, I saw, for the first time, a report
of the observations made by you in the Legislative Council on April 30th, when
moving for certain returns relative to the University. As the tendency of these
observations is to injure my reputation, and the place, in which they were utteted
must give them authority in public estimation, I feel that I cannot permit them
to pass without notice.

My object, then, in the present communication is to prove that the charges,
which have been advanced against me, are untrue ; and I have not hesitated to
address the vindication of my character to you, as I learn from your remarks that
you will be happy to find, that what has been alleged to my prejudice is false.

Before I enter on the consideration of the extract, which contains the charges,
it seems proper, that I should advert to the observation, with which you intro-
duced it. *' For more than two years," you remarked, " a charge has been left
unanswered by a Rev. Doctor in charge of the young men attending this Institu-
tion — a charge, be it observed, not made by an ephemeral writer in a newspaperi
but gravely and seriously pubUshtd in a work upon University affairs.'*

' It appears that you are disposed to considcrmy not having replied to the charges
advanced against me in the publication, entitled, " The origin, history, and
management of the University, &c.," as a presumption, if not a proof, that I
could not deny their truth. Of the character of the assertions made by the author
oi authors of that pamphlet, you will be better able to form an opinion, when I
shall have answered the particular charges, contained in the extract, to which
you drew the attention of the Council. At present I shall content myself with
observing, that I wholly dissent from your opinion, that it was either necessary
or proper for me to notice the statements advanced in that pamphlet. As it was
published anonymously, it had not the sanction of any name to i ',ommend it to
attention, and its intrinsic merits did not seem sufficient to clain. '. onsideration.
Who the author was I had no means of knowing, nor do I know how ; and on
reading it I could not discover any grounds for conjecturing, that it was the pro-
duction of a person, who was either a scholar or a gentleman. The chief charac-
teristics, which I observed in it, were, strong eflbrts to pervert truth, without the
capacity to rise above the common level of ordinary falsehood— heavy attempts
at sarcasm, sinking into dull invective or coarse abuse— and pnrticulary scrupu-
lous care to vilify the characters of none, but those, whose position or circum-
stances warranted the hope, that they could not, or would not, punish insult.
The publication was certainly calculated to effect the object, which the writer
peemed to have in vi«w, viz,— the excitement of popular prejudice against the

Jnstitution o,nd its principal oflicers ; but tlic ability, m&riirestetl l)y the author in
making out a ciise, was nierely of tliat siiecies and amount, \\ hicii would quality
its possessor for succeeding as a Icj^al sharper. Hut an 1 have no wi.-ii to dilate
on a )vo^k, of which I regret that circumstances have compelled me to take any
notice, 1 shall proceed to the charges, contained in the extract, which you read,
find to which 1 should assuredly have never ollered any rejily, if yon had not
condescended to bring them under tJie notice of llu' llonoinable lloufc of which
you are a member.

The charges are — iFt. That in a srhedule of triiarie-i laid by Tin; before Sir
.Charles Bagot, as Chancellor of the University, 1 esiimntcd ni> own services as
professor at £400, while the sum of iJ'JJI) was attached to iliat of Nicc-Prcfident.
2nd. That a statute was prepared by Sir Charles Bagot, in w hich the salary of
Vice-President was reduced to jCi.>0, wlvich statute \». as iuificeptod and cancelled
• -the Chaticellor's severe illness having' otiered a liivoiiiable opi)oilunity for de-
feating his intentions, iird. That on the arrival of Sir Chailes Metcalfe, a new
Btalute was prepared by the parties in Toronto, in which, taking advantage of the
fitidition Ridde <by Sir Charles Bagot to my salary as Professor, the sum stated
jyas Jt^OO ; and also taking advantage of Sir Charles Metcalfe's ignorai cc of the
former Chancellor's arrangement of the salary of Vice-President, the sum stated
was £2o0.

It is perfectly true that a schedule of salaries and duties was transmitted by me
,tobe laid before Sir C. Bagot, as Chancellor of the University. Jt is also true,
that in it the salary of two of the Professor^hipji, which I now hold, was placed
at £400, and that of Vice-President at £-J.')0. These facts were then, and tire
now, 1 believe, well known, for " the Chancellor's severe illness olli-red a favour-
able opportunity" for copying documents furnished for His Excellency's infor-
mation.

The question is, whether any blame attaches to me for this estimate— whether
I was guilty of any indelicacy in affixing the sums, as I did, to the offices which
I now hold? In il)« first place, it was my duty to prepare that schedule, and
that duty would.have been but imperlectly discharged, if I had otnitted any item
of expenditure. In the second place, the appoviionineiit of the salaries was not
toade nn qiy own authority, but after consultation with the President. In the
third place, there was no room jor the exercise of any delicacy as to the salary of
the offices, which I myself held, inasmuch as more than two years before, the
salary of the Vice-President had been fixed by the Council at £7.')0 per annum —
and this, too, on the motion of a gentleman, who certainly could not have had my
interest in view, for he did not desire my appointment to tlie ol..cc.

The first charge then amounts to this — that in an estimate furnished by me, the-
salaries of all the offices which I held, were placed £100 below the sum whii;h
Jiad been fixed by the Council for one of them.

The second charge is — that a statute was prepared by Sir Charles Bagot, in
whiuh the salary of Vice-President was reduced to £l.O(t, and (hat of the Profes-
aorship raised to £o(lll, which statute was intercepted and cancelled—the severe
,illne88 of the Chancellor having (jll'ercd a (Iwourable opportunity for defeating hie
intentions.

Fro
anony
one hi
in till
that t
aj poll
•with t
then ii
rihi])s,
that w
your a
had bt
Logic
been

lie author in
ould qimlity
vi.-li to dilate

to take any
■li y<ju read,

you had not
jse of wl'.R'h

e before Sir
1 services as
.■I'-Piesident.
:he salary of
ind cancelled
unity for de-
tcalfe, a new
aniage of the
' sum stated
(irai ce of the
e sum stated

nitted by me
is al^o trup,
was placed
len, and are
•red a tavour-
ency'e iufor-

ite — wliether

ffices which

edule, and

d any item

es was not

it. In the

le Falary of

before, the

er annum —

lave had my

by me, the-'
sum whi(jh

From llie terms in which this charge iti expressed, it would »i4<ie«r th»t ray
anonymous slanderer btlicved, or wished others to beiieve, that there was but
one statute then prej)arcd by Sir (,'h-"les Jhmot, and that it was hmited tochangei,
in the salaries of the ollice.s wiiich 1 lield. 'I'hc fact is, that there were two, and.
that their provisions applied to all the Professor-*, and some of the officers then
a; pointed. The arran^'i'nients, pro])o.>c(l in tlifin, were at variance not merely
with the schedule, whii h had been siibmiued to J I is K.xcellency, but with statutes
then in force. Amonyj-t tiic immeroiis clianges aileetingthe number of Professor-
chilis, and the duties, eniolunieni, and rank of those, who had been appointed,
that which related to myself, was lint of minor importance. The statement of
your author, however, that this arrange inent was but another form of that, which
had been proposed in the schedule, is false, for the Professorships of Rhetoric and
Logic were added to those olllccs, for which tlio salary of jCGaO per annum had
been proposed in that document.

