IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) // A 1.0 I.I 1.25 ■^ 1.2.2 2.0 U 11 1.6 vj yl / ^Vjv"^^ '^ /A 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation m V :\ \ 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 -^ v*'' ^S^ V <- i^\^^ C/j CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Th to The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographiceilly unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or biaclc)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) |~n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut caurer de I'ombre ou de la distortion ie long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: 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 indiqute ci-dessous. n n n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachtes Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inigaie de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppi^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition 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 obscurcSes par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmtes d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure irrage possible. Th pc of fill Or be th( sic ot fin sic or Th shi Til wr Mi dif em be( rigl rec| me This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimA au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y lax 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Pubiic 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. 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 impreseion. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce d la g4n4rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec ies conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires onginaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'lllustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimds en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie — ►signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fiimis d des taux de rMuction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film* d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 REMARKS ON THE Jlchj -^cprate ^t\ool %^ihiim: BY THK CHn'^F SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR UPPER CANADA IN THREE PARTS, »VITH AN APPENDIX ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIONS OF THE U. C. SCHOOL SYSTEM TO BOTH ROMAN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. h TORONTO: PRINTED BY LOVELL \ ith which that liberality could be secured in any doubtful case. The only other party in Upper Canada, as far as 1 have .seen, whu baa undertaken to specify the objectionable provi.sions of tliis Act, is James O'Reilly, Esq., a Roman Catholic Lawyer, and llceorder of the City of Kingston, at a public meeting of iion)an Cnthulics held in that city the 2nd inst ; and as Mr. O'lleilly is put forward :'j the highest legal authority on the subject, and us his speech, j'Ver having been published in the Kingston paper.^, has been cojiied ith eulogies into the Ilomau Catholic newspapers of Toronto and Mon- treal, I will deal with his statements a little in detail. Mr. O'Keilly says, •' he had carefully perused and studied ihe Act."' 1 am sure no one v,-l;o understands the Act would have .suspected Mr. O'K.'illy of having " studied " it, bad he not said so ; and it is certain that if he has not " studied " other .^cts of Parliament with more discernment and thoroughness than lie has this, his opinion on • See Toronto Leader, February 12th, 18(!j. aaj legal question cannot bo of much value. Ho says, " This much vaunted Separate Sciiool Act waa buU a sham and a fraud. It pro- fesBed to restore certain riphta and privileges which it did not restore. PreviouH to the passing of this Act, Roman Catholics in Upper Canada had the privilege of establishing Separate Schools in Upper Canada, a privilege not at all extended, but on the contrary abridged by the passing ot the Act of 18G3. The Act says that Catholics can establish Separate Schools wherever Common Schools are established, but the 19th section of the Act, defining school sections, completely frustrates this intention. They possessed greater privileges before, and were deprived of their previous liberty by the lJ)th clau.se." — *' The 19th clau.io of the Act of 1803 utterly destroyed the union of school municipalities." 1 have thus quoted Mr. O'lleilly's own re- ported words, that there may bo no mistake ; and any one who has reaZ/y *' studied " the Separate School Act of 18G3. in connection with tho Common School Act, and the previous Separate School Acts, must see that his statements exhibit a want of knowledge or of candour wholly inexcusable. Now, in the first place, the 19th section does not define school sections at all, but they are defined by the 2nd and 4th sections of tho Act, and are defined to be precisely the same as the Common School sections in which the Separate Schools are established. This ia precisely as was provided for by the Separate School Act of 1855. Before that time, tho Township Councils de'iued the boundaries of Separate School sections as they did those of Common School sections. They had to include all Eoman Catholics who petitioned for a Separate School, but could extend the boundaries of a Separate School section to include two or more Common School sections, or half a Township, if they thought proper; but Bishop de Charbonnel and others objected to a Town- ship Council having auytliing to do with Separate Schools, and insis- ted that Separate Sciiool sections should bo tho same as Common f^chool sections. Their wishes were gratified by the provisions of the Separate School Act of 1855 ; and those provisions are repro- duced in the Separate School Act of 18G3. Yet Mr. O'Eeilly has the assurance to say that this Act takes away that privilege — a statement disproved by every Separate School that exists in any township of Upper Canada. Again, the 5th section of the Act provides that, instead of a Sepa- rate School corporation in each ward of a city or town, as the Act of 1855 necessitated, all the Separate School Trustees in each city or town shall form one Board or Corporation, as simply and with as few members as the Board of Trustees of Common Schools ; and the 5th section was suggested and written by myself, as was the latter part of the 13th section, and put from the Speaker's chair in my own hand writing, namely, •' that persons qualified by law as teachers either in Upper or Lower Canada, shall be considered qualified teachers for the purposes of this Act," The.>je two proviBions iiever existed in any previous Separate School Act ; and yet IMr. "O'Reilly tclla liia wouderinT Kingston audience that this Act tbridgen the privileges whicti Catholics had enjoyed uiuler the pre- *fiou8 Act ! Furthermore, the Gth section of the Act providea for tho uuion of two or more Separate Schools sections into one (whicli was not before provided for) precisely as the Common School Act provides for the union of two or more Common School seotions into one ; but with this difference, that the trustees and electors of Common School sections have to apply to the Township Council to give effect to their wishes, while the trustees and electors of Separate School sections complete their union themselves, and are only required to give notion of it when formed. Yet this again, Mr. O'lleilly calls abridying the privileges of Koman Catholics ! But Mr. O'Eeilly tells his confiding hearers that the 10th section of the Act destroys all these privileges. He does not seem to have read to them tho 19th section, any more than tho other sections of the act above referred, even if he had " studied " it. Now, as to this 19th section, I neither wrote it, nor suggested it, nor ever thought of it until I saw it in a printed copy of Mr. Scott's Bill. But 110 other than a man of Mr. O'lteilly's habits of legal study and interpretation