>n ' JL.^ CL„l,t4 , ^^^ ^i .m\, -;;■'-:■/ •>'■.■ (I V. 1 \' g»<»!g»ig»gwisg^" ".v: tA ■■'.J / ^. :--<^.'.' /:., - '■ ■ ■«f 1,1 • X 1/! ., :■ •■i.r . .^> . The correspondence between his Grace the Archbishop-elect of Kingston, and Mr. Meredith, Leader of the Ontario Opposition, which took place in December and January last, excited such widespread public interest, and there have been so many calls lately for it that it is now republished in this form, without comment, so that the public may draw their own conclusions. There is also appended Archbishop Cleary's remarks at Tweed in February, and his more receipt and startling circular to his clergy respecting Roman Catholics who refuse to support Separate Schools. ..tw J"'.-;-'!'!".-. Tlie ClegiT-Irtl Comspntee.: ■>'"' The Archbishop Attacks Meredith's IiOiMlon Speech. Tkb Palaok, KiNoaTON. December 18, 1889. To W. R. Meredith, Esq., Q.C., M.P.P.: Dear Sir, — The public joarnalsof this proviiice report you as having made the fol- Towine reference in your Hpeech on Monday night in the Grand Opera House in London : 1 take from a newspaper published in the oity of Kingston, addressed, it ia true, tc the readers of the paper, arisin': out of matteis that engage the attention of the province ; the worda are used by a newspaper, but to some extent, lappreheni, by the gentleman who presides over the arohiepiscopal see of Kingston : Holding, as we do, the balance of power be- tween the two factious, we are, if only true to ourselves and to the crisis about to come upon us, independent of either, and can dictate the terms upon wbich one or other shall receive our support. May I take the liberty of re^upsting you to inform me and my fellow-oittzens of On- tario by what authority you publicly attri- bute to me the authorship of the foi'egoing extract trom a Kingston newspaper, which you were pleased to interpret to your audi- tors as revealing " a great danger to the state," "one of the dangers of modern civi- lization," ' ' one of the greatest evils we have to contend with in parliamentary govern- ment," and "against which both parties should cry, ' Unite, unite against a common «nemy ' " ? I have the honor to be, dear sir, Yours very respectfully, t Jam KB ViNOBNT Clbart, Archbishop«eleot of Kingston. Mr. Meredith Replies. ' Toronto, Dee. 19. My Lord Archbishop, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter oi yesterday, containing a quotation from The kmvire's report of my recent address to my constituents at Loudon, and requesting me to inform you and your fellow citizens of Ontario by what authority I "publicly at- tribute to you the authorship of the extract from a Kingston cawspaper," which I read to my audience. Taking the report as it stands, I do not think it open to the oonstruction you seem to place on it, or fairly read to do more thaa indicate the speaker's opinion that the news- paper in question, from its position and sur- roundings, might not unreasonably be taken to express ypnr sentiments upon the matter in hand, and that oertainlv was the fall ex- tent to wiiioh I intended to go, and, as I believe, my words went. A public man cannot safely, as you know, be held responsible for the verbal accuracy of every line of an extended report of his utterances, however correct, in the main, that report may be. Limited as I have pointed out, the infers enoe was not, I thought, an unfair one. The newspaper in question is by many understood to be in your confidence at least, and one would hardly have thought that so important a statement would have appeared in it without your approval, or if it had ap- peared without that approval, would have been permitted to remain before the pablio without, at least, some effort on your part to modify, if not to withdraw it. I am very much gratified to find from your letter to me that you do not approve of the sentiments expressed by the writer of the paragraph in question (for that I take to be your view, else the enquiry you make of me would be an idle one), and I am pleased to find and shall have great pleasure, m justice to you, as well as in furtherance of the prin- ciplea for which I am contending, in publicly stating in my future addresses that I have the weight of your great authority with, and not against me, on the important question which forms the subject of this correspond- ence. I have the honor to be, ' Your Grace's obedient servant, W. B. Meredith. The Most Reverend the Archbishop (elect) of Kingston, Kingston, Out. 7'^!"*; ■'■■:». '"■■ The Archbishop Again Takes op the 4|ne6tlon. To W. R. Meredith, Esq., M.P.P. : Dear Sir, — I am honored by the reoeipt of your letter of date 19th inst. , and would have replied a day earlier had I not been temporarily disabled by a rheumatic affec- tion congenial to this season. I accept unhesitatingly your assurance that The Empire's report of your speech to your constituents in London is verbally in- correct in making you appear to sayl with ..«•■ reference to an exoerpt from a Kingston newspaper, which you most severely cen- sured, "The words are used by a news- paper, bnt to some extent, I apprehend, by the gentleman who presides over the arohi- episcopal see of Kingston." I Ukevise take your word implicitly that you meant merely " to indicate your opinion that the newspaper in question, from its po- sition and sorroundings, might not un- reasonably be taken to express the arch- bishop's sentiments upon the matter in hand ;" which means, I take it, that yon hazarded a conjecture, and no more. To3 frequently have the political agitators who are engaged in the present anti-Catholio crusade in Ontario given public utterance to that illogical and unjust and, pardon me if I add, illegal conjecture for the sake of creating odium against the hierarchy. The Montreal Witness and the Ottawa Evening Journal have recently committed the ofiftiuce, with a view to bringing me, if they could, into direct antagonism with the newly founded University of Ottawa, its faculty and its patrons. I have not condescended to notice the insolence of those two journals, wllose character ia so well appreciated by my clerical and lay friends in Ottawa that contradiction of their injurious statements on Catholic subjects, more particularly on episcopal affairs, is deemed unnecessary. Bat when the same conjecture is delivered ia solemn assembly by you, sir, whose reputation for personal integrity and high legal ability is undisputed, and whose masculine uprightness of heart, as your friends love to relate, used to find expression erstwhile ia these noble words : " I would rather give up political life alto- gether than join in any agitation against my Catholic fellow-citizens." I feel bound to signify my respect for your sentiments, even when you err, and by correcting your mistakes prevent repetition. Know, therefore, that the Kingston news- paper referred to by you has no more war- rant than any other paper to express my sentiments. Itwasestablished independently of me and is conducted without control on my part, as its editorial pages rather frequently proclaim. I have no pecuniary interest in it ; I don't know who its editor is ; I have not seen a half dozen copies of it within the last six months. I know nothing of the editorial article stigmatized by you, except that a telegram received from Kings- ton yesterday in reply to my query as to its date, informed me that it appe«red on the 2dth of last September, whence you may judge of the forennc value of your proof of my responsibility drawn from the fact that the extract ed sentence " has been permitted ^ to remain before the public without at least some effort on the archbishop's part ta '^ modify, if not to withdraw it. " Permit me to supply you with a rule for general guidance in matters of this kind.. Whenever you see a letter from the arch- V bishop or bishop at the head of a uewn- paper, especially if the- diocesan seal