IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 £tttil2£ 1.1 l.'^''° 6" 1^ '/ HiGtographic Sdmces Carporation 33 WIST MAM STRHT VmSTni,N.Y. 14SM (716) •73-4503 '^^^V ^ ^J^^^ ^ ^ ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical MicroreproductionsV institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas ;V Ttchnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibiiographiquas Thac toth4 Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, aro ehackod baiow. □ Coiourad covars/ Couvartura do eoulaur pn Covars damagad/ D D D D D D n Couvartura andommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palliculAa r~n Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua Colour'ad maps/ Cartas giographiquaa an eoulaur Coiourad Ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da eoulaur {i.9. autra qua blaua ou noira) Coiourad platas and/or iliuatrations/ Pfanchas at/ou illustrations 1% eoulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rati* avac d'autras documants Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarier margin/ Laraliura sarrte paut causar da i'ombra ou da la diatorsion l« long da la marga intiriaura Blank laavas addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa hava baan omittad from filming/ 11 so paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutias lors d'una raatauration apparaissant dans la taxta. mala, lorsqua eaia itait possibla. eas pagaa n'ont paa «t« filmias. \3f L'Institut s microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a *t* possibla da sa procurar. Las details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-4tra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modif iar una image raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans la mAthoda normala da filmaga sont indiqute ci-dassous. p~] Coiourad pagas/ Pagaa da eoulaur Pagas damagad/ Pagas andommagias Pagas rastorad and/oi Pagas rastaurtos at/ou pallieulAas Pagas discolourad. stainad or foxai Pages dicoiortes, tachaties ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pagas ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prin Qualit* inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du matirial supplimentaira Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponible r~1 Pagas damaged/ pn Pagas restored and/or laminated/ r~Tp Pagas discoloured, stained or foxed/ r~n Pages detached/ r~X Showthrough/ p~| Quality of print varies/ r~] Includes supplementary material/ r~l Only edition available/ Thaii possi of thi filmii Origii bagir thak sion. othai first aion, or iili Thai shall TINU whic Mapi dlffai antin bagir right raqui math D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalament ou partiallement obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata. una peiure, etc.. ont iti fiimAes i nouveau de faqon i obtanir la mailleure image possible. Additional commanta:/ Commantairas supplAmantaires: Errata slip pasted in as last line on page 10. This item is filmed et tha reduction ratio checked balow/ Ca document eat film* au taux da rMuetion indiquA ci-dassous. 10X 14X leX 22X 26X »X ^ 12X 1«X 20X 24X 28X 32X TIm copy filmed h«r« has lM«n r«produe«d thanks to ths gsnsroslty of: L'oxsmplairs fllmi f ut raprodult grAca i la gAnirosIt* da: Mttropoltan Toronto Library CiiMdian History DaputniMit Tha Imagas appearing hara ara tha bast quality possible oonsldaring tha condition and legibility of tha original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Matropolltan Toronto Library Canadian Hittory Dapar t mant Las Imeges suhrentes ont AtA reprodultes evee le plus grsnd soln. compte tenu do la condition at do la nattetA do rexempleire fllmA, et en conformKA avac lee condKions du contrat da fllmage. Original copies In printed pa|9er covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the leat fiaga with a printed or Illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies ara filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or Illustrated Impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illuetratad Impression. The lest recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exempleires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sent flimAs en commenpant par le premier plat at en termlnant eolt per la darnlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'Impresslon ou d'lllustratlon, sdt par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous les eutres exempleires orlginaux sent flimAs en commenpant par la premlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'Impresslon ou d'lllustratlon at en termlnant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle emprelnte. Un dee symboles sulvants apparattra sur la darnlAre Image do cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols -^ signifle "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signifle "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre flimAs A dee taux da rAductlon diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grsnd pour Atre reproduit en un soul cHchA, II est fllmA A partir da I'angle supArleur gauche, do gauche A drolte. et de heut en bas. an prenent le nombre d'imagas nAcesseire. Les diagrammas sulvants lliustrent la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 s DI8I wn H THE QUESTION OF / SEPARATE SCHOOLS, DISCUSSED IN A SERIES OP LETTERS AND" OTHEft ARTICLES THAT APPEARED IN THE TORONTO MIRROR AND MONTREAL . TRUE WITNESS, IN CONSE- QUENCE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN i ' . - , . ' HIS LORDSHIP THE RIGHT REV. m. DECHARBONNEL, , BISHOP OF TORONTO, --"--■.■"'."' • ■:_. ^- -.■■■_:..■-.-■' - ,4 AND THE r WEV. BR. RYERSON, CHIBP SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR UPPER CANADA. WITH SOME STRICTURES ON A LETTER SIGNED « PETER PRAYER," PUBLISHED IN THE TORONTO GLOBE. TORONTO: PRINTED FOR THE COMPILER AT THE MIRROR OFFICE, CORNER OF KING AND NELSON STREETS. 1853. ^^■' ■'ifihi % -xe^ns^B if APR %\ ^^%i^ r -,•'? i INTRODUCTION. liAViNO mutuici/ considered and conscientiously weighed in my mind, the responsibility that is contracted by putting into circulation writings injurious to God's enactments, or prejudicial to the common weal, I do not intend to derogate in the least fiom the operations of the will of God, or invade the properties or disparage in the slightest manner the characters of my neighbours, in putting into the hands of my fellow countrymen some letters that appeared lately in the columns of the Mirror of this City, on the very important bnd vital question of education ; but in so doing I believe that I will acquit myself of a duty to God, that I will perform an act of justice to our Bishop and his flock, and I will be happy if this little work tend to rectify the unchristian and irreligious principles of our neighbours, on state education. I have lately seen published in the columns of the journals that advocate state schoolism — and not only in those of Canada, bat also in those of the United States, with the Globe, of this city at their head — with the most scurrilous comments, the correspondence that took place last year between his Lordship the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonel, and Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of the public schools of Upper Canada. I do not pretend that injustice has been done in giving publicity to that correspondence, but I assert that a gross insult has been offered to our Bishop and to us, by the journalists who have misrepresented his Lordship's principles and our claims for a Catholic system of education : — And moreover, I aver before all impartial men that he, the Doctor, did not directly answer or refute any of the Citholic principles which his Lordship laid down as the basis on which he, as a Catholic Bishop, in a free country, must have the Catholic youth educated. Thus his Lordship during his painful and laborious episcopal visits through his diocess was necessitated to conclude in saying — " Rev. Doctor, the conclusion of our correspondence must be that our opinions on separate schools are quite different. I hope that by making use of all constitutional means in order to obtain our right, I will not upset the government of Canada or its institutions." His Lordship perceived long ere he came to a conclusion that it was inn possible to keep the Superintendent to the Thesis, whether it was constitutional and just that the Catholics, who compose about half of the entire population of the Canadas, should have Separate Schools totally independent of Protestant control or not 1 Or in other words, that the Catholics of Upper Canada, who compose the minority of the population would be placed on the same footing with their neighbours, the Protestants of Lower Canada, who are in a minority. When his Lordship found he could not elicit from the Doctor a k>gical and straightforward answer to these propositions, he protested against the Doctor's personalities and insinuations es unworthy of his consideration, and said—" All my intercourse with you and the Council of Public Instruction, has been polite and Christian and sometimes tolerant to an extent that I have been required to justify." Thus we may easily understand the painful position of his Lordship then, as it now is. An anti-Catholic Superintendent and sectarian municipalities on one side — his own conscience, the demands of his flock, with the Divine principles and the conscientious convictions of the entire Catholic Church on the other. The last scruples, as the Dr. denominates them, and wishing to avoid them as formidable obstacles to the propagation of his Metbodistical principles, he attributes, to his Lordship's French ideas and continental customs. In refutation of this assertioo, and in vindication of the Bishop's arguments, and to prove that these principlus are not foreign, or of thfl Right Rev. Dr, de Charbonnel's device, but Wiat they are as ancient as the Apostles themselves I •nd hare been «• univerMl in all agei of the Church, at the doctrine or Chriat's Church hu been eitendedi throughout the world. I submit the firkt eight lettera of this Pamphlet, for the peruMi of the reader, whichi have been written by one of our citizena, for a fuller developement of hia Lordship's principles, and for the instruction of the faithful of this dioccss who cannot participate immediatelj in hit Lordship's admonitions., Moreover the reader will find in these letters the fundamental basis of paternal obligations in the formation of Christian religion ; and a high exposition of the much vaunted prerogative " religious liberty ;" that it i consists not in libertinism or 'icentiousness of opinion, or in other words, of every man interpreting the I Christian code as he pleases . but that ii is found in Christian souls which submit to the one and true ! interpretation of the law, rather than to make the law subservient to themselves. The 9th letter of this ! pamphlet is written by a gentleman of London, C. W., a man really experienced in the educational system : I recommend this letter to those of my readers who desire to be initiated in the Doctor's diplomatic lacultiea j in collecting heterogeneous ideas to form and support his present school system, and to those who wish to ! understand the sophistry and guile of the Doctor accompanied with insult, if opposed in carrying out his | anti-Catholic principles, as occurred lately in London. The 10th letter is very interesting, written by a « correspondent of the True Witness, directed to the Doctor himself. It protests against the Doctor assuming the name of " Patriot ;" and it fully demonstrates that the same hypocrisy and inconsistency exist in the ' correspondence as that with which the Doctor varnished his defence of Lord Metcalfe. The gentleman \ that wiote the 10th, as well as the talented writer of the 9th. prove that there is no similitude in principle or practice between the Irish and the Doctor's system of educaiton. To complete this pamphlet I have adjoined to the preceding letters four articles, two from the True Witness, and two from the Mirror of this City. For me to speak of these powerful arguments for the organization of a Catholic system of education or to recommend their usefulness to the reader, would be only losing my time, and disparaging the renown of these well established journals. However I must make an allusion to the second of the HirrorU, for it is not immediately on the educational question, but in refutation of a pedantic letter of an individual called ** Peter Prayer," to which subject half of the sixth letter of a citizen is devoted. The vindication of a righteous cause is the sole object of this publication, as I have no personal interest in submitting it to the earnest and attentive consideration of the reader. THE COMPILER. Toronto, March, 1853. ! f I 'ili >i . .,-:i : hr«t'. Church hu bten txuiid«| r the peruMi of the reader, which -ord«hip'i principlee, and for the 1 in hit Lordihip'e admonitiona. rnal obligationa in the fonnaticn tive " religiouB Jiberty ;»' that it of every man interpreting the >ich submit to the one and true naelvea. The 9th letter of thia (need in the educational syaiem e Doctor'a diplomatic (acuities em, and to those who wish to if opposed in carrying out his very interesting, written by a rs against the Doctor anuming and inconsistency exist in the rd Metcalfe. The gentleman re 13 no similitude in principle omplete this pamphlet I have d two from the Mirror of this Catholic system of education .and disparaging the renown \ lecond of the Jfirror's, for it letter of an individual called It u I have no personal interest THE COMPILER. CORRESPONDENCE or THE RIGHT REVEREND Dr. DeCHARBONNEL WITH DR. RYERSO^» •CPIRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION OF UPPER CANADA. LETTER No. I. [for the TORONTO MIRROR.] All sublunary things are changeable; the climate changes; politicians change in their politics and opinions ; bat truth is unchangeable ior God changes not ; and as all truth emanates from God, therefore it is as immutatble as God himself. Now, admitting the principles of true religion to be revealed truths, as I expect our christian contemporaries ■will, then they cannot change. Therefore, it is with much surprise we perceive in the paltry, infamous and anti- Catholic columns of the two last issues of the Globe, the correspondence that took place in the first part of this year, between his Lordship Dr. de Charbonnel, Bishop of this city, and Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education of Upper Canada. T feel sick at the bombastic language used by the editor of that vile paper, the Globe, p/.A-'iiming triumph for Dr: Ryerson. Let us only consider first the position of the Right Rev. Bishop with that of Dr. Ryerson. His Lordship was on his pastoral mission, fulfilling the painful, but sublime duty of an apostle, feeding the little ones of Jesus Christ, and collecting the strayed sheep back to the one and safe sheep-fold, (in imitation of his Divine Master, who went around doing good to all); and thus our apostolic Bishop, in his correspondence with Dr. Ryerson, sought not the elegance of words, but the fundamental christian and Catholic principles which have confounded, and will confound Dr. Ryerson's sophistry inperpetuum, or, at least, before all men endued with christian Catholic judgment. Secondly, let us consider Dr. Ryerson in this correspondence. His Reverence is in his cabinet, he hears a knock at the door ; the post is arrived ; tiie messenger presents him a letter — it is from the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel. He reads it — he finds it breathes the most apostolic and christian spirit, and its dictation emanates from a noble and very exalted mind. He pauses— he reads it over again — he is more confused ; he looks at the splendour of his place — he considers his large salary, and exclaims — « What ! this Frenchman is going to rob me of all ;" then he turns to his Puritanical Theology, and says, « I will defeat him." But how does Dr. Ryerson defend his system and protect his lucrative employment against the powerful and indisputable principles of Catholicity laid down by the Right l^v. Bishop de Charbonnel] He sophistically appeals to the feelings of the people, by exciting their passions in introducing into his correspondence national prejudices against our much honoured and very venerated Prelate, because he is a Fienchman, and travelled the Continent of Europe, and as such we ought not to join him in his great and glorious warfare against ungodly education in behalf of our dear children. But Dr. Ryerson is much deceived in Jhis puritanical sophistry, when be pretends to sever the Catholic heart from its Prelate. m I Yes, for the same religious piinciples— one Faitli, uuu ouepiierd, one sheep-fold, which united the Irish hearts of old to St. Patrick, a Frenchman, now unite them to Bishop do Charbonnel as first pastor of this diocess, and successor to St. Patrick in this part of tho flheep-fuld. Dr. Ryerson wishes to prove the iramutahility of his school system and its infallibility in accomplishing its ends, because it is ten years enacted and yet existing, as if an unjust law yet remaining tho same would become just after ten years existence, and because every poor countrymau is not addressing formal petitions to his office to have it abrogated on account of its evil tendencies. Yet there is nothing more common than to hear entire localities complain of that system of education, and sooner or later, but perhaps too lato, they will find their children imbued with heretical principles, therefore, every Catholic, with our worthy Bishop, should protest against that system, and have it repealed as soon as possible. This is not only my opinion, but it is the general one that pervades the different ranks of Catholic Society in this city, and not only here, but it is geneml. Mr. Editor, in your next issue I will treat more largely on the motives which Dr. Ryerson has in his correspondence for the present school system, and also on the obligation the Bishop is under to stand firmly to his principles. Yours, / A CITIZEN. LETTER No. II. [for the TORONTO MIRROR.] Mr. Editor, — I promised, in your last issue, that I would treat more largely on the motives which Dr. Ryerson laid down in his correspondence with the Right Rev. Bishop de Charbonnel on Education, as puissant reasons for the perpetuation of the present system of Staie-Schoolism. But first I will propose this query to Dr. Ryerson, and to the advocates of the present system : Are we in a country where men can adore iheir God with free consciences, and educate their children according to the tenets of their religion? Dr. Ryerson will answer yes; this is a country where all denominations are tolerated: there are no penal statutes in force here; we are under a liberal government composed of christians of different denominations; gentlemen of liberal principles, desirous of peace and harmony, progress and protection, for all their constituents. Mr. Editor you understand this sort of language, and it is thus Dr. Ryerson afilkbly and piously pacifies country-men and even citizens of the highest class when they approach his dignified person, with complaints of the present School system ; but I hope that oiir fellow citizens and country-men. Catholics, and other denominations who seek to establish separate schools on the same footing with Common Schools, will not forget the motives laid down by the Superintendent in his correspondence, to prevent them. He suggests, if his Lordship would persevere in seeking separate schools and thus attack his high-handed gubernatorial system, that all the Catholic teachers now employed in mixed or common schools would be expelled, and I suppose branded with the stigma of Popery, and thus rendered disqualified to teach. Mr. Editor, do you not perceive the tenor of his argument 1 Do you not understand this fulgent motive which the Doctor has learned from his puritanical theology, to intimidate our worthy Bishop from making his just demands to have the separate schools established on an equal basis in regard of school funds with the common or mixed schools. And is not all this a disguised persecution f Is not this to imitate Nero, the author of the first persecution against the christians 1 This blood-thirsty emperor, because th« christians would not bow down to the statues of his state religion and educate their children according to his way of thinking, planned and put into operation the burning of ancient Rome, and then persecuted the christians as notorious incendiaries, for he took care to accuse them of it. Now, Mr. Editor, is there not some parity between the inventionsandplansof the School System and those of Nero? But the position of Dr. Ryerson, on behalf of the Catholics is more extravagant and cruel than his, for Dr. Ryerson is only ** Jack in office," appointed thereto to render justice to all classes of society in distributing the school funds, to adopt the most efficient means to ' ?"