would say that this section destroys union school sec- tions, much less that it can interfere with a single School sectiou. This 19th Section of the Act provides that "no person shall be deemed a supporter of any Separate School unless he resides within three miles (in a direct line) of the site of the School House." Any man of common sense, much more a jurist, will at once see from this clause of the Act, that any Separate School division may be six miles in diameter, or eighteen miles in circumference — dimensions beyond those of any Common School section, or union of sections, I know of in all Upper Canada. But this is not all, any Roman Catholic re- siding within three miles on a straight lino of any Separate School, may, without any union of sections, claim to be a supporter of such school and be exempted from all Common School rates in whatever section he may reside — a privilege enjoyed by no supporter of Com- mon Schools. And any Roman Catholic residing within three miles, in a straight line, of a Separate School house in Kingston, or Belle- ville, or Toronto, or Hamilton, or of any other city, town or village in Upper Canada, can send his children to the Separate School in such city, town or village, can claim to be a supporter of it, and be exempt from payment of all Common School rates in the section in which he resides ; whereas no supporters of Common Schools, out of the corporation limits of any such city, town or village, can enjoy such an advantage, but hundreds of them have to pay rates to build school houses and support schools in the sections where they reside, and then pay high fees to get their children taught in the better sdbools of the neighbouring city, town or village. Yet, in the pre- 8 II' nonce of these facts, Mr. O'lloilly declaroH that tlio f)rivilep;es or Koman Catholics have been abridged by this 19th section, and that the Ai't itnelt is " a sham and a fraud ;" whereas the only *' hhani imd fraud " in the matter are his own speecli and his own preten- eiona— -a sorry illustration of liis acumen, impartiality and fitness fo?' the odice of City lioeonK-r. These are the only provisions of tho Act w hich Mr. O'Keilly speciiiea as abridging the privileges of Roman Catholics. But ho says . " Tliere were other good grounds of complaint and grievance against tho ex- isting School Bill, and which ought to bo amended. For instance — Koman Catholics having property in hchool sections where they did not Tcmh were taxed for Common School purposes, although paying separate taxes in another section. Ifo considered this a very great hardship and one which nothing but further and better legislatioc. could alter or amend. Tho law was more liberal to Protestants in Lower Canada than to Koman Catholics in Upper Canada. Thert (in Lower Canada) Prot'^ytants can establish Separate Schools in township municipalitii's, but Koman Catholics could not do so in Upper Caiijida." Tho letter addressed by ine to the Superintendent of Education for Lower Canada, (given in tho Appendix) will shew that Mr. O'Keilly is as perfectly ignorant of tho School Law there as 1 have above snown him to be in regard to the School Law of Upper Canada. See Appendix (2). Now, his grievance about Koman Cutliolios paying school ratcrt for tho support of schools in which their property is situate, is one that I have never before lu^ard uttered by any advocate of separate schools. It is a now grievance, and founded on ignorance of one of tho liri^t principles of political economy and just legislation, as his other objections above noticed are founded on ignorance, or misrepresentation of statute law. The very basis of a system of public instruction for tho education of a whole people is, that the property of a country ought to be responsible for the education of its youth. This principle, applicable to a whole country — and the only one on which a system of public instruction can be justified or maintained — is equally applicable tj each municipality or school section in tho country. It is the joint labour of the youth and their parents in such municipality that gives to the property situated ifi it its curreut value, and to which the absentee land- holder coi^.tributes nothing, Now tiieae resident parents and their ehildreu are entitled iii common justice to some return for the additional value which their labours aiul intelligence give or main- tain to tiie property of tho absentee land holder ; and how can that return be so equitably and moderately and beneficially made to them for tiie benefit of such labours, as to make it liable to be rated for the education of those youih r It is not u question between a common school and a separate ^x-hool, but a question of equity 9 between man and man, nn«l a quprttion involving? on»> df tlio - tant Nornial School in Lower Canada, — a threc-lolil demand for th«; first time formally made in Upper Canada. On the first 1 »hiu\ sa^ nothing. On the second, I shall only say here that tlir* Itoman Catholic Church is represented in the person of the 11 C liishop of Toronto, in the Council of Public Instruction, and when any tiling is required in the General Ivegnlations, or is sanctioned in the pro- ceedings of that Council revolting to his conscien''e or to liis .scni>i. of right or duty, it is time enough for Mr. O'lieilly tr> taliv of another Council of Public Instruction. \ may also observe, that under the former Separate School Act, as demanded, eviTv K. C. Board of School Tru&tees was a committ(fe to examine and qsiaiify teachers of Separate Schools — a provision which reduced almo-t to contempt the standing of teachers of those schools, and was changed in the present Act at the express wish of its authors. Then thery are three Normal Schools in Lower Canada, — instead of one — though there are only two-thirds as many common schools there aiH in Upper Canada — two in French to satisfy tin' rivalry between Quebec and Montreal, and one in English to meet the wants of the English speaking population. As there are no material- in the French language lor any other than a lloman Catholic A'ormal School ; so there are not sufficient materials in the Engiish'language for any other than a Protestant jSornial School, though under thu oversight of a lloman Catliolio Supcriiitendent. In tJppivr Canada, there is but one language, and one JN'ormal School — giving secular instruction, and setting apart a portion of one day in cucii week for religious instruction, where there is a room for the clergymen of each religious persuasion to meet and instruct the students of his "hurch, and where the Koman Catholic priest can weekly meet and jnatruct those of his own coroinunion, as does each Protestant »^- 1; 'V 10 Miuistor those of his couiniunion. lioraau Catholic Teachers thus compete with, and acquire a standing equal to Protestant Teachers ; and there are no loss than 333 lloman Catholic Teachers employed in the public common schools of Upper Canada, besides those teaching separate schools. I have now disposed of Mr. O'lleiily's speech against the Separate School Act of 18G3 — the only attempt at argument on the subject, I have seen, except the refuted mistatements of the Freeman. If I have not been as complimentary to him as he could wish, he must thank for it his own flippancy in regard to an Act that engaged the best minds of his church for three years, and his oracularly pro- nouncing it " a sham and a fraud " in connexion with the labours of men who have spent more years in the service of their country thaa he has lived in the world. PART II. f DENUNCIATIONS OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863; THAT ACT PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, AS A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION IN UPPER CANADA. I now proceed to notice the general denunciations of the Separate School law, and the denials as to its having been passed by the Legisla- ture and accepted