A COLLEGE GOVERNOR ON RECENT "IMPROVEMENTS."

Colonist, Volume VIII, Issue 793, 2 June 1865, Page 3

A COLLEGE GOVERNOR ON RECENT "IMPROVEMENTS."

In another column we publish a letter from Mr. W. C. Hodgson, one of the recently elected Governors of Nelson College, who refers to certain portions of the article which appeared in our paper of Tuesday last, respecting the present state of the finances and teaching of the College. Mr. Hodgson seems to thiuk that, in stating our opinion that it was the duty of the Governors to show to the public on whom rested the responsibility of the present unhappy state of affairs— we were calling individually on him for explanations. This is an error. It is true that as one of the new Governor* he may be quite right in defending himself from any charge either direct or implied; but there is no one will accuse any of the new Governors of having had any hand in reducing the College to the unenviable position it now occupies.

There is a goodly portion of Mr. Hodgson's letter which seems to us beside the question. He recognises, what every man must accept as among the tritest of truisms, the right of a journalist to criticise such establishments as Nelson College, and he repeats what we affirmed on Tuesday, that such criticism if unjust is in the end powerless except against the luckless critic himself, if any one should choose to recal his blunders, which is a very useful and healthy proceeding. We do not know that Mr. Hodgson is entitled to any great credit because, as he says, he " did not herald his election by any flourish of trumpets," and abstained from insulting the Governors by a sneer. Is he also inclined to claim any praise for the very papable sneer which in his letter he has gone a little out of his way to make against Mr. Saunders ? The hasty ? and in the circumstances, rather unhappy remark, touching the " disgrace" of being a Governor, made by Mr. Saunders in the few sentences he spoke at the nomination of Governors in December last, whether judicious or not, when asking the suffrages of the electors, was made respecting a body of which he was not then a member, and individualised no one. Mr. Hodgson's sneer does. It is thrown at a Governor in esse, and with whom he " has to co-operate" in the management of the College. Let us just refer back to the speeches of Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Saundera at the nomination already spoken of. On that occasion Mr. Hodgson said:—

" He -would decline to take any pledges, for if the electors were pleased' to choose him, he would go, not as a delegate, but as a representative ; and lie concluded by saying that if elected he would do his best to serve the cause of education."

It would be no difficult matter to prove that there is clearly a pledge given in this sentence. Mr. Hodgson went in as the representative (if he dislikes the eynonym delegate) of the electors; that is to say, he represents their opinions and wishes; and we should think it was notorious, that at the time of his election, and not one whit less now than then, these opinions vere decidedly adverse to the management of the College ; and he and the other new Governors were chosen because through them were expected'changes that would really and permanently remove the chronic disorder under which the College has labored and still suffers, and so best " serve the cause of education."

On the same occasion in speaking to the electors, Mr. Saunders said:—

" Tfc appeared to be the universal opinion of the public that the Co lief c Governors had ho managed their affairs, and had expended public money in such a mauner, that very general dissatisfaction had sprung up. It was very little use for him to say much as to the means by which improvements were to be effected. Like a great many of his fellow colonists he entirely disagreed with the expenditure of the College. He held that it was the duty of the Governors to see that the principal was untouched and that it remained intact, and was properly employed for tae benefit of the province and the colony."

And he added—

" If it was the wish of the electors he -would submit to the disgrace of being a member of a body which had so recklessly wasted tb.3 public funds."