/ «''«eKoId, which nite them to Bishop do trick in this part of tho ';,*\hool system and its acted and yet existing, ' J"st after ten yeara lormai petitions to his t there js nothing more diication, and sooner or ith heretical principles, gainst that system/and pervades the different ^neial. Mr. Editor, in 'I"; Ryerson has in his 'iigation the Bishop is A CITIZEN. more largely on the e Hight Bev. Bishop ofthe present system Ryerson, and to the tan adore their God ets of their religion ? Uionsare tolerated: 'ernment composed s, desiroMs of peace Mr. Editor yon and piously pacifies iroach his dignified our fellow citizens establish separate motives laid down ' e schools and thus lers now employed with the stigma of » not perceive the ch the Doctor has from making his J regard of school i persecution? Is christians ? This he statues of hig '"g, planned and the christians as Editor, is there a those of Nero? 'agaiit and cruel ender justice to icient meaqs to instruct the poor as well as well as the rich, and to grant separate schools to parties who apply lor them according to law. But how can these separate schools flourish which are permitted by the Government imless the law protect them? But the present school act, with its actual interpreters, do not protect them as it does the common schools ; therefore, it is defective in itself or in its interpreters, and we do not pretend it is defective in itself since it sanctions their existence ; and it is evident that the framers of tho school act were experienced men, and I suppose christians, therefore they provided for the education of the poor, but as a great majority of the Roman Catholics in this city, as elsewhere through Ihe diocess, are poorer than their Protestant neighbours, as Dr. Ryerson remarks in bis correspondence, then they must be the chief objects for whom the legislators made the liberal provision ; and as the legislators of Canada, as well as those of other countries, know right well that it is an anti-Catholic principle to force Catholic children into schools of indifierentism, or where they will not learn the principles of their religion, and to serve God while learning the other sciences. For them especially there are granted separate schools, that no class of her Majesty's faithful subjects would be deprived of tho enlightenment which education affords to the human mind. Now if the school act bears this interpretation, as very learned lawyers assert and as common sense dictates, and as every just and impartial ra^n believes, then the interpreters that interpret the law as Dr. Ryerson, must be regarded by every Catholic as persecutors of his Faith, suppressors of his religion, and invaders of his property in taxing him for schools to which he cannot conscientiously send his children. For my part, I look on such interpreters as tyrannical and cruel in their regard to us, as Nero was to our ancestors in the Faith. Did not the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel then give the true appellation to the state school system — "disguised persecution?" Has he not imitated in his courage and noble conduct the valiant Matthias, who said to his sons on a similar occasion : " Oh my sons ; be be ye zealous fur the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers." The Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel was, and is yet convinced, that the Catholic parents are animated with the same principle as Matthias, and prefer to see their children fall by the sword, or sufier on the scaffold, for their religion, than to see them frequent schools where their divine faith would be in immediate danger. Dr. Ryerson, and all the advocates of the present system, know very well the same thing, yet they persevere in their tyrannical and unjust interpretation, and make it the cause of the expulsion of all the Catholic teachers, when his Lordship demands justice for his people, and acquits himself of the duty imposed on him by the Divine law. And if Dr. de Charbonnel continue to demand his rights, Dr. Ryerson threatens him with a general persecution, for he* says : " A separation will soon commence to take place between the two parties of the community in other relations and employments." I suppose he means here that all poor Catholics employed by their Protestant brethern will also be expelled, because members of the CiathoUc Church demand their just proportion of the school fund, and do not acknowledge his interpretation of the law. Oh, Dr. Ryerson! is this Christianity or tyranny? Js this religious equality or bigotry ! It is real tyranny, pure bigotry, and downright persecution, when suggested as motives to prevent the Bishop from exercising his Divine mission in directing the education of the flock committed to his charge and to compel his Lordship to prefer the interest of the things of this world to the interest of religion and ofthe souls committed to his care, and thus to the interest of God. Yours, • i .-', ,:■ i\i^^ A CITIZEN. ';;/■'■» i-fc LETTER No. UI. • ' " "" [for THE TORONTO MIRROR.J ' ' Mr. Editor, — In the last two issues of your very valuable paper I endeavoured to demonstrate to the numeirous readers of the Mirror the sophistry, and very weak arguments yet tending much to religious persecution, laid down by Dr. Ryerson in the fifth letter of 8 the correspondence between him and the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel, on the important ■ubject of State Educutiuii ; but leaving that letter lor the present, fur I intend to revert tu it again, I now desire to direct the attention ofall our neighbours, to the 8th letter, who seek to establish Separate Schools on the very same basis, iu regard to pecuniary privileges, with the Common Schools. In this letter wo find the paramount cant of ex-Methodist preachers, which Dr. Ryerson makes the basis of State Schoolism. He says: ''For as Jehovah does not outhorize any one human being to lord it over the faith of another human being but makes every man jiersonally accountable, and, therefore, gives him an equal right with every other man to judge and act for himself in the matters of his eternal salvation." Catholics I beg to call your attention to this bold anti-Catholic assertion of the Superintendent. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Church of England, you who are so liberal lu your contributions to the funds employed to send out missionaries to convert other nations to your Faith, what do you think of this puritanical doctrine? Christians of all denominations, I appeal to your judgment — for the fact that you are christians and appertainiug to some christian sect, refutes the Doctorts assertion and proves my argument : that, as human beings you are lorded over by other human beings, since you prefer the doctrines of Luther and Calvin and the entire troupe of religious innovators to the ancient doctrine, you have been lorded over by them ; since you prefer one sect. to another, the founder of that sect or its supporters lord over you ; since you prefer Sectarianism to Catholicity you are vassals of these sects instead of being vassals of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that I should make much reference to the Holy Scriptures to prove what I say, therefore I will confine myself to make some remarks on our present society. The zeal, the voluntary sacrifices of precious time and of hard eari^ed money, made by the members of one and all of the different sects, in this country as well as elsewhere, to proselytize fellow christians, prove that they wish to lord over one another, and that they are lorded over more by the interpretation of the word of God given by the founders of their sects, than they are by the word of God itself; therefore loided over more by human beings than by God himself. This fanaticism amongst Protestant sects, has always been the subject of sorrow and chagrin to all men endued with christian principles; but perhaps, Dr. Ryerson and his co-operates are going to prepare the way of the Lord, to make straight his paths, to fill up all the deep valleys, to bring low every mountain and hill, and to make the rough ways plain " by his State Schoolism, at least it appears so from his high and imperious assertions to the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel ; for he says, " I feel that I am not exceeding my duty in speaking plainly nnd strongly on this point since the educational interests of all classes have been entrusted to mt care, and I am bound, by official as well as christian and patriotic considerations, to do all in my power to prevent any single child in Upper Canada, from growing up in ignorance in our free country." Mr. Editor, this is high-sounding language. Do you understand himi He says, *< our free country," but if it be free we Catholics should be free to have our Separate Schools, and to educate our children according to the tenets of our doctrine, and the government should assist us by apportioning its money according to the average attendance of our schools ; but what am I saying ? Does not Dr. Ryerson, the superintendent, assert that the educational interests ofall classes have been entrusted to his care / and thus exempts their Lordships the Bishops of the Catholic and English Churches from the painful duty of directing the education of the children of their si^ecial flocks. But has Dr. Ryerson, in hi& present position of dictator of education, smoothed down all the rough paths ? Has he levelled all the mountains? Has he filled all the valleys of public opinion with regard to faith and morals 1 No ! And to prove it I will cite facts, (one of which is better than a thousand assertions with which his correspondence abounds.) There is no people more desirous of union between all christians than we are : no people who sympathize more for the errors of men than we do. But of two evils we are bound to choose the less, it may be an evil in the eyes of Dr. Ryerson and his co-operators that all the religionists of Upper Canada do not coincide with them and approve of their school system; but that evil is very trifling when compared with the inefiable evils that are engendered in the human mmd by that system, for it proscribes all practice of christian principles in schools, where twnnel, on the important !, lor I intend to revert », to the 8th letter, who to pecuniary priviieget, preachers, which Dr. as Jehovah does not uman heing but niakei jqual right with every salvation." Catholic* •f the Superintendent, re so liberal in your convert other nations I? Christians ot all ou are christians and rtion and proves my nan beings, since yo« •eligious innovators to you prefer one sect, to u ; since you prefer a of being vassals of uch reference to the make some remarks us time and of hard sects, in this country wish to lord over one of the word of God God itself J therefore ubject of sorrow and )r. Ryerson and his It his paths, to fill up lake the rough ways imperious assertions 1 not exceeding my ional interests of all as well as christian ngle child in Upper VIr. Editor, this is ee country," but if and to educate our should assist us by Dols ; but what am iucational interests leir Lordships the r of directing the on, in hi& present las he levelled all igard to faith and r than a thousand 3 more desirous of nore for the errors it may be an evil of Upper Canada that evil is very the human mmd I 8choolS| where children should be nurtured with tho sentiments of piety, and thus weaken divine laith in their tender souls. Hence originates indifferentism, to which infidelity immediately succeeds, and which becomes the characteristic of tho youth educated in such schools. But without faitli we cannot please God ; and you see, Mr. Editor, that this system tends powerfully to destroy Divine Faith, therefore, it tends to the greatest of all evil. It ia from a full conviction of this fundamental truth that the members of the English Chureh here rise up en masse to protest against that system, and to tiansmit to their [xwterity the faith they received from their fathers, and by doing so they refute the Methodist cant that Jehovah authorizes no ono to direct and protect others in their faith. And what corroborates this doctrino very much in view of n mixed people, is the testimony given by Local Superintendents of the effects produced by tho present school system ; gentlemen whose interests are identified with the system ; yet their conscience and religious principles oblige them to promulgate in their annual reports its deficiency as a public system of Education to form Christian youths. For us. Catholics, we believe that parents are obliged to wotch over the faith and religious education of their children, and we believe the pastors of our church are in duty bound, as St. Paul, to pronounce an anathema against themselves if they did not instruct their flocks ; and, moreover, we believo that the charge St. Paul gave to Timothy before God, is applicable to them," Preach the word, bo instant in season, out of season, reprove, entreat, rebuke in nil patience of doctrine ; for there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine." (And I believe. Doctor, that the time is come, and you are one of the persons to whom St. Paul alliulos.) This, Mr. Editor, is a brief piofession of oui practical fnith, in regard of the paternal and pastoral care bestowed on the eduction of our children: and I say now, with the Right Rev. Dr.de Charbon.ir', be the. '^rev!?n»« us from educating our children in these christian principles in wparate schools w^heu possible and according to the laws of this Province, and does not assist us with a just apportionment of the public funds according to our average attendance of children is a persecutor of our Faith. Yours, A CITIZEN. LETTER No. IV. ■* ■ ■ . [for THB TORONTO MIRROR.] . Mr. Editor,— I presume once more on your kindness to give insertion to these few lines in the columns of the Mirror, which contain nothing more than an exposition of the principles laid down in your last issue : the reciprocal duty of parents and pastors in the education of children, and establishing them firmly m the principles of Divine Faith.— For St. Paul, when writing to his beloved disciple Timothy on an occasion like the present, said, ** If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Now, I will appeal to all endued with christian discernment and impartial judgment, if the Catholics in general in this Province are placed in a position to teach and inculcate the principles of their religion in their children's minds, except they are assisted by religious training in their schoolf. But does not Dr. Ryerson assert that there •< is no interference with the religion of the childrenof mixed schools." We must all applaud that system for the localities where there cannot be but mixed schools ; but that should not be an excuse or motive for parents to send their children to mixed when there are or can be separate schools ; for it is a recognized truth that the mixed system leads to indiSerentism, " And if any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he hath denied his faith, and it worse than an infidel." And notwithstanding this inefiable precept does not Dr. Ryerson inform us in his correspondence with the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel " that the only Catholic member of the Legislative Assembly elected in Upper Canada has repeatedly declared himself opposed to the very principle of separate schools." (Letter 5.) To this I may add, yet he remains a solid and practical Catholic, and at the same time and against the same authority, I may say in the proverbial phrase, 4kere never nas been a 3 ^1 If I < lit ' ! 1 10 'liattle, no matter how disastrous it might have been, ftom which some one did not escape ; ti but if we were to scrutinize the origin of this gentleman's principles on state schoolism, we would find it emanates from the effects of mixed schools and mixed religious principles; therefore, instead of being an argument against his Lordship, it is much in '.his favour, at least in the minds of all men of sound judgment and christian discernment. And what yet weakens more Dr. Eyerson's arguments in the judgment of all Catholics i t 'and men of principle, is another proof which he adduces of the general approbation of his i present school system, — "that the only County Municipal Council in Upper Canada, in t which tho majority of the members are Boman Catholic, has adopted resolutions against 1 1 the section of the School Act which permits the establishment of separate schoois.