hy the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, as a final settlement of the Separate School question. The Toronto Freeman says : — " After a year's operation, we arc beginning to find out the advantages which our co-religionists derive from Scott's Separate School Hill of 18t33. A more cruel hoax, — a more transparent deception, under the show of a measure of justice, of conferring benefits, never has been practised by a Government on a whole community." .Tames O'Reilly, Esq., a Uoman Catholic lawyer, of Kingston, and city Recorder, in an agitation meeting of Roman Cath- olics in that city, says : — " This much vaunted Separate School Act is nothing but a sham and a fraud." Such is the language now used by certain Roman Catholic agitators in regard to the Separate School law of 1863 — a law that was proposed and introduced into the Legislative Assembly by a Roman Catholic mem- ^ ber, with the approbation, and at the solicitation ot the authorities of ^ his Church — a law that passed through Parliament under the auspices of an administration whose Prime Minister and a majority rtf whose members ^ were Roman Catholics — a law which, as amended and before it finally passed, was formally approved by the authorities of the Pi.oman Catholic ^ Church, through their clerical as well as lay representatives, and accepted by them as a final settlement of the question. And now, when it answers a purpose, that same law, passed less than two years ago, thus prepared. 11 , ' / '• passed muler svicli auspices, and thus accepted, is denounced as a "cruel hoax," "a transparent, deception," "a sham and a fraud!" What an imputation upon the pains-taking Roman Catholic author of the Act ! What an imputation upon the Uoman Catliolic Prime Minister and his " Colleagut's, under whose administration the Act was passeil ; and what an imputation \ipon the discernment, if not honesty, of the vt'uerablc «cclesi;;stical persona^jes, who, as representatives of the authoritiLs of the Roman Catholic Church, proposed an interview with me, and requested me to a-'-'company them in an oflicial waiting upon the PremiiT, to request him to accept the i3ili in its amended form, as a satisfactory and fmal settlement of the Separate School question ; and to request tlie (rovern- raent of the day to give the Bill, as such, their earnest support ! I Avil! now, as hriefly as possible, state the particulars of the singular and important interviews connected with the final pussaj,e of tliis Act, aud leave the reader to judge whether, in all truth and honour, it was not passed and adopted as a final settlement of the Separate School question. Mr. Scott, a Roman Catholic lawyer, and, at the time, Member of the Legislative Assembly for thi? city of Ottawa, iulroduced a Separate School Bill durmg three successive sessions of 1860, 18(il, and 18r)2, but failed to get it passed. After further consultation with the members and authorities of his Church, he introduced his Bdl again (with sundry alterations and additions) in the session of 1863. 1 believe he claimed the tacit assent of the Government for his introduction of this Bill. In the discussion on its second reading and reference to a Special Committee, -Mr. Scott made a persona! attack upon me. 1 remembered, as I still do. Lord Macaulay's advice, given as early a*. January, 1827, in the Edinburgh Rcvietv, in respect to replying to attacks, lie says — "No misrepresentations shoidd be suHVred to jiass imrefuted. When a silly letter makes its appeartmee in the corner of a provincial nevvspaper, it •will not do to say, ' What stuff!' W'g must remember that such state- ments constantly reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly be be- lieved." 1 therefore answered Mr. Scott's attacks, in a letter addressed to him through the public press. In that letter I also took occasion to point out the anomalies in his School Bill, and to shew that, under the pretext of ai^ording relief to Roman Catholics, it contained provisions which in- vaded the private rights of citizens, the legal rights of Common School Corporations, and of County and Township Municipalities, 1 also ob- jected, as I had done in private letters to members of the Government, agamstany unofficial member of the Legislature being allowed to intro- duce a Bill afl'ecting our public school system, which had been established br the Government, and which should be protected by it, and only legis- lated upon by bills introduced by, and on the responsibility of the Govern- ment itself. At this juncture, a change of admmistration took place: the Hon. J. Sandiield McDonald formed a new administration, and an adjournment of tke Legislature, for several weeks, was agreed upon. Oa the re-assem- 12 /,/ A^?r oiing ot" rarliiiiiieiil, .Mr. 8c'.otl's special coinnittef" reported his iiili with certain amendments, which were printed ; but very general and strong opposition in Upper Canada was entertained, and was manifesting itself more and more to tlie liill. At this time 1 had proceeded olTicially to Quebec ; and when asked my opinion, J ol)ipcted scarcely less stronEfW to the amended Bill, than 1 had done to the Bill as first introduced. The opposition to it amon;^ Upper Canada members was very strong ; and the (Government did not appear to countenance it. At length Mr. .Scotf. called upon me, to explain some jjorsonal matters i^i>d to know my spe- cific objections to his Rill. T replied, that I objected to the very principle of a private member of Parliament doing what ihe Government alone .should do, namely, bringing in measures to amend (wli^'u deemed necessary) a .system of public instruction for the country ; but Mr. Scott wished to know what objections 1 had to the Hill itself. I then shewed, and at bis request lent him a copy of ihe amended Bill, with my erasure of objec- tionable clauses, and notes on others rtcjuiriu'^ modifications to assimilatnt them to the Common School law. in a day or two Mr. Scott called upon me again, stating thai, liaving consulted his friends, he acceded t»» my objections and would pro[)ose to amend the Bill accordingly. \ replied that 1 still objected to any other party than the (iovernment con- ducting a measure of that kind through the Legislature ; but as be re- moved from the liill what J considered objt'ctionable, 1 would waive my objecli(ms on his proceeding with the Bill, and would aid him to get it parsed, on two conditions; — :riisi, that it ^hould be assented to on the part of the (Iovernment, and therefore passed on their responsibility ; and secondly, that it should be accepted by the authorities of his Church as a final settlement of the question. On this latter point, 1 luldrcssed Mr. Scolt as nearly as T can recollect to the following eiVect : " You are only a private member of Parliainent ; you are not a representitive of the Roman ('Catholic Church; you may assure the House, as '.vol! as myself^ {hat this Bill is accepted as a final settlement of the Separate School question ; so did Sir Etienne Taclits when he introduced the Separate School Bill of 18r)r), and even on its final passage its advocates assured the Legislature that it would put at rest the agitation of the Separattt School qtiestion. Now it is said they had no authority tVom the lieads o* your Cliurch to make such statements ; and s ) it may be said in regiiril to any assurance you may give as to this measure being accepted as ;ji final settlement of the rjuestion by the authorities of your Church ; ya\l unless I am satisfied of that, 1 will do what i can to prevent the passage of yrur Bill, however modified, and will urge the standing upon the settlle- ment of the question as agreed in IST)')." Mr. Scott called upon me again, 1 think, the following day, and told me that he had seen the Archbisliop of (Quebec, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, and that the Archbishop agreed to accept the Bill as I proposed ; and