ied
early in January, saying:--

When it suits your convenience to come this way, His Excellency
will have an opportunity of fully discussing the subject touched
upon in your letter.

Dr. Ryerson soon afterwards went to Kingston and saw Sir Charles
Metcalfe on the subject. In a letter written to Hon. W. H. Merritt
shortly after this interview, Dr. Ryerson said:--

His Excellency's object in desiring me to wait upon him had
reference to the University question, on which he intends, with the
aid of Mr. Draper, etc., to have a measure brought into the
Legislature, which I think will be satisfactory to all parties
concerned. I took a day to consider the questions he had proposed.
In the meantime I saw Mr. S. B. Harrison and stated to him the
opinions I had formed. Of their correctness and importance, and
practicability he seemed to be fully satisfied, and urged me to
state them to His Excellency.

In a letter from Dr. Ryerson, published in the _Guardian_, and dated
28th October, 1843, the character of Mr. Baldwin's University Bill is
thus described:--

It is a measure worthy of the most enlightened government; and is,
I have reason to know, entirely the production of Hon.
Attorney-General Baldwin.... In the discussion [on the University
question] the authorities of Victoria College have taken no part.
We have remained perfectly silent and neutral, not because we had
no opinion as to the policy which has been recently pursued in
converting a Provincial ministry into a Church of England one[124]
... because we, as a body, had more to lose than to gain by any
proposed plan to remedy the abuse and evil complained of. As a
body, we gain nothing by the University Bill, should it become a
law; it only provides for the continuance of the small annual aid
which the Parliament has already granted; whilst, of course, it
takes away the University powers and privileges of Victoria
College--making it a College of the University of Toronto. Our
omission, therefore, from the Bill would be preferable, as far as
we, as a party, are concerned, were it consistent with the general
and important objects of the measure. But such an omission would
destroy the very character and object of the Bill. As a Provincial
measure, it cannot fail to confer unspeakable benefits upon the
country