Let us now apply Mr. Hodgson's own doctrine. If a journalist has a right of criticism of the proceedings of a public body, equally has a candidate for a seat in that body a right to comment on its proceedings in addressing the electors. Imagine a candidate for the House of Eepreeentatives or for the Provincial Council being told that he must not condemn any gross blunders, any unjust or injurious legislation committed by them previously, because he may have to cooperate with them in the legislation of the province or colony. The absurdity of the proposition is evident; and we fancy Mr. Hodgson has somewhat " written down" his own argument. It may have been impolitic in Mr. Saunders to speak so bluntly as he did six months ago; and perhaps he should have wrapped the idea in an innocuous cover of polite periphrasis. But here again another argument which Mr. Hodgson employs comes in. " If the charges were unfounded <fee." What is the fact ? Have the public funds belonging to the College been "recklessly wasted?" If so, by whom ? There is only too abundant proof in the accounts and the very small returns from a lai*ge outlay, that they have been so wasted. Mr. Hodgson himself almost admits it in his letter; although he cautiously guards himself from doing so fully, by referring to past mismanagement as the " alleged shortcomings of his predecessors." Is it, or is it not "disgraceful" to be a consenting party to the wasting of public funds, which properly employed would have

been a lasting boon to the province; and to uphold the same instrumentality through wnich a public institution and public funds have severely suffered? Mr. Hodgson can have no difficulty in finding replies, and with them the incontrovertible demonstration.

Mr. Hodgson's reference to tbis point will not change the facts, nor will it lessen the dissatisfaction of the public with these facts, and let those who are so inclined strive as they may to defend the past mismanagement and tuition of the College, they but "skin aud film the ulcerous wound," which in this case, judging from the past, nothing but actual cautery and excision will remove.

We do not overlook the difficulties in the path of a booy of gentlemen who are called on to administer an encumbered estate, but it seems to an " outsider" by no meana the wisest way of going to work to sell off property which would in the course of a few year* largely increase in value as the city extended, and building sites grew more rare, and twenty years hence might form a valuable source of income. It is on that account that lands are prized in the old country as here ; and they are tenaciously held by such institutions, because of their prospective benefit. We quite agree with Mr. Hodgson that it is the right thing to do to " clear off all outstanding liabilities," but is there " no way but this ? " Is it not too much of a .sicrifice to sell landed property, and no forego its future advantage? Why not call up some of the loans on mortgage which have been advanced by the Governor! ? These are said to amount to £9777 ; and we should think it would be far wiser and ~nore business-like to lessen the loan fund, the moneys of which will not increase in value, rather than denude the corporation of town lauds, which as years roll on are certain to advance.

Surely Mr. Hodgson does not mean to claim credit for reducing the number of masters from three to two. With nine boarders and twenty-three day scholars, could Mr. Hodgson have cheerfully been t party to continuing for teachers alone a payment of £1166 a year, which is fully £36 a head ?

We are glad to learn that ev»n with the " ludicrously small number of boarders" (no laughing matter certainly for the College funds) the cost of boarding the youths has been greatly reduced. It appears from the reading of Mr. Hodgson's letter, that by a contract with the House Steward responsibility for expenditure has been secured. He does not surely mean that there was no responsibility for the " unchecked expenditure" of the former "cumbrous boarding system." That appears to be the evil of public boards. Responsibility is thrown aside; and too often the public is too lax or too lazy to affix the stigma of unpopularity on those whose incapacity or blunders have brought evil on public institutions. As for the concluding paragraph of Mr. Hodgson's letter, which expresses regret that we should have published the resolutions of Mr. Saunders' which were printed in our last, —most probably when Mr. Hodgson has had a little more experience of the Provincial Council he will change his opinion. We think it is always advisable when practicable to discuss a question of this kind when subjudice. On what ground do people call for the publication of measures of the Council or of the House of Representatives, —why is time generally allowed for outside examination, between the first and final readings of a bill ? Mr. Hodgson's notion appears to be that a matter of this kind should first be decided by the Governors, and then discussed by the public. That is something like Jedburgh justice, hauginar a man first and trying him afterwards. We in commou with the public at large prefer the other way, as we have generally found it most useful in practice to discuss a question before it has become irrevocably settled. Mr. Hodgson must see that then it would be too late. Moreover, the resolutions were given notice of a mouth ago; and a copy of them has been in the hands of each of the Governors; and therefore we really see no reason why the public should be kept in ignorance of what is before the Governors. There has been far too little publicity given to the proceedings of the Governors, and so much the worse for the College.