I felt, T admit, that the arrangement relating to myself was unjust, but the pro-'
posal to alter it did not originate with me. It had been noted by the President,
before I had any communicaUon on the subject with him ; and I had not evenr
seen tlie statutes, until they were handed to me by his Lordship, with that altera-
tion suggested on the margin in his own hand-writing. But it is asserted that
" the statute was intercepted and cancelled." This assertion is false, and as I*
am desirous that the fullest information should be uflbrded. 1 shall give a detailed
account of all the circumstances. In the preparation of these Statutes, no atten-
tion had been paid (in consequence, I believe, of the illness of the Chancellor) to^
the direction of the Charter, that the Chancellor should consult the President and
next senior member of the Council before proposing any Statute, Rule, or Ordi-,
nance, for the consideration of the Council. Consequently tlie President was not
aware, until he received them, of the provisions whjch they contained. On a.
careful perusal, his Lordship found many things to which he could not assent, and'
requested me to proceed to the Seat of Government, and explain his views to
the Chancellor, if His Excellency could admit me to an interview. Accordinglyi'.
^t the earliest opportunity, 1 proceeded to Kingston, and waited on Sir Charlev
Bagot. But His Excellency was evidently too ill to attend to business. 1 there-
fore did not introduce the subjects which the President had requested me to bring
under his consideration, but mtrely presented to Captain Bagot the packet, which
I had received from his Lordship, containing the gialutes, and, I believe,, sortie
memoranda relative to them. Those Statutes, which were then presented by me,'
were subsequently submitted to His Excellenry Sir Charles Metcalfe, as Chan-
cellor of the University. By his authority, copies were made (with the amend-
ments introduced) and transmitted for the consideration of the College Council,'
by whom they were passed.

Biigof, in
the Profes-
-tiie severe
feat in g hie

The third, and most serious charge is— that "on the arrival of Ch^rlss Met-'
calfe, a new Statute was framed by the parties in Toronto, in which taking
advantage of the addition made to my salary as Professor, the sum stated \va^»
£500 ; and also, taking advantage of Sir Charles Metcalfe'a ignorance of the,
former Chancellor's arrangement of the salary of Vice-President, the sum stated'
win £250 !"

It is not true, that there? Vas any new Statute prepared hy any parties iri
Toronto. All the changes in the provisions of the Statutes, pent by Sir Charles
Bagot to the President, were written by his Lordship on the margin of those
Statutes, nor was there one letter, or number, of the original provisions erased or
altered. Again, ihe changes had been made before Sir Charles Metcalfe arrived,
and the htithor, whose statements you have cited, cannot uphold his credit by
the evasion, that he regarded the introduction of them as virtually framing a new
Statute.

It is impossible, that any advantage could have been taken of Sir Charles
Metcalfe's ignorance on any point, for the two arrangements, that proposed by
Sir Charles Bagut, and that by the President, were both before him m full as to
every particular. They were in His JLxcellency's possession for, I believe,
almost two months, before he decided which he would adopt, and the difficulties
Vvhich then existed, rendered reference to those Statutes necessary, even regarding
those points, of which it is asserted that Mis Excellency was ignorant. Ulti-
mately those same Statutes were returned to the President, with a letter containing
a long and able discussion of the difficulties relative to t^c University, and the
Chancellor's approval of the changes proposed by his Lordship.

I have now, Sir, I trust, satisfied you that the charges, which have been ad-
vanced against me in the extract which you quoted, are false, and as such un-
•Worthy of your countenance. I am well aware that 1 have no right to offer any
observatidns on the statements made by you, or any other member of the Legis-
lature who in the course of his Parliamentary duty, may animadvert on my
conduct as an officer of a public Institution ; but I cannot believe, that any mem-
ber of either Hotise would decline to receive correct information on any subject,
which he had noticed— particularly one, involving the reputation of a person,
who was not present, when the charges were brought forward — or would hesitate
to make the defence of any individual, whom he had unintentionally wronged,
as public as the accusation by which he had injured him. Into the general
charges which have been against the management of the University, I do not feel
myself at liberty to enter in the present communication. But I must respectfully
protest against our being condemned withodt examination into the truth of the
accusations which have been advanced against us, most generally by those, who
have neither practical knowledge ef such institutions nor accurate acquaintance
with facts. I beg to assure you that my most earnest desire, and, I may add,
that of every officer of the University is, that the most minute and scrutinizing
enquiry may be instituted into all the affairs of the establishment. I am per-
suaded that the result of this investigation, if conducted by men, whose object
is to arrive at the truth, will be to satisfy even those who now suspect and
distrust us, that we haVe honestly and laboriously endeavoured to discharge the
heavy duties of the responsible situations, in \\'hich we are placed— that unremit-
ting attention is paid to the interests of the trust committed to us-that the provi-
sions of the Act of 1837, whereby the original charter was altered, are being fairly
and fully carried out— that the Institution is at present in successful operation,
numbering amongst its f'rofessors and Students members of different denominati-
ons, on none of whom (eicept those who belong to the United Church of England
and Ireland) is there any religious restriction whatever— that as it now exists it is
capable of conferring on the Province the benefits which its Royal Founder con-

iny parties Jri
y Sir Charles
argin of those
lions rrused or
tcalfc arrived,
his credit by
raiiiinc a now

teinplttted— ftud tlint It is likely to continue tol)e u hlessiagBnd an honour to Can*
ada to the remotest jjosterity, uiilcHPcripiiled or destroyed in its itit'ancy by lh«
feckless experiments of educational enipilics.

I have the honour to be,

Voiir obedient servant,

JOIJN McCAUL.

f Sir Charles
t proposed by
1 m full tia to
or, I believe,
the difficultiea
jvcn regarding
norant. Ulti-
tter containing
?rsity, and the

have been ad-
nd as such un-
[ht to offer any
r of the Legis-
nadvert on my
that any mem-
)n any subject,
n of a person,
would hesitate
ally wronged,
to the general
;y, I do not feel
ust respectfully
le truth of the
by those, who
e acquaintance
d, I may add,
id scrutinizing
»t. I am pcr-
, whose object
w suspect and
discharge the
—that unremit-
•that the provi-
are being fairly
ssful operation,
;nt denominati-
irch of England
now exists it ie
Founder con-

L K 'I' T E R
f'RoM John macaha, kh(i., Isakristeh at i-au', to tiir no\, ada^K

FERUUsJSON, or WOODHILL, MKMUKR OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,

&c., &c., Scci
Sin, —

After a suspense of nearly two years, public cnrio?ity has at length been
grniitied by tiie publication, iti the Toronto Herald, of Dr. McCaiil's letter to
you, in answer to certain charges made in your place in the Legislative Council,
on the authority of a pamphlet published in Toronto in the year 1844. As iho
author of the oi'iginal charge, and having no desire to avoid the public tribunal
which Dr. McCaul has sought, I deem it a duty which I owe towards you to
substantiate its truth: but before adverting to the defence thus tardily brought
fbrward, I may be permitted to congratulate the friends of the Reverend Pro-
fessor on their happy selection of an organ whose immaculate Editor evinces,
in his recent publications, a perennial interest in the affairs of Upper Canada
College, and whose sympathy with the cause of his learned patron is sure to
grow warm in proportion to the aggravation of the charge and the labour of
the vindicatioQ.

I may also embrace the occasion to settle one or two personal preliminaries
with the learned Professor himself. Dr. McCaul justifies his silence for
upwards of two years on the ground that the pamphlet in which the charges
are contained was published anonymously; and in tho letter now before the
public he says with enviable simplicity of expression "who the author was I
had no means of knowing, nor do 1 know now." I do not apprehend that
much curiosity can be felt as to the motives which induced ine to wiilihold my
name from the title page. Perhaps they were not dissimilar to those which
subsequently actuated the learned Professor himself as the putative author of a
pamphlet in defence of the University management, which fell still-born from the
press and whose memory only survives in the envenomed scurrility with which
he assailed certain of his colleagues at the Council Board. But the question as it
respects Dr. McCaul is — how far the name of the author of the charge was
unknown in Toronto, and to hiui, vvheiihc addressed his letter to you on the
14th May, 1846 7 Now as I had on all proper occasions openly avowed the
authorship, and had, in reference to the very charges in question, expressly
instructed the Publisher to atfoid evtfry fucilily to Dr. McCuul in obtaining my

».l

name, it must amuse tlie Reverend gentleman's friends whom he so frequently
regaled with much cheering ahuse directed against myself to find him, in all
the innocence of a heart apparently devoid even of suspicion, acknowledging at
the distance of more than two years, ignorance of a fact well known to every
one else in Toronto within the first week after the work had issued from the
Press, and yet suggesting, with that moral instinct peculiar to the highest order
of intellect, that the a!)ility maniiested by the writer was of that respectable
characier "which would qualify its possessor for succeeding usalegal sharper!"

