IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 LI 2.0 lAO U ill 1.6 ^^ <^ /] >> o / /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 5^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. ^/ D D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de coulour I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliu.e serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6td film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemolaire qu'il lui a dtd possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes D / n This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqudes I I Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible r~| Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible imaye/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon k obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X laire i details |ues du it modifier iger une B filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reprodult grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canad» Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de !a condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. / Lides Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sont filmis en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un das symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reprodult en un seul cliche, 11 est filmd A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. >y errata ed to mt me pelure, apon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 1)K. Um: Til I .hr. MI CI [!^ Xo. L— II.— III.—: S( IV. - S( V.-' oi VL- SI ]] YIL— U tr VIIT.— V IX.— II X.— L ,'U XI. - 1). XI I. ~ r.s, '.T ;u Al'l'KNDl LO\'ELI I'OK S.\ Price, x> wm^fmatftmrnvmBmrmmtmam -^rr cA'-W ma L^TTEIRS iX iJEi/IA To TlfK ATTACKS OF THE HOr%l. GEORGE BROW^J, iVl. P. P, KKfTiiu IV 'Uir.r .\M» ri;"iM;i!;T(iK of tiik 'clokk 'V ' EDITED, WITH NOTES AND APPENDIX. Du. l\ vr.usox's Prcfatorv A;ard to tiie Separate School Provisions of the Law, from 1811 to 1S.")1, inclnsivc. — pp. 'i:\-~'17 ■ W . — Circnmstanees coiinccted with the ])assin<>; of the Sej)arate School Section of the Snpplementary Act of IS.n'i, ^Krc. — pp. 'll-\\\. V. — Tlu' ori;j,in inid pa:,sin;j; of the Roman (,'atholic Separate School Act of 18.").") — Sixth and seventh examples of Mr. Brown's literary foru;eries — Appendix — pp. .'U-.S!). \l. — ('onduct of Piihlic Men and Successive Governments, in regard to the S(diool System, compared with that of Mr. Ij.ou)!, viz. : Messrs. Baldwin, llineks, Lalontaine, Merritt, M. Cameron, X;c. — j)]). .'}!)— 1(5. \\\. — Mr. Brown's McGee alliance, in relation to the School System of U|){)er Canada — The McGec challen^v accepted — Ten illustrative ex- tracts from his Speeches. — ])p. Ul-.l 1. VIIT. — The Mission to Ireland, and ^Ir. Brown dismounted from his high Protestant Horse — llis bargain and sale of ])rinciplcs. — j))). .Vl-f)!). — ^Ir. Brown's "Compromise" on the Sei)arate School (piestion — llis objection to tiic abstract right of reading the Bible in the Schools, —pp. r)9-C>S. — Follv of ^Fr. Brown's School Statesmanship — Invites interference from Lower Canada, dthough he is fenced out of it by "Checks," "Assur- ances," aud " (Miarantees." — pp. GS-78. —Personal attack'; are Mr. Brown's stock-in-trade of argument when l)^,.^tcn — l\eci'ntsam))les(if them, and their ])rorn])t refutation. —]>[). 78-81. W{, Air. Brown's ji'rsonalities — His iinancial charges refuted — llis incon- sistenciesport rayed— Ajjpealfrom his threatstothe country. — j)}). S2-!)l . P.S. to I'Jth Letter. — Messrs. Brown and ?tIcGee skulking behind the ramparts of Parliamentary jirivileges to renew their attacks — ('orruitting and debasing iuiluence of the Glohc newspaper. — pp. |)l-!)(i, AiM'KNDix — Lxtracts from the ICditorials of the (Hohe in IS.")."), lS.jt), and l8."J7j Avith Notes and Inferences. — p]). !)7-l 10. I\. K. XL TORONTO : LON'ELL k CUr.SON, PPvINTEUS AND PUBLISHERS, YOXTiE STREET. Foil SALK l!V W. ('. F. CAVERIIILL, BOOKSET.I.KU AND STATTOXEll, VOM.'K STUKICT, AM) AT THE BOOKSTORES TUKOCUIIOLT (.'A>fAUA. Price, 7],d.,] LS59. [Or, 12i Cts. D B w. ' i DH, KYEESON'S LETTEES IN REPLY TO THE ATTACKS OF THE HON. GEOEGE BEOWN, M.P.P. eutor'An-iBm" anU laropriftot of tt)t '&lobc: I EDITED WITH NOTES AND AN APPENDIX. TOUONTOi iiOVfiLL AND GIBSON, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS; AKD W. C. p. CAVERHILL, BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER, YONGE STREET. 1859. TORONTO ; LOYKtr, AND GnJSON, PHINTKBS, TONGB STRBKT. ^ / ^rcfatoriT ^im to iljc |)copIc of ^ppcr CnnabiL ^0 ^0?^ ??zy Fellow Christ iatis and Felloio Countrymen oj every or iy in, faith and party in Upper Canada, I dedicate the followiny Letters in defence of our School System and myself against the most insidious conspiracy and formi- dalle attachs lohich have ever heen tcitnessed : — Our System! of Public Schools is not the decree of a despot enforced upon you, but the expression of your own luind and will, the development of your own parental and patriotic feelings, the creation of your own enterprise and intelligence. My connexion with it now dates back fourteen years : and it has been my aim, as it was my duty, to collect and lay before you the best information in my power ; to devise, as far as I could, and submit to you the best system the circumstances of the country wc .Id allow, and the best means for its operations and extension ; to dictate to you in nothing, but to aid you in every way possible, in educating your children and in providing them and yourselves with books of useful and entertaining knowledge. You are yourselves witnesses, from your own consciousness and experience, that in our system of public instruction parental right and supremacy are held sacred, and Municipal rights and powers are fully recognized and secured ; that the working of that system is not only an agency of universal education, in wh'ch the poor man has equal rights and privileges with the rich man, but a school of local self-government, and therefore of civil and religious liberty- The results of tlie system also show that school books of all kinds have been greatly reduced in price and greatly improved in quality ; that maps and apparatus of all kinds, and libraries of ample variety, are rendered accessible to all parts of the country, and cheaper than in any other country in the world ; that school architecture and accommodation have improved in corres- ponding ratio, as liave the general methods of school instruction and manage- ment ; that since 1846, the number of pupils in the Common Schools has advanced from 101,912 to 272,637, and the salaries of teachers from £67,906 to £210,657 ; that the grand total of means provided for Common School pur- poses were in 1850, (there being no returns previous to that date,) £102,619, while they amounted in 1857 to £303,039. During my Superintendency of the School System there have been before 1858 no less than five Administrations of Government, embracing the leading men of different political parties. I have maintained an equally friendly relation to rhem all ; and no one of them ever attempted to render the School System subs3rvient to political party purposes. But in July last, contrary to all precedent in this or in any other country, the IV School System of Upper Canada, ^vlthout any agitation except by the Glohe nowapapor, and lliat tor party purposes, and in tlio face of tlio most marvelous and yearly increasing success, was made the subject of secret party negocia- tions ; and negoeiations, not oven with another party in Upper Canada, but with another party in Lower Canada, — thus recognizing tlie right, out of Upper Canada, to control in its owji local school aflhirs, and involving a cliange in the relations of one large religious eommuuity to our School System, as filso a change in its whole internal regulations and character. The system iu Ireland was to bo the standard to wliich ours was to be conformed. Having myself visited Ireland in the Autumn of 1857, inquired into the changes which had taken place in its character and operations, and procured oftlcial docu- ments illustrative of those changes, I felt it my duty to hiy the information thus acquired before the public, especially in my Annual Report, tliat the IMunicipal and other Local School authorities, as well as Members of the Legislature, could examine and judge for themselves. I simply embodied the facts in my lieport, with a comparison of the Irish and Canadian systems ; but for doing so, I have been made the object of fierce and deadly attacks, while my replies to those attacks have been excluded from the columns of the Globe, by the Editor of which the attacks had been made. Under these circumstances I have been compelled to seek other more just and liberal cliannels of communication with the public in my own defence {Colonist and Lender) ; and it is with the same view I avail myself of the e]iterprise of a liberal Publisher to present them to the public iu this form, that they may be made more extensively accessible to those readers who have only as yet perused the false and poisonous attacks and representations of the "Editor-in-Chief and Proprietor" of the Glohe newspaper. I feel it a duty to myself and to the country at large to avail myself of every possible means, to give correct information as to the nature and grounds of School legisla- tion for Upper Canada during the last twelve years, and to vindicate succes- sive Administrations and Parliaments, as well as myself, from the assertions and misrepresentations of the Hon. George Brown and his Gloie newspaper. The position that Mr. Brown has acquired in the country, and tlie use he has made of that position to assail me and undermine the whole fabric of our public school system, under the pretext of abolishing certain provisions of the law which have never endangered or impeded its progress, but which have operated indirectly to its consolidation and extension, is my apology for replying to his attacks and statements iu so formal a manner. I trust the perusal of the following letters will satisfy every candid reader of the injustice of Mr.*Erowu's attacks upon myself personally, and upon various public men who have had to do with our school legislation ; of the obvious tendency of his " political alliance " to weaken and subvert our School System ; and of the wisdom of pursuing the course adopted the last few years in order to advance the best interests of Education and knowledge in Upper Canada. E. ETEESON. ToBONTO, February, 1859. I'rcfiitl lie ply I f CONTENTS. reader upon of the rt our lie last wledge Frcfiitoiy Address to tho Toople of Upper Ciint\da Iteply to Mr. Brown's first attivcks as to Scpariito Seiiool Btalistios and " political nllioH."— Cliargo retorted. — DitVorence ])et\v(M'ii Papists and Roinari Catholics. — Friendship with tho latter; opposition of tho former. — Mr. McOoe Mr. IJrowu's "political ally."— Mr. McOeo's political recantation; coufession ; motto of *' More power to tho Pope!" — IIi.s warning against Eni,di3h, Parisian, and German ideas as Protestant at bottom. — Pronounces the Keformation a "Oornian rebel- PAOES 8 ion. 9-1. '> Mr. Brown makes a second attack of seven columns. — Refuses to insert Dr. Ryorson's reply. — Notes to the Colonist and Leader respecting it 15-17 DR. RYERSON'S GENERAL REPLY TO MR. BROWN. No. I. Mr. Brown's attacks nnd misrepresentations stated. — Qnestion at is.'^uo. — Mr. Brown's Bubterfuge. — Attack upon the Judges. — Cliarge of political partizanship repelled. — What to be proved in the following letters 17-19 No. II. ilr. ]3rown's lalsc quotations. — Five examples from Reports 1810, 1818, and 1852. . . 20-23 No. in. Parliamentary and Governmental proceedings in regard to Separate School Clausos of tlic law, from 1841 to 1851, inclusive. — Right of a People to determine a system of education for themselves. — Original ground ou which the principle of Separate Schools was sanctioned in Upper Canada. — Provisions relating to them in the Acta cf 1841, 18415, 1846, and 1817. — Circumatances under which the School Act of 1849 was passed, as also the 10th Section of tho School Act of 1850. — A wise and patriotic proceeding on the part of Messrs. Baldwin and Ilincka, and the Legislature. — Short Act of 1851, relating to Separate Schools i^. Cities and Towns, — a just and safe measure 23-27 No. IV. Separate School Legislation in 1853. — True ground of the Separate School Law stated. — Mr. Brown's misstatements as to tlio School Act of 1851. — His dread of Quebec. — His suppression of one-third of Dr. Ryerson's Letter. — Causes and objects of the Separate School Section of the Act of 1853. — Free Scliools secured and promoted, and the School System strengthened by it 27-31 No. V. Origin and Pas.'iiug of the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 185E. — Mr. Brown's statements and calumnies. — Bishop Charbonnel's satisfaction with the School Act of 1853. — His agitation and complaints. — What proposed to satisfy them. — Mr. Brown's misrepresentation of Mr, Hincks and Dr. Ryerson exposed, and his sixth false quotation detected. — Sir Allan MacNab's administration formed. — Roman Catholic Bishops' Correspondence respecting it. — Bishop Charbonnel and Dr. Ryerson proceed to Quebec. — Their Discussion there.— No surrender on either Bide. — Dr. Ryerson's last Letter on Separate School Legislation. — Published and applauded by the C/oftc— Separate School Bill of 1855 introduced. — Telegraphic Correspendence respecting it. — Who opposed and got it amended. — Innocence of tlie amended Bill as stated by Mr. Langton, and as experience has proved. — Mr. Bowes' Bill of 1856.— Members of Government denounced by Bishop Charbonnel VI No. y,— {Continued.) VAOtn for votln? a^'ninst it— Other Rtntcmonts <>f Mr. Hr(.^vn qunt.-.l ni\<\ rofiitod, nnd bis sovt'iith fiilso quotution iletected,— Uirtliop Cliiubutnu'rH tliroati'iiod nriewal of njjitiition «»f Mr. IJowos' Bill on Separate SoIiooIh. — Dr. IlycrHoii'H roviow of tbfkt Hill in liiH Ilcport for 1855, written in 18.'>6, niid liis rocuiniaeiidiitinii uo to whii«, slio.dd \m done in chho of such ronowiil of iii^'itiitioii, 4c. — No n^itiition since renewed on tlie suhjuct except timt of Mr. Un)wn. — OoncluHion. Api'ENnix — Coloniat'n Qiu'bec correspondent's account of the Uebnto in Qucboo on Separate School Bill of 1855, in refutation of Mr. Urown's Btntement, that iLo "worst features of the Bill of 1866 were struck out by the efforts of the Opposition.". . 81-30 No. VI. Mr. Brown's conduct in school matters compared with that of Mr. IlincIvS, Sir II. L. Laforitaiuo, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. M. Cainorou, Mr. Baldwin's Govcianient in 1849, and Sir Allnn MiioNab's (lovcrinncnt in 1853. — Mr. Brown's mis-atateinents refuted, and the reliylous features of our School System exhilnted, in extracts of Dr. Ryorpon's letter to Mr. Baldwin, dated July 14th, 1849, and hia review of the conduct of the Globe and other parties towards him 39-46 No. VII. Mr. Brown's McGeo alliance in relation to the School System of Upper Canada. — Mr. Brown's attack and the retort of it. — Mr. Brown ashamed of Mr. SIoGee's political confession of faith, and philosophy respecting it.— Mi-. McGco oonfossos it, and appeals to reformers of " irom/ ]>i'inciple3." — Burke on men of "largo principles." — Boast in Catholic circles of Montreal. — Daniel O'Conncll on " elo- quent focils." — Mr. McGeo's poetry. — Ilis and Mr. Brown's mistakes and cry for help. — Not a political party, but a personal controversy, commenced by Mr. BroAvn. — Mr. Brown's opinion of Mr. McGec before and since their alliance; (a note.) — Mr. McGee's chaflentje accepted. — Proofs of his having said what should and what should not be, as to our School System. — His avowal of Separate Schools as "a sacred principle," (fee. — His first suggestion and object of school importation from Ireland. — His foolish misrepresentations. — Parental right. — His cruel distinctions between the children of the drunkard and sober man at school. — His objection to the " association " of Catholic with Protestant children at school. — His objection to any system of State Education as the " worst mono- poly." — His appeal to Protestants in support of Separate Schools.— His only wish to keep lloman Catholic children out of the Common Schools. — His protest against the sch'^ol system on account of its recognizing equality between the Eoman Catholic and Protestant Churches. — Character of the Btown-McGee Alliance, under the pretext of "putting an end to Separate Schools." — The avowed enemies of our School System present " political allies" and bosom friends of Mr. Brown 46-64 No. VIII. Four propositions to be proved. — Agreement and evidence defined. — Proofs of the first proposition that Mr. Brown did agree to send a mission to Ireland, and the grounds of belief that Mr. McGee was the intended Commissioner.— Second pro- position: Illustrations of Mr. Brown's former course as to the Romish Priesthood and Fopery. — Concession to Mr. Attorney General Maedonald. — Messrs. Cauchon and Tache, " the veriest tools of the Roman Hierarchy."— Bishop Charbounel " lobbying and threatening."— School Bill of 1855 "innocuous us a Papistical School Bill could well be."—" Romish and Puseyite priestcraft cannot stand before the enlightenment" of "our Common Schools."— No "tampering," or compromise on the Separate School question. — Present relations and character of Mr. Brown in regard to the Romiah Priesthood and Roman Catholic Church. I 1 tU FAOU nnd >Wftl V of rt to itico rx— rate orst 81-30 [. L. S41), outs t8 0f the 3i>-4C a.— 8908 "•go clo- for Mr. ; (ft .Ulll rate lool at ren no- Ill y est the Jee ho ora 46-54 ;he he ro- od ou lel :al nd or er ;h. No. VIII. — {Continued.) paoe* — Sml ftiul ludicrous spectnclo. — Triumph of MossrB. Drummond, Dorion, and Onuchoti. — Joy of Hishop Charhoiinel and Vicar-Gcnoral Hruy(iro. — Cuuhc of Mr. Urowii's chftiiRo— not in •lio Catholic priesthood or (Jhuroh or their poHitioti on tlie Sfiparato Sciuiol iiueation — not in tiie principles and avowed ohjoctH of their nowHpnpcr orj,'ans— not, as Mr. IJrown afllrma, in any change in his principles — his change of eourso must therefore result from bargain and salo 54-69 No. IX. Mr. Brown's professions and practice in regard to "compromise" — calls Dr. Ryerson " essentially a compromiser" — Dr. Ilyerson's reply — In hope of ofiice, Mr. Urown '•comproniiHes" beyond Mr. Drummond'H previous belief, and in tho face of his own denunciation of sueh a compromise (note). — Mr. Brown refuses to let tho public kn<»w the nature of his " compromise " — inferred from tho dogma of tho Catholic Church on the subject, tho declarations of Mr. McGco's or^ai\8 the " Canadian Frecninn " ar.sl '• True \Vitnc8,-»," and tho admissions of Mr. Brown himself in contradiction to his previous and even contemporaneous statements. — The Brown-McGeo alliance triumphant in Toronto and North Wellington (note). — The " True Witness" considers Mr. Brown more favorable to Soj)aruto Schools than " the llev. Mr. Ryerson." — Declaration of the lion. J. Sanfield Macdonald that the law as it is should bo a " tinality,'' that " ho would not go for anything more on cither side." — Mr. Brown objects to tho right of reading tho Biur.K in our Schools. — Regulations as to the use of tho Bible and roligioun exercises iu Schools explained. — Pronounced satisfactory by Mr. Brown in May last, but requiring a mission of inquiry in July. — Bible used in 2,416 school^. — Mr. Brown's objections to tho use of the Bible in schools quoted and answered. — Tho Bible a symbol as well as a Protestant text-book of religious instruction. — Dr. Ryersou's views and position as stated in a letter to Mr. Baldwin in 1849. — Rule of the Irish National Board on the use of the Bible in schools 59-68 No. X. Weakness and folly of Mr. Brown's position and statesmanship in the July negotia- tions. — Mr. Brown fenced off by "guarantees" from touching "tho civil and religious institutions of Lower Canada." — Mr. Thibaudeau's statement of them (in a note).— The " Globo " now the " natural ally " of McGee Roman Catholics. — Degradation of Mr. Brown's position. — Advantage and superiority of Messrs. Dorion and Drummond in their negotiations with Mr. Brown. — Mr. Brown's former declared objects of Representation by population (in a note). — Ilis igno- rance and incorrect statements as to the Irish national system being approved by the clergy and members of all denominations in Ireland. — Opposition of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Clergy to tho School system in Ireland. — Mr. Brown's concealment, and reference to Bishop Clmrbonnel. — Comparison between Lira and the liishop. — Retirement of Protestant members from the Irish National Board. — Working of the Irish system in respect to Protestants using the Bible and other books of religious instruction iu the Schools. — How the Bible is turned out of the Schools there, and how it would be turned out of them here, had the Protestants' right to it been conceded, as Mr. Brown contends. — Two other objec- tions of .Mr. Brown answered, namely, the removal of tho Seat of Government to Quebec, and the proceedings of the Synod of the Church of England. — Mr. Brown the only real danger to tho integrity of our School system. — Interference from Lower Canada not wise or best for either section of the Province. — The whole of the Irish National system as it was in regard to religious exercises and instruc- tion adopted in Upper Canada. — Grounds of Dr. Ryerson's concessions stated for the first time, and his views in regard to the Separate School Law as it is and as it ought to be 68-78 • • • vm No. XI. FAQES "Weakness of Mr. Brown's cause from Lis mode of argument — Examples. — Examples of bis false reporting the proceedings of Parliament, — Several charges against Dr. Eyerson al9 to " speculating," " shaving," &c., refuted, and retorted 78-81 No. XII. Mr. Browa's new system of personalities and its moral effect. — His oft-repeated charges of misappropriation of Public Moneys refuted at length by facts, reason- ings, and testimony. — His garbling of evidence. — His refusal to publish the unanimous Resolution of tho Council of York and Peel in favor of the Educa- tional Department and its Administration. — Singles out Dr. Ryerson's sala' v for attack, and reptoaches tim for his " dotage." — Sketch of Mr. Brown's public career. — Threat of " pitching into " Dr. Ryerson. — Its execution. — Result. — Mr. Brown's .cry for help. — Abuse of Parliamentary privilege. — Appeal from Mr. Brown to the country 82-90 PosTSOBiPT TO Letter No. XIL Messrs. Brown, Dorion, and McG<;e in Parliament on the School question, — Attacks and argumentation of Messrs. McGee and Brown analyzed and retorted. — Mr. McGee'fl threatened renewal of Irish agitation, jnisin in Dr. ll.'s r(!,)oits cxp iisud. 6. In your article of more than two columns ii' to-day's Globe, you assert that "Tlie repujL which he (Dr. Ryersoa) has ju.t put lorth to the world, contains state- ments utterly antagonistic to all documents he issued fro. a 18'>1 to 1854, when the se^Darate schools coatroversy w.is raging. Then his whole a^ gument was directed to show tivat separate schools were unneces- sary and laiscliievons ; tliat they were not desired by the laity, but only by the clergy ; that Protestant aad Catholic could be 11 1852, the acreaae in. 1854 they ; a lull in. y declined 311 was re- 3. I was )e and the shop Char- emselves — J increased gth of the lustod, the 1857 was wem closed nly tWv;lve. a were even not be one uada, apart Uages ; and nsliip, city, indangered, ions of the JS3 impeded 3 you have ,rate schools luiit to state (3 whatever ir statement all the in- r of separate lad been as ivs with one ■, you would [hile the in- U 1852 to 100, the in- kg the same I ; that while Ite scnools in [e actual iu- [250. The?e liearts of the le friends of lada, as they liid success of Ijiiihed, how- I) you in your Iflcial effort to 1-0 than two m aisert that lllyersou) has Bjiitains state- ni documents I4, whoa the I WIS raging, n directed to Bere uiinoces- B;hoy were not fty the clergy ; Hlic could be educated on the same bench, and without any injury to the faith of either. " Now, Sir, in my recent report, I have also shown that there is no need of separate schools, either for purposes of religious, or for secular instruction ; and I have pointed out, for the consideration of the sup- porters of separate schools, the advantages to which they subject their children. But the point of your assertion is, that I advo- cated the abolition of the se]>arate school provisions of the law from 1851 to 1854, and that I now advocate their continuance ; and you quote passages from my reports for 1851 and 1854, to give a color of proba- bility to your statement. Now, if the reader turns to my reports for 1851 and 1854, he will see that in those reports I did not discuss or refer at all to the separate school clauses of the law, but simply to the "Question of Religious Instruction in Schools ;" in discussing which, I showed that the denominational schools were not necessary for that purpose, but that all in- struction desired could be given in con- nexion with our non-denominational schools — the very views I have maintained in my recent Report. But I will .ask you with what sort of face can you assert, that from "1851 to 1854," eveiy document I put forth was against the separate school clauses of the law, when, in my report for 1852, I devoted nearly five pages in answer to * ' Objections of certain opposers of the Separate School clauses of the law," in which I argued at great length, in justifica- tion of continuing those clauses ; after which I devoted nearly three pages in an- swer to "Objections of certain advocates of Separate Schools," showing the unrea- sonableness of their complaints against the eq\iity of the separate school provisions of the law, and of their demands for further modifications. Then, Sir, in 1853, I pre- pared the draft of the Supplementary School Act, the fourth section of which re- lates to separate schools, and which was prepared to satisfy the professed wishes, and silence the clamor of the advocates of separate schools — a clause respecting which I consulted with friends of public education during an official tour to each county of Upper Canada. Thus, during the two years that intervened between 1851 and 1854, I did more to maintain tlie separate school g1. i33s of the law, than I have done during any other two years of my life — so entirely the reverse of truth are your bold and unqualified assertions, and your rea- sonings of more than two columns founded upon them. Sir, I have as large an interest of cha- racter and enjoyment and solicitude for my native country, as you or any other min, in the integrity, extension, and per- petuity of our national school system ; and I firmly believe, from observations at home, and from analogies and facts in other coun- tries, that the integrity and efficiency, and even continuance of our public school sys- tem, depend upon the course I pur.^uo, and have invariably pursued, from the begin- ning, in regard to the separate school clauses of the law. The day after the last discussion in the Legislative Assembly on the subject of the soparate school clauses of the Law, I met two prominent members of your own side of the House, who told me they believed, from the tone of the discus- sion and the vote at the close of it, that the question was settled for years ; nor do I believe it would now be a topic of discus- sion, had you not made it a matter of party negotiation in July last, in order to secure a " political ally." 5. Mr. Brown's chirge of "Political .A.llies " a laert- j)r(^te.'ict. — His aiixi'.-ty to make tlic Upper Canada School Sy.stem a political quiistion. 7. — I now address myself to the more general subject of the charge involved in your first article, in which you speak of my "evident desire to defend the system pa- tronized by my political allies in the Gov- ernment. " The object of this imputation cannot be mistaken. It is one of your pretexts for crushing me and subverting the School System. If the present Govern- ment patronizes the School System, it does what all the Municipalities of Upper Ca- nada have done ; it does what the people at large, without distinction of party, have done, with unprecedented unanimity and energy, and with unrivalled success ; it does what the Globe charged the Govern- ment of the day, from 1852 to 1857, with being the "Political Allies" of Bishop Charbonnel and the Priests of I^ower Ca- nada, and their "minions" and "slavt3S," in order to subvert and destroy. If the present Government "patronizes" the School System of Upper Canada so as to maintain it inviolate, it will do what I have sought with siiccess to induce oveiy Gov- erniuent to do during -^he last twelve years ; it does what I believe to be due to the municipal and individutil rig'its, the best liberties and interosts of the people of Upper Canada. But that I have "Politi- cal Allies " in any party, or that I have in any way sought to identify our great School System with p )litieal party, you, sir, know to bj untrue from the fact that in regard to every mca^^^m-e I have, since 1850, sub- mitted to ihe (lovernmoutand Legislature, I have, by the permission of the Adminis- tration of the day, as fully consulted with 12 the leading Members of the Opposition as with +.he Members and supporters of the GoveiAment, so that no party could make pohtical capital out of the School System, and that all parties should equally partici- pate in the credit and satisfaction of its success. The only shadow of pretext you have ever had is a note I wrote to a near relative at Wliitby, and which was publish- ed on the eve of the late General Election — a note, the date of which shows that it was written before Mr. Mowat was known as a candidate, and the contents of which show that it would have been neither manly nor Christian in me to have refused the explanation given in regard to the conduct of a gentleman who liad acted as my col- league and efficient helper in the work of Education for eleven years, but who had been represented as adverse to me and to the System of Education I was endeavor- ing to maintain. I submit to you, sir, in your retired and thoughtful moments, whether such conduct on my part was not more to be honored than condemned, and more satisfactory to contemplate, than that which you have pursued in regard to the same gentleman in view of all the relations that he has sustained to you. But as no- thing oould be found in my published note which could be objected to, the Globe charg- ed me with writing one of a political party character to some person in Pickering — a charge without a shadow or particle of truth. 6. Mr. Brown's present "Political Allies," the old enemies of the School System.— Silencing Dr. Bororson, the first part of his Contract. 8. — But, Sir, you know that the very parties whose aggressions upon our School System I have struggled to resist in past years were the avowed supporters of the Government of the day, and whose '* tools" you represented the Government to be, and who, I have reason to know, besieged and threatened the Government not a little, for not forbidding me to resist their preten- sions, and for not compelling me into submission to their demands. These parties having failed of success in that quarter, have, it appears, at length pro- posed to become " Political Allies" of yours, in order to accomplish their objects against me and the School System of Upper Canada. Your attacks upon me and de- mands for my silence are doubtless the first instalment of the contract with your new '* pohtical ally," and the introduction of certaiii parts of the Irish National School System altogether. Hence your attacks upon me some time ago for even venturing, at the University dejeuner, to contrast a single feature of onx School System with that iu Ireland, and hence your proposal, while professing on the one hand opposi- tion to Separate Schools, to borrow, on the other hand, from the Irish National School System, in the operations of which there are only 48 Schools under the joint man- agement of Protestants and Roman Catho- lics, and upwards of 5,000 Schools under individual denominational management, and where the municipal and elective rights of the people in School matters are un- known. 7. Second part of the Contract, to make the School System of Upper Canada a party question. You, Sir, are the first public man in Up- per Canada who has made our School Sys- tem a party quovstion, and a subject of party negotiation, and who has assailed me for advocating at any time, and on any occasion, that School System which has, down to last July, grown up under vhe auspices of the leading men of all parties. You cannot but know from the examination of my re- port, that I have adopted the only throe features of the Irish School System which are of a non-denominational and national character, and have rejected only those wliich are denominational, or which ignore the mtuiicipal and civil liberties of the peopl . and that you can introduce no other feature of the Irish System without, on the one hand abridging the liberties of the people, and on the other hand, giving "more power to the Pope." 8, Mr. Brown's Charge against the G-OTomment of 1855 insincere, and only applicable to himself. 9. — It is also worthy of remark, that in 1855, and since you denounced the Govern- ment of the day for deciding upon an Up- per Canada School measure, or suffering it to be brought before ParUament, without consulting tue Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada ; yet, you have not only decided to modify the whole School system of Upper Canada without consulting him ; but you boast again and again in your paper that he knows nothing of your proposed changes in that very sys- tem which it has been the chief labor of his life to establish and develope. 9. Hostility on the part of nltras of hoth sidea.— Mr. Brown's alliance with the worst of them. 10. — You know, Sir, as well as I do, as is e\'inced in my reports, that I no more de- sire the extension of Separate Schools than you profess to do ; and facts show that the Separate School clause of the Act of 1850 has in no way caused the little extension they have had during the last seven years. But I have a duty to discharge to my Ro- man CathoUc, as well as Protestant, fellow subjects ; and I will endeavor, as I have always done, to act as f aithlxdly in regard 1 -*n tension [years. ly Ro- lf ellow |I have Iregari 13 I to one as to the other, and to do to each as I would be done by. I know that in pur- suing tliis course I have given satisfaction to the great body both of Roman Catholics and Proteatjints ; but there is a small sec- tion of each party whoso hostility I cannot expect to escape hereafter, any more than I have been able to avoid it heretofore ; and it is to me the strangest phenomenon which has appeared in our political horizon, that you and one of those parties should become "political allies," These two classes of persons in tho Roman Catholic Church are so clearly defined by tho London Times of the 14th ult., that I hero quote it at length, as containing information which will be interesting and instructive to the whole Canadian public. 10. Difference between a Papist and a Roman Catholic distinctly marked.* The Times says: "The difference between a Papist and Roman Catholic is one well known in their Church, but little understood outside of it. The Papist is a msin who can have no real patriotism, and no feeling of civil liberty — he is first and above all things the subject of the Pope. The Roman Catholic is a man who holds — we of the reformed faith think errone- ously holds — a common faith with men to whom we owe all the foundations of our liberties. The former is noisy and aggressive, the latter is silent and a lover of peace. The Papists are so rare in Englnnd that, if we except the con- verts, we could number all the gentry of that persuasion upon our fingers. They are not nu- merous in France, either among the Clergy or Laity, and even in Spain, Austria, and Italy they are remarkable rather for their zeal than their numbers. They occupy the public atten- tion by writing in such papers as the Univers, and by aggressive acts such as the ecclesiastical partition of England, and the kidnapping of the Jew boy Mortara ; and they exercise an influ- ence over the most ignorant of the peasantry by coarse jugglery and clumsy modern miracles. The Roman Catholics as distinguished from the Papists, retain the same temper which they, in our own country, showed in every year of our history before the Reformation, by a constant unrelaxiu'j: opposition to the pretensions of all foreign Priests. When Cardinal Wiseman querulously deplores the lukewarmness of English Catholics, this is what he means; when he exults in the fervor of Irish faith, he is de- ceived into mistaking for devotion to Rome, a «eal which is only prompted by hostility to England. This reasoning body of Roman Ca- tholics forms the opposition to absolute govern- ments in Roman Catholic countrie:), and there fore seldom ventures to make its voice heard except as the whisper of a widespread multi- tude. They are in force and in power in Sardi- nia, and sometimes in Spain ar.u Poi tugal ; but • The whole of this and the supceedinj? paragraphs, 11, 12, IS, and 14. were omitted from the letterau publiBbed in the Weekly Globe ! See paraKraph 40. they are kept down by the strong arm in Aus- tria and Italy, and thoy are naturally feared in Piauce. The Pajiist, tlie peasantry and the despot are the necessary conditions of despot- ism in Europe ; if the first and the last are not united, and if the second cannot b« deluded, no absolute throne can stand." 11. Friendship with Roman Oatholics ; bnt distnr- bance and aKuressiuii tVoin Papists.— Mr. Urown's allianco witli tlic ciiampion of tli(! latter party to ia-« termeddle with the Upper Canada School system. With the Roman Catholics as above de- scribed, we have ever lived, and_ I trust ever will live in a spirit of friendsiiip, con- fidence and co-operation, aa tho cement of union between Protestants and Catholics, and between Upper and Lower Canada; but from the Papists we can expect noth- ing but disturbance and aggression. Yet, marvellous to say, while you charge me with the imaginary crime of having "political allies in the present Govern- ment," you have united yourself as a "po- litical ally" with an avowed Papist as above distinguished from a Roman Catholic by the London Times. You know that in my successive School Reports and other- wise, I have prote.sted against men, not residents in Upper Canada, interfering with the School system of Upper Canada; and these 'iews have been strongly endorsed by the Oloi"., which has loudly and frequently denounce I intermeddling with the school affairs of I'pper Canada by what it termed ' 'priest-ridaen" politicians of Lower Canada. Yet after all this, and after having assailed me on the score of "political allies," even with no other than the alleged view of maintaining our existing school system, you have formed a political alliance with a man of Lower Canada in order to modify the school system of Upper Canada, accept- ing his dictation and proposing to send him to Ireland to import a school system for Upper Canada, as a substitute for that already established, and tliat man holding the avowed sentiments of the sect which the London Times describes as Papists. I need scarcely say that I mean Thomas D' Arcy McGee, Esq. , M. P. P. , of Montreal ; nor should I mention his name, or make any allusion to him cis your "politic..^ ally," had he not, on different occasions, declared with your concurrence, and as your "ally," what should, and what should not be in regard to changing our school system. You have commended Mr. McGee as a man who has for many years advocated liberal opinions, and have recognized and approved his dictation in the school affairs of Upper Canada. But you have not informed the public, and perhaps Mr. McGee has not informed you, that he has repented of and recanted all has former liberal opinions, and 14 has avowed a creed subversive of every- tiiing Protestant and liberal and elevating in Upper Canada. It is true Mr. McGee was 80 liberal that in 1849, as The Leader has shown by apt quotations, he fell under the displeasure of the "Papistical" part of the Roman Catholic clergy in both Ireland and the United States; but four years after- wards he declared his repentence and made * his confession, and avowed the creed and the motto of his future life. 12, Mr. McSee's recantation, and confession.— Hi!) warniniratrainst EiikUhIi, German and Pari:>ian idt'tm as at bottom Protuhtant. .1 have before me a printed copy of a lecture delivered by Mr. McGee before the Catholic Institute of New York in 1853, on "T/ic Political Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Reformation'^ — a pamphlet which I have procured through an agent from the publishers in New York, Messrs. D. rivate and public life which they cannot de- end by reason, or in conscience, and which religion emphatically condemns," (pp. 25, 26.) Such is Mr. McGee's deliberate recanta- tion, confession, and warning against English, German, and Parisian ideas, as at the bottom Protestant ideas. 13, The rale of Mr. McGee's fntnre life declared tobi) "More Power to the Pope!"— Th« Pro- testant Reformation a '" German Rebellion !" , . The following is his statement of the principles and objects of liis social progress, and the rule of his future life: — " I do not deny the modern progress of man- kind in many useful art», but I question whether many iheoiies of social progress now so rife, are really sound, and I believe the direction pointed out is wrong. I am for progress, with all mj heart, but I want to know who is at the helm, and whether or not the steersman can 'box the compass.' lam certainly not going to fea with a crew of land lubbers, and a pilot who cannot lell how many points there are between S.S.W. ami N.N.E. I am anxious to have a wise, experienced and aulboritative head and hand in the leader of our progress now, and I am well content tiiat hand should be unfettered, and that head should be crowned with the shining circlet of authority. All true Christians should act to-day, as Charlemague did a thousi.ud years ago, by the lawful head of Christendom, and instead of limiting or begrudging the authority of our great leader, we should keep as a motto for ever before our eyes and ihose of our children, this short sentence — More power to the Pope. [Mr. McGee's own italics.] For I verily believe that if the ratio of light progress which pervaded the middle ages, from the age of the L'arbarians to the age of Chivaliy — I verily believe if that ratio had not been checked by the German rebellion [Protestant Reformation] againit Rome — that the Christian world would be t> day far more virtuous, more peaco!'ul, mere free, and more happy than it is." (P. 13.) 14. Dangerous Political doctrine of Mr. Brown's "ally"— How would it sound—" More power to the Dishop, the Synod, or the Conlerencc ! " Be it observed that Mr. McGee treats not of the religious, but of the * ' political causes and consequences of the Protestant Reformation." It is therefore politically that he warns against English, and Parisian, ai..l Protestant ideas, and tliat politically he makes the hand of his ' ' great leader to bo unfetterred," and his authority xm- limited, and politically he declares as the motto of " all true Cliristians'' and their children, and the golden rule of his own life, " More power to the Pojie !" Witli these views and aims, it is not sur- prising that Mr. McGee shotdd be patro- nised by that section of the Roman Catho- lic clergy, and by those newspapers which , ■ t i'ilM FUM — W IW'« mm 15 haye demanded, and continue to demand, the destniction of our public school system as a condition of peace ; but it is suq)ri8- ing that, in view of the past, and of what you know to be the sentiments of the peo- ple of Upper Canada, you should, for any momentary political consideration, select a man entertaining such views and purposes, asyour "political ally." If an Episcopalian, were to avow, as the motto of his life, ** More power to the Bishop," a Presby- terian, " More power to the Synod," or a Methodist, "More power to the Confer- ence," how soon would a man avowing such sentiments be hustled from public life by the indignant voice of all classes of the community ! And is a man who avows as h-is life's motto, ' ' More power to the Pope, " to be supported by all classes of community as you recommend ? 15. Mr. Brown's heartless taunt. —His betrayal of Uppur Canada.— Priiitiiples of his iil-w " ally." Sib — I may, as you intimate, be in my ** dotage," at the age of 55 ; but better to lose one's reason than sacrifice his religious jaith, or the liberties of his countiy. How- ever that may be, I leave the public to judge of the merits of my conduct in re- gard to your several allegations, and in re- giird to my many years efforts and strug- gle.=» to establi-sh and extend a school system in Upper Canada, based upon equal Christ- ian interests and rights of all cliwses of the community, and the sacred municipal and individual rights of the people, as also of the merits of your conduct in assailing me and selecting for j^our " political ally," and as the architect of a future system of publio instruction for Upper Canada, a man who is not a resident in it, or elected by any por- tion of its inhabitants, who belongs to that sect in a church, and is the chosen repre- sentative of that section of tlie press, which advocates the annihilation of filial safety and parental authority by the kidnapping of children at the pleasure of the priesthood, who regards the Protestant Reformation as a " German Rebellion," and " English," and " Parisian," and Protestant ideas" as dangerous, and avows as the motto of hiB life, — More power to the Pope,!*' J have the honor to bo, Wht3 stabs my name, would stab my person too» Did not the hangman's axe lie in the wa^ ;" but I must say that, in the course of a public life and stormy period of Provincial history of more than thirty years, during which I have come into controversial con- tact with men of all orders and professions, I have never had to do with one holding the rank of a gentleman, so unscrupulous as yovu^elf. A question of public policy— an exceptional provision in a system of public instruction — is a matter in which men may and ought to differ without tho slightest feeling of mutual estrangement, much less a feeling of mutual hostility ; but you have made a difference on such a question an occasion and pretext of attadu and imputations which, if well f:.;i, r: 'j would justly exclude m.e as an ou'^ w * ; n society, and render mj children wc ' .