IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

{./

!.0

I.I

1.25

li^nzt

■ Hi

Hi
I.

1.4

1.6

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

-'''\

" ^«^:\

'"<b^

23 WESr MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
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

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagee

□ Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reii^ avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intirieure

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 ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

Additional comments;/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

Tho
to tl

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
ime image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu^s ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

□

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurde:?, et/ou pellicul^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu^es

Pages detached/
Pages d6tach6es

The

POS!
of tl
filr

Orig

begi

the

sion

othf

first

sion

or il

Showthrough/
Transparence

I I Quality of print varies/

Quality in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de facon i
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

The
shal
TINI
whi«

Map
diffc
entii
begi
righi
requ
met!

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous.

lOX

14X

18X

22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

lire

details
ies du
modifier
)er une
filmage

Thn copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

National Library 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 film6 fut reproduit grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

Bibliothdque nationale du Canada

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

§es

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 imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant
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 filmds 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 des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

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
reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

i errata
d to

te pelure,

con h

32X

C^
-H

THE SCHOOL QUESTION

IN MANITOBA.

-«— ^c-«o-4^5>4a*Tjva,-'- >-

A LETTER

-FROM-

JAMBS KISHKR

-TO TIIK

ELECTORS OF RUSSELL.

;s?o

' M

^ ^i

•"

To the Electors of the Electoral District of Russell :

GENTLEMEN :—

Havinor been prevented from takino- part to any extent
in the deliberations of the Legislature while dealijiuj with public matters
of more than usual interest and importance at its last session, I have
thou:L,dit it well to yield to the sug-^rstion of some of my friends that I
should give expression to my views on some of those (juestions ; and I
have thought that, upon the wiiole, it would be more convenient to do so
at this time in the shape of a letter, tlian by addressing public meetinn-s
in your district.

The question that seemed above all others to engross public attention
for some time before and during the last session was

THE SCHOOL QUESTION,
and for that reason I first refer to it.

Were we to judge by ordinary tests, one might have been justified
in saying, a little over twelve months ago, that the sj^stem of education
which had been in operation for nearly twenty years past had given
general satisfaction. I refer to the fact that no popular demand had ever
been made for a change of any kind; not a single expression of a wish for
such a change had been heard ; and in the absence of such demand, or of
some evidence of dissatisfaction, it might have been reasonable to conclude
that the public were faiily satisfied with tlie law as it was.

And yet, although no opportunity has hitherto arisen of testing
public opinion in a formal way, it is apparent that the movement to
establish national schools met with a very cordial response in the Pro-
vince. It was manifest from the beginning of the discussion that there
was a very decided (though up to that time latent) feeling amongst the
majority in Manitoba, against the appropriation of public moneys to the
education of children in the distinctive religious views of any particular
denomination.

5 THE OLD SYSTEM.

I need hardly remind you that under the late system our schools

were controlled by a Board of Education appointed by the Government ;

divided, however, into two sections, and forming practically two indepen-

i dent bodies : the one, composed wholly of Protestants, had exclusive con-

I trol over what were called Protestant schools ; while the other, comprising

I only Catholics, had the like exclusive charge over Catholic schools.

_.^'

CATHOLIC DEFENCE OF THAT SYSTEM.

A very plausible df^fonce of that system appeared early in the dis-
cussion, from the pen of a distinguished prelate of the Catholic Church,
contending' very forcibly, from his standpoint, for the fairness of the law
as it then stood. What could be less objectionable, said that writer, in
effect, than a law which gives exclusively to Catholics the management
of their own schools, while Protestants have the same exclusive control
over theirs ? What could be fairer than the division of the legislative
grant in aid of scIkjoIs lietween the Protestant and Catholic sections in
proportion to the nund)er of school children of the respective creeds, as
shewn in the census returns ^ What more e(juitable than the provision
that a Catholic ratepayer shall never be called on to pay rates towards a
Protestant school, while every Protestant ratepayer is equally exempt
from payment of rates to a Catholic school i

THE DEFENCE NOT CONCLUSIVE.

This view of the case seems at first siglit very reasonable, but the
acceptance of such a conclusion on the part of Protestants pre-supposes
that they approve of Protestant schools. The truth is, however, the
reverse. The opinion of the Protestant connnunity is, I am convinced,
largely opposed to either Protestant or Catholic, and in favor of national
.schools. But I maintain that there were, in fact, under the late system,
no Protestant schools properly so called. We had schools it is true, that
were called by that name, but the term was, in my view of it, a mis-
nomer. The schools that were so called were not Protestant in any sense
that I can see, except that they were under Protestant management.
Even the reading of the Bible was conducted without note or comment.
Our Protestant schools were to all intents and purposes public schools.
The standard of qualification for teachers related to proficiency in secular
branches of learning only. That standard, as well as the extent to which
it was maintained, was made public and had to meet the criticism of
public opinion. The examination and certification of teachers were in
the hands of ofticers appointed by the State, and no religious test
was required. The inspection of the schools, too, was really an
in.spection by the state ; the results were made public, and the adminis-
tration of the system in every respect was, as it ought to be, amenable
to public a))proval and public censure.