Dr. Mc.Caul is of opinion that the general character of the Pamphlet in
question may be estimated by the truth of the particular charges to which public
attention has been called ; and that the weight of his own judgment may not be
withheld in turning the scale of public opinion, he observes that one of the chief
characteristics of the author is incapacity "to rise above the common level of
ordinary fiilseliood .'" What precise signification the Professor of Rhetoric may
attach to this expression, 1 have no means of ascertaining. Perhaps, like tlie
hero of a well known metrical satire, —

" Of Rlictoric, he could not ope

Iliy iiioutl), l)ut out tlicre flew a trope."

But if the phrase is not a. mere rhetorical flourish, and can be made to
assume the dignity of common sense, the doctrine of gradations of falsehood must
be dismissed as unsound in Ethics, and the allusion to a common standard of
mendacity, must be construed as referring to the idiosyncracy of a particular
mind. For instance, were I to aay that in any speciiied letter the writer exhibited
incapacity to rise above the common level of his ordinary falsehood, the
expression, although rather tautological, might derive some significancy from the
comparison that might be instituted between the production referred to and'
the other mendacious delinquencies of the writer; but Dr. McCau), as an
instructer of youth, ought to be aware that in the estimation of a gentleman,
all falsehood has but one level, and thnt the slightest deviation from the truth
must find a palliation, not in its rhetorical embellishment, but in the ordinary
habits of the person charged with the lie.

Of the merits of the original charge, and the defence now set np, there can,
I think, be but one opinion, inasmuch aa nearly all the material facts are
admitted. The only controverted point seems to be the philological propriety
of the words " intercepted and cancelled," as applicable to the facts charged ond
admitted; and the only material fact in issue is the alleged ignorance on the
part of Sir Charles Metcalfe of his predecessor's arrangements.

In reference to the first part of the chorge. Dr. McCanl admits it to be per-
fectly true " that a schedule of Salaries and Duties was transmitted by him to
be laid before Sir Charles Bagot. as Chancellor of the University." He does
not deny that the schedule was named in reference to a statement of the
University income, also prepared and submitted at the same time by him, for the
purpose of guiding the Chancellor in assigning those salaries and duties. Ilo
iilinits that thf> ' 'tiuiato oti'tfoiui-. and the schedule of salaries and duties wcif?

so frequently
lud him, in all
nowledging ut
own to every
sued from the
2 highest order
at respectable
s^'a/ sharper!"

Pamphlet in
> vvliicii public
int may not be
e of the chief
TOwion level of
Rhetoric may
haps, like tiie

n be made to
ilsehood must
)n standard of

a particular
'iter exhibited
dsehood, the
mcy from the
irred to and'

Caul, as an
gentleman,
rom the truth

the ordinary

, there can,
ial facta are
al propriety

charged and
'ante on the

to be per-
d by him to
" He does
lent of the
him, for the
dntios. lie
duties were

prepared " after co7isultnlion icilh the Presitltnt." He admits it to be also triu)
that in the schedule his salary as a PfoTessor was estimated by himself at
dG400, and that of Vice-President at j£:2")0; but he says, •' liie question is,
whelhcr any blame attaehes to ni« for tliiso'iiiiiiato ; wlietlier / was giiilly of any
indelicacy in adiviiij; ihe sums, ;is I did, to tlie oflicns whicli T hold." " Tn llio
first place it was my duly to prepare lliat scliednie"; "in the second place the
nppoi'lioumeut of ssilaries was made after cousiiilalion wilh iiie President" ; and
in thelhiid place I he re was no room fur deiicuey, inusiiuieii as llie College
Council had already (i.-.rd the salary of Vice-I'reaiiieut at jJToO. and in the
esliuiale fmni-iiied l»y Di'. ]\Jc(';iiil, tlie sulai-ies of all the ollices wiiicli lie held,
were acinally placed by him £J0(( uelcnv flio sum which had been lixed by
the Council more tliau two yeiiis Lteibie, for one of them, namely, llieoilice of
Vice-President.

Itisoflilile importance to the present inquiry whether it formed a part of
©r. McCaul's duty to prepare die Estimate and Schedule referred to, for their
preparation formed no part of the charge brought against Inm. If the President
of the University delegated to Dr. McCaid, the duty of furnishing die requisite
infermation to the Chancellor, which the Charter enjoins on the President and
Senior Professor, the result of (heir conjoint and several labours became the
act of both. 'J'o the manner in which Dr. MrCaul performed that duty I shall
yet have occasion to advert ; but at present the simple question is. Did Dr.
McCaul in that schedule estimate his Professorial services at £400, and his
services as Vice-President at £250? and Dr. McCaul's answer is — in the iijinn-
ative.

Dr. McCaul further admits or does not deny, that on the basis of the Estimate
of Income furnished by him, statutes were pre])ared by Sir Charles Bagot,
in which the salary attached to the Professorships assigned to Dr. IVlcCaul, was
raised to £500, while the salary attached to the odice of Vice-President was
reduced to £150. But he affects to qualify the charge by affirming that the
arrangements of Sir Charles Bagot were contained iu two statutes instead of
one, as originally alleged in the Pamphlet — that these arrangements " were at
variance not merely with the Schedule submitted to his Excellency, but vsith
statutes then in force'' — and that the additional duties of " the Professorship of
Rhetoric and Logic were addsd to those offices, for which the salary of £G50
per annum had been proposed in that document."

The precise number of the statutes by which Sir Charles Bagot carried out
his arrangements will scarcely affect the accuracy of the charge in the public
mind. The charge is not as to the number of the Statutes, but as to the
arrangements contained in them. Nor was there any question raised as to
the actual amount of duty which Sir Charles Bagot attached to the salary of
£500. The simple facts requisite to be proved were — did Sir Charles Bagot
in his statutes, attach the salary of £500 to the Professorships which Dr. McCaul
now holds, and the salary of £150 to the olTice of Vice President— and Dr.
McCaul's answer is — in the affirmative.

The firit pavt of llie cliargo tLeu is adniitteil.— But tlio entire dtifeiica rests
not 80 much on a dcniiil of tiie particular facts ns on au attempt to introduce,
by way of qualification and justification, collateral circumstance^, which it vvill bo
necessary for me to shew, have either been grossly misrepresented or have uo
real bearing on the question before the public.

The circumstance in palliation which claims priority in Dr. McCaul's esti.
mntion is that, " more than two years before, the salary of the Vice-President had
been fixed at £750 per annum," and " in the Estimate furnished by me, tho
nalaries of all the offices which I held are placed at £100 below the sum which
had been fixed by the Council for one of them." If any inference can be legiti-
mately drawn from this circumstance as stated, it must be, not that Dr. McCaul
is absolutely honest, but that he is excessively modest ; and it can bo allowed no
greater weight, either in evidence or in judgment on the specific charge, than
one of these certificates of previous good behavour which a criminal is permitted
to use aAer his conviction, not in palliation of the crime, but in mitigation of tho
punishment. If Dr. McCaul here alludes to a resolution passed by the College
Council at an early period of its history, when the TJ'jiversity Endowment
presented the pleasant prospect of sinecure oflices, to be distributed under
Episcopal patronage — a resolution which never went into operation and for
which the Council never dared to claim a statute — then Dr. McCaul's own
schedule is virtually a condemnation of the wasteful extravgance by which that
Council was characterized — for the duties which the Council estimated at £750,
he undertook to perform, and has actually performed, for £250 per &iinum.
Dr. McCaul is silent indeed on the fact that subsequently to that very resolu-
tion being passed, one of the late Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's
Bench, and the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom the point was specially
referred, gave it as their deliberate opinion that the office of Vice President
was illegal and repugnant to the provisions of the Charter. But whatever
opinion may be formed of the illegality of that office, or of the duties attached
tQ'it, Dr. McCaul's allusion to a resolution practically admitted by himself to
have beep extravagant, can have no effect on the question whether he did or
did not estimate the salary at £'250 in his schedule, and whether Sir Charles Bagot,
after mature deliberation, did not reduce that salary to £ 150, and embody such
reduced salary in his statutes.