**| pi Now, Mr. Editor; Dr. Ryerson must be grossly ignorant of Catholicity, and of thisict fundamental principle which animates and directs the Catholic Church in her faith and! t1 discipline, for since St. Peter presided over the first Council in Jerusalem, it was never! o] heard of, as a principle to preserve fuith and discipline, that a Municipal Council would ' I adopt resolutions without the consent and approbation of their pastors, for Cn^holics o believe that if they hear the pastors of their Church they will hear Christ, and if they ^ i despise their pastors they will despise Christ, and it is certain, that if these gentlemen have done so, it was through ignorance of the consequences, or they were induced thereto by the suggestions of their enemies, or that they found mixed schools not to be dangerous jn their localities, and in proof of what I assert, if their clergy accused them of being | fr abettors of a dangerous system of education, they would instantly tender their recanta- tion. This, as well as all I have hitherto said, makes us consider Dr. Eyerson, and the plans by which he carries out his system, to be the most refined, hypocritical, and disguised form of persecution, and especially when he speaks of the Muni- cipal authorities in general, and accuses the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel of invading these prerogatives. If a legislature promulgate a law equally favourable to the Catholics as to other denominations, and advantageous to the poor of all denominations, as we must suppose the liberal and philanthropic legislators of the 19th century will do, if they have not done so; in either ca&e, if they have done so, it was and it is the duty of his Lordship to extort from hypocritical and intriguing municipalities the rights of his people — for what is the duty of a municipality 1 Is it not to render justice in their different functions to all classes of citizens within the municipal district. But, according to Dr. Ryerson's philanthropic system, a municipality, if its majority be infidels who attained that position by tntrigus and bribery, then all the faithful must swallow down infidelity in large doses; or, if its majority be composed of ranting ,exTmethodist preachers, then all the other denominations must assist them to build godless .'school-houses, from which they cannot reap any advantage, or to which they cannot send Itbieiir children, except they will trample on their consciences, violate their religious principles, and make void their faith. If this is the blessed fruit of religious liberty and eqiial rights of which Dr. Ryerson so much boasts in his correspondence — if this is the ,result of municipal functions which the Doctor wishes to be regarded by all men as sacred, jtheiy ought to be long since in the grave, where the Doctor pretends they will be if the jmunicipalities act justly in apportioning equally the funds raised from the general taxation ,and the government money to the separate schools, and thus fulfil the end of all wise legislators, just interpreters, and benevolent municipalities. Mr. Editor, you are not jlgnorant of the drift of the Doctor's sophistry in making his appeal to the municipalities; 4t is to arrange them as so many sentinels, to augment his tyranny, to increase th^ .prgans of religious persecution, to protect himself in his anti-Catholic and anti-religious jint^rpretation of the School Act, and in fine to retain him in office as the little puritanical persecutor of the 19th century. But I expect all just men, of a patriotic and christian will, .will i]allv together, fight constitutionally, and withstand all opposition courageously, until leli^ons liberty and equal rights be established in the true sense of these words. ^; • But, Mr, Editor, why have 1 occupied so much space of your valuable paper with 4he munioipolrties, when Dr. Ryerson in his correspondence has other arrangements much idnorp seripu^l for he arranges ecclesistical authority against itself; he says the Bishop of poston does not request separate schools, therefore, the Bishop of Toronto ought not. ^hia motiva «(j|fggg|djj|y the Doctor as an all-powerful reason not to denwad separate sohcols leads me to make a few more remarks on the absolute necessity our Bishop has rse cc b5 g« th G dt ^1 ai tl tl b ii e 8 I C 1 I some one did not escape ; iciples on state schoolism, ools and mixed religious lis Lordship, it is much in ind christian discernment.) judgment of ail Catholicsj general approbation of his ncil in Upper Canada, in dopted resolutions against ent of separate schools." Catholicity, and of this i Church in her faith and I Jerusalem, it was never Municipal Council would 3ir pastors, for Cn^holics hear Christ, and if they that if these gentlemen ley were induced thereto hools not to be dangerous accused them of being itly tender their recanta- isider Dr. Ryerson, and ost refined, hypocritical, ' 5 speaks of the Muni- Dr. de Charbonnel of j law equally favourable ous to the poor of all c legislators of the 19th ey have done so, it was intriguing municipalities ty ? Is it not to render n the municipal district, ality, if its majority be n ail the faithful must B compsed of ranting St them to build godless vhioh they cannot send violate their religious of religious liberty and dence— if this is the by all men as sacred, nds they will be if the m the general taxation il the end of all wise Editor, you are not to the mnnicipalities; inny, to increase th^ :>lic and anti-religious s the little puritanical >tic and christian will, n courageously, until hese words. • valuable paper with r arrangements much le says the Bishop of Toronto ought not. ' to demcad semrate issity our Bishop hwi 11 to establish them. It is known to us all that the diocese of Boston is one of the most ancient and best established in the States? Catholicity there i^ fully developed, the lines of demarcation V>etween it and sectarianism are really discernible, therefore, the worthy Bishop of that diocese need not be in anxiety for the religious formation of the youth. But, as I have said in the commencement of this article the position of our religion is not the same here, for a great majority of the Catholics are poor and living by their industry in the employment of their rich Protestant neighbours, and thus prevented from instructing their children in their religion at home ; and a great number of the parents here thongh they were richer, and residing in their families, could not instruct their children in the principles of the Catholic religion in the English language, with which they are very little conversant, as they speak in general in their families, the Celtic language ; and again, the places of Divine Worship here are fewor, and the clergy much rarer, therefore, the opportunities much less to instruct youth: even in this City if the Catholic children do not learn the fundamental principles of their religion while in school they will never have an opportunity to do so ; being sent to employment when about fourteen years old, when they meet with youths of other denominations who despise their tenets and make a mockery of all religion ; they easily imbibe their principles and becorne irreligious, dangerous to society, ruinous to themselves and to their families, and abominable to God, as is to be seen every day in this City. Therefore, to prevent the occurrence of these frightful disasters to our dear children, parents let us join heart and hand to have the isep4rate schools established on the same basis with the common schools. ,.'!,; r->, . : ,:- ^.. '■ Yours, ■ •" •''*:'» ,,,.,.,,/. ■ . r! >.-• A CITIZEN.-'^'-*^^ ■; • ' - • •■■■ ■•■ . • m — ^— ' ' -' ..>;.-.ii:!»iq ■■■■-'^ LETTER No. V. ^ ■ r'.'.^'ZSm [for the TORONTO MIRROR.] ; ^ .^;i: ',^]\a Mr. Editor, — While writing a letter in your last issue, I thought I was going to conclude my just and impartial remarks on the correspondence between his Lordship the Right Rev. Dr. de Charbonnel and Dr. Ryerson ; but since that time I have been favored by a friend with a printed Copy of the correspondence, which contains the letters of other gentlemen to the Doctor on the same subjeet. My immediate conclusion was not formed through a lack of matter for exposition of what was published lately in the columns of tlie Globe', for all the reasons given, all the motives suggested, and all the arguments laid down by Dr. Ryerson in that paper against his Lordship, in support of dtrrying out his present system, are objectionable to us, and should be warred against (and I expect that all our good clergymen and our compatriots, Catholic and Christian parents, will arrange themselves constitutionally at the head of their respective flocks to resist the same,) e:xcept the system of non-interference in mixed schools, in localities where separate schools cannot be established. I think I have sufficiently 11 I tl I tion is, that the Catholic idy in whatever college itfc of other Christian ghts. and without per- J'ould be at liberty to id most convenient, for erson may now ask me ^pper Canada? of their rihat, in that petition, irch and its Prelates in ?ions liberty and equal fious libeity and equal imunity can send their ley find it to be most lense from the govern- 1 rights. Mr. Editor, irit which destroys the I Prussia, for I do not Jbernationofthe state t that it IS more tyran- lystem of education of , iir children to foreign ( iges the Catholics of rpretation, and, as he equal rights! In the re continually flowing > is but one God, one )ne Holy Ghost, who :ate the doctrines of ristian code, whether. ■ime of the Apostles, raent of Christianity, e Holy Ghost, I may liberty, did St. Paul, . if they enjoyed it, rpreted or preached ijoy religious liberty, first century enjoyed ostles, and being all of perfect charity ? )se speech spreadeth ipwreck concerning , that he may learn lat these three last iommencement the Satan. Otherwise ps, he will sophisti- swe find recorded in the true sense of I'hich true religion sacred code ; never liberty, if we are wish to know how i'irst, we all agree manating from one I whosoever taught >le which the new> i ! 15 apostles advocate, makes religioos liberty consist in the interpretation of the Cbnatiati code according to each man's will. Thus we may see what has been the cause of damnation to Hymeneus and Philetus has now become the basis of religious liberty to the over proud evangelists. If this libertinism be the basis of your religious liberty, it is precisely for that that the Chuich has given, in the first century, the innovators of religion to the devil. And it would be absurd to assert that the high minded and divinely inspired Paul would deliver a fellow creature to Satan for lawful religious liberties ; but it is evident that Paul has thus treated his fellow creatures and even his fellow lahonrers when they erred concerning faith, and assumed that licentiousness of opinion which is now called religious liberty ; therefore, that is not religious liberty but an abuse of liberty in the interpretation of the Christian code. Mr. Editor, I have proceeded so far in proving that there is no religious liberty in error, but the abuse of liberty, and from which I will demonstrate in another letter, that there is no religious liberty in Prussia, nor very much in Upper Canada. At present I am in duty bound, as a citizen, to make a few remarks on a letter that I have seen to-day in the columns of the Globe. That paper has always been filthy, but the issue of last Saturday is abominably so, by a letter of an individual called Peter Prayer. That there is such a wretch is a matter of doubt ; therefore, I will not speak of him, but I will refute his assertions, and vindicate the principles laid down in this letter, from what he calls tyranny and monopoly. The great topic of Peter's epistle is, that the Bishops of Upper and Lower Canada have been empowered by virtue of a Rescript from his Holiness Pope Pius 9th, to demand the tenth part of the revenues oi the Clergy of their respective dioceses. Now, Mr. Editor, what in the world is more just than that Prelates should have it in their power to call upon the rich Parish Priests to assist the poor ones when they find it necessary ; and, since they are accountable ia conscience to God inasmuch as depends on them to provide the means of salvation for the poor as well as for the rich, and in so doing they put into practice that which is so much spoken of— religious equality and equal rights. Now, I will ask our friend Peter, does he imagine the clergyman enjoyed religious liberty from whom his Grace the Archbishop oi Quebec received the round sum ef jS18,000, left to his Lordship by testament? Peter will respond to this query negatively, for Peter is not ignorant of religious liberty ; he knows it consists in loving God above all things? But did this man, the anointed of the Lord, love his Creator above all earthly things? It is a matter of doubt, but we expect he did before he winged his course from this valley of tears. I Said it was a matter of doubt " For where the treasure is, there is the heart also." — Matt. c. 6, t;. 21* It is evident he had a great earthly treasure, and I have heard from several clergymen that the parish in which he resided was extremely poor ; that his church was wretched in appearance, and that the altar was without ornaments. I beg now of Peter, and hit associate the Cr/o6e-man, not to dare to intrude their unhallowed hands and their blasphe- mous tongues within the precincts of our holy edifice. For this one case which the impudent and unchristian Peter suggests in his pedantic epistle as a sufilcient means of support for the Archpishop, was a motive very obligatory to force his Grace to be fully initiated in the revenues of his Clergy, in order to fulfil these two paramount duties of a Bishop: first, to be empowered to exhort them to love God more than earthly treasures, and thus put them in a state to enjoy religious liberty ; second, to oblige the rich to furnish their churches, and to take from them proportionally (according to the rescript) to assist the poor missions, and thus acquit himself before all of the much desired blessing — equal rights. So much for the diocese of Quebec, since Peter pronounces that his Grace has acquitted himself of his duty. But he wishes he could say the same of all the other Bishops. I suppose he alludes here to his Grace's neighbour, the Bishop of Montreal. Ardent charity, and the character of his Lordship Dr. Bourget, are synomymous terms ; forme, then, Mr. Editor, to comment on his far-famed reputation would be only losing time and wasting your valuable paper. All I can do is to call on the thousands of our Irish scattered through the Canadas, to give testimony of his zeal, piety, and generosity, and especially to those who were afflicted with the typhus fever in the sheds of Montreal, to whose spiritual and temporal wants he administered night and day, when the brave Peter and his associate the Globe-mAn would fiy like hireUngs. But I am digressing ; for, Peter says he is monkish, therefore he must be uncharitable. The questions are why did I 16 he demand the rescript?— what need had he for it when he could build such a spldndid" Palace? — and from whence came the funds to build it? To the first two questions- my answer is, what obliged his Grace the Archbishop of Quebec has also necessitated him. To the question respecting the funds, my answer is that they were formed by the voluntary contributions of the Parish Priests, and the charitable donations of the Catholic citizens of Montreal, who, in conjimction with the entire body of the Clergy, requested his Lordship to permit them to build him a Palace worthy of him and them, (which proves they enjoy religious liberty in its true sense, and desire to distribute equal rights according to the ordinance of God,) and thus were raised the massive columns and bas-reliefs of his Lordship^s Palace in Montreal. Peter appears (o have friends in Kingston ; he does not treat much on its extravagancy, saving its stately buildings, and he eulogizes highly D^ Gaulin as a single hearted good man ; thus we see << birds of a feather flock together." Now, Mr. Editor, I have reached our own city, and we all see that Peter has a violent spleen against our veiy worthy Prelate, for it is at him he casts his poisonous darts, as the Devil directs his infernal javelins at holy personages. But belore we give credit to Feter^s and to the Globe-man's assertions, they must first prove by facts that there is a Bishop on the continent of America, or I may say in Christendom, that has done mere for his diocese than his Lordship since his arrival in this City, taking all things into consideration. Poor Peter desires to know what need had his Lordship of the resorift when hiis Cathedral and Palace are built? My response to these queries is, if the other Bishops were necessitated to know the revenues of their clergy for the worthy fulfilment of Episoopalia obeunda munia : a fortiori Dr. de Charbonnel. Peter says he did not translate the rescript ; if he did, he would have shewn by these words that his Holiness has gnnted the rescript to the Bishops of the Canadas for something much more import tant to their dioceses and more desirable to their Lordships than <* replenishing their insatiable maws;" he would have informed his readers, the Bishops received the rescript to enable them to accomplish all their duties in a christian manner. Now, I will leave it to the judgment of our peuple to decide on the manifold duties of a Bishop. But does not Peter assert that our worthy Bishop obliges the poor Pastor as well as the rich to give the tithes? Yes; but I can prove from the words of one of these gentlemen who, according to Peter is a boarder, that when he received the rescript from his Lordship, it was accompanied with a letter explicative of its import, and which apprised him if he were not able to meet it, it did not oblige him ; and I understand that the same gentle- man received aid from the Bishop since. This one fact refutes the paramount assertions of Peter that the Bishop requires tythes from all his clergy indiscriminately. Therefore, the other queries made by the Globe and Peter are not of much importance, such a» what the Bishops have done with their revenues and the money received from the Propa- ganda ? For me, as a citizen of Toronto, I am not prepared now to render an immediate account of their different poor missions ; even gf all the good our own Bishop has done throughout his vast diocese, and especially amongst the Indians ; but I can bring to the view of my fellow citizens some of the extraordinary things which he has operated amongst us. We see through his zeal about £8000 of the immense debt of the Cathedral liquidated ; we see through his economy, joined to his ardent desire > for education he has enlarged his Palace, and converted nearly the entire of it into a College ; we see through the same invincible longing for christian sciences, he has established a Seminary, a nursery of piety for his young ecclesiastics ; we see religion flourish under his benign influence, and as a proof thereof St. Paul's Church has now a large congregation, and another neat Church is on the point of being finished in the West part of this City. We see his paternal care has induced him to bring amongst us the angelic Sisters of St. Joseph to visit our sick and instruct our children, not to speak of the famous establishment of Loretto Ladies. Peter, what will I shew you next? The beautiful procession of our children coming home from six schools, 900 in number; 530 boys, and 370 girls: the first presided over by six Christian Brothers ; the girls by six Sisters of St. Joseph. Of these schools I will treat more largely on another occasion, and perhaps of Peter's epistle ; but, before I will conclude, I must give Peter and the Globe-mvLU an idea of the expense of these schools in the ratio of other schools: Six male teachers cannot be less than th U Ithil u\ is pel «(i 1(1 build such a spldodid" I first two questions- my s also necessitated him. formed by the voluntary the Catholic citizens of requested his Lordship 'hich proves they enjoy rights according to tho and bas-reliefs of his Kingston; he does not 16 eulogizes highly Dn. r§ather flock together.'