be affixed, approving or recommending it to his flock as the organ of Catholicism in his diocese, or as a reliable exponent of C ttiiolic^ ; thought and defender of Catholic rlglita, then, and then only, are you justiiied '\n holding him responsible for its teacliiDgs. ^ On the other hand, were I or any other pre- late to exercise a rigid censorship over the press, such as you demand, on political top cs, or on any other than those direoily beuriiiK on faith and morals, although you would, as your letterintimates, applaud our action; many amongst your modern asHOciates would, I am convinced, ri^g out ther loud- est denunciations against the Catholic church, and proceed to vilify her from day to day, and from week to week, as the very- type of despotism, the enemy of " free thought " and " modern civilisation," the citadel of " obscurantism," and all else that , would depreciate her before men. It nowise concerns me whether you have rightly or wrongly interpreted the naked sentence you have produced from the Kings- ton newspaper. You know as well as I that a sentence withdrawn from its ante- cedent and subsequent context may be plausably presented to the public in a sense wholly foreign to the mind of the writer. Perhaps you have heard of the unbelieving preacher who boasted of having read in the Bible that " there is no God " ; and truly he was able to point to the assertion in Psalm 13. But he had omitted to quote the preceding clause of the verse which runs thus : " The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." Wherefore, since I have no knowledge of the context preceding or fol- lowing the short sentence you extracted from the Kingston paper, I am unable to form a prudent judgment as to its meaning. Neither does it appertain to my business in any way whatever. The conductors of the newspaper are, I presume, able and willing to give you due satisfaction. I may say to you, hbwever, that I believe you have harmed yourself and your cause by the extravagance that pervades the whole course of your London speech — its looseness of assertion, its inconsequence of conclusions, its unrestrained license of de- nunciation. Yours was not a casual or extemporaneous address. It was, as it was expected to be, a manifesto of the policy of the political party who own your leadersliip- in the< House of Legislature and out of it. And yet you allowed party and passion to- overmaster your legal mind to saon a degree f .'.. .t: ■V ',:" h,■■''^ ■■■- that, because, foraootb, some unknown per- son wrote a sentence in a Kingston paper exhorting the Catholic people of Ontario to defend themselves auainst the ferocious bgots of the " Equal Rifi^hts Association," by a judicious choice of the suffrage in with- holding their support from any political p»rty that will not guarantee them security in their natural and Christian and constitu- tional liberties, yon dash off wi'ub the triumphant interruption, " Is there t.~ot greac danger to the State in this solid oofi- pact of the minority ?" You assume '.a a fact that which the unknown writer exhorts to, and by exhorting, confesses not to have • -existence. You pronounce it "a danger to modern civil)zation,"and "one of the greatest evils we have to contend with in purlia- mentary government," and against which both parties should cry : ' ' Unite, unite against a common enemy, for there is danger in the community." This is truly shocking; it is an outrage to Him whooe' advent to earth you believe to have been heralded by the angelic song, " Peace on earth, good-will to men." Did the Hon Mr. Meroier or the leader of thn Opposition in the Quebec Lagislatnre at- tempt by any disgraoefal method of this kind to catch the votes of the unthinking populace, and influence religious passion against the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, your innate sense of justice and fair play would then, I trow, rise up in revolt against such petty politicians' barbarity, and possibly you might be tempted to charge his crime against his church as a relic of Medievalism and a specimen of the unillu- mmated morality of that historical period, which the more ignorant of your agnoatio iriends are wont to facetiously style the "Dark Ages." David, the royal sinner, felt no remorse of conscience over the murder of the brave and faithful officer whose bed he had defiled, till the prophet of Ood ap- pealod to the unextinguished spark of natural justice in his breast by a parable of infiaitely less grevious injury done to one of his peasant subjects. Let Lower Canada be jour parable. Ah ! sir, it was unworthy of you, who expect to hold some day or another the r ffice ■of premier in the ministry of this province, or, this failing you, to mount the bench of justice for the conscientious settlement of olaims and disputes between man and man, that you should foment discord and hate amongst her Majesty's subjects, and bid the majority anite in solid compact for the op- pression of the minority, whom yoa have sought to brand with the mark of Cain. Herein you become guilty of all that wicked- ness imputed by yourself to the unknown author of the Kingston sentence, and yoa «re involved in all year terrible anathemas Eronoanoed against bim. He it unknown, is sentence will pass into speedy oblivion, despite the faotitiouH importance you have striven to attach to it. Your name and y >ur oruftl utterance against your Catholic fellow- citizens, than whom there are no better in the land, will be linked together in the miud of this generation, and may their recurrence to memory prompt the prayer, " May God forgive William Meredith." I remain, dear sir. Yours very respectfully, (Sisned) James Vincent '^leary, Archbishop (elect) of Kingston. St. Michael's Palace, Toronto, December, 22nd, 1889. Mr. Meredith Makes a Vlaorona Kesponse. My Lord Archbishop, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22ad inst. (but only through the public newspapers), and were one content with a superficial reading of it, it would be difficult in the marm of exhortation, instruction and fatherly admonition which it contains, and which reauties its climax when you stay for a moment the torrent of your eloquent invec- tive, to drop a sympathetic tear at the thought of the injury I have done to my cause, to recognize the handiwork of the fiery ecclesiastic, who at the last provincial general election swept Eastern Ontario with bis denunciations of the party I had the honor to lead, and exhorting, nay, com- manding, those of his episcopal flock to cast their bMlots against it. But it has been impossible for yoa to con- ceal entirely your true sentiments or to hide the motive or object of your attack. Else why do yon speak of my agnostic friends ? Or why do you talk of the " ferocious bigots" of the Equal Rights Association, or falsely charge me with desiring to oppress the Ro- man Catholic minority, or with seeking by disgraceful methods to catch the votes of the unthinking populace and influence religions passion against the Roman Catholic minority of Ontario, for, mask as you may, that is the charge which you insinuate, thoufh y3u do not appear openly to make ? I can appeal to a lifetime in this community for the answer to the charge of intolerance and bigotry which you insinuate against me, and to the utterances of nearly twenty years of publie life as my defence against your calumnious charges. Tried by^the same test, can you ask a verdict of acquittal on a like charge from your fellow-citizens ? I trow not. They do not — they cannot — forget the cruel, the wanton attack which you publicly made upon the defenceless girls and young women of Ontario, and that, too, that yoa might make a point against the pnblio school system of this province ; nor can they forget the language which you thought fit to ase to- 6 wards yonr Protestant fellow citizens when Jroo were addressins a body of Soman Cstho- io gentlemen