Dr. McCaul's next averment in qualification is, that the arrangements contained
In the statutes of Sir Charles Bagot " were nt variance not merely with the
Schedule which hail been submitted to his Excellency, but u;ith statutes then
in force,'* It can be readily conceived that Dr. McCaul found it difficult t«
jnslify the suppression of statutes transmitted by the Chancellor to the College
Council, merely because they were at variance with certain suggestions, previ-
ously made by himself. He, therefore, retreats to a firmer position, and, by way
of recrimination, charges the Chancellor with a violation of statutes already in
force. Before this charge can avail him to any extent, it would be necessary
to show that tho Schedule submitted by Dr. McCaul, was in strict accordance
with tho statutes referred to— but this he dare not aflirui. And in leaving such

dofunco rests

to introduce,

irliich it vvill bo

ted or iiavc no

^cCaiirs esti>
President had
ed by nie, tho
le sum which
e can be legiti-
itDr.McCaul
bo allowed no
c charge, than
al is permitted
igation of the
ly the College
r Endowment
ributed under
'ation and for
IcCauI'a own
by which that
nated at £750,
) per annum.
It very resohi-
rt of Queen's

was specially
l^ice President
But whatever

uties attached

)y himself to
er he did or
Ilharles Bagot,

embody such

nts contained

rely with the

statutes then

it difficult t«

:o the College

;stiona, previ-

, and, by way

tis already in

be necessary

:t accordance

leaving such

an inference to be mailo, ho in guilty of dccoptiou, as to the true nature of the
previous statutes: for, in so far ns regards Dr. McCaul, the Scliodnle submitted
by him was a complete subversion of tlicso very slain les, while the statutes
transmitted by Sir Charles Bagot, reverted to " the statutes then in force," in
every particular.

In order to maUo this matter plain it is necessary that I should enter into
fonie detail, for the exculpatory facts which Dr. McCaiil has adduced, derive
their plausibility from the maimer in which he has involved U'u own position
in the statutes, with the changes which were made on the salaries and duties of
the otlier Professors,

In the year 1840, a Statute was transmitted by the Chancellor to the College
Council, by whom it was passed, establishing several chairs in t!ie University, and
classifying )hem under a certain order of precedence. By this statute the first
chair established was that of Divinity: the second was that of Classical Litera-
ture; and the eighth in rank was that of " Belles-Lctlres, Illieloric, and Logic,"
the three last mentioned subjects having been united, and assigned to one Pro-
fessorship. At the time Dr. McCanl's estimate and schedule were framed and
submitted to Sir Charles Bagot, the statute referred to was in operation ; and
it is to this statute he refers when he says that Sir Charles Bagot's arrangements
"were at variance with Statutes then in force." When Dr. McCaul's Schedule
was prepared and submitted, he held by letter of appointment from the Chan-
cellor the chair of Classical Literature. In the Schedule he separated with
magical dexterity, " Belles-Letlres" from the sister arts of " Jllictoric and
Logic,'' with which it had been as.40ciated in the Statute then in force, and
created the former into an independent Professorship, with a salnry of £200.
In the same Schedule he assigned £200 to the Professorship of Classical Litcra*
ture, and with it he associated the independent chair of " Belles-Lettres," thus
created by himself in violation of " the Statute then in force." With peculiar
delicacy he transferred the duties of '"Rhetoric and Logic" to the Professor of
Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy ; and tho happy result was an addition of
£200 to the expenditure of the Institution. Dr. McCanl may allege that no
deception was practised in the preparation of the Schedule; he may be able to
justify the subversion of " the Statute then in force." on grounds not personal
to himself; he may be able to establish that he was influenced by no mercenary
considerations in disjoining Arts previously united by a solemn Statute, but
until he places that justification before the world, tho assumed purity of his
motives will scarcely protect him from the siiBpicions induced by Uie pecuniary
advantages which he derived from the change.

So far from Sir Charles Bagot having violated that statute in reference to Dr.
McCaul's emoluments and duties, he positively adhered to it and reverted to
the original arrangement by which the .-\rts of Belles Lettres, Rhetoric, and Logic
V/eto united under one chair.

As it will be necessary to recur to these statutes when I shall advert to Dr.
McCaul's claims for additional emolument, on the ground that additional offices
were imposed on him, beyond those originally contemplated, tho whole matter

v:\

■

■ >
!

l i!

iti:iy be simplified by a tabular viovv of his salaries and duties under the scLediile
•and the two several slaiutcs respectively.

By the statute of ISlfl ihe ofl'ices now iield by Dr. Mc Canl were ranked thus:
2. CliHsical Literature.
S. Helios l.ettres, J.Micloric and Logic.

In the scborinle siibinilled by Dr. 31cCaid to Sir Charles Bagot the several
Chairs, with the salaries and duties were inserted as follows : the chair of Rhetoric
and Logic was nnifod wilh that of Metaphysics and 3Ioral Philosophy now
held by the Professor of Divinity.

t. (.'lassiriil l.ilpraiiiii;

a. nelles Uatri's

7. iMfi:i|iliysicy & .Moral Pliilosopliy

8. KlM'luiic & \,iy^)r

£'JO(t. I'Y'os or .C2') tit oplioii
ai)0. do

2(10,
'Jt)0.

do
do

3 hours
perdiiy.

C 3 hours
I per day.

By the Statutes of Sir Charles Bagot which were intercepted and cancelled,
Dr. McCaul's professorial offices and emoluments were thus represented : —

2. Classical Literature ii'^SOO

3. Belles Leltres, Rhetoric and Logic. 5

So much for the charge prefernid by Dr. McCaul against Sir Charles Bagot
of having violated the " statutes then in force."'

Dr. McCaul well knows that he has, with signal ingratitude, withheld the real
motives which induced that respected Chancellor Im raise his Professorial salary
to the sum of £5U(). and that the re-union of chairs which had been improperly
and illegally disjoined in Dr. McCaul's schedule was a very subordinate induce-
ment. Long before that schedule was prepared or submitted, Sir Charles
Bagot, in pursuance of the scheme, set forth iu the statute of 1840, had entered
into arrangements with the Professor of Divinity, then resident in England,
under vihich it was agreed that that gentleman should receive a salary of £500
per annum. During the preparation of Sir Charles Bagol's Statutes Dr. Beaven,
who had previously received his letter of appointment, arrived in Canada, and, as
I shall afterwards show, he took a prominent part as Senior Professor of the
University, in the deliberations and consultations which took place previous to
these Statutes being framed. When Dr. McCaul's estimate and schedule were
submitted to Sir Charles Bagot, that Chancellor felt a strong disinclination to
place the emolument of the Professor of Classical Literature below that of the
Professor of Divinity, and being aware that the office of Vice-President had
been deliberately declared by the report submitted by the Law Officers of the
Crown to the College Council to be illegal, and that it was liable to be swept
away by any Chancellor by whom he might be succeeded; but having in view at
the same time Dr. McCaul's estimate of University income, to which he was
necessarily restricted, he reduced the salary of the uncertain office of Vice-
President to £150, and raised the salary of the Professorship as the more per-
manent appointment to £500 — " thus meeting in another form Dr. McCaul's
own ideas of his importance." That the addition of the Professorship of Rhetoric
and Logic to the chairs occupied by Dr. McCaul in his own Schedule, could
form in Sir Charles Bagot's mind a very small inducement for raising the
salary, is obvious from the circumstance, that the chair of Metaphysics and

le schedule
nked thus:

the several
oflJhetoric
iophy now

>•
irs

1 cancelled,
ited : —

arks Bagot

Id the real
orial salary
improperly
lute induce*
Sir Charles
ad entered
1 England,
iryof£500
)r. Beaven,
ida, and, as
ssor of the
previous to
edule were
ination to
that of the
sident had
cers of the
;o be swept
in view at
cb he was
of Vice-
more per-
McCaul'g
of Rhetoric
dule, could
raising the
hysics and