«tfi fatherless ; and to sustivm your statcjients you resort to a species of literary forgery such as has no precedent in the political literature of Canada. This I will demor^ sfrate in four or five letters ; the whole of which, however, shall be shorter than your seven coliunns of evasions, of misquotations^ of misrepresentations, and personal calum- nies. In the meantime I devote the present short letter to two preliminary and general remarkfl. XI 90. Mr. Brown's eTwlon of th» real qntitlon at iHmio, a» to whKhcr Iho ProleMtiint!i uf l.ower Gniiatia Hlinll not liavn eqtinl protection with the Romnn (.'ntlioltrs of Upper Cnnada-frplii'B of the Lower Canada Protestants on the subject. 1. Tho first remark relates to the real question at issue. This you have studi- ously misrepresented. You have represent- ed it as one relating to tho necessity and propriety of Separate Schools, and have quoted me to show that I have formerly viewed them as needless and even hurtful to tho parties establishing them, wliile I now advocate them. The former of yoiu" atatemonts is true, the latter is imtnie ; for in my last report just printed, I have gtated tho several respects in which I con- sider Separate Schools needless and in- jurious to their supporters. But that is a matter for the parties themselves, and not for me, to decide. The real question at issue, and which yoii have concealed and misrepresented, is, not whether Separate Scliools are expedient or inexpedient, not whether tho permission of them is a wise or unwise provision of tho law, not whether in certain places they are beneficial or in- S.rious ; but the question is, whether the oman Catholic minority of Upper Canada should be treated tho same as the Pro- testatit minority of Lower Canada, that if tho latter has legal provisions for "dis- sentient" Schools where they wish to establish them, whether the former should not have similar provision for ' * Separate Schools," where they wish to establish them. The ' 'dissentient" School, from the greater weaUh of Protestants, may in some in- ot«..co3 lessen the means of supporting the Common School in Lower Canada, to a much greater e:^ent than the "Separate" School lessens the means of supporting tho Com- mon School in Upper Canada, But that is not the question. The question is, shall the Protestants of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada stand on equal ground and have equal rights in the provisions of the School law 1 This, I have affirmed and maintained from the beginiiing; this you have denied and sought to prevent. I have indeed desired to change this state of things in both Upper and Lower Canada. I have gone so far as to confer with the leading Protestants in Montreal, including Presbyterians, Con- gregationalists and Methodists, and said to them that if they would consent, and get any sufficient expression of consent from the Protestant inhabitants of Lower Canada to the abolition of the clauses of the law for the establishment of "dissentient" Schools, I would urge the abolition of the clauses of the law for the establislunent of "separate schools." They replied, they ooiild not consent to it — it'conld not bo done without the greatest injustice and injury to the Protestant inhabitants of Lower Canada. I then said the clauses of the law for Separate Schools in Upper Canada must remain equally jusrt with those for the establishment of "dissentient" Schools in Lower Canada. For doing thia you ascribe to me the vilest motives ; yet for the e^'uty of doing so, I appeal to tho judgme. •\d heart of every just man in Upper Cu — whether the Roman Catho- lics of Uppt. Canada are to be treated with less justice and liberality than the Pro- testants of Lower Canada ? 21. Mr. Brown's snbterfnge,— Is at home in h!a assanltfl on rharncter, but he fears to diiicufis principlcH.— He alone rcsponsiblo for these letters. 2. My second remark relates to your charge that my reply to your attacks is a mere pretext for entering the " political arena" and making a "political assault" on you and others who have acted with you. This is characteristic of your whole mode of warfjire ; not discus.sing acts but impugn- ing motiv:^s, which can only be known to the Searcher of hearts ; not investigating principles, but assailing characters — ^know- ing that if yoti can destroy the reputation of men who difier from you (the vital heart of their iniblic, moral and civil life) you can, like tho man who takes the physical life of another, succeed to what they jjossess ; a mode of warfare as corrupting to the minds of the community as the poison of infidelity, as vitiating to tho popular heart as it is unjust and cruel in itself. My motives in replying to your attacks are as much beyond my power of proof, as above your right of impeachment. The acts of which man alone can judge, and from which alone motives can be inferred, are as follows : You not merely questioned the wisdom of the Separate School clauses of the law, which you had an undoubted right to do ; you not merely objected to certain parts 'of my report, wliich you had an eigain and again, in the manner you have done, if Jrou presumed upon my havin*; no nght or iberty of reply ? And is it not equally pitiful and immanly for you now to attempt to gag me, after having made yoiu* attacks to the extent of two columns and a half, and then enlarged them to the length of seven coluums more ? But I oixght not to complain or be surprised at such conduct on your part, not only from past experi- ence, but since I see in this day's Olube nearly throe columns of similar attacks upon all the Judges of the Courts of both the Queen's Bench and Common Plciis ; men in a more sacred and defenceless posi- tion than myself ; men independent of the Crown and sworn to administer the laws truly and impartially between man and man, and evju between the Sovereign and the people ; men who are above any temp- tation to be partial, whose integi'ity has never been suspected, and on the public confidence in whose purity the most sacred interests of our country and of humanity depend ; yet men whose motives and in- tegrity you ruthlessly assail, becaiise they have not interpreted and applied the law as you had dictated to them. Sir, the Despot of France silences by imprisonment and exile men who will not do his vnll, and who write a free thought on his government, and he appoints Judges to interpret his man- dates as law ; yon would condemn my pen to silence, if not exile my person, while you would drive fi'om their seats tlie Chief Jus- tice Robinsons qf the land for not record- ing as law your editorial and after diimer denunciations. What a Napoleon you would make for Canada wore the coimtry at your feet ! 23. Mr. Brown's charge of political partizanship thrown back withcomompt. — VV'liat will be proved in tlio following k-ttcrs. It is perhaps needless for me to say another word in reply to your charge that my letter to you Avas the dictate of political partizanship ; but 1 may add, that I had not even seen, or had the slightest commu- nication with any one of your poUtical op- ponents, either in or our out of the Oovem- mont, from before the publication of my report until after I sent you »uy reply to your attacks. I have long believed the tnith of the remark in Lacon : " Ho tliat loves you for your politics, loves you leas than his breakfast, and he that hates yoii, hates you worse than the devil." You fur- nish a brilliant illustration of the latter, iiud I have witnessed more than one exam- ple of the former. I have nothing more to do with the variims questions, political and financial, which are battled lietweou political parties in this country, than I have with the party politics of (treat Britain. No Sir, it is you who have attempted to drag the scIkkiI sy.stom from its neutral ground into tlie arena of party, while 1 wish, iis in all past time, to rescue it from the fangs of political partizanship. If your old Protestant and Orange hobby had become inconvenient for your puqioses of party, and had to be dismis-sed the service, it was not seemly, any more than it was just or patriotic, for y(iu to seize ujion the school system as a substitute, since the latter is not the creature of party, but the creation and property of the country. And if your party fingers should get severely burnt for attempting to appropriate to your own par- ty use what is sacred to Upper Canada at large, without distinction of sect or party, you have only to bear the smart as best you can, and not do the like in future, and you will never meet with hostility or complauit on my part. With these prefatory and general re- marks, I will proceed in my futiu-e letters, to the matter of fact business. 1. To expose the unfairness and down- I'ight dishonesty of your (quotations from my reports. 2. To show the consistency, the wisdom find patriotism of the course which has been pursued in regard to the separate school clauses of the law. 3. To contrast the conduct of (jther pub- lic men and of two governmeutv of dili'orent parties with tliat which you have pursued in regard to the school law and myself, and prove what I have intimated as to yomr McGee alliance and mission. 4. To review your conduct in school mattei'S, and to hold up to merited scorn your unjust and vile personal attacks. I have, (fee. , E. RYERSON. Toronto, Dec. 20, 1858. 20 No. II. — Mr. Brown's false quotatioiiH — five exam- ples from the Reports of 1846, 1848, and 1852. 34. Macanlor onMltrepreiontatlon.— Mr. Brown's il()Wiiri)(ht (liNlidiiriity in (iiiotHtioii. Sir, — Lord Maciuilay hiis Biiid : — "No misnipriiHoiitatioii Hhoiild III) iiUowtidto piisH UTirofutod. Wlu'ii H Hilly letter inakeH its appoaninco in tho coniof of a provincial lumspaptsr, if will not do to Hay, 'What MtnfV !' VVc must roniondiur that Huch statu- uionts, constantly roitoratcd, and seldom answorcd, willasHurodlylK) l)i'liinc)d." Thla ia doubtloHH ycmr reason for reiterating without end miHreproHentatiims respecting individuals and things, assuming that they will assuredly bo believed, as they are sel- dom answered ; and this is i^iy reason for making it a rule to answer inisreprosenta- tions agiunst the school sy8tL!n\, or against myself in connoctiou with it, in order that I may mainbiin its principles inviolate and its aduiinicitration unimpaired. Tho busi- ness of my pfe.scnt letter is, to expose the fniireprfjii'iitittionH U)iil (iownritjht din- honedy of your quotatioiinfrovi my rcpoiin, rcspedmy the Separate School provisions of the law. You represent me as having admitted the "utter impropriety of separate schools," that they were " wrong in principle, \in- necessary and ineqiiitable," and therefore that the i)rovi8ion8 of tho hiw pert itting separate schools ought to be abolished ; and to prove that such were my published views down to a recent date, you profess to quote my reports published in 1846, 1848, 1852, 1855, and 1856. 95. Mr. Brown's first example of dishonest qnota- tion and suppression, detected and exposed. Your first quotation is from my Report on a System of Public Elementary Instruc- tion for Upper Canada (my first report, 1846,) and is as follows : " I am persuaded all that is essential to the moral interests of youth may be taught in what are called luixed schools." Now, this passage does not assert or imply that I regarded Separate Schools as "wrong in the principle" or "inequitable." But it is only the last half of the last sentence of a paragraph in which the principle and existence of sepa- rate schools are assiimed. I was not dis- cussing separate schools, but explaining the extent to which religious instruction had been introduced into the schools of Prussia, and how far it ought to be pro- vided for in Canadian schools. The whole paragraph (from which you quote a part of the last half of the last sentence) relating to religious instruction in our Canadian achools, is as follows — (what you have sup- {iressed is placed between hands, and is ia largo type) : — |j^~ '• The foregoing observations and illustrations apply for the most part to a population oonsistlng of both Pro- testants and Roman Catholios. The Law provides against interfering; with the religious scruples of eaoh class in respect both to rellgiotis books and tho means of establishing Separate Schools. In the school districts (now called school sections) where the whole population is either Protestant or Roman Catholic and whore, conse- quently, the schools come under the character of Separate, the principle of religious instruction can be carried out into as minute detail as may accord with the wishes of either class of the population ; though ..gyj I atn persuaded that all that is essential tu the TnomI inter- ests of youth may be taught in what are called mixed schools " (p. 51.) Now, the above paragrsipli shows that in the first Report I ever sidnnitted to Gov- ernment, I assumed tho existence of sepa- rate schools, and spoke of the law provid- ing the means of establishing them, as well jis of mixed schools ; yet you (juote a part of the last half of the List sentence to proVe that I condemned separate schools as "inequitable," "utterly improper," and " wrong in principle !^' Sir, tho reader mtist see that you could not have garbled my words as yon did, without knowing that you were falsifying them and misrepresent- ing me. 26. Second example of Mr. Brown's dishonest quotation and mutilation exposed- Your second and third quotations are from my report of 1848, and are still more unfair and dishonest. I give them in yoiur own order and with yout own capitala. Addressing me you say : — " In your Annual Report, dated 14th Sep- tember, 1848, yon said : — ' I am fur from advo- cating the establishment of denominfltioDal pchoois.' And again: ' It has been provided in each of these Act^ that any ten householders of any school section can demand a separate sobool, and a portion of the school fund to support it. I HAVE NEVEft SEES THE NE0EB8ITT FOR SUCH A paovisioN IN CONNEXION wlth another section of the Common School Law, which provides that no child shall be compelled to read any rdigious book or attend any reliy;iou8 exercise contrary to the wishes of its parents or guardians ; and besides the appahent inexpedienct of the pro- visions of this law, it has been seriously objected to as inequitable— PKBUiTTiNQ the RoHAit Oa- 21 moMo rKnauAMinN to hatb k dinominationai. Hoiinni., BUT not oranting onk raoTcsTANT pebhuahion thk bamk rHivii.KOi.'" Now, will tho roiulor holiovo, thut tlio former of tho abovo (luotationa is only K • miiMlo of aHontonco half u pago Hiibnucpient to ^'horo thu Becond quotation in taken, and from a Hentonco tho whole of which BtatoB tho rovorae of what yon (]uoto it to !)rove mo to havo ntatotl i And will it alMo )e believed that you iHolatotho necond ([no- tation from wordH which precede it, and which words show that so fur from con- deniningtho " principle of Separate Schools as wrong," I was actually vindicating a provision in a then new School Act for Cities and Towns, which provided for the establishment of Separate Schools ? Yet such are the facts, as I will now show. I frill firKt ({iioto tho sonttincos in my report, which immediately Drecodo tho second of the above (piotations, Thuy are as follows : t^ "There is one provision in this Act, on which I desire to offer a few words of explanation, as Its nature and objects have been misapprehended. I refer to the power which It gives to the School authorities of each City and Town to establish denominational or mixed Schools as they may deem ex- pedient. It has not, perhaps, occurred to those vovefour qno- tationa from my reports of 1840 and 1848, you stand convicted of gross injustico, dis- honesty, and impoflitiou upon the public, who will know what confidence to place in your quotations and statements whenever ^'ou have ah individual or party object to promote. My report of 1848 was enclosed to the Honorable R. B. Sullivan, then Provincial Secretary in Mr. Baldwin's Administration, and shows how identical my views and re- commendations in regard to the Separate School clauses of the law were in 1848, with those wliich I have expressed in 1858. 29. Mr. Brown's fifth dishonest quotation. You next quote from my report for 1851, in which I did not discuss the Separate School clauses of the law, but the question of religious instruction in scliools, in answer to objections of certain clergymen of the Church of England who advocated the abolition of the whole system of mixed schools, and the substitution of denomi- national schools in their place. In my re- port I showed that the ends of religious instruction could be as effectually secured in a system of mixed, as in a system of denominational schools, while the former tended infinitely more than the latter to difl'use general education. Passages in such an argument you imfairlyand absurd- ly quote to prove my condemnation of the separate school provisions of the law. Then you quote from my report for 1852 tlie following words : — "I do not think the grounds on which sepa- r-nte schools ;ue e^talilished, are valid ; I do not tliink there is any reaBonable necessity lor Buch 8 hools." Tliis quotation is as dishonest as those I have above < diffusion if general knowledge ; tliat as nil situatio'is of public trust and employment i ' our country are directly or indirectly de- pending upon the elective voice of the people, every man is inflicting an injury upon his c/iil- drfii, v'ho seek to isolate them from that ac- quaintance and intercourse and community of feeling with their f Mow-citizens, whicli, in the very nature of thinqs. is nece^si/ry to secure gewral eonfid nee and favor. Th se \ilent and natural, but powerful influences nnl o'»'ioui considerations vhU be more decisive and infective, as to the mullipHcntion and perpctualion of srp irate schools, than all the arbitrary leginla- tion th'it can be invoked on the subject. The b'udi'us aiid disadvantagfH whiih arc volun- tarily embraced, and self incurred, cannot be conipluiiicd of as a grvvaiice, and will riot be long repai (led as a privi eye." — (pp. 21, '22.) Whether my argument was sound or not, or whether my policy of persuasion was better than that of coercion is not now the que.?tion ; it is perfectly clear that your quotation was garbled and dishonest, aud intended verse of You a and wres connexio port and but thest when I B and patr pursued provision No. cec sio SlR,- flimple b1 sistency, course w the Sep;'. 30. R'ghl SVStrilU ti.o pihi continiu I thin of a coi not esta^ and if tl tern of I to estal whether tional c made a the prin with thi it was X not doi would 1 agitatio and in probabl the edu of the < believe grave n the pri will sa; that it it, or t now fc people acquir the ea and sc suppoi ot su. they 1 tinner publi< 23 mtended to represent mo as saying the re- verse of the import of the whoiu passage. You adopt tlxo same species of garbling and wresting my words from their natm'al connexion and meaning in (quoting my re- port and letters of 1855, 185G and 1857 ; but these \nl\ sufficiently appear hereafter when I shf'U show the consistency, wisdom, and patriotism of the course which has been pursued in respect to the seijarato school provisions of the law. In the meantiiac, tlio n1)ovo five examples of your diflhc«ieBt quotatiuiia from my re- ports of 184C, 1848, and 1852, amply justify the strong remarks of i;iy last letter, and demonstiute the unjust u id trutlUoss means you employ to liupugii me and to deceive the pubMc. I have, (fee., E. RYERSON. Toronto, Doc., 21st, 1858. No. III. — Parliamentary and Governmental Pro- ceedings in regard to the Separate School Provi- sions of the Law, from 1841 to 1851, inclusive. Sir, — My next duty is, by a plain and simply statement of facts, to show the con- sistency, wisdom and patriotism of the course which luis been pursued in regard to the Sepi',rate School Provisions of the Law. 30. B'ght of the people to determine as to a svBtdiii of education.— Original jtrounU on which tiio piiiiciple of !Sei)aratc' Schools was based.— J ts continued sanction by the LcKislature. I think you will not deny that the people of a country have a right to establish or not establish a system of public insti-uction, and if they have a right to establish a sys- tem of public instruction they have a right to establish such a one as they please, whether denominational or non-denomina- tional or both. I tliink the Legislature made a grave mistake when it inaugurated the principle of Separate Schools in common with that of mixed schools in 1841 ; I think it was unfortunate that it did so. Had it not done so I doubt whether the question would have ever become a matter of serious agitation in either section of tlie Province ; and in the absence of such agitation probably more might have been done for the education of the Koman Catholic portion of the country than has been done. So, I believe, ovu- American neiglibors made a grave mistake when they inaugurated by law the principle of universal suflVage ; but who will say that they had no right to do so, or that it would n(jw be advisable to aboliah it, or even practicable to do so / is ay, it now forms part of the civil rights ot tlie people. So the denominations who have acquired cliarters or corporate powers for the establishment of colleges, academies, and sciiuols, and legislative aid to assist in supporting them, ought not to be deprived of .su.h right unless it can bo shown tliat they have abused them, or that the con- tinued pofisession of them is inimical to tlie public interest. But the original and principal ground on which the separate clauses of the law are baaed, is that ol legal equahty botween the Protestant minority of Lower Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada. It was regarded as a necessaiy protection of the minority in each section of United Canada. 1 think it was a mis- take in legislation ; but such was the fact. Accordingly it was provided for in the School Act of 1841, which was for the whule Province. Afterwards when ^hat ^t was repealed, and a School Act was passed for each section of the Province separately, the provision for "dissentient" schools in Lower Canada jmd "Separate" Schools in Upper Canada waa made in each Act. The provision was made in the 55th and 5Gth sections of Mr. Hincks' School Act, 1843, and by re-eimcting the same clauses in the 32nd and 33rd sections of the School Act of 184G. The draft of the last Act was prepared by myself, at the request of the Goverrmient, to give eflect to my Report on a system of J'ublic Elementary Instruction in Upper Canwia, which, on my return from a year's tour of enquiry in Europe and the United States, had been submitted to, and approved of by the Govcirnment. In 1847, I submitttul the draft of the Act (or the better organization of Schools in the Cities and Towns of Upper Canada. The provision for Separate Schools was made in the 3rd clause of the 5th section of that Act, as folhjws : "It ph;ill be the duty of llio H'lanl of f ructcPB of each city and town," " 'J'/iiidlij, to dctiTinino the iiunibiT, sites nrili- •nee and the Thitiaudeau " guarantee " giveu above, "sound upon it?* than assent to it, and that you shortly af- terwards went into opposition. I have miderstood you went into opposition a few months afterwards when the members of the Government of that day refused to support you in your Haldimand election contest against Mv. Mackenzie, but never on ac- count of the 19th section of the Sck ol Act. The alternative before the Govern- ment at that time was not the 19fcli section as it is, or no Separate School provision, but that section as it is, or the one which had been concocted and agreed upon between the High Church of England i)arty and the authorities of the Church of Rome, Had the Lafoutaine-Baldwin Government re- signed on that question, as you say you urged Mr. Hincks, the school system would have been overthrown, and the country would have been deprived of the inestima- ble blessings which have resulted from the operations of the School Act of 1850. But by passing that Act, a foundation was laid for the School System and an impulse given to its development and expansion, such as was never before witnessed in this country, and such as has been imequalled in any cmmtry during the same period, J. there- fore appeal to the reader whether, under all the circumstances, the wisest and most patriotic course, and that which has con- ferred the greatest benefits upon the coiuitry, was not adopted by the Govern- ment and legislature in passing the Act of 1850 as it is ? 34. Mr. Brown's magnified "blow" at the School system by the " unt'ottunate" [nspector-General. I now come to the short Act of half a dozen lines passed in 1851, and which you say was ' ' another blow at the integrity of the School system," by '* the unfortunate Inspector-General's urging me to relieve him from his Sectarian School besiegers ; that " it was afterwards elicited tJhat I prepared the Bill in the presence of Bishop Charbonnel and Vicar-General McDonald, and received their formal thanks for my pains ;" that " I cared not for the exten- sion of denominational schools to other religious bodies, and the entire extinction of our educational system — the Ministry were besieged by their Roman Catholi : supporters — and they found a way to rs» move any objections." 35. "More power to the Pope" not the Roman Catholic political creed of 1850.— Messrs. Brown and McGee screwing up their courage for their ua» natural alliance in 1858. Such is your charitable interpretation of that Act. Sir, the Roman Catholic sup- porters of that day did not profess as the pole star of their life, ** More power to the Pope ;" nor did they denounce as politi- cally dangerous ^^ Engluhf" tisA " FroteS' 26 tanr and *' Parisian ideas." It was left for you, their impugner, to select as your " political ally" the professor of that creed In order to obtain " Roman Catholi'; sup- porters." You, Sir, as the " political ally" of Mr. McGee, denounce statesmen such as Messrs. Baldwin and Lafontaine for having ** Roman Catholic supporters," and then, after one of you had said (as I shall hereafter show) that a mixed school was incompatible v ith the Catholic faith, and the other had said, no peace with the Pope, no Popish school in Upper Canada, you can both, at the very moment of hoping to get into power, lay aside all the professions of past life in order to obtain and unite " Roman Catholic supporters" with Pro- testant supporters. 1 can easily imagine you and Mr. McGee, in review of such a ci'isis, animating each other in the words of the American satirist, as quoted in the Free Chiirch North British Review for November. " Wal, sposin' we had to gulp down our perfessions, We were ready to come out next momin' with fresh ones ; besides ef wo did, 'twasour business alone, For could't we du wut we would with our own ! An' ef a man, can, wsn pervisions hev riz so. Eat up his ownwords, 'tis a marcy it is so .'" 36. Beasons for the Act of 1651.— Roman Oatholics of ti'it .!ay imd uotth; exa'npli^ bi-fi)re tliem of one who had •'juJitud the judges."— The Act itself and the reason for it. And now. Sir, as to that egregious Sepa- rate School Bill of 1851, what were the reasons for it and the circumstances con- nected with its adoption ? They were as follows : In the latter part of 1850, certain Roman CathoUcs applied for a second Sepa- rate School in the City of Toronto. The Board of School Trustees rejected their application upon the ground that the lUth section of the School Act of 1849 did not require them to permit the establishment of more than one Separate School in the city. The applicants appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench to compel the Board of School Trustees to grant their request. The cotirt decided that according to the letter and grammatical construction of the Act, ft city or town was only a school section, and the Trustees could not therefore be compelled by law to grant more than one Separate School, whatever might have been the intention of the Legislature. What did the applicants do then ? They did not do as you have done, assail the motives and integrity of the Judges. They had a fine opportunity of doing so, and exciting their co-religionists in both Upper and Lower Canada. They might have called the Judgei Protestant bigots and partizana, fts you have called them Tory bigots and partizans. They might have denounoed them, as you have done, for adhering to the letter aufl grammatical construction of the law, and not according to the prosecutors* idea of its spirit and common sense. But the " Roman Catholic supporters of the Minis- trjr" of that day, had too mucn common honesty and decency to make such an as- sault upon the highest Judges of the land, and to try and make pohtical capital from the cry that there was no justice even in the Courts of Law for the poor oppressed Catholics of Upper Canada. No, Sir, they had not then the lessons of your sugges- tive example before them. They simply sought a legislative remedy for a defect in the law, and appUed in the proper quarter for that purpose. Mr. Hincks declined taking their complaint into consideration without considtiug me, I being then absent in the United States and England, making the first selection of books tor the Public Libraries, and arrangements for procuring them. On my return in June 1851, Mr. Hincks gave the papers and referred the Roman Catholic Bishop and Vicar-General to me. I could not for a moment admit the draft of the Bill they had prepared ; but stated frankly that I had not intended to deprive them of any rights as to Sepa- rate Schools which had been conferred on them by the Act of 1846 ; that I had never anticipated or thought of the con- struction of the 19th section of the Act which had been put upon it by the Co\irt of Queen's Bench ; that by the Act of 1846, cities and towns were divided into school sections as well as townships ; that the city of Toronto, under that Act, was divided into fourteen school sections, in each of which there might be a Separate School, according to the conditions of the law. But, I asked them, as there were now no school sections in the cities and towns, whether the right of having a Separate School in each ward would not be suflBcient ? They answered in the afltanative ; where- upon, I wrote a draft of an act for that pur- pose, and they expressed their entire satis faction with it. By request, I afterwards met the greater part of the members of the House, at an appointed time, and explain- ed to them the position of the Separate School question, and what I thought best to be done under the circumstances. The Honorable John Ross brought into the Legislative Council the Bill of which I had prepared the draft. It soon passed both Houses, and became law. Its oper- ations are confined to cities and towns ; the very wording of it shows that it was no in- novation, no concession, but a restoration of rights previously enjoyed. The title of 38. 27 Qtounoed [g to the u of the lecutora* Butthe e Minia- comiuon b an aa- )he land, .tal from : even in ippressed Sir, they Buggea- y simply defect in r quarter declined ideration 3n absent i, making [le Public procuring L851, Mr. erred the r-General nt admit )repared ; ; intended 3 to Sepa- ferred on at I had the con- the Act he Court t of 1846, o school a,t the city divided each of School, the law. •e now no id towns, Separate aufficient ? whero- that pur- itire satis iterwards )ers of the d explain- Separate thought instances, ught into of which on paflsed Its oper- )wiw ; the wtts no in- edtoration 'he title ol it is, '* An Act to restore certam rights tu parties therein mentioned f' and the whole Act is as follows ; — •• \^iei'en8 it is exjiedient to remove donbtn wliich have arisen in regnrd to certain piovi- •ions of the I9ih pection of on Act passed in thr 13th nnd 14th yoara of Her Majesty's reign, nnd intituled An Act for (he better es tablinhment of Common Schools in Upper Ca- nada : and whereas it is inexpedient to deprive any of the parties concerned of riphts which they have enjoyed under preceding School Acts of Upper Canada; be it therefoie enacted, »fec , that each of the parties applying according to the provisions of the said 19th section of snid Act, shall be entitled to have a separate school for each ward, or in two or more wards united, as said party or parties ehall judge expedient, in each city or town in Upper Canada: Pro- vided alway?, that each such school shall be subject to all the obligations and entitL-d to all the advantagcti imposed and conferred upon separate schools bv the said 19th section of said Act." * 37. Mr. Brown's piteous wailings on the "decline of the scliool system."— Its success nevertlieless. Such, Sir, is the great Act of 1851, for which you assail the Ministiy of that day and "its sectarian school besiegers," and ascribe to me the most mercenary motives. It had no application to any other munici- palities than cities and towns, not one of which has ever complained of it, and it was a simple restoration of rights which had been possessed under previous School Acts. I will next consider the objects of the separate school provii ions of the Ac-g of ^'!^^9. m^fl ^9^Tt^. and the circumstances at- if uttiiig tue p.wi-iiig ot them. In the me.mtime considering the provi- sion that Parliament at the time of the Union, in 1841, thought it necesrary to make for the protection of the Protestant minority in Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada, every candid reader may be appealed to, whether the legislation for Upper Canada has not been from that time to 1852, consistent, safe, just, and patriotic — doing to our Ro- man Catholic fellow-citizens in Upper Ca- nada what we would wish done to our Pro- testant brethren in Lower Canada. Lord Macaulay once remarked in the House of Commons, that ' ' from childhood he had heard of nothing biit decline, and witnessed nothing hvi progress. " So, Sir, since yo\i have sought to pervert the school system to a party purpose, you have pite- ousty bemoaned its imminent danger aud deep decline, wliile all others witness its growing strength and increasing prosperity, the unity of the coimtry in its support, and the absence of all agitation against it in every county, township, city, town, and village, and even in every newspaper in Upper Canada, as far as I have seen, ex- cept Mr. McGee's scurrilous Freeman and your unscrupulous Globe. I have, (fee. E. RYERSON. Toronto, Dec. 28, 1858. No. lY. — Circumstances connected with the passing of the Separate School Acts of 1853 and 1855. 38. The true gronnd of the Separate School Law a^ain stated. — Mr. Brown's misstatemeutb as to the School Act of 1851 corrected. Sir, — Having shown the justice and wis- dom of the Government and Legislative proceedings in regard to the Separate School provisions of the law from 1841 to 1852, I am now to complete this part of my task, by stating the circumstances con- nected with the passing of the Separate School (4th) section of the Stipplementary Act of 1853, and the Roman CathoUc Separate School Act of 1855. I beg it may be kept in mind by the reader, that there is no question between us as to the necessity or wisdom of Sepa- rate Schools for t.ie Roman Catholics them- selves, but of which they are the rightful judges. In my reports I expressed my opinion as to their being needless before you ever wrote of them as such in the Olobt. You have more than once (but not since your alliance with Mr. M-^Gee) pro- nounced the Roman CathoHc worship itself hurtful, and denounced a Roman Catholic Bishop's retaining by vested right a com- muted portion of the Clergy Reserves ; but would you now repeal the law by which th<3 latter is held and the former is protected ? The question then is, (not the expediency or usefulness of Separate Schools, or other- wise, for on that point we are agreed) but the consistency and justice of retaining the provisions of the law by which Roman Catholics are permitted to have them (if they please) ; or in other words, and more fuUy,f the consistency, wisdom, and patriot- ism of securing to the Roman CathoHc minoi-ity in Upper Canada the same educa- tional rights as are possessed by the Pro- testant minority of Lower Canada. I have discussed this question, and corrected your misstatements and detected yom* mis- quotations from 1841 down to 1852 ; I will now expose yom* false and devious course to 1856. \tl / 28 jy\A first, the Act of 1851. I begin by qi>)tin<,' your own representation of it. Addi-essing me you say : ' nhoi-t I firmhi du believe In hnmhng genercdly ; For it's a thing I roiiosed to me was rot "anoth(r School Act," but that 1 Woiil.' consent to apportion aiul pitij the school monay to Separate Schools, anposing that I had, at least, satisfied tho Law Officers of the Crown of the justice of our Separate School Law as it was, and having the firm belief that no Separate School legislation would take place tliat session. 61. Dr. R/eraon't last letter on Sefparata School leiciMJatioii ill 1855.— Mr Hrowii now anil tlien. But that I might leave no means in my power unemployed to maintain the inte- grity of our School System, and that I might place on reconl the sid)8tance of what I had stated verbally at Quebec, I addressed, on my return to Toronto, a let- ter to the Hon. Attorney General Macdo- nald, dated Toronto, 2nd April, 1855, "on the Roman Catholic Bishops' comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools, and draft of a new School Bill for Upper Canada." In that letter of over seventeen printed pages, octavo, I discussed, **I.— Bishop Charbonnel's statements respecting the school laws of Upper and Lower Can- ada in regard to separate schools II.— The nature of the demands made in Bishop Charbonnel's draft of bill. III. Course of ^roceedingwhichlhave pursued, and which Bishop Charbonnel has pursued towards m I, in respect to separate schools." — {See Correspondence on Separate Schools, print- ed by order of the Legislative Assembly in 1855, pp. 38-55.) That letter (with the exception of tho two telegrams, which I will give presently,) was the last letter I ever wrote to any mem- ber of the Government on the Separate School law. That latter you afterwards published in the Olobe, in terms of extrava- gant eiUogy. Yet, in presence of these facts, you now charge me with having acted a mean and truckling part at Quebec in 1855, in order to conciliate the Roman Hierarchy, and secure personal gain. Sir, I leave yotir own editorial remarks of 1855, on my let- ter after I returned from Quebec, and embodying what I said and did there, to refute your own imputations of 1858. 52. Reman Catholic Separate School Bill of 185S introduced.— Telegrams respecliiiKit.— Tiie result. Then as to the sequel. About the middle of May, six weeks after I had returned from Quebec, a Separate School Bill was in- troduced by Sir E. P. Tache into the Legiala- 35 to tire Council, ropoaling nil prucoding Kopa- rato Hohuol provigions uf thu law, and niib- Btitutingoiu) act ill nliicuof thuin, including tho titroo cluusoH which I hud tniiiHinittuu to Mr. IliiicliBtho provious Soptomhor. — That bill WU8 profoHHisdly «loHigiiod to iwHiin- ilato tho Soi)anito School lawn of Upper and Tjowor Canada, and wan, npon thu whole, drawn np with great faimesH — ini- poHiiig nj)on tho mijtportoi's of Sopuiato Schoold Rovoral fornjB and roqnironiuntH which had never hcforo been inipoKod nixm them, and simply becatino such forms and reqnironionts had boon imnosiid upon tho supporters of difwontiont schools in Lower Canada. But tho bill contained a provision (which I had always resisted) to compel tho nnuiicipalities to bo tax-collectors for sojia- rato schools, and for giving separate schools an undue share of school money ; and also another provision for e.stablishing separate Bchoola of eveiy kind, without limit, such as would have divided the Protestant popida- tion into endless ])artioH, and destroyed tho school system. The Hon. Mr. Drunnnond is said to have prepared this bill, while Col. Tachd introduced it into tho Legisla- tive Council — there being (as was stated) no Upper Canaila member of Government in tho Council. As to tho manner and instruments of preventing that bill from passing in its ori- ginal form, and striking out its ol)jectiona- ble clauses, the following facts will show. My first intelligence of the bill was by the telegram, of which the following is a copy, addressed to me by J, W. Gamble, Esq. : " Quebec, May 18, 1855— To Da. Rykrbom,— Are you aware provii^iona Government Bill re- Intion Separnte Schools introduced Legislative Counoiif Copy mailed your address to-day. (Signed,) J. W. GAMBLE. To the above I replied forthwith — *'I have not seen the Bill, and know nothing of it." On receiving a copy of the Bill, I ad- dsessed the following telegram to tho Hon. Attorney General Macdonald, Quebec : "TottONTo, May 19, 1855. — Have seen Mr. Tacb6'8 Separate School Bill. High Episcopa- lians alone gainers. All others losers. In 14th section, the person should be of religious per- Buasinn of Separate Scliool — 14tli section should be so wordt-d ns not to include Municipal Council As'^essmcnt, — Why not restrict '2iid section and whole Bill to Roman Catholics aloue I (Signed,) E. RYERSON." After fiuiher considering the Bill, I addressed the following telegram to the Hon. Attorney General Macdonald, Que- bec : — "ToaoxTo, Miy 22, l8.Vi.--Mp. Taclu;'* Dill ameiidi (i as «ng'.r<'''t«'d, an! confim'fl to Cntho- liu4 lit liuitolcrt*. ()dii'rwiii> ii(Mlroyii itc.liool Hyuloin. Any ten perxnnii, uVnin naiin- of m\j peisuftsion. can iviii.l p tying nil nrliodl ta.K»j« t)y coinplyiiig with foniiH {• p<>nco. (Si^'iio.l,) K, RYKUSON." To tho foregoing, I received tho follow- ing reply : " IJuKHKC, May 22, 1855— -To Rev. Dr. Ry- orcon, Toronto, — I a^^rec with yon. and will make alieiaiions as yon KU^gcnt. (Signed,) JOHN A. NiACDONALD. You say "tho worst features of tho Bill of 1855 were struck out by tho efl'oi-t.s of tho Opposition." What intlueiico tho abovo telegrams had in striking out tho worst featiu-oa of tho Bill, and osjxicially when tho Attorney (»oneral jvftorwards amended tho Bill as they suggested, tho reader can easily judge. 53. School Question never made a party one except l)y Mr. Hinwn. — Who wi-ic th« nul Iriend.* of tho Uppor Cttimila School nysteni in lt^B6. As the School Question never was made a political party ono, except in so far as you have attempted to make it so, it is of little consequence whether members of tho Opposition or others prevented the Bill from passing as originally introduced. Tho School system of Upper Canada is equally the property of all parties, not of one party, as you have attempted to make it. But it happens, that while one of your late Lower Canada colleagues (Mr. Drum- mond) prepared the Bill, and another (Mr. Dorion) spoke and voted for it, the ordinary supporters of the Government wore the chief opposers of the Bill. What you said or did woidd have little or no influence with the Government, or with the Catholic and French members of tho House, as you were known to oppose them on all occasions. But they could nrt do otherwise than listen to the remonstrances of their own friends, and especially of members of tho Church of England, which the Bill, as introduced, was adapted to conciUate and favor. But to the honor of the Church of England, and to the honor of Canada, and especially to the honor of the gentlemen themselves, the Episcoplians stood forward as a phalanx against the seductions presented to them by the provisions of the Bill &% introduced. Though you may unworthily .seek to claim the credit of modifying a Bill, to the clauses of which you moved not one amend- ment, I feel it no less my duty than pleasure to express my own gratitude, and, I believe, that of Upper Canada generally, to Messrs. Gamble, Stevenson, W. B. 36 Robinson, Langton, and Crawford, for tlie earnest .uid noble stand they took on that occasion as chvinipions of the nnmiitihited Common School system of Upper Canada. This will appear from the account of the procejdin„'s as given at the time by the Quebec correspondent of the Cvlunist — understood to liavc been J. S. Hogan, Esq., — the present inendier for Grey. I have not room foi' the whole accf)iint, but the abriilgemout of it ap})ended to this letter will be found very interesting, as pictmiiig the scene aod the principal actors in it, and as contriiiiug an excellent analysis of the Bill as introduced and as amended. Tlie experience of ;hree years has shown that the Act of 1855, as amended, has not weakened or inipedtd the school system throughout the Pro\nnce : that if 19 Separate Schools have been established during the past year, no less than 259 Common Schools have been established ; and that, .as I stated in my last telegram above quoted, "the Bill amended as sug- gested, and confined to Roman Catholics, is hfU'inlccss ;" or, as Mr. Langtou stated in the House, on the third reading of the Bill, "a more innocent Bill could not possibly l)e found." 54. Mr. Bowes' Bill of 1856.— Members of G-overn- metit deuounccd for voting OKaiust it. After the close of that session of 1855, I left for Europe and did not return until an advanced period of the next session of the Legislature at Toronto, when I learned that Mr. Bowea had introduced a short Bill professedly to amend the 12th section of the R. C. Separate School Act of 1855, but which, in reality involved the subver- sion of our whole Common School system, though I do not think Mr. Bo\s'es (and perhaps few others) had any idea of the scope and effect of the ingenious bill which had been put into his hands, as he with- drew it shortly after I pointed out to him its real character. A private member brijiging in such a Bill shows that the Government woiild not do anything on the subject ; and on my first conversations with UppeV Canada members of the Govern- ment, after my return from Europe, I learned that they intended to vote against Mr. Bov.ea' 3ill, which they afterwards did (when it was taken iip l>y a Lower Canada iiuMuber), and for doing which the Roman Catholic members of tlie Govern- tnent and others were denounced and ex- communicattHl by Bishop Charbonnel — who thu.s em]il()yod the highest poAver of the priesthood to control Ujiper Canada, school legislation and government. And had it not been for the " Political consequences of the Protestant Reformation ;" and had the doctrine of "more power to the P(>pe" jjrevailed, instead of that of the rights of freemen, our Canadian statesmen might have been sent to prison or the dungeons of the Inquisition, in place of being de- nounced by the Bishop. 55. Mr. Brown's seventh false quotation detected aud'is otliLT mistatcuii'iUs n.'futed. It now remains, in concluding this sub- ject, to expose one of the most aiidacious instances of mis-statement and false ({uota- tion I have yet detected. I first give your statement and (piotation in youi- owii words, with your own italics and hands. Addressing me you say — "And mark, as the conclusiou of the whole, your matured conviction, only one year ago, of the true coiii'se for the people of Upper Canada, shoulil the Separate School claimants persist in their demands. (t;gi'""the true and only alterna- tive will be to abolish the Separate School law alto.rether, a7id .suhstifute the provisionfi of the national si/ston in Ireland in relation to united secular and -separate religions instruction! This was your own suggestion only last year ; and because I favorably entertained the sugges- tion, you assail me as seeking to subvert the whole national school system for personal and political ends ! I shall not permit myself to comment on such couducfc from a man in your position ; for I fear that I taight be led to use terms that, however applicable to the case, would hardly be fitting iu me to employ." This appears very terrilde ; but can the reader believe, that w^hat j'ou titter so solemnly is wholly untrue, and what you (piote so emphatically is a literaiy forgery? Yet I will prove both. The words you profess to quote from me are from my report for 1855, page 11 — a dociunent dated Jidy, 185G-— ?