* at Peter has a violent poisonous darts, as the ore we give credit to jy facts that there is a J , that has done more taking all things into ordship of the retori^ queries is, if the other the worthy fulfilment eter says he did not >rds that his Holiness g much more import 1 "replenishing their J received the reson/tf r. Now, I will leave a Bishop. But does ell as the rich to give eso gentlemen who, from his Lordship, it h apprised him if he that the same gentle- paramount assertions imately. Therefore, importance, such a» ived from the Propa- render an immediate Jwn Bishop has done It I can bring to the ch he has operated lebt of the Cathedral re for education he o a College; we see iblished a Seminary, h under his benign 3 congregation, and f this City. We see ters of St. Joseph to us establishment of il procession of our , and 370 girls: the s of St. Joseph. Of s of Peter's epistle ; idea of the expense Ronot be less than iSSOO ; six female tetehera cannot be lets than X300, at JC50 each ; that is the round inin ofJ6900. "rf.TM-^f.M . ■. -v,iiuk*-m Ji^ft, XXI m\ Yours, J A CITIZEN. ' r. 8.— "Peter Prayer,'* indeed, with disregard for truth andc^ecency, remarkable on (ho part of one so well versed in the Canon Law, and so deeply read in ecclesiastical history, hns the impudence to tell his friends of the Gkbt that the revenue of his Grace the Archbishop of Quebec amount to JC4,500, and that of his Lordship the Bishop of Montreal to £3,500. The truth is, that the whole income of the Areh-Diucese of Qtieheo is below JC2000, whilst the revenue of the diocese of Montreal does not amoimt tu JB600 per annum. — Journal de Quebec. We were guilty last week of nn unintentional error in stating the income of the Bishoprick of Montreal at lietween 500/. and 600/. By a letter from the Procurator, the Rev. Mons. Plamondon, we learn that the net income for the current year is under 272/. When it is remembered that, out of this sum, the Bishop of the Diocese and his Coad- jutor, a Secretary, and several other ecclesiastics, have to be supported, it must be admitted that 272/. is not an exorbitant demand for so many persons. Goldsmith's curate was «< passing rich " on 40/. sterling n year ; but a Catholic Bishop in Canada is, by the G/cfo, and his correspondent, " Peter Prayer," represented as rolling m wealth, although he can hardly boast of an equal income. — True Witnets. <{4:ir,J ^Aj H:: , ;. '. ' LETTERNo. VII. ^ •{ ^^^ i ! \,i . i [for the Toronto mirror.] -i Mr. Editor, — In my Inst letter I undertook to treat briefly of the state of edncation in Prussia. That topic led me to the consideration of '* religious liberty," in my exposition of that much vaunted privilege, I hope I have given satisfaction to your numerons readers; but being obliged, in duty of a citizen, to make a few remarks on the pedantic production of Peter Prayer, I will now recur to the same subject. I presume I have sufficiently proved, from the establishment of Christianity, that it is essentially necessary to be endued with the true faith, membera of the true Church, well practised in the virtues that she inculcates,) which she has propagated and preserved in practising the principles uf the same faith,) and to be called thereto and cherished therein by the grace of Grod, to enjoy « religious liberty.** This is the doctrine of St. Paul, for he says, " I give Him thanks who hath strengthened me, for that He had counted me faithful, putting me in the ministry." We do not pretend that all those who are nominally Catholics eiyoy religions liberty ; but solely those who live strictly according to her faith and religious principles. For the same Apostle says, "The grace of the Lord hath abounded exceed- ingly with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." Now, we do not recognise abandoned Catholics to be in the state of enjoying religious liberty ; although they ought to be the heirs of the inheritance of God, by their baptism, and are fundamentally initiated in the principles of his religion. Thus, if the Catholic Church is obliged, in following the doctrine of the Apostles, not to regard those of her own membera who are wedded tu vice, as competent to enjoy religious liberty, how can she consider other human beings to enjoy it when they reject the means, (the only means given to man to be free) by which she eajoys it? When they seek not the nourishment of their souls from her inex- haustible sources ; but in their navigation through the boisterous waves of the agitated seaof this world, they prefer to embark on a slight bark of their own making which is continually exposed to be engulfed, to Peter's majestic ark, which rides over the highest waves and enjoys tranquillity at anchor, when all the other vessels are driven before the whirlwinds and wrecked on the projecting rocks. Who, in their peregrinations through this valley of tears, pass through the vineyard of the Lord and are invited by the master thereof to partake of some of its delicious fruits, but insultingly they reject the ofier, and then grasp at the wild grapes from which they extract their infatuating and poisonous beverage of licentiousness of opinions. Now, if the primitive church enjoyed "religioua I5 ft liberty,** in practising this doctrine of the Apostles, that it wns ns ftbsohitely necessary fo lie united in faith nnd practice to enjoy it, as it would bo for members of the crew of a vessel to be of one will in its gubernation to arrive in safety at their much sought destination. How then can we believe that the present proclaimers of "religious liberty" can enjoy it? In my fifth letter I have demonstrated to you how faith could be preserved, even by human means, and has been transmitted to us by our prelates, and, with it, veligious liberty, and in defence of which these brave champions of religion feared not the power of tyrants, the swords of executioners or tht cries of roaring lions. Thus divine faith has been preserved at Rome ; for since Peter and Paul sealed their faith vj'Hh their blood, there is thence an unbroken line of their successors who profess the same faith. Therefore, if Peter and Paul enjoyed religious liberty, their successors and imitators in faith must ewjoy it, for he that gave religious liberty to* Peter and Paul, even in their chains, has promised to protect their faith and give grace to their successors therem to the consummation of the world, and this grace is the basis of leligiotu liberty. Mr. Editor, I have just arrived at a part of the correspondence of which I have not yet spoken, and which is of vital importance, and in which Dr. Ryerson appears to have gained a great triuthph over his Lordship, Dr. de Charbonnel, fur he puts the people of V\>i-'t Canada in their position and says; "Since, in connection with the sentiments above avowed, there can lie no religious liberty or rights except for the Bishops and the Pope, and since they denounce the doctrine of religious liberty and equal rights as an awful heresy in the Roman States, and will not allow to Protestants even liberty of worship or teaching, much less aid from the State for that purpose, as your Lordship demands for Roman Catholics in Upper Canada'" Here we see the Doctor's ignorance of religious liberty, of civil constitutions, and in fine,, his tyranny. I am almost ashamed to say that the Doctor is ignorant, for it may appear to many us presumption in me to pro- nounce a Doctor ignorant, but when the glory of God is at stake it is better to vindicate it than mwi's* Therefore, I believe and support, that the Romans have always enjoyed religious liberty, since Peter and Paul established Christianity thereon the ruins ol idolatry. I say they have enjoyed and will enjoy it, if they have not abandoned the religious principles taught them by Peter and Paul, their disciples and their successors, down to Pius IX. 'iiii fi^Now it remains for the howlers of religious liberty to prove to us when the Romans as a people and a nation, abandoned the doctrine of the christian eode preached by Peter and Paul, and which was sanctioned by their blood, and by the blood of thousands of ether martyrs since both there and throughout tlie world. Until this be satisfactorily proved we cannot believe that there is uny^ lawful religious liberty, but that freedom, that fieaee, that contsutment, and love, which our Divine Saviour to mua,^ when he strictly and tenaciously adheres tothe doctrine preamed by Peter and Paul, and to which also, I believe, the Romans and all nations throughout the world in communion with them have firmly adhered. Now, I say the Doctor must be ignorant, and if not ignorant, notoriously impudent, to dare to draw a comparison between Ronte, the seat of Christianity and Catholicity, and Up|)er Canada — between a people whose principles of faith are sealed by the blood of the most eminent men, and that, through a cunseientious conviction they enjoyed religious liberty, to a people who are divided as much on the basis of religious liberty as they are on the indispensable |K)ints of faith, and seek continually after religious liberty and can never find it. The Doctor must be ignorant of the Roman civil constitu- tion which has been fotmded, and is now maintained, from a full conviction that all its subjects enjoy religious liberty. But I am digressing, for does not the Doctor apprise his lordship that in their exposition of the Christian code only the bishop and the pope enjoy religious liberty. 1 will now appeal to all impartial men if these words no not prove the Doctor's ignorance of religious liberty? The Doctor, as all newly puffed up apostles and ■bawlers for religious liberty^ wish to put down in the throats of the ignorant and simple people that none in tne Catholic Church enjpy religious liberty but the pope and Ushops. This is a frank declaration of his principles and a public manifestation that his cam are itching to be a superintendent, to be an apostle, in fine, to govern, since it is the rulers alone that are competent to enJ9y religious Uberty. I. do not know if the Doctor be ecasary f» of a vewcl estitiation. enjoy it! f, even by :, yeligioiid the power 9 foith has ood, there erefure, if mist ewjoy I promised tion of the I have not trs to have > people of ientinienl» 18 and the ghts as an liberty of Lordship ignorance t ashamed me to pro- > vindicate ^s enjoyed >t idolatry. i religious i, down to le Eoroans d by Peter )usands of tisfaetorily idem, that he strictly ich also, I hem hare lotoriously ianity and I sealed by ietion they f religious T religious il constitti- that all its ipprise his pope enjoy prove the xxstles and ind simple id tishops. is earn are the rulers Doctor be I* Ignorant of these Christian maxims : '* That it is better to oljey then locominand ;" *' Thai the highest must become the lowest ;*' and whosoever wislies to become our Divine Saviour*** disciple " let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Therefore we believe that the humblest {leasaut endued with Catholic faith, practised in the virtues that necessarily emanate from that faith, and that applies the other means of salvation which his Church prescribes to him, may enjoy as much religious liberty, as the bishops, or> perhaps, as l4ie Pupe ; fur we believe also, that God gives as much peace, as much contentment and freedom by his gracv.', to tho person ruled (when he submits to the laws of God for his salvation) as he does to the ruler, or to the person empowered by God himself to execute his divine laws. Wa believe all Catholics living according to the Catholic faith enjoy religious liberty, and in proportion ns they are truly Catholic the more of it they enjoy. I said the Doctor must be ignorant of tho constitution of tho Roman civil power to which he alludes, when he complains of the Protestants not having liberty of worship or teaching in their states. The Doctor must know that the Roman civil power acts m conjunction with the ecclesiastical power, and divine faith is tlie umpire of both. His Holiness, Pius IX, believes, with his Roman subjects, that they are endued with the same faith that St. Peter established there. Therefore that his Holiness has the same power in the spiritualities of the faithful as Peter had. The civil power being Catholic, co-operates with ecclesiastical authorities for theestaUishment of order and religi* ous discipline; but his Holiness, as vicar of Jesus Christ, is guardian of the faith, and accountable to God for all the faithful. But it is evident that he would badly acquit himself of that function, if he would permit our evangelical howlers to teach or to preach; he would act entirely against the exhortation of his predecessor St. Peter, who said in his 2nd ch., 3nd epistle, when speaking of false teachers, '< But there were nJso false Erophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall ring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought >them, bring upon themselves swift destruc tion, and many shall follow their riotousness thiough whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." " Leaving the right way they have gone astray ^* ** These are fenntains without water, and clouds tossed with the whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved ;" *< For speaking the proud words of vanity they allure ;" "promising them liberty whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption;" *< For tiy whom a man is overcome, of the same also is he the slave." Now, the Roman eonstitution, whether ecclesiastical or civil, believe if they would open their gates to innovators of religion — to Protestant emissaries — to preach or teach, they woivid receive persons (the same as St. Peter has just described) and that their people might become slaves of error «nd of these false teachers, in lieu of being free men of Jesus Christ. I«ay, again, the Doctor is ignorant of religious liberty, and very irreverent to authonity vAkoa he draws a contrast between the Roman constitution and our Canadian government. The former is purely Catholic in its head and members, therefore, all its aots shoi/ld tend to the propagation of Catholicity. The elements that compose our Government are really heterogeneous in regard of religious principles, yet all of them are constitutionally tolerar ted ; therefore, it is tyranny and persecution for any government, as a government neutral in religious principles, to establish and support a system of state schoolism, which destroys the religious principles of a great part of its faithful subjects , and what I say of a neutitl Gevernmentu/^^tfof individuals or officials of that Government. . Youn, atr f :T.t ■ f. t C"'! A CITIZEN. ■'tl: LETTER No. VIU. {tor the torokto mirror.] '.'."•■iH ' '-: - ■'' ■■:■ r r-.-f'' Mr. Editor.'-I expect that I have sufficiently demonstrated in my last letter that the Romans as a nation and as Catholics enjoy " religious liberty"; but I almost passed over in silence another very important objection against the Catholic system of education tag- gested by the Doctor, that is that the system at Rome is Catholic as we mrist all mitipQie, Mvertheless the Pope is in need of French bayonets to protect himself in his bwn dtty.— 20 The Doctor knows right well that the revolutionints nt Rome are not truly Cutholies, al- though they may lie Catholics nominally ; and I believe they uro rrotestonts in their hearts, unil thnt they do not enjoy " religious ]il>erty ; but that they fight ugninst the Church to estublish libertinism and license to teach error as the Doctor and his followers. The Doctor must know, that, there were but twelve Aixjstles, the chosen of the Son of God, yet, ouo of those betrayed our divine Saviour ; and 1 8up|)ose the Doctor will not ot- tribute the treachery of Judas to the teaching of Christ: therefore I expect the Doctor will have the discernment and imjmrtiality not to otlribute the spirit of revolution at Kome occasioned by Protestant emissaries, English officials and English money (for the suppres- aion of which French soldiers are stationed there) to the Cuthulic system of education. That true Cutbolics would luck religious liberty ; they should \>e robbed of their faith, and of the faculties of odoring God ; but if they be only prohibited ^as they ollen have been,) by civil and ))enul laws, from the external performances of their religion, they are then only deprived of the outward functions thut emanate from their faith, and no man or penal enactments can deprive them of these two celestial giOs. We may be |)ersecuted,our limbs may be dislocated by the torture of the wrack ; our bodies may be afflicted with the most excruciating torments, yet, our faith will remain firm and unsullied. We may be pre- vented again by the law to perform the rights of our religion ; wo may be obliged to retire from public places, from the eyes of Pharisees, and seek some retired valley where we may quietly perform the sacred mysteries of our holy religion. lit Catholics were tiius expelled from society and necessitated to seek refuge in the deep recesses of the neighbouring mountains, they then, might pay attention to men who would seek to obtain for them equal rights for the public functions of their religion accord- ing to law ; but has not experience proved to us and to our forefathers that those who promise us religions liberty are the same persons who have deprived us ond our forefathers u( the liberty of our religion, ond thus, of equal rights: and I say if we were obliged to undergo all the above S|iecies of persecution, the enemies of Catholicity would not have gained so triumphant a victory as they have gained by the present school system, and will gain if Catholics do not protest against it with all their might and thought, and denounce it us obnoxious to them and their children t by that system which is now expanding its banefid effects so widely, Catholics will lose more religious liberty than they could lose by all the tortures invented by the diabolical mind of the most violent persecutors, or than our fathers ever lost by penal laws { for Catholicity never lost by persecution, it was in that hard cradle she was rocked in her infancy, it was from under the persecutor's sword, and from the blood of the martyrs, that thousands of infidels became Christians, and obtained for the Church of Christ the glorious oppelation of Catholic. On the contrary State Bchoolism is not long established, and in the ratio of its duration Catholic youths have lost religious liberty. We have seen in a late lecture of his Grace Archbishop Hughes, of New York, that State schoolism in the United States has produced the effect of which I speak that it destroys religious liberty in its true sense, it deprives Christians of every de- nomination of the faculties to cultivate religion, to know and lovo God, therefore it attacks the basis of freedom with which all men must be endued who serve God, it petrifies the Christian soul against the