Moral Philosuphy, which, in the statute of 1840, occupies the position of »
distinct Professorship, was annexed to the duties of the rrol'essor of Divinity
without any increase of emohiinenf. But perhaps the most satisCactory test of
the gross misrepresentiition by which Dr. WcCiuil has endeavoured to protect
himself from the charge, is to be found in the fact, that so far from bis actual
duties as a Professor having been increased by Sir Cliaries Bogot's Statutes
beyond those submitted in the Schedule, these duties were vuiitrlaUydiviinishtd.
The portion of Dr. McCaul's Sciiedule already quoted, shows that he estin)ated
the lime occupied by the Professor of Classical Literature and Belles Lettres at
18 hours per week, and by the Professor of Rhetoric and Logic at 9 hours per
week. A glance at the University Calendar for the year ]S48 will prove that
the whole time occupied by Dr. McCaul in the performance of his professorial
duties in the Chairs of Classical Literature, Belles Lettres, Rhetoric & Logic, with
a Salary of £500 per annum, is IG hours per week — being 2 hours less than the time
estimated in his own Schedule for the two chairs of Classical Literature and Belles
Lettres, at a salary of £400 per antuim.

The circunislances to which I have referred have no bearing on the present
enquiry beyond the use to which Dr. McCaul has applied tiiem in justification
of the charge of suppressing the Statutes; and if I am forced into apparent
digressions, it is owing to the peculiar course which Dr. McCaul has pursued in
the attempt to exculpate himself by vague references to circumstances having
little connection vvhh the charge itself, but which being but imperfectly known,
he has flattered himself into the belief, would have all the argumeutative cogency
with the public which he has found to attend a mere hint among his admirers.

Thus the question is not as to the expediency of Sir Charles Bagot's arrange-
ments, but as to the fact whether the arrangements were actually made; and
whatever view may be taken of Dr. McCaul's exculpatory circumstances, the
propriety of these arrangements, if their existence be admitted, cannot affect his
position. For if Dr. McCaul procured an enlargement of his salary from £400
to £500 on the ground that an additional chair was assigned to him beyond
those suggested in the schedule, that enlargement was made by Sir Charles
Bagot in die very statutes in question, and it can have no connection with the
subsequent enlargement of tlie salary of Vice President under the chancellorship
of Sir Charles Metcalfe. The salary of £500 assigned to Dr. McCaul by Sir
Charles Bagot was attached to all the chairs which he now holds. Sir Charles
Metcalfe never deviated in the smallest particular from Sir Charles Bagot's
arrangement of Dr. McCaul's professorial duties or emoluments, and Dr.McCaul
must therefore justify the enlargement of his salary of Vice President beyond
that contemplated by Sir Charles Bagot on other grounds, than the addition
to his professorial duties made by Sir Charles Bagot, which addition to his
duties would have been amply recognised in the additional salary, if such had
been Sir Charles Bagot's sole motive for granting it.

I now come to the charge that the Statutes prepared by Sir Charles Bagot
wore iutnrconted and cancelled during that Chnncollors illness, which terminated
in death. This is denied by Dr McCttul in terms— but take his own stutcnicnl

I r

' ; 1

■ 1

i.l

»i !

. I

of the ti'dtiBnctioH, eirip It of its etcessive verbiage, and ittimnuiifsfoaconfessiAM^
going beyond the charge iniido by me — namely, that he himself was accessory td
the interception and cancellation of thedocnments in question. He admits that
Btatntes were prepared by Sir Clirtries Bagot atrtctingthe duties, emolnment and
rank of all the Professors and some of the oflicera;then appointed. He does no(
deny that these statntes were transmitted by the chancellor to the propef officer,
in order that they might be laid before the College Council and passed by that
body. He says that the firt^t timo he saw those statutes was in the hands of the
President; he admits that these statutes never were laid before the Council, but that,
tvilh his (J)r. UlcCanl's) knowhdge and permissioh, alterations were intidb oil
them: and thflt; without bciligliiid before tiie Council, he (Dr. MfeCaul) Conveyed
them to the seat of fjiovenmiedt. i3ut he says, "The proposal to alter it did not
originate \VitIi me. It had been noted by the President on the margin befftre 1
had any commnnidniion on the subject with him." ''On a careful pernsfti, his
f^ordship fonnd many things to which /le could nttt assent.'' "All the change*
were written by his Lordship on the margin." He admits that be did notreceivd
Sir Charles Bagot's sanction to the alterations proposed on the statutes — he
ddniitsihat the identical Statutes of Sir Charles Bagot never were laid before the
College Cottncil, but that copies, with numerous changes and amendtnentH,
ufiectingthe number, duties, emolument and rank of »// the Professors introduced^
tvere transmitted for the consideration of the College Council by whom they
Vvere passed.

I know not with what feelings his Lordship, the Bishop of Toronto, may hare
pefnsed fhisi miserable revelation made by his associtate in the transaction, nor'
will I attempt to decide a nice point in ethics, as to the comparative guilt of the
suppressor and his agent-^but, if there be any truth in the statement by which
this mean attempt is made to transfer the odium of interception to the Bishop of*
Toronto, he must be acquitted at least from the imputation of sordid motives, foi'
the result shows no pecuniary advantage derived by him from tl>e transaction.

The qualifying circumstance by which Dr. ftlcCaul attempts to palliate the
charge of interception, is thus set forth i " In the preparatioti of the.se statutes,
no attention had been paid (in consequence, I believe, of the illness of tto
Chancellor) to the direction of the Charter, that the Chancellor should consult
with the President and next senior member of the Council before proposing
rtny statute, rule, or ordinance, for the consuleration of the Council." It is
pleasant here to advert to that peculiar delicacy of mind which characterises Dr<
McCaul throughout the transaction. Statutes of the Chancellor, atlccting the
duties, rank and emoluments of «// the Professors, are transmitted with the usual
forpiality of official documents to the Bursar's office. Not one of the Professors,
or members of the Council, was informed of the arrival of documents having an
important bearing on all their interests, except Dr. McCaul, the Professor of
Classical Literature, who was not at that time the senior Professor of the Univer
sity, and whose taste us to duty, rank, or emolument, had no more right to be
consulted or indulged than that of any of his colleagues. Without their knowledge
and without any couununication with tlicai he unsista in making on thebe stututea

a conCtisaibtli
accessory tof

admits that
inliiment and
He does no(
'opet" officer,
issed liy that
hands of the
ncil, but that,
;re inttde oil
nl) conveyed
ter it did not
rgin befrtre 1

pernsttl, hia
the changes
d not receive
statutes — he
id before the
nnendhientti,
i intrordiiced^
\f whom they

to, may hare
isaction, nor'

1 guilt of the
Mit by which

e Bishop of*
motives, foi'
ansaction.

palliate th«

ese statutes,

ness of tli0

nid consult

proposing

ncil." Itia

iCterises Dr.

itFecting the

(h the usual

Professors ,

liaving an

rofessor of

the Univer

right to be

knowledge

et>e statutes

Humerous changes affecting the duty, ranii, and emohnnent of hi: colleagues —
" that which related to myself being, ' as he confesses, '• of minor importance." :
—These changes in the statutes are matle -viiile tiie Cliaiicellor was on his deatii
bed— they were not communicated to him for Ur. McCaiil well knew tliut lie dared
not to submit to Sir Charles Bagol these umlilated statutes— but Dr. McCaul
succeeds in inducing Sir Charles Metcaife to subvert the arraiijiemeuts of his
predecessor, arrangements which in some cases amounted to positive agreements
with the Professors, The numerous changes are adopted. Mr. DIaUe the Pro-
fessor of Law is shorn of his emoluments to the e,\tent of £:iO() per annum ; Dr.
Gwynne the Professor of Anatomy and Pliys.ology who had surreiuJered a
lucrative practice that he might deVote all his professional energies to his chair,
loses £150 per annum; The salary of Dr. Sullivan, then Dfiuoiistralor of
Anatomy, is reduced to the extent of £50 per annum; anrl the salary of the Vice
President, without any increase of duty and without any change oCcircumslancea
to justify enlargement either actual or alleged is increased by £100 per annura
beyond the sum provided in the statuie of Sir Chas. Bngot. The simple statement
of the transaction needs no commentary. iMy present purpose is to prove that the
exculpatory circumstances alleged by Dr. McCaul are without foundation.