that as the Archbis.hop was not r.ble to go out himself, he proposed that his Secretary, the Very Kev. Vicar-Cjeneral Cazeau, an! the very Rev. Vicar-'Jeneral Macdonnell, who had been sent 13 1 ■'" ( "toy the Bishops Irom Upper Canada to watch the legislation on educa- tional matters, should meet nie on the subject. I agreed to the meeting- proposed, to be held the following day, in the Parliamentary Library. At that meeting, Mr. Scott pointed out the erasures, and read over the clauses amended, to each of which in succession, the ecclesiastical repre- sentatives of the Koman Catholic hierarchy in Canada, nodded assent as explicitly as did any couple ever nod assent to the vows contained in the Marriage Service. Then Mr. Scott had two copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon, made out and compared, — the one for himself and the other for me, and proposed that we should all wait upon the Premier, and state to liim the result. We proceeded to the Speaker's room, where (not 1, but) Mr. Scott, informed him ol the result of our conference, and the two venerable ecclesiastics earnestly requested the Attorney -General to give the support of the (Government to Mr. Scott's Bill, as a satisfactory and final settlement of the Separate School question. I think I may, without offence, appeal to the Hon. J. Sandficid Alacdonald, for the correctness of what 1 have stated, in the interview referred to with him. It was with this understanding, and under these circumstances, that the Bill was supported by the Government, and passed through the legisla- Isire.* But even then, though 1 had, at the request of the Premier, weparcd and published notes on the Bill, showing its harmony with the school system of Upper Canada, and recommending its adoption, and ihough it was supported by the leaders of the then Conservative (.)pposi- lion, as well as by the Government ; yet such was the opposition in Upper Canada to any further legislation on the subject, that a iiKijonty of ;;be Upper Canada members of the Legislative Assembly voted against il, and a majority of only two or three Upper Canada members of the Legis- lative Council voted for it. I affirm, therefore, that the passage of (he Separate School Act of ^86.3, was an honourable compact between all parties concerned, for the final settlement of that question ; and the renewed agitation of it, in less Jhan two years, is not only a violation of that compact, but a warning to the people of Upper Canada, that if they are compelled again to legislate 'JO the subject, their peace, and the safety of their institutions will require Ihem to sweep the last vestiges of Separate School law from their statute books, and place all religious persuasions in the same relation of equality TO their schools as exists in the New England States, and in the neigh- bouring State of New York. But, more on (his point hereafter. The Freeman, indeed, affirms that, " from the first moment the Bill was introduced, we protested against it, as an insult to the Catholics of * 111 a most elnquer t and instructive speech on Confederation, delivered in tiie Legislative ABserably on the 9th iust., the Hon. Mr. MoQee remarked, as follows, on the Separate School Bill of 1863, being a final settlement of the question : " I merely wish to add, in relation to an observation of my hon. '"riend, Mr. Brown, last night, on the subject of Catholic Separate Schools iu Upper Canada, that I had aoceptod for my own part, as a finality, the amended Act of 1863. I cer- tainly did, for it granted all the petitions asked for, and therefore I think the !P«titioner8 ought to be satisfied. ' 14 Upper Canada.-' But the Freeman Joes not add, that when the Glebe newspaper quoted his sayings as those of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronlo, his Lordship caused the foilowing note to he written, which was. published in the Globe, of the 23rd of March, 1863 : « To the Editor of the Globe: " Sir, — In your issue of this morning, you state that the Canadian " Freeman is the ' regularly authorised organ of the Bishop of Toronto, " ' Dr. Lynch.' " His Lordship wishes it to be understood that he has no official orgaa. " He wishes me also to state, that as far as he knows the sentiments of his " Right Reverend brethren, the Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada, and " of the Catholics eenerally, they are quite satisfied with Mr. Scott's " Separate School Bill. " Yours, respectfully, " George Northgraves, " Rector of St. Michael's Cathedral " St. Michael's Palace, l Toronto, 20th March, 1863." / I have become accustomed to respect the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, like the late lamented Bjshop Power, as a just and honourable man ; and I have hoped to be able in future years, as [ have the last two years, to act cordially with him in all school matters. I have not yet heard that his Lordship, or any Koman Catholic prelate in Upper Canada, has. authorized this new agitation; and I shall be much surprised and disap- pointed to learn that such has been the case in any instance. PAKT III. PRETENSIONS AND AGITATION OF CERTAIN PROTESTANTS IN MON- TREAL ; SKETCH OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL AGITATION IN UPPER CANADA ; ALTERNATIVES AS TO FURTHER LEGISLATION ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION ; CHARACTER AND EF- FECTS OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS, AND CAUSES OF THEIR LITTLB SUCCESS; REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE SEPARATE SCHOOL LAW IN CASE OF FUTURE LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT. I have first a few words to say on the alleged cause of this new Sepa- rate Sc-.hool agitation. It is said to have been originated by the agitation and demands of certain Protestants in Montreal, apparently prompted and represented by the «mscrupulous Witness, whose statements can no more be r-^lied upon in regard to anything relating to the school system or Superintendent of either section of the Province, than can those of the Toronto Freeman be relied upon in regard to the school system and 15 Superintendent of Upper Canada. But is such an association, howevei respectable in its personnel, the government or the legislature ot Canada, any more than the Freeman and Mr. O'Reilly and their audi- tors? And are the supporters of Separate Schools in Upper Canada to follow in the wake of the Montreal Witness, who, like the Freeman, has heretofore denounced all state systems of public instruction? It is true that a certain nuinber of Protestants in Montreal, under the apparent lead of the Witness (who is sailing under false colours in this crusade), make pretensions and claims to a separate everything, from the Chief Superintendent of Education down to the humble teacher — a thing not recognized in England, or Ireland, or Prussia, or Holland, or Belgium, or France, or the United States — involving the principle of subjection of the State to the Church, and leaving lo Ca3sar nothing but to provide money for and obey the commands of the Church — incompatible with the universal education of any people — embodying views subversive of the school system and of municipal rights in Upper Canada, and which have been again and again all but unanimously condemned by its repre- sentatives and electors. Such pretensions on the part of the Witness and others in Montreal could never have really prompted any more than, it can justify, this new Separate School Law agitation in Upper Canada, though it may be the pretext for it. There are indeed certain anomalies in the School Law of Lower Canada which by no means afl'ord to Pro- testants there facilities for Protestant schools equal to those possessed by Roman Catholics for Separate Schools in Upper Canada; but I believe no one has been more ready to correct those anomalies than the Super- intendent of Education there, who has more than once officially recom- mended