graces of God and makes it a slave, so as to prefer corrupt reason to the revelations of Grod. And, if. State schools produce indifierentism amongst Catholics, Hs his Grace proves notwithstanding their divine principles of 1800 years duration and triumphs over tyranny and persecution, what will it not effect in the weak principles of Frotostantismi his Grace demonstrates it in a very satisfactory manner by shewing that infidelity now fills the ranks of Protestantism, that seats in Colleges and Universities are vacated to which splendid benefices are attached, because none competent to fill them can be found professing their tenets of religion. The statistics of the diflerent States illustrate my arguments, that, as State schools progress infidelity and crime accompany them ; all this must be a proof that Stdte schoolism as in Upper Canada and m the States 49f Atnerica is -the bane of religious liberty. All systems that impede the growth of piety and the true knowledge of God in piopor- ttoq, diminish religious liberty ; andimfortuoately for our times, conceited and puft-up men in.t9rpret the Christiaji code to favour their own damnable opinions, and thns render thismr M»\ve9 \n ihe sight of God wi Hjs Qhupch gtrilty of the errors, for whiph God and hw C1i| to Til sail bef thil the Bii 1 r CutiioHes, al- stonts in their lit ugniim the liiit fullawcrs. I of the Sun vt tor will not ut- «ct the Doctor lutionatRome ur the siippres- I of ediicution. Lheir faith, and 3n have been,) they are then man or neniil uted, our limbs with the most ! rooy be pre- bliged to retire ley where we 1 refuge in the >n to men who eligion occord- mt those who our furefuthers rero obh'ged to ould not have stem, ond will and denounce I expanding its liey could lose sutors, or thun it was in that '*s sword, and and obtained ntrory State uths have lust op Hughes, of ct of which I of every de- fore it attacks t petrifies the iorrupt reason igst Catholics, duration and principles of shewing that liversities are It to fill them lerent States accompany in the States od in propor" puft>upmen endertbrair God and hw Church delivered man to the Devil in the first century, and lu whom Gud and hit Chnrdh to theconsummatiun of time must uljandon theaudacimiMiind fulse interpreters of his laws. Time does not permit me to say mure on this subject, but bcfure 1 quit it, ] must soy, 1 do not iKslieve that there is reul religiuus lilierty out uf the julo of the Cutbulic Church, and I am confident this is the lielief of every true Catholic. All the test, us 1 hove frequently said, is libertinism or licentiousness uf opinion or ossumed license tu teach errors. Now before I conclude this series uf letters, 1 wish tu moke u few remarks on '* equal rights ;** this phrase, like religious liberty, is continually in the mouth of Dr. llyerson ond the rest of the Evangelistiool troop, the Catholics understand these words in the sense of our worthy Bishop, in his correspondence. Since we have l>een ])ermitlcd to have 8e|iarate schools, since we all pay taxes, and when the tuxes and the Government alluwonco form the funds for the educational system— we lielieve, that, these words import, that wo, as citizens, rate'puyers, and as Christians are entitled to u just u|i|X)rlionmcnt of said funds to supfiort the Catholic system of educatiun according to the average uttcndonce of children at our schools ; but how dues the Doctor understand equal rights in his correspondence, it is worth u few minutes uf consideration to see hnw he confounds terms, for instance I will call your attention, Mr. Editor, to the letters of John O'Hora, Esq., Catholic trustee of the separate schools of Belleville. Mr. O'Hara (in the next letter) of his correspondence wishes to be informed how the Catholic Trustees will proceed to ubtain their share of the School fund, which consists of the Government allowance, and the tuxes raised form the town, and the Bonian Catholic children here number one-third uf the whole. According to my reading of the law, if the number attending the se|)arate schools is one-third of those attending the other schools, we would Ira entitled to one-third of the Government grant, together with the same proportion of the money raised in Town." The Doctor ufler designating the peiiod of the {wiyment of Government money, says, " the average attendance of pupils at the Separate Schools and other Common Schools of the Town will be taken os the basis of apportionment of each. The same cause of proceeding will be adopted ot the end of the year in distributing the local assessments part of the School fund." Now, Mr. Editor, every impartial man must own that the Doctor recognised and approved of the demand and statements of Mr. O^Hara, and therefore countenance « equal rights." Thus Mr. OUIara with the other Catholic Trustees went to work, on the principle of •< equal rights." engaged a teacher, (letter 9) promised to pay him the same amount and in the same man- ner as the teachers employed by the Board are paid. They then apprised the Board of Common School Trustees of their engagements with a teacher, and requested them to provide for him as they would for their own masters. This, Mr. Editor, was reducing the Doolor*s favourite phrase <> equal rights," to practice, it was attacking the monstruus system in the vulnerable part: it could not be tolerated, municipal authorities would be insulted. Thus, C. O. Benson, Secretary of the Board of School Trustees, submitted the request of the Catholic Trustees for the master (letter 8) to the Superintendent. Behold the essence of the Doctor^s reply, speaking of different denominations, " They cannot ask, that municipal authority and property, shall be employed to the same extent to build up denominational interests as to promote interests which are common to all classes of citi- zens without regard to sect or party." Now, Catholics, you may judge for youmlves, you see the "equal rights" you will receive at the Doctor^s hands. He compares you and your religion to those who have no religion or belong to no sect, or that change their sects as oflen as the moon changes her phases. Now is the time, to vindicate the principles of your religion ; now is the time, to get rid of that School system, of that Superintendent who publicly proclaims your money to be the property of municipalities, and then author!- Kes them not to give you an equal share for the education of your children, according to the faith and teaching of half of the |x>pulation of these Provinces. If I had time to treat in detail the Doctor's " equal rights" towards Catholics, I should write eight letters more ; Aiid if I once commenced to speak of the grievances of onr poor Catholics in the rural dis- tricts occasioned by the tyranny of trustees tutored after the doctrine of the Dootor^s prin- ciples of " equal rights," I should write as many more ; but, since this is the lost for the present, 1 will conclude, in shewing it is impossible for the Catholics of Upper Canada to olMain *< equal rightsV from the present defective School system and its onmnizations: thafctox&, the Doctor When be wished to silence the.Trastees of Bellevillo in their jmt olaimi for " equal rightf ,*' told thcni, that if they would not be silent ond contented with what they had, that he could deprive them of the Cutliulio school by putting Catholic teachers in the mixed or common schools. The same occurred this year in this city in St. David's wurd ; at the Church of St. PauPsthe Catholic schools, neither male, or female, oeuld be recognized, as public schuuls, or have trustees, olthough, they are attended by about three hundred children ; because there is a mixed school with a Catholic teacher, where a few Catholic children attend. Thun Catholics you cannot enjoy equal righit from the present system, nor from its organs, as this is evident from the report of the free School Committee of the Board of School Trustees (No. 30,) in reply to a demand ond alatement made politely and gentleman-like by T. J. Neill, Esq., one of the Catholic 'trastees of this city in behalf of separate schools, (No. 29). This report is one of the most i]iedantio, nonsensical and dictatorial producvions that I have yet witnessed ; and at the ^same time tending to deprive the Catholics of their '* equal rights." The committee must ^be totally ignorant of the principles of Catholicity, or they are hypocrites, persecutors, and vinvaders of their neighbours property. Their paramount reason tor not granting an equal 'apportionment to the Separate Schools out of the Common School fund of this city, is, 'that, ** it is the recognized principle of civilized society, that all should contribute to este- 'blish and sustain institutions deemed essential by the mojority, provided that demand does not infringe upon the rightt of conscience." The committee then enumerate some things that should be unvnimously supported, such, as, "the charges of public legislation, juris* ! prudence, the branches of social economy, and other things that are always, as, no good citizen complains of being taxed to make the laws of his country, to guaid it, to extend the benefit of public economy throughout society. We never hear of separate houses of legislation, separate courts of justice, separate houses of correction." I will adjoin to all this pedantry, that wo never hear of separate rail-roads, because the Catholic can avail Hiauelf of any rail-road as well as the above committee. But perhaps the committee de- iiire to know, when we are so unanimous in the support of the above and other institutions, why not ot the present system of education? and especially since it is as they say, " esta- Mished upon a broad Catholic bosis." This very principle, « broad Catholic basis," is suf* Ccient in itself to prevent Catholics from participating in that system. The committee admitted a veto in their paramount reason, '^ provided that demand does not infiinge upon the rights of conscience." Now we believe there is but one faith, and that faith is fixed «D one and the same basis, and that that basis is not broad in any other sense than that the one faith which emanates from it is extended throughout the world. Now, Mr. Editor, I believe that those who teach a doctrine as a " Catholic brood ba- sis" are ignorant of Catholicity ; that, those who would force our children to go to such a school are our persecutors; that those who would oblige us to pay for such a system are invaders of our pioperty ; as happened last year in the east of this city. There were built two schools on the '* Catholic brood basis," as portly as some of the Egyptian pyramids, and <^f course in part by the Catholic money ; when the Catholics thejjnselves were necessitated to subscribe iS2(X) to build a Catholic school between the t^ schools of *' Catholic broad basis," enough and more than sufficient to open our eyes and to rouse us from our lethargy to seek equal rights by an entire separation from the •< Catholic broad basis" system. > Yours, &c., sJO" ••■.,''rf A ClTIZEM. LETTER No. IX. [rOR THB TORONTO MIRROR.] :0 /-i3 'J'.'V j V ' .,..,., M, «KMi4<.- L.iiMi .- >. j;. '^ .ur.iijA i JjondoD, C W., Feb. 9, 1853. . ■ Sir,— Dr. Ryerson on his Provincial tonr, as notified by eironlar, visited London on the 'Sth inst., and it is well you should have an idea of the transactions of his meeting. The Hon. Mr. Goodhue was in the Chair, and filled it with the greatest credit to himself and satisftkotion to all present. Dr. Ryeison did his best to defend his peculiar views, but was apposed by several gentlemen, Rmongst whom were Rev. Messrs. Cronyn andBroug^ CMil^meli of Uie€liuroh of England, and the Rev. Mr. Pollard of the Wcsleyen d moj in ont mol hai nd cont«nta to such a ystem are were built imids, and tcessitated olio broad r lethargy tem. ITIZEV. ■■X If »853. ^ m on the ig. The iself and , but was Brough* ^C8ley«ti Methodists. An angry and bitter altercation took pToee between Dr. Ryenon and' Mr. Murtagh, inconsequence of the former haying said that *' the opinions which CathoHea entertain on the School question wcm forced or imposed upon them." Mr. Mnrfagh Eremptorily called him to order for insiihing the feelmgs of the intelligent Catholiea of mdon, and Canada at large. Dr. Ryerson tried to frown him down by personal allusions (o his want of loyalty ; but it was all of no avail. Ths sneers or slurs of Dr. Ryerson had no efleot upon his determined opponent, and the Doctor, you may rest content, will have very little reason to congratulate himself upon his success in Londoa before all is over. The Rev. Mr. Cronyn was very severe in hH remarks, and so wae-the Rev. Mr. Brough, who warmly sustained Mr. Murtagh*s amendment. The great mojority of those present were school officers and ladies ; there were alxtut two huiidved in all, and the motions sustaining Dr. Ryerson's course, were carried against the weight and iufluenoe of the meeting. Had the people of London been properly apprised ol the move set on foot l>y Dr. Ryerson to sustain his {wsition and maintain his salary, he woulUi have been actually scouted out of town, as it was he has no great reason to feel welll C leased with the results of his visit, and perhaps before all is wound up will have much :iiU Yours, LEGION. I 9 I I* 4l1 {From lAe Middlesex Protetype.y To THE RbV. EgBRTON RVBRSOIf, ChIBF StJPBRINTS.NOEKT OF SCHOOLS FOR Umit Canada. Sir, — By a circular issued from the Education Office, Toronto, on the 10th Januaryr 1853, you convened a County School Convention, in the town of London on Tuesdoy last the 8th inst., and I, as a common school teacher, accepting your general and public inVi- vitation, attended on that occasion. You are aware of this, 1 am sure. You are alto aware of your conduct towards n>e then and there. But fearing the public might possibly through neglect, or absence of the reporters of the press, lose the opportunity of getting a true and faithful report of the treotment which 1 received from you, 1 thus respectfully claim the privilege of addressing you in this manner, with a view, nut alone of bringing the matter before the public eye, but also of making some general remarks, and recalling to your own mind in your cool and collected moments, the impropriety of your language and actions. I do this candidly and honestly, with the best conviction that I am doinj^ what public justice demands, although I am assured you are a perfect Leonidta in the art of drubbing with the quill, and that, in thus making my grievance known, I am only subjecting myself to your powerful and gigantic kish. However this may be, it is not my nature to shrink before the shadow of any phantasm of futurity. I will relate my ease^ earing not for your power of language m holding discussions on paper, nor yet fop that r»wer which you assume to possess in directing the wisdom and authority of the Province., will speak openly, unoq|uivucally, and await the results with perfect confidence. On your motion, and with the heorty concurrence and approbation of all those assembled at the Convention, the Hon. Mr. Goodhue presided, and, in the course of his opening remarks alluded to the claims which the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the Province were advan- cing, stating distinctly and unlMsitatingly, that he would support, with all his approbation, the grant i-ig of fuir and equal justice toCatho)ics as well as Protestants, in the school arrangements of the country. Ho would grant to Catholics, who are in a minority, the same privileges which he, as a Protestant, would probably claim, were he placed ia their position. He would give them perfect control over the edncation of their children. These sentiments, so creditable to the heart of the hon. gentleman, were well received by the meeting. When he had resumed the chair, yon came fbrward to explain yourself, aitd now it \% with the nature of your observations that I wish particularly to deal. After having said something upon the general objects of your visit, you referred to the subject alluded to in the foregoing terms by the Hon. Mr. Goodhue ; but I am sorry to hftve to ny that your hitagnage and allusions were, in my humble opiniouihighly improper and inJHdietoas. Yo» said that the << sentiments which the Roman Calholics at present :S4 entnrtain on tho school, question, have been forced upon them," or worib conveying the ' same meanini?. You will remember that I at once called you to order stating that I con- sidered myself personally insulted, and that your language was insulting to the entire Roman Catholic body. Vou, with a significant frown, stated that you did not consider yourself bound to give any satisfaction to an individual like me who neither owed nor paid otwdienco to any monarch save the Pope of Rome, or words to the same purport. VVhen I got achanco of speaking, after you had concluded,! demanded your authority for making this gross attack upon me, and you then gave the name of a gentleman with whom I have not the honour of being personally or otherwise acquainted ; in fact, a man that, in my opinion, 1 had never seen durin? my life. Now, Hir, I ask yuu as Chief i Superintendent of the Common Schools for Upiier Canada, was this your official mode of retracting a wanton insult upon me, as the representative, on that occasion, of a large ' propoition of the people of this country? I think you will find, on reflection, that it would be more in conformity with your duties, as a well-paid public founctionary, to : letract at once, without adding injury to insult. Your offensive and i:ndignified demean- our cannot, by any possibility, advance you in the estimation of the intelligent and res{)ectab!e auditory, while your imputations upon my personal conduct I look U[)on as far beneath the dignity of the ofHce which you chance to occupy. Whatever may have l)een my expressions, made publicly or privately, in joke oi earnest, I assure you sir, that I hold my personal and^ privato character to be equally as good as yours, barring the Reverence, and T challeiige you to prove aught to the contrary. Mind you, I donU mean to say, that, in my intercourse with my fellow-men, I have never used unguarded and perhaps implitic expressions. On the contrary, I have no doubt but, in many instances, language may have escaped my lips which probably would call forth thjs censure and disapproval of the Solons of the day. But, as far as actions are concerned, or words which might have a tendency to improper proceedings, I am not aware that I have ever directly or indirectly, been connected with such actions, or expressed such words. But, dropping the individual and personal portion of my subject, let me inquire by what authority you presume to say the opinions which the Catholic people entertain, have been forced upon them ? Do you pretend to say that you are a searcher of the consciences of men t ur are you prepared to say that Catholics, although men, are not gifted with reason- ing faculties us well as any of your several classes oi professing Christians? Granting that Catholics are men, and also allowing that most of the Cathulic inhabitants of Upper Canada are natives of that unfortunate island (or their descendants) in several parts of which your sanctified Wesley could meet with Protestants and Papists, but no Christians; is it likely that they, as Catholics and men, are all so destitute of the reasoning faculties and mental endowments which have adorned the renowned men who have been natives of Ireland for centuries, even before England was either civilized or Saxonized, and not possess just as much reason and common sense ns will lead them to understand that the Rev. Egerton Ryerson, Chief Superintendent of Common Schools for Upper Canada, is not the only proper persftn to guide, direct, and promote the education of their dearly beloved children ; but that, in fact, they must, from that reverend gentleman^s abuse of them, consider him not exactly their friend, nor yet an individual under whose supervision they are bound to place those in whom their future hopes are centred. I hope they will not ho forced to acknowledge your unlimited supremacy, in a question involving the constitutional liberty, as well as the eternal well-being of the human race. Parental «r authority has had its existence from the very commencement of the generations of men, and as it is the symlx)l and bond of all human society, it is sincerely to be hoped that we have not arrived at that stage of the world*s progress, when a single man, armed with the variable pen of a sophist and tactician, is able, with a few strokes, to annihilate it . for ever. *; ., You boast of the influence which you can exercise over the legislature of the country. This I consider to be exceedingly great lack of modesty on your part. I hove heard per- sons speak many strange things on several occasions, concerning you, that is, with regard to your relations with the government, but I have not credited all I heard. It has been repeatedly said by very many persons with whom I happened to be conversing during the past five years, that the members of the Canadian government are afraid to interfere \ witi i on ' youl ' Idc WOll But[ intej you] publl rnenj indul Pro^ Nofal in ml vantJ parlid adeql why, and Ii You with I conveying the ting that I oon- b; to the entire iil not consider it her owed nor 3 same purport. I your authority gentleman with in fact, a man : yuu as Chief official mode of ision, of a large (lection, that it bunctionary, to [nified demean- intelligent and look u|)on as far ever may have uo you sir, that rs, barring the u, I donU mean imguarded and nany instances, e censure and rned, or words lat I have ever h words. But, luire by what tain, have been I conscience.