>i(»'e than two years ckjo, instead of "only one year ago," as you solemnly state, and for stating which your object is obvious. In the next place, the " suggestion" which you represent me as having made, and which you have " favorably enter- tained," was never made by me under the circumstances which now exist, or such as have existed during the last two years. After the failure of Mr. Bowes' Bill in the session of 1855, it was officially an- nounced in the public papers, by Roman Cath(jlio Episcopal authority, that that Bill would be brought up again and pre- sented next session of Parliament. In view of that atinouiiccnii'nt and threat, I analyzed the Bill in my report for 1855, and exposed its tinjunt iuul dangerous pro- visions to the public, as also the course of agip'ession which had been pursued against the people of Upper Canada, by the extreme advocates of Separate Schools. It was in that threat wrote only words 4epeu( explici Benten quote part y( tweeu •well as of you followE »7 case, om me 11— a than year tating that ccmnexion aud with a view to such threatened agitation aud aggression, tliat I wrote the sentence, of v/liich you quote only the conclusion, isolated from the words which preceded it and on which it depends, and wrested from the conditions explicitly stated. I will give the whole sentence of eleven lines, of which you quote only the last three. I will put the part you have omitted in black letters and be- tween hands, that the reader may see, as well as understand, the extent and character of your mutilation. The sentence ia as follows : — . " jH^" But if the parties for whom Separate Schools are allowed and aided out of the Legislative School Grants, accpirdiug to the average attendance of pupils (which Is the principle of dis- tributing the School Grants among the Common Schools in all the Townships of Upper Canada) shall renew the agi- tation upon the subject, and assail and seek tp subvert the public school sys- tem, as they have done, and endeavor to force legislation upon that subject against the voice and rights of the peo- ple of Upper Canada, by votes from Iicwer Canada, and the highest terrors of ecclesiastical authority, then I sub- mit that .^311 the true and oaly alternative will bo to abolish Separate Schools altogether, and substitute the provisions of the National system in Ireland in relation to united secular and separate religious instruction, and extend it to Lower as well as Upper Canada." 56.' The agitation on Separate Schools renewed by Mr- Brown and not by tlie Roman Catholics- And what are the facts in regard to the conditions on which the latter part of the above sentence depends ? Have the sup- porters of Separate Schools renewed the agitation 1 Have they sought to subvert the Public School System 1 Have they en- deavored to force legislation upon the sub- ject against the voice and rights of the people of Upper Canada, by votes from Lower Canada, and the highest terrors of ecclesiastical authority ? No, Sir, you know that since my report for 1855, con- taining the above passage, was publislied, there has not been a public meeting, or petition, or motion in the Legislatm-e by any member or representative of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of Sepa- rate Schools — but that, on the contrary, the supporters of Separate Schools have gone on (juietly and sticcesafiilly in their own work, and have left the rest of the people of Upper Canada to go (m quietly and successfully in their work. Yet to these circumstances of peace and quietness you apply my words by wresting them from their legitimate connection md meaning ; and you actually " have the aiidacity" to declare that yoxi iire acting upon my sug- gestion ! Sir, I may well say in yoiu? own words : — " I sliall not permit myself to comment on sucli conduct from a man in your position, for fear that I might be led to use terms that, however applicable to the case, would hardly be fitting in me to employ." I have now finished the historical part of the discussion in regard to Separate School legislation ; and I leave the reader to judge whether I have not acted throughout in re- gard to Separate Schools upon the princi- pled I expressed in 1846 ; whether succes- sive Governments and Parliaments have not pm'sued the best coiu'se for the safety and sxiccess of our Common School system by dealing with the Roman Catholics in Upper Canada as they have dealt with the Protestants in Lower Canada ; and whether your imputations upon me as having pan- dered to the Roman Hierarchy and acted as a mercenary tool for successive adminis- trations, for base selfish pm'poses, are not as unfoimded as they are heartless. But some still more startling acts of yours, and some more prominent features of the Separate School question, and the School system generally, will appear, when, in subsequent letters, I contrast your conduct with that of other public men and successive governments in regard to the School System and myself ; answer Mr. McGee's "solemn" caU, and exhibit the profligate atid dangerous character, in re- gard to school matters, of yoiu* and his al- liance ; and reply to youi' personal attacks upon myself. In the meantime I beg the reader to bear in mind that, in this and in preceding let- ters, apart from my own vindication, I have detected you in seven acts of literary forgery, and in more than twice as many mis-atate- meuts. I have, » Normal School, Mr. Baldwin said, "he concurred in that part of the Bill relating to the proposed change about Township Superintendents, and the monies to be saved by it. He would Uke very much to have young Canadians for teachers, and he was quite satisfied with the proposed measure, although it should cost the country a great deal more." " Mr. Merritt hoped that a larger sura than £1,600 would be appropriated for the CNormal) School" (Minor of Parliament for 1846, p. 70.) Such was the non-party and patriotic spirit in which those patriarcha? reformers acted in regard to the school system, even when they were in opposition, and that under pecuUarly exciting circumstances ; such was their conduct towards me when the very discussions which you drag into view after a lapse of fourteen years, were then fresh in their recollection, placing them in opposition, instead of in office, and when ipon his item for lifferent lost his Bincks ; ; yet ho >u ; and ring up, and in le with Messrs. then of ey, even ere my liament, r one, or emselves 3 1 could jGee has do, after ;oo much an when face, and otism to of party. that the Qtendent Superin- Baldwin le Cthen) .efective j t was in- a oories, [was one, red the And in abmitted of Town- ing for »* id, "he relating 'ownship to be much to and he proposed ost the sura than CNormal) 1846. p. patriotic eformera >m, even and that stances ; ne when rag into irs, were ' igthem " whon 41 ad I had then rendered no appreciable official service to the caixse of education. But, Sir, they were honorable and patriotic men, and scorned to descend to the acts of a man whom they broiight into political existence, and who afterwards became their assailant, as he has become mine. 60. Hon. Malcolm Oam^ron's conduct when the Globe party School Bill of 18i9 was set aside, as compared with that of Mr. Brown. Then, take another example. It is that of the Hon. Malcolm Camerpn. From 1846 to 1849, a host of scribblers and would-be school legislators appeared, led on by you in the Globe, in which during that period you ceaselessly assailed me, — main- taining that I ought to be dismissed with disgrace, and proving, from typographical errors in my first Report on a system of Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada, (printed witliout my ever seeing the proof sheet), that I was ignorant alike of orthography and syntax, and proving ■ also by quotations, just as honest as those in which I have recently detected you, that I had plotted a Prussian school despotism for free Canada, and that I was forcing upon the country a system in which the last spark of Canadian liberty would be cs- tinguished, and Canadian youth would be educated as slaves. Mr. Cameron, with less knowledge of you and less experience than he has now, was astounded at these " awful disclosures" of the Globe, and was dazzled by the theories proposed to rid the country of the enslaving elements of my Prussian school system. Mr. Cameron was at length appointed to office ; arid he thought I ought to be walked out of the office. Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks (as I have understood), thought I should be judged officially for my official acts, and that, thus judged, I had done nothing worthy of death. The Globe party then thought that as I coiUd not be turned out of office by direct dismissal, I might be shuffled out by legislation ; and a school bill was prepared for that purpose. That bin contained many good, but more bad provisions, and worse omissions, but of which only a man who had studied the question, or rather science, of school legis- lation, could f idly judge. Mr. Cameron was selected to siibmit it to his colleagues, and get it through ParUament. He executed the task with his characteristic adroitness and energy. Mr. Hincks never rejid the bUl, and left for England before it passed. Mr. Baldwin, amid the smoking '"uins of a Parliament House and national Ubrary, looked over it, and thought, from the re- presentations given him of its popular ob- jects, and a glance at the synopsis of its provisions, that it might be an improve- ment on the then existing law, while the passing of it would gratify many of his friends. On examining the bill, I wrote down my objections to it, and laid them be- fore the Government, and proceeded to Mon- treal to press them in person. I left Mon- tsoal with the expectation that the bill would be dropped, or essentially mended. Neither was done ; the biU was passed in the ordinary manner of passing bills the last few hours of the Session ; and within three hom-s of reading that the bill as iato, I informed Mr. Baldwin that my office was at his disposal, for I never would ad- minister that law. At Mr. Baldwin's request, I stated my objections in writing, for the consideration of himself and colleagues. The result was, the abandonment of the act of 1849, and the preparation and passing of the act of 1860. Now Mr. Cameron might naturally feel deeply at the repeal of his own act without a trial ; but after he had time for further examination and reflection, and a more thorough knowledge of the nature and working of the system I was endeavoring to establish, I believe no man in Canada more sincerely rejoiced than Mr. Cameron at the repeal of the act of 1849, and no man ha? more cordially supported the pre- sent system, or more frankly and earnestly commended the course 1 have piu^ued. '^ut had the Hon. Malcolm Cameron been tlie Hon. George Brown, what incessant hostUity and unsorupulous attacks I shoiJd have encountered from him, instead of witnessing in him a friend and supporter of the school system.* 61. Mr. Brown's misstatements refated, and the re- Hscious features of our Scliool System exhibited in Extracts from Dr. Ryerson's Letter to Mr. Bald* win in 1849. I give now the example of a whole Gov- ernment in contrast with your own indivi- ♦ Mr. Cameron's avowals on the subject are frank and manly. On the occasion of his nomination for the County of Lambton, in October 1857, he thus referred to the School System and to its founder :— " On the who''-, the system had worked well, the common schools of Canada were admirable, snd had attracted the commendation of the first statesmen in the United States, and even hi Great Britain they proposed to imitate Canada. He was opposed to Dr. Ryerson's appointment politically, but he would say, as he had said abroad, that Canada and her children's chil- dren owed to him a debt of gratitude, as he had raised a noble structure, and opened up the way for the elevation of the people ; and we saw the practical result in our own neighborhood, where girls who mi>hl have toiled a lifetime at ?5 or t6 a month, by a few months training in the Normal School were prepared as teachers, and could earn from £40 to £50, and, m some cases, £10!) a year. He was prepared to refuse all fur- ther legislation to favor sectarian schools, but would meet reasonable views to extend the system of fre« education ; but to repeal the clause he thought it not worth the risk involved of ill-feeling and coUision, which would endiuiger the whol« maohin«rf ." 4 dual conduct. It is that of Messrs. Bald- win and Hincks in 1849 and ? ^ . It illustrates my own conduct in refutation of your oft repeated charge of my having acted the part of a mercenary sycophant ; ftnd it illustrates the conduct of a Govern- ment, in preferring to retrace its own steps in order to promote the best interests of the country, rather than adhere to a wrong measure in order to gratify resentment against an individual. I have above stated the circumstances under which the School Act of 1849 v/as passed, and my objections to it before it passed, and my course of proceeding after- irards. You have, for an unworthy pur- pose, quoted part of a sentence from the letter which I addressed to Mr. Baldwin on that occasion. I will now quote several Saragraphs from the same letter, dated 14th uly, 1849. In the former part of that letter I stated the circumstances under which the Act of 1849 had passed, and the fact that my remonstrance against it had not been even read. I then stated what I considered insuperable objections to it. I will quote part of my eighth and terdh ob- jections : — the former relating to the exclu- sion of ministera as school visitors — ^the latter relating to the exclusic. >. from the schools, of the Bible and books containing religious instruction. If my quotations are somewhat long, the vital importance of the topics they involve, and their application to our present circumstances (as I shall show in another letter) will justify them. They are as follows : — 62. Exclusion of Ministers of Religion as School Visitors by the Olobe Party School Bill of 1849. " Another feature of the new Bill is, that which precludes Ministers of Religion, Magis- trates, and Councillors, from acting as School visitors, a provision of the present Act to which I have heard no objection from any quar- ter, and from which signal benefits to the schools have already resulted. Not only is this provi- sion retained in the School Act for Lower Ca- nada, but Clergymen — and Clergymen alone — are there authorised to select all the school books relating to "religion and morals" for the children of their respective persuasions. As a large majority of the people in Lower Canada are Roman Catholics, the School Fund there, from the great powejs given to Clergy- men, is equivalent, iu perhaps nine cases out of ten, to an endowment of the Roman CatliDlic Church for educational purposes. But in Upper Canada, where the great majority of the people and Clergy are Protestant, the provision of the present Act aucliwrizing Clergymen to act as School Visitors (and that without any power to interfere in school regulations or books) is repealed. Under the new Bill, the Ministers of religion cannot visit the schools as a matter of right, or in their character as Ministers, but as private individuals, and by the permission of the teacher at his pleasure. The repeal of the provision under which Clergymen of the seve- ral religious persuasions have acted aa visitors, is, of course, a virtual condemnation of their acting in that capacity. When thus denuded by law of his official character in resppct to the schools, of course no Clergyman wnuld so far sanction his own legislative degradation as to go into a school by sufferance in an unmiuiste- rial character. I am persuadod that such a change in thi* most important feature of our School System escaped the knowledge of the principal Members of the Government ; but its character and tendency iu connexion with the Protestant religion of Upper Canada, iu con- trast with a directly opposite provision iu con- nexion with the Roman Catholic religion of Lower Canada, must be obvious to every reflect- ing person. " To the School visiting feature of the present system I attach great importance as a mean'? of ultimately concentrating in behalf of the schools the influence and sympathies of all re- ligious persuasions, and the leading men of the country. The success of it, thus far, has ex- ceeded my most sanguine expectations; the visits of clergy alone during the la^tyear being an average of more than Jive visits for each clergyman in Upper Canada. From such a beginning what may not be anticipated in future years, when iuformatiou shall become more general, ami an interest in the schools more generally excited. And who can estimate the benefit, religiously, socially, educationally, and even politically, of Ministers of various religious persuasions meeting together at Quarterly School Examinations, and other occasions, on common and patriotic ground — as has been witnessed in very many instances during the last year — and becoming interested and united in the great work of advancing the education of the young." [Then foUow references and authorities in support of these views. Under the head of the tenth objection, the regulations of the Irish National Board, and the exam- ples and testimonials of New England Educationists, are cited, but are omitted from the following quotation.] 63, Exclusion of the Bible from the Schools by the Globe Party, in the School Bill of 1849. "10. The last feature of the new Bill on which I will remark, is that which proscribes from the Schools all books containing " contro- verted theological dogmas or doctrines. [Under a legal provision containing these words, the Bible has been ruled out of schools in the State of New York.] I doubt whether this provi- sion of the Act harmonizes with the Christian feelings of Members of the Government ; but it is needless to inquire what were the intentions which dictated this extraordinary provision, since the construction of an Act of Parliament depends upon the language of the ^ct itself, and not upon the intentions of its framers. The effect of such a provision is to exclude every 43 kind of book CDntainiuj; religious truth, even every version of the Holy Scriptures them- selves; for the Protestant version of thera con- tains "thi'ological doctrine" controverted by the Roman Catholic; and the Douay version of them contains "theological dogmas" contro- verted by the Protestant. The " theological doctrine " of miracles in Paley's Evidences of Christianity is "controverted" by the disciples of Hume. Several of the "theological doc- trinea " in Paley's Moral Philosophy are also " controverted ;" and indeed there is not a sin- gle doctrine of Christianity which is not con- troverted by some party or other. The whole Beries of Irish National Readers must be pro- scribed as containing *' controverted theological doctrines;'' since, as the Commissioners state, these books are pervaded by the principles and spirit of Christianity, though free from any tincture of sectarianism. " I Uiiuk there is too little Christianity in cur Schools, instead of too much ; and that the united eiForta of all christian men should be to introduce more, instead of excluding what little Uiere is. " I have not assumed it to be the duty, or even constitutional right of the Government, to compel any thing in lespect either to religious books or religious instruction, but to recommend the local Trustees to do so, and to provide powers and facV'ties to enable them to do so within the wise restriction imposed by law. I have respected the rights and scruples of the Homan Catholic as well as those of tlie Pro- testant, By some I have been accused of having too friendly a feeling towards tho Roman Ca- tholics; but while I would do nothing to infringe tho rights and feelings of Roman Catholics, I cannot be a party to depriving Protestants of the Textbook of their faith — the choicest patrimony bequeathed by their fore- fathers, and the noblest birthright of their children. It affords me pleasure to record the fact-^and the circumstance shows the care and feirness with which I have acted on this subject —that before adopting the Section in the printed Fonns and Regulations on the " Oon- etitution and Government of the Schools in respect to Religious Instruction," I submitted it, among others, to the late lamented Roman Catholic Bishop Power, who, after examining it, said, [he could not approve of it upon prin- ciple, but] he would not object to it, as Roman Catholics were fully protected in their rights and views, and as he did not wish to interfere with Protesttin^s in the fullest exercise of their rights and views. " It will be seen that New England or Irish National School advocates of a system of mixed Schools, in contradistinction to separate and sectarian Schools, did not maintain that the Scriptures and all religious instruction should be excluded from the Schools, but that the peculiarities of sectarianism were no essential part of religious instruction in the Schools, and that the essential elements and truths and morals of Christianity could be provided for aad taught without a single bitter element of Sectarianism. The advocates of public Schools meet the advocates of sectarian Schools, not by denying the connexion between Christiiinity and Education, but by denying ti.e connexion between Sectarianism — by comprehending Christianity ia the system, and only rejecting sectarianism from it. The same, I tliinit, is our safety and our duty. Be a88ur«id that no system of popular education wil' flourish in a country which does violence to the religious sentiments and feelings of tho Churches of that country. Be assured, that every such system will droop and wither which does not take root in the Christian and patriotic sympathies of tho people— which does not command the respect and confidence of the several religious per- suasions, both Ministers and Laity— for these in fact make up the aggregate of the Christi- anity of the country. The cold calculations of unchristianized selfishness will never sustain a School System. And if you will not embi-ace Christianity in your School System, you will soon find that Christian persuasions will com- mence establishing Schools of tkeir own ; and I think they ought to do so, and I should feel that I was performing an imperative duty in urging thera to do so. But if you wish to secure the cooperation of the Ministers and Members of all religious persuasions, leave out of your system the points wherein thoy differ, and boldly and avowedly provide facilities for the inculcation of what they hold in common and what they value most, and that is what the best interests of a country require." 64. Mr. Brown's charge of Dr. Ryerson's syco- phancy and truckling proved to be false. As to my own course of proceeding at such a juncture, and in view of such a law, it was expressed in the following words : " As it relates to myself, the new Bill on its coming into operation, leaves me but one course to pursue. The character and tendency of the Bill — whatever may have been the motive in its preparation— clearly is to compel me to re- linquish office or virtually abandon principle* and provisions which I have advocated as of great and vital importance, and become a party to my own personal humiliation and degrada- tion—thus justly exposing myself to the sus*. picion and imputation of mean and mercenary conduct. I can readily retire from office and do much more if necessary, for themaintenaace of what I believe to be vital to the moral and edu- cational interests of my native country ; but I can never knowingly be a party to my own humiliation and debasement. I regret that an unprecedented mode of legislation has Wen re- sorted to to gratify the feelings of personal envy and hostility. I regard it as a virtual vindi- cation of myself against oft repeated allega- tions, that it was felt I could not be i-eached by the usual straight-forward administration, of Govei-nment. Lately, in the English House of Lords, the Marquis of Lansdowne stated, that. Mr. Lafontaine had returned to Canada, aadj boldly challenged injjuiryinto any of the alle atioDs against him in reference to past yeara. I i I : I I u il i = • I have repeatedly done the sftme. No such in- quiry has been granted or instituted. Yet I am not only pursned by base calumnies of certain pcr.'ons and papers (alluding to the Olobe, and one or two other papers), professing to support and enjoy the confidence of the Government, kut legiBlati(>n ia resorted to, and new provisions introduced at the last hour of the Session, to deal out upon me the long meditated blows of unscrupulous envy ai.d animosity. But I deeply regret that the blows, which will fall compara- tively light upon me, will fall with much greater weight, and more serious consequences upon the youth of the land, and its future moiai and edu- cational interests. " On the minor details of a law, no one is dicposed to lay less stress than myself. On such ground I should not feel myself justified in not laboring to give efficiency to a measure. Acting, as I hope I do, upon Christian and pub- lic grounds, I should not feel myself justified in withdrawing from a work in consequence of personal discourtesy and ill-treatment, or a re- duction of means of support and usefulness. But when I see the fruits of four years' anxious labors, in a single blast scattered to the winds, and have no satisfactory ground of hope that Buch will not be the fate of another four years' labor; when I see the foundations of great {mnciple?, which, after extensive enquiry and ong deliberation, I have endeavored to lay, torn up and thrown aside as worthless rub- bish ; when I see myself deprived of the pro- tection and advantage of the application of the principle of responsible government as applied to every other head of a Department, and made the subordinate agent of a Board which I have originated, and the members of which I have bad the |honor to recommend for appointment ; when I see myself officially severed from a Normal School Institution which I have devised, and every feature and detail of which are uni- versally commended even to the individual ca- pacities of the Masters whom I have sought out and recommended ; when I see myself placed in a position, to an entirely novel system of education at large, in which I can either burrow in inactivity or labor with little hope of suc- cess ; when I find myself placed in such cir- cumstances, I cannot hesitate as to the course of duty, as well as the obligations of honor and self-respect. " It is neither my right nor my wish to presume to dictate to the Government as to its measures or proceedings. But I think it is my right, and only frank and respectful on the earliest occa- sion, to state in respect to my own humble la- bors, whether I can Bei*ve on terms and princi- jrfes and conditions so different from those un- •der which I have, up to the present time, acted ; though I cannot, without deep regret and emo- tion, contemplate the loss of so much time and labor, and find myself impelled to abandon a work on which I had set my heart, and to ^alify myself for which I have devoted four of the most matured years of my life. All that I have desired of the Government is that which I Jbave cespectfully suggested in the first remark of my communication of the 12th of May last namely, that before demolishing the present Common Scliool system of Upper Canada, th« Government would inquire into its character, working, and results, by a Commission or other- wise, and hear the statements and oj^nions of different men and parties of much experience and varied information on the subject. The reasons why the spirit which originated the new Bill dreaded tho light of sucl) investiga- tion are quite obvious. But if the inconveni- ence of the people and the Common school in- terests of the country are not worth so much attention and trouble on the part of the Go- vernment, I grieve for the educational future of Upper Canada. Had the Government thought proper to institute such an inquiry, either be- fore or during the last Session of the Legisla- ture ; or had it seen fit (seeing that it declined adopting the short Bill submitted by me), to defer legislation altogether on the subject until the next Session, as the present School Act could be administered for six or nine months under the new Municipal system as well as under the present, and in the mean time have instituted an inquiry into the principles and working of the present School Law and the changes necessary to amend and perfect it, I believe the result would have been as honor- able and gratifying to the Government aa bene- ficial to the country. " Having now fulfilled my promise — to com- municate to you, in writing, my views on this important and extensive subject — I leave tb« whole question in your hands. " I have tho honor to be, &c., (Signed,) "E. RYERSON." '* The Honorable Robert Baldwin, Attorney General, West, Montreal." 65. The conduct of Mr. Brown and other partiM towards Dr. Hyerson contrasted. Now, Sir, among your various charges you have accused me, in different forms, of acting a truckling and unprincipled pari towards members of Government from 1846 to 1850, for my own selfish and venal purposes. On one occasion last year, in a Committee room, you addressed the Hon. Mr. Cayley with the words, "Now who told the lie V I will not address the same words to you on this occasion ; but I leave the reader to form his own opinion of your statements, and the spirit of them, after reading the above quotations of what I both said and did in regard to members of Government between 1846 and 1850. The reader will, I think, admit that the words above quoted, thougli coiirteous, are plain spoken, and are not the language of flattery or compromise. But did Mr. Baldwin and his colleagues (who were known to be at that time not personally friendly to me) denounce me for expressing my convictions, and speaking as a freeman? I placed my office at their disposal and my , are 46 i reasons for doing so ; thoy had me in their power. With your cjisuistry and preten- sions, they would have disuiissod mo upon the gi'ound of "audacity" and "insult ;" and they hjul a fine opportunity to make the School system a tool of their party. But, Sir, they felt that, as public men, and advisers of the Crown, they had other duties to perform tluui to gratify individual re- venge, or abuse a sy.stom of education to the purposes of individual or party intrigue. They felt that it was not incompatible with their duty to weigh my objections to their Bill, instead of denouncing mo, as you have done, for embodying in my official report the expres-sion of ,my owr^ convic- tions, and information from official sources of the utmost importance to the Govern- mei.t and the coinitry, in regard to what aflEbcts tiie very life and soul of our School Bystem. Instead of abusing and i)roscrib- ing me for what you would call my "audacity," they examined my facts and reasonings, and were at length convinced that, for once at least, I was in the right, and that they had made a mistake ; and valuing trutli and justice, and the well- being of their country more than the in dulgence of personal resentment, or ob- fltina+e persistence in wrong, under the preti fi of consistency, they felt that it was not beneath the dignity of a Government to retrace a wrong step, or \m worthy of a Legislature to repeal a bad act ; and the country has had abimdant reason to honor and bless them for the deed. But, had a George Brown and D'Arcy McGee been in the place of Robert Baldwin and Francis Hincks, how would our Educational system have been denuded of its most sacred attri- butes, and debased into a creature of party. The conduct of Mr. Hincks from 1850 to 1854 in regard to the school system, and his recognition of my right to express an opinion and olFer suggestions on school matters, are sufficiently shf>wn in preced- ing letters, and nobly coi\trast with the partizanship and tyranny of your conduct ia making the school system a question of political party ' ' compromise, " and assailing me for saying a word which might not ac- cord with the objects of your McGee alliance for that pui-pose. Then, look at the conduct of Sir Allan MacNab's Administration in 1855. Before deciding any thin|; in respect to Separate School legislation, they summoned me to Quebec, and heard all I had to say or write on the subject, and against the measure submitted to them by tlu-ee Roman Catholic Bishops. The Government then, in the exercise of its undoubted discretion, permitted the bringing in of a Separate School Bill — a Bill fair and just in its general provisions, but highly objectionable in certain clauses, the full etfect of which could only bo realized by men practically ac(piainted with the working of our school system. On seeing that Bill, I exercised the liberty of suggesting amendments, and, at length, said, that the Bill, if passed as introduced, would destroy our school sypiem. That was hardly the langtiago of yenal sycophancy, and was quite as strong in regard to a Goverimient Separate School Bill, as any I i ave employed in regard to your McGee Separate School ' 'compromise. " But did the Government proscribe or cen- sure me for employing such language, and interposing such an obstacle to their using the school system (had they been so dia- poaed) to cement an alliance, otlensive and defensive, with the Roman Catholic Hier- archy, as ^ have soxight through Mr. McGee, and have given such good satisfac- tion in performing the newspaper part of your contract, that Vicar General Bruy^re himself is contented — withdrawing his sub- scription from The Leader because, as he said "it is generally believed to be adopt- ing the /ormer f not present] course of the Globe." No, Sir, the Government of 1855, though they had a majority of more than fotir to one in favor of the Bill as intro- duced, listened to what I and others had to say against it, and adopted my suggestion* for its amendment, and the school system was then saved from being destroyed, or becoming the tool of political party. 66. Mr. Brown alone, of all other public men, denies to Dr. Ilyerson tl;e rinlit of t'n-o tliowjrht and free speech, and makes the School System* party qurstiou. Thus, Sir, have the chief public men and siiccessive governments from 1845 to 1856 pursued a widely ditlerent course from you in regard to our School System and its Superintendent. They have one and all recognized in me liberty of expression, as well as of opinion, which you have denied to me in the most offensive manner. They protected and aided me to establish the school system from 1846 to 1850, while you, in the Globe, held it up as a Prussian des- potism, and calumniated me with aU your recent bitterness, and more than your re- cent raciness and wit. They aided in pass- ing a law by which free schools ould be established ; bnt during the first years that I recoimnended free Schools, youdenjunced them as " pauper schools," and succeeded in largely inflaming the piiblic mind, espe- cially of Toronto, against them, though you afterwards changed your tactics. They protected and aided the School system in its infancy and weakness ; you assailed and sought to strangle it then, and only advo- cated it when it became so strong as to be an auxiliary rather tlxan a dependent. The^ 40 h&ve disclaimod using the School system for electioneering purposes ; you have used it for these purposes, represonting your opponents as its enemies, and yourself and friends as its champions. * They have re- ^rded the School system as a non-political interest of national philanthropy, and held it to be too sacred in its character and too universal in its objects to be made the instrument of i)artv government or power ; you, having found it a talismanic watch- word in a county election contest, have sought to grasp and wield it as an instru- ment of governmental power. 67. School Systems in England and Ireland sepa- ralt'tl Irom I'olUioal Tartu's, as han also hitherto been the case in Upper Canada. In England, the system of elementary instruction is wholly separated from politi- cal parties by having a non-political Com- mittee of the Privy Council and a paid resident Secretary or Manager with two assistant secretaries and forty-seven clerks ; in Ireland it is the same non-political sys- tem, being managed by a paid resident Commissioner and Secretaries, and an un- paid board. In Upper Canada, the same non-political course has been puraued. Mr. Baldwin nobly exemplified it when in oppo- sition in 184G, and when in power in 1850, and by na class of leading men in Upper Canada has that example been more cor- dially and generally followed, than by Mr. Baldwin's political friends and admirers. Nay, I have yet to learn that any member (except Mr. McGee) on your own side of the House has sympathized with you in your personal attacks upon me, any more than in yoiu* former attacks upon Mr. Baldwin ; much less do I believe you will have followers in your attempt to denation- alize our school system by converting it into a, shiboleth of party, and by forcing an al- liance which I will examine and illuatrate in my next letter. I have, ice of all classes of the community. And is a man who avows as his ' life's motto' 'more power to the Pope,' to be supported by all classes of the community, as you re- commend 1" 70. Mr, Brown ashamed of Mr. McGree's political CDiilessioii of faith. — Tlie Globe'siunv moral pliilo- so|ihy —Mr. McGee'.s appoal to Mr. Brown's men of " broad Protestant principles." Such, Sir, was your charge upon me, as to "political allies," and such was my re- tort. Was it not just ? You do not pre- tend to deny that Mr. McGee is your "political ally," or that you have recom- mended him to the confidence of the people of Upper Canada. No ! you denounce me for not hailing him as an "ally" to "put an end to separate schools." You do not deny that such are his political sentiments. You are certainly ashamed of them, and say editorially, "Wliat Mr. McGee may have said in New York, or elsewhere, in past years, matters little. He is now the representative of the first city in British America — and what he says in that capacity is wliat concerns us. " According to this new Globti moral philosophy, a man may advocate infideUty, or polygamy, or murder in New York, or may be of an association there to send emissaries and arms to raise a new rebellion in Ireland, yet may be a I)atri(»t in Canada, and the best "represen- tative of the first city in Britiuh America."* But does Mr. Mc(»oe himself say that such was his doctrine in New York in paat years, but that he has left it behind, tis ho professed to have left tJiere his avowed de- njocracy and hatred of British nde, when lie came to Canathi ? No, the Gloljc.'ti poli- tical code of morals that a distance of 400 miles makes the ditlereuceof the Antipodea in a political confession of faith, savours too much of "audacity," aswellasof absurdity, for Mr. McCJee himself to adopt as a re- fuge : he, therefore, thinks it best to ap- peal to the generosity of those whom he hai been Informed are men of ^^ broad Prtjtes- tant principles," to receive him as he is, with his "more power to the Pcjpe," and all. Hence in his letter published in the Olobe of the 31st December, in reference to my quotations of his repentance, recanta- tion, and new confession of faith, Mr. McGee says, ('and this is all he says on the subject,^ "I know well that the gieatbulk of the Reformers of the Upper Province are staunch Protestants, but 1 have not the least apprehension that they will expect me to conform my political conduct to their religious standards ; my Catholic friends and myself are, I trust, equally in earnest in our professions of religion, and in our desire to do justice — full justice, and no more — to all our public men, irrespective of our inevitable religious divisions. " 71. Mr. McG-eo'B assnrance, and his contempt icw tlio Protestant liclbrnicrs of Upper Canada — Enrke on men of •' broad" principles. These words indicate great faith and r*8- surance, as well as great contempt for the reUgious principles of Protestant Reformers. Mr. McGee, speaking of the * political c&useB and conse(iuences of the Protestant Refor- mation, 'pronounces " Protestant" and En- gUsh" ideas as "dangerous," calls the • Mr. Brown's opinions of Mr. McGee. before and after the alliance, are very remarkable and very in- structive Here they hre— Before the alliance, tho Globe 8''id, " Onr readers liave now to be introduced CO Mr. D'Arry McGee . . a fierce supporter of the Papacy. Mr. T. I). McGee has come out ju.st now in n i ntirely new character, and if anytliiuK could re- luce the present Ministry to a lower level in publie estimation than they now hold, it is the insolent tone this person has been compelled to assume towards it and the subserviency thev have been oblined to in- dnltre in." After tho alliance, and on the 10th Deo., 1858,;tht; Globe euloiry of McGee knows no bounds. He says : " By his clnquence and sauacity a«f/ liberality of sen^twicn^— (Even after his recantation of an " liberality of sentiment" in New York and in the House of Assembly 1 1— he has already ebtaV)lislied» wide-spread influence over the country, among Pro- testanta [that was a fatal influence over you, Mr. BrowniJ as well as ainon); his own religionists— and if he shall continue in the path he has hentofote fol- lowed, and earnestly strives for the amicable settle- ment, on just and comprehensive grounds, of the .seor tarian and sectional questions that now distract the country.Jhe will win (orhimselfananiewhich fifty Ek» ertou Byersons could never tarnish by their malice 1" > i .'; 1 48 Protestant Reformation a "German Re- bellion," ani»er Province," that they muHt not ex- pect him to "conform his political conduct to their religions standards," — which of course ini])lieB that they must conform their ToligiouH standards to his iM)litical conduct ; and then Mr. McOeo and his Catholic friends will desire to do full justice and no more to our public men. Marvellous con- descension and lilierality ! Mr. IJurke is said to have remarked, in reference to the jtrofessed principles of a rival candidate at Bristol, that "the gen- tleman's principles were like a Dutcliman's breeches, largo enough for any body." But I doubt whether the principles of the Up- per Canadian Protestants, to whom Mr. McGee appeals, are large or broad enoiigh to embrace the creed of Ids political con- duct, though you swallow it with avidity, andreproachmefornotdoingthesame, when you say, juldrsssing me, "had you in real- ity the anxious desire for the success of the •chool system of Upper Canada, that you profess, you would heartily rejoice to see a gentleman of Mr. McGee's ability and influence witli the Roman Catholics of Up- per Canada, candidly admitting the great difficulties of the school system, and joining with the men in the Assembly who have always advocated mixed schools, to find, if possible, some mode satisfactory to Protes- tant and Roman Catholic alike, of putting an end to separate schools. " Now, Sir, you have the assurance to ut- ter these words, when you know that the last act of Mr. McGee in the Assembly, in reference to separate schools, was not only to vote for their continuance, but, (as I shall presently show,) to advocate them as the inalienable right of Catholic parents, to denounce the very association of mixed schools, and to declare that sending a Ca- tholic child to them, and hoping to preserve his morals, was like throwing lum into Lake Ontario to see whether he would rise and •float. W. Boast of drawing Mr. Brown's Proiestant teeth — OConiieHs "tloqiient tools"— McGee's oloqui'iit poL'try and t'oolisli fhalU!n)i;e— Rivul of M. Trissotin- It is said to be the boast in some Roman Catholic circles in Montreal, "that Mr. Dorion, by his masterly diplomacy, has drawn George Brown's protestant teeth, so !that he can't bite the Catholic Church any more. '' Yoiu' above wholesale adoption of Mr. McGee, after his avowed creed in poli- tics, and his avowed sentiments on separate ■choob, shows that he has extracted from you the last remains rf your protestant self-respect, as well as consistency, under the blinding, absorbing passion for power and its emoluments. The late Daniel O'Connell once said, in reference to an association of which Mr. McGee was one of the principal revolving lights, who advocated the sword and tho musket instead of the rostinm and tho Sress as the instruments of Irish indepen- ence, and who, by their attiieks, embit- tered the last years of the gi'eat orator, as you, by your attacks, have shaded tho last yeai-s of Mr. Baldwin — tho veteran patriot said, in reference to those advocates of re- bellion and assassination, that "they were the most ehxpient fools ho ever knew. " I do not find an illustration of elo(pience in Mr. McGee's challenging letter to myself ; folly seeins to be its predominant element. His.eloquence seems to have been expended for the time being upon his new book of poetry, which you assure tho readers of tho Globe is worth more than thii'ty-seven and a half cents — that it is even cheap at fifty cents. I find in tho book what is omitted in the letter, when Mr. McGee says — ' I've a wife— my wliolo lovo bought her, And a little prattling daimhtcr, With eyes blue tut ocean water, God bo praised !" " I've been no base self-seeker : With the mildest 1 am meeker ; I have made no brother weaker, God be praised !" The devotion of these lines is only sur- passed by their eloquence, their wisdom and their humihty. Stu-ely half dollars must flow in without number for the purchase of such gems of poetic genius, surj)as8ing Milton in sublimity, and P(jpe in elegance, and Moore in pathos, celebrating such wonders of nature and of liistory, and especially the phenomena, that Mr. McGee has been no base self-seeker, that with the mildest he is meeker, and luvs made no brother weaker. (? Mr. Brown.) I have seen nothing like these lines in the English language, only six lines approach- ing them in French — namely, the following Parnassian coruscation from Monsieur Trissotin, in Moliere's Femmes Savantes : " Et Quand tu voin ce beau carr(x**80 Oft tinit d'or so rel6ve en booso Qu'il etonne tciut le pays, Ll fait pouipeusemeiit Iriotnpher nia Lais Ne diK iiliis qu'il est amartiiite Dis plutdt qu'il est de ma rente." 73. Diffnicu you — thero always Injing a ])o8itivo and nogativo in recipioeal attraction ; in tho case of you and Mr. McGeo thero being the positive of " more power to tho Pope" on one side, and the negativo of "down with tho Pop<5 " on tho ather. 