connected with an association which had its meetings not along ago in Kingston. Then, too, by what right do yon speak of thoie who are connected with the Equal Rights movement as ferocious bistots? Such language from a politician in the heat of a political harangue could hardly be pal- liated, but what is to be said of its use by a high dignitary of a great church, not spoken, but written in the seclusion of bis study, and when he was penning a charge of intolerance and bigotry against a public mac ? Think of such language as ap- plied to the recognised leader of the move- ment, whose position in the church to which he belongs is as hi({h as that of your Grace in your own, and whose every utterance, while he spoke with clearness, against a piece of legislation which a vast majority of his fel- low-citizens, whatever view they may enter- tain of the constitutional question involved, join with him in condemning, was charac- terized by that broad liberality, generoiag toleration and true charity towards all men, which should pervade the utterances, not only of a Christian minister, but of a Christ- ian gentleman. Then, how do yon justify your attempt to ■ make me an oppressor of the Roman Catholic minority, if not in act, at leas'-, in intention? I had thought that you concurred with me in deprecating the advice given to the Roman Catholic minority by the writer of the arti- cle in thn Canadian Freeman to which you - i*eferred in your first article ; but as your last letter seema to leav« that matter in doubt, the people of the province whom yon - are addressing by means of your own choos- ing, are entitled to know whether you do or do not approve it, and if no other good re- sults from my correspondence with yon, much trnod will be done to have obtained a clear definition of yonr view on that subject. But you say that my proposition to meet such a oomhi nation as I suggested involves tbe oppression of the minority. Qranting your premises, I deny your conclusion, and am astonished that in the face of the decla- ration which I made as to the principles . upon which I believed that the Government of this province should be oonaucted, you should make such a charge. In thia province the jtoman Catholic min- ority has been treated not merely justly, but with generosity, and if, whiju I do not deny, prejudice exists in some quarters against the Roman Catholics, it is in my judgment due mainly to the policy of the ohurch, which forbids the youth of the country being edu- cated togetber, and to a s]rateiti of edncation which tends to separate from th9 rest of thn community a body of its citizens by creed lines, as well as to the injudicious and in- temperate utterances of men on both side* who do not know, or have forgotten, what civil and religious liberty means. I have no quarrel with my Roman Catho- lic fellow-citizens. 1 have nothing to do with their religious views or opinions, and cannot be drawn into a controversy as to the merits or demerits of tbe dogmsis or iractices of their church. 1 am ready to give to them every rieht which I enjoy, and I seek to take from them none that I claim for my- self ; but I am not willing that exceptional privileges should be granted to them, and I protest against and shall use my best en- deavors to prevent their utilizing the party system for enabling them, by means of the balance of power, which it is claimed they hold, to dictate their terms to political parties. As to their separate schools I have nothing to add to what I have said except to say that the principle on which they, in my judgment, rest is that their organization and support,depend solely upon the volun- tary action of the Roman Catholic citizens, and that the State has, in their creation and for* their conduct, committed to its citizens, and not to the hierarchy, the management and control ot them. Upon no other ground, and on no other view of their true position, can the existence of them, in a free country, be excused, much less defended. By the principles which I have laid down my party and myself must be judged, and not by unjust inferences which you, against the whole spirit of it, profess to draw from my language You have too long been accustomed when any questfon affecting, or supposed to afi'ect, the Roman Catholic people of this province was being raised, to see its public men, through fear of the cry which you are now seeking to raise against me, deterred from the efficient discharge of their duty, but I have the satisfaction bf believing that what- ever effect my declaration of principles may have on my party or myself, and it may be that your forecast of the result may prove correct, for I know the effect of the omsade you seek to preach, those principles must ultimately receive the endorsation by their votes as they do now of the convic- tions of the people of Ontario, because, as I believe, they have their foundation in the principles of eternal justice, and that with- out the recognition of them there can be no fall development of the principles of civil and religions liberty whioh have done so >mnoh for humanity and for none more than for tbe Roman Catholic minority of the ■■• * great empire of which we form » not insig- nifioaut part. I have the honor to be " ' • " ■ ^ Year Grace's obedient servant, W. R. Mbrbdtth. The Most Reverend the Arohbishop (eleot) of the Diooese ot Kingston. London, December 27, 1889. The Archbishop's Warm KeJolBder. To. W. R. Meredith, Esq., Q.C., M.P.P.: Dear Sib, — Last eveniug'it mail brought me the Toronto journals, containing a letter which purports to be your reply to mine, published on Tuesday morning, 24th inat., in the same papers. I confess to disappoint- ment, and some degree of surprise, that after four days of preparation you have failed to produce a single argument in reply to mine, and have found it necessary to substitute angry invective for reasoning, and to scamper off into the limitless regions of space, frothing and foaming with terrible agitation. I sincerely regret having been the innocent occasion of your grevious m«;B- tal disturbance. But you should remember that you have been the asgressor, «nd mine has been simply self-defence. Had you not thought fit to make a direct personal attack on me, when addressing the Liberal-Con- servative Association in London, you would most certainly have passed without a word of comment on my part. I would have left you and your utterances to the politicians anil continued to attend to my ever-pressing official business, prob&bly without reading your speech. If, therefore, you feel hurt, be oanuid enough to blame yourself. Although your letter sets no argument be- fore me lor consideration, I take note of your eulogy of the Equal Rights Association, whose "ferocious bigotry," poured out in torrents ot bubbling vitirol upon the plat- forms of all the cities and chief towns of the province, is an unction of sweet odor to your soul, as you stand in the centre of your gro- tesquely combined allies just now. 1 also note your reiterated demand on me to muzzle the press when it dares to disagree with your ideas. It may be that in your mental excitement yon overlooked the reply given by me to this singular demand in my letter of date 22nd inst. Wherefore, let me repeat it here : " Were I or any other pre- late to exercise a rigid censorship of the press, such as you demand, on political topics cr on any other than those directly bearing on faith and morals, althon){h you would, as your letter intimates, applaud our action, many amongst your modern associates would, I am convinced, ring out their loudest denunciations against the Catholio church, and proceed to vilify her from day to dav, and from week to week, as the very type of * despotism,' the enemy of 'free thought' and 'modem oiviliM* tion,' the citadel of * obscuratism ' and all else that wonid depnciate her befor* men. It nowise concerns me