the amendment of the law for that purpose, and the Witness^ attacks on whom are as unjust as its statements are unfounded. Mr. Hodgins, Deputy Superintendent of Education, when in Montreal in September last, having been applied to on the subject, endeavoured to im- press some of the parties concerned with the error of their course, so at variance with the views of the people of Upper Canada, and so imprac- ticable and unpatriotic. I have ever objected to Lower Canada inter- ference in Upper Canada school matters; and I do not think Upper Canada will interfere with Lower Canada school matters. I believe the members of the government and the majority of the legislators there will do justice to the rights of ihe minority,* as have the majority of the Upper Canada members of government and of the legislature dealt justly, and even liberally and indulgently, in regard to the rights and privileges of the minority here. * The Hon. Mr. Robc, Piotestant representative of Montreal centre, in a speech on Confederation, delivered in the Legislative Assembly the 22ud Feb, bears the following corroborating and conclusive testimony on this point: "With respect to the question of Education, the present was the first time any agitation had begun on the sul ject in Lower Ciintidji, so jwtt had been the course of the French Canadians towards the Protestant Minority, both before aud since the union, and be believed it would continue to be bo." 16 i have now to remark upon the fact of this periodical Separate School agtation, and upon the causes of the little success of Separate Schools, and of the consequent dissatisfaction with the law respecting them. The School Act on which our present school >ystetn is based was passed in 1850; but Separate Schools have been allowed since 1840, Dissatisfaction and agitation arose on account of the restrictive interpre- tation given by the Superior Judges as to the provisions of the Act of 1850 respecting the establislunent of Separate Schools in cities and towns. In 1851 (on my return from England) 1 met the then liomaii Catholic Bishop of Toronto and a Vicar General, and proposed tlh' draft of a short Jiill which they approved with many thanks, and which was passed by the legislature. Hut in a short time a new Seiiaratc School agitation was commenced, accompanied !>y much discu'^sion, and the Separate School Act of 1855 was ilie i(>sult, declared by the Fn-e- man and other parties to be the death knell of our Common School system, and a new and gIorioii:i era of Separate Schools. ]\ut ihc. Common School system lived in unimpaired health, and advanced with accelerated power^ while tlie Separate Schools reiini.'ied nearly as few, O.S far between, and as feeble as llioy were bctoit! IS.^'). Dissatisfaction on the part of the advocates of Separate Sclioo's again arose, and the Separate School Law of 1855 (prepared and introduced into the Legis- lature by the representatives ol' the iloman Catholic Church) was denounced, like its predecessor, as " a sham and a fraud," A new Separate School Bill was introduced in 1860 by Air. Scott, of Ottawa, and pressed again with modifications in ISul, in 1862, and in 1863, when the present Separate School Law was passed, and accepted on the part of the authorities of the Roman C.'alholic Church as a final settlement of the question. But in less than two years the old agitation is recom- menced, and the old terms of denunciation again.st the Separate School Law and the Chief Superintendent are again trotted out and put to work )D the .service of a fresh agitation. Such is a glimpse of the Separate School agitation in L^pper Canada during nearly half of a human life. Now, can it be that acute ecclesiastics, and learned lawyers, and able statesmen of the Iloman Catholic Church have been deceived thus time after time as to the import and character of laws which they themselves framed and advocated] Or is there not a chronic and uiuerent weakness in the very condition of Separate Schools which renders them sickly and stunts their growth in comparison with that of public schools, and which no law compatible with free govern- ment and the rights of man can remedy 1 I can truly say, beyond the power of successful contradiction, that I have sought to the utmost to give the most liberal application and the fullest effect to the.se successive Sepapate School Acts ; that while I have no sympathy with the dogma.s of the hierarchy of Rome, I have a deep sympathy with the Roman Catholic people, and have endea 'oured to do to them, priests as well m laymen, as I would be done by, and to aid them all in my power in their If-' 17 ;of ler kt. it« ^on jn- Ibe Ito Ive kir educational eftbrts — deeply sensible as 1 am Irom year to year that, with the incubus of Separate Schools upon them, Roman Catholics labour under great disadvantages in comparison with their neighbours and fellow citizens of other religious persuasions. I have done more in this respect for Roman Catholics than I have done for the members of any other religious persuasion ; and I know well that this has been made an objec- tion to me by some Protestants ; hut irrespective of sect or party, I have endeavoured, and shall continue to help nio>t those who, I think, need most help, though I have received, and shall probably continue to receive, from their newtpaper organs nothing in return but misrepresentation and abuse. Yet with these my best exertions to give the fullest efl'ect to the provi- sions of a law which (as I have above shown) alVords greater facilities to Romari Catholic Trustees and their supporters than are provided by law for Trustees and supporters of Common Schools, and contains all the provisions (as I shall presently shew) that a legislature can make without violating the constitutional and individual rights of the peoj)le ; even under these circumstances, the Separate Schools generally languish while the Common Schools flourish, and a new agitation is set on foot for fur- ther Separate School legislation. Now, the alternatives before the public of Upper Canada are : either to live in this state of civil turmoil, or grant the further legislation demanded, or to abolish the Separate School law altogether. As to the second of these alternatives, J am prepared to shew before any committee or tribunal, that the Separate School Act of 1863 con- tains all the provisions in behalf of trustees and supporters of Separate Schools, that the Common School Act does in behalf of the trustees and supporters of Common Schools, (and several additional ones, as shown above,) with two exceptions: — 1, The supporters of Common Schools have to provide by assessment a sum equal to the legislative school grant, in order to be entitled to it. The law formerly required the same condi- tion on the part of the supporters of Separate Schools, in order to their sharing in the legislative school grant; but they complained of it as a grievance, and the Separate School A(;ts of both 1855 and 1863 relieved them of that condition. 