The circumstance by which Doctor McCaul attempts to palliate the interception
of the Statutes can only avail him in one of two ways — either on the ground that
the " consultation" enjoined by the Charter was not completed — that is to say —
that the statutes were iransmitted to the President in the form of a draft, in order
to obtain the President's suggestions previous to their formal transmission to the
Council; or on the ground that Sir Charles Bagot violated the provisions of the
Charter and that the interception of the Statutes was a proper act of resistance on
the part of the President. If the former ground he taken the evidence must he at
hand, and the letter of the Chancellor to the President wdl solve the mystery, and,
so far as this part of the charge is concerned, will terminate the controversy. Let
the letter be produced Dr. McCaul has appealed to the tribunal of the public:
assuredly the public will demand something more from him than mere assertions.

But it is altogether untrue that Sir Charles Bagot violated the provisions ofthe
Charter in not hhving consulted with the President and senior members of the
Council before transmitting the Statutes: and the hypocritical allusion to the
Chancellor's illtiess is a contemptible subterfuge without the vestige of foundation
in fact.

The Chancellor applied to the President for an estimate of the income of the'
University, and a schedule of salaries and duties that they might form the basis of
the proposed statutes. Dr. .^IrCaid prepared that estimate and scliediile, not
altogether '• on my own authority, hut after consnlUition with the Picsifletit," and
in violation ofthe duty thus iintiosed on him, he subverted the "statutes then in
force" in respect both of the ninnber and rank ofthe chairs established by these
statutes. Will Dr. McCaul pretend that these proceedings afford no evidence
of consultation ivith the President, or that because some of the suggestions in his
schedule were not adopted, the Chancellor violated the provisions of the Charier ?

If there was one Institution more than another connected with the prosperity
df this country in which Sir Charle? Bagot's feelings wore wound up, it was the

'''

f!lf

•'I

tJniversity of King's College. On its advancement, lie bestowed a large portion
of that brief period of health which he enjoyed in Cunnda; and even the last
hours of his expiring energies were sednloiisly devoted to the lofty design whkh
he had formed of making the Institution an object of attraction to the whole con-
tinent of America. It is well remembered by the numerous persons whoill he
Consulted in the preparation of those slalutes, that he regarded the arraiigemei>t»
contained in them ns essential to theprosperity of the institution. I appe.d to
Dr. Bcaven, the Professor of Divinity, at that time the senior Professor of the
University, whether he was not consulted by the Chancellor in the preparation
of those statates, and whether they did not form the sul)ject of several personal
interviews and niucli deliberalion. I appeal to the Hon. Mr. Baldwin, at' that
lime Attorney General and ex officio a member of the College Council ; to the
Hon. Dr. Widmer, at that time a member of the College Council, and who
furnished the scheme for the Medical School on which the Statutes were based :
to Dr. Gwynne, also a member of the College Council, and to the Hon. Mr. Daly ,
the Provincial Secretary, in whose office these very intercepted statutes Were
prepared, whether they were not framed after much anxious consultation' and
deliberation, and whether they were not transmitted to the College Council with
all the usual official formahty, and impres.sed with the high s<inction of Sir Clisirles
Bagot's deep personal conviction of their importance and of the propriety of the
arrangements for which they provided.

Dr. McCau! admits that these statnteswere not laid before the College CoiJtlcir.
tie stiys, that " on a careful perusal, the President found many things to which
be could not assent ;" and he afterwards admits, that " all the changes in the
prrovisions of the statutes sent by Sir Charles Bagot to the President, were written
by his Lordship on the margin of these statutes," and yet he denies that they
were cancelled ! Will Dr. McCaul shew the authority by which any member
of the Council can intercept the official communications of the Chancellor be-
cause he dissents from any of their terms? Will he shew any right by usage,
statute, or otherwise, in any member of the Council, to mutilate the solemn
instruments which embody the deliberate arrangements of the Chancellor ? Wil P
he mention a single instance in which even the Council itself has been guilty
of srtch an act, which, if done by it as a body, would have been ii. .subordination,
but, when pe/petrafted by any individual member of the Council, was a direct
breach of trust? If the President of the University or Dr. McCanl dissented
from any of the provisions of the statutes, the proper place for promnlgiUing that
dissent was al the Council Board. The transmission of the statutes by the
Chancellor gave the College Council a right to have them discussed. They
were deprived of flie opportunity of exercising that right by the clandestine
proceedings which Dr. IVlcCaul admits, and his attempt to avoid the charge
of cancellation is a pilifnl quibble, which the " legal sharper," whose intellect he
has so nicely estimated, would be ashamed to acknowledge. He says that" copius
(of Sir C. Bagot's statutes) were made, with the amendments introduced, and
transmitted to the College Council, by whom they were passed." If these
amendnrents were of so much importance as to affijct " the duty, rank, and emo-
luments of all the Proli'ssors and some of the officers," and if among the changes

large portron
iven tlie last
de»igii wh'tch
e whole con-
Bns whorti he
rniiigemeuts

I appeiil to
•fessor of the

prepiiriition
crul personal
Idwin, at' that
niicil ; to the
:il, and who
I were based :
)n. Mr. Daly,
statutes Were
isiiltationrrand
Council' with
jf Sir Cliarles
opriety of the

lege Coiitlcit.

nffs to which

langes in the
were written

ies that they
any member
ancellor be-
lt by usage,
the solemn
lUor? Wilf
been guilty
bordination,
was a direct
III di<isented
iil^'iitiiig that
itntes by the
ssed. They
e clandestine
1 the charge
e intellect he
that" copiKS
odnced, and
' Jf these
Ilk, and emo-
tlie changes

"that wliich affected himself was ef minor importance,'' can it for an itirtantbe
inaintnincd that the statutes "adopted" by S\r Charles Metcalfe were copies
of those transmitted by Sir Charles llagot 7 There \« no meaning in terms, if
the substitution ol one provision for another is not a cancellation of the tatter;
and perhaps Dr. McCaiil would havchiid less dilRcultv in applying the term if the
statute ^of ;5ir (.'liaili's .Mttcall'i;, in^to;ld of enlarging his salary us Vice l're^ident,
liad deprived him of it iillogialicr.

Dr. McCaiil admits tliai Sir Clias. Dagot never gave his assent to the amend-
ments — he does not even ullego tint liie Chancellor ever saw these amendments.
II« admits that, btiforo tliu statutes wore; again transmitted to the Council,
"numerous changes" were made; he alleges tliat these " clianges v/ere adopted"
by Sir Cliarles .^letcalfe; he says that the original statutes of Sir Charles Bagot,
wit'.i the alterations on tlie margin, were transmitted to the President by Sir
Charles Metcalfe, with a long letter containing " the Chancellor's approval of the
changes proposed by his Lordship." And he further alleges that <:<»//jcs of Sir
Charles Hagot's statutes (with the amendments introduced) were trunsniitted to
the College Council by whom they were passed.