whether you have rightly or wrongly interpreted th« naked sentence yon have produced from the Kingston newspaper. You know, as well aa I, that a sentence withdrawn from its ante- cedent and subsequent context may be plausibly presented to the public in a sense wholly foreign to the mind of the writer. Wherefore, since I have no knowledge of the context preceding or following this short sentence you extracted from the Kingston paper, I am unable to form a prudent judgment as to its meaning. Neither does it appertain to my business in any way whatever. The conductors of the news paper are, I presume, able and willicg to give you due satisfaction. You are pleased to say it is a '* calumny " to impute to vou the " intention " of op- pressing the ditholic minority of Ontario, should you ever succeed in gaming power. This sounds very strange indeed. If there be calumny in the imputation, yourself is the author of it. No words could more clearly than yours express the intention, the design, the passionate determination to op- press your 400,000 Catholic fellow-citizens in the Province of Ontario, if ever you get the power to accomplish it. The most copious division of your London speech is devoted to the multiform assertion of your purpose, and the repetition of the stale old sophisms by which you strive hard to assure your modem allies that you are seriously of a mind with them in regard to it and that they and'you are excusable in making war upon the educational rights of the mimarity 01 Ontario, euaranteed to them by the cod- stitutioB, equally and in exactly the same terms as to the minority of the Province (>f Quebec. And this, you are pleased to say, does not mean "oppression." It is oppress- ion of the worst kind. It is oppression of the dearest religious and civil liberties of a loyal, honest, nnofifending people. The Catholic parent has as much right as yoa, air, to eouoate his child for this life and for the next in the light and warmth of religion according to his faith. He does not ask yon to pay for his child's ednoation. He pays cheerfully out of his own pocket without legal compulsion, without encouragement from the State to do so. and despite the social discouragements and deceitful arti- fices of political agitators ever urging him to betray his own conscience, and hi« child's temporal and eternal interests by the divorce of religion from youthful education. This mrental right has been accorded by th^ Ood of nature^ it Is inalienable; no parent can surrender it to yon. It is ratified with I supreme sanotion l^ the Divine Lawgiver 8 of the Christian religion, who ohoae to be ft oliild, and for oar example " to k^ow in wisdom and age and grace before Ood and men " under the tutelage of the earthly farents aasigned to him by his heavenly 'ather. It was held and exercised by Catholic parents throughout this province before Confederation and before the British lilorth America Act, and was bravely maintained against enemies more power- ful than you, and was finally acknowledged by Hon. George Brown and the whole . body of disHentients to be an indispen- sable condition of peace in Ontario, and was accordingly embodied in the Act of Confederation. The peaceful possession and free exercise of this parental right has hither- to been regarded as a sacred treasure that makes our people feel more happy in Canada than they could hope to be in a neighboring country of brighter material prospects for themselves, but of darker surroundings for their children. Have youlkir, ever aaked yourself why annexation, so highly favored oy some of your modern associates, has never been countenanced by the Catholics of Ontario as a class? It has been my business to make the enquiry and the primary argument against annexation always adduced has been the advantage enjoyed by parents in this country for the religions rearing of their offspring. And you would destroy this strong bor.d of loyalty, if you could, and rob your 400,000 Catholic fellow-citizens of this priceless civil right, and then cooly turn to me and say you don't consider it "oppression." My dear air, the same forces that have dragged you gradu- ally down to your present depths would draw yon to co-operation in still more grevious acts of oppression whensoever the exigencies of your position and the tyranny of your new masters would demand it of yon. Religious persecution, once begun, no one can tell where i'- may stop. The lessons of history on this subject are pregnant with warning. The enactors of the most infamous statutes in the penal code of the Tndors and Stuarts, that now bring a blush of shame to every Englishman's cheek, used to say, as you say to-day, that thojr did not mean oppression of their fellow-subjects, but only the enforce- ment of equal rights and rule of conformity. Tell us not, therefore, that you are any longer the liberal-minded gentleman you formerly were ; or that you are charitably disposed towards the law-abiding minority of this province in your effort to despoil them of their i eligious and civil liberties ; or that public justice or sooial peace or the good order of life among oitizens, or all tht'se together constitute the principle and motive of your present crusade against the Catholioa ol Ontario. Lay your hand on yonr heart and you will feel it nnmistftkably }, it Is the pulse of despair responding to the throb of ambition. Your " intention " to oppress, and, in fact, to ruthlessly crush the Catholic minor- ity of this province, is still more forcibly proclaimed m that part of your address to the Liberal Conservatives of London wherein you took unfair advantage of an ambiguous word written by some unknown person in a Kingston paper, and, after odiously inter- preting it in a sense suitable to your nur- pose, hasitened to charge it with astounding recklessness of aspersun upon the entire Catholic population of Ontiirio and to de- nounce them as a body worthy of universal execration. Hear your own most awful language in reference to that fictitious charge: " Is there not great danger to the state in this solid compact of the minority?" ' 'Danger to the state " has ever been the keynote of penal legislation. Whence the danger ? From the "solid compact" of the miuority. Now, sir, when you sought to inflame the already excited passions of your auditory by this unworthy appeal you knew full well, every resident in the country knew, that there is no " solid compact " among the Catholics of Ontario such as you described. It has never been heard of by friend or foe, it has not been organized or projected, or in the remotest way suggested in public or in secret. It has existence only in the brain of your patron and preceptor, the Toronto Mail^ which has excogitated this and many other more wicked theories for its own purposes of malignity against the Catholic community, and has not been ashamed to repeat ir, hun- dreds of times in the last three years. From the editor of that journal you borrowed it and to his purposes you have striven to apply it. Your aim was to arouse all the evil passions of the fanatics that hang around the skirts of the two great political parties, and, to lash them into fury, you shouted : "Is there not great danger to the State in this solid com- pact of the minority ? I say it is one of the dangers of modern civilization, one of the greatest evils we have to contend with in parliamentary government." Nor yet enough. Abandoning yourself to uncon- trolled fury, you "out-heroded Herod " by your final call for vengeance upon unoffend- ing oitizens. Both parties should cry : " ITnite, unite against a common enemy." Good God ! was it not the most shocking language that ever fell from the lips of any public man — a practical lawyer to boot, and a political leader of many years' standing ? Now, Mr. Meredith, look me straight in the face and say, did you not signify your " intention," should the power at any time be yours, to oppress the loyal, peaceful, in- dustrious, religious Catholic minority. If they be the *' common enemy " agaloat whom ■i to have had a previoan agreement about it. Now, sir, an all-suflSoient reply to yoa would be, that it is not the practice among gentlemen to answer impertment questions, more especially when they have been cap- tiously contrived. But I prefer to deal with yoa ||s a lawyer. Having had the ad- vantage of thirty yei^rs' study of law and ten years' practice in the judicial ap- plication of its prinoiplet and methods, I take exquifite pleasure in probing yo<.