74. MeRirs. Brown and McOee'i mitvtatementi in roKard to l)r. Uvtirsdii's " nencrul" attack, ii lurrn cry for help— TIUs tlix Mixnion a coutioverhy with Mesiirs. lirowii and McGuo alone. But I must return to Mr. McGoe's let- ter. Ho speaks of my "general attack upon the (rVo^t- and the Opposition nionibors of tho HouHo 6i Asseuibly," though ho knew when ho wrote this that my letter was a rcplji to your attacks in the (Hobe, nd that it would never have appeared had not tho.se attacks been made — that I did not even allude to any paiiy in tho Assem- bly, or mend)er of it, except Mr. McGeo himself, and that not in the way of pi sonal attack, but in simple illustration of his politicjd i)rofession of faith, in consequenco of you and he having become "political al- lies," to "put an end to Separate Schools. " Then Mr. McGee speaks of my rej)ly to you'as ' ' foreshadowing the Ministerial pol- icy for the next session," and that from a controversy between yon and myself, origi- nated by you, and of which the Ministry could have no more knowledge than the Opposition, and no more to do with it. — The attempt to make this di.scussion a contest of political parties, instead of a conroversy between you and me, is quite "worthy of you and Mr. McGee ; it is tho confession af your weakness ; it is a signal of distress ; a cry to your party not to leave you single-handed in a quarrel com- menced by yourself without their advice, for which not one of them is responsible, and into wh ich, I dare say, they wiP not be di'agged by your entreaties. If you com- mence a (juarrel without consulting them, they will doubtless leave you to fight it out without their lussistance. 75. Mr. McGce's solemn appeal 'responded to- Proof of liiM •• declaration" as to what our Scliool system oii.^'ht and onitlit not to be. I will now answer Mr. McGee's call. I had objected to him as a Lower Canada member interfering with the School affairs of Upper Canada — an objection which you have ynnniolf made for noveral ypam agai'nnt tho Lower Canada mont born.* I said : "I nhould not have niontioned Mr. McOoe'g name, or made any allusion to him, had hn not on dittbrent oocaHions dectiired what shoidd and should not bo, in regard to changing our school system !" Mr. McCJoe says : " 1 hereby call publicly on tho Kev. Egorton Jiyerson to produce a »intemb('r, Mr. McGoo made a speech in London in which, hi order to woo his Protestant auditors to Ilia alliance, ho uttered vague generalities about a system of national education, yot was carefiU to cover the whole ground of separate schools, which lie had declared a few weeks before (but not to his London audience), to be tho inalienable right, sacred duty, and only safety of Catholics, and to promote which is clearly tho sole object he has in view in any Parliamentary iiujuiry, as will appear hereafter. From Mr. Mc- Geo's spoech, I quote tho following passugo : ^^ " I do sny, for my-elf, Ih it I slionid de- siie to see the whole suhjecc of ediuation in Canada made matter of study with our Htnlea- men— niatie matter < f special Pariiahjcniary enquiry, with a view to adopiinL{ such a sy>^tem as the Trovincc can siisiain out of iho |>ublic treasury, without injusiice to iiiiy c'u^8 (if the tnx-payers or complaint from nnv cIh'^h of j)a« rents. For one, I promise you tlnit I will de- vote my best energie-< to ass st t»uch enquiiy, and I will hail with pleasure the euccees of the a'tempt. But if, gentlfmen, pueh a national system should be by any mi fnittiiio delayed, or defeated, or rejected, on fnir nud fall ex'nninch (ion b}i the Roman C(ii: minoiiiy in Upper Canada, or the ProlcHtaiit minority in Lower Ciiuada, I should undoulitedly eonund for the pre.servation ami niaiiiteiianco hoih for I'lotes- tant and Catholic, of those .vpnrnte sr/iool.t to which alonp. they could then confirieiilioH.sh/ send their childrn, 1 desire a nalii'inil sys-t ni, if it in possible ; I am anxious to do my utmost to • In Mr. Brown's own spooeh to tlio Electors of Tororto, as reported m the Gtohe of the 15tli Doc, 1857, lu! says: — " Tlie questions now befiretlie ficople of Toronto, ami in fact lielore the whole liddy of electors throufihont the Provhice, are whether Up- per Canada Nhall bended by Lower Cann la— ( res of ' Nn, no,')— wlicther tlie people of Upper Caiiaiia are to he kept in astate of dejfradiitinn and sn'isirvience to Lower Canada whether Upper (^-mada is lopay £< 8s. 9d. for every &\ wliirh Lo»yer Canada contri- butes— wlieiher sectarian schools are to l)e forced upon us contrary to llie desire of Upper Canada, and according to the wishes of Hishop CliarbonnM and the Komau Clergy K.)" if 50 makf* I; p«*:-!Tle ; but, in the meantiire, the right of the |>areutal authority, both east and west, must bo iirsu redly respected. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) ir •! Iv, Now, I think you yourself will admit that in the above quotation, Mr. McGee de- clares «^ery plainly what should and what should not be in regard to changing our school system. The only class of complain- ing tax-payers have been Roman Catholic supporters of separate schools, and they have been exempted from the payment of all public school taxes ; and in my report for 1852, and repeatedly since, I have sug- gested the investigation of their complaints by a Commission or Committee of the Legislative Assembly. 76. Mr. McG-ee's avowal of Separate Schools as a " sfiprod piiiiciple," and an " inherent and natural right " wliich no law can take away. Let us now see whether Mr. McGee has not said on another occasion what should and what should not be in regard to chang- ing our school system. Let us also see ■whether Bishop Charbonnel himself hi > ever expressed greater horror of mixtd schools than Mr. McGee, and whether therefore the alliance between you and him, with your and his professed views on sepa- rate schools, is not at the expense of all principle on the one side or the other, if not on both sides, and is not a deception upon the people of Upper Canada so far as concerns the abolition of separate schools. On the 23rd of June, a few weeks before your coalition \vith him was consummated, he delivered a speech in the House of As- sembly on the separate School question, and afterwards reported it himself. You vaxist have heard the speech, but you did not publish his report of it in the Ghbe. Lideed you suppressed yom- own speech on that occasion, as it is said to have contain ^d concessions in view of the McGee alliai^ at variance with your previous professic and which you wished to conceal from yo ^ readers. Mr. McGee says : — 1^" " I admit what the hon. mover has Btateii to be corroct : that tlie Catholics are not here by petition. But why are they not here? Because, as I have learned in conveisation with Buch of my co-religionists as I hi;ve met since the b(>giniiing of the Session — because they do not believe that there is the least probability that the present partial recognition of their right to separate schools could be withdrawn by this House; bevause they do not believe any government possible iu Canada which would deny ihem the free exercise of that right ; therefore they have not needlessly petitioned. (Hear.) Not that they attach any iuiportanee to the paltry sum of £1,000 which was last year their bh.ire of the school tax — £1,000 for 108 schuola, or about £10 per ochool — but be- cause that insignificant Pum stands for a sacred principle, they are all interested that it shall not be withdrawn, as a direct denial of the principle. For my part I will not put the main- tenance of their claims on the low ground aB-" sumed by the Government— the ground of the smailness of the amount, and the harmlessness of 100 'separate' competing with 3.700 'com- mon' schools ; but I put it on the high ground of ivherent right— of natural right which no law can take away, and on that grourd I will endeavor to show to this House the rational* of Roman Cat'iolic hostility to the pretensions of the State — the political power for the time being, assuming to itself the placp and office of teacher of all the youth born under it ; for we object to the State, not as a patron or inspector of schools, but as the author and administrator of a privilegec' establishment of education." — {Montreal '' True Witness," 2nd July.) It will be seen by the above extract that Mr. McGee places separate schools upon the ground of ^^ sacred principle " of ^^ in- herent right," of ^'^ natural right which no law can takeaway " and declares " no gov* ernment possible in CanacUi, which would deny to Catholics the free exercise of that right. " 77. Falsity of Mr. McGee's statement -Testimony ofs'eniii'ent Americans again>-t him— His tirst sug- gestion of Irish school importation. I will not stop to show the irfcter falsity of Mr. McGee's statement, in his speech, that "the common school system of Upper Canada is a certified copy of that of Mas- sachusetts and of others of the States," nor of his groundless statement that ' ' seven- tenths of the children of the more pros- perous natives (in New England) are them- selves educated at acadamies and private schools. " In contradiction of this statement I could produce the example of the Law- rences of Boston, the testimony and exam- pie of such men as Daniel Webster, the historian Bancroft, ex-Goverjior Banks, Edward Everett, (fee. ; but it is needless and aside from the subject of this discus- sion. * The only feature of our school sys- tem approaching the Massachusetts system is that of free schook. In U])per Canada each school municipality has the right of establishing a free school if it i)lea8ea ; in Mas*sachusetts each school municipality is compelled to do so, under the penalty of a fine. The next extract from Mr. McGee's speech is as follows : ^^T " S»''i fit the last census the Roman Ca- tiiolics of Upper Canada wcie I67,0ii0 souls — the second denomination in point rt for 1854. pp. 175-202. 51 and it is most important that this House should not misjiidgj the gioum\ao( opposition assumed by so numerous a body towards State education. (Benr.) It has been asserted that this oppo- sition comes solely from the priesthood, ami is not shared iu by the laity. That is a total mis- take, 90 far as I can judge. I believe, indeed I know, timl niiietcuth?i of the laity are opposed, and will be opposed, to the common school, system, unless some such modifications could be introduced into it as exist in the National sys- tem in Ireland. There the priest is always the visitor, and usually the patron of the school, and two afteruoons in the week are set apart for religious instruction. (Hear, hear.) This is in accordance with the primary idea of education existing in the Catliolic mind." (SFH— [TZiiJ] Now, the above extract contains the first suggestion by any member of the Legisla- ture for modifying our school system upon that of Ireland. Mr. McGee is the father of the scheme ; your alliance with him is the first step towards its accomplishment. And what is this object 1 Is it to do away •with separate schools ? No, it is the very reverse. So much so, that one express object is to make the priest the " Poi/-on." of the school, or, in other words, to give "More power to the Pope.'' That the Priest is not the * ' Patron" of the school is one objection which Mr. McGee intimates against our Canadian school system, and to change that feature of otu: system is the primary idea which presents itself to his " Catholic mind," and slips from his tongue in the proposed importation from Ireland. And yet this is yotu" " political ally," for the pretended object of " putting an end to separate schools. " Yet, Mr. McGee denies that he ever said what should or what should not be in regard to changing our school system ! 78. Mr, McGec's foolish misrepresentaticns— Denial of parental ri^ht— Bishop Charbonnel's Lent Pastoral of 1S.".0, But let us hear Mr. McGee again. He says : ^^° " The skilful but sophisticated littera- teur wlio hns so long presided over tlie Depart- ment of Education in Upper Canada has never once met the question on the merits— ho has never dealt with it as an inalienibie preroga- tive and (Inly of parentage — but he has artfully ruiseti a false controversial issue, and attempted to make it a Protcetant and Catholic contro vevsy. It is, in fact, a question whether the Christian family is to be permitted its free deveioimient iu W'.'stein Canada, or wliether the political power is io %i&x\il m loco parentis to all ciildreu under age. For whom doe? the common school teacher really represent in in our >y8tem ? Not the parent but the Act of Parliament that creates his ofHce and defines his district. He is the creature of the political power, and though he may consult, aud may co-operate with the parents of the pupils, he is not uound to do go ; he is independent of them; he is not answerable to them ; he must not dia- tingush between them or between their child- ren I"— [/6?U] The above quotation contains as much of bold and sUly falsehood as could weU be squeezed into the same space. In the first place, I have based our School system upon the ground of both parental and filial right, and illustrated the principle at large in my Annual Reports. The 14.th section of the School Act of 1850 provides that not even the local Trustees shall interpose between any parent and his child in regard to reli- gious instruction. I have maintained that each parent has a right to send his child to what school he pleases, without any inter- vening power from the State or Church. Bishop Charbonnel in his famous Lent pas- toral letter of 1856, said : — "Catholic electors in this country who do not use their electoral power in behalf of Separate Sehools are guilty of Twor/a^ sin: likewise pa- rents not making the sacrifices necessary to se- cure such schools, or sending their children to Mixed Schools." But in reference to that episcopal decree, I maintained that it was not only an undue interference with the electoral and civil affairs of the country, but an annilulation of the rights of parents, whose prerogative it was to send their children to the separate or m^xed schools as they pleased. I think every reader will see that the priestly as- sumption wliich compels a parent upon pain of mortal sin, to take away liis child from a mixed school and put him into a separate school, is the same in principle, though less aggravated in form, with that which tore the little Mortar a from his pa- rents and carried him a captive prisoner to a monastic school. I further remark that the teacher of our common school is not the representative, much less the ' 'creatiu'e of the political power " of the state, but is the representative and agent of the parents who employ him, and who, through their own elected local representatives, choose, pay, and dismiss the teacher, at their pleasure — the state requiring nothing more, as the condition of granting aid from its treasury, than that the teacher shall be a person of good moral character, and of certain lite- rary qualifications. The parents through their iocal elected representatives, and by their own undelegated and inaheilable right as to religious instruction, are as much re- presented by the teacher in the mixed schools, as they are in the separate schools. What your "political ally," therefore, says in the above extract is simply eloquent rant and folly. 52 79. Mr. McOee'sheartlets distinction between the children of the diunkard and the sober man at school. But let Mr. McGee speak again. He says — J^ " Tlie principle of the common school is, that every child, within a certain district, section. or ward, lias an equal right to the advantages of the school ami the time of the teacher. As before the law, I admit, all men are equal, and exclusively, all children. But I deny as bet- ween each other in social or school intercourse, that either men or boys can be moral equals. The child of the drunkard and the swearer is not the equal of the child of virtuous and sober parents, and ought never to be confounded with him. Children are great imitators, and what they bear and see at home they bring abroad ; hence the teacher who does his duty ought to be always able, from the first, to distinguish the children by the character of their parents. ",,^5| Now, I thank Almighty God, and view- it as the glory of our country, that each child, whether of the poor man or of the rich man, whether of the drunkard or of the sober man, " has an equal right to the advantages of the school and the time of the teacher ;" that each child ia accountable at school for liis own conduct, and not for that of his parent ; that if a little boy or a little girl has the misfortune of having a drunken father, he or she is not to be visited with the additional misfortune of being re- garded on that account as a rotton sheep in the flock, marked and separated from the other cliildren as are the children of slaves in the Southern States from those of their masters. Yet, Mr. McGee wishes to denude our school system of this most humane feature, and he becomes and is re- ceived as your " political ally " in school matters ! But this is not the last, nor yet the most significant deliverance of Mr. McGee on our school system. He shall yet apeak for himself five times more. He says : — 80. Mr. McG-ee's horror at the association of Roniaii Ciitliolic anil I'rofcestant childrcri at school —He noes furthor than the Hishop. t^" " It has been said — What danger is there in teaching children the multiplioation table in common? — what danger in teaching them the alphabet m common / I repeat it is not the teaching but the association which oor- ruptp, and which is to be guarded against as the worst danger of the indiscriminate grouping of children together. Rut there is anoiher consi- deration : toachiiu^that two and two make four, ia teacliiua;jt() reason — it is teaching the use of the mental faculties — and we insist that every Itsson in leitmn, shall be accompanied by a letson in revelation, as a rider, as a safeguard. I, as a parent, am not willing to risk the experi- ment of ext-rcising only a Sunday revision over the imbedded and falae impreasiont of the week. You might as well propose that the child should eat on Sunday all the salt necessary for the retrospective salting of its six days' food. (Hear, hear.) I, as a parunt, believe the lungs of children, when inflated, to be buoyant ; but I am not on that account disposed to bring my child to the pier, and throw it into Lake Onta- rio, to see whether or not it may riaa and Qoai." „^-[Ibid.] The above quotation contains not only a repetition of Bishop Charbonnel's objec- tions against mixed schools, upon the ground of association, apart from teaching, but Mr. McGee goes beyond the Bishop. The Bishop did make some exceptions; but Mr. McGee makes none. He Avill not allow Roman Catholic and Protestant children to learn in common the alphabet, or midtiplication table, or that two and two make four ; nor, as a parent, will he risk the experiment of exposing his children to the "embedded errors and false impressions of the week," arising from their association with Protestant children, any more than he would throw them into Lake Ontario to see whether they may rise and float ! Andl yet, in the presence of these facts, you have the hardihood to tell the public that you and Mr. McGee are allied to " put an end to Separate Schools ;" and, as you say in your speech to the electors of Toronto at your late election, "that all chil'uen of whatever denomination, shall co'iie into the same schoolroom, sit at the s' me desks, grow up hand in hand, and forgot those sectional animosities that noAv form the greatest obstacle in the way of our progress as a people." Can there be anything more audacious than you and Mr. McGee's pro- fessed alliance to give uniformity to our school system, with the avowal of such doctrines on his part and yours 1 81. Mr. McGee's opinion that the support of schools >^-' the Stnte is the worst of monopolies. But Mr. McGee goes further. He oh- jects to the State providing for the support of any one class of teachers as the worst of monopolies. He says : — jg^ " But there are other olyections, Mr. Speiker, though none of equal importance to that I havrt just stated. One of them id — that the Common School system is a monooply of teaching, which it is wonderful that those who oppose bounties on industry of every kinh states- men as a compendium an)r sixty IP private ler ill the niercliaDt Willi the merchant trading with a bounty. He classes it aicong the monopolies fatal to free principles; and of all monopolies, a monopoly in public in- struction must be the woret.".^ — [Jbid] Well might Mr. McDougall (in an ex- cellent speech in support of our common school system as it is though he voted to abolish the Separate School provisions of it) say, "that Mr. McGee's arguments had been directed against the State having any- thing to do with the support of education — even of Separate Schools." But, you. Sir, with the above quoted words still ring- ing in your ears, become the "political ally" of Mr. McGee for the pretended ob- ject of perfecting our system of State education ! 82. Mr. McGee'B appeal to Frotestanta in anpport of Separate Schools.— His anxiety to keep Roman Catholic children out of the Public Schooltj. Then Mr. McGee proceeds, — Jg^ " Catholics do not stand alone in their opposition to this monopoly. At the late Anglican Synod in this city, a Report in favor of Separate Schools was read, and would have been adopted, but that the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron pointed out, that they could have all they wanted under the present law. Among Presbyterians, Methodists, and other religious bodies, there are many advocates of combining religious and secular instruction, in the daily . teaching of children. (Hear, hear.) In Lower Canada, the British Protestant population are a mere moiety. Are they in favor o( abolishing their own schools ? Ask the hon. members who especially represent them, if that is the case ? No one rises to answer in the aflSrmative. Why then not observe the common Christian rule of *• doing unto others, as we would wish to be done by," and allow the Catholic minority in Upper Canada to educate their own children in peace, ".^—[/iirf.] Yet, Sir, in the presence of these facts, you tell us that you and Mii McGee are allied to complete what he declares to be a "monopoly," and in opposition to which he invokes the co-operation of Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Protestants ! But, Sir, while you are recommending Mr. McGee to the Reformers of Upper Cam^da, as a "political ally" to bring "aU children, of whatever denomination, into the same school room, to sit at the same desks, and grow up hand in hand," what does Mr. McGee himself say to the Reformers of the House of Assembly 1 He says — J^~ " To honorable gentlemen on this side of the House, with whom I generaUy always agree on other questions, I would say, educate your children your own way, but allow us to educate ours ; we don't want to interfere with yonr common schools, we only want to keep our otm clUldren out of l ali'uirs of Upper Canada, by what it termed the " Priest-ridden" politicians of L.^wer Canada. But, after all this, and af- ter having assailed me on the score of " political allies," even with no other than the alleged ▼iew of maintaining our existing school system, you h.tve formed a political alliance with a man of Lower Canaoa, iu order to modify the school system of Upper Canada, accepting his dicta- tion and proposing to send him to Ireland to import a school system lor Upper Canada, as a substitute for that already established, and that man holding the avowed sentiments of the Beet which the London Times describes as Pa- piste. I need scarcely sav that I mean Thomas D'Arcy McGec, Esq', M.P.P., of Montreal." In your rejoinder, after sundry rhetorical flourishesastomy "audacity" and "inso- lent attack on Mr. McGee," you say, ''That in the neyuciatiuns hetiveen Mr. Dorion and myself un the school q^ cstion, iieither he nor an J body else was ever thought of or spoken of as a commissioner to Ireland." Now, it is curious to observe, that in this diploma- tic denial you virtually admit the correct- ness of t 'remark in my letter. You do not deny that a mission to Ireland was con- templated, or that it was agreed upon, or even that Mr. McGee was to be the Com- missioner. But you deny that it was men- tioned or thought of " in the negociations between Mr. Dorion and yourself on the Bchool question." Id 'er mentioned your * ' negociations with Mr. Dorion. " I do not recollect having even thought of that gen- tleman when I wrote the paragraph refer- ring to the mission to Ireland. I did not say when, Avhere, or with whom the current fact originated, I simply mentioned you as "proposing to send liim to Ireland." You do not deny it ; but you raise a dust by denying sometliing else that I neither said or thought of — namely, the mention of the subject inyoiu- " negociations with Mr. Dorion." Nor did I say that Mr. Dorion, or any other person was a party to it. Of that I knew nothing, and therefore could affirm notliing. But I had heard it respect- ing yourself. I liave also been assured that the authority upon which The Leader first mentioned your having proposed to send Mr. McGee to Ireland is undoubted, though confidential ; and The Leader is confessedly better authority, beyond comparison, than the Globe, for any matter of fact. The Colonist has recently asserted, the same thing upon satisfactory private authority, and his reliability is also vastly above that of the Globe. But, apart from these au- thorities, either of which is quite sufficient to justify my allusion, I have no more doubt of the fact than I have of my own existence; nor do I doubt being able (were the case contested) to establish it to the satisfaction of any court and jury upon the authority of private information, which I am not at liberty to make use of in a newspaper, tliat ymi contemplated sending Mr. McGee to Ireland, and that one object of your doing so was to secure "d^lay in regard to the school question. How many others were parties or privies to it, I do not pretend to know : nor did I know whether Mr. Mc- Gee himself was a party to it. He, of course, denies it ; but considering his trade for these many years past, his affirmation or denial can be of no consequence. He denies that any mission was thought of ; yet I will now prove it, which is the only point of real importance in this part of the dis- cussion, and respecting which we have pub- lic authority. 87. Testimony of Uessrs. Dorion and Connor. My first authority is that of the Hon. Mr. Dorion, in his written address to the elec- tors of Montreal, published, in the Globe of the 19th August : — ** It was adndtted that the Common Schools of Upper Canada would be ameliorated, by seeking amongst European systems, and es- pecially in the National Schools of Ireland — approved alike by the Catholic and Protestant Clergy of all denominations — the modificatious necessary to establish Common Schools accord- ing to a general system, which should offer every facility to religious instruction — the basis of all solid education — without phocking the belief of any one who should frequent them ; and that the present laws which satisfy neither Catholic nor Protestant, should only remain until a measure more satisfactory for all classes of the population should be adopted." Now what is to "seek among," but, as both Johnson and Webster say, in defining its first and most obvious meaning, ' ' to go in search or quest of, to look for, to search by going from place to place ?" Then there is the explicit testimony of Dr. Connor, which you have never ventured to contradict, to this day. In his speech at Ingersoll, as published in the IngersoU Chronicle of the 18th August, aud since copied in other papers. Dr. Connor says : "With regard to Sectarian Schools, we agreed that we would send to Ireland, and make inquiries concerning tlie system pur- sued there, which system seems to have taken a g^eat hold on the mind of the country." Mr. Doriou's words are ^vitliout meaning, and Dr. Connor's words are with- out truth, if a mission to Ireland was not contemplated. Dr. Connor had the best 66 I'' means of knowing, and no one will doubt his statement. On another occasion he says no one had thought of sending Mr. McGee on that mission. Possibly Dr. Connor may of tliought of going himself ; but he doea not seem to have known what you thought about sending Mr. McGee ; but as to the misaion itself, Dr. Connor's statement is positive and conclusive. 88. Second proposition proved— Mr. Brown's abanrlonmciic of his high Protestant Horse— John Knox's spirit doparted.— Concession to Attorney- General JIacdonald, which Mr, Brown now at- tempts to falsify. 2. The next question relates to the dif- ferent course which you now pursue in re- gard to the Roman Catholic Priesthood and Church from that wliich you have pursued in past years, and by means of which you have acquired your chief influence among a large class of the Protestants of Upper Canada. It is not for me to discuss the merits of your present or former course of proceeding in regard to the Church of Rome. That your present course is the reverse of your former course in this re- spect, no one can doubt. Every number, almost every column of the Globe bears wit- ness to this. Every reader of it knows and feels that, whether for better or worse, the Globe is not its former self in this respect. The championship of Protestantism against the aggressions of Romanism is wanting in its pages. Its avowed John Knox spirit has departed ; and the Bruyere spirit now smiles upon the Globe, while it frowns upon the Colo7ii'^t and The Leader. I might fill columns with illustrations, and that without falsifying a single quotation, or chopping a single sentence off in the middle, or picking out a phrase here and there, in order to misrepresent your acts and your sentiments, as you have done mine.* I will, as a specimen of your change, take a single number of the Globe, that of the 25th June, 1855, the number which contains a copy of the Roman Catholic Separate School Bill of 1855. I will quote four passages from your editorial of that date, as follows : — '* It is a well known fact that Mr. Attorney- General M.icdonald's personal convidionn are not in favor of the sectarian element remaining part of the national school system — and that Mr. Spence, up (o the moment of his elevation to office, professed the bitterest opposition to it. It is equally uotorious that Mr. Cauchou and Col. Tach6, on the other band, are the veri- est tools of the Roman Hierarchy — that in obe- dience to its command they have ever denounc- ed the national system of Upper Canada as infidel in principle and in tendency, and sought to place the instruction of the youth of the Province directly under the control of the priest- * For a series of choice extracts from the Olobe on thig subject, see Appendix. hood. That a battle waged within the Cabinet for many weeks, for the mastery on this question, few acquainted with the facts will hesitate to believe. Mr. Macdoniild introduced a School Bill 80 early in the session as the 6ih of March, but it hai^ no clause to extend the sectarian element further than previously existing — nay, the friends of oatioiiai education were prepared to make a fight when that Bill came up, for the insertion of a clause repealing all the sectarian provisions then in existence. But no sooner was the Bill announced, than down came Bishop Cliarbonncl to the seat of Government, lobbying, urging, and threatening. Committees of Coun- cil gravely considered the dire effects of refus- ing him — private meetings between his Roman Reverence and the Superintendent of Education, it is said, took place ; but the result of it all was that the poor cravens in the Ministry from Upper Canada, for the sake of holding their offices a little longer, went down on their knees to Messrs. Cauchon and Tache, and ate their leek with all humility. Mr. Macdonald's bill stood over, week after week, waiting a decision of the knotty point ; but at last the result was made public by the audacious movement of Col. Tach6 in the Legislative Council." •' We readily admit that the Bill, us passed, is as innocuous as a Papistical School Bill could well be — but a Papistical Seliool Bill it is— . wrong in principle and tending to the destruc- tion of the whole national system of education." "Romish and Puseyite priestcraft cannot stand before the enlightenment fast spreading over the land by means of our common schools — almost its last hope is to strangle them. An open attack dare not be made on the schools ; but an insidious *ide blow is aimed at them, far more dangerous ; for it hypocritically appeals to the religious feelings of the people." "There is no safety in tampering in this matter; our Common Schools must be freed from the sectarian element that now lurks in the system, and at every hazard they must be maintained in their integrity against all assaults — whether from Roman Priests, or Puseyite Anglicans," From yoiu^ own statement, in the above quoted paragraphs, it is clear that Mr. At- torney General Macdonald was not the enemy of our School System that yoti have for years been representing him — that he made a very long fight against the intro- duction of of the Separate School Bill of 1855, as I certainly made a very hard one ; and when we did not succeed in prevent- ing the introduction of that Bill, we suc- ceeded, with the aid of earnest remon- strances from seven members of the ChurcA of England, (six Conservatives and one Reformer,) and a speech or two from joxir- self , in preventing it from being a Frotes- tant, and making it exclusively a Roman Ccctholic Separate School BiU, and (to bor- row your own words,) "as imiocuous as a Papistical School Bill well could be ;" but man 5T remon- Churrfi and ono om jour- 1 Trotes- . Roman . (to bor- ,ous as a ye ;» bxxt which you describe in five paragraphs in yowr letter to me, as a very awful Bill — in- volving monstrous concessions to the Ro- man Catholics, though drafted by Mr. Brown's own Attorney General (Drum- mond), and supported by him. [See p. 58. ] Yet, in another Glohc, (as I shall show hereafter,) when you began to woo the " Roman Catholic supporters " of Mr. Mc- Gee, you said if they have a Septirate School Bin at all, (as you knew they would have,) they f>ught to have a much more liberal one than they now have. 89. The "poor craven" imitated by Mr. Brown in kneeling to Messrs. Cauclion & Tach6, Ac— The McGoe & lirown double game for Protestants of of " broad principles." It is thus, when you want to attack what you teim "the poor cravens in the Ministry from Upper Canada," you repre- sent them, as well as my poor self also, as having bartered away the Protestant rights of the jjeople of Upper Canada, and "for the sake of holding their offices a little longer, going down upon their knees to Messrs. Cauchon and Tach^, and eating their leek with all humihty ;" but when you want to give effect to your McGee alli- ance, you tell the Roman Catholics that the "existing clauses are not adequate in carrying out the separate system," that "from their point of view, tho CathoUcs are right in the course they have taken" in demanding further concessions. Thus, you play a Protestant and Roman CathoUc game ill turn, according to the class of readers for whom, and the object for which, you ■write ; as Mr. McGree has one speech for "Protestants of broad principles," who dined him at London, and another speech for the Catholic readers of the Canadian Freeman and True Witness.* * This double game for an unworthy purpose, is also shown in Mr. Brown's disreputable system of print- ing or suppressing such parts of the Parliamentary debates of the present Session as \. Ill suit his pur- pose and will not ofTend his readers of " Broad Pro- testant Prhiciples.'' A Brantford "Correspondent" of McGee's Montreal organ, the " True Witness," Feb. 4th, thus, in one example of a case wliich came under his own observation, exposes the cheat which Mr. Brown almost invariably practices on the unsus- pecting readers of the Olobtj [See also pp. 28, 80, & 88j : " With very many others I enjoyed the happiness of hearing Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Esq., M.P.P., ad- dressing the House of Assembly on last Tuesday night. It is needless to say a word of the profound respect and attention with which he was heard by a crowded House. Next morning I expected to find the Hon. Gentleman's speech wholly and correctly reported in the columns of the friendly Globe news- paper. Imagine how surprised and indignant I felt when I read verbatim every thiny Mr. McGee eaid in favor of Mr. Broton ; the well- deserved castigO' Hon he irylicted on tlie Rev. Chief Superintendent qf Common Schools .... bi't not a wobd EESPECTINQ- WHAT THE HON. GENTLEMAN HAD SAID OF HIMSELF AS A PAPIST, NOE OF HI8 EEADIKE88, PEOM TRUE CONVICTION, JO FBOFESS HIB RELIGION AS WELL ON THE MOUNTAIN TOP A8 IN TUB LONELY CAVE."~yr«e Witness, Feb. 18. K Two such "political allies, "each with "two strings to his bow," doubtless expected a great success among the unsuspecting na- tives ; but each class of readers intended to be deceived by this shallow artifice, may evince a just digust and resentment on ascertaining the game of "double shuffle," which you and Mr. McGee have been prac- tising upon them for your own purposes. 90. Mr. Brown on his Protestant Bucephalus, armed cap-a-pie.— His zeal and sdlishness only (vpiallod by Jehu.— Tho sour grapes now sweet.— The Globe on SirE. P. Tacho's "Pharisaical Brawlers," and its silence on insults to Protestants l>v Mr. Brown's own ally. The paragraphs above quoted are speci- mens of your Protestant game in past years, when you rode a high Prf)te3tant horse, — a very Bucephalus of his kind— with the banner of "broad Protestant prin- ciples " floating in the breeze. Your zeal to destroy the alleged adversaries of Pro- testantism was quite as great as that of Jehu to destroy root and branch the house of Ahab, and quite as selflsh. Tens of thousands of Protestants came to regard you as a standard-bearer of Procestant principles and liberty, and to view through the medium of the Globe all who did not follow you as the poor craven "tools of Popery," and enemies of our "noble school system." It was thus that such men as Messrs. Stevenson and Gamble and others who had borne the burden and heat of the day in supporting and defending that school system when you were assailing it, were hunted down by the Globe as trucklers to Popery. One of the crimes of the Gov- ernment of the day was, that it had "Roman CathoUc supporters," and that sign and proof of its To have " Roman Ca- was then very sour grapes, nay, was a great crime against Upper Canada ; but how sweet did those grapes become the moment they appeared within your reach, and how soon did tlut crime become a virtue, when Mr. McGee, the most ultra of all the Roman Catholics who ever spoke in the house of Assembly, was found available as your "political ally," with, as you say, "his influence among the Roman CathoUcs of Upper Ca- nada." From that hour no such paragraphs as those above quoted have fomid their v/ay into the columns of the Globe. * Even the kidnapped Mortara could not find space in your columns for a decent account of his suflferings (except some statements of a London letter writer) until two days after I drew attention to the subject in my fourth letter, and that copied from the New York Times as news, unaccompanied •See the Hon. Mr. Thibaudeau's testimony on pajje 6ft . was held up as a Popish character, tholic supporters," l\ 1,1 // 58 by a single editorial remark, lest oflence might be given to your new *' Roman Ca- tholic supporters." Colonel Tache and other Roman Catholic members of the Le- gislature are liberals indeed in comparison witli Mr. McGee, as shown by his speech quoted in my last letter. Colonel Tache 's allusion, some years since, to the Olobe assailants of the Church of Rome as "Pharisaical brawlers," was echoed and re-echoed by the Globe in every part of Upper Canada for years as an insult to Protestants ; but of Mr. McGeo's most ultra and insulting speech, such as was never before delivered in the Canadian Legislature, you have not one word to say, but you embrace Mr. McGee himself as your "political ally," and denounce me for not doing the same ! 91. Vicar-0«n, Bmyere patting Mr, Brown on tho shoulder, who i.-^ down ou liix kneeH, in iiopo of be> ing able thereby to " oat his leek with all humility." The Globe is now as free from anything against " Roman priestcraft " as it former- ly was fidl of it ; and even Bishop Char- bonnel's fighting Vicar General Bruyere pats you upon the shoulder, and commends you for no longer pursuing your *' former course ;"* and the Montreal True Witness himself pronounces you a much better friend to separate schools " than the Rev. Mr. Ryerson." To complete the picture, we now see you — ^the former supposed Achilles of Protestantism — in the very po- sition you represented " the poor cravens of the Ministry " in 1855, " down on ymir knees" to the aforesaid Mr. Cauchon, to Mr. Drummond, the author of the "Papis- tical School Bill,"t to Mr. Dorion, the ear- •Accordinjf to Mr. Bruyere, times must have changed since the ' hate ' spoken of in the following pas.vage has been followed by so much love and approval on his part as is expressed above. The Olobe of .Uac. 1857, says :— " It is George Brown that Priest Bruyere hates ; it is he that the priest wished to drive from the polls ; and will the Protestants of Toronto endure to be represented by the nominee of a foreign priest P Up, Proteetants and Orangemen !— so bitterly denounced in Bruyere'sphillippic -and show that you will never submit to Papal rule— that you will defend your schools against all the assaults that Papal hate can devise." t It is curious to see how readily Mr. Brown can palliate the preparation of this " scandalous" Bill oy his own Attorney General, and yet denounce another Attorney General {not of bis government) for assenting to it I This finesse can scarcely be be- lieved, but such is the fact, as will be seen from the following extract ft-om Mr. Brown's speech, reported at full length in the Olobe of the 14th and 16th Feb., e^r the replies to it had been made. Mr. Brown goes OD to say r<-" At the very close of the same session of 18M, within eight days of the prorogation, when most of the Upptr Canada members had left Quebec— we had also that scandalous Bill, which, haa it passed, must have destr^ed the whole School system of Upper Oanada. (Hear, bear.) Not one petition was there A'om Upper Canada for that Bill, the senti- ments of the great mass of the people were utterly oppcMed to it— not a copy of the Bill had been seen in Upper Canada— but the political exigencies of the OMUition demanded it- nest advocate of it, to Mr. McGee, the man of " More power to the Pope," in the hope of getting into the offices of those "poor cravens," so as to "eatyow leek with all humility. " 93. Sad and ladiorons apectacle !— Mr. Dorion'f achievement.— Mr. Cauchon's mtirry laugh.— The Bishop lind the Vicar General's Te Deum, not over the Convert but over the Apostato. I confess to you, Sir, there is something very sad as well as ludicrous in tliis specta- cle. Were Mr. Drummond as revengeful as you are, instead of being amiable and generous as he is, how would he be more than avenged for the "ten years of slander and falsehood " you have been vomiting forth against himself and his co-religionists? How proud may Mr. Dorion well be of his achievement ! How must Mr. Cauchon re- echo his merry laugh, and Bishop Charbon- nel and his Vicar General Bruyere sing their Te Deums, not over tho convert but over the apostate, worthy to do their work, but unworthy to command their respect, and only fit to be scowled from their pre- sence after having bartered himself to ac- complish their purpose. And what shame and regret must swell the heart of that large portion of Canadian Protestants who have been deluded, and who shouted, and labored and paid largely at elections, in expectation of your inaugurating a system of government upon "broad Protestant principles I" 93. Mr. Brown declares " Ton'll find no change in me I" None in the jBuld doubtless have satisfied reasonable necessities, and guaranteed the just rights of those who were therein concerned. The Lower Canadians and the Roman Catholics had the assurance that their interests would be suitably protected, since, in Mr. Brown's Cabinet the two races were equally represented, and it eontiuned more men professing the Catholic re- ligion, than there had beea in any preoediiig government.''* It thus appears that in the presence of Mr. Drummond, author of the Separate School Bill of 1855, and Mr. Dorion, its advocate, and in prospect of office and power, your objections to "fam;«Tm(/" with the Separate School quns^' m immediately vanished, and you suipas.t ,, Mr. Dnim- mond's .previous capacity of faith in your (lualities of compromise- -^.i "honorable compromiHe," of course, for " Brutus is an honorable hian." Judging from Mr. Drum- mond's power of belief, and your still greater powers of "honorable compro- mise'' one may imaguie you outdoing in courtiership anything you have attribtited to Cliiof Justice Draper himself, and that you were anytliuig and everything that Messrs. Drummond and Dorion could de- sire on the score of * ' honorable compro- *Not being able to command an En!;jlish paper containing a copy of Mr. Drummond's address, I have translated this passage from the French, as published in Le Pays of the 1st September. I hereto append the original, as follows : " Mais dans la partie ouest de la province, la division 6tait plus alarmante, et d'autant plus qu'elle parassait prendre sa source dans les sentiments de defiance et de jalousie contre le Bas-Canada. Cependant le parti avanc6 avait limite k deux points les questions qui separai- ent certains reformiste? les uns des autres, savoir ; le rappel de la clause de I'Acte d'Union qui donne une representation %ale aux deux sections de la province et I'abolition des ecoles separees dans le Haut-Oanada. "Avant meme le commencement delader- nidre session du parlement, je m'etais apergu que les evSnements conduisaient rapidement d la reorganisation du parti liberal sur une base large et acceptable aux rfiformistes de toute eroyance et de toute race ; et, pensant que M. Brown ne consentirait pas k un compromis au sujet des deux grandes questions dont je viens de parler, je le reg::.rdai8 comme le seal obstacle qui s'opposftt k I'cccomplissement de cette grande fusion. Mais quand il me pria d'accepter un siege dans le cabinet qu'il etait a former, je d^couvris qu'il etait pr^t k s'uuir a nous pour s'occuper de ces importantes questions — et non pas pour les eluder comme I'adminis- tration 1' avait fait — mais pour les resoudre par I'apoption d'un compromis honorable, qui anrait sans doute satisfait les exigences raisonnables, et garanti les droits justes de tons ceux qui y etaient conceines. Les Bas-Canadiens et les catholiqtes remains avaient I'asaurance que leurs int^rdts seraient conv enablement proteges, puisque, dans le cabinet de M. Brown, les deux races etaient 6galement representees et qu'il renfermait plus d'bommes professant la religion catholique qu'il n'y en avait eu dans aucim gouvernement precedent." 