It will lie observed, by this account, that immediately after the first appearance
«f Sir Charles Metcalfe on the scene, a double set of correspondence is main-
tained. Dillicullies occur respecting the statutes, and several uion'hs elapse
durin§ which these dilliculties are discussed, but the Council is not consulted. Sir
Charles Metcalfe, it is alleged, is at lenglli convinced of the propriety of the
suggestions, and he transmitted the new statutes to the College Council, but the
original statutes were trausmilled to the President. It might be curious to impure
whe-iher the new statutes (or, as Dr. .McCaul c ills them, copies with the amend-
ments introduced) were trausmilti-d to the Council through ihe IJursar, or whether
they reached the President at tlio same time'witli tlie mutilated statutes of Sir
Charles Bagot. The reference, made, liy Dr. McCaul to the " long and able
letter" of Sir Charles Metcalfe has, hovv'ever, induced a suspicion beyond the
charge originally made, namely, that not only were the original statutes of Sir
Charles Bagot, when transiiiitled by that Chancellor, intercepted, mutilated and
cancelled, but when again tratisiuittcd by his successor for the information and
guidance ®f the Council in their deliberations on the new statutes, a suppression
took place which Dr. McCaul will fuid it iiaid to jiistily on any other ground
than that he wished to destroy all evidence of the " numerous clianges" that had
been made. Certain it is that neither the original stiUiites of Sir Charles Bagot
nor Sir Charles Metcalfe's ''long and able letter" ev«r reached the College
Council. The Council nevergave, nor were they ever asked to give, their assent
to the original statutes — no deliberation or discussion as to these stiitutes ever
took place before the Council. The statutes of Sir Charles Metcalfe were laid
before the Council and were passed by them as entirely new statutes; and but for
the iuforiuation of persons who had seen these original statutes in Sir Charles
Bagot's possession, the statutes themselves would never have been heard oi by
ihe College Council. And yet Dr. McCaiil asserts, and his fiiends and admirers
believe, that the charge that Sir Chorlus Da^ot's statutes were intercepted and
cancelled is false f

Ill

T)r. iMcCuul conVidcrs that llio part of the charge which most seriou§ly aflfects lii^
re|»utatioii, is the (lecejjtioiipractisoil oit Sir Charlett Metcalfe, by the siibiititutiok)
ol new statutes for those pn-paretJ by iSir Cliarles Uagot, and the iiisertiuii in thq
furuier of a largtM' salary than was cuntainod in tlie hitter. If socii be tlie case,
Dr. McCanis position is a!i e.\(:uedini;ly niehuicholy one— for strong ad tht)
presumptive evidence a^'ain^t him was, it must yield ill convincing cojjeiicy tu
the direct lesiimony furnislii.'d iiy the letter, which lie has now placed before
tlie pid)lic. I shall m)t waste words in attempting to shew that the alteration of
a document in all its essential particulars, how carefully soever its outward
features may be preserved, is virtually and substantially the preparation «f u new
one. I made no preteiismns to very accurate knowledge of the precise manner,
m which either this or the other jobs which I exposed were accomplished. — This
is a branch of the occult sciences for wiiich 1 possess neither taste nor capiicity.
It was of no importance III my mind, whether the mutilated statutes were ever
seen by Sir Charles Metcalfe— for I we|l knew that the documents themselves,
even though iinmutihited. could only e.\lubit the results of Sir Charles liagot'a
matured deliberations, without any evidence of that calm reflection, practical and
comprehensive experience, and patient deliberation and consultation which had
been brought to bisir on tiieir preparation. I well knew with how much success
parties who were peisoiially interested in tlie cliaiig(!«i which they suggested, and
not peculiarly exempted from the iiitlueiice of sordid motives, could operate on
the mind of a Chancellor, who neither had m>r professed to have any academic
experience, who had no acquaintance with his predecessor's views — and who was
inlliieiiced by no more enlarged or higher considerations, than a sincere desire
to restrict the expenditure of the Institution to its income. It maybe true that
Dr. McCauI did not withhold the intercepted statutes of Sir Chas. Bagotfor
several months, while he was speculating on that Chancellor's death. It may
he true that when Dr. McCauI i)roceeded to Kingston, " ^ir Charles Bagot
was evidently too ill to attend to business," and that he did not insult the death
bed of the late Chancellor, by e.xliibiling the mutilated statutes as the evidenee
of his frustrated srheines, but it is at least eanally trije, that Sir Charles Bagot was
then no longer Chancellor of the University. It may be true that Dr. McCaul
did not '• introduce the subject to his Excellency ;'' b"t it is also true, that the last
act of his Excellency as Chancellor, perforuied on the very day of his successors
arrival at the Seat of (ioveriiment, was to issi(e letters of appointment on tho
basis of these very statutes, and under the full conviction, that they had been
adopted and passed by tlio Council. It luay be true that Dr. McCanl handed
the mutilated statutes "and, I hdicce, some memoranda relative to them," to
Captain Batrot, rdthoitgli it is hard to believe that that estimable gentleman
would feel himself justified in receiving such documents after Sir Charles
Metcalfe as Chancellor of the University had undertaken the administrntioii of
its affairs. It may be true that the mutilated statutes were placed before Sir
Charles Metcalfe, and that two rnonihs were occupied by that Chancellor before
lie decided which of the arrangements he should adopt ; but it is also true, that Dr.
McCaul's successful operations on the new Chancellor were reported among his
ownfriends in Toronto, witliin firo jccc/is after SirCharles Metcalfe's arrival iu thjq

fto

RtU

the

Sll^

Mt
Mt

isly afiects lii^
siibiilitutio^
serliuii ill tliQ
be tlie cuse,
ilrutig as tlitj
ig coaeiicy tu
)lace(l bel'ure
! ultoriitiuti of
its oiilwurd
tion wf u new
ecise manner,
iislied. — This
iiur capacity,
leswere ever
s tlieniselves,
lurles Dagot's
pructicnl ntid
on which hud
much success
nggested, and
Id operate ou
any academic
-and who was
sincere desire
ay be true that
las. Bagotfor
til. It may
arles Bagot
It the death
the cvidenee
H Bagot was
Dr. McCaul
tliat the last
IS successors
tment on the
ey had been
Can! handed
to them," to
e gentleman
Sir Charles
nistrntion of-
before Sir
cellor before
rue,tiiatDr.
d among his
rrival in tiii;}

ftowatry. It may be true, that Sir Charles Metcalf«> transmitted the mutilate^
statutes of Sir Charles Bugot to tiie President, and that they were accompanied
by a " long and able Intter," relative to the ditlicnitit's that had occurred, but if
there is one lino or letter of tliat dociiiiicii: which will justify Dr. McCaul's
siiggeslion, for an enlargement of iiis Salary as V'ie^e-I'residcnt, or Sir Cliurles
Metcalfe's adoption of that suggestion, why islho letter withheld? Why does Dr.
MuCanI withhold the only evidence on which his case must ultimately be judged .

Dr. McCaul has appealed to the public on a charge of having obtained, by
deception practiced ou Sir Charles iMetcalfe, an enlargement of his salary beyond
that promised and soIeu)ii|y stttled by his predecessor. In this appeal he has
adii)ittcd that his salary icus enlarged by Sir Charles Metcalfe, but he lias produced
}\o evidence stronger ihuii his own very amhigiioiis assertions that Sir Charles
Metcalfe was cognisant of his predecessor's views and arrangements. He ha^
nowhere asserted that Sir Charles Metcalfe ever saw the Statute of 1840, whici)
was subverted by Dr. McCaul's arrangements, or that he knew that that Statute
was "then in force" — nor does he assert that the Estimate of Income and the
Schedule of Salaries and Duties, which were prepared for Sir Charles Bagot s
guidance, were before Sir Charles Metcalfe when he "adopted" Dr. McCaul's
suggestions. I am entitled then to conclude that the groui}ds upon which Dr.
McCaul claimed froit) Sir Charles Metcalfe an enlargement of his salary as Vice
President must have been the same as those upon which hp hi^.s since attempted
to justify that enlargement to the public : for if he urged other and difl'erent
(rounds upon Sir Charjes Metcalfe than those which he has r)iaintaincd in his
public justifici^tion. it tolluws, eitht-'i* that hjs presctit d{iif«i)ce js incomplete, or
that Sir Charles Metcalfe was deceived.