>- legal mind and analysing its operations. 11 Suppose yon were retained as a Qneen's ; '; counsel in a case, the issue of which de- pended on your establishing the responsi- Ti bility of one man for a libel written by '\\ another, would you not think it all-im- ] portant (the question of conspiracy or agency being excluded) to prove definitely three points, viz. : 1st, that the written -. document in question was a libel in the /. sense imputed ; 2nd, that defendant was ';: privy to the writing or publishing of it; ' and 8rd, that, although he did not co- operate, he was bound by his office or con- tract to prevent such publication or order its retraction ? You dare not ask a verdict ~ from the jury without plain proof of all and each of these three points. Should you do so, the presiding judge would un- doubtedly call you to order in the middle of your speech, or he would point out to the jury how widely you had deflected from the lines of common law and common reuse, and would direct them to give their verdict unhesitatingly against you. Let ns apply this to your case against me. You persist in claiming that I should, in virtue of my episcopal jurisdiction, " ap- ' prove or disapprove " the sentence of some unknown writer in a local newspaper which 'j you have thought fit to interpret as reveal- ing a "solid compact of the minority" ' grievously injurious to the State, "to modern civilization," etc., and if I decline to submit to your unwarranted dictation, I must incur, you say, the responsibility, and all the heinous guilt you have conjured np in support of your warfare against the ' Catholic minority as the " common enemy." In presence of all the dignified judges and learned lawyers in the land, I respectfully submit that your cause is lost ; it is trebly beaten, all three essential con- ditions of proof, as above stated, being con- spicuously non-existent in your argu- ment. For I have put in evidence that (1) I have no knowledge whether the naked sentence withdrawn by you from its antece- dent and subsequent context is fairly chargeable with the odious interpretation you have thought it your interest to put upon it; and you have not, despite my reiterate^ challenge, offered even a sim- ulacrum of proof, or alleged any reason whatsoever in support of your fanciful interpretation I That (2) I have not been privy to the writing or publishing of the sentence brought up by you ; that I don't know who wrote it, an^ that, prior to your -production of it at your meeting in London three months after date, I had not seen it or heard anything about it. This statement remains on the record undis- Suted. That (8), my episcopal office oea not extend to censorship of the preas on political topics or any other, save those which bear directly on faith and morals, and that condemnation or approval of your pet sentence does not appertain to my business in any way whatever. Against this my allegation as to the extent of my duty, you have not demurred even by a whisper. Let me now ask you in the hear- ing of your fellow-lawyers of Ontario whether or not I am bound to accept your interpretation of that isolated sentence and publicly condemn it in order to save myself from social responsibility and all your fan- cied guiltiness ? Don't part from me, if yon please, till yon settle this question. The public will await yoar answer with more^ than ordinary curiosity. I might, indeed, have formulated a more "easy and perhaps more interesting case for your legal decision. Suppose the leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Legis- lative Assembly had identified himself, his party and his political programme, with Mr. Sol. White, M. P.P., and had publicly signi- fied absolute unity of sentiment with that learned gentlemen by taking him around the whole circuit of the Province as his lieutenant, and, alter ego, to be the choice speaker and trustworthy exponent of the views of the party of opposition on every platform in the cities and towns of Ontario during the electoral campaign of 1886. When the aforesaid Mr. Sol. White struck out straight for annexation and delivered to the world his manifesto against British connection, was or was not the leader of Her Majesty's loval Opposition bound to purge himself and his many-colored pai ly from the suspicion of complicity by an early and unambiguous pronouncement of disapproval? I need not expatiate upon the above-mentioned three essential con- ditions of proof of complicity in their bearing upon this very serious case — especially serious in respect of a Conserva- tive leader. I believe, sir, you have been "consulted" on this particular case ere now. Would you kindly favor the public with the legal opinion you have given as to the Conservative leader's responsibility ? Has he been so " disingenious " as to evade a direct answer? Do, sir, speak out thia time. Before quitting this division of my argu- ment, I feel bound to notice the passage' in your last letter wherein yon charge me with underrating the "intelligence of my f ellow -citizens " when I spoke of your insistenoe on my official condemnation of a political article in a newspaper ao a "demand to muzzle the press " in favor of your policy. Hear me. It is solely to the intelligence and public spirit of my fellow- citizens of Ontario I have been appealing throughout this controversy, which your wanton aggression has forced on me. I 12 y f iiave no party to sustain me ; no daily press to huzza for me and vilify my "^antagonist; no adviser to i&ke counsel ':■ with or to aifl me by suggestion. I have ; nothing on earth to rely upon except the ;> inherent righteousness of my people's ■ " <3ause and the honest intelligence of the Protestant majority, whose attention to my feeble utterancealhavebeen compelled to crave, not for my sake, but for the sake X)f justice and fair play towards their peaceful fellow-citizens constituting tho minority, who are denounced as a *' com mon enemy " of Canadian society, and threatened with religious and civil disa 5^'bilities. Now, sir, let the honest intelli- :gence of the people of Ontario judge between you and me on this last point, en all the rest. Here are the terms o: 'your demand on me : " One would hardly liave thoughi that so important a state- ment would h.we appeared in it (the news- paper) without your approval, or if it had appeared without that approval, would have been permitted to remain before the public without at least some effort on your part to modify if not to withdraw it. " (The italics are mine). Could a politician speak or write more distinctly in favor of epis- ■oopal interference with the liberty of the . press ? And you further say that I am • bound to " approve or disapprove." In fact, sir, thore has been nothing in your letters which has surprised me more, as injudicious, impolite and thoughtless writing, than this appeal to hierarchical authority for restriction of the press in this most free oouutry. No newspaper •> «sks for my " approval " before publication ; : no editor has ever consulted me or solicited my approval. The limits of my spiritual jurisdiction are as well known to the laity as to myself. What appears in a news- ' paper does not require my "permission to zemain before the public." It may remain till Doom's Day, if it awaits my "per- mission to remain" or the remotest inter- ference on my part " to modify, if not to withdraw it" unless perchance it be directly antagonistic to faith or morals. Sir, will you kindly grant me permission to halt here ? Otiioial busiuess of para- mount importance demands my instant attention for a few days? I promise to return as soon as possible to my review of the case between you and me in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile I wish you a happy New year, and have the /honor to be Yours very respectfully, t James Vincent Cleart, Archbishop of Kingston. The Palace, Kiugstun, Sunday, 5th Jan- aary, 1890. Mr. Meredith Keplles. and lays Down His Frlnclples. My Lord Archbishop, — When I last had the honor of addressing you I supposed, as I still think, that the matters in contro- versy between us had been so fully discussed that an intelligent public was in a position to pronounce judgment upon them, and that it would be but trespassing upon its indulgence to multiply words ia further discussion ; but your latest letter leads me to reconsider my decision, and, at the risk of wearying my audience, to make one more effort to bring within the reach of Your Grace's apprehension what has long since been apparent to your fellow-citizens. It scarcely needed your statement that you had for a period of ten years occupied a judicial position to call attention to the eminently judicial character oi Your Grace's mind and utterances ; for have we not seen it exemplified in the calm and inlt)artial judgment which you passed upon the Protestant girls and young women of the Province in which you live ? Was it not apparent in the opinions which you so recently expressed in Kingston in regard to your Protestant fellow-citizens, and has it not been demonstrated by your utter- ances with regard to Principal Caven and the thousands of other " ferocious bigots " connected with the Equal Rights move- ment, to say nothing of the judgment yon were pleased to pronounce upon the humble individual who is now addressing you ? I must not, however, overlook the quality of humility which your Grace so illustrates by your correspondence, and especially in that portion of it which deals with the disadvantages under which you labor in having no newspaper to champion your cause. Surely so eminent a logician, so distinguished a rhetorician, so erudite a jurist, BO excellent a judge and so pre- eminent an eoolesiastio requires no such adventitious aid as the assistance of a newspaper. But, without being deemed impertinent, may I ask your Grace if yon are not, in so lamenting, a little unfair to that once great organ of public opinion, the Globe, for hiis it not donned your livery, defended your position and chosen yon for its patron, while you delegate me to the lowly position of retainer of my "patron, the Mailf " Pardon this digre^ion, and let me now invite your attention to what are the real issues between us. In my speech at Lon- don I quoted irom a Bomiin Catholic jour- nal, publiched in the city hi which yon live, which addresses itself especially to tu those of your flock, and which gave to them and to the Roman Catholic electors of the Provinoe advice as to the action which they ■honld take, based upon the 13 following statement : "Holding, as we do, the balance of pbwer between the iactions, __ we are, if only true to ourselves and to . the crisis about to come upon us, inde- ' pendent of either, and can dictate the terms upon which one or oi.ier shall receive our support." This statement, I said, was believed to represent your vi ws. Upon this you addressed to me yout first letter, and in reply to it I accepted what I thought was the plain inference from it, your re- , pudiationof the sentiments of the quotation. And not only did I do that publicly, but I promised in my tuture addresses to remove the impression which my remarks might have produced by telling my audiences that those sentiirents were not your Grace's, and that you joined with me in condemning them. Had you no other object in view than to call upon me to put ri^zbt any erioneoua impres- sion tiiat my remarks might have created with regard to your sentiments, the corres- pondence might have ended there, but this was not your object, as became appareui when yon followed up your first letter with another, assailing me violently for having made an attack upon the Roman Catholics and having declared for a policy of oppres- sion of them — charges, the falsity of which was so evident that they hardly required from me the answer and denial which I gave. Now, the whole point of the matter, so for as the quotation and my attribnting to you its sentiments is concerned, is : Was I right in attributing those sentiments to you? Your refusal to repudiate them, and your evasion of making answer to my question as to whether you do or do not approve of them, I am bound to say, jutifies me in returning to my original view, that these sentiments coincide with your own views. You ask why you should any more repudiate the utterances in question than I should those of Mr. Salomon White on the subject of annexation. I pass by your assumption that Mr. White is an advocate of annexation with the single observation that I have it from Mr. White himself that he never did advc- cate annexation to the United States, but oaly declared his preference for political union to commercial union, and gave his reasons for so doing. But even if he did what yon charge him with, I am not ashamed to acknowledge him my friend, and to say that, in view nf his patriotic stand upon the " Riel question," not only I, but his countrymen genurally, can afford to forgive him even that vagary were he chargeable with it. But the oases are not pAraUel, I venture to point out, for two rea- sons at least i \ 1. Yoa claim and assert most rigorously, I am told, your control of thoie who are of your flock in the domain of faith and morals. and I judge from some archiepiscopal utter- ances, which you are doubtless familiar with, that the boundaries of that domain are of a somewhat elastic and shifting character. Now, I assert that the principle of the quo- tation is distinctly immoral, and hence it ^ follows either that, disapproving it, you were remiss in the performance of your duties, SUB you proclaim them, in not en- deavoring to counteract its influence when it came to your knowledge, at least by warn- iog your flock against it, or you approve of it. You may accept whichever dilemma you choose, and you cannot escape ou the pre- tence that the quotation and the article from which it is taken dealt solely with a political matter, for the fact is not tiO. On the other hand, I have no control, and do not pretend to exercise any, over Mr.White'a utterances. Nor did he assume to speak for my party or to offer it any advice or to direct its acMon. 2. Those who know Your Grace would certainly, judging by their past experience of you, not be able at once to say in reference to the quotation : " Those sentimente are not the sentiments of the Archbishop of Kings- ton," but the contrary. While everyone who knows me would not be required to be told that I did not approve of annexation sentiments or that I was loyal to my native land. But the whole purpose of your attack is transparent. You see my platform affords standing ground for Protestant and Ro- man Catholic alike; that my prinoiples aim not at curtailing the rights of the Roman Catholic citizen, or infringing his liberty of conscience, but that the effect of the adoption of them would be assisting him in resisting the aggression of certain, at least, of the hierarchy upon his rights as a citizen and as a man. The agitation which has begun (unless it be put down) will continue to grow and spread until it shall be recoguized from sea to sea, through- out this great Dominion ; that while the . fullest liberty of conscience shall be accord- ed to all religious bodies, and to eyery man, the State shall know and recognize no church as different from or above the other, and that in alibis obligations, duties and relations to the State, the citizen's action is not subject to control by or dictation from either priest o* presbyter, bishop or pc , or any other eoclesiaatic authority what- ever—for such a consummation I devout- edly wish. Your Grace believes it your duty to oppose its aooomplishment. I have no quarrel with >ou for so doing, but let the weapons which you use be those of honor- able warfare, E,ot unfair efforts to mis- represent your opponents, in order that yon may lead those with whom a good bishop must necessarily have great influence to believe those opponents to be their enemiei. 