*; of d with reajon- ns7 Granting tants of Upper sveral parts of no Christians; oning faculties 3 been natives lized, and not stand that the >er Canada, is their dearly lan^s abuse of ie supervision ipe they will nvolving the e. Parental t, ions of men, ped that we armed with annihilate it [ the country. fe heard per- I'ith regard to Tt has been losing during to interfere 25 with you, and, in reality, keep you m your present office, for the purpose of keeping you on their side. They say your talents are so versatile, that, in case you were dethroned, you would, with your literary artillery, smash into pieces the bulwark of the government. I do not believe all this, and did I believe that any member of the present government would be capable of entertaining such motives, I would hold them in the utmost contempt. But believing as I do, that, on the whole, the government is composed of gentlemen of integrity and intrinsic worth, I cannot refrain from observing thai, if they have allowed you to step beyond your official boundary, it was, perhaps, through the apathy of the public mind with regard to your dictation. I am. a supporter and admirer of the govern* ment, and cannot, in justice to my own feelings, with regard to the members thereof, be induced to believe they are so utterly incompetent to manage the public afiairs of the Province. Did I believe so, 1 would unquestionably hold them in detestation, and would 80 far as my humble individual influence extends, give them all the legitimate opposition in my power. However, it certainly does not look exactly right, that you, u public ser- vant, should be at liberty to take upon yourself the privilege of making suggestions to parliament or framing school laws. If the assembled wisdom of the Province be not adequate for the task of framing and enacting the public laws, without your interference, why, I would at once say, it is a disgrace to the character and standing of the honourable and learned gentlemen who are selected to superintend and direct our Provincial concerns. You have forced me to express myself in this manner, and I hope you will feel satisfied with my mode of conveying my ideas. But I have not yet concluded. I must recall to your mind some other circumstances. In speaking of my supposed want of loyalty, you said I owed allegiance to the Pope as the sovereign of Rome, and to no other person or authority. 1 repudiate this a^ertion. But let it be for a moment supposed that such was the fact, what matters it, so far as my connection with the common schools is concerned, whet) your annual school report, made to parliament, records the names of local superin- tendents who are neither British subjects, nor yet subjects of any form of monarchy, but natives and citizens of the United States of America. I can prove this to be a fact. The sovereignty of Rome is generally looked upon as the keystone and prop of the several monarchies of Europe, and I am sure the greatness of the British nation is more to be attributed to the fovours and patronage of the Pope of Rome, in bygone years, than to the gratitude or conduct of the American revolutionists. You are habitually incorporating into the common school system of Canada, the usages and principles of the United States school law, however disloyal they may look. Hence, it would seem, you are not a deadly enemy of republican institutions. But, when you think you can make aJUng, you come out in bold style, with plausible pretensions of loyalty, never dreaming that the publio eye is upon your very accommodating intercourse with the citizens of the States, and your importations of republican principles and literature. I do not, for a moment question your distinguished loyalty — for from it ; I admire the saperlativeness of it in the prpper time and place. You compare the system of common school education now established in Canada to that which is in Ireland. I deny the comparison, knowing, as I personally do, the vast and material difference. The system of national education adopted in Ireland, is admin- istered by a board, consisting of men of the highest grade of literary qualification, repre- senting, in very fair proportionate numbers, the religious professions of the people of the country. There are Protestants, Catholics, and Presbyterians on that board, but, in the sense of Wesley, there are no ckristians there. The board has no suck functionary attached to it as you. They have two secretaries, gentlemen of the highest order of intelligence, and instead of a Chief Superintendent with a big report to parliament annually, the commissioners of national education as an incorporated body, make their report, and affix to it their seal. The secretaries, who collect the statistics and carry on the correspondence to all parts of the country, by order of the board, are, although discharging duties similar to yours but the paid servants of the commissioners — ihey cannot like you, stand forth and sing out, like Robinson Crusoe, " 1 am trumarch of all I survey^ my right th4re is none to dispute V^ When your official power is checked, and proper restraint kept upon your public pretensions, and when you are made the humble servant of such a body of gentlemen as form the Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, D I; 26 then the Canadian lyatefn will be OMimilated a little nearer to that of Ireland. Coming from the head of the national system in Ireland, to the mode of organizing «nd carrying on schools throughout the country, let me specify the difference betweea ihat and the mode adopted in Canada, under your arrangement and control. In Ireland the applicants for aid from the Euaid must be able to certify ^h^^ a sufficiently large average attendance will be in the school sought to be placed m| pqnnection with the Board, in case their application should receive a favourable consiaemilf^n. I believe the minimum average was, when I had my school placed on the roll of the Nationpl Boaid, about thirty. It matters not, in the eyes of the Commissioners, how near the new school may be placed to any other school esttiblished by them, in case the peculiar circumstances will warrant it. But as regards the schools the Board gives aid for erecting, it is difierent. I think they will grant building aid to no school within three miles of any one they have Already assisted in erecting. The proportion of schools which tiie commissioners have, merely in connection with the Education office, and receiving annual aid only, is, I am convinced, far beyond the number of those which they have aided in erecting. So that, in case parties feel under the necessity of opening a school, under their own control, and in connection with the Board, there is nothing to hinder them if they can warrant the average attendance. No grievance, therefore, such as is often complained of in Canada, need ever be mooted. The Board grants aid to all alike, and equally, according to the class of the school without distinction, and there can be no grounds for dissatisfaction. Your school section system would never work well in Ireland, because the arbitrary laws which govern school sections, and prevent the opening uf any other schools with equal advantages, would be opposed to the establishment of such schools as parties might feel bound in «onscience to open. It not unfrequently happens, in the north of Ireland, that, in a small village, containing but a few hundred inhabitants, two schools under the Board fiaay be found in operation, each receiving aid alike — one of these in the charge of a Catholic teacher, the other a Presbyterian or Protestant. Is this like your system 1 I trow not T The local inspectorship of the schools is entrusted to gentlemen of the highest attainments^ but I am confident the commissioners have never yet appointed a clergyman to that office. Is this like Canada, where I think the majority of the local superintendents are ministers of different religious denominations? Yuu see. Sir; I do not come forth in the present letter as a defendant merely, for, as you have forced me to it, I am prepared to give my views ou the school question generally, although I fear the limited space which 1 can reasonably claim in any of the public journals, would not suffice to give expression to my sentiments in one letter, I must accordingly try to condense all I can into the present. You will probably recollect that, a couple of years ago, when the editor of the Toronto Examiner did, in his paper, state that you were guilty of corrupting, or at least mutilating the Canadian edition of the national school-books, I through the Free Press, published in this town, defended you as well as I could, and showed the incorrect- ness of the statements made in the Examiner. This is a proof that I was willing to defend you in the right, and my present communication will, 1 presume, convince you that I am leady and willing to defend myself in a similar position. 1 am bound however, to acknowledge that, previous to your convention in London, here, I never had a personal occasion to find fault with your conduct. On the contrary, when I had reason to call on you in the Education Office, I found you exceedingly kind and obliging. This is but justice to you as a public officer, and I freely give you the credit of it. I only wish that recent occurrences did not force me to come before the public in opposition to your career and policy. Itim forced to break my desired silence, and being so, it behoves me to come out m explicit and general terms. I had nearly forgotten the proposition which I submitted for your explanation, on Tuesday last. 1 subjoin a copy of it, with the requisite remarks' " Will yon please to state in definite terms the results which may be anticipated to arisiB from the proceedings of the county school convention and others similarly convened. A specific explanation is the more anxiously solicited for the query, in consequence of the feeling of dissatisfaction existing in the minds of several persons who attended a nieeting held in this town, on the 14th of July, 1850, convoked by a circular from the education office, and said to be for the purpose of forming teachers^ institutes. Such meeting an(| anc hn( offil Mrl perl the £14 e!uc V' od. of organizing ince between I. In Ireland ^iently large ion with tde I believe the itionpl Boaid, le new school sircumstances it is difierent. no they have ssioners have, only, is, I am ing. So that, n control, and 1 warrant the of in Canada, sording to the lissatisfaction. arbitrary laws ols with equal ies might ieel f Ireland, that, ider the Board e charge of a ur system 1 I of the highest d a clergyman iperintendents come forth in am prepared limited space uffice to give nse all I can en the editor rupting, or at ngh the Free the incorrect- as willing to onvince yoii nd however, d a personal on to call on This is but ly wish that your career me to come on which I the requisite Inticinated to |ly convened, isequence of attended a |lar from the luch meeting S7 and similar ones throughout tho Province, were held in preienca of Menra. Robcrtaon and Hind, masters of the Provincial Normal School, but as yet no further armngementa have been made, nor has any defined line of action been promulgated from the education office, although the names of several teachers were enrolled, and they were informed by Mr. Robertson that they might consider themselves members of an institute. It is perhaps not out of place to mention that several teachers attended that meeting under great disadvantages to themselves, and without any apparent benefit ; besides, the tour of the Normal School masters left the Provincial school fund less by nearly JS300, including JC142 for travelling expenses, as may be seen by referring to the school report of 1850.'' The foregoing is what I alluded to ; and let the public hear your equivocating elucidation of it. It need not be said that you spoke in a very approving tone of the services of Messrs. Robertson and Hind, and expressed a surprise thattmy teacher should have experienced disadvantage in attending their lectures. I can see no difficulty in discerning why common school teachers, who are, generally speaking, persons of very limited means, should feel disappointment and dissatisfaction, considering the way they had been treated. You stated, in a circular^ dated t^e 26th August, 1850, that Messrs. Robertson and Hind would hold a teachers' institute in London on the 14th and l5th June, 1850. But did they fulfil your published directions .1 No, sir, they stopped on the 14th in London, and left early on the morning of the 15th for, I believe, Chatham. Had teachers who came a distance of twenty or thirty miles, to be present the second day, much reason to be dissatisfied when they found themselves disappointed? There has been in the County of Middlesex during nearly three years a teacher's association in existence, and I, as Secretary of that respectable and intelligent body, have reason to know something of the opinions of the County of Middlesex on this matter. I aver, then, that, to them, the proceedings resulting from your circular of the above date, have been very dissatisfactory. It is utterly unlikely that the teachers to Whom I allude can feel at all satisfied v/hen they consider the results. You proposed then to form teachers* institutes, and you actually pretended to issue " some of the regulations which should govern the proceedings of these teacher's institutes." I quote your own words from yoiv annual report for 1849, although I had not the honour, like others, of receiving it, ** with the compliments of the author," I had the higher honour of obtaining it and the subsequent ones from members of the Legislature. In the year 1853, you made a Provincial tour, to receive suggestions about forming such institutes. You stated that the latter part of mj query was false. It is a hard word to use, and I think you might have said erroneous instead. However, let the public see the falsity, a*? far as it goes, and then judge. At first I will refer them to page 56 of the report for 1849, and it may there be seen that the masters of the Normal School were engaged in the tour and its duties seventy^nine days or more. Presuming that their annual salaries then did in the aggregate amount to £600, did they not receive, for the term spent perambulating Canada, at least the 16th-734 part of JS600, or £121, or upwards; this added to the travelling expenses of the two masters of the Normal School, in holding preliminary teachers' institutes in the several Counties of Upper Canada, which I find to be in the report for 1850 — in the sum of £142, makes a sum of je273, or upwards. But you say this was not taken {torn the Provincial schotd fund, because the Council of Public Instruction paid it out of the Normal School grant. Now> see the quibble. I maintain the Normal School grant is public money, granted by the parliament for the promotion of common school education ; and althongh I do not mean to say that you had not the power of setting aside, for the specific purpose of afiord* ing Messrs. Robertson and Hind a pleasant and professional tour through the Piovince, any sum you thought proper ; still, you had no right to brand my statement «s false, when it was true in the purport which it was intended to convey. Although I was literally in error in the use of the words Provincial school fund, it will be seen perfectly clear that my statement was not entitled to the harsh term you used. I must bring this to a close, before having sufficient time or opportunity to be more explicit, and it is my earnest hope that you will give mo the credit of at least returning you the co^ipliments you bestowed upon me, not, however, in your frowning,sneerins style of explanation, but in thi|t warm, off-handed manner, characteristic of my country and race. Should you fulfil your inten- tion oT visiting the legislative balls of the Province, for the purpose of giving your 18 directions as to how you want the school law modified, I hope you will have the politeness to present this communication, along with the several scraps and documents which you may have collected in your professional tour. Fearing that youi very pressing engage- ments will prevent you from acceding to my request, I will relieve you of the necessity by forwarding it myself. Let me assure you, sir, that I am under no obligations to you, for thus forcing me to engage the few spare moments I have to devote to family affairs in the day, in inditing such a lengthy epistle to your reverence, and hope that I will never again be forced to assume the position which I have been compelled to place myself in towards you, the Chief Superintendent of Schools for Upper Canada. If I have said anything in (his letter calculated to hurt your feelings, I may, like yourself, claim the right of apologizing in the end. You recollect that, at the convention, you were opposed by the clergymen of the Church of England present, and the way in which you tried to frown down their arguments was not slow. At the conclusion, you very blandly apologized for the offensive allusions made, as you remarked, in the heat of discussion. They, I suppose, forgave you, knowing the personal interests you have at stake in defending your i)rinciples,andthe very liberal salary you are receiving for so doing. I remain, Sir, with all possible respect, your obedient servant, London, C. W., February 10th, 1S53. PETER MURTAGH. (From tJie Montreal True Witness.) To THE Eev. Dr. Rterson, Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada. BuckingJtam, 28ih January, 1853. Rev. Sir, — I have had the pleasure of reading the published correspondence between yourself and His Lordship the Bishop of Toronto, and your official " Report" upon the system of education pursued in the schools under your charge. I would not obtrude myself on your notice, neither would I make any comments on your letters, but that the glaring inconsistency of your arguments has long escaped that censure which it deserves. Assuming in your correspondence the title of a Canadian and a patriot, you indulge in a strain similar to that in which in former daysyou defended yourself against the odious charge of having violated a great Canadian constitutional right, when you endeavoured, as far as was in your power, to render nugatory, rights, which Canada acquired afler a painful and protracted struggle. I, for one, protest against your assuming the title of a patriot ; for I well remember, and will ever remember, the hypocritical varnish of your defence of Lord Metcalfe— a defence which all your antecedents in politics rendered unexpet, tlURTAGH. JppER Canada. nuary, 1853. idence between [)ort " upon the y comments on g escaped that >t, you indulge inst the odious I endeavoured, jquired after a ell remember, i Metcalfe— a 1 your present mpanied with Is complained 1 from which disparage the and ideas, dn I the duties of > ignore that y one human in personally o judge and permit any istruction, or ►ur own will, freedom. 