If all this was true of the Protestant schools it might be thought
that it must have been alike true of tliose of the Catholic section, seeing
that the same law, with but a slight variation, applied to both. Practic-
ally, however, it was not so. While no conti'ol was exorcised or attempt-
ed to be exercised by the Protestant denominations, over Protestant
schools, those of the Catholic section wore, in fact as well as in name,
directly and a owedly under the control of the church. They were in
truth no more nor less than church schools. I am not aware that the
qualification of teachers in them was based on any standard that was
submitted to public opinion ; nor was the progress of the schools tliem-

see

in the dis-
lolic Church,
jss of the law
at writer, in
nianagcnicnt
iusive control
lie lej^ishitive
c sections in
ve creeds, as
the provision
tes towards a
ually exempt

lahle, but the

pre-supposes
however, the
im convinced,
;or of national
e late system,
it is true, that

of it, a niis-
nt in any sense

management,
te or comment,
public schools,
ency in secular
ixtent to which
le criticism of
ichers were in

religious test
was really an
id the adminis-

be, amenable

jht be thought
3 section, seeing
both. Practic-
ised or attempt-
)ver Protestant
11 as in name,
They were in
aware that the
idard that was
le schools them-

selves, or the work they accomplished, even in the way of secular educa-
tion, submitted to the same tests, by way of public inspection, that
obtained in the case of Protestant schools. Tlie real distinction between
the schools of the two sections was the one I have just indicated — on the
one side there were public national schools — on the other, tlenominational
schools under the charge of a sinolu church. Under such circumstances,
the contention that rli<' law nominally conceded the samcj rights to
Protestants as it did to Catholics, had no weight with the former, who
claimed no privileges for Protestant schools as such. The moment the
question was opened, the minds of the majority turne<l to the one leading

fact, that the Province was

usmg

public monies for denominational

education in Catholic schools, over which the provincial authorities
exercised no practical control, and at once we saw evidence of a wide-
spread feeling — a feeling founded, as I think, on reason and justice —
that if the Province was to give aid to .schools out of the public purse,
the gift ouL-ht to be made on the conditi(m that the government should
see both to the form and the quality of the teaching.

A GPJEViNNCE.

I may refer here to a grievance of a practical character that had
been felt in many districts of the Province, arising from a feature of the
old law that I have already referred to. I mean the provision that no
Protestant was liable to pay rates to a Catholic school, or vice versa. In
districts where the rate-payers were wholly Catholic or wholl}' Protestant,
this wrong was not felt ; but in those sections that contained some Cath-
olic settlers, or in which there were lands owned by Catholics, but con-
taining too small a population of that creed to maintain a Catholic school,
there was felt to be a real grievance. In such districts (and they include
the greater part of the Province) the Catholic rate-payer escaped alto-
gether from the burden of maintainine: the schools. His nei<dibor was
taxiid heavily for that purpose, but the Catholic and his lands went scot
free. The Catholic population in their own districts, had perhaps cause
to complain of the like wrong wliei-e there was a sprinkling of Protestant
settlers, who, on their part, escaped liability for school taxes. But com-
plaints from Catholics were not, and were not likely to be, heard. From
various causes I understand ^he fact to be, that the burden of maintaining
. schools has not been so great on Catholics as on Protestants. Apart from
\ that fact, the Catholic realizes that his school is a church school, to which
he expects no Protestant to contribute; while the Protestant, looking on the
school which he supports as a public institution, rightly deems the exemp-
tion of his Catholic neighbor from taxes, to be a grievous wrong. The
popular opinion that seemed so strongly to support the Legislature in
passing the Act was based mainly, I have no doubt, on the two proposi-
tions I have suggested — lirst, that it was objectionable to grant public
aid to scliools that were not controlled by the State, and which seemed
to exist for the one purpose of imparting sectarian education — second,
that it was unfair to the majority of the settlers in any district, that the
minority should escape liability to pay rates for the public schools.

THE ^r.,v' SYSTEM.

it i

ere

pro

anc

Pro

not,

The Government .scheme, now passed into law, has the merit of re-
moving both of these ohjections. Whether in all respects it was dictated
by prudent counsel — whether it sufficiently respected the contention of the
mniority, in view of the privileges so long enjoyed by them — and wheth-
er it pro})erly regarded the constitutional restraints on tlie power of our
Jj(,'gislature to deal with the matter, are ({uestions which have evoked not
a little discussi(jn, and which are likely to be the subjects of warm con-
troversy for some years to come.

The system that has thus been established is one of National Schools
devoted to secular education — combined, however, with religious exercises
which are claimed to be of a non-denominational character. The Roman
Catholic hierarchy oppose this system, because, as they contend, the
relifjious element under the direction of the church shoul(l be the first and
chief characteristic of the education provided by the State — the secular
features taking a secondary place. In this view they teach their ad-
herents to regard the public school, as we have it, as an institution to
whose care the children of the faithful cannot safely beconnnittcd. The
law, as it now stands, so far disregards this objection of the hierarchy,
that it compels the Catholic rfite-payer to pay tribute to the public schools
whether he approves them or not ; while it forbids the application of any
public monies, or the use of the municipal machinery to enable Cath-
olic< to lt,'vy, even on their own properties, for the support cf schools
that are acceptable to them.