14 and enemies of their religion and intolerant bigota, who would take from them the liWtiea which >very freeman in a free country has the right to enjoy. Show to your fellow-citizens that yon do not hold the view that the end justifies the means. Face the issae squarely, discuss it fairly, and I am content to abide the result. I have the honor to be. Your Grace's obedient servant, W. R. Mkbedith. The Most Reverend the Arobbishop of the Diocese of Kingston, Onf. .AlFFs:xt3Dizs:. Closing Words Frem the Arehblitliop. The Pauce, Einoston, Jan 12, 1890. To Wm. R. Meredith, Esq,, Q.C., M.P.P. Dbab Sib, — Having got an interval of rest after severe application to official business during the past week, I have the honor to turn my attention again to you, as in duty bound. Communications, however, have reached me from various quarters suggesting that I might well allow you to go your way at present, and that generosity towards a vanquished assailant will be appreciated by all high-minded people. I am asked what need is there of proceeding further with the controversy, when you have thrown down your arms and taken to flight. I am also reminded that by adding to your humiliation, through exposure of the re maining fallacies of your last and former letters, I may become chargeable with striking " the man that's down." I am not insensible to the force of these suggestions. On the other hand, when I consider that - the three main passages in your last letter, which I had marked for special criticism in the " summing up " of the case, have been presented by you to the public in the form of bare assertion, bold and reckless, with- out Bfiy semblance of reasoning to support them, it seems hardly worth while to waste valuable time in their confutation. They can do no harm. The humblest intelligence can perceive their emptiness, and as regards two of them, pardon me for saying their childish frivolity and petulance. Wherefore, sir, I forbaar pursuing you with argaments, that now appear unneces- sary, in supplementuof my reyiew of the controversy between you and me before the court of public opinion. I have the honor to remain, yours very respectfully, t James Vincent Cleary, Archbishop of Kingston, Bepoit of Archblsbop Clesry'a Addreu at Tweed. ■ "^ >; From the Globe, Feb. 7. TwEKD, Feb. 2. — The Archbishop of Kingston came here yesterday from Peter- boro', celebrated public mass in our nsag- flcent new Church of St. Carthagh at eight o'clock to-day, and announced that he would hold a special service at two o'clock in the afternoon for prayer and parochial iostmction, at which he expected all the Catholics in the districts of Tweed and Stoflo would assist, as he had affairs of especial importance to place before them. Accordingly, at the hour appointed the people of Tweed District, and also those of Stooo, to whom Father Fleming had delivered His Grace's invitation at eleven o'clock mass, assembled in full numbers in St. Carthagh's Church. His Grace, after the recital of the Bosary, addressed the large congregation, dealing with several subjects of parochial interest, and giving practical advice concerning the financial affairs of the parish, which, he was pleased to say, were in a satisfactory condition, and would be rendered more easy and cheering by the observance of certain methods which he familiarly proposed and illustrated. He then directed the attention of his peo- ple to the supreme importance of Catholic education for the youth of the parish, de- claring that in the present day the ever- lasting contest between Jeaus Christ and Satan, between tbeKingdi m of God and the "spirits of wickedness in high places " is waged in the schoolroom, end that this is the battle-grotttid chosen by the agents of Satan against the Saviour of the souls of oar little ones. All the infidels and atheists of France and Italv in Europe, and of the gangrened Republics of South America, and in any whatsoever country the standard of Satan has been erected in opposition to Christianity, have sworn by the evil god never to lay down their arms or to forego any device of iniquity till they shall have banished from God's earth the teaching of God's truth, God's law, God's love, God's impression upon the the youthful hearts of the children of the Church during their course of intellectual itmi moral education in the school room. Well they know that it is only in the schuol-room children can be reared and trained, moulded and fashioned in mind, and heart, and thought, and feel ing to the life-long practices of self-govrrn- ment ind sterling freedom in the conduct of their lives throughout the highways and by-ways of the wor'd towards their eternal destiny as the ohi' ^n of God and heirs of 16 the kingdom of Heaven. The diabolic*! spirit of hatred of religious edaoation has foood ite way, anfortunately. into the Provinoe of Oatario. Satan has raised his standard here and has sent sent forth from the gates of hell his army of demone to propagate hia wioked maxims thronghont the cities and towns of this Province, Yielding to hia influence, the pseudo-Con- servative leader has framed his policy and has announced in hia hapleas London speech that he will run the aword through the Catholic Church and sever the sacred bond of duty and affection and mutual oon- fidenoe between the Bishops, the chief pastors of the flctk of Christ, and the faithful people oommitted to their care. Now, as in all former ages, the successors of the Apostles devoted their lives wholly and exolasively to the promotion of their people's spiritual and temporal welfare, and to this end they willingly endure untold mental anxieties and fatigue, and are in this country com- pelled to submit to the obloquy and direst calumny and other persecutions in defence of the rights of the flock, more particularly of the lamba of the fold. It is proposed, however, to set them aside in the matter of education of youth, and to substitute for the divine influence and authority of their Apostolic office the influence and authority of party politicians and the pro- tection of statecraft, and it is expected by tiie pseudo-Conservative leader that this is what all Catholic parents will conspire with him to accomplish. But, said Hia Grace, never did that weak-minded gentle- man more grievously err, as he was informed even yesterday in the Legislative Assembly by the mover of the Address in rer)ly to the Speech from the Throne. Where is there a Catholic priest who is not fully convinced that none could be more unsel- fishly devoted to their children, Taaore keenly watchful for their welfare, more eager for their literary and moral and religions de- velopment of mind than the priest of the parish, and, above all, the bishop of the diocese, who, in imitation of the divine Pas- tor of pastors, loves indeed his whole flock, but loves with intensest and tenderest charity the little Iambs whom he takes in his arms and folds in his bosom? Tou and I, said the Archbishop, and my people everywhere, and all the Catholic people of Ontario, will prove to that vain politician that he shall not succeed in his effort to set the people against their chief