61 Blue" on tho Separate School question, (notwitlistaiuling all your profoMsiouH, iln- nunciatiouH and appeals against it in piist years) if tlioy woulil only join in making you Preuiiov. * ■uce que proteges, lea deux et qu'il religion ae aucun 95. Mr. Brown'i snipicioni silenco on the honor- ablo" conipromltin.— HaH Htnick tho hoaviost ))low ngainst the School System.— The ein|ilric8tato8man. Theu, Sir, what was tho nat\aro of tlio " honorable eoinprouii.so" yon wore ready to make on the Separate School miestiou I f The pn})lic have long since had a right to know this from y(jur OAvn mouth, Tho school Hystom of a countiy, especially one like onr.s, established after tho most careful and extensive enquiry, and developed step by step, and ^vith a success uniiaralleled in any other country, shoidd not l)e unset- tled for tho convenience of an individiud politician who had placed himself in a false position ; it should bo only interfered with from a deep and wide felt necessity, and after the local municipalities and school authorities who are the biu'den bearers and chief workers of the system, should have the fullest opportunity f(jr examination and the expression of their opinions. Yon have pursued a very different course. Yoii direct the heaviest blow against tho school system that was in the power of any public man in your position to inflict. You declare your piu^pose to abolish one featiiro of it, and in order to effect that, to change the whole of the internal chai*acter and working of the schools, affecting tho most delicate relations and sacred interests of the pupils — in a word affecting the vital and most practical parts, and the whole re- ligious character of the system. Now, there is uotliing so weakening to tlie strength, and so detiimental to the progi'ess and success of a system, as uncertainty and uneasiness among its managers and sup- porters, as to its permanence. You have avowed negociations which touch the moral, religious, and social heart of our School system ; and having thus given the blow, you there leave it with the intimation that yotu* substitute is to be some vague im- portation from Ireland. But what that • As to Mr. Brown's own opinion of compromise on these viliil questions before he formed the KicGee alli- ance, read the following extract from his speech to the electors of Toronto, reported in the Olobe of the 15th Dec, 1857 : "What we now waiitare men to go toParliiimeut for Upper Canada wlio are not simply in favour of these general principles, but who are prepared to stand by these prmciples— Representation by Population and non-sectarian Schools— u'/w, without reriard to this Administratinn or the ether Administration, in season and out of season, at all times and under all circumstances, are prepared to stand for these prin- ciples WITHOUT ANY COMPROMISE." [lioud cheering.] t For a more specific statement of the " compromise" with Mr. Thibaudeau on Separate Schools, see the note on page 69. importation in you do not say, and I am satisfied you do not know yonrself. I be- lieve you knew no more than a child what you wore doing, when you agreed to the Irish iuii)ortiition. Instoiid oi' acting the part of a statesman, never to iissent to a thing which he has not carefully examined auarentB who elect the trustees \i\at employ the teacher l)oth in separate and mixed schools, and have the PKrE.ST made the Patron of the school as in Ireland, it would give "more power to the Pope," and you in- nocently agreed to Mr. McUee's dicttition, being intent upon securing the now ripe and delicious grapes (so sour and bitter m 1855) of "Roman Catholic supporters." 96. Abolition of Separate Schools fatal to the Brown-McGeo comproinise.— Delivoranco of the McGeo party on the subject. But the question recurs, what was the * ' honorable compromise" involved in your negociations { As you have not uiformed the public and still refuse to do so, we are left to infer it from circumstances.* One thing is certain, it did not involve the abolition of Separate Schools ; for then it would not have been a "compromise." But for this there are two other reasons, both of which must be well known to you. The one is, that Separate School educatioa is now a dogma of the Roman Catholio Church, as much as the immaculate con- ception is. In 1850 the Roman Catholio Council of Thurles, in Ireland, passed a statute condemnatory of mixed education ; the Roman Catholic Provincial Councils of Baltimore and Quebec have since done the same. These statutes have been ratified by the Pope. This is, therefore, tho dogma of the Church, however it may fall into disuse in some places, as Sir Thomas N. Reding- ton says it does in some places in Ireland. But as a dogma no member of the Roman Catholic Church, however liberal, and how- ever he may disregard it in the education of his own cliildren, can publicly oppose it. It is, therefore, preposterous to think of lerfislating Separate Schools out of existence. The Roman Catholic members of Lower CaiiJKla will, as heretofore, vote against the repeal of the Separate School proiisions of the la.w. There is also another reason, • See Mr. Thibaiideau's explanation of the compro* mise, page 66. 62 '• ' more palpable, if not stronger. Mr. Mc- Oee'H oMrn nowspancr organs (ledaro against the idea of alKilialung Separate Schools, and in favor of their extension. * One example from each# is snihcient. The Canadian Freetnan, (2Hrd Heptember) the Toronto Catholic organ of Mr. McGee'a party, ■ays:— " We are decidedly opposed to any system of education, b<> It national or otherwisse, iinles»> the pJAO, itH udaptntion >«nd pnicticul working. be first approved of by the hitfrarchy nnd clergy ofCa^u.'' The " hierarchy and clergy of Canada" have already given their deliverance, and it is well known. The l^rue IVitnesa (of the 14th December,) the M(»ntreal organ of Mr. McQee's party, after declaring ' ' Equality of Representation, or Kepoal of the Legis- lative Union. To no other alternative will we listen," — proceeds as follows : " On the school questioa we will be equnlly explicit. We will accept of no solution of tliat auestion af> catisfactory which docs not make le fulleit provision for the nevarate ednoatioo of Catholic and Pn'testant chilu thus express this principle in the Glnbe as early as the 5th of May : " The existing uluuseH are not adequate to the full carrying out of the sepiirale system, and the Roman Catholics are perfevdy right iu asserting that while they are promised sectarian schools, they are not permitted to have sucii machinery as would make them fully operative, and they naturally and reasonably ask for an extension of privilege, in order to give effect to the princi]ile conceded to them. This Dr. Kyerson refuses, with very little show of reasoL, though bis course would be quite right and proper, did he object to the whole separate school system, as we do. Whilst advocating the sectarian plan he cannot consistently refuse the further de- mands on the part of Jtoman Catholics."* are so industriously fanning at every election 1 Two passages f'-om this manifetto are given : the first to show that a victory is claimed by the Brown-McGee aliiance in the late election of Mr. Brown for Toronto ; the other, that (he McGee party do not {'onsider the Cartier Government as their '' natural allies," in the words of Mr. Thibaudeau (page 69). foi the extension of Separate Schools: " We have latt-ly fought in our City two great battles for constitutional libert)' --on«? Parliamentary [ie., Mr. Brown's election], and one Municipal--and we won them both. We never could have done so. as you well know, without the hohest and cordial co-operation of ALL true reformers of every religious persuasion ; and by the two vidorirs wk have won, we hope you will coiiBider us privileged to oddress you on the eve of yourPurliuinentary eoniesi " " We have no confidence in Geobgk E. Cartiek, who first approved and then " burked" our School Bill, who was vi.sited with severe ecclesiastical censure ; and who has never sought to be reconciled to his Church, since he broke faith with her Bishutw." Mr. Brown has heretofore de- clared that the candidate supported by the Roman Catholics wa.s not only the Romanist candidate, but the enemy lo the rights and interests of Upper Canada. See Appendix. The N.Wellington election shows this. • Yet on the 18th of March, 1857, the Globe editor emphatically stales that — " The Roman Catliolics Bre it Uoda N to rttnow I prepared mo«>t them. ^Hcit, m UB 8])eech how how ir |>rofe8- being in- Schoola." CO and its ) take two e as early uate to the bin, and the u nHsertiog an Bchonls, machiuery «', aud they extension "ect to the 'r, Kyeraon 30L, though proper, did QoIsyBtem, itarian plan 'urther de- cs."* CtlOH I Two I first to «how ;Gee alliance ["oronto ; the r the Cartier the words of I of Separate iiy two great Hiamentary ipal--and we ie so. as you co-operation persuasion ; ve \\o\tt you an the eve of confidence ed and then visited with has never ce he bvoke eretofore de- the Roman Eindidate, but >per Canada, a shows this. Globe editor in Catliotics Then in your long letter to me you nay : '- Do you fancy for a momunt that the ex - treme advocate* for Separate HchooU will rent coutt'iit with the syBtt'in as it now stands— and can w« honestly meet th<'ir demands on the false ground you and your ' allies' have led us into— that U, admit the principle of separation, and yet deny its free operation." Now, Sir, in May last, in the above (pio- tation, you hinted to the Roman CatholicH that they ought to renew nn agitation from which they luid desisted two years — that I was using thcuj badly, and that with their views they ought to demand more than had been granted to them. In Jtily, yo'i make an "honorable compromise" — that is, you give up the principle of abolishing Separate Schools, as the supporters of them would not agree to their abolition ; and in De- cember you protentl that you cannot " honestly" object to their demand for further concessions, upon the false ground on which you " have been fcti" (poor sim- Sle man!) by me and my "allies" to eny the operation of a principle which wo have admitted. And uiis is the pretext you employ to justify and cover your larger concessions to the supporters of Separatu Schools than have ever been made. 96. Mr. Brown's wink and his feignod terror nnder- Htood by the Tfue fKiVntM— The diaracteristic Btrat(4gem of tlie cuttlefish iiolitician. Yoti now charge uio and my "allies" with "retarding" and "resisting" the operations of Separate Schools, while xw longer since than the 6th of December, in the first of your recent attacks upon me, you charge the Government and myself with making such concessions to the sup- porters of Separate Schools by the Acts of 1851, 1852, and 1855, that "Separate Schools had gone on yearly incrcaniuij in ct Canada have privileges nowhere else enjoyed on this continent — privileges superior to Proiestants— but they are not satisfied. They nave their own schools ; under their own Trustees; they share the public educational grant equally with Protestants; ther ureext-mpted from local School Taxes if they choose to apply lor ?Hch ex- emption according: to law; but yet they are not satisfied. They boast of such privileites abroad, but are coniplain- in« of their jfrievances at home. '' ARain, this vcn^ same paper, the Olobe of No. vember 24, 1857, in reprintuiff the famous correspon- dence of 1866 between the Roman Catholic Bishops and the members of the Govarnmeni. write* as follow* on thi» same suliject! — '' Our readers know already the falsehood of the prt- lence that Roman Cuiholics only desire the same in Upper Canuiln as Protestants receive in Lower Canada. In Lower Canada the Protestauls are generally rich and the mass of the Roman Cathoiies poor ; the latter have, therefore, no objection, but, on ilie contrary, have every n-ason to desire that monies should be divided between the common and separate schools aecordin'f to population, because they thereby receive a large amount of Protestant money for their own priest-taught schools. In Upper Canada the dissen- tient Roman Catholics are poor, yet they demand from the school fund, contributed by wealthy Protestants, an allowance in proportion to their population. By the ap- plication of this rule they rob the Protestants Iwih in Vpper and Lower Canada." an enormous ratio^^ — so much m) oh to en- danger the integrity of the publit; school system itself \* 't'htis your attacks, your denials, your assertions and your self-con- tnulictions are btit cuttle Hsh ejections to divert attention from, and conceal, aud hereafter justify your new course in favor of Separate Schools. The " foreign ele- ment" of the Catholic Hierarchy (of which Mr. Mc(Jroe is the organ), clearly under- stand that your occasiouid touches at their order and yotir protests of desire t^> "put an end to Sejtarate Schools," are only so many decoys to your unsuspecting readers, until you can carry out more avowedly the object of your " compromise," and the signals above given in favor of larger conces- sions to Separate Schools than have been granted. Thus in the Montreal True IVit- nesa of the 14th instant, the Editor says : — " 'I he Rev. Mr. Ryi-i-pon, in spite of a few ambiguous phrases, and the cant of a feigned liberty, is as much the enemy of Separate Schools, as he was in days gone by ; and, in- deed, aa compared with Mr. Oeorqe Brown, we look upon him as a far more dangerous enemy of the two— aud that because of bis assumed caudur and hypocritical expressions of good will towards these institutiune. Thi^ shall be evident from un analysis of his Report, and of bis nrguments in favor of the Sctiool law ' as it «,'.' " — " We shall content ourselves for the present with laying before our readers the most striking features of the Educational Statistios of Upprr Canada ; tog«'ther with the Rev. Mr. Ryei'Bon's comments thereon. From these it shall, we think, be evident, that though his mode of expressing his opposition, has slightly varied, his opposition to these institutions is still lis bitter as ever." Thus the very Report for which you at- tacked me as supporting Separate Schools and defending the system on account of my " political allies in the Government," is as- sailed by the True Witness as evincing ' ' my bitter opposition" to Separate Schools, while he regards you as much more favor- able to them than myself ! 99. The "foreign element " patronized— Challenge to Mr. Brown to provt» the i ladtquavy of the 8e- paiiitp School law.— Tliat law a " finality" with Hon. J. Saufleld Macdoiiald. And now, Sir, I call upon you, nay, I challenge you, to state wherein the ' ' ex- isting clauses and provisions are not ade- quate to the full carrying out of the sepa- rate system'' and "retard" and "deny" the " free operation" of separate schools. I have, not only in my " Special Report on Separate Schools," but in iny Annual Repoi-ta and official coiTcspondence with • In the Brown- McGee manifesto to tlie electors of North \Vellin>:tcn, Feb., 1859, tlw Hon. Attorney General Cartier is denounced for having ' burked ' the Separate School lUll of 1855 ! (See page ti2, and the note to the last extract in the Appendix.) 64 Meml)er8 of the Government, shown that the Roman Catholic aupporters of aej-arate Schools in Upper Canada, are placed upon an equal footing with the Pro- testant supporters of dissentient schools in Lower Canada, but I have resisted their demands, or rather the demands of certain foreign priests, for more than is possessed by our Protestant brethren in Lower Ca- nada. You liave republished, endoi-sed and lauded my arguments against these aggressions. You allege in the Globe of the 6th of December, the concessions al- ready made to be so great, that "Separate Schools have gone on yearly itwreasing in an enormous ratio," and in the Globe of the 16th of December, the very nimiber in which you assert, in your letter to me, that while the law ' ' admits the principle of sepa- ration, denies its free operation," you as- sert, editorially, that " the increase in the common schools is very great, but the in- crease in the separate is more than twenty times greater." Thus, Sir, you are already reduced to such extremities, that you can- not play out your double game, for even a single number of the Globe, without contra- dicting in one column what you assert in another. Such conces.oions as you have hinted at as due to the supporters of Sepa- rate Schools, are certainly not only gi-eater than have been made, but such as would reaUy endanger the integrity of our public school system. In all fairness and honesty to the public, you are bound to show where- in the position of the Roman Catholic sup- porters of separate schools in Upper Cana- da is inferior to that of Pi-otestant support- ers of dissentient schools in Lower Canada, and that what you have foimerly said to the contrary is untrue, or acknowledged that you have not r nly been performing an a4:.t, but practicing a system of " double shuffle," in order to deceive your Protestant readers on the one side, and hold out the hope of a larger concessions to the supporters of separate school? on the other. Sir, if " a double-raindod man is unstable in all his ways," a double-dealing man is dishonest in all his ways. In what advantageous contri;st to your crooked proceedings, ap- pears the straightforward declaration of the Hon. J. Sanfield Macdonald, when in the liist debato in the Legislative Assembly on the separate school (question, (23rd .lune) he said : — " the present law shonhi he ajina- lity ; hi vnmld go for notring more on either side.'^* • On accouiitof this opinior Mr. Brown's "ally" from Loivrv Canada (Mr. McGeo), i.s solccted (paKe 62) to present a petition from the Roman Catholics of Glpnirarry in favour of the extension of Separate Schools ! Jiist tno very thinj? the Browii-McGee alli- ance was formed to destroy for ever, if Mr. Brown is to be believed ! 100. Fonrth propoaitlon proved— Mr, Brown on the sliding scale to excludo the Bible from the Schools. 4. But, Sir, this is not all. You, a son of Scotland, have even consented to turn Scotland's Bible out of our schools, in or- der to accomplish your purpose — a state- ment almost incredible were not the evi- dence of it irresistible. But I now proceed to shew, in the fourth place, that you have advanced so far on the sliding scale of "compromise" as to assent to and virtually to advocate the exclusion of the Bible from our schools. I have made no parade on this subject. The letter which I addressed to Mr. Baldwin, 14th July, 1849, and from which extracts were made in the sixth of my present series of letters, shews the views which I entertained on the subject at that time, which I had incorporated in our school system, and for which I was prepared to sacrifice my office ; but that letter re- mained as one of the documents printed by order of the Legislature, and was never be- fore published by me. The views expressed in that letter are my views stUl, and explain our school system as it is in respect of the Bible in schools as fully as they explain my introduction of it in 1846. The principal opposition I then, and for several years af- terwards-encountered, was that I did not make the use of the Bible compulsory in the schools, but simply recognised the right of Protestants to use it in the school, (not as an ordinary reading book, as it was not given to teach us how to read, but teach us the way to Heaven,) as a book of religi- ous instruction, without the right or the power of compelling any others to use it. The recognition of the right has been main- tained inviolate to the present time ; facil- ities for the exercise of it have been pro- vided, and reconnnendations for that pur- pose have been given, but no compulsoiy authority assumed, or the right of compul- sion acknowledged ; and the religious exer- cises in each school have been left to the decision of the authorities of such school, and the religioiis instruction of each child has always been imder the absolute autho- rity of the parent or the guardian of each child. The result iias been that while the Holy Scriptures are read in no less than 2415 of our schools, besides the schools in which the exercises are directed by Roman Catholic authorities, there lias not been, on an average, one couii)laint per year in all Upper Canada, as to interference with per- sonal or parental rights in matters of religious exercises or instruction. Even you yourself have been compelled to bear testimony in tliis feature of our school system. 66 use 101. Mr. Brown denoances Dr. Ryeraon for main- taining even the abstract n^ht of reading the Bible iu the schools— What is right in May is wrong in July ! In the Globe of tlie 14th of last May you say— *' In regard to religious instruction in the schools, we know of no better system than that ■which prevails in Upper Canada, of permitting each section to regulate matters for itself. We assert that in no single case under that system have the consciences of parents been offended, nor has the faith of ano one been tampered with. Dr. Ryerson knows- this, and he knows that the same system could be quite as effici- ently carried out if separate acliools were abo- lished* He knows that separate schools exist in but a few sections — that in all others, Protes- tant and Catholic meet on common ground, and that no practical difficulties have occurred to the working out of an unsectariau system. — And yet he must, like a Gowan, or some other miserable political trickster, who desires a pre- text for bowing down to the priest party set up the abstract right of reading the Bible in the Schools as an excuse for supporting the separate system." Thus from your testimony in May last, the regulations of our school system, in re- gard to both religious exorcise and religious instntctiou, were quite satisfactory, and needed no modification whatever, even in the event of the entire abolition of the Separate Schools ; while in the July follow- ing, in view of getting into office, and making the school system an agency of party power in the Government, as you had done in the county elections, you found those very regulations so very defective, that you agreed to send to Ireland [and, as it now turns out, to Belgium and to Prussia, (whose hated "despotism" you so long and loudly denounced before the alliance)] to in- quire for a remedy for them ! What was right in May was wrong in July ; what was perfect iii May needed a European mission in July to make it perfect. The change was not in the regulations or in the school sys- tem during that e''ontful three months, but in your party position and policy. 102. OoncesBion to the new alliance— Bible read in 2415 Schools in U. C— llocroaut son ot Scotland. And liero "coming events still casting their sluvdows before, " as you had found in the Glohr of the 6tl of May, for the first time inyoiurlifc, that " the existing clauses are not adofj^uate to the full cari-ying out of the separate school system, and the Roman Catholics are perfectly right in lusserting that while they are promised sectarian schools, tliey avo not permitted to have such machinery as would make them fully operative, and tliey naturally and reason- ably ask for an extension of the pri\'ilege, in order to give effect to the principle con- ceded to them ;" so, in the Globe of the 14th May, you discovered that "setting up the abstract right of reading the Bible in the schools " was "an excuse for sup- porting the separate system " and ' ' a pre- text for bowing down to tlie priest party," though that right was asserted at large in my first school report in 1846, andj re- asserted as the conditions of my retaining office ill 1849, and recognised and exerciaed in an increasing ratio up to 2415 schools during ten years without interruption or (objection, until you mooted it with a view of obtaining, through Mr. McGee, the sup- port of that very "priest party." And now, Sir, upon the altar of petty personal ambition and avarice, you are ready to sacrifice that ' ' right of reading the Bible in our schools," the exercise of which has been one of the glories of our school sys- tem, as well as that of Scotland — a right, Sir, for which myriads of your Scotch fore- fathers would have shed, and some did shed, their heart'.^ blood, and the proposed abandonment of wliich l)y one of their re- creant sons, would, if possible, awaken them from their martyr graves. 103. Mr. Brown's objections to the use of the Bible in the Schools, quoted and answered— Excels all the " poor cravens " iu his " slavish submission," etc. But you shall speak more explicitly on this subject for yourself. In reply to the Bible allusion in my letter of the 11th of May, above ([uoted, you say in the Globe of the 14th of May, as follows : — "The reverend gentleman advocates the maintenance of the separate system, because, by that means, the Bible may be preserved as a text-book in the common schools. He knows as well as we do how little the Bible is read in the schools under the present system, how often it 23 read in a merely formal and perfunctory manner, without any real benefit being derived from it by the pupds ; he knows how utterly unfit a majority of the teachers are to give reh- gious instruction ; he knows that this cry for the Bible in the schools is constantly used by mea who have no regard for religion or the Bible, but simply desire tu excuse their slavish sub- mission to the Roman hierarchy ; he knows that the cry is a sham, unworthy of a man who vm- derstands so well, and has apparently felt so deeply, the necessity for elementary education among the niasecs of the people. We are not of those who would deprecate the value of the Bible ; we dc^iire to see it in every house, and in the hands of every child ; but we are not of those who desire to use the hearty love of it prevailing among the people as a weapon of offence against secular educatioa." By referring to the passage of my letter above qiioted, it will bo seen that I do not speak of the Bible as a common text-book in the schools, but of " securing to each Protestitnt parent the right of the Bible as a text-book of religious instruction for his 66 '• V CHILD IN THE SCHOOL." Now many a pa- rent may not exercise the right of using the Bible as a text-book of religions in- struction for his child in school, but would even any such parent (much less every Pro- testant parent) be willing, as you argue, to be deprived of that right ? Many a fi-ee- holder or householder may not exercise his right as a voter, but would he, or ought he, therefore, to be deprived of the right of voting. With the usual inaccuracy of the Globe, you say the Bibleislittle read in the schools, when the statistical returns of Tnibcees and Local Superintendents, for 1857, reveal the following facts, thus embodied and re- marked upon on the 6th page of my last report : — "The daily exercises of 1869 — schools were opened and closed with prayers — increase 548. The Bible aad Testament were used in 2,415 Bchools — increane 561 ; the largest increjiae under these two heads during any year since the estalili^lmient of the school system, and much more than would be effected by a compul- sory law. Rermnmendaiions and facilities in regard t^> the exeroise of religious duties and privileges are more in harmony with thei;enius of our people and of our free government than assumptions of command and attempts at com- pulsion." Now, Sir, under the pretext of abolishing 100 separate schools out of 3700 common schools, yo\i would abolish the "right of reading the Bible " in these 2415 schools, and take away from every Protestant pa- rent in Upper Canada, " the right of the Bible as a text-book of religious instruc- tion for his child in the school !" Then you object to the use of the Bible in the schools because it is " often read in a formal and perfunctory manner, without any real benefit to be derived from it by the pupils." Is not the Bible often read in the family and even in the Chiirch " in a formal and perfunctory manner," with- out any real benefit to either reader or hearers : but will you, therefore, take away even "the abstract right of reading the Bible " in the family and in the Church ! You also object to the reading of the Bible in the schools Inicause ' 'a majority of the teachers are utterly unfit to give religious instniction." The reading of the Bible and giving religioxip instruction from it are two vei"y different things. Theques- liioii is not the competency of teachers to give religious instruction, but the right of a Protestant to the rciuling of the Bible by his child in the school as a text-book of religious instniction. That right I hold to be sacred and divine. That right even in the "abstnvct" you object to. Again, you oppose the right of the Bible in the schools, because the cry for it "ia constantly used by men who have no regard for religion, but simply desire to excuse their slavish submission to the Komish hierarchy. "Whether you have more regard for religion than those whom you iuipugn, I do not presume to decide. Your argu- ment seems to imply that you have as good an opinion of yovu^elf in that respect as your "political ally," Mr. McGee, had when he wrote the sublime poetry quoted in my seventh letter. But be that as it may, it is a fact, as proved in my last (eighth) letter, that you have already ex- celled all other public men in Upper Canada in your "slavish submission to the Romish hierarchy ;" and to purchase that support is the very object for which you abandon the profession of your past Ufe, and for which you would sell the right of the Protestant parents of Upper Canada to the use of the Bible in the schools, as a text book of religious instruction for their children ! 104. Mr. Brown's pretence— HU condegcension! You profess to be "not of those who would depreciate the value of the Bible ;" you "desire to see it in every house, and in the hands of every child. " It is very well you informed us that you value the Bible, fis tlie reverse would be inferred from your other remarks. You condescend to desire to see the Bible in every house and in the hands of every child. It is some- what remarkable that you reserved as much as tliis, that for the sake of ratifying your "submission to the Romish hierarchy," you did not give up the "abstract right of reading the Bible" in the family and by the chUd at home, as well as in the school. But, in proportion as a man values the Bible, will he maintain the right of his children to read it as well as read it him- self ? How then can you value the Bible when you propose to deprive every Protest- ant parent in Upper Canaila of the "right of the Bible as a text-book of relvjious in- structio7i for his child at school !" 105. Mr. Brown regards " the cry for the Bible in the Schools" af a shnin— Appeal agaiiut »o disgraceful a " coinproniise.'' J^irthermore, yoxi speak of tlie ' ' cry for the Bible in the schools as a sham." Sir, I leave those Protestaiit pai-ents who value the Bible as a text-book of religious instruc- tion for their children at school, and those who value tlie " rtV//ii" of reading the Bible in the scliools," to answer so out- rageous an insult — so gross an act of treason against their sjicrod principles ;uid rights. Apart from religious instruction, apart from even the reading of the Bible in the the Bible for it "ia uo regard o excuse Romish. ire regard iiixpugn, )ur argu- te as good 'espect as Gee, had 7 quoted that as it my last eady ex- ji Upper ion to the hase that vhich you past Ufe, le right of Canada to lools, as a for their escenaion! ;ho8e who le Bible ;" louse, and It is very value the erred from lescend to house and t is some- id as much ying your ierarchy," ct right of ind by the he school, mlues the ;ht of his ad it him- the Bible y Protest- he "right litjious in- the Bible in 10 dhgraceful J ' ' cry for LM." Sir, who value us instruc- and those ading the er so out- i)f treason nd rights, on, apart ble in the 67 schools, the right of having it there — its very presence there is not " a sham," but • a sign, a symbol of potent significance. The sign of the Cross, which graces the title-page of the excellent Journal of Education for Lower Canada, is not a "sham," but a symbol precious to the hearts of hundreds of thousands of oiu* Lower Canadian brethren ; the coat of arms which stands at the head of all royal patents, and the sparkling crown which encircles the brow of royalty, are not "a sham," but a symbol which speaks more than words to every British heart ; the standard that waves at the head of the regiment, and the flag that floats at the ship's mast head are not "a sham," but a symbol that nerves the soldier and the sailor to duty and to victory. So the Bible, Sir, is not "a aham," but a symbol of right and liberty dear to the heart of every Protestant free- man, to every lover of civil and religious liberty — a standard of truth and morals, the foundation of Protestant faith and the rule of Protestant morals ; and " the cry" for the Bible in the schools is nots, "sham," but a felt necessity of the religious in- structor, whether he be the teacher or a visiting superintendent or clergyro\ , —is the birthright of the Protestant ciu-u, and the inalienable light of the Protestant parent. I repeat agalii, that it would bu incredible, were not the evidence of it indubitable, that Scotland's son should be the first, if not only consenting Protestant in Upper Canada to wresting from Protest- ant parents the right to Scotland's " Bible as a text-book of religious instruction for their children in the school !"* 106 "No Barrender " on this subject by Dr. Ryer- ■on — Extract from the eloquent Melville. Sir, as to myself, I have no new profes- sions or "compromises" to make on this subject. I explained my views at large, in my letter of ten years ago, to Mr. Baldwin, as quoted in the sixth of this series of letters. I have only to repeat in 1859 what I said, and rested my oflScial position upon, in 1849 : " I have hot assxuned it to be the duty or even constitutional right of the Government to compel anytlung in respect either to religioiis books or relij^ious instruc- tion, but to recommend the local Trustees to do so, and to providu powers and facilities to enable them to do so within ^he wise restrictions imposed liy law. I 'lave respected the rights and scruples of the • AcoordlnK to Mr. Brown's new alliance doctrine all the celebrated popular cries in history mi^ht (and no doubt were by the Brown- McGoes of the day) set down as mere shams; than tlio "cry for the Bible" after its translation, and the cry of the CovenanterH for life and liberty, were uotliinK but shamii, aad should never have been listened to ! B;oman Catholic as well as those of the Protestant. By some I have been accused of having too friendly a feeling towards the Roman Catholics ; but while I wovdd do nothing to infringe the rights and feelings of Roman Catholics, I cannot be a party to deprivint,' Protestants of the Text-book of their faith — the choicest patrimony be- queathed by their forefathers, and the noblest birthright of their children. — I think there is too little Christianity in our Schools, instead of too much ; and that the tmited efibrts of all Christian men should be to introduce more, instead of excluding what little there is." The last twelve years are my witness that no man attaches more importance than I do to secular education and knowledge, and few men have labored more to provide for the teaching and diffu- sion of every branch of it ; yet, so far am I from ignoring the Bible, even in an intel- lectual point of view, that I hesitate not to say, in the language of the eloquent Mel- ville, that ".whilst every stripling is boast- ing that a great enlargement of mind is coming on the nation, through the pouring into all its dwellings a tide of general in- formation, it is riglit to uphold the for- gotten position, that in caring for man as an immortal being, God cared for him as an intellectual, and that if the ^iblb were but read by our artizansand ov peasantry, we should be surrounded by ■, far more enlightened and intelligent population, than will appear to this land, when the school- master, with his countless magaziu«^s, shall have gone through it, in its length and its breadth." 107. Regnlationa of the Iriih Board on Beligioot Instruction. I will only add that your objections to the right of Protestants to the Bible in our schools, are at variance with the Regula- tions of the National Board of Education in Ireland, which, however, counteracted by recent j ractice against Protestants [as I shall show in my next letter] are still re- tained in the General Rules, m the follow- ing words : " The patrons and managers of all National Schools have the right to permit the Holy Scriptures (eithe< in the authorised or Douay version) to be read at the time or times set apart forreligious instruction ; andiu all Vei>ted Schoolv (that is public schools) the parents and guardians of children have a right to require the patrons and managers to afford opportuni- ties for reading the Holy Scriptures, in the school room, under proper persons approved of by the parents and guardians for that purpose." I have, &c. , E. RYERSON. Toronto, January 22, 1859. \l 68 No. X. — Folly of Mr. Brown's School Statesmanship — Invites interference from Lower Canada, al- though he is fenced out of it himself by " checks," " assurances," and " guarantees." 108. Object of this letter— What it is designed to prove. Sir, — The object of this letter is to show what course of proceeding atatesmanship and prudence woiUd have dictated to you in your cabinet negotiations or school pro- gramme of last July ; to correct yotu* state- ments as to the acceptableness of the sys- tem of education in Ireland to all denomi- nations to justify by facts and authoritiew what you term my " spitting forth my dishonest blast against the Irish national system ;" to remark upon Lower Canada interference with the School Laws of Upper Canada ; and to explain my own position and what I believe to be the proper course of proceeding by all parties in regard to Separate Schools and the Separate School provisions of the law in Upper Canada. 109. Mr. Brown's utter want of statesmanship as compared with British statesmen. Sir, a very small modicimi of statesman- ship and prudence would have suggested to you in July last, that there is considerable difference between a private member of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown, and that many things which woidd be pro- per for the former would be very improper for the latter — ^that the crotchets and hates of the opposition partizan are not exactly the programme for a Prime Minister. The biography of British statesmen abounds in examples of men advocating as private members of Parliament many measures which they never thought of making cabi- net questions on their becoming responsible Ministers of the Crown. Lord Macaulay advocated the ballot as a private member of Parliament, but he did not make its adoption a condition of his joining a Gov- ernment. Mr. Baines was a voluntary in both religion and education as an indivi- dual member of Parliament ; but he did not insist on the abolition of Chiirch and State union, and of all grants for educa- tional purposes as a contlition of serving his Sovereign and country in the capacity of Minister of State. When a member of Parliament, and especially an opposition leader, is called, in consequence of some parliamentary vote, to take the reins of Govermuent, he does not do so to gratify every whim or passion he may have in- dulged, but to pursue especially that policy indicated by the vote or votes which led to his elevation to office. And a statesman may sometimes be driven from power by an adverse vote of Parliament on a question, and may afterwards be recalled to power by the decisions of Parliament on other ques- tions, and yet never revive the question of his former defeat. A striking and sugges- tive example of this is furnished by Lord John Russell, who, many years since, ad- vocated the sec\ilarization of a portion of the revenues of the Established Church in** Ireland — made it a Cabinet question, in consequence of which Lord Stanley (now Earl of Derby) seceded from his govern- ment and party. Lord John Russell's Ad- ministration was defeated by an adverse vote of a small majority of the House of Commons, and he resigned. The surieed- ing Government soon became unpopular in its tiuii, and Lord John RusseU was re- called to power. When interrogated as to what he was going to do on the Irish Church question, his Lordship replied in effect tliat his own views and convictions on the subject remained unchanged, but a majority of the House of Commons had decidiid against him, and he had mtnessed no dis3atLsfaction in the country to any extent with that decision ; that the recent issues of parties had not turned upon that question, and he did not feel it his duty to make it a portion of the policy of his Ad- ministration, or revive the discussion of it. How mTich more proud and patriotic would have been your position had you, in July last, adopted the spirit of Lord John Rus- sell's example. How reasonable and ap- propriate would it have been for you to have said; that although jour views and convictions remained unchanged on the subject of Separate Schools, — and althoxigh you had as a member of Parliament and editor sought their abolition ; yet that the House of Assembly, by a majoiity of more than two to one, had recently decided against their abolition, and you had ob- served no fcxpression of dissatisfaction in tl^ comitry with that vote ; and therefore, you did not think it advisable to mahe it a Cabinet question — reserving to yoiu*self the right to deal with the question hereafter, if circumstances shovdd appear to render it expedient. But, no. Sir, you had no res- pect for the decision of so large a majority of the Legislative Assembly ; nor for the manifest accjuiesence of the country in that decision ; nor for the opinion of those who 69 had most to do with the school system, nor for its non-political party character ; yon had a hobby to ride, and a party purpose to accomplish, and everything must be sa- crificed to that whim and this object — evinc- ing your want of both statesmanship and patriotism. 