'd if over the Is, that tlM 1 youth under his charge shall not be contaminated by reading, or hearing read, books* dangerons to their faith or morals. " Let your mixed schools," says the Bishop, (letter No. 4) " be without immediate danger on the treble part of teachers, books, and fellow>pupils, for the respective faith of all the children, which is seldom the case in this sectarian country, and I will tolerate, «ven recommend them." Surely, Doctor, you would not consider this a dangerous, or unreasonable, request— a request for perfect equality of rights. To this you reply — " Your Lordship has furthermore been pleased to designate XJpper Canada — the country of my birth and warmest affections — *this sectarian country;'" and after making as much capital as you could out of the expression, you quote a standard English Lexico- grapher, and the Dictionnaire National of Besherelle, to disprove it. But you say nothing as regards your compliance with the iiishop^s request. And in your same letter (No. 7) you write—" Your Lordship says, * we must have, and we will have, the full management of our schools, as elsewhere.' " And to this you reply, <* On this passage I remark, that I am not aware of Lower Canada presenting a better standard than Upper Canada, of either religious or civil rights, in the management of schools, by any portion of the community. A popular municipal system not yet being fully established in Lower Canada, the school system there is necessarily more despotic than here, and the Executive Government does many things there, which appertain to elective municipalities to do here ; and to accom- plish what is indicated by your Lordship, would involve the subversion of the municipal system and liberties of the people of Upper Canada." So, Doctor, the municipal system and liberties of Upper Canada would be subverted by Catholics obtaining the management of their own schools. Surely, Doctor, you are not sincere in this statement ; or are the municipal system and liberties of Upper Canada based on the withholding from Catholics the management of their own schools. I do not believe it. But, Doctor, you write for effect. Again you write (letter No. 7) — " Your Lordship has represented God as unknown to our schools, as He was in Athens;" and then you say in reply — " By the paosages of the Scriptures which you have quoted, as well as by your remarks on our school regulations, you intimate that I place earth before heaven, and the gain of the world before the gain Af the soul." Now, Doctor, if, as you infer, the Bishop charged yon with placing earth before heaven — the gain of the world before the gain of the soul — why not reply for yourself, sinee by your own admission the charge was only made against yourself. Here is your answer.: " I remark that I believe a majority of the members of the Council of Public Instruction, by whom the regulations were made for our schools, in regard to religious and moral instruction, are as deeply impressed with the worth of the soul and the value of heaven as your Lordship." Now, what was your object in defending a majority of the memberji of tfaeCk>UDcil from a charge made not against them, but, as you inferred, against yourself only. I am surprised you were not more explicit, since, in the concluding paragraph of your same letter (No. 7), you say — " I have not thus rendered myself liable to blame, for having passed over in silence any one of the many topics which your Lordship has thought proper to introduce ; but have carefully noticed each of them." In letter 9, you write : " Your Lordship quotes the late Doctor Murray, late Eoman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, who, referring to the former school system in Ireland, under the direction of a body called the ' Kildare Place Society,' says it was required in all the schools for the education of the poor, that the sacred Scriptures, without note or comment, should be read in the presence of all the pupils of the schools ; and you then ask me if this is not the case in our mixed schools. I answer, it is not the case." And in letter, No. 7, you say : " So far from God being unknown in our schools, the authorised version of His inspired Word (the text book of the religious faith of a large majority of the people of Upper Canada) is read in 2,067, out of 5,000 of them." So the Scriptures, without note or comment, are read, you admit, in 2,067 out of 5,000 schools in Upper Canada. And in your correspondence, it appears that there is no provision made for excluding firoQ) the schools any book that the parents of the children wish to send. I quote from ao your letter (No. 7). Thus for the Council of Public Instruction hai never, in any instance, exercised the power of prohibiting the use of any book, contenting itself with recommend- ing and providing focilities for cheaply procuring the best bouks fur the schools, as the most likely as well as the most quiet way of superaeding the use of objectionable and defective books. Do you mean to say that this is the system pursued in the National Schools of Ireland 7 I unhesitatingly answer, No. The Board of National Education (not like the Council of Public Instruction) has prescribed what books shall be read in the National Schools, and no others can be introduced ; and thus the children are protected from the introduction of sectarian books by any party. Believe me, Doctor, had it been otherwise the late " incomparable Dr. Murray," as well as other Catholic Bishops, would not have suffered the youth under their charge to attend them. And believe me, also, the Bishop of Toronto knows better than yourself what the conduct of the late Bishops Power and Murray would be, if either of them were alive, and in the Bishop^s present position. And, Doctor, you must yourselt be aware that the National Board of Education for Ireland has published, for the use of the National Schools, a book of Scripture lessons, which is the only portion of Scriptures allowed to be read in the schools; and that a day is set apart in each week for teaching the children the catechism of their respective creeds. In the mixed Schools of Upper Canada, you admit there is no uniformity of books j nor have the Council of Instruction made any regulation to that effect— any child may bring what books his parents please to send. In 2,067 of the 5,000 schools, the Bible, without note or comment, is read ; and this confused system of education you declare to be the same as that practised in the National Schools of Ireland, where all is harmony, order, and uniformity. There are hundreds in this country, as well as myself, who know by experience that your assertion is false. ' -''' I have the honor to be, Sir, yonr obedient servant, '\ ['/'■'. '"■'.'/' VERITAS. J oil bI Tl 8t{ ard thJ fod th^ in •t rati us I tyi W< cor ,. , (From the Montreal True Wiiness) A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST « STATE-SCHOOLISM." The Session of the Provincial Parliament that has just commenced promises to be ot nnusual interest. To Catholics the question of State-Schoolism is of the highest impor- tance ; it is indeed, to them, a question of life and death— a question involving the spiritual welfare of millions yet unborn : it involves the momentous questions — shall the descendants of Catholics in Canada, be trained up as members of the Church of Christ, or shall they, from their tender infancy, be indoctrinated into infidelity, and religious indifferentism? With such interests at stake, shall Catholics show themselves apathetl"; or unequal to the task 1 Is this a time for inaction, or for folding the hands to slumber, when our advei-saries are unremitting in their efforts iot our perversion? No. Gk)d forbid. Let us awake, and be doing— let us show that we are conscious of our duties as Catholics, and not unmindful of our rights as freemen ; that we are determined to fulfil the one, and — no matter at what cost — to assert the other. Our rights as freemen — we say ; for it is not as Catholics, or as the members of any particular religious denomination, that we demand Freedom of Education for ourselves, and our children : we demand it— not as Catholics — but as citizens — not as a boon, not as a special privilege, but as our right — our inalienable right — of which no power ou earth shall deprive us; as a right for which we are still content to petition, in the hope that sound counsels may prevail in the courts of our Legislature — but at the same time, as a right that we are determined to obtain— that we will take if it is riot granted — as a right of which, neither the votes of a Parliament, nor the brute force of a mob, shall deprive us — so help us God. And what is this right for which we are still content to petition? what is the principle for which we contend, and which we shall, if true to ourselves, triumphantly uphold? We claim as our right, Freedom of Education and Freedom of Religion — that we be Tree any instance, I recommend. hoots, as the stiotiable and h of Ireland ? he Council of Schools, and ntroduction of Mnrray," as leir charge to than yourself of them were Education for pture lessons, id that a day ictive creeds, ity of books ; ny child may s, the Bible, rou declare to 1 is harmony, If, who know ERITAS. n m lises to be ot best impor< volving the s — shall the 1 of Christ, id religiouR !s apatheti ?; to slumber, God forbid, s Catholics, I the one, jrs of any ourselves, )n, not as it ou earth hope that [time, as a I a right ■deprive us le principle ]y uphold! ire be free to educate our children us we think fit— and that we be not compelled to pay for a system of education to which we are conscientiously opposed : we demand, in short, that Protestants shall have no voice in, no control over, Schools for which Catholics are compelled to pay. The principle for which we contend is the principle of which, strange to say, our most strenuous opponetits have, when it suited their convenience, professed themselves the ardent advocates. <* That the State, or Civil power, has no jurisdiction over conscience — that it has therefore no right to compel the members of one religious denomination to pay for the support, or propagation, of the tenets of another." The principle we assert is the principle asserted by the dissenters of England, and by the Clear Grits of this country, in their denunciations of Church Establislments; it is, in fact, the whole principle involved in the Protestant favorite war-cry—'- No Stute-Chnrchism " — expressed in the formula — " No State-Schoolism." Many unanswerable arguments might Catholics adduce why the Legislature, or rather — for we have no reason to believe that our rulers are generally indisposed to grant us justice — why the Protestaut majority of Upper Canada should desist from their tyrannical attempts to enforce, upon the Catholic minority, an odious educational system. We might, for instance, plead — the " rights of conscience" — the ciuelty and injustice of compelling men to pay for educational, or religious, establishments of which they can make no use without doing violence to their &incere, even if mistaken, religious convic- tions. We might raise, against " State Schoolism " — for they are perfectly applicable — all the objections usually raised, by Protestant dissenters in England, against ** State- Churchism," and show cause why Catholics should not be compelled to support Non- Catholic schools, by citing the arguments used by the Baptist or Methodist, when arguing against compulsory payment in support of the Anglican establishment, or the ministrations of the government parson. We might also strengthen our case by the *' argumentum ad hominem}*^ by asking our opponents — how they would feel, how they would act — if, in Catholic Lower Canada, the Non-Catholic minority were compelled to pay for the support of Catholic Schools? and by assuring them that Non-Catholic Schools are just as objection- able in the eyes of Catholics, as Catholic Schools are in the eyes of Non-Catholics. All this might we do: all these arguments against '< State-Schoolism " might we bring forward ; and most certainly, our opponents would be unable, nay, would not even attempt, to reply to them. But alas ! in their contest with Protestantism it does not sufRce for Catholics to rely upon the justice of their cause alone. They roust be prepared to do as well as to argue — to act, as well as to petition, if they hope to wring justice from their Non-Catholic opponents, who are generally as callously indifierent to the humble demands of the weak suppliant for justice, as they are timidly sensitive to the threats of the strong man, determined to assert his rights. We must not then rely solely upon the manifest justice of our cause, as if our adversaries were amenable to the demands oi justice ; we can expect nothing from their sense of justice, though we may hope every thing from their fears. In fine, though we cannot make them hearken to reason, do homage to logic, respect truth, act honestly, or love God, we must try and make them dread man : we must convince them that it is not only unjust, but that it will be highly dangerous for them, to continue their attempts to enforce the accursed system of " State-Schoclism " upon their Ciitholio fellow citizens: such an argument Protestants can understand. '■■: And such an argument against State Schoolism, and in favor of Free Education, will be aflorded by the public expression of the Catholic ivill, that, in so far as Catholics are concerned, State-KSchoolisro shall cease, and that they will allow no State interference whatever, either in the matter of religion or of education. Will against will, the will of the Catholic minority is just as good as a reason, and quite as stubborn as a fact, as the will of the Protestant majority. Here then is an excellent argument — one to which the roost rabid Protestant must yield — against" State-Schoolism," or compulsory pxyment for Non-Catholio Schools. " We wUl not pay one cent fur the support of such Schools ; if our just demands are not granted, we rmll no longer pay school-rates, and no two words about it ; should oui Protestant fellow- citizens attempt to levy them by brute force, they must" — in the emphatic language of Mrs. Gamp — <* take the consequences of the sitivation." This then is the best, the shortest, and the easiest understood, of all arguments in favor of Freedom of Education — the expression ol the determination on the part of Catholics, no • s 32 longer to allow themselves to be taxed for the support of Non-Catholio Schools. In aneh a ease as this, resistance to an iniqaitoas law is not only a right, biU a duty, which every Catholic is called upon to perform, as he values his allegiance as a member of the Chureb, and his rights as a freeman. For the Church has spoken, and in the plainest terms— by the decision of the Bishops in Canada in Council assembled, a decision ratified by the Sovereign Pontifif— has condemned *< Mixed Schools— that is to say — schools in which Catholic and Protestant children are mixed indiscriminately together, and in which no, or a false, religion is taught, as altogethei dangerous" — dangerous to fuith, and dangerous to morals. Now, no power on earth can render it the duty of Catholics tu support institutions " dangerous" to faith and morals; it is therefore the duty of every Cathulic, — a duty from the performance of which no Act of Parliament can absolve him,— uotonly nU tosupport, but by every means in his power to oppose and resist, the establishment of such "dangerous" institutions. If it would be the duty of the Catholic to refuse to contribute towards the support of the gambling house, the grogshop, or the brothel, because the gambling house, the grog shop, and the brothel, are "dangerous" to faith and morals — for the same reason it is his duty now to refuse payment towards the support of schools which have also been pronounced by the Bishops of Christ's Church, and by Christ's Vicar on earth, <> dangerous" to faith and morals; and not the less dangerous because the danger is not, at first sight, so apparent. There can now be no doubts as to the duty of the Catholics of Upper Canada with respect to the " Mixed Schools." The man who, after the promulgation of the decrees of the Church, shall countenance, either directly, or indirectly, the system of State-Schoolism therein condemned, may call himself a ** Kawtholic,*^ but he is as unworthy of the name of Catholic, as Judas was of a place amongst the Lord's Apostles — as unworthy of the name of Catholic, as was the burner of incense before the statute of Cssar, of the name of Christian. Such men there may indeed be, for there have ever been, and ever will be, timid, time-serving, and treacherous, disciples; let us not, however, be dismayed, or scandalised, thpreat, though we cannot but regret the disgrace