9.. The trustees of Common Schools, as also trustees of Separate Schools, can levy and collect rates of their support- ers for all school purposes ; but, in addition, the former can call upon the municipal councils to levy rates on their supporters for them, while the latter cannot require the municipal council to levy and collect rates of their supporters, though they could at all times levy and collect such rates themselves. The reason of this difterence is, first, the School Law of Lower Canada took away, in .1857, from municipal councils there, the power of levying and collecting rates in behalf of Dissentient or Protest- ant Schools; and of course the Upper Canada School Act of 1863 contained a corresponding provision in respect to Separate Schools. This, however, is of trifling importance on either side, as trustees can quite as well, through their own collector, collect their school rates, as to collect them by the agency of the municipal council. But the primary 18 1 reason is, tliul on llic principle.' ol tlie declared separalion of church and state, tlie nmnicipalities, any more than the legislature, cannot impose and colhvt taxes for cluircli sdiools, any more than they can impose and collect taxes for church buihlin!;; or church ministers of any kind. It is, then, mipossible to extend tlie provisions of the Separate School law. without iucludini a source of individual pride and of the strength of the state, in ancient days, for a man to say, " Romanns Sum," — " I am a lloman 5" so would it be now, under a legislation of equal rights and privileges, without the shadow of distinction in regard to sect or party, for a man to say, " 1 am a Canadian." For every man to feel that he stands in all respects upon equal ground of right and privdege with every other man in relation to the state and law, must best contribute to the true interests and real strength of the State, and best respond to the spirit and principles of free goremment. Upon public grounds, therefore, the l;iw for Separate Schools cannot be maintained.* I admit that the existence of such a law has contril)ut(Ml, jmd will con- tribute, to strengthen the political and social intluenco of i'lotc-taiitisui, and to weaken that of Komanism in Upper Canada. Th;- iiilhuMicc' of ;i small body allied to, and blended with other inilucnccs niukts itself felt in any community whose selections to ofllces of pubic tiust and honour, depend largely upon popular suiVrage. In all such cases, the inlluence of * Mr. HoJgins, Deputy Supcrintendant of Education for Upper Ciiiiada, lias, at much pains and labour, collected the statistics fit public leliL^ious iristnictioii given to children in the City of Toronto; and the Editor of the Hamilton Spec- tator has done the same in regard the religions of children in that city. These statistics are given in the current February number of the Journal of Education foi- Upper Canada, and prove couclusively that the religious instruction of youth in these two cities (the least favorable examples that could be selected ("or the purpose) is as extensive as their common school instruction ; and that religious instruction being given by the respective pastors and parents of th(! children and by those specially selected by them for the purpose, is of course much more thorough, practical and efficient, than any perfunctory instruction given by a day school teacher, were it possible for him to give any specially religious instruction at all, in connexion with his other various teachings, during the six houi s out of the twenty-four -of the five days of the week that the children are under his oversight. The religious statistics of Toronto and Hamilton, as given in the Journal nf Education for the present month, demonstrate the fallacy of the statements and. arguments that the youth of the land are growing up ii. religious ignorance in connexion with our system of common school education. Besides, as will also be seen in the Journal, that the Board of Trustees in those cities, liave given every facility during school hours for carrying into etfect the official regulations in regard to religious instruction in the schools, while the li'Olh Section of the U. C. ConBolidated Common School Act, affords ample protection to the reli- gious feelings and scrui)les of each parent on the subject. if 20 Roman Catholics cannot, but be powerful. But let such a community, however lar<;e, (unless it constitutes the majority of the |iopuIation) isolate itself from, anil maintain an avowed anti active hostility to the most cherished institutions of all other classes, its inlluence in municipal and public affairs bt'conios nil, and no man dare openly ally himself with it who aspires to any situation of public trust or honour, that depends upon the suffrages of the majority ; and the government itself, the creation of such combined and consolidated majority, will not dare to disregard its wishes in appointments to public otlices of any description. But he must be a narrow-minded and unpatriotic Protestant who would wish its influence and power extended by the unnatural, though self-exclusion of any class of the community. But the chief injury of such isolation must fall upon the Roman Catho- lics themselves. The injury to the State at large from such an unnatural division of its citizens on public institutions, is small in comparison of the injury which the authors of such division inflict upon the isolated com- munity itself. From the comparative paucity of its resources, the ele- mentary schools of such community, except in a few cities and towns, must necessarily be inferior to the schools in which the youth of the great majority of the population are educated* Then the youth of these infe- rior schools are not only excluded from the advantages of the better schools, (wbose doors are open to all without the slightest interference with the religious faith or feelings of any), but they are deprived of alt those springs of mental development, activity and energy which arise from competition and emulation with the other youth of the land. Thus infe- riority of mental culture and development is necessarily stamped upon the mass of the community that is thus isolated from the public schools of the • Since the above was written, tbc following illustration of the accuracy of my remarks, even in regard to a city, is furnished by the following extract of a letter from a correspondent of the Roman Catholic True Witness, of Montreal, That correspondent, writing from the City of London, C.W., respecting the Separate Schools in that city, says : — " Our schools are well attended, but I regret to say, are not in such a state of efficiency, as to compare altogether with the common schools. This is the only drawback to the present or ultimate success of our schools — a difficulty which must be met — because indifference and neglect on this matter might lead to an entire repudiation of the Separate School system in Canada West, as practically unable to afford those facilities and advantages in the matter of education which were held out as an inducement to its establishment. Seven years ago we were led to expect our Separate Schools would be at least equal in all respects to those from which we separated." , Commenting upon the above, the London Free Press says that *' while it is matter for regret that any educational effort should not meet with success, yet it is possible that the time will come when our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens will see that there is no necessity to promote Separate Schools. It is notorious that no attempts are made at the Common Schools to sway the minds of the children in matters of religion: and even if such was the case, the influence of the family circle, and that of public worship would fully counteract it. It will be a great day for Canada Avhen the children of its citizens shall meet for secular instruction, irrespective of the creeds their parents may profess." I 21 the it ia ,yet zens 'ious the e of will ular country. And tlie youth who thus grows up to manhood in a school of separation commences the battle of life, not only with inferior mental and social preparation, but comes forlli into the arena of competition and enterprise estranged from, and a stranger to the habits, views, and asso- ciations of those with whom his pursuits and fortunes are linked. Is it surprising that a youth whose early energies and means of improvement are thus dwarfed by isolation and inferior school instruction, should, in the career of life, be distanced in every race of enterprise in business, pro- fession, and public ambition, by his early more favoured rivals and com- petitors ? There may, now and then, be an exception. There may, here and there, be a youth of great natural ability and indomitable energy who will throw olT the