110. Mr. Brown's weakness and folly in bis school negociations of July, 1858. Then the absence of these first qualities of a public man is still more manifest in yoiu: negociations themselves. You did not consult your colleagues from Upper Canada as to whether the abolition of the separate schools should be made a Cabinet question ; you seemed to have ignored them as well as the other representatives from Upper Can- ada on this exclusively Upper Canada ques- tion ; and you rushed at once into a nego- ciation on this question, first with Mr. Dorion and then with Mr. Drummond — two Lower Canada members — after you had for years, denounced any Lower Canada dictation or interference in the school afi'airs of Upper Canada. Then if it had been the real object of Messrs. Dorion and Prum- mond to make fiui of you, and hold you up to public derision and contempt, they could not have done it more efi'ectually than they have done. 111. Mr. Brown outwitted— la fenced out of Lower Caniida by checks, guarantee&, and assurances. In the first place they detenrme that, like an vmruly animal, you shall not be al- lowed to intrude into the civil or religious premises of Lower Canada. They mside you agree to do (and some say bound you in writing to do) what no Upper Canada member had ever been compeUed or asked to do, and what no Upper Canada member had ever degraded himself by promising to do — ^namely, not to interfere with any of their civil or religious institutions. They fenced you out of Lower Canada by what Mr. Drummond calls, ' ' assurance, " and Mr. Dorion terms •* checks," and Mr. Thibau- deau describes as "guarantees." Mr. Thibaudeau (Minister of Agriculture) says, in his address to his constituents of Port- neuf, "I would promise nothing before having all the necessary GUARANTEES that ALL our civil and religious institutions • " In the men "ortnini? the administration in which I took part, (says Mr. Thibaudeau, in the corrected vetsion of his recent speech on the Address in the House of Assembly, translated in the Leader from the Qitebeo ZJational,) I had the guarantee that the question of representation would not be adjusted in a manner con- trary to the interests of the part of the country which I more especially reprosent. (Lower Canada,) for of the twelve Executive Councillors, seven were entirely, and had always voted af^iiitt representation based upon po- pulation. It was the same ioith regard to Separate School* ; and my past conduct is there to prove to mv friends, and to the country in general, that I vould never have consented to form part of a should be respected and p rotected. * Messrs. Dorion and Drummond having thus made you consent to be handcntl'ed in regard to both the "cti'jV and rcUgu us^'' institutions, of Lower Canadji — all those sectarian col- leges, and tithes and nuilnevies, which you had so often deciared ought to be abolished — the same INIessrs. Dorion and Drummond immediately step over into Upper Canada, and make you agree to "a compromise on the question of Separate Schools" — a ques- tion on which you had declared, for years, there should be no " tampering" or "com- promise."' They do not seem to have made yo'-i do quite all that is attributed to Spen- Pariusite. cer's "To fawn, to crouch, to walk, to ride, to run, To s|)eiul, to give, to want, to be undone"— bat they made you do enough to evince the immense superiority of the French diplomat and shrewd Irishman over the boasting and noisy Scotchman — so wanting in the char- acteristic sagacity and prudence of his cou'^^rymen, who must feel themselves dis- appointed and chagrined at such an exhib- ition of diplomatic weakness and f oUy. Sir, Government which I had not believed disposed to do full and entire justice to the Catholics of Tipper Canada, whether by the system of Separate Schools OR ANY OTDEB SYSTEM WHTCH WOULD HAVB HAD THE SAME OBJECT, and would have been accented by competent authorities in religious matters; and on this point as on that of representation, my ideas are and my conduct will be the same as heretofore." The fact that this administration counted six Catholics amon^ its members was proof that Catholicism would have justice. In the present administration there are but three Catholics; and what is more, one of its members, the Hon, Mr. Gait, voted for representation based upon population in 1856. Is it just, is it reasonable to make it so fjreat a crime in the Liberals [Clear Grits] of Upper Canada to hold an opinion which is entertained by those who support the present Government, and to acquit, so to speak, those of all blame, when in fact, they are more fanatical on these several quFistions than the Opposition party; the proof of which is to be found in the presentation of a bill lo abolish Separate Schools by Mr. Fergusson, (a Ministerialist) who has already this year, given notice of a similar Bill, and that on represen- tation, presented by Mr. Cameron, another Ministerial, ist. And these are the honorable members whom they would have us believe are the defenders of our relijjion and our nationality; while nearly the whole of them be- long to a society which has sworn death to Catholics and their institutions. '* Since the last Session, Orangeism, which is predo- minant in the Cabinet, has shown itself in its nakedness by injuring (by means of Ministerial journals) the Ca- tholics ana the Clergy, because some of them support- ed Mr. Brown in the late re-election for Toronto [Not only 'supported' but claim his election as a victory ! See page 62.] " The same journals have attempted to make the Irish Caiuolifts rise in insubordination [imeuter'] against those generous and devoted French priests, who have volun- tarily left their own country to consecrate themselves to the salvation of people belonging lo another nation. Compare this fonauct with that of the Liberals {Clear Oritsj of Toronto, in the municipal elec- tions, who for the first time, have elected five Roman Catholics, while the Ministerial partj refosed, in public assembly, to do as much; forjudge impartially and say where our natural allies are to be found; turn up the Globs, since the last Session, and you will BE CONVINCED THAT ITS HOSTILITY AGAIJT8T THB Catholics has ceased ! !"ja II 70 It J your statesmanship and patriotism in July last, on school matters in Upper Canada, and the " civil and religious institutions of Lower Canada," soem only to find their counterpart in your onslaught attacks upon the judges of the land, and your vindictive controversy with me, especially in your falsification of my reijoi-ts. 112. htr. Brown's uoriflee of the right of Upper Canada to mauaffe her own School affairs. You had no protection to ask for Upper Canada. You had not the sagacity or cou- rage to say to Messrs. Dorion and Drum- mond, that if they bound you not to inter- fere with the civil* and religious institutions * But Mr. Brown, who agreed that a " check" should be included in any measure of " Represeiuation by Population," so as to protect inviolate " thp <'ivil and religious institutions " of Lower Canada, actually ad- vocated that measure in previous years with the express vie of overthrowinK the institutions of the Boman GathoUc Church, and upon that groinid exrit> ed numerous Protestants in Upper Canada to favor it, upon the same ground that ha exciti.Ml them against the Seimrate School Provisions of the law. One primary object proposed by Mr. Brown in advo- cating representation by population is sulllciently prov6d by two quotations alone,— the one fW>m a Montreal paper, and the other from Mr. Brown's reply to that paper. In a long editorial on the stibjctit the Montreal Commercial Advertiser, of the 21st Sept., 18SS, says, ''Had the question of Representa- tion by Population been )ilaced before the country on its own merits, apart from the delared inttntion to use it aa an aggrestive weapon against the Chnrch qf Some, as the means of forcing on the Lower Can- aaians repulsive legislation, and of giving an Upper Canada character to our trade relations ; had it been brought forward in a statesmanlike manner, and argued as such a question should have been, calmlv and argumentatively^ instead of being initiated with the violence of seottulan bigotry, of sectional jealousy, and boastflil pride,— its reception in Lower Canada would have been very different." In th« Globe's lengthened editorial, headed, " Just Beitrefentation or Dissolution of the Union," replyingto .1 Montreal Commercial Advertiser, and other Englisn newspa- pers of Lower Canada, Mr. Brown uses the following words ; — " We are somewhat astonished to find the English newspapers of Lower Canada, particularly of Mon- treal, disposed to object to the demand of Upper Canada for just representation. We are convinced that the opposition does not come from the intelligent people, but rather from the hacks, suborned by Min- uters for their ends. A few Lower Canadians of British origin have been base enough lo sell them- selves to the base combination of French Priests and Upper Canadian high Churchmen, and. to their shame be it said, they are men who lately opposed the former class vehemently. They see personal loss to tnemselves in Upper Canada obtaining her just rights, and hence resist it. But the British population of Lower Canada, who detest the Priest domination under which thev 0mst, who feel themselves checked by the antiquated system which surrounds them, who have no personal favors to ask from Government, what can they hope to ^ain by refusing to Upper Canada representation by population ?" " Surely the Liberals of Lower Canada are as much interested in that eilort as we are olfrselves. They will be more benefitted by it than we by the abolition of a system which covers the la, d with monastries and nunneries — which leaves property to rot in mortmain— yfYdch retards education— which prevents agricultural improvement— which dries up the life and industry of the people. This system is seen in f^llfbrce j» Lower Canada ; in the Upper Province it is only beginning to exercise its baneful infinence, and never will got beyond its present point, if the P^pla OJUi stop li. Let the Lower Canadian Liberal of Lower Canada, they must agree not to interfere with those of Upper Canada, and therefore th'vt the system of education in Upper Canada must be imder tiie exclusive control of the ministers and members from Upper Canada. You conceded the double majority principle in favor of the civil and religious institutions of Lower Canada, but had not the spirit even to ask the same prin- ciple of protection in favor of the civil and religious institutions of Upper Canada. ♦ So answer, then, who will gain most ' / the ahoUtionaf the Priest power which rules the Province 1" " We thought the Protestant people of Montreal dreaded the power of the Hierarchy, which has already dsS' troyed the liberty of speech in their cities, and watered their streets with blood, and would not willingly cut their connexions with their ratund allies in opposing its power. If the Commercial Ad- vertiser is correct, then we are raisti^en." Yet, after thus appealing to and exciting a large portion of the Protextant peoph of Upper Canada m fav.ir of Representation by Population, Mr. Brown, in order to obtain office, secretly agreed to " checks " and '* guarantees " by which all the " civil and religi- ous institutions ofLovfer Canada" should be protected from the o^ration of the principle of Representation by Population. It is thus seen that Mr. Brown not only falsified what he had professed in educational matters, not only betra;i;ed, as is shown by the last extracts in the Appendix, the Orangemen and their Association, after naving advocated the incorporation of the latter, and being elected to Parliament by the former, but that in his negociations on the question of Representation by Population, he deceived and betrayed the Protestant people of Upper Canada at large. • " On the vexed question of schools, the Brown- Oorion Oovernment also agreed to come before the House Mnlh a policy. It had of course, only relation to Upper Canada, for ir, Lower Canada, the present system, though not the bent, was yet working as advan- tageously a« could be expected. In Upper Canada great dimcultiei existed, and still exist, in this School Ques- tion. Neither Protestants not Catholics were satisfied ; and in order to found a system which should as nearly as possible supply the gen "checks'' and reliKi- e protected resentation Brown not sducational by the last 1 and their corporation lent by the le question ceived and Canada at he Brown- before the \ly relation the present g an advan- anada great hool C^es- 'e satiMed ; d as nearly agreed that irevailing in lian deK|)ot- difficulties yfthe Hon. February, n the public uion of the Prueeiaa. was when Eirty but hi$ le ProTince detpotitm! 1 Prussia, mce on this dijuner to folly of his he dictation eligious in- ript of letter fper Cana- contended d in favor of agement for ! other hand lied a larger hildren than ir much dis- I could bring 'ing increaa- diBcontinne onable men of seclariaa td principles absorbed do you seem to have been with the one idea of Premiership, that you for- got Upper Canada protection, rights and inatitutions in, not your statesmansliip, but your parasiteship with Messrs. Dorion and Drummond, who diplomatically twisted you round their little fingers. The gambols of a hippopotamus are not more awkward and ludicrous, than were your diplomatic ex- ploits with the shrewd men of Lower Cana- da ; and they would be simply laughable were they not peniiciotLs to Upper Canada. 113. Mr. Brown's ignorance in accepting Mr. McQee's talie statement as to the popularity m Ire- land of the Irish national system. But in your adopting the idea of Mr. MoGee'a dictation to make a school impor- tation from Ireland, you evinced ignorance as well as folly. As to the popularity of the Irish system of educaticni, both you and Mr. Dorion seem to have relied upon the autliority of Mr. McGee, who has shown himself a superficial pretender in the Irish system as well as in many other tilings — ex- cept poetry. In addressing the electors of Toronto, you say, " I am not intimately acquainted with the details of the Irish sys- tem, but I know the Presbyterians of Ulster, and the Church of England, and the Romau hierarchy do unite in sustaining that system. " Mr. Dorion, in his address to the electors of Montreal, says that, "the National Schools oi Ireland are approved alike by the Catholic and Protestant Clergy of all denominations. " Mr. McGee, in his speech at London, says the National sjstem in Ire- land "has won the approbation of the ma- jority of parents and pastors of all den6mi- nations in Ireland* — a threefold statement abundantly refuted by the evidence in my last annual report. Mr. McGee stated also, in hi.s speech of the 23rd of June, in the House of Assembly, when he first dictated the importation from Ireland that "there the Priest was always the visitor, and usually the patron of the school, and two after- noons in the week are set apart for religi- ous instructions. " 114. Hr.MoOee'iitatament only true ao far as it relates to the Priest being the school patron and risitor —The " foreign element." Now the only par^of Mr. McGee's state- ment which is correct, is that which relates to the Priest being the visitor and patron of the School. Priests and all clergy are ea5-q^cio visitors of the schools in tipper Canada, but have no authority to remove of Christian truth that have been recognized and adopted in other countries situated similarly to ihu."-' Speech of the Hon. Oeorge Brown in the House qf Assemhly, iatd Febi'uary, \^9.— Globe Report. [This pretension of Mr- Brown is replied to in the note to the postcript of letter XIL^ * Oatholic Freeman and Mirror Report- or introduce text-books, or interfere with the course of instruction. But no Priest or Clergyman is the Patron of a mixed or Separate School in Upj^er Canada ; and Mr. McGee in desiring to introduce this feature of the Irish system, shows himself an ene my to the rights of the laity of his own church, with whom, as freeholders and householders, rests the patronage of the schools, and the Priest if he is a patron oi trustee of the School at all, is only so by the suffrages of the parents of children, and as hmg as they see fit to elect him. This feature of the sejyarate school system of Upper Canada is peculiarly distasteful, especially to the "foreign eccle-siastics," who so well represent that foreign power which recognizes no rights among the peo- ple ; and Mr. McGee, as the organ and agent of that foreign element, is of course anxious to transfer the patronage of the school fi'om the parent to the Priest. But the other statements of Mr. McGee, as well as your own, are without foimdation. 115. Begnlatioo.8 for Beligioiu Inatmotioii in the Irish National Schools. At an early period of the Irish national system, a part of two days was set apart each week for religious instruction ; the time was afterwards reduced ; and in the regulations of the National Board as re- vised in 1854, no time whatever is specified for religious instruction. In regard to vested schools (of which there are only 1,600 out of 5,300), the rule prescribes that * * such pastors or other persons as shall be approved of by parents or guardians of the children respectively, shall have access to them in the sclwol room, for the purpose of giving religious instruction there, at convenietvt times to he appointed for the pur- pose. The hours of secular instruction are prescribed ; and it is prescribed that no rehgious instruction shall be given during those hours ; but the ' ' convenient tunes for religious in&tructior." are left, it is not stated to whom, to determine. Then as to non-vested (or denominational schools) the rule prescribes that "The Patrons or Managers shall determine whether any, and if any, what religions in- struction shall be given in the school-room ; but if they do not permit it to be given in the school-room, the children, whose parents or guardians desire, must be allowed to absent themselves from the school, at reasonable times, for the purpose of receiving religious instruc- tion b eUewhere." Now as the Priests are patrons of 3,700 schools in Ireland, while there are only 1,600 vested schools, that feature of the priest being patron is what engages the pe- culiar sympathy of Mr. McGee as it givee ii XI i 72 all, aiul therefore ''more power to the Pope." B\it his statement tliat " two afternoons in the week are set apart for re- ligions instmction," is contrary to fact. All the regulations of the National Boartl of Education in Ireland are given in the Appendix to my last report, pp. 221—251. 116. Opposition of the Roman Catholic and Protestant CUaw to Uie National School sy .tern. The statement that the Irish School sys- tem has received " the api)robation of the majority of parents and Pastors of all de- nominations in Ireland," i.H nnfoiuided, and shows how little Mr. McCJeu (as well Jis yom^elf) is acrth my dis- honest blast against the Irish National sys- tem," at the University dejeuner on the 4th of October, was but a hint in compa- rison of a voluuio of facts established by the most indubitsiblo evidence l»efore a Committee of the House of Lords, as well as in the debate of the Houso of Commons the 9th of last July, inserted in the appen- dix to my lastreport, pp. 310-320. In your onslaught of the 5th of October upon me for my reply to the toast of the Grammar and Connnoii Scho<;ls of Upper Canada, and with which my name was coupled, you said : — " It will be time enough for Dr. Ryerson to '••". tlw defects of the Irish School System . u( L owa what parts are likely to be ap« pi I to C nada. He had better reserve his stro gth til" ' '^n, for it will not be Bishop Charbonnel lu.i,., he will have to deal with." You still love darkness rather than light on this subject, for you still conceal what the public have a right to know as to the pai-ts of the Irish system you would graft on ours, beyond that indicated by Mr. McGee, of making the priest the patron of the school. 118. Mr. Brown's threat ;~trae, he is not Bishop Charbonnel, but Alcibiades, minus his courage, his generalship, and accomplishments. You seem to have been a gopd deal con- cerned lest I should exhaust my strength before the time, and wotild not have enough left iov the day of trial with you. But, as yet, I have not found much strength ne- cessary for tlaat purj)ose. It is true, I have not had Bishop Charbonnel to meet ; for Bishop Charbonnel, though a; man of ex- treme views and impulsive temperament, is a sincere and generous man, above all low and mercenary views ; and, least of all, a man who would utter what he knew to be untrue, quote what he knew to be false, or seek the destruction of others in order to elevate himself. If it is triie I have not had Bishop Charbonnel to meet in you, and I have met you accordingly — an Alcibiades, minus his com'age, hisigeneralship and ac- complishments — a man ' ' both greedy and CQrrupt, with whom there was no living upon an equal footing, anything and every- thing by fits and starts just as it suited has present purpose." 119. The North Britisb Beview on the Irish Sys- tem— Retirement of t .0 Judges and Archbishop Whately— Admission by the Earl of Derby (the founder) of the floiliu'e of the system. But, Sir, I have not quite done with you on the subject of the Irish National sys- tem. In addition to the evidence given in 73 irou, and Lsh Sy«- rchbisnop rby (the tho appendix to my last report on that sys- tem, 1 will juUluuo tho toatimony of your own Free Church North British Rcoicw^ for Novum her. I have room for but two or throe paragraphs out of pages. Tho Itevieiv says ; . "Thugood men who took part in framing and luinic)iini( tliis system, * hoped ail things/ and neither did iior oould foresee the impossibi- lity of satisfy in^' Roman Giilholic educationists with anytliiii;,' slittit of a total surrender of all that is vitiil in Hiblo cliristianity. Realizing, at last, tlu! ll(lpel«agncs^ of the experiment, Baron (Tret'iic, Judge iJlackburne, and Archbis- hop Whatcly, have reluctantly retired from tho Board, But further consideration of the result is unnecessary. The Harl < tlioy arc tlio Riimo as tlidso on which tho public boHooIh of Upper Oniiadii ixrc rony it, tlio sanio as II iMirty to any troiLty of poaco aro hound by t!io tonus of Hudi truaty. If thiiy dusiro to changoor modify any of tliu articlus of tho troaty, thoir propor coureo ^s to Huhniit thoir propoHitiouH and rocjuoHtd to tlio othor pntlioH concernod, and not jush;!! and ahuso thoin in tho pnhlic j)ai)or8, aiul donounco tho work of thoir own hands. 128. Oroundi of Dr. Ryerion's pollof on tho School i|in'.s|i()ii ftiiKo lS,jl.— I'n parat' /ii lor tho tlieii coiiiiiiff nIioi'Ic. Thon, an to my views in regard to tho separate school jjrovisions of tho law as it is, I iiijiy niakoa brief statouiont which will explain tho reasons of my whole course of proceeding on this subject. On my return froju Eiigland in Juno, 1851, when Mr. Hiii'-ks, as stated in tho third of this series of hitters, referred to mo the complaints of Uishop Charbonnel, with an evident disin- clination to legislate furt'iier on the subject, I made to him in substance the following statements and remarks : — That dm-ing my thon recent tour,.l had met tho Senior Ho- crotjiry of tho Irish National Board in Lon- don, and had leaniod from him that a Roman Catholic Council in Ireland had de- nomiLod mixed schools, and that tho con- timied connexion of the Roman Catholics in Ireland with tho National Schools was very imcex-tain, and what would bo the re- sult of the movement upon the Nati(jnal System in Ireland was dotibtfid, and caused great anxiety. I said to Mr. Hincks that I viewed a collision with the Roman Ca- tholics (m the school qiiestion as inevitable — that by cautious and co\u-teo\is proceed- ings wo might avert it for a year or two, but that the shock would come sootier or later, I hjid no doubt, and we must be pre- pared to meet it. I stated my view to be, that we should concede to the demands of the lloinan Catholics all we could without infringing the rights of others, and without affecting the foundations of the school sys- tem, so that whenever tlie shock did come we could show that we had conceded all that could be reasonably rem my reports ; that the governments and public men whom you atttvcked hiul ptu'sued a consistent and patriotic course in school matters, while you have ])iu"sucd a course the very reverse, exliibiting weak- ness, folly, and seltisluiess in your own pro- ceedings, while you are assiuling others on the same grounds without stint or scruple. 133. Mr. Brown's first effort to creata a pettjr divcr.sion Ho I'oels tlie scorching lire of facts and arKumcnts. ^liat do you in this second stage of the controversy, commenced and ivnewcd by yourself ? Do you an.swor mo letter by let- ter, or wait in silence until tho conclusion of my reply, and then put forth yoiu" re- joinder ? No, you do neither ; but you make a two-fold efl'ort to create a petty di- version. In the first place, one of your editors being a city scltool tnistee, with certain " political allies" in the same board, 131. Proof of weakness in Mr. Brown's caase.— Summary of his aU.icks on Dr. Ryerson. Sir, — It is, tho mvaiiable sign of a bad cause and of malice in its advocate, when he resorts to purely pei-sonal attacks, which have no connection with the mcTits of tJio question at issue. His virtual hmguage to his opponent is, "I cannot answer yotu- ar- guments, but lican tarnish your reputation ; I cannot prove my case, but 1 axii blacken your character ; I have no facts or princi- ples to opjx)8e to yours, but I have an am- ple vocabtdary of hard names, of scurrilous epithets, and still uiore scurrilious in.'^iinia- tions. " This, Sir, is your method and style of ivrgiuueut witli me. You commenced your attacks upon me on the 6tli of De- cember, you renow and enlarge them to tho extent of two coli.mns more on the 8th of Decentber. In less than twelve hours after rtKieiving the conclusion of your attacks, I send vou a succino^ and explicit reply to yoxir charges. Do you un'lertako to prove that I was wrong and you were right ? Nothing of the kind. You keep my hastily written letter by you in tyj)e for eiglit days, and you then come forth with seven cohunna, not dealing Avitli tho first qties- fcion.s of yoiu" attack, but making a genei'al assault upon my whole public life — iiiclud- ing attacks uj»on successive adniini.strations of government in school matters, and seve- ral public men, two deceased, one absent, and others retired from public life — and endeavoring to i)rove that I have been in- consistent, mercenary and corrupt in all my doings for the lust fourteen years. Now, what had all this to do with the tlu'ee issues 79 you manipulate that agency to employ what I can only designate a very small in- strument to throw some dirty water upon me, under the pretext that I had stated wilful and fearfnl untrnths when I said the Normal School system had been ignored in the city schools, as no Normal School teacher had Ijoen placed in charge of one of the Common Schools of the city, and only two or three in 8ul)ordinate situations ; and in this I spoke according to the belief of the Head Master, who did not know of more than two or three Normal School teachers en\p]oyed in the city schools, and not one in charffe of a school, and after having conversed with the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the City Schools, who was under the same impression, and who had in the same view brought it before the Board of which he was a member Yet it turned out on minute inquiry that al- thoTigh there was no Nornxal School teacher in charge of any citj' school, nor had been for a year or more, there were some eight or nine (out of 35 teachers) young females who had attended the Normal School em- ployed in inferior situations in the city schools — so that to have })een critically correct, I sliould have said a few instead of "two or three" teachers in subordinate situations. Yet this trifling inaccuracy, which could not in the least effect the fact or the argument of the Normal School sys- tem not having been introduced into the city schools, was magnified into what you termed in the (Holte "a scorcher for Dr. Ryerson" — sf) thankful were you for so small a favor to aliate the heat of the scorching fire of facts and arguments embo- died in my letters, by diverting attention from the issues betwci^n us, and wliich had been provoked l>y youraelf.* 134. Mr. Brown's second effort to create a petty diversion.— What he iius to descend to to mislead the public. Then your second and still greater effort of the same kind is made in the Globe of • An unknown corieRpondeni ("Vox') in llic cominnn informer niny lie lime will reveal ; but it i-^ iioi ill till singuliir lliut such iii8iiiuiiliniii< ^'ll()uld ninkf tlifir first iippeiiraiicc in n pajier wliich lm» con- Ktituied iisclt' ilie eoiriinoii vuliic'lt- of slmider unij the receptt-.cle of every iiiiul of iimlevolciit Iiilling«((ute. t As liad hfcii predicted by Dr. R. last month Mr- Brown (and lie nndliis "ally," MiGec, stand alone in these eowiirdly attacks) has ajtaiii (ISth Feh.) skulked lichnid the rairipiiits of Parliamentary ririvi- lejte to reiient this truthless slander. Not eontent with renewing his assatdts and wustinK the time o. thelloiise in his attack upon Dr. It., where he cannot stand lip to defend himself, ho must now falsify a.i well ft-s suppress what took place in the debate on the subjevt. Mr. Hrown, while deelaimiufr in a statt; of fcreat exciti meiit about Dr. Kyerson's "salary," as lie often does [" salary I" seems to be his on»; great idea), triuniphanlly exclaimed— to tli<» Hon. Inspector General (jalt fwc quote from the Globe] : " Will the Hon. uentlemau tell us if Dr. Ryerson's salary inert ased from £750 to .CUlOO, contrary to sta- tute, witlinut consent of I'arliament, und while t!io mutter of l)r. ityerson's conduct was under dLseiiHsioii by the (;(mnuittee V Will he deny that this increase was datrd hack from January, 1857, und went to j'^V Dr. lijtfrmn's defduUl" "Hon. Mr. CJalt—Tho money was paid on tho 20th July." Now contrast Mr, Halt's reply as jriven by the Olotie alove witii tin; following reply, which was actu- ally Kiven to Hrown's ipiestion, lis reported in the; Lciidir, and see to what petty shifts Mr. Urowii must still resort to deceive the public and to daniaue lliose who expose his tnitlilessness and hisHbandonment of priiicipli's which lie iielore confessed to bo er.seulial. •■.'\lr, lirown— Will the Hon. uentli'iiian, A.c., donv that the iiicrcas«' was dated back from January, 1857, and Will/ hi /lap Dr. Kyersnu'ii dvlav.U I" "Hon. .Mr. ! i;/' fhr Vliirf Sufierinfrndcnt •>/ IJdurntion for I !/;(/• (.'(iiiKda ivas wade at Till! samk timk TJIJC sVl.AKV Ol' TIIK CHIKF SUPKUINTKNIiENT I'OK LoWKU Canada hap hkkn incricaskd, i.ono «k- PORK TllK INVKSTKJATIONB IN XlIK Pl'llLIC AC- COUNTS CuMMiTTKE. (Hear.)" The money was paid. kv. " 3Ir. Brown said the Hon. member was mistaken. Not only had Dr. Uyerson's salary been thus im- properly in"r(?ased. but ho had refused to allow the Auditor of I'ublic Accounts to examine his (books." " Mr. Ualt—TUAT 18 NOT tub case " Upper Canada that ought to be silent, and the last man that ought to s]>eak on such a sul)ject. In charging me with unftiithful- ness, fraud, and plunder, you are eliarging one nearer home with dishonesty and peculation, if not worse. 136. Proof of the utter untruthfulness of Mr. 15 row n's slander. But, Sir, I will not rest my defence on comparative ground of this kind. I will answer explicitly to ymu' charges, whether plainly stated or darkly insintiated. As to the charge that I have refused per- mission to the Auditor to examine the accounts of the liook Department, let the following extract of my letter, dated the 14th of June, 1858, in reply to his, speak for itself : — "In respect to pmchascs made for the Book, Map, and apparatus dejiositories, I do not see that further details can bo f,'iveii than is stated both in the cheques and vonchtrs, unless the in- voices be furnislied. In my letter of tlie 18th December, 1850, I stnted to you thiit tlio 'par- tictilars of thopc votirliers are invoioes for books furnished by publislieis, imd ai o by special agreement conhdentitil. You liiive not asked for them before, but if you still wisli it I shall be happy tofnrni.ih i/ou with ihcm.' " 137. Reply to the Brown "shaving" charj^e— Ho forgeis llic " eloud " fioiii old Scollaiid, In reply to your insinuiitions, that I have shaved notes, or lent money at three or any other per cent, a month, tlxrough a broker, or any other way, let any nuui in Canada say, if he can, that f have ever done any- thing of tho kind — that I have ever taken a penny's v-'uth of stock 6i any kind, or speculated to the amotuit of a sixjience in any shape or form in my life, except being a subscriber for years to two funds for the relief of worn tmfc ministers, their widoAva and children. Let Jiny record or man on earth say that I own a fanhino's stock of any description, or projjerty of any kind, except one-fifth of tin aero and premises where I reside. Such, Sir, are my only ac- cmuulations in tlio j)iiblic service between thirty and forty years, while i)i less than hidf that time, by trad Mg upon the pas- sions and generous inipulsijs of an honest people, and V)y tlie facilities of speculation created and iixii)roved by your jiolitical Ciireer, you liave, according to your own sttitements, ticcuniulated what is " quite conunensurate witli y(nxr desires," thotigh not enough to pay (^if ohl sjionsors and creditors in Scotlaml, tuui thus remove what you yotirself called " a eloud hanging over yoiu* family." Sir, I leavt! my life tc> testify, and all who have known me from my youth to witness as to your insinuated charges of tisury and t extortion, or whether my family has not had more reason to com- 81 plain than otliers in regard to tho disposal of what may have been entrusted to iny stewardship. 138. Reply to tho baseless "Oommission" charge. Then, Sir, as to my having sometimes "gone to Enghmd to purchase books, and received five, ten, or even twenty per cent, commission," you evidently thought you could insinuate your deadly calumny wfth- outany power on my part, fro:»i the nature of the case, to r.vert its venom. I am tha ikful that on tins point also lam .shielded agf mst your mnlicioiis insinufitions, since I never went to England or any where else to purchase a supply of books, and never felt myself fit for that sort of thing, or ever attempted it. I went to Eiigland once to arrange iis to the method and terms on whicli school apparatus and books might \" obtained, and arranged with the Queen's government to seciire to Canada the advan- tages of their agreements with book.sellers for supplyin;^ tliu schools with both books and api>aratusiu England, and I afterwiards got that arr.ingenient extended with Ixiok- seller's .so a:* to j)rocure maps, ajiparatua and bookK independent of the Imperial Government, thereby saving to Canada an additional live per cent, on their cost. The only purchiisfs I made were a specimen copy of each l)ook I thought worthy of examination for librarie.s — the examination of which cost me labour in extra hours, early and late, of nearly two years. Tho account of these specimen copies of books was forwarded by mail in the usual way, and beyond thus purchasing a specimen copy of the.se books in 1H52, I have never niade a purchase, or ever« prepared an order ; and have never been advantaged with a commis- sion in any foi'ui wliatevc, to the amount of a penny. The purchases of books have been made by correspondenc ^ and the or- der letters, invoices, recei}>t8, and original cheques for every book bought, and every penny i)aid, are inth<. department, andure so many witnesses of the impossible truth as well as Ijasenesss of yoiu" insinuated charges. I am tliiuikful to be equally shielded against yoiu- equally malicifuis insinuated cliarge tliat [ derivetl advantage from the pictui'e dealers of Florence and Rome. It is fortunate that in the system I adojited I never paid them myself fen* their pictures. When i selected and pmchased a picture or pictures in any of the ])ainters' studios, I wrote my name, or initials of it, on tho back of them, and had an account of them with the jirico made out. That account (after taking a copy of it) I lodged with tho banker and forw ai'der (for these two are almost invariably united in Italy), and on the delivery of any pictm'o with my signa- ture on the back, the banker accepted it, and paid the price according to the account left in his hands by me. Tluii the banker had the jtictures packed and forwarded to Canada, together with the siccounts received l)y the dealers, and his own charges ; tlie vouchers for wluch liave Ijttjn furnished to the Auditor when the accfmntu were sent in. Though, therefore, you • pui-sued me not only to Engl uid, :. . .:\en to Florence and Rome, yet even froni thence there is indubitable testimony in blaiek and white ' the falsehood of your insinuated charges. 139. Useful reminder for Mr. Brown of the pre* vurb about i^iatts housi-s. So much on what you are jileased to ^ill my "plunder," and "])ickingH," and "stealings," of which ycm yourself have furnished tho most remarkable illustration that I have recently witnessed. Before the 24th Decendjer, you published in large hand-bills, and in the (Hulic for sale, "the correspondence b^tweeii Dr. Ryer.son ;*nd tjie Hon. George Rrown on S»']»;irate Schools." But it turned out that you had not only refused to publish my cor- respondence in reply to your long 1 utter and editorial, but tliat yc-u bad Jiotufiliy Htokn one -third of my lettn' thiit you did publish — that you filiiudiral from each, purchaser of the (ilohr tho price of tho third of the letter thus stolen; i\nd that you thus secured the pickintis of the previous thi'ft mid plunder — a three-fold transaction that may alford a key to the .system by Avliich, in the coiu'se of a few years, you have acc\iuudated a fortime as you stated in the House of A.isembly. "(juite com- mensurate with your wishes." As your " anq»le fortune" was accumulated several months since, I supi>ose you still continue the old sy.stem, in order to transmit to Scotland a sufficient amount of "plunder," and "pickings," and "stealings" to re- munerate parties there for former "pick- ings," which liad been practised upon tliem. Bo that as it may, you have certainly shown your.self as great in these transactions iis you have shown youraelf little in your July negotiationi^ with Messrs. Doriace available for a letter in reply to your charges of yesterday,* I must atill devote another letter in r»![)ly to yotu" principal financial charge, and then sum up the whole argmi.ent between us. I have, A'c, E. RYERSON. Toronto, January 29, 1851). ■■I II I ■ * Mr. Bntwn is savrtl ttie trouble (apoonliiiR to liis new last and looso syHteui of I'ditoria! r('xiM>nsibility uf deiiyiug either hiii authorship or kuowlcdKu of thit i i m 82 No. XII. — Mr. Brown's Personalities — His financial charges refuted — His Inconsistencici portrayed — Appeal from his threats to the Country. 140. Mr, Brown's un'cnpulonc nnd unprincirled personalitit'H. The ^' he » cu.nmo/i sowei if Blander.— Its (leinoralitind' v.'. ,(m,i ,;.— HutriliaUiig contifst between '': ."'l irj rngl'.sti press. Sir, —In thi •- J i-^i.of 1113' present series of lettord in reply ^u your attacks, [ have pro- ]l>osed to notice youi uioat personal charges. There is no subject less interesting to tixe public, and leas appropriate for public dis- CTission, tlian personal financial matters. There are a Imndred things connected with the personal aHairs of each individual which cannot l)o nuwle known to or understood by the public ; and a person thus assailed al- ways appears to disadvantage. Hence tHe unscrupulous and unprincipled man is al- ways intent to attack his opponents and rivals on this point, just as a female of doubtfiil reputation ever breathes out sus- picion and scandal against all competitors, real or imaginary. Time was, even in Ca- nada, when men could differ in opinions and on parties, and earnestly discuss public questions, withcnit violating the language of mutuiU courtesy, or Vi^oimding the feel- ings of personal friendship. But you, Sir, liave inaugurated a new state of things — a new style of argumentation — a newt(meof thinking and feeling between communities and parties, between man and man. ? 'ery man not of yoiir party is either a cor up- tor, or is cormpte 1 ; every head of a de- partment, or other officer, whose place you aspire to possess or coTitrol is a tyrant or a slave, a thief or a robber ; every public man not at your disposal is a knave or a fool ; and even the Judge who records not your will as law is but the reproduction of a Jeffreys. Your politics are men, not prin- ciples ; anrivate ust ... ^with having taken an illegal salary since 18o(). 141, Mr. Brown never wearies in repoartng a stale uiitruili.— E.xplaimiory rcniaiks. -Tin: vvIkiIc ((ue^iion fairly put. — Appeal to llic candor ami fui''iii.'sa ut" iho -.aoer. In regard to the former and moro seri- ous of these charges, which yitu have re- peated more tin\es than there are months in the year, and in as many forms as yonr ingenuity could dcn-iso, I regret tliat from my want of forethought, you could even find a pretext for your imputations — that during infnmnn<> attnfk. Tho editor of tlif! " Hu,-;jn Siimal " p'vos tlie immo of Iho author in fhis a'Iditional tirado which the 'Eilitor-in-ChioC ropuhlishes \nh\s (rlohe of the 17lh of Februaiy as follows: -" The country affects to ho fiurprised thnt Mr Biown has not replied i < Dr. Uyorsoii's Ijcttors as th'iy •aino forth. • * " Riii Mr. Hrowii //«* replied to the llev. ivoctor's lonf? series oi' Ion;; letters. In tho Dai' ■ aioh'- of th(? 28th .rani;;try, i'u."'e wan a loni?articl lieaded "The llyerson Tnfprcsf Oa^c" giving a full ,uid an i:nnaniai view of ihi. eminent I).", of Divinity's coniiection with the piihlic; iinnnees •• Sii'ce the fofeixoinfr Utter wns written Mr. (Jrowii !i;i . himself repeateil in biiif, hifoie the llonsoof As- SOinlil.,', the whole of thi? inf;ir. ons editorial, which tho Htiron Sirfiial chuckles nveras Mr. lifowii's KKriiT(!) to Dv i'yerson's letterM I Not content 'v:th ptrsi.-itinr in this cowardly system of attack, he .nust also in his own paper suppress and fai-ifv the Hon. Mr. Gait's reply to his misst.-itetnniit.^. Ketj pauef^i). From thi Parliamentary prcceec!in'."s, and tho Editorial of the GI0U-, of Fel)ruar,\ 2G, 1*and ]) 'luids he had received from tiiem.'' I will hu'thermore subui't to the reader, wliethor he wouhl not feel himself luicdly used if the neigh])or or company whom he had thus obliged by receiving and payiug money for them without any remuneration, should, on learning that a bank had allowed him some- thing on deposits of such nioney, sot up a technicality of law, and demand the j)ay- ment to them of the amount of such .allow- ance in addition to the sum or sums ad- vanced by tliem .Would not the reader say, that though the technicality of law might bo against him, ho was entitled in equity and fairness to much more than such a casual advantage for his responsibility and trou])le ? Such is my own case, strength- ened by several cirouinstances in addi tion to those mentioned in tlie ciuso sup- posed, as will presently api)ear. Yet I have beoTi accused of fraud and speculation for claiming and employing as my own what a bank chose to allow mo *m deposits which I could make or not make as I pleased. I believe that had 1 incurred t)ie same I'es- ponsibUity and done the same w(»rk for any private party, I would ha^t riiceivod much more tluui what the bank chose to allow on the contingent baljurices of deposits. I be- lieve the Government, in order to avoid the su.^picion of undiUy favoring me, or of countenancing a principle no longer allowed in })ui)lic departments, thought it Tieeessary to act up to the utmost rigoi- of law.f 142. The case itself div>ested of extranet -^ circnm* stances, minutely stilted. r will now, in as few words as possible, state the case itself with' it any referenco to extraneous parties or ciremnstaucos. From the first f have assumed llir etitire otticiidresptjuaibilityof the act myself :t and • It has l>cen olyectcd.thnt Dr. Ryer-nn roneived a salary for wliiit ho did, wiiilc in the case siipiioscd the party rocciviiiK and paying inDiicy rcciivcd no salary. Jiiit wliilt' J)r. Ryerson recoivi'd a salnry fur receiving and payinjf ST-l.iWO, as rctjiiirod by law, in addition to lii.s ordinary duties as 8up*-rinli>nd('nt and Ad'iiiiiis- trator of tho Schools Acts, ho ro( livcd and paid ?1,(l73,0iH, which lie was nut I'cquinil fe bank from 1S,"1 to 18.J.'), I Ix'lieve it would lie better, both on pulilic and ollicial grounds, eonsideriiiu; my rei.itioii to the conntry, for me to pav llie niterm()st fart' in^ of tlie money in question liian to retain any part of it afraiiist the lionest eoiivietiou of any considei'.i'lu portion of She commnnity. " Under t'inio cirenmstances, I wi.sh to pay tho Goveriiiiuiii n ,» aiiionnt of the interest in question, nothwlth>.tnndinir that, witliout a farthing expense to the coiintiy, I have made my extensive odicial tour for t'lie examhiatioiiof European and American School systems, th<' re*'idtof which is the establish- ment of (iiir .Sciiool system of Uppc-r (-'anada, and, notwitlist.iiidiiin (hat, up to January la,');, (when 1 ceased to lie responsible lor th<' safe kcepiiiK of school moneys, and when my pieseiil, increase of salary couniKMiced), I liav(> reeeiwil and f>'1''I "I'- wards of (Sl.i -,,(ii»t) beyond what I was reciuiicd to do by the sijimlc miller whieli I hold ollice, :i:d for which I have r 'ceived no remuneration." (pp. UJi- 293.) • Tills is abundantly proved by the tol, )win)r ex- tract Irom the (vid.'iiee of the late U m. Il< ;• •ivi;r General Morrison before tiio Public Acc;iuntB •;am- mittee, l.st June, 1S5H:— " QHct. •Ji'.t. Are yon a member of tho Oonncil i,t Public Ill^tlll(•li(lIl, and when were you appoiutfid? —1 am. 1 was appointed in ISW.'' " Qiirs. 220. While acting? as a member of tho Council (i| I'liblic lii.striiction were you made .awii"e of the ii!\tn J iiHii> awtwe that Dr. Ii'i/i rutin wns rccciuinf/infercst n/ion puh- lie tlo/ioti/s. I think J))'. liijersnn mentioned it himself, tin'l also Mr. Scohie. A part of the funds of the Ueparliiient wiMO under our snpervisicm, but all the rest wt re placed at the persoiial credit of Dr. Ryei'soii. It was a matter of conversation ■everiil times. We were aware of the. e.ri.stence of (:leased public moneys for which he had given security — simply paying them as re- tli of ipt of the iun I now in.stor.d of Kiwlodgod vii a much ly" tlian g^n's itate- .'Xauiplea, tion ; but ijiututiona irosout mo lud. Tho yot not tho school •eon takon : all yo\u: tho public oral stated mittco on lonoya de- his credit, not have paid no a current rture from m's) case. — its, I'rotlion- ansactions tutory, or lat i.s legal rovorso in Receiver rablo and used as he h he hatl bem as re- ernor, and d by law. h County )y tlio lion. K an amend- II the Ghbe next page, pblet. Treasurers ; as it is still, I believe, witli Shcritls, Laud Agents, ProthonotarioH, ttc. The regulations which at tho present time, would vendor it wr.tng forme to derive any advantage from public moneys at my credit, did not exist before 185G, and I acted according to pn^codont and usage in analogima cases. Tiio usage may havol)eoti objectionable and tho princijilo })ad, but r.o one can say that J. ubusod it. Hiul I boou disiiosed to commit any abuse in regard to tho use of public moneys, I had ample op- portunities of doing so, as they wore at my disposal. But tlu! fact that I never used any of tho.so monoysfor speculations of any kind, and faithfully accounted in detail and by vouchor for tho receipt and expenditure of tho enormous sum of $l,147,o73, (one million one hundred and forty-soven thousjind, throe hundred and seventy-three dollars,) from 1851 to 1850 inclusive, when tho present improved regulations wore introduced, sliowsthat I deserve something very ditforont from abuse for the execution of a very roHpousililo and difficult trust. 148. Mr. Cayley's tecIinicalitT of law vs. equity Mr. IJrowiis iiicc-t'iml piirsoiial abuse.— How iippro- priittu it IS III Ills case. Few will, I think, imagine that tho Government showed me any favor, in sus- taining Mr. luHpector General Cayley's demand, and i>rossing against me a teclmi- caUty of law irroHpoctivo of the question of equity,* aiM.l in not deciding during tho wliolo of the year 1857 upon tho accoiuit and question submitted by mo at the end of 1850. And then more than two years after I accounted for the interest in diapute and desired the decision of the Government on it, and more than six months after, I through my agent, tendered the mojiey in dispute, but the acceptance of which was declined by the lleceiver General, ^'ou assail me column after column, and month after month, with calumny and abuse, for- getting how justly I might retort and retaliate wore I so disposed — never having been a defimltor for a farthing of moneys paid to me liy (Sovcniment, much less hav- ing had to ab.scoiid from my country on account of it, and allowed twenty years to • Nevertheless Dr. Ilyerson''* rtii'tt to tlio amount of the interest in (|ue.-.tioii -under tho circuinstanoes of the case, and wiis ai'kno'vlcdfred by the Hon. Attorney General Maedoiiald in his remarks in the House of Assembly on tlie 20th July, reported in tho Olobe of the next diiy, as follows : " Attorney {leiicnil Maedonald was Rlad to hear the membei" for Greiiville (Mr. I'atrick) sjieak as ho had done with reirard to Dr. Ryerson. No doubt Dr. Ryerson was legally wronK, but ho had a rujht to the vwiiey, and never attempted to throw any concealment ot'cr it. Hut, when he (the Attorney General) told him that he was loyally wroiip, and that tho interest invariably followed the principal, he at once olfeied to provide security, and had now given back tho money, uo doubt at a considerable ■aorilico." elapse without tho repayment of public motleys applied to private p\irpu.ses. 149. Garbling and suppression, Mr. Brown's iifVtT-raihiiir rrsoiirci! wlioii roilrd.— !Siippre»«c» Mr. Milroy '■ letter luid oven liia cxpliiimtinii till tliruiituncii. Then, Sir, when other moans fail you to make out a case against mo, you botako yourself to your never-failing resources of (jiirlding and )ii(]>]>icistiliin, Tims you pub- lished (jarhU'd reports of evidence given before tho Couunittee on Public Accounts, Avhile you supiirossod my own explanations in reply to tho Atiditor, in regiu'd to tho various circiunstancos midor which tho deposits were made and increased in the Bank, the greater part of which took place in 1855, when I was absent in Europe, and had personally no more to do with them, and no more knowledge of thorn than your- self, until I returned in April, 1850. You also suppress my own and Mr. llodgins' explanations in regard to tho matters re- ferred to in Mr. Milroy's ovidoiico,* and uiako an outrageous attack u^'on mo for tho contemptible sum of ,t'2!), while you so garl)led Mr. Miliny's evidence f as to make it the pretext fm- an infamous attack ujion me in the Globe, of the following day — ac- companying your atttick (in order to give it the more deadly point,) with the heartless expression of your "deepest regret" on my account. I acknowledge to have felt my- self so much startled by it that two days aftorwiirds I called upon ]Mr. Milroy to show him the chocks in favor of various I«irtios on which ho had paid out the sum of £2,000 tho previous Docombor, instead of its havin;^ boon ptiid out in one sum, as stated in tho Glohe. What was my surprise to lotu'n, that tho very mnrning of tho (r^>?JC*«j^arblod report and violent attack, Mr. Mfflroy had addressed a note to yon, showing that you ht-d inconvctly given liis evidence and done inju.stice to me. Tho next day, you did not publi.sli or ac- knowledge Mr. Milroy's note, nor yot tho next, when he wont to you, and insisted on the correction being made, or ho would publish his note in another paper. Thus pressed, you were obliged to do soinothing to avoid exposure ; and in the Globe, four days after your garbling and attack, you said that you had learned by a note from Mr. Milroy that he had not roprobjiited me as having chocked out tho db'2,000 in one sum ; but you added nothing more ; you did not publish tho note, nor did you withdraw or refer to your previous misstate- ment and attiick, but loft the effect of them uneliaced and unwoiikened. And now you republish Mr. Milroy's evidence, but sup- » See patfes 293-294 of the Kvidence. t See page 110 of the EviUeuce. 