Now, it is somewhat remarkable that you will search in vain through thif
part of Dr. IMcCaul's letter for the shadow (if a reason justifying either tho
suggestion or its adoption: and if Dr. McCaul's defence to " the third and most
serious charge" were confined to the specific answer which he has made to it,
the charge would be substantiated by his tacit adniission ; for unless Sir Charles
Metcalfe held been conviiieed ou grounds substantially or apparently good, that
his predecessor's arrangements were unjust, it must be presumed he would
not l^ave interfered to disturb them. But notwithstanding Dr. McCaul's utter
silence on the only grounds upon which he could have met thi^ part of the
charge, I am willing to give him the benefit of every thing he has urged in any
portion of his letter, whether directly or indirectly, whether by way of assertion,
insinuation Qr implication, which can in any way be supposed to screen him
from tiiia " most serious charge."

The first circumstance recorded in the letter which could be supposed tq
justify the enlargement, is contained in the soft insinuation apparently intended
only to uphold Dr. McCaul's peculiar ''delicacy" — but really urged for a less
illusory purpose. Two years before Dr. McCaul had prepared the .schedule ii^
which he assigned £41)0 to his Professorial duties and £250 to the office of
Vice-President, and before Sir Charles Bagot's reductipn of the last-mentioned
^abry to .iiloO, "the salary of the Vice-President had been fi.xcd by the Cquncij

I '

f ■ ^

I !

,;;-«

aX £7riO per nnnntii." And "in the vstimate furnit<hed by me, the HulurieH of
all thu oIlicHS whicli I UM were placed £100 helnw the sum which had been
fixed by the Coiiiicil for out; of tlieiii.' I have alroady explained the nianiier
in which the resolution rufVrrtil to wm pa.s.'«.>(l, and the .subsequent action
taken upon it by the L'olle^'c Council, and perhaps the fact that the otlicc had
been declared illegal by one of the Judges and the Law Olliccrs of the Crown,
would to MiDsl minds have amply jusiilitMl either Sir Charles Uagol or Sir
Charles .Muicall'i; iu depriving l^r. AlcCaul of both the rank and the eniolu-
ment. Hut if Dr. .Me('(iurs "delicacy" was satisfied by attacliin;; to this olHce
a salary of £'2.'0, wlicti bis Professorial duties were compensated, also to his
own satisfaction, by the suui of £1(10, how can this discredital)le Resolution
.•avail him oj'lcr the enlargemcMit of bis Professorial salary to £.')00 by Sir Charles
Baijot, in cou^'ideralion partly of the very uucertnin tenure by which the olfice
,of Vico-l'resident was held, and after the reduction of the Vice-President's
salary to £ir)0 in consideration of the very enlargement referred to.

Afl some new ground must therefore besought on which Dr.^^cCau^8 claims
(to •'delicacy" can be sustained, I shall allow iiiui to speak iu his own words.
K)t\ referring to the iutereepted statutes, lie found that the "Professorship ot
Jtbetoric and Logic was added to those for which the salary of £050 had been
proiK)sed in that dociiinenl" (the schedule,) — " I felt, I admit, that the arrange
anent relatiiig to luyself was unjust, but the proposal to alter it did not originate
■with me." But the Professorship of llhetoric and Logic had ii) " that document'
been separated frein the l'rofe«sorsliip of Holies Lettres illegally and improperly
and in violation ef " staluttis then iu force." And if in reverting to those
statntee and re-uuiti|ig the Chairs, Sir Charles Bagot had considered that any
additional duties tlms imposed required additional compensation, were these con-
ijiderations not recogni.-ed m the enlargement of his Professorial salary from
£4oO as proposed iiy Dr. McvCaiil in bis .schedule to £500 as established by Sir
Charles Bagot in his statutes? On referring to the ITuiversity calendar, I find
tiiat the time devoted by Dr. .McCaiil to the discharge of his duties as Profegsor of
Belles Lettres, RiKitoric and Logic, is llirte hoursper week — being one hour to
«ach of these Arts. For the peu'formance uf these laborious duties, Dr. JVlcCaul
Hi^as entitled under Sir Cliarles Bagot's slvitute, which he "felt to be unjust" to
(tie sum <of three hK-ndred pounds per annutn. By the sunie document it appears
(hat Mr^ Blake lectures two hours per vv.«ek for a salary of £100, which Dr.
l^cCaul did not "feel to be iiu^u.st," and thut the several Professors of Anatomy
«nd Physiology, Practical Anatomy, Medicine, Surgery and Materia Medica, each
of whom gives five public lectures per week, receive respectivdy £200 per annum
-f-and yet so far from Dr. McCa»l complaining of the injustice which niay have
been felt by any uf these gentlemen, their diminished i!)co,Qi.e ^was the ^result of
fcis own "delicate" suggestions to Sii Charlee Metcalfe.

My desire to give to Dr. McCanl the bejiefit of every tliiiig he has .said by
way of extenuation has perhaps led me to dwell upon a groundof defence which
be has urged, more by insinuation than by direct assertion, longer than its
iinportance seems to demand. For, after all, the charge had no reference to the
««largei«ent of Ur. McCuul's Pcofessorial salary recognised by SirCharles Biigoi

;,a^

as well M by Lord Metcalfe^hnt to the nienns which wrre taken hy Dr. McCn«I
to procure an eiilargeinent ot hi^i xnlary as Vice-I'ru.siJent — and lie has oidy
succeeded in giving colour to the inHiniintioii hy attempting to establish, in thfl
first instance, his claim to £(mO under his own sclir.dule and esliinnto, which,
independent of itH intrinsic deception, can have neither weight nor authority, and
then urging his claims to ndditinnul rrninnerntioh on the ground that the Chiiir o(
Rhetoric and Logic had been added to the diiti»>s estimated in that schedole. He
thus attempts to leave out of view the adiimtcd facts iliat »Sir Charles I'ngot had
assigned tJie snlary of £500 to all t'le l')ofe<sor.shi|'s .vhich lie now holds, and
that Sir Charles Metcalfe never deviated frr/m tliia arrnngeiitent.

What justification, then, of the new arrangement of the salary of Vice-
President has Dr. McCanl made? What ww combmation ol cirniintslances had
arisen which could h.lvo induced Sir Charles M«'lcalfe, withiii a few weeks after
his arrival in the country, to subvert arrangcmentH completed with so much
anxious solicitude by his predecessor? Dr. McCaul has failed to show that
any additional Professorial duties have been imposed on him beyond those
specified in the st&tntes of 1840. He has failed to show that the addition made
to his duties as specified in his own schedule was not amply compensated by fhe
additional allowance of £100 per annum giten by Sir Charlt s Bngot. lie has
failed to show that any additional duties were imposed upon him by Sir Ctiarfes
Metcalfe to those previously assigned by Sir Charles B^tgot. lie has failed to
show that he has even devoted the same amount of time which he estimated in
his own schedule at £400 to the discharge of those duties for which he now
receives £500 per annum. And, above ulf, he has faifed to shew eventhe shadow
of reason or pretence upon which he coitld have clahiied from Sir Charfes
Metcalfe, the addition of £100 to his salary as Vice-President, beyond the sum
at which it had been previously settled, after mature delibe/atioir, by Srr C.
Bagot. If Dr. McCaul was in the position to coiTvince Sir Charles Metcalfe
of the propriety of enlarging his salary, the same reasons which were urged
successfully then, must avail him now. He Ifas come before the public to justify
both his own suggestion and Sir Charles Metcalfe's act. If the public josfifl
cation is incomplete, the private suggestion must fail, and the irre.sistibie conclusion
must be — that Sir Charles Metcalfe teas deceived.

1 have now, Sir, I trust, satisfied yoii that you were amply jitatified in bringing
before the Honourable Gentlemen of the Legislative Council and the country,
the very grave charge originally advanced by me ; and that its substantial truth
may have, in some measure, atoned for the absence of that literary grace under
which it unfortunately sullercd in the estimation of the learned Vice-President of
the University.

I have the honor to be.

Sir, your very obedient servant',

. JOHx\ MACARA.

Albany Chambers. }
Toronto, 0th March, 1848. ji