nightmare of early depressing circumstances, force himself up through all disadvantages of inferior school and social culture, and make himself a name of honour and distinction in the community ; but such an example is a rare exception to the general rule which dooms the victims of isolation to inferiority, failure, and obscurity. Then the next result is deep dissatisfaction among the members of the isolated community at their position of social inferiority in the country, and at their failures of success in various pursuits, and at their omissions in the elections and appointments to public offices and trusts, with excla- mations against the law, and the bigotry and oppression of the majority of the community, for what is the legitimate offspring and inevitable fruit of their own doings, or of the doings forced upon them. They may complain " that no ' Irish ' Catholic need apply for any post of public trust or honour ;" but they have themselves, by their isolation, inferior educa- tional culture, and war against the institutions of the great bod) of their fellow citizens, rendered the election or appointment of many, if any, of themselves an impossibility, where the s^ulVrages of the majority are the predominant power in the State. Then envy, then hatied of the more successful and prosperous classes, then mutual consultations and excite- ments to revenge their imaginary wrongs, and relieve themselves of their deeply felt but self-inflicted evils ; and then, among the more daring and least scrupulous portion of such isolated community, the combinations and conspiracies of Fenianism — the employment of brute force to obtain power and wealth, which can only be legitimately obtained by the exer- cise of virtue, intelligence, and industry. The Hierarchy may earnestly and strongly denounce these combinations and conspiracies, but the mon- ster has grown too strong and unmanageable to obey the voice of even a liishop, — the disease is stronger than the remedy. In this aspect, the question of school separation deserves the serious consideration of the statesman and patriot. So deeply impressed are many Roman Catholics with the irreparable injuries inflicted upon their children by taking them from the Public Schools, and isolating and sending them to inferior Separate Schools, that I have known instances of their obeying authority so far as to, return their names and give their subscriptions as supporters of a separate school, and then send their children to the public school, and pay a large fee for the 22 i-i privilege of doing so — a privilege which tliej had lorfrited by returning Iheir names as supporters of a separate school ; and, of the r)04 Roman Catholic teachers employed in the schools in Upper Canada, only 171 of them are employed in separate schools, while 333 of them are employed in public schools — the schools denounced by the Freeman, Mr. O'Reilly, and oth»'r Separate School agitators ; and of the more than fifty-live thou- sand Roman Catholic children taught in our schools in 1S()3, upwards of forty thousand of them attendiul .he common or public schools, while but fifteen thousand attended the separate schools. \ think I am safe in saying that every Roman Catholic in Upper Canada, who has distinguished himself either in law or politics, has been chiefly, if not wholly, educated in pub- lic schools with Protestant youth, and not in separate schools. I believe Mr. O'Reilly himself never would have got up to the position of Recorder of the city of Kingston, if he hud been educated in the sepa- rate schools which he now advocates — if he had not had his mind culti- vated and developed in public schools, and his energies and ambition quickened and roused by emulation with Protestant youth, and formed early acquaintances and associations with them, which have laid the foundation of his professional success. He is a living contradiction of his own advocacy. Nor do I believe that he, or any others of his party, will venture to maintain that the nine-tenths of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada, who have themselves been taught, or have educated their children at the public schools, are any less orthodox Catholics than the one-tenth who have been induced or compelled to send their chidren to separate schools. The fact is, that the tendency of the public mind and of the institutions of Upper Canada is to confederation, and not to isolation — to united etVort, and not to divisions and hostile elTort — in what all have a common interest.* The elTorts to establish and extend Separate Schools, though often energetic and made at great sacrifice, are a struggle against the instincts of Canadian society, against the necessities of a .sparsely popu- lated country, against the social and political present and future interests of the parents and youth separated from their fellow citizens. It is not the Separate School law that renders such efforts so fitful, feeble and little successful ; their paralysis is caused by a higher than human law — the law of circumstances, the law of nature, the law of interest, if not the law of duty from parent to child. If, therefore, the present Separate School law is not to be maintained as a final settlement of the question, and if the legislature finds it necessary * The late Right Honourable Thomas Wyse, long a distinguished Roman Catholic Member of Parliament and educationist, and afterwaads Her Majesty's Minister to the Court of Greece, at Athens, wrote largely ou the universal educa- tion of the Irish people, and in favour of mixed schools, as essential to its attain- ment. In bit great work on Educational Reform, he thus speaka of a system of separate or denominational schools, and of the kind of instruction given in them. He says : " We grow Protestants, and we grow Catholics," " and degrade semi- naries for the universal mind of the country into rival garrisons of factiou." 28 to lc|rislate on tin; S«'|tftratc School (|u('stioii agtiiii, I pray that it will abolish the Soparate School law alto;r(.thfer ; atuj to this nM-oinmcndation I am forred, after hnving long used my best elTorts to maintain and givp the fnilcst and most liberal application to successive Separate School Acts and after twenty years' expcrienci ml- snperintendence of our Common School system. E. HYERSON. DEPAnTMENT OF PUTJF.IC INSTRUCTION, I I'oronto, February imh, 1865. j APPENDIX. CORRESPONDENCE ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIONS OF THE U. C. SCHOOL SYSTEM TO BOTH ROMAN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. (1.) (tv»py.) To the Rev. Dk. Ryerson, Chief Superintundont of Educjitioii, Toronto. Deak Sir, — I suppose you luive .scon the jirticlos in that nuHcrupuloiis paper, the Montreal Witness, on the subject of dissentient schools. I wish to know how the matter stands in Upi)or Canada : 1st. Can a non- resident Catholic pay his land school tax to the Separate School ? 2nd. Can ho be exempted altogether from taxation if there are no dissentient Bchools in the idunicipality where he is a land liolder / I see nothing to that efiect in the original school laws nor in the last ameudments ; biit as they have been so frequently amended, 1 want to make it sure by refer- ring to you . Your's sincerely, (Signed), P. J. O. CHAUVEAU. P.S. — We in Lower Canada are ])repared to grant dissentients anythiwj, since wo have the same interest. Tlieve is <»ic-fhlnl of Catholic and two- thirds of Protestant dissentient schools, but the Catholics are poorer. But you may expect the same things for Upper Canada. (2.) (Copy). Education Office, Toronto, 3rd May, 18(;4. Deau Sir, — 1 had not for months ivad the Montreal Witness before receiving your letter, mailed on the 22nd ultimo. Since then I liave read the articles to which you refer. 