88 press Mr. ITodgitis' and my own oxplana- tiouB in refurunco to it. 160. Mr. Brown's petty system of warfare and spite. -KxaiM|)lcn--\Ir. ftlorrisDn.— Mr. Muckenzii;. — Dr. IliK'.— Uol.l'riiice.— I. ouiily Council. —Ills rock- less violence. So you (]uoto tho evidence of the Hon. J. C. Morriaoii, lute Receiver General, in refer- ence to the (|Ue.stion of law to contradict what I hiul Haiti in reference to tho qnestion of equity. S.» yon 8ui>i tressed Mr. Mackenzie and Dr. ilae's corrections of your niis- reprosentiitions of them, as you refused to insert my rei)ly to your attacks.* — So you lately garbled Colonel Prince's letter, sup- pressing half sentences, whole sentences, and half paragrai)hs. And so I have de- tected you in seven false quotations of my reports, and in misstiitements without number, apart from your playing a game of all sides in your .speeches, editorials, al- liances, and negcjtiations. Then, also, in June, after the publica- tion of all your attacks and "awful dis- closures" in regard to my protended de- falcations, plunder, tbc. , tho Miuiicipal Coiuicil of the United (counties of York and Peel visited the Educational Depart- ment (in my absence,) and afterwards passed a resolution indicative of undiminish- ed conhdence in me, which, with the Warden's note enclosing it, was as follows : * In n letlcr to tlie Colonist of thfi 21 st of Jnnuary, 1869, Mr. VV. L. Muukeiizie siiys ; — " I soUloin compluni of sucli siiiciurL-.-* upon my chikIucI a.s you made la.«i Tuesday — liut liad .some cnrinsiiy as to whether the Colonist would serve me a.s llie Globe did in the York Le^i.slaiive Council election ca.-je — misrepresent my conduct, and refuse to lkt its kradrks .ske a TIMPEKATE AXSWea, iiVE.N AS A PAID ADVEETISEMENT." Mr. Mackenzie would .scarcely have bcU»ed 20 or 30 years aifo that ho W(iuld ever see a counl adopted by any reform paper so tyrannical an(^o utterly subver. sive of all tVee tlionghi or di.''cus.sionas llial he doscrilie.s, but it was left for ihe (Hobe dictator to inaugurate so dclcslablc a system in Upper Canada, Dr. Rae, the celebrated Arctic Navigator, in a lec- ture delivere.l in Toronto, and rewrted in the Leader of the 20ili of .lanuary, thus refers to the dishonest tyranny of ihe (ilubc. " There is a certain paper in this town vvliicli frequently took him tota.sk, but that was only amusement to him. He had seen stutementi in this paper— he niis^hl say he alluded to the Globe— (applan.se,)— icfjardMii,' the Hudson's Bay Company, which he knew were not true. He sent several letters to this journal explainiiii; those things, but not one of them wa.s ever inserted, and he was obliged to liave recour.se to the columns of a paper published in the city of Hamilton. CAp|)lause.) And what more was done by this paper' Kvcry letter which had been satisfac- torily answered by him in Eiiufland were published in Uie Globe, and yet not a sin-^li; column ; nay, not even a single square, was allowed him to reply 'EVEtf THOUOII HE WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT AS AN ADVEKTISEMKNT. (Ixjud applause.) He spoke warmly upon tins matter, but the conduct of that journal to him wa.-^ mo«l uin»arranted, but he did not expect anything else from it, for it was its usual course fa' deny every one whom it attacked the ■potver of replying. ( Loud applause.)" Hon. Col. Prince's letter is published in ftill in the Colonist of the 20th January. " Warden's Okkick, Toronto, IBth Jtine. "Dk.vii Sir, — I imvc miioli pleftstiro in for* wiu'ding the enclosed copy of a rtHolntion of the Municipal Council of tiic United Counties of York anil Pool, adopted on Saturday last. "I am, my dear sir, " Yonra truly. " (F^igncd.J Joskph HART.\f an, " WanleiK U. C. Y. A P. «' The Rev. E. RyerBon, D. D., "Chief Superintendent of Ediicition. " Resolved unanimously, — That tlie Council having had the ploa.suic of vi.siiin;? tli • Nor.nal and Model Sclioolg, desiio to expn s tho gralificatiun they felt in seeing tlie boiiutiful selections of Sculpture and i'liioLiugs, ami also the iidtnirnblo School Apparatus ami Mips of Canadian manufacture, lliey desire further to express their opinion that Upper ("anada owes a debt of gfatitude to the Chief Superintendent for his devotedness to the cause of Elucation, and for the high standard which our present system has already obtained, and trust he may be long spared to disciiarge tho responsible duties of that office. "(Signed,) J. Elliott, Clerk Council, U. C. Y . A P. A copy of the foregoing note and resolu- tion was sent to the (Uoha for publication ; but you refu.sed to publish them, notwith- standing the majority of the members com- posing the Comicil ot the United Comities of York and Peel were older Keformers than yourself, and notwithstanding the Warden is one of tho most jiLstly honored members of tho Legislative A.ssenibly, and incomparably auijorior to yourself in the best qtialities of a man tind a statesman. * Your suppression of such a document from such a body of men is only one of your daily acts of unfairness, tyramiy and hatred, and shows how little of liberty or truth Would exist in the country, were your will siipreme, and the Gluhe the only medium, of thought and intelligence. In your reckless violence you attack the whole Normal School E.stablishment, re- presenting the expenses of it in 1857 twice as large as they were in 1852, when the grant in support of the Nornuil and Model Schools is only £500 a year more now than it was in 1852, and it has not been in- creased since 1853. It is said that Nero set Rome on fire for his own amusement, and fiddled and danced at the sight ; but it is left for you to assail tho vital establish- • At too late January meeting of thoConneil a resol- ution still more coraplimentary to Dr. Ryerson, was passed unanimously. At a meetiui? of the Council held the next day a brother-in-law of one of the Editors of the Globe, who happened to bo a member, sought to efl'ect a third petty diversion in favor of Mr. Brown by «n explanatory political resolution condemnatory of Dr. Rycrson's right to rciply to Mr. Urown's gross personal attacks, but his ungraeioua attempt was defeated by a large vote. 89 f)tli June, fisure in for- re^olntion of ;c(l Counties rday last. IRTMAN, ;. Y. A P. the Council tlic NoiMial L'X[)rt H tho lie boiuiliful igs, iind also mill Mips uf re furllicr to Jnniida owes pei'iiitt'ndent f Elucation, our pro:^ent lust lie may rcspousible Slmott, J. y.i&p. and rosolu- iiibli cation ; m, ijotwith- mbera coin- ed Counties lieformers Hiding the tly bonored. ienil)ly, and self in the tatesman. * iment from no of your ind hatred, y or truth c your will ly medium I attack the hmout, re- 1857 twice I when the and Model 3 now than ; been in- that Nero niuaement, ;ht ; but it establish- anncil ari'sol- Ryerson, was t'li(! Council f one of the bo a mi'ujber, n in favor ot :al rt'solutioa reply to Mr. is uugracious ment of our educational systom to gratify your rage against mo. 161. ' Salary " tha flrat, ■•oond, and third thought iu Mr. lirown'ii mind. Then, Sir, more than twice throe times, you attack my aoto/j/, showing that salary occupies the first, second and tliird place in your thoughts, though it had nothing to do with tike subjects of discussion. You speak of my "illegjil salary of £600," and then of lis Fiaving been '* illegally raised." If I have been receiving au '' illegal salary of £500" sinee 1850, why did you not before attack such an "illegal" proceeding?* Now, Sir, your own Weekly Olobe of the 12th July, 1850, contains a report of the dis> M'ssion in the House of Assembly on the School Act of 1850, and by that report it will be seen that three successive motions were made to fix my salavy at less than £500, and were rejected by large majorities ; and it was enacted that my '* salary should be of the »ame amount as that now provided by law, or as may be hereafterprovided by law, for the Superintendent of Education in Lower Canada."t Since then the salary of the Superintendent of Education for Lower Canada has been increased, he resolving to retire unless his salary was made equal to that of a puisne judge ; and the law requires that I should receive the same salary as the SuiKsrintendettt of Education for Lower Canada. You say not a word about the salary of the Superintendent of Education for Lower Canada, though his salary is paid out of the same public revenue as mine ;;|: nor do you venture to lay down the princi- ple that the office of Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada is to be placed on inferior footing to that of the same office in Lower Canada ; or that the former is less onerous, or has been less efficient or suc- cessful than the latter. These facts and considerations you keep out of sight — showing that your object is resentment, not truth — that though pretending to be a states- man, you are guided in legislation and gov- ernment, not by general principles, but by momentary passions and personal antipa- thies. However, I have no solicitude on that subject J I shall be contented, as I have been in times past, with whatever my ♦ For another instance of this " Salary " mania on the part of Mr. Brown, see page 80. It seems to haunt him day and night, judging from his speeches and recent editovials. t For a striking illustrative instance of Mr. Brown's wilful suppression of Hon. Mr. Gait's reply to him on this very subject see page 80. I The Hon. Attorney General Macdonald, in reply to a question put to lur. Brown on this subject in the Public Accounts Committee on the 1st of June, 1868, replied as follows :— " I think the Superintendent of Education should have as high a salary as aiw public functionary in Canada except the Oovemor General. I think it the most imporfant QjSke in Canada." CQues. 257, page 94] country [not yon] shall think proper to al- low me tor my services, 162. Tha Oloba'a own oonfMSlon as to tba triumph of tliu Coimtitutiuiial quuatiou ut' IM^I, as to.wliother patrooaKv should bu adtuiniatured fur parly pur- |)o«t«8 or not. You assail me, for the hundredth or thou- sandth time, for having attacked '< tlie constitutional rights of the people of Cana- da '* in 1844, when the question I then put to the country (now half a generation since) was as to whether the patronage of the Crown should be administered for party purposes and on party grounds, or upon the principles of equal justice to all classes ac- cording to merit, without regard to sect or party, as had been contended for by others and myself twenty years before you found a home in Canada ; and according to the Globe of the lilh of December, only eight members were in 1844 elected in all Upper Canada opposed to my views : so that what- ever I wrote m 1844 was strongly endorsed by the people of Upper Canada ; constitu- tional government was not destroyed, but perpetuated, and a spirit of moderation ia the exercise of party power was greatly promoted. Besides, instead of attacking as you do the private and personal character of those with whom I differed in opinion. I referred to it in terms^yf admiration ajul eulogy. 163. Mr. Brown's cowardly rsproaob— His ed*.ta> rial bullies.— A portrait sketch of his c&reer and inconsistencies. Finally, you have reproached me for ray age, reminding me of being in ray " dotage ;" and upon the principle of the ass kicking the dead lion, you and your corps of editorial bullies set upon me to beat me with might and main, in the confident expectation that I no longer possessed suffi- cient vigor or courage to withstand your assaults ]* but, though conscious that the * Not content with thus setting his own editor* upon Dr. Ryerson, Mr. Brown must fain dragoon all the editors of the Province into making a general onslaught upon him to finish him outright. Thus in tho Globe of tho 17th February, the Huron Signal speaking on his belialf, evidently by his autliority (for ho infovnis his rt-mlers that the Globe's renewed and in fame i attack on Dr. Ryerson of the 28th Jauuary was Mr. Brown's owu reply to Dr. Ryerson: see pag* 81), he thus upbraids the Press for not rushing at once to the rescue on the first " Signal " of distress :— " We are surprised that the independent Provin- cial Press has not saved Mr. Brown tlio trouble of replying. Every editor possessing a spark of honor or independence, should make the plausible Dr. of Divinity understand that the four thousand dollars a year, besides the pickings or " casual advantages,'' are not given to him as a political pugilist, but as fuardian of the education and morals of the people. f the independent Press will do its duty, faithfully and fearlessly, Mr. Brown will have little to do in tbs matter." Ah 1 Mr. Brown, after all your efforts, you seem Ut have got just five small Olobe allies out of the whole Provincial press, whose kindre5tice of my native country, which 1 have endeavored to serve from my youth, that it will not leave me a prey to your machinations in old age. But be that as it may, though you may reduce me to want, you cannot make me a slave ; though you may cau.se me to die a very poor man, you cannot prevent me from dying a. freeman, or from defending as long as 1 am able, the right of individual choice iu regard to schools and religious instruction, on the part of both Protestants and Roman Catholics, the rights of school «dectors, of trustees, and of municipalities against tiie subversive at- tempts of Mr. McGee and yourself. I have, &c., E. RYERSON. Toronto, Feb. 1, 1859. P.S. to the 12th Letter. — Messrs. Brown and McGee skulking behind the ramparts of Parliamentary privilege to renew their attacks — Corrupting and debasing influence of the Globe newspaper. 157. Messrs. Brown, Dorion, and McGree in Parlia- ment ou tlic School Question— the Urowu-Dorion Prussian dosp )tism. Sir — Since writing the foregoing letter, I have read what you and Mr. Dorion have said in Parliament about the school negoti- ations of July, and what Mr. McGee has had to say about myself. In your explanations you explain not a word of what Mr. Drum- inond called " an honorable compromise on the separate school question." Un that point, the public are as much in the dark as ever.t Mr. Dorion said "In Upper Canada, it is well known the Protestants are not satisfied (with the school system) on. the one hand, nor Catholics on the other." Mr. Dorion ought to have stated the reverse- if it appertained to him to say anything on. the subject, as far as the Protestants of Up- per Canada are concerned, as there is no country the school system of which has so strong a hold upon the almost unanimous feelings of the people, and the only shadow of dissatisfaction among the Protestant po- pulation of Upper Canada with the school. » Two instances of this species of cowardice as predicted are furnished by Mr. Brown himself on the 9th and 18th of Fobruai-y, (some time attor this letter was written. (See page 80.) Mr. McGee's renewed attack ou his first reappearance in Parliament, is also referred to.in tlie P. S. to this letter. [See page 93.] Mr. Brown's is but the echo of Mr. McGee's attack, which in duty bound he has to make, since the two hunt in couples. Par nobUe fratrum ! j Since this was written, the recent speech of Mr. Thibaudeau on the Address has lieen published, and that part of it relating to these mysterious " compromises" inserted in a note on page 69. The revelations there madetfuUy account for the death-like silence of Mr. Brown on this subject. He is fluent while se- cure behind his parliamentary desk, he reiterates his false and calumnious chanres against the absent, but. ou the nature of Mr, Thibaudeau's " guarantee^'' ou the school questiou, and Mr. Drummond's " assu- d2 system is that "vvhich the Globe has been intent upon exciting against the provision of it which permits Roman Catholics to have separate schools at all, while the point of dissatisfaction among a portion of the Roman Catholic? has been, that the law did not make further provision for separate schools. Then Mr. Dorion and yourself agreed to make inquiries into the " systems prevailing in such countries as Belgium, Ireland, and Prussia, just as if inquiries had not been made in those countries before constructing our own system ; just as if in- quiries ought not to have been as to whether every practicable feature had not been al- ready adopted from those systems ; and just as if yon had not, during four long years, sought to rouse all Upper Canada ■against my introducing anything from des- potic Prussia into our school system.* Then, Sir, you represent Mr. Dorion as having urged in your negotiations with him, that " a large section of the people desired a larger amount of religious instruc- tion for their children than was obtained in the National Schools." That is true so far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, and that is the very reason they contend for separate schools, and object to any religious instruction whatever in the mixed schools. Bishop Charbonnel maintained that mixed schools must be wholly secular in the extreme cases in which he would ■consent to Roman Catholic children attend- ing such schools at all. The Bishop's words in one of his letters to me are as follows : *' I say that if the Catechism were sufficiently taught in the family or by the Pastor, so rare in this large diocese, and if the mixed schools were exclusively for secular instruction, and without danger to our Catholics in regard to masters, books, and covipardons, the Catholic Hierarchy 1 might tolerate it, aa I have done in certain local- ities, after having made due inquiry." The very object therefore at which you . and Mr . Dorion professed to have aimed, is the very thing to which the Catholic J Bishop objects in niLved schools — showing how little you knew of what you were do- ling, or that your negociations were a farca, , ranees," ho has not one word to say. In fact all our information on this subject has been derived from Lower Caiiatla sources— as well as the proof of his '■ bargain and sale of Upper Canada rights 1 ♦ For note on Mr. Brown's consistency on the . question of "Prussian despotism" in our school sys- tem, see note on page 70. If " Prussian despotism" said by Mr. Brown to have been introduced into Up- per Canada by Dr. Ryerson, merited his (Mr. B s) fierce and reckless denunciation when men believed he had some spark of Upper Canadian patriotism, ■what amount of scorn, and invective should he not indulge in to the man (and that a Lower Canadian too) who would not only force such a calamity upon 'Upper Canada, but evea make Mr. Bi'own the in- strument of idling BO I or a pretext, on your part, to accomplish other objects. 158, The right of the Brown-Dorion G-oTemznent to dictate how much or how little icliyrious instruc- tion shall ho given in the schools questioned. — Example of Prussia. Then, Sir, by what right, religious, legal or constitutional were you and Mr, Dorion going to introduce a law to say how much or little religious instruction should be given in our national schools ? That is a right that belongs to the parents and pastors of the children, and the elected Trustees of each school — not to you, or Mr. Dorion, or myself, or the Legislature itself. You proposed to usurp an authority which the National Board of Education in Ireland — despotic as it is — does not assume. Vou seemed to have imagined that v/e are living in the palmiest days of Church and State union ! Nay, that under your " little brief authority," Upper Canada (for Mr. Dorion had "checked'' you out of tiOwcr Canada,) had already become a Belgium or a Prus- sia, the former of which is the most Ca- tholic country of Northern Europe, and the latter makes larger "compromises'' in be- half of separate schools for Protestant and Roman Catholic than we do by the separate school law of Upper Canada.* • Tlio Riitht Hon.>C. B. Alderley. M.P. {VicnTreBi- dent of the Privy Council Co'umittec on Education-, in an address iiear Birmingham, on thi? 7th January, 1S59, thus points out the difference in the right of a Government such as ours, and that of Prussia, to dictate what sliall and what shall not be the namre and amount of the religious iusiruction to be given in the schools, Mr. Adderley said : " Let him disabuse the minds ofall those uiterested in this im- portant question of the oft-quoted example which other countries present to us, but which he believed to be wholly inapplicable to our case. They were continually meeting with speakers in and out of Parliament who cited Prussia, Austria, and France in this manner, "Well, these countries had autocratic Governments, where the sovereign power did every thhtff for the people, and the people did nothing for themselves. Other orators threw in our teeth the institutions of America, but in that country there was a tyrant of another description equally fatal to individuality of action— he meant the will of the masses. England did not present either the one or the othr of these phases, but something between the two, and tc his mind something vastly superior and prefer- able to either, (Applause,) Here the rule was that the State should in no case interfere, except where it was absolutely necessary. In autocratic countries there wais a king natron, who gave education as he pleased, as in France, where the whole system was organised by the Oovomment ; whilst in Ptus- sia they went still further, and so got rid of what was a great dijflcutty in our way— namely, the po- iicy of the State, atfording not only education but religioji to the people, I» Prussia there was a government of religion, concocted by the GovBBN- MENT, AKD OF COURSE BWPORCED ON THB FEOPLB. In America the difficulty was removed in a ditferent way— by elimination— the religious element was omit- ted alt<^ether. that primary part whicli this country never could consent to eliminate, (Cheers.) Eng* land, therefore, could not imitate the examples of either autocratic or democratic countries. Where' then, in this country ought the State to interfere ? He maintained that nere the State should not aid or interfere with anythingwhich could poesibly be done without its amifltaacei The State must do all aggre* 93 accomplish G-oTemxnent iy:ioiis iiistruc- quostloned.— gious, lej^l Mr. Dorioii how much should be That is a and pastors d Trustees ^Ir. Dorion, tself. You which the ; Ireland — ume. You e are living and State ' little brief Mr. Dorion L'r Canada,) 1 or a Prus- i most Ca- pe, and the ses'' in be- itestant and he separate 11 Education-, » 7ch January, the rij?ht of a jf Prussia, to be the naiure 11 to be ffiven " Let ■ him ed in this im- tainple which :h he believed . They were II aud out of , and France ad autocratic ver did every 1 did nothing our teeth the lountry there lually fatal to i will of the the one or the ween the two, jr and nrefer- e was that the lept where it I tic c(Hintrie« education as whole system ilst in Prus' t rid of what mely, the po» ducation but tliere was a tlie GovBBS- IHK PEOPLB. in a ditferent ent was omit' this country hecrs.) Eug* examples of lies. Where* to interfere ? lid not aider sibly be done do all aggre- 159. Three men of irreconcilable views in School matters Tivcpiiring to settle the school question of Upper Canada on a satisftwlory basis. And then as a climax of the puerile, in- consistent and absurd proceeding.s by which our ;school system was to be revolutionized and myself superseded, Mr. McGee was to patronize you as your ^' political ally," in establishinj^ what you call "one uniform system of instruction and manajiement for the common schools." And Mr. McGee says you did not sacrifice your principles in these iiei^otiations. That is possible — for where nothing is, nothing can be sacri- ficed. Hut the political and moral pheno- menon is. the triumvirate of yourself, the man of no separate schools, and Mr. Dorion, the advocate of what you called the "in- famous" separate school bill of 1855, and 4 Mr. McGee, the man of nothing but sepa- rate schools, the man who would as soon tlirow his " little prattling daughter, with eyes blue as ocean water" into Lake Onta- rio as to s^end her to the mixed school — such a triumvirate becoming "political al- lies" to establish " one uniform system of in- struction and management for the common schools" of Upper Canada ! Mr. Dorion, from hisnoint of viewof the separate school bill of 1855, you from the point of view that that |bill was a deadly blow aimed at the school system of Upper Canada, and Mr. McGee fioin the point of view "we only want to keep our children out of your common schools," all, as you state in your explanation, " arrive at the conviction that you could bring down to Parliament a measure which, by giving increased religi- ous instruction, would enable us to disconti- nue separate schools, with the assent of all reasonable men in Parliament and out of it!'' Mr. McGee declaring that it is the asso- ciation of the mived school that constitutes the danger to faith and morals, and the sacred right of Roman Catholics to have separate schools, without the full recognition of which no Government can stand ; yet a political ally with you to "discontinue se- parate schools ;" and no sacrifice of prin- ciple on either side ! Now such a coalition to establish and extend a system of mixed schools is impossible ; but such a coalition to weaken and destroy it is perfectly con- sistent and natural. 160. The personal attack of Mr. Brown's "ally" in Parliament apt)l(mded hv the Globe, as being thankful for tho srnaliisst favor, while the 800,000 men are not even worthy of a line. I have now a few words to say to Mr. McGee, ^iid then a few words to you both, gate uational acts— such as the conduct of war and of foreign atl'airs, the administration of finance, and of the laws—but it. was a distinct rule and principle in thlB country that aught else should be left for the people to do themselves, simply because they could do tt best, and wore iuteretitcd iu its being douc" and then to dismiss you to your reflections. Mr. McGee has taken [the first occasions possible, iu the present session, to assail me from his place in Parliament in terms of the grossed insult, slander, and abuse.* A gentleman in Hamilton, the other day, characterised to me Mr. McGee's fiist speech (as I had not seen it) as consisting of three parts — the first part as, an elf usion of dis- gusting e^o.ism ; the second, an evacua- tion of filthy abuse ; the third, a cringing, wolf-like suppliancy for confidence and in- dulgence — until he can get his 300,000 men in fightina: order, for a second Irish cam- paign in Upper Canada. That speech you praise in the Globe as a master-piece of Legislative eloquence, especially its as- saults upon me, while you keen from your readers Mr. McGee's threat of 300,000 cru- saders of " More power to the Pope ;'' as also the Hon. Mr. iSicolte's statement of his " flat refusal'' of a seat in your Cabinet, to which you invited him, after you had held him up in the Cflobe as an unworthy minister.f 161. The career of the valiant McG-ee— In what respect he resembles the " eloquent tools" of O'Connell. To the accusations of Mr. McGee's speech I have amply replied in the preceding let- ter. The abuse emitted is but the breath of his congenial atmosphere. He had chal- lenged me through the Globe, and to his surprise, I accepted his challenge. But does he come up to the charge of his own seek- ing? No, he flees from the pnss, where I can meet him on equal terms, and slinks behind a barrier where I cannot meet him at all ; and from his privileged enclosure he vociferates calumnious ribaldry at plea- sure. Though a fool is often witty, and sometimes eloquent, he cannot reason. The veteran O'Connell's " eloquent fools'' never reasoned. They boasted, they slandered, they declaimed,, they threatened, they con- spired, they rebelled, they ran away ! To reason is foreign to Mr. McGee's nature and habits. He can insult the Queen and her representative ; he can insult the British throne, calling it, 8S he did in December, 1854, "the old harlot of nations," exclaim- ing, " blessed be God who permitted us to see the day of her tribulation and rejoice.'' He can insult the Protestants of Upper Ca- nada, declaring thnt the worst danger to the fahh and morals of Catholic children is their grouping with Protest-vnt children, denounc- ing the school law because "it assumes that all sects are equal," and exclaiming, " we have never been a sect, and will not consent " To keep up the reality of tho " alliance," Mr Brown fbils not to echo these petty slanders of his "ally."— See notes on pages 80 and 83. See notes on pages 95 aud 96. 94 to write ourselves down beside every ism of yesterday !" Mr. McGee may, last of all, insult and abuse me, but all this is only proof of his want of capacity and resources to establish anything tiiat he has asserted, and that 1 have ilisproved. He attempts not to prove what he had alleged — that ine school system in Ireland was acceptnble to the hierarchy and clergy of all denomina- tions in Ireland ; nor do you or Mr. Dorion attempt to establish that absurd statement, Ireland is no longer put forward by you, Bel- gium and Prussia are becoming your favorite standards of appeal, and are now heard of for the first time as forming part of your July negotiation ; but if need be, I shall exhibit the characteristics of their school systems as I have those of the Irish system, so far as they have not been alreaay incorporated into our o*vn pch(x)I system,* Nor does Mr. McGee attempt to prove nny one of the propositions I q noted from his speeches in the seventh of this series of letters, much less what he denied and colled upon me to prove in his challenging letter. To reason requires common sense; Mr. McGee does not therefore reason. To reason truly re- quires common honesty; the light of such investigation Mr, McGee dreads as does the owl the light of day. 162, Mr. Brown's ability to reason viewed in the O'CouneU liKlit,— Sfiiupies.— Furtlier personal dis- distinetions merited. In this respect you and Mr. McGee stand upon a par. You both hate the light of knowledge on the school question, and lor the simple reason that your deeds against it are evil. The light that I have thrown upon the Irish National system by the extracts given and the comparisons instituted in my last Annual lleport, has filled you with dis- may and indignation, instead of exciting your gratitude, as it would have done, had you wished the Canadian public to be fully informed on the subject. In the absence of any justification of your conduct, and being unable to refute what I have proved in my report, you seek to divert attention from your own weokness and misdeeds by per- sonal assaults upon me ; and to every fact and argument I urge in regard to the school law and school system, you reply, "you are a ' defaulter,' a ' plunderer,' a ' stealer ' of public money." Ttiis is the staple of your and Mr. McGee's argumentation — the perfection of your logic ; a species of argu- ment which you seem to have adopted from the Marquis in Moukre's — Critique de VEcoU des Femmes : Tarte d la oertve — morbku, tarte d la crS'tne !" ^^ Eh bien, que vie^lx tu dire, tarte d la crime ?" " Parbleu, * See extrafit from th« Eight Hcai. Mr. Adderky's speech on pa^c 92. tarte d la crSme^ chevalier!" ^' Maia en- core ?" * * Tarte d la c rime !" " De-nous un pen tesraisons." " Tarte d la creme ! Mais il faut expliqucr ta pensee, ce me scmble." " 2\irte d la cthne." " Que trouvez-vous la d redire .^" " Moi, rien ; — tarte d la crime .'" Now for Mr. McGee's poetic genius, as displayed inmy seventh letter, and for your powers of argumentation, in replying, with the aid of Mr, McGee, to my varied argu- ments on the school question by the simple magic words "defaulter," '* plunderer," ♦'stealer,'' it ^eems to me that he deserves the title of Poet Ixiurcate to Lcs Femrries Savantes of Aloleire, while you certainly merit not only the title of "Honorable," but that oi Marquis — Marquis de VEcoledes Pemmes ; two European titles of honor con- ferred on two distinguished ]\[alheureitx of Canada, whose merits have been so over- ^ looked by the country to whose shores they have been driven by the adverse winds of other climes. 163. Significance of the alliance that only! Mr. lirown and liis "ally" shall comhino to assail Dr. Ryorson.— The flaancial biographies of both these "allies" promised. But there is a more serious view of this subject to be taken That two members of the [legislature (and to the honor of Canada, two only) should combine, not to answermy arguments, not to show that my doctrines on the school system are unsound, and my recommendations and measures bad, but to destroy my character, by assailing me ia every possible mode of accusation and abuse, is an event as novel as it is ominous.* I have answered your accusations by dis- * It is KratifVinp to observe that whcnover the suc- cess of the School system has been mentioned in the House, and the efforts of L>r, Ryerson to promote that object alluded to, such remarks have been wol received. The following report from the Leader of a recent reference of this kind, in which the Hon. Sidney Smith, Postmaster Gi^nl., repelled with spirit; the attacks of the chief of the McGee alliance, are peculiarly «ratifying and encouraitiiif?. Mr. Smith said :— " With respec^t to the malignant attacks made by the senior member for Toronto on the Chief Su- perintendent of Education, their malignity would be their best antidote. That Rev. gentleman had ren- dered the greatest services to Canada and made him- self a name which wonld live while the country lasted. (Cheers.) Upper Canada would not stand in its present proud position were it not for the efforts of the Chief Superinti^ndent of Education. (Cheers.) The school system presided over by tliat Rev. gentle- man was the best that could be devised. Probably it might hnvG been amazingly improved had the mem- bi!rs of the short-lived Cabinet succeeded in getting information from Prussia, Ireland and Belgium on the subject of education. The late proposed liberality of the senior meml^er foi" Toronto would not, surely, be unfruitfid. Time was when he professed no such wi-sh to know anything about, much less to copy the systems of education pursued in Roman (Tatholio countries like Bejgiuji. (Hear, hoar.) gfeo far as he (Mr. Smith) was personally concerned, "is opinions on the school system of Canada were the same now as they were when in company with the Attorney General West of the Brown-Doriou Cabinet (Mr. J. Sanfield McDonald), he had voted agaiuat cbaugins the present system. (Hear.) as <, Mais eii- me ! Mais le acmble.^' ez-vfms la la er^me /" renins, aa for your y ini?, with lied argu- le simpJe nnderer," B deserves Fcmmes certainly norable," rEcolc dee lonor con- en so over- ^ hores they i winds of at only! Mr. to assail Dr. if both these ew of thi» nembers of of Canada, answer my doctrines d, and my bad, but to lin^' me in lation and 1 ominous.* >ns by dis- pver the suc- tioned in the 1 to promote ve been wel iH Leader of ch theHoa fl with spirit alliance, are Mr. Smith ittacks made he Chief Su- ity would be lan had ren- (l made him- the country not stand in ir the efforts m. (Cheers.) Itev. gentle- f robably it d the mem- ?d in j^ettiuK BelKium on ;ed liberality 1 not, surely, ssed no such to copy the an Catholic 1^ far as he Ris opiniona e same now le Attorney •inet (Mr. J. st cbangins 95 I CLisslniT them .sD'fV/f/j/r. Piut there - ..nother mode of defending the accused, «hiJOst in- variably resorted to in judicial proceedin<(s —namely, that of showing, from the charac- ter and conduct of the accusers, th'-^ their statements are unworthy of credit, and their proceedings are malicious. I have not yet advanced to this legitimate part of my de- fence, nor do I wish to do so unless com- pelled by your persistence in your abomi- nable course of proceeding. Thefinanc-al biographies of yoursidf and Mr. McGee, embodying much that would be entirely new to the Canadian public, wotild be an appropriate sequel to these letters, and a ju.st retort of your accusatic(ns nirniiist my- self and other public men. Hut 1 forbear at present. I have, in conclusion, to make two re- marks. The first relates to Mr. McGee's threat of a confederation of 30(),()()(.) men at liis back, which is in imitation of the late O'Conneil, who used to threaten the British House of Commons with seven millions at his back, and also of the Irish confedera- tion that used to threaten England with more than a hundred thousand Irish patri- ots, good men and true, and armetl to the teeth. Mr. McGee is already commencing his old vocation in Canada. Though he slandered O'ConneU to the death, he at- tempts to clothe himself with the olil lion's skin ; bat the braying from beneath it is not the roar of the old monarch. However, the fact of a man threatening in the face of the Commons of Canada that a large reli- gious commuidty of 300,000 is at his back as a political confederation, and that man a traditional rebel against the Queen, a de- nouncer of her throne as " the old harlot of nations ;'' a praiser of Goil for her " tribu- lation ;" an avowed enemy of our system of public instructi the first and vital elements of our country's progressive civilization can impose no checks to your all-abs(»rbing am- bition, the difiusion of knowledge and the substratum of good sense and sound patriot- ism in the mass of the people, may save tho present and future generations of Upper Canada from the catastrophe of success in signed by Mr. Brown's Eomaa Catholic allies in Toronto. * See especially pages 13, 49, 57 (a note), 80, S7 , and 88 (a note). 96 1 ycur and Mr. McGee's most unnatural and most proll' I'yato combination.* 165. The "Westminster Review" and the Her. Robert Hall, on such oicii lu Mr. Brown. Sirj I can truly say tliat, though I have individual partialities, I clierish no political party predilections. My strongest earthly • Mr. 'Brown in a recent speech affects to disclam roapousibility for tiio disitraeeful articles whieli almost daily appear in the Glohe, as l^eHcems ashamed of them ; but in the editorial reply to Dr. R,. of not later than the 16th Deo. last, he Ih jmniponxly announced «i " Editor-in-Chief avd Proprietor" of that paper. If such a relation to a new.spajwr (including? its whole control and manaKoment) does not alao include responsibility for its articles— its whole tone and spirit,- then it would be imposHitile to bring home responsibility to any one, unless the more manly Trench system of siKuinu: each article with the nnmo of the writer were followed. Mr. Brown adopts the Enjrlish system of editoiial ni!inn«ement ancf must abide by it. He cannot adopt the English anonymous system and plead the French individual system, with- out fairly and honestly carrying it out. But ho will do neither, as he prefers the fast and loose system by which he can without detection or responsibility infuse deadly poison into the heart of the community : In the report of the recent speech of Attorney General Macdonald, the followinR very ju.st remarks occur which are, as usual, carefully suppressed in the Glohe :—'• \Ae (the Attorney General) was bound to say that although there liad been somo hard hitting on both sides, the debates had generally been conducted with fairness, and truth bad been evolved. There had been one or two exceptions, however. One of them was tho junior member for Montreal, (Mr, McGee). Tho other exception was the hon. njerahi.T for Toronto, (Mr. Brown) who hadal'.vays heen an exception, for he invariably commenced his orations by attacking tho character and motives of his political adversaries. All the other members of the House had but one means of communicating their views to the i)ublic, viz., by the reports of their speeches, and if they said anything harsh or im- proper, after it was said they had to abide by it, lor it went abroad. Not so the hon. member (Mr. Brown) of whom he was speaking, for he had a press for his own special use, and If he failed to say any- thing at night in the House, he could and did say it next morninf/ in the Globe, and what hewasafraid to say to hon. members to their face, he wrote behind their backs and published to the world. BDT But this teas not all, for if any other hon. member said aniithiug which he thought would mili' tate against his interests, he coolly suppressed it from the reports o which were presumed to give an lioiicst view of the discussions. As a case in point, he would only refer to the explanation of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, (Mr.Sicotte) which it did not suit the member tor Toronto to print, and so it was suppressed. This, however, was not very sur- pi-ising when all tho. circumstances were taken into account. It was well known !iow he had sneered at and disparaged the abilities of Mr. Sicotte, how he had impugned Jiis integrity cts a ^jyublic man and did all in his power to ruin htm; yet he had found it desirable to invite him to form part of his Government! Yes, the very man lie had so lately maligned and slandered. It was equally well known, too. how the member for St. Hyacinthe had mof those advances, and how in this House he had explained that he had given Mr. Dorion a "flat refusal." AVas it to be wondered at that he had snp. pressed this piece of intelMgence ? Not at all. The public were indebted to Dr. Ryerson for ample proofs of the system of the suppression and mutilation towards adversaries, so uniformly practised by that hon. member, who wrote himself " proprietor and editor 'in-chief r of the paper. But of what MW was wiflh is, the happiness, progress and grandeur of my native coimtry. That vital principle of progress and consequent grandeur, you are daily aasaUing. The Westminster Review for July, 1850, well remarked, ^^ It is individual character that onistitutcs progress." Sir, it is individual haracter that you are every day endeav ing to destroy, while by making your politics a mere conc^ritiou about men and place, you contribute to comipt society, and imder- mine the foimdations of ptxbhc lil)erty. I invite you, in conclusion, and entreat tho reader to ponder well the following words of that princely orator of the Baptist pulpit in England, and eloquent advcwato of civil and religious liberty — the late Robert Hall:— " The era of parties, flowing from the anima- tion of freedom, is ever followed by an crii ,:,f faction, which 'marks its feebleness and decay. Parties are founded on principle, factions on me7i ; under the first, the people are contending for a system that shall be pursued ; under the second, they are candidates for servitude, and are ouly debating wAo«c livery they shall wear." " When they see men united who agree in nothing but their hostility to the minister, they fall at first into amazement and irresolution ; till, perceiving political debate ia a mere scramble for profit and power, they endeavor to become as corrupt as their betters. It is not in that roar of faction which deafens the ear and sickens the heart the voice of Liberty is heard. She turns from the disgusting seetio, and regards these struggles as the pangs and cou- vulsious in which she is doomed to expire." I have, (fee, E. RYErSOX. Toronto, Feb. 2iid, 1859. it to he proprietor and editor-in chief, if one could not use the paper for one's owii pmyyoscs / How- ever, it would bo remembered, how conveniently the hon. member disavowed in this Honse what it was inconvenient for him to be responsible for in the Glohe. Oh no ! he had not written the offensive article ! or he had never seen it 1 or ho was absent at the time! or could not read all that was written! Now, would not every honest man see tiiat the proprietor and editor-in-etiief of a paper gave it the direction which he desired it to liave, and that any one who presumed to put rnything in it adverse to liis views would come under censure. But, supposing that an article he disapprovetl of ap- peared without his consent, was it not quite com- petent for him, on the next issue, to withdraw tlie offensive writing aiid to make amends ? But who had ever known the Globe to make a retraction or to apologize for a slanderous and untrvthftil report '!" In estimating the value of Mr. Brown's disclainer of responsibility for the Globe's editorirds, it should never be forgotten that these very editorials arc on the eve of every general or particular election care- fully culled, and the most disgraceful and poisonous of them reprinted with a view to damage the cliarae- ter aud interests of every opposing candidate. « ;\ d gi'andeur il principle ndeiir, you Aisfmiuster remarked, constitutes haracter nng to politics a place, you nd under- il)erty. I ntreat tho ring words otist pulpit ato of civil 3 Robert tte aniina* :)y an err. v.f and decay. factions on Cdutending under the vitude, and shall wear." ) agree in nister, they rresolution ; 18 a mere endeavor to It is not in the ear and ■ty is heard. seeno, and igs and ecu- expire." if one rould osc.i / How TOnieiitly the :! what it was le for in the tho offensive n was absent II that waa ?st man see Jf of a paper to have, and lything in it ider censure. )rovetl of ap. t quite (.'om- nthflraw the But who had 'nction or to fttl report '!" "s disclaioier Is, it should )ria)s arc on election care- k1 poisonous e thoc)iarac- idale. APPE ND I X / TO i, DR. RYERSOi^'S LETTERS lis EEPLT TO THE ATTACKS OF MR. BROWN. Note. — In the foregoing letters and notes, examples arc given of the s[)irit of the Globe, in 185.") and other years, in regard to the Rowan Catholic Clmrch and its Priests ; and from numerous Editorials of the Globe during tlie venrs 185G and 1857, relating to the Roman Catholic Church and Separate Schools, the following few extracts are made, — illustrative of the general spirit and character of the sentiments and proceedings by which jNIr. Brown has obtained tlie confidence and supj)ort of a large portion of the Protestants of Upper Canada, and in the fa^e of all of which he has formed an ultra-Roman Catholic coalition, by which he receives the support of the very class of Priests, and those under their influence, against whom he, in past years, so warned the people of Upper Canada. Mr. Brown, in a recent speech in the Legislative Assembly, objected to being held personally responsible for all that appeared in his own paper! If he writes himself "Editor-in-Chief," as well as "Proprietor" of the Globe, and is not responsible for its Editorials, who is ? No other name appears on the paper, and of whom besides 'Mr. Brown can any injured party seek redress, or who else than he is responsible to the public for the Editorials and character of the Globe ? Only to think of the IJead of a Department not being respon- sible for the documents which go forth from his own Department, because he has clerks or assistants to aid him, and who write many of his letters ! And how woidd such a Head of a Department appear, when called to an account for such letters, to say, " Oh ! I did not write them myself; such and such a clerk wrote them ?" But Mr. Brown actually employs persons to write for him, and then pretends that he is not responsible for what they write ! This paltry subterfnge of Mr. Brown, to shirk the responsibility of what he is the "Editor- in-Chief," is as shabby as it is unmanly and absurd. But the following extracts of his Editorials are only specimens of what characterized the Globe for years, and therefore present a mirror of Mr. Brown's late sentiments, and spirit, and avowed objects. He objects now to their reproduction and exposure, thus casting discredit on their truthfulness and sincerity ; but has he not him- self, on the eve of every election contest, cut and culled from these very Editorials, the most envenomed of his daily assaults upon every man who dared to differ with him, or whose convictions and independence led him to vote in opposition to Mr. Brown. 