pastors, whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to rule the Church of Qod and to watch over the Catholic laity as having to render an account for their souls. What is to be thought of the political leader who, in addressing his followers in London, denoonosd the Provincial Govern- ment for having permitted the separate schools to increase in number within the laat ten years, that is, fc. having omitted to obstruot and thwart os in doing what we are expressly antborized by the Conatitntion to do, and the Provincial Government ia awom to protect and defend ua in doing f We have done it, by God's bleaaing, in thia diooeae of Kingaton aad all the other dioceses of On- tario, and ahall continue to do it, and this very day we ahall make a new advano^-. From thkd holy plaoe I announce and ordain that you and I will, pleaae God, have a aeparate aohool eatabliahed in Tweed before the end of next anramer, and I hereby charge the paator and the people of this pariah to take atepa without delay tor the erection of a aeparate achool house on theneareat avail- able site to the bridge, to which the child r n of the village and those resident on ei r aide of the river shall have easiest aocesa. When we shall have that school house in working order I will proceed to examine how we may establish a separate school among the people of Stoco Island. Archbishop Cleary's Circular to His Clergy, The Palace, Kingston, 24th Feb., 1890. To the Very Rev. and Rer). Clergy of the Diocese oj Kingston, Dear Rkvbkbnd Father.— Should there be any Catholic ratepayer in a separate school section in your" district who, by reason of absence from home or any cause other than a wilful anti-Catholic determi. nation to withhold his taxes from the Catholic school, has not signed the notice to the clerk, you should see that his name be registered as heretofore, on the asaeaa- ment roll of aeparate achoola aupporters. For it is not absolutely certain that every Catholic failing to si({n the notice may be assessed for the Protestant schools, although it seema very probable he may. All Catholics ought therefore to be regiatered as Catholic school supporters in the absence of positive declaration to the contrary, as has been done for the past thirty or more years. This is, moreover, the fair and reasonable inteipietation of the wish of every Catholic ratepayer. If unhappily there be any Catholis rate- payers who, in this hour of confliot between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of Christ, deliberately choose to side with the enemy for the gradual destruction of Catholic education in this Province, I hereby charge you. as the pastor of the souls of your people and guardian of the right of Jesus Christ and His Ctiuioh, to calf upon every such ratepayer before the lat of next 16 March, and annoance to him in my name and aathority as his bishop that : 1. Hia action in this matter is rebellion against the Church, and he comes under the anathema pronounced by the Sou of God, " If any man will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." 2. That I hereby reserve to myself alone, or, in my abseenoe from the diocese, to the admioistrator for the time being, all power of absolvini^ such rebellious Catholic from his sins unless he shall have signed a written declaration, or ordered it to be signed by his agent, that he heartily repents of having injured the Church and scandalized his neigh- bors by his withdrawal of his taxes from Catholic education, and shall have promised to become a supporter of the separate school at the earliest opportunity. On receipt of this declaration in writing any priest of my diocese may absolve him. 3. This reservation of faculties applies to ^ the article of death as firmly as to any other time. The rule that " no case is reserved at the hour of death " signifies that only peni tents who at that hour confess a reserved sin, and are heartily sorry for having com- mitted it, and firmly resolve to avoid it in the tuture, and moreover are willing to re- pair in the manner prescribed by the church whatsoever scandal their evil action may have given, may be absolved by any priest without awaiting spe( ial faculties from the bishop. But neither in life nor in death can a sinner be validly absolved without true contrition for his sins and firm purpose of amendment, and reparation, as far as in him lies, of the injury done by him to individuals or to the church, even in articulo mortit, so long as they persist in their rebellious dis- position and refuse to sign the written dec- laration aforesaid, or order it to be signed in their name. And should any of them un- happily die in that state, 1 hereby ordain that no public mass shall be offered nor any publio prayers said for his soul, nor shall his o< rpse be admitted into the church, nor any bell I e tolled for announcement of his death or burial, nor shall it beliwfulfor any priest to attend his funeral. But if the dyine sin- ner shall have signed the required declara- tion of repentanoe, and consequeutly died *' in the peace of the church, the pastor is hereby required to read such declaration aloud to the faithful in the church before the funeral manor absolution of the corpse, and also at mass on the following Sunday, before praying for the soul of the deceased. 4. And it is furthermore required that the pastor shall send such declaration,signed by the penitent, to the bishop of the diocese without delay. Should the sick sinner be ^ duable to sign the declaration, his wife or any member of his family or the priest may be his agent for the signing of his name, if he have given order for this to ba done in presence of one or more witnesses. 5. The pastor of each mission is hereby required to send to the bishop, as soon aa possible after the 1st of March, a list of the names of all, should there be any, who have declared against supporting the separate schools. i . Dear Rev. Father, I have not deemed it necessary heretofore to make the with- drawal of support from Catholic schools a reserved case, although the other bishops of the province have done so. In the present crisis, however, when Satan has raised a violent agitation against the church, and has chosen the school room for his battle ground, there is exceptional danger to our people, many of whom may be seduced from tne path of duty by the misrepresentations of an ir- religious press and the cajolery of party politicians, or by personal inducements, sup- plying pretexts of one kind or another for' deserting the cause of Christ and ranging themselves on the side of the enemy. I confidently hope you will succeed in pre- venting this evil in your district. If after the Ist of March any of your people be found registered, through neglect or any accident, on the assessment roll of the common schools, see that they protest in the Court of Revision. When sending me the list of renegades mark (X), the names of such as may be reasonably excused on account of the «^ xcessive distance of the separate school, or any other fnir cause, and state exactly to me the truth or faluity of the excuse, t Jambs Vincent Cleaby, Archbishop-elect of Kingston^ **I<'Interprete" Explain** what the Clrcnlar Means. The member for Freacott supporting th»' Mowat Government has in hia paper, L'Interprete, the following comment on the- above circular : "Archbishop Clear y has addressed a pri- vate circular to the olergy of his diucese, in which he energetically condemns the aboli- tion of separate achools, which Meredith and hia associates are working for so tenaciously by making it the principal plank of their platform for the coming electiona. That ia to say, that.this circular has the sanction of- the truly liberal and generous policy of Hon. Messrs. Mowat and Boss. It declares, it aeems, that absolutioa and Christian burial will be refused to all Catholics who will not pay their t»x to the- separate sohools."