24 In Upper Canada two Roman Catholic Separate School Sections, or districts, can unite and form one United Section, or district, whether they are situated in the same municipality or not. Also, a Roman Catholic who gives the legal notice that he is a Roman Catholic and a supporter of a Separate School, is exempted from the pay- ment of all public school taxes or rates, provided he resides within three miles (in a direct line) of the school of which he professes to be a sup- porter, whether he resides within the section or district of such school or not ; but the property which he owns in other school sections or districts is liable to rates and "taxes for the public schools, whether there are Sepa- rate Schools in such sections or districts or not. The following explanatory remarks will exhibit the nature of the school system of Upper Canada in respect to diflferent religious persuasions : — 1. The public school in each section, or district or division, is strictly non- denominational — iiaving no symbols, or ceremonies, or instructions peculiar to any one religious persuasion, and to which any religious persuasion can object. The only exception to this is wherever the daily exercises, as in many of the schools, are opened and closed by reading a portion of the Scriptures, and prayer ; but this is at the option of the trustees and teachers, as also the version of the Scriptures and the prayers to be used ; and no pupils are required to be present at these exercises whose parents or guardians object to them. If the teacher hears any pupil recite a catechism it must be by private arrangement between the teacher and the parent or guardian of such pupil, and must not interfere with the regular exercises of the school. The school house is allowed to be used one hour each week between the hours of four and five in the afternoon, by the clergyman of each religious persuasion, to give catechetical or reli- gious iustruction to the pupils of his own persuasion, and the trustees determine the day on which the house sliall be used by each clergyman. In no instance yet have the clergymen of as many religioiis persuasions applied for the use of the same school house as there are teaching days in the week. In cities and towns tJiere are several rooms in each school house, as there are several rooms provided at the Normal School for weekly religious instruction being given to students by clergymen of the different religious persuasions. 2. The number of Roman Catholic teachers employed in the piiblic schools is far above that of the Baptists and Congregationalists, and only second to that of the Church of England, Methodists and Presbyterians. So acceptable are the public .«choo]s to tlie laity of the Roman Catholic Church, that more than three-fourths of tlieir school-going children attend the public schools, and less than one-fourth of them attend the Separate Schools, notwithstanding the exertions oi many of their clergy to induce them to establish and support Separate Schools. 3 Now it is for this minority of one-fourth of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada that the Separate Schools actually exist ; and all who desire under such circumstances to withdraw their children from the public schools, and have them taught in Separate Schools, are exempt from the payment of all public school rates in the sections or districts of such Separate Schools. 4. The principle of the school law in respect to school rates in Upper Canada is, that as the property in each school section or district derives its value chiefly, if not entirely, from the labours and enterprise of its inhabitants, such property should be liable for the education of the youth 25 whobo lalioiu's ill connection witli those of their parents, give it its value. If a portion of the inhabitants desire a Separate School for their children in any school section or district, or by uniting two or more school sections or districts into one, they can do so — have their property in -such sections or districts exempt from p\;blic school rates, and collect rates on it theui- selves for the support of their own school. 5. But the property of absodecs in any school sections or division^^ is liable to be rated for the support of the public sclwuls ; and that upon two grounds : First, the public schools are accessible upon t'l, i;\l terms to all classes of the population. Sccundly, the great majority of tlio Rdiaau Catholic children, as well as the children generally of other religious per- suasions, attend the public schools. (i. If the schools of the majority in Lower Canada are as impartial, liberal, and unobjectionable to the minority Jis are the schools of the majority in Upper Canada, then, it appears to me, that the only ineqxiality under which the minority there labour, is their not being able to unite in different school districts to establish and support one school for themselves. But if the schools of your majority are substantially llomau Catholic Church schools, having the symbols and the services, and publicly teaching the catechism and other religious books of the Roman Catholic Church, then, it appears to me that the schools of your minority (as they are not peculiar to anyone religioris persuasion) are more analogous to the schools of the majority in I'pper Canada than are the schools of your majority. On this point I have not the information, and do not profess to judge. I remain, (tc, (Signed) R RVf:RSOX. To the Ho>. P. .1. O. Chauvkav, Superintendont of Education, IVIontreal. pper 4"ives f its iuth (8.) ((>-.py). 8, OlADE Fl,ACK, Montreal, ]:ith Oct., 1«04. To the Ri;v. Dii. Rykiwo.n, Chief Superintendent of Education, C. W. Deah Sir, — I write yoii as corresponding sccrolaiy of the Awsociation for the Promotion and Protection of Protestant Education in Lower Canada to ask if you will be kind enough to send me a complete copy of the school laws of Upper Canada, and to inform us of the position and powers of the gentleman in the Education Office at Toronto who repre- sents the Roman Catholics of that Province. Wo propose to seek for Protestants in this section educational rights similar to those enjoyed by Roman Catholics in Canada West, and are thcrofore desirous to learn the manner in which the interests of the latter are represented in tlie e.stab- liBhmcnt under your direction. JU'lyiiiLi; on your kind oflices in thia matter, r am, it'c, (Signe.l), I). H. :.Ia( A'KWR. 26 (4.) (Copy). Education Okfick, Toronto, 17th Oct., 1864. Sir, — I have the honour to state, in reply to your letter of the 13th instant, that a copy each of tiie Common and Separate School Laws of Upper Canada will be transmitted to you herewith. You request me to inform you of the "position and powers of the gen- tleman in the Education Office at Toronto who represents the Roman Catholics of that Pro\'ince." In reply I have to state, that I myself repre- sent the Roman Catholics, as much as the Church of England, Presby- terians, or Methodists, in this Department, and administer the law according to the fair and liberal construction of its provisions, just aa much for the benefit, and i\a far as possible according to the wishes, of Roman Catholics, as for the benefit and according to the wishes of any other religious persuasion in Upper Canada. On^ clerk in the office is a Roman Catholic ; but he was not appointed as such, nor did I know of his religious persuasion any more than that of some other clerks at the time of their appointment ; he was appointed on trial of six months, and advanced according to vacancies and his merits, tlio same as any otlier clerk in the Department. I know no religious persuasion in the administration of the law ; nor have I ever made or recommended an appointment in the Department on the ground of the religious persuasion of the candidate, but simply and solely on the ground of personal qualification and character. I have, &c., (Signed), E. RYERSON. To the Rev. D. H. MacVicar, Montreal. \i 0' ;4. 13th rrs of gen- >man jpre- aby- law st aa sa, of any ) is a •w of bthe and >tl!er nor it on ' and N.