98 it -m la (From the Ghho, Wth Dcccmhcr, 1855.; 1. " Bishop Chvuhonnel in tiik Fikld. — Manifksto for I'loTEHUono'. — NV'c piibliNh helow a circular iusit issued by the Ilif^ht Reverend Fatlior ui (lod, Doctor Armandus Francis Mary, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Toronto, to his clergy, on the subject of separate ncIiooIs. ■*♦■** In his circuhir, he not only commands them to work for the candidate who will carry out most effectually the objects of the Church, but he offers himself to assist in tlie labour, and wo expect to hear soon that the Right Reverend Father is stumping the County of Peterboro' on behalf of Mr. Conger, as he did that of Kent in 1851, in support of Mr. Rankin. It is of no use, then, for the sup- porters of the priest policy and party to attempt to cover over the game which the Roniish clergy are playing; their Toronto chief has, with his usual open-mouthed indiscretion, shown thoir hand. We give Dr. Charbonnel credit for more openness of character and less astuteness than generally mark the Romish priest. * * * We imagine that this will settle at once and for ever all attempts to prove that the contest in Peter- boro' is not a struggle whether the ideas of the ultra-montane Roman Catholic, or of the liberal Protestant shall prevail. Dr. Char- bonnel and his friends have chosen a side — is their candidate Mr. Conger or Mr. Fergu- son? Let that question be answered by another — who do the Roman Catholics of Peterboro' support ? Does one of them say a word for Mr. Ferguson ? Are not all working for Mr. Conger ? * * * Here is Bishop Charbonnel on the one side, a foreign priest, not long from Rome, who can neither write nor speak English, who tells you what he wants and what he must have, lie does so with an infinite amount of confidence, which shows that he relies on the strong phalanx of French Canadian Roman Catho- lics to support his claim. He lays down the law, and we do not wonder at it. The suc- cess which the priest party have met with in purchasing Upper Canadian support mj.y well make them confident. They can hardly help believing that they have the monopoly of power. We desire to ask the electors of Peterboro' whether they are willing to put their necks under the foot of this foreign priest — whether they are willing that he shall choose the institutions under which their children shall be trained ? They know too well what misery Popish authority has brought on all countries where it has been endured, to have any hesitation in answering. (From the Daily Globe, 11th July, 1856. ) 2. "A Newspaper Peelate. — Our readers are aware that Bishop Charbonnel has found it necessary of late to *• ride the hiu;h horse," — if a vulgar phrase may b(> allowed,— in order that certain heedless porti his Cor- (1 iitirl tho IJishop's cteil to. puriRcnt rebuking L'e, erring wed ino- going at titided on sing from vo hear of names of iiiond, and •n several g on and iteni at all (' no com* rs no such nd above- icy, to its Protestant icm to the rhpy must >{)," as the lip, and to stray into I devising, ink better •Jy, 1856.; 5 Friends. 1 between in the Min- is not the iped Kent )1, he ful- 1855, and Cauchon, er, with a e thermo- hese cases denounced Michael's lot unlike the Kent object of r making a 3rt was to ut he has that if he will drive g all that y that the )athy from h us In ilia work. * * * There is no doubt as to the principles upon which C'nuchon & Co. were elected. Cauchon himself gained great popularity in Lower Canada as a defender of tlie Church ; heop[)osed Mr. Morin's Govern- ment becuuHe thai gentleman had gone the moderato length of Mr. Ilincks' liberalism; he denounced western reformer^i as infidels and sociulinty, and decried ev. ry one who dared to have anything to do with them. Mr. Drummond, iMr. Carticr, and Mr. Le- micux, thougli not so warm in their ultra- montanism as Mr. Cauchon, were (juite as fully committed to the schemes of the Church as the Editor of the Jovnud been abolished in the pulpit, to continue it in the academy is utterly ridicu- lous and inconsistent. Let us have one uni- form comprehensive se.cvlar system of com- mon schools open to all and fitted for nlL Let those who like them not abstain from doing so, as they please. To speak of " con- scientiousness'' beyond this must lead to all sorts of absurd conclusions. As for religious instruction, it is no more than the duty of the clergy of all denominations to superin- tend its diffusion amongst their respective flocks. (From the Globe, 23rd October, 1856.; 8. " The Sauoeem Election-Who Votes ? — Who will not spend one or two days, and the small amount of trouble and expense it will involve, to cast hi.s vote against the road-jobber (Mr. Beaty) and the office-hunt- ing Ministerial lawyer (Mr. Patton), and for the independent merchant (Mr. McMurrich) — the honest champion of liberal principles and Upper Canadian interests ! * * * The screw must be turned a little tighter ; job- bing and chiselling must have another chance ; the taxes must go up 25 per cent, higher ; the priests of Rome must cover the country with their monasteries ; Catholic institutes and Catholic schools must be maintained by the public revenues ; they must be allowed to establish their system upon us by law, firmly and irrevocably, and then those who are now indifferent will pro- bably wake up to the dangers that surround them, and struggle for deliverance. We hope it may not bo too late ; but political evils can be averted much easier than they can be removed, when once fairly on our backs. (From the Globe, 27th October, 1856.; 9. "The Roman Catholic IssuE.-In Upper Canada there are not " upwards of 300,000 Roman Catholics ;" at last census there were * Sco tho late Hon. Mr. Baldwin on such silly Tea* soaiag, page 74. r* 101 another > t/ but 167,695 Roman Catlinlics. [Then ihe McGce urrny must hn\e sndly dwindled away, or he inu«t hiivo ri'fkoned without hinno.'if!] If is not •' wc" who a»Humc "a hostile altitude towiirds n nuiss so immense," but they towardH us ; and by the wretched subserviency of the Lidder and its mastcrg, they rule the J'rovince. " The issue that Mr. Hrown would now force upon us," we can well conci. ivc to he one of " most terrible import" to the Lradcr and all its myrmidons — for the day it is deterniined will be fatal to the whole tril)e of politicians who live by pandering to Roman Catholicism. To no other class of Upper Canadians "could the entire success of Mr. Hrown's demands be in the slightest degree alarming. He asks but Representation by Population, Non-sec- tarian National Pxlucation, the discontinu- ance of all State 8ut)3idie8 for ecclesiastical purposes, economy in the public expenditure, and a gradual assimilation of legislation for both sections of the Province. [This was the Brown buncombe style of writing before. the famous alliance, and before the " checks," '• assurances," and '* guarantees" were given by Mr. Brown that he would do nothing of the kind.] (From the Globe, 21th November, 185G.; 8. " Rbligion and Politics. — It is very (me that, in prosecuting the reform of abuses, we have come into contact very frequently with the Romish hierarchy. We defy any body of Reformers to carry out their well known principles and steer clear of that Church. They will meet it at every turn, interfering in all important matters, and influencing when it cannot control. The favored Church of one section of the Pro- vince, holding large grants of public lands, and collectitjg tithes under the authority of the State, she has the most urgent reasons for interfering in politics, and, unfortunately, possesses but too much power in the control vrhich she exercises over the consciences of her adherents. Not content with her exclu- sive rights in Lower Canada, she seeks to place Upper Canada also under her dominion. Her Bishops order the Ministers of the Crown to grant them exclusive privileges in educational matters, and, though sorely un- willing, they obey. And because we oppose this power, great as it is, and wielded with a total disregard of popular rights, we are told that we are "abandoning the reform of abuses, to agitate sectarian questions !*' We have opposed the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, when they demand- ed exclusive privileges, and are we to be called sectarians because we also oppose the Church of Rome, the most grasping and tyrannical of Churches, the ally of despotism in every country in whicii it has a foothold? Ask the liberals of the continent of Europe what |)owt r tlit'v dreai' mo«t, nnd they will tell you thai it is neilliir King nor Kaiser, but the Pope and his priesthood. What they oppose there, we oppose hi-ie, becuust: we find the Church of Home to he the same in America as it is in Kurope — the enemy of education anti lihi rty. If we were to accept the Anjiis ns the exponcrit of the views of the liberals of Lower Canada, we should conclude that we were not to have their aid in working out liberal vit ws in op- position to the Churchmen ; but we do not accept our contemporary as such. We know too well the views ol Lower Camidians to think that they can now be priest-led as of yore. They may fnr a moment be blinded by motives of expediency, or daunted by the difficultes of their course, but their course, though slow, will undoubtedly ho onward. Whatever may be the views of Lower Cana- dians, howtver, there can be no stop in the movements ol Upper Canadian Reformers, (From the Globe, 10th December, 1850.; 9. "Our ' Fanaticism.' — The policy of the Roman Catholic Church in this country is to " separate" its followers from the rest of the community, in the school, ii\ the legisla- ture, and even in their tttritorial habitation We are told that the agitation of politico- religious questions is chargeable exclusively to the Globe ; that our " fanaticism." and not any substantial grievance of which we can justly complain, is at the bottom of all the opposition we have lately directed against the Church of Rome. But what is the fact ? Will our opponents, even our non-catholic opponents, listen to the interested clamour raised against us, and shut their eyes to the daily proofs that the offence of mixing sec- tarianism with politics lies at the door of the Romish party, and not at ours. We have repeatedly denied the charge, and given abundant proof that our opponents are the aggressors. But none are i^o blind as those who will not see. Journalists and politicians who expect to attain the objects of their ambition through tho aid of a particular sect, need not be expected to discover any faults in the priestly rulers of that sect, nor any thing objectionable in their dem-n.' for ex- clusive privileges and special fa ou s from government. [As has just been exc v plified in the Brown-McGee triumph in North W^ellington!] * * * "We do not deny, be- cause (dl history proves, that, if it be dan- gerous to the peace and blighting to the prosperity of a country, to build up the power of a priesthood by Legislative favours and public grants, it is especialljr dangerous and fearfully blighting to do so in the case 102 of RoiTiD. The reasons in support of tho doctrine that there should be no connection between Church and State are greatly in- tensified when that particular system is in question. In Lower Canada there is a direct connection between the Church of Rome and the State. 'J he political power of its priesthood, and their determination to use that power whenever the interests of the body can bo promoted by it, are facts that can neither be ignored, nor explained away. Tho same denominational power is seen and felt in every election in Upper Canada. It has become an element of potent influence in every political movement. TAc mod ua- sopht/itlciUcd pdlitician knoivs that the lio- man Catholic vote is, as nearly as possihe, a unit, mill that if he wuxdd secure it, there is but on.e way open to h.bn. He must pay Hie price ; he vuiM sign the bond ; he mud agree to yice Borne ivhat she demands, or he must do v)ii]u)iit Rome's vote. [Mr. Browti having obtained tho Catholic vote in Toronto and North V.'cllington, has of course paid the price and signed the bond.] Does it lie in the mouth of such a power as this, to object to the mention of religion in the political arena? Are we to be told by its toadies, its servile apologists of the press, that tec are "fanning the flames of religious discord," because we rnise our voice against it, and put forth our hand to resist its encroachments ? Let the Roman Catholics content themselves with the same protection, the same rights, the same privileges that are guaranteed to the rest of the conmuuuty, — let them cease to appear in the Council Chamber or the Legislature as a sect ; let them not ask to be recognised by a religious ear-mark, and they vidll have no occasion to complain against us for "fanning the flames of religious discord.'' Roman Catholicism, as a religious system, must submit to investigation, must endure the friction of public discussion, and the weight of adverse opinion, in common with all other systems that appeal to the reason and judgment of mankind. But when it comes into the political arena, and attempts to bend the power of Government to its purpose, it must be prepared to encounter the determined resistance of every en- lightened citizen, of every lover of freedom, of every friend of civil liberty, and religious equality. {From the Globe, Idth December, 1856.) 10. " A Conservative Partt.— The at- tempt to form a strong "Conservative" party in Upper Canada, without principles — unless the shadowy and intangible ideas suggested by the name itself may pass for T .^ciples — will be found a much more diflScuIt operation than the Colonist seems to imagine. * * * One fact, at which we barely hinted yesterday, will show our readers that Upper Canada has nothing to hope for from a resuscitated Conservative parry. The would-be organs of this coming party, give, without exception, an uncertain souu'i upon the sectarian questions. They are either mum, or loosely Protestant, when- ever the assumptions and demands of Rome are in question. The Oolotiist and his fr:.nnald mov- ape which ape which school sya- ed to these •ee foreign J most im- - Canada. . n to Bishop ence of the af 1865.-- ure of the ierarchy in lan Catho- of them a le country, probably Rome, to smand the public in- Province, raptuously n its popu- priests de- that large jen to the 185T.; 3D.~" The ay is now •Romanist ibers from Its of the Corrigan's uence into issioner of al office, a9 hole Cabi- oalition is ing to the lolic town- to concede ir « right '» ge locality, »tem mem- Eitronage is ^nd at the same time it privately assures them that it yields to the Priests very reluctantly, and no more than it can help." — " Its Frotestantism ia seen in its efforts to propitiate Borne by enormous (jrants to her institutions, taken chiejly from the taxes levied upon the Pro- testants of Upper Canada, in throwing all the power and patronage of the government, i/ti Lower Canada, info the hands of the Komanists of the ultra School, and ignoring the political rv/hts, and even the existence of the Protestants of that section of the Pro- vince," (From the Globe, December 4, 1857.) 15. ** TouoNTo City Election. — In another part of this morning's paper will be found an address to Mr. George lirown, inviting him to stand as a candidate for the city.— -I'he most remarkable feature of this address is, that it bears the signature of the Grand Secretary, and several hundreds of the most respectable and influential members of the Orange Association. We confess that to us this is a most gratifying fact. For many years we have contended that the Opposition in Parliament must, sooner or later, be supported by all men who honestly hold the principles of the Orange Associa- tion. We have watched the changes gradu- ally passing over the public mind, and we cannot regard this Toronto movement other- wise than as the fulfilment of a 'arge instaU fnent of our expectations. Already are the best portion of the Orangemen throughout the country with the Opposition in the con- test going on, and we are persuaded that the event we are to-day recording, will give a new impulse to the movement elsewhere. The question now is the trial of the Minis- try for their misdeeds of the past three years. The question is, the present Government and their supporters have sold their party, their principles, and their country, to the Bomish Priests, for the base consideration of obtaining office. It is that they have attempted to destroy our noble School Sys- tem, at the bidding of the Romish Hie- rarchy." " The Protestant feeling of the country is thoroughly roused, and no machi- nations of the tools of the Ministry can roll back the swelling tide." (From the Globe, Bmember 7, 1857. ) 16. "The City Elections. — The point in dispute is, not whether Tory or Radical shall rule, but whether Upper Canada shall have her rights, whether her schools shall be kept free from Priestly interference, whether Protestant or Pojiish ideas shall triumph in this Province." — "It will be a complete haiUe between Protestant and Catholic, and we need hardly say which will win, even in a place like Toronto." — " The great Protestant heart of Upper Canada is mused, and no where so much so as in Toronto, and it will sweep evervthing before it. All past dissen- sions are U gotten ; all personal feelings laid aside; and there is the most hearty and devoted unanimity in carrying out the great policy of justice to Upper Canada, and opposition to Priestly domination." (From the same. ) 17. " The Orange Society and the Government. — The fact is undoubted, we believe, that the members of the present Ministry have refused to suppoii, or permit the introduction of a Bill to incorporate the Orange Association. We do not know in what way, or by whom, the proposition was laid before them ; but the fact is undoubted, that the Bill, through the influence of the Government, has not been viotroduced, though frequently demanded by tlie people. There can be but one explanation of this phenome- non. The Orange Society is as well entitled to an Act of Incorjmration as the Odd Fel- loios and Freemasons, the Ptible, or Tract, or French Mission Societies; and certainly, as well as the hundred varieties of Monks and Nuns who have had so many charters granted within the last four years. We do not know any good reason why the Orange- men should be refused, when all others enjoy the privilege of suing and being sued in their corporate capacity. We knoio the reason why the Government would not grant it, however. It is because the Papists would not let them. They dared not incur the V'HATH OF D'Arcy McGee, and the Catholic Citizen, the Ottawa Tribune, and such journals. They dared not do justice in the premises." — "It is no wonder that Orange- men should oppose such a government ; the only wonder is that they should have sup- ported it so long."* From the Globe, Dec. 8, 1857. 18. "City Election. — We can tell the Leader and the Government that the ♦ It is marvellous indeed, that th6 man who thus laboured to excite tlie Protestant and Ontnjte feeliuR of the country to its highest pitch, in 1857, who advocated the incorporation of the Orange Associa- tion, who owed his election to OranH;e votes, should ally himself, witliiu six months after, to that very D'Arcy MoGee, whose declared object is not only to prevent the incorporation of the Orange Association, out to exclude all Orangemen from ofRco, to crush them in the dust ! It is equally marvellous to see Mr. Thibaudeau (Mr. Brown's Minister of Agricul- ture) declare, as he does in a recent speech, (quoted in a note on page 69 of theprecedinK letters,) that Mr. Brown, and his party, were the "Natural Allies " of the Roman Catnolics, and that the Globe was no longer hostile to them. Infidelity and the blackest priestcraft cannot do a worse thing to the people of a 106 Orangemen, at whom the Organist's re- marks are pointed particularly, are not false, friends. When thoy tjvke up a candi- date, they go with him to the death. They are not treacherous like Mr. Bowes' allies, huirhig a fair face and a coiiceoied dagger. They ham called out Mr. Brown, and they mean to stick to him." — "What an opinion do the Goveniment entertain of the Orange- men of Toronto ! That body brings out a man, who, we may say without presumption, is a leader among the people, one who has done good service to the Protestant cause in Parliament and in the press. " (From the same. ) 19. "The Issue Presented. — ^The To- ronto correspondent of the Montreal Neio Era, D'Arcy McGee's paper, has tha fol- lowing : ']Mr. Bowes' return, however, may be considered certain, as he will imanimously receive the Catholic vote, which is the largest vote of anybody in the city.' ' ' Here is the issue presented to the people of Toronto ! Mr. Bowes gets the Roman Catholic voti'3, and they will elect him ! Protestants of Toronto, will yoi.i stand idly by and see this done ? Will you be ruled BY THE PETTICOATED GENTLEMEN ON Church Streeet, or will you not unite on two men, who can beat Mr. Bowes, and put them in ?" [Note. — ^Who could have supposed that at the present time, not only has Mr, Brown sold the Orangemen and Protestants who elected him in 1857, but that he is now the ally of those very " petticoated gentlemen of Church Street," c.nd that very "D'Arcy McGee," in the municipal as well as politi- cal elections in Toronto as also in North Wellington and elsewhere !] (From the Globe, Dec. 15, 1857.) 20. " It is for the Protestants of Toronto to say whether they will stand by and per- mit the Roman Catholics to rule the city. Divide etimpera has long been the motto of Kome in every Protestant country, and never was it attempted to be applied more palpably than in this contest," " Why is it that this violent hostility is shown by the Momanists towards Mr. Brown? Simply because he is true to his principles, amd can- not be turned from them by any temptations whatever. And will the Protestant electors permit him to be sacrificed by the machina- tions of the Momanists for such a cause as this .s"' — " T/k; large body of Orangemen xdho brought out Mr. Brown are true to him as steel ; and every day has brought over mem- bers of the Association who at first were in doubt, " — " In this contest, the life and vivacity lias been on the side of Mr, Brown, and it will so continue until the end, Se rests 071 his principles, on his services to the Protestant cause, things which move the masses. a country, than trade with their religious reelings and educational interests for bare political and party purposes. (From the Globe, Dec. 22, 1857.) 21. " Oranoemhn, don't Surrender ! — We are glad to see, that in spite of the eftbi'ts of some of their officials who have sold themselves to the Ministry, a large number of the Orangemen of Upper Canada stand firmly by their Protestant principles in the presint contest with the minions of the Pope. In this city they have done well, and will yet do better. In several of the country constituences the more intelligent of the body, have given their support boldly and honorably to the Opposition, "•;— "In North Wellington the Ministerialists have resorted to the most desperate expedients to inveigle the Orangemen in the service of the Pope." — "Let the Orangemen in every constituency read the sound advice of their Grand Secretary and be guided by it." [Then follows a letter of enquiry from Mr. John Watson, " Master of Loyal Orange Lodge, No, 846, Elora," to which the Grand Secretary replies as follows :] Torokto, Dec. 16, 186^. ** Dear Sie and Bbotheb — I am duly in receipt of yours of the 12th instant. In reply, I beg to say that, if I were satisfied that the promise of a candidate for parlia- mentary honours were worth anything, I would vote for the man who would sweep away the sectarian clause in our School Act. That sectarian clause is but the small end of a wedge to split up our Common School system. The Priests, through their tools in Parliament, will keep hammering at the wedge until they have accomplished their purpose. I earnestly hope the Brethren in North Wellington will exercise a good judg- ment in retuning to Parliament a sound, unflinching, and uncompromising Protes- tant — a man who, without fear or regard for favor, wi'l be steady to his purpose, and maintain his principles. *' I am, dear sir and Brother, Yours, fraternally, (Signc^\ JOHN HOLLAND, " Grand Secretary to the Right Worshipfu the Grand Lodge of British North America.' h tier, w Faith [Mr. service her gu no coi guilty and in at the [The were have who fii School was vi 107 Kjemen loho \e to Mm as over meni- irat were in e life and !llr. Brown, 3 end. He rvices to the h move the 1857.) URBENDER ! spite of the 3 who have try, a large )per Canada principks in nions of the ) done well, iveral of the intelligent of )port boldly tion."— "I" srialists have e expedients ;he service of men in eveiy Ivice of their ibyit." inquiry from Loyal Orange ich the Grand I. 16,185/. -I am duly in instant. In were satisfied ^te for parlia- anything, I would sweep ur School Act. e small end of mmon School 1 their tools in nering at the mplished their le Brethren in e a good judg- lent a sound, mising Protes- ir or regard for purpose, and rother, HOLLAND, ght Worshipfu orth America.' (From the Olobe, December 25, 1857 J 21. Never had Mr. Brown, or any other candidate, in any election campaign, truer or more devoted friends than Xheihangemen who supported him in Toronto. Their promptitude — their disinterestedness — their unhesitatin;; zeal — we are sure he never can forget. He itxcas, and not Mr. BoiUton, who ioas the real Orange candidate for the city, and well do the Mirror and Citizen know that his return was the greatest triumph which the principles of ()rangeism could possibly obtain. This election shows that there is in the City of Toronto a clear ma- jority who are opposed to the present Gov- ernment, and heartily in favor of the Upper Canada policy, which Mr. Brown has steadily pursued. The traditional hold which Toryism has obtained over the constituency, has been lost since Toryism has connected itself 10 ith Romanism and Luioer Canadian- ism. '* * Note. — In this extract Mr. Brown de- clares himself to have been the real Orange candidate for Toronto, and that his election was the greatest triumph \^hich the principles of Orangeism could possibly obtain. In the next prpoeding extract, Mr. Brown appeals, and urges the appeal of the Grand Orange Secretary, to the Fjlectors of North Welling- ton, in favor of ele^i!ng "a sound, rinfluich i/tig, uncim^n'omising Pi ttestaid.^^ VVell, ano- ther election was helo . a few daj-s since, in the same County of Nv^th Welhngton, and another address was sent from Toronto to the Electors, but not from the Grand Orange Secretary, but from Mr. Brown's new Roman Catholic allies in this city, said to be written by Mr. D'Arcy McGee, whose "liberality of sentiment" Mr. Brown recommends to the Protestants of Upper Canada, in the Globe of the 16th December, as quoted on page 47 of the preceding letters. In this new McGee-Brown alliance *' Address to the Ca- tholics of North Wellington,'' we have the following words : " We have nocontidence in George E. Car- tier, who feared to practise the time-honored Faith of our fathers, when lately in England." [Mr. Cartier attended Church of England service with Her Majesty one Sunday while her guest at Windsor Palace.] " We have no confidence in George E. Cartier, who was guilty of the paltry act of voting against us, and in favor of two Ministerial Orangemen, at the late Municipal Elections in this city." [The candidates for whom Mr. Cartier voted were neither of them Orangemen.] " We have no confidence in George E. Cartier, who first approved, and then "burked''^ our School Bill, [Mr. Bowes' Bill of 1856,] who was visited with ecclesiastical censure : and who has never sought to be reconciled to the Church, since he broke faitli with her Bishops. Judging by the past, we ask, what confidence can be placed in a ministry that has avowed Orangemen among its member* — that has held up place, power, and patron- age, as a bait for Okanoe support; that has screened from legal penalties Orangk rioter3, Orange Vandals, Orange assassins ?" — " We conjure you, therefore, fellow Catholics of North Wellington, by your love of justice, by your hatred of corrupt men and mean- ness, by your horror of Orange violence and bloodshed, by the memory of the long \ht of wrongs you have endured at the hr.nds of your merciless and inveterate enemy, faith- fully, wisely, and as one man, to perfonn your duty. It is in your power to deal a death blow at Orangtisni in, North IVcUJug- tmi, by strengthening the ranks of those who desire the discontinuance of all fuch secret organizations in this country — Up and act I Scout the recreant who may seek to lead you irom the path of rectitude. He is an enemy, a hireling, or a knave. Let not money tempt you to betray your conscience, or barter your principle. Be firm and fear not. Remember the example set \oa by your friends in this city, and in all the late elections for both Houses and for Municipal- ities." Now these are the sentiments of the niau whom Mr. Brown commends for his ''liljei- ality of sentiment ; " and these ai-e the views and objects of the pai"ties with whom Mr. Brown has allied himself in thu lato municipal and political elections, iuchuling tlie recent one in North Wellington ; one of their declared objects being the pro- scription of these very Orangemen whoso candidate Mr. Brown was in 1857, and to whom he owed his election, and Avhich election he declared to be the greatest tri- umph of the principles of Orangeism ; and another of their avowed objects being llie passing of that very School Bill (first intro- duced and afterwards abandoned by Mr. Bowes) which Dr. Ryerson showed in his School Report for 1855, to be subversive of our whole school system, and an inva- sion of the property Jind rights of Pro- i iants, of school sections, and of munici- palities. This is the manner in which Mr. Brown now sui)ports the school system ; the man- ner in which he maintains the sacred prin- ciples and rights of Protestants against what he has in past years held up as the seductions and aggressions of Popery ; the manner in which he shows his gratitude to the Orangemen who brought him out and elected him in this city in December, 1857, and the incorporation of whose Association 108 "i he then so lustily advocated. Such an ex- ample of bax'ofiiced iiicousistency, of down- right treachery to former professed prin- ciples, of shameless ingratitude to, and betrayal of former friends and supporters, can scarcely bo found iu the political annals of any country. Mr. Brown, iu one of his attacks upon the Judges, compared them to Jeffreys ; but the apostacy of Jeffreys from being the ranting enemy of Roman Priests to becoming their tool agamst Protestants, is a striking type of that of Mr. Brown — Mr. McGee being Chiffinch, the "broker," in the latter transaction, and the ultra foreign priests constituting the " Court" to which the sale of service is made, and the promised reward, not being a Chief Jus- ticeship, but a Premiership. Lord Macau- lay says: — "Jeffreys had hitherto looked for professional advancement to the Cor- poration of L(jndon. He had, therefore, professed himself a Roundhead, and had always appeared in a higher state of exhil- aration when he explained to Popish Priests that they were to be cut down alive, and were to see their own bodies burned, than when he ptissed ordinary sentences of death. But as soon as he got fill the city could give him, he made haste to sell his forehead of brass, and his tongue of venom, to the Comi ; Chifiinch, who was accustomed to act as broker in infamous contracts of more than one kind, lent his aid. The renegade soon fomid a patron in the obdurate and revengeful James, but was regarded with scorn and disgust by Charles, whose faults, great as they were, had no affinity with in- solence and cruelty. ' That man,' said the King, ' has no learning, no sense, no man- ners, and more impudence than ten carted street-walkers.' " Mr. Brown having for years lashed the imsuspecting Protestants of Upper Canana into a fury against Pope and Priests, monkeries and nunneries, hav- ing put himself forth as the candidate of Orangemen, and the champion of their incorporation, and been elected by them for the very pm-poso of putting down " Romish priest-craft" and maintaining "our noble school system" against Papal aggression ; having thus got all that Orangemen and Protest, its could give him, Mr. Brown, like Jeffreys, sells his "forehead of brass and tongue of venom" to the heretofore execrated " Priest party, " to proscribe Orangemen, to crush Orangeism, and to import a school system from Ireland ! Then, on the other hand, it is a melan- choly and suggestive fact, and one to be pondered by good men of all parties in Upper Canada, that wliile Mr. Brown and his new allies are seeking to divide and weaken Protestants, they are organizing, by secret clubs and otherwise, the Roman Ca- tholic Church into as complete a political association, and employing it as such, in political and municipal elections, as was ever the Orange Association itself. We wiU not dwell upon this now development of Upper Canadian politics — this new fact in Canadian history ; we will leave it, with all its feai'ful significance, to the ponderings and action of every friend of the future peace, liberty, progress, and happiness of Upper Canada. (Note from page 25, second line of the second column, omitted in its proper place. ) Mr. Brown states, that so opposed was he to the nineteenth Separate School clause, of the School Act of 1850, that he urged Mr. HiNCKS to resign in consequence of it. That Act was passed in the early part of July, 1850 ; more than three months after the passing of which, Mr. Brown was both a supporter and defender of the Min- istry who introduced that clause, as the following extract from the Editorial of tlie Globe of " shows : — the 26th October, 1850, clearly " We defy their oppo^ients to point out a measure to which the Ministry stand pledged, that they have not moved upon. There are measures now or^-the carpet, as to which there are differences of opinion, but they have arisen since the Ministry assumed office. We fearlessly challenge the produc- tion of one pledge they have broken." Mr. Brown is, therefore, himself witness of the falsehood of his own intimation, that he went into opposition in consequence of the nineteenth section of the School Act, passed early in July, 1850, as the quotation thus made from his Editorial, of the latter part of October of that year, is the language of a thorough supporter of the Ministry of that day. tl P< th he wi pr w P< h( li( R fo a\ ^. B D m th a^ < » B le ai proscribe d, aiid to and ! I a melan- ouo to be parties in Brown and iivido and aiiiying, by lomaii Ca- a political ,8 such, in 13, aa was aelf. We velopment is new fact ive it, with ponderings the future lappiness of line of the oper place. ) osed was he lool clause, it he lu-ged lequence of early part ree months Brown was of the Min- mse, as the torial of tlie 850, clearly ) point out a and pledged. There are as to which )n, but they ;ry assumed : the produc- >ken." nself witness niation, that aaequence of School Act, he quotation of the latter the language ! Ministry of INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING EXTRACTS. The foregoing extracts from the Editorials of the Globe clearly establish tlie following propositions : — 1 . That Mr. Brown has assailed and opposed the Roman Catholic Church in past years on every possible ground, and has sought, by every means in his power, not only to rouse public feeling against Romish institutions and preten- sions, but against every public man or parliamentary candidate who has received the support of Roman Catholic votes. ' > 2. That in consequence of such apparently earnest and uncompromising hostility to the Church of Rome, Mr. Brown has acquired his chief influence with the Protestants of Upper Canada, as a champion of their rights and principles, and promoter of their interests in opposition to those of Romanism. 3. That by his recent ultra-Roman Catholic alliance, — in consequence of which he empties the Globe of its former Protestantism, and obtains the sup- port of that very ultramontane section of the Roman Catholic Church which he had for years denounced, notwithstanding the avowal of the same objects as heretofore, in regard to Separate Schools and our School System, by those ultra- Romanists, — Mr. Brown has tnded with the religious feelings which he had formerly excited, as well as bartered the Protestant principles he heretofore avowed ; while he has ratified his ultra-papal alliance by a formal crusade against the Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada, though Mr. Brown had sought (as the foregoing extracts show) to identify himself with Dr. Ryerson and the School System in past years, in order the better to pro- mote his party objects. 4. That, taking Mr. Brown's avowal of principle and purpose as recorded in the foregoing extracts from his Editorials, in connexion with Mr. McGee's avowals of principle and purpose, as recorded in the extracts from his speeches in the seventh of the preceding series of letters, the coalition between Mr. Brown and Mr. McGee, with such of their respective followers as they can lead, presents an inconsistency and abnegation of principle truly humiliating and unparalleled. no i- ■» i 1 Considering, therefore, the nature of the coalition formed against the integrity of our system of public instruction, it is submitted to every candid man, of every party, whether it is not his duty to maintain inviolate that system which has increased in strength and usefulness during every year of its opera- tions, and which has already placed Upper Canada in advance of every other Province of the British Empire, and of most of the States of the American Republic. It is also submitted, after the exposures of the previous letters and notes, and the examples of the fore{^ing extracts from the Globe Editorials, whether the least reliance can be placed on any statement or report published in the Globe; whether Mr. Brown's conduct in regard to the School System and its Superintendent has not been as heartless and unpatriotic as it has been incon- sistent and selfish ; whether his former conduct in attending Orange soirees, declaring his admiration of the principle of Orangeism, avowing himseli" the true Orange Candidate for Toronto, acknowledging his never-to-be-forgotten indebtedness to Orange electors for his success, — and then his allying himself with Mr. McGee and that party in the Roman Catholic Church who avow the exclusion of all Orangemen from public life as the first object of thc'r crusade against Protestants and public schools, — is not as unjust and cruel as it is dishonest and unprincipled ; and whether he has not shamelessly trifled with and betrayed the feelings and principles of the Protestants of Upper Canada, in exciting them in every possible way (as the foregoing extracts from his Editorials show) against the Roman CathoUcs and their Priests, denouncing every man as a betrayer and enemy of Protestantism who had the support of any Catholic votes, and now seeking and claiming success by means of the votes of those very Catholics, who denqunce the Hon. Mr. Cartier for attending a Church of England service with the Queen, when he was Her Majesty's guest during a Sunday, — though Roman Catholic Members of the Legislative Council attend Church of England prayers daily, — who denounce the same Mr. Cartier for not having voted for Mr. Bowes' Separate School Bill in 1856, and for being in a Government which permits Orangemen to hold office. This new McGee-Brown alliance and crusade against the School System, and School Superintendent, and a section of the Protestants of Upper Canada, is only another example of individual infidelity among Protestants, and another phase of ultramontane aggression against knowledge, and liberty, and civilization, as subversive and destructive of all that is dear and precious to the enlightened Roman Catholic'as to the enlightened Protestant, JUST PUBLISHED, 'i' EETAIL CATALOGUE (WITH PRICES) OF BOOKS & STATIONERY FOR SALE BY WM. C. F. CAVERIIILL, No. 87, TONGE STREET, TORONTO. A LOT OF MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS OFFERED AT GREATLY REDUCED PRICES. A Copy vnll he sent free on application to W. C. F. CAVERHILL. C. A. STROH & CO.'S Premium Magic Duplicating and Impression Paper. It is a beautiful article, and will take a correct Impression of any Leaf, Plant, or Flower, and is equally adapted for writing on Paper, Cloth, Wood, or Stone, in the copying of Plants, Designs, Music, &c. rjy r:.T I In Packets containing 4 Sheets, ditrerent colours $0 25 1 " black A7\ c< %• FOR SALE AT THE BOOKSTORE OF W. C. r. CAVERHILL, 87, Vonge Street, Toronto. V I '\ m HISTORY OF CANADA rOR SCHOOLS. rnnE publishers would call the Attention of the Heads of the Canadian Public -*• and Private Scliools to the excellent and full Epitome of the History and Chronology of Canada, Nova Sootla, Now Brunswlok, Prince Edward Island, &o., Which is contained in the Second Edition (just published) of "The Geography and History of British North America, and of the other Colonies of the Empire," by J. Gkokge HoDQiNS, M.A. ; designed to accompany two large Maps prepared by the Author. *,^* To this Second Edition have been added Sketches of the General Geography of Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and the United States^ «fec., making the work a most attractive Text Book for Public and Private Schools. The New Edition contains 80 superior Engravings. Cloth, gilt lettered pp. 1 28. It may be ordered through any Bookseller. Price 50 cts. each, f 5 60 cts. per dozen. Toronto : Maclear & Co., and Wm. C. F. Caverhill. Montreal : Benjamin Dawson & Sou ; and R. & A. Miller. ^. THE BRILLIANT FRENCH ESSAYIST'S "DEBAT SUR L'INDE AU PARLEMENT ANGLAIS." Just Published, a Cheap Canadian Edition, Price 25 cents, of THE celebrated ESSAY ON ENGLAND and her COLONIAL POLICY, by Count DE Montalembert ; originally published in the " Correspondant Revue," under the title of "Un Deljat sur I'lnde au Parlement Anglais," and for which the author has been prosecuted by the Emperor Napoleon III, With Portrait and Biographical Sketch ; also a fuU accoimt of the State Prosecution of the distin- guished Essayist. Toronto : Lovell & Gibson, and W. C. F. CaverhUl, Yonge Street. Montreal : John Lovell, Canada Directory Office. %• The Essay may be obtain/ed through any Bookaeller. i. PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING. rriHE undcrsif^m-'d respectfully aiiiKmnccH to the Public tliiit lie is unv onsildcd to .L oxociitc nil kinds of PKlNTlNi; iiud liUOKIUNDINc;, in cvury htylo. At tlio PuovixciiUi ExiiiiJiTiox, hold in Montreal in Octobov, 1858, ho was awarded tlio Fird Prize and Dliilaina for tho bost Hpocimcu of Bookbiiulin;,' ; Fird Prirx for tho botit spociuiuu of ordinary Bookbinding, suitable for Libra- riea ; and the Flfd Prbu' for the be.st specimen of Plank Book Binding. " S(!ine specimens of Himlinjr, from Mr. LovcH's, nre Ui(> best mo liav" srcn doiK* in Cnnnd.'i; lyul, 80 lontt as sn(rii \voi'l{ ciiii 1)1' (ioni- licrc, lln-ri- w ill In- no ()('c■;l^ioll to senil IJoolts to New York or iJoston in order tu liavi; .supL-rior buiilin!;," — Jlonlrctl U'^Y/k.-.v, Oclolicr 'J. Orders for BLANK BOOKS of overy de^scription, and for GENEllAL BOOK- BINDING, will receive i)ronipt attention. Book tVr Job PIUNTING executed on tho most reasonable terms. ^^*N ***v. •%.■%. >.-W'V*-\.-\.'\ ^,^ ',-*.-v.-«.*' S C PI O O I. ]3 C) O Iv S . Now publishing, the Serief} of NATIONAL SCHOOL BOOKS, THE SPEL- LINO BOOK SUl'ERSEUED, COLENSO'S ALCJEJiRA, Part L ; LENNIE'S (JRAMMAll, I'JNNOCK'S OOLDSMITH'S ENCJLAND, SUMMARY OF ENGLISH HISTORY, tk'c, — printed with new type, on good paper, and carefully bound. CATECHISMS of the Clmrch of England, of the Church of Scotland, etc. The Trade and CouiUri/ Merchants will be nupplkd on the lowest terms. IN THE PRESS : LOVELL'S GENERAL GEOGRAPHY, for the n.sc of Schools ; by J. George HoDGixs, Es([. , M.A. Thi;^ work will bo eiubcllished with about 40 sniierior maps, and 100 beautiful enginivings. TREATISE ON ARITHMETIC IN THEORY cl- PP ACTICE, revised, improved, and adapted to the Decimal Currency, itc. ; by J. H. Sang.siku, E.s(i. FIRST BOOK OF ARITII.AIETIC, in Decimal Currency, &c. ; by J. H. SA>fGSTER, Esq. RUDIMENTARY CLASS BOOK IN NATURAL SCIENCE —Part I. First outlines of Chemi.^tiy, Heat and Pliy.siology. — P:irt II. Heating and Venti- lation with reference to Dome-itic Architectui'o. — Fen* the use of Schools Academies, itc. ; by Hexiiv H. ?vIilk.->, Es(|., M.A., Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in tlie University of Bishop's College, Lennoxville. Tho above works Avill be prepared with great care, printed on good paper and bound in the most substantial maimer. A liberal discount will be allowed to Coiuitry JFerchaiits and the Trade. Any of the above Books may be procured, at the Publisher's prices, from Mr. VV. C. F. CAVERHILL, Bookseller and Stationer, 87, Yonge Street, Toronto. JOHN LOVELL, Printer and Publisher. C^ADA Directory Office, Montreal, March, 1859. ING. ' onal)lcd to htylu. S58, ho wiiH for Lilini- II Cnnnda; luul, York or Uoslon L\L BOOK- rHE SPEL- ; LENNIE'S MAHY OF and carefully iiul, (tc. rms, )y J. George it 40 superior led, improved, Esq. , ; by J. H. Part I. First iig and Veuti- e of Schools, f Mathematics smioxville, 5od paper, and ~'rade. •ices, from ]\Ir. Toronto. •,d Publisher. \