that such conduct brings upon the name of Catholic; thank God, such conduct is rare, the Iscariots are but few in number ; and though they call themselves Catholics, what is that to us ? The Church disowns them, and the very men for whose sakes they have made themselves vile, do, in their hearts, most thoroughly despise them. Here then is our argument against « State-Schoolism " : As freemen — recognizing no right on the part of the State to interfere with us, or our conscientious convictions, in matters of religion, or education, and determined to resist all such interference, no matter at what cost — we tffill no longer pay for the support of schools "dangerous" to faith and morals; and the sooner our Protestant feIlow*citizens "realize" this fact, and resign themselves to it, the better for themselves, and for the peace of the community. Peace we earnestly desire ; but peace, when obtained by unworthy concessions, is bought at too dear a price ; we are not prepared to make such concessions — to sacrifice a principle — to be renegade to our religion, false to our Church, and traitors to the cause of "civil and religious liberty :" peace upon such terms is not worth the purchase." The Catholics of Upper Canada are, in round numbers, about 180,000; united to the Catholics of the Lower Province, the Catholics compose, perhaps, the actual majority of the whole population. Not for this do they desire to domineer over, or to force an obnoxious educational system upon, their Protestant fellow citizens; but they know their strength as well as their rights; and they know also, that umted, they can make the one felt, and can enforce the other. It is then the duty, as it is the interest, of all the Catholics of Canada, without distinction of Upper, or Lower—of French, or Irish— to unite, and organize a system of stubborn resistance to <* State-Schoolism." The cause of the Catholics of Upper, is the cause of the Catholics of Lower, Canada ; and it is the duty uf the latter frankly to come forward, and to encourage and assist the former in their hour of need. We believe that neither the Executive, nor yet the Legislature, are hostilely disposed towards the claims of the Catholics, for Freedom of Education ; but it behoves lis, at the same time, to take care that these claims be heard. For this purpose it is in contemplation to procure the signatures uf the Catholics of Montreal to a petition to the ]s. In snch which every I the Churchy r the Bishops Pontiff— has id Protestant ion is taught, w, no power us" to faith Turroance of every means itutions. If pport of the e grog shop, t is his duty pronounced us" to faith so apparent, ivith respect irees of the e-SchooIism of the name srthy of the of the name ever win be, isniayed, or iduct brings but few in 'he Church vile, do, in 'ecognizing viotions, in no matter faith and Eind resign Peace ight at too pie — to be civil and ited to the najority of ' roree an now their :e the one Catholics mite, and of the e duty uf leir hour hostilely behoves it is in on to the 3d Legislature, in which shall be declared their sympathy with their unjustly used brethren or the Upper Province, and their request that, to the Catholic minority in Upper Canada, there be accorded the same liberty in the matter of education, as is enjoyed by the ProtestHnt minority in the Lower Province ; that schools, to whose support Catholics are compelled to contribute, shall be, in the matter of books and masters, and in oil their internal arrangements, wholly and solely under Catholic control. More we do not ask; less we will not accept. LETTER No. XL [from the TORONTO MIRROR.] ' The 14th of February, St. Valentine's dny, is fast approaching. The time to which our Provincial Parliament is adjourned, will soon arrive; and we expect to see the members of the different shades of politics, forgetting their petty bickerings in the general interchange of amatory amenities, come together with tokens of mutual oblivion of past disputes, and mutual and sincere desire to establish an honest harmony, whereby all parties may co-operate for the common good. Many measures of most vital importance have been left in abeyance, which must of necessity be promptly taken up, and, it is to be hoped that, during the long recess, these measures may have received due consideration from the different members, in order that when they shall come under discussion, their merits may be distinctly understood. The extension of the Elective Franchise, the sub- jects of Law Reform, our Commercial policy, and other matters of grave concern, now uwait the action of the Legislature, and must be dealt with effectually and earnestly. Among the different measures which must be promptly decided, the question of our Public Schools holds a prominent, and, in our opinion, a paramount position. Laws affecting the temporal afiairs of society, are essential, and cannot be dispensed with ; but the education of youth involves not merely a temporal, but an abiding and eternal inter- est ; — hence the consideration of the subject with a view to Legislative provision for its beneficial promotion, must always be approached in a spirit properly impressed with its vast importance. In this advanced period of an enlightened age, and under the free action of Repre- sentative institutions, all attempts to resuscitate the antiquated oppressions of a barbarous period, must be stoutly resisted. It is a subject of regret that our Canadian Legislature contains men of the "olden school," who under the influence of perhaps, an involuntary prejudice, would violate the sacred rights of conscience, by restrictive ond compulsory enactments for directing the education of youth. On this subject the Catholic mind is firmly and finally decided, and no interference between the parent and the child, in this delicate but solemn lesponsibility, can be allowed. « We must obey God rather than man" is their rule of conduct. The sacred deposit of the faith, the glorious inherHance, of their forefathers, must be carefully and faithfully transmitted to posterity, and no party nor power, however high, has any right to intrude its unhallowed influence into this sacred connection. We do, then, sincerely and earnestly hope that our legislators, when they next approach this subject, will endeavdur to divest their minds of all undue prejudice ; to coMie prepared to do to others as they would wish others to do to them ; to respect the rights of conscience in those persons with whom they may differ in religious matters; and to allow them the free and unmolested liberty of will and of action in the formation of the young minds of the tender pledges of their affections, the souls committed to their care, and of whom they must render a strict account. Of this awful responsibility no earthly power can relieve them, and hence no legislature should restrict its operation or circum- scribe its agency. A solemn truth of such comprehensive purpose, embracing the interests of time and of eternity, cannot be too oflen or toly law, all these into agencies of a question why vs of the country to the perpetua- >n, and indispet]- 30 long practiced [minal, and the )is peculiarity of the repeal of a nded, and prac- eral confidence, administration or such decision herto, m eet the But first and in the rectitude Tyrant power, f faith, in theii mtary degrada- the lion — will te their name era, it«ppears re of such men' es's Ward in se daring and committed to These duties [but distinctly these duties |ul, until their )prehensively |eous demand; srs, for which • 39 • they have neither time, nor taste, nor inclination ; they olaim a similar indulgence, and a oorrea|)onding immunity from legislative annoyance. We solemnly warn the actors in this insulting crusndo against the first principles of the Catholic faith to pause in their unhallowed career — their attempt at a bodly disguised system of religious persecution — and at once, and forever, to desist from an enterprise which must and will eventuate in their final discomfiture. The danger that is foreseen is generally averted, and we thank our enemies for putting us on our guartl, liy openly promulgating their hostile, their vindictive designs. The system that secretly and insidiously for ten years has been worming along its sinuous course, is now fully devel- oped, and it must be met by a cool and determined resistance that will say — •• Hitherto shult thou come, and no further, and here shall the piide of your destructive waves be stayed. You havo appronched the outworks, but not one inch further shall you advance ; tho citadel of the Faith will only be surrendered when no voice and no arm can be raised in its defence." But, thank Heaven, our defence is not physical, nor dependant on earthly support. Strong in thu might of Omnipotence, the Church will stand as she has hitherto stood on her immutable and eternal basis, and no attacks against her impregnable bulwarks can succeed. Her strong defender will protect her safe and unhurt amid the war of factions and the assaults of bigotry, and she can look down with proud defiance on the futile attacks of her desperate but imbecile assailants. To His Lordship the Right Reverend Bishop of Toronto, the eternal gratitude of the Catholic inhabitants of Western Canada is justly due, for the proud and dignified position which he has assumed in defence of their educational rights. Like the faithful Shepherd he nobly guards his flock from the attacks of the wolf; he fiieth not, like the hireling, but maintains his post with the fidelity and courage of the true champion of tho Cross. The vapid as&aults of pompous pedantry and verbal criticism pass idly as the tehtm sine ictu; while the eternal principles of his advocacy remain safe and intact — unassailed and unassailable. In a righteous cause, with such a leader, the people will discover no cause for despondency, but on the contrary, they will feel the confidence and the certainty of sutscess. This subject is encouraging, and would tempt us to indulge beyond our limits; but we must refrain at present, to make room for the following pertinent remarks, which we ■copy from our able cotemporary the Montreal 2\u« Witness : — , State-Schoolism. — The correspondence betwixt His Lordship tho Bishop of Toronto and Dr. Ryerson, the Chief Superintendent of State Schools, upon which we offered a few remarks a week or two ago, has by this time gone the rounds of, and been commented upon by tho greater part of the Canadian press. Only one of our cotemporarics though has as yet ventured to enter upon the merits of the question at issue, or to take up the cudgels in defence of State-Schoolism, that is "the pretensions of the State as educa- torJ*^ There have been sarcasms, or impertinences meant for sarcasms, levelled at his Lordship's style, as if there were great cause of triumph for the Protestant or State-School party, in that Dr. Ryerson, being an Englishman, should write more fluently in English, than does Mgr. de Charbonnef], a Frenchman ; the manner of his Lordship's correspon- xience has been criticized, but the matter and the essential justice of the principles which he advocates, have been, by a singular inadvertence, we might almost say coincidence, allowed to pass unnoticed by almost all ourcotemporaiies. .And here we may at once admit Dr. Ryerson's great advantage over the Bishop of Toronto, in that the former writes in a language of which he is thuroughly master, and well knows how to conceal his little meanmg beneath a most extravagant display of words; whilst the Bishop of Toronto is a Frenchman. In this, indeed, Dr. Eyerson has the advantage ; but in spite of all his verbosity, no impartial person will pretend to say tl>at the " Chief Superinten- 4ent " has been successful in supporting the affirmative answer to the question, <* Is it just to tax Catholics for the support of Non^atholic Scnools 1" This is the sole question at issue, though our opponents ever seek to -distract atten- tion from it, by raising a host of other, and totally irrelevant questions. They represent the Catholics of Upper Canada as demanding that the funds of the State, or a portion thereof, should be devoted to tlie teaching of Catholic doctrines; and they insinuate that it is becauio this demand is not complied with, that Catholics complain ofbcinff unjiistiy treated. Now, when the Globe, and other journals of the same stamp, repeat ;hij» statement, week after week, they know that ihey are deliberately repeating whot in false. Catholics moke no biich demand ; they a«k nothing from the State, but to bo Eut on a footing of perfect equality, in so far as respects their civil rights, with tho mem- ers of other religious denominations; that, us tho Methodist and tho Presbyterian have tho right to insist that they shall not be compelled to |xiy for the support of Anglicanism, or any other Non-CutholiC'tsm, except their own particular isms, so also Catholics shall not bo compelled to pay for the support, or propagation of, any form of Non-Catholic-iswi. Tho argument in short, of the Culliolic against State-Schoolism, is identical in principle with, and almost word for word tho sumo as, that which Dissenters in England, ond self-dubbed Liberals in this country, odduce against Stute-Cliurchism ; for Slate-Church- ism and Siate-Schoolism, are identically the same in principle, ond must stond or full together in tho opinions at least of all who arc ca)xiblo of reasoning logically, and who have any regard for consistency. Tho Civil power or Slate has no more right to interferr in matters of education, Ihah it has to interfere in matters of re'.igion. ]f Stato-Churcliism, or tho endowment of nny particular system of religion by the State be nn evil, an unwarrantable interference with the rights of conscience, and the civil rights of its subjects— Stnte-Schoolism, or tho endowment of any particular system of Education by tho State, is not a whit less nn evil. If the adoption of the Voluntary principle in matters of religion, bo just, so also must tho adoption of the same principle, in matters of education, bo just. Wo defy any man to adduce a singe argument in favour of State-Schoolisrn, that is not equally applicable to and in favour of State-Churchism; or to give a reason for rejecting tho one, without, at the same time, assigning a reason for rejecting tho other, ns a monstrous encroachment on the civil rights of tho subject, us an intolerable tyranny over the « individual con- science." Catholics do not condemn either State-Churchism or State-Schoolism, — that is, con- nexion between Church and State, and School and State, as necessarily, or as essen- tially evil J accidentally thay may be, and very often are evil. Were the Stale to endow, and by every means in its power to support the true Church, (if there be a true Church) were the State to give all tho assistance in its power to the maintenance and propagation of the true religion, (if there be a true religion) this would, indeed, be State-Churchism, but not therefore evil ; on the contrary, in so doing the State would be only doing its duty towards God, and towards all its subjects. One thing, indeed, would be indispensably pre-requisite, that the State shoukl know, with infallible certainty,/i-07» the true Church, which is the tntc religion, or otherwise it might support and endow a false Church — maintain and propagate amongst its subjects a false religion j this, too, would be State-Churchism ; but this State-Churchism would be a most grievous evil : a sin against God, a monstrous injustice, on the part of the State towards its subjects. And so with State-Schoolism; State-Schoolism will be good or evil, a blessing or a curse, according as ibe system of ediujation supported and endowed by the State, is a religious pjr an irreligious system of education. But here again, before the State can have the right to support o/ endow any system of education, it must have the means of knowing, with infallible certainty, what system of education is wi Cs « rei toj^ dij an su| ap ina 40 Who or what are yon, Mr. Prayer^ Priest or Layman, Catholic, Protestant or Nondescript? Yon are an Esquire at least ? You start with too much importance to be one of the mere ignoaile vulgus. You lurk in the dark ; all that appears is the simple t>ignature *' Peter Prayer." The Globe man, it appears, heavily oppressed in spirit ahuut the school question, had retired to rest, with all this awful load apon his breast. His dreams were frightful. Popery, in all its horrors, stood before him, surrounded with its tremendous cortege of Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Monks and votaries, with the Pope himself at their head. The vision chillled his blood, paralyzed his faculties, and pressed heavily on his breast, with all the pangs anvi horrors of a nightmare, even to suffocation. It was a night of torture, and the sufferer eagerly longed fcr the morning light. Scarcely, however, are his eyes opened to the morning dawn, when a fiiendly visitor enters his chamber, bearing in his hand the decrees of the Council of Quebec. "Hera friend Globe, is a beautiful thesis : th« Bishops of Canada have determined on exacting tytheii from their impoverished flocks, in this free and enlightened country." The Globe ri)b» his eyes, claps his hands, snatches the precious document, and exclaims in rapture, delijrhtful and oppor- tune! "Here is a means of diverting the public attention from the question of Common Schools. We have baen attacked on our own ground. We can now carry the war inte-tbe camp of the enemy." I may be in error, but to my mind, the letter signed <• Peter Prayer," bears all the marks of an ingenious fiction. It is not, it cannot be the production of a Catholic Priest ; to his avowed and inveterate enemy such would not adne of the mere ignooile ' Peter Prayer." )ol question, had retired ilfni. Popery, in All its of Cardinals, Bishops, vision chilled his Mood, > pangs and liorrors of a r eagerly longed for the lawii, when a fiiendJy iil of Quehec. « Here led on exacting tythes 'he CHobe robs his eyes, 9, delightful and oppor- jn of Common Schools, r intO'tfau camp of the beai'a all the marks of > Priest ; to his avowed lim ; it is not even' the' !. Place your hand on' ^01] were a Catholic, i liribed the Cardinal's i^s' Holiness Pius IX? pen war against their religiom'sts not to allow ? Would you accuse I to pronounce on the hould be conducted ? Jtion, ** but thank God etend to be a Catholic ; I the name and on the I coufieil. This i» the of Wittemburg did no ittention of the public !s from an ecclesiastic B in you nothing more II cannot be considered .nding in an unequivo- r phantom' or pseudo- l object' before yoi} can for the G/<»6e, then I liich you ir.ay consider uld excite among^ both an old ruse ot war. m, to what n»e fheir ) what source tttey are i^atholio institutions of e— I thank you- fcr the 1 in the honour of the ised in the estimation ncil of Quebec. s as your misrepresenta- ceplion ot your depraved the Catholic laity. Your : in your own disordered us societies, whom you ies, peace, wealth, and ant alien Establishnnerit, Du, " Peter," know this and plunderers of con'> " inttUigmti poticc."— ANTIPETROS.