The opponents of the new system say that it is unjust to the Cath-
olic minority in that it compels them to contribute to the support of
schools of which they cannot, if true to their church, avail themselves.
They say the result is not only to force Catholics to pay their full share
of the general tax for public schools, but after that, to pay out of their admi
own pockets the entire expense of educating their own children — thus im- on a
posing upon them a double burden. but i

squa
DUTY OF THE STATE. the t.

To judge fairly whether the law is unjust in this respect one must pg^yj

consider what position the state ought to take as to the education of the tribu
i\ — i.ii i.u„ ,^_.,„j. .««; — ,"i.., „i.' xi,„ ,.,i„ „i' Tv.r :!„!-,„ „, ii

nion

tion;

or n

thus

exen

gne^

will

accef

exerc

consc
most
wron
Cath<

pplyiu^ nicciii.3 K,L j.uniioiiiii^ ,,cv.uic»,i^ icaiiiiiig, 0,111^ viiav '''COnSCi

should limit its educational grants of public monies to that object. At
the same tinie in acknowledgment of the belief in Christianity which is
assumed to be general in our population, an equally large majority, per-Pp^*^^
liaps, demands that education in the schools shall be accompanied with,?j^^J'^
ind characterized by, such religious exercises and acts of worship as will, ''H

anc

bear testimony to and inculcate that belief.

bavii

?ntir(i
It seems to me, holding the above view of the position the Statef^jj^

should take, that in creating and liberally assisting a national system ofjinj

■'■».■«*" '«CMlr. ■» -■

c merit of rc-
it was dictated
ntention of the
^ — and wheth-
power of our
ave evoked not
, of warm cou-

ational Schools
igious exercises
r. The Roman
y contend, the
be the first and
te— the secular
teach their ad-
1 institution to
ommittcd. The
if the hierarchy,
he public schools
iplication of any
to enable Cath-
pport cf schools

non-sectarian schools, the Province is doing its whole duty in that ro<,'ard ;
and that in failinj,' to provide for the creation of denominational schoohs,
it is doing no injustice to any sect. And I fail to see that the Province
is doing a wrong in imposing on the people generally, irrespective of
creed, the duty of paying local rates towards such schools. Then the
providing of such religious exercises, if it be possible to settle upon forms
and words that are really non-denominational (not only as l;)etween
Protestant denominations but as between Protestants and Catholics) will
not, I think, justify the condemnation of such a system.

THE END IN VIEW.

The end that the Legislature has in view in making a grant of public
money for education, is as I have said, to promote secular, not deno!nina-
tional, education. So long as every child in the land of whatever creed
or nationality has the opportunity of fully enjoying the secular teaching
thus provided, and so long as no child is compelled to join in religious
exercises against the wish of its parents, I am unable to discover that any
grievous wrong is done. At the same time I am of the opinion that it
will be practically impossible to agree on religious exercises that will be
acceptable to all classes ; and it may be that for this reason the religious
exercises will in the end have to be abandoned, under a national system.

THE CONSCIENCE QUESTION.

just to the Cath-
the support of
ivail themselves.
r their full share
pay out of their
lildren

One word as io the argument from the standpoint of the Catholic
conscience. It has been frequently and urgently pressed upon us by a
most influential exponent of public opinion in this Province that a great
wrong is done in disregarding the conscientious scruples of Roman
Catholics against public schools. I quite agree that the State in the
administration of public affairs should, as far as possible, avoid calling
—thus im- ^^ ^"^y citizen to do that which his religious convictions disapprove ;
but it is manifestly impossible, even in a country as free as ours, to
square the conduct of public affairs, at all times, with the consciences (as
the terra is used) of the whole community. The Quaker and the Menno-
nite have, as I understand, the keenest scruples of conscience against
i respect one must paying taxes for military purposes ; yet out of the many dollars con-
e education of the tributed by members of these societies in Canada to the Federal Ex-
Manitoba, as well chequer, in the shape of Customs and other Duties, a considerable
,te should confine portion is devoted every year to such a purpose in defiance of these
ning, and that it conscientious scruples.
I that object. At ^
,tistianity which IS
11-26 majority, pel- ^l

•ge maj

accom^

of worship as will

The truth is that if we yield to the conscience argument on this
we will be logically bound to go a long step farther. The Catholic
■\ not only condemns the system of public education that ignores
Catholic teaching, but it denies altogether the propriety of the State
having the control of even secular education, and it demands that the
mtire system be placed under the charge of the church. The faithful

position the State^Qjuan Catholic of course assents to this attitude of his clerical adv
national system oi^nd his conscience must be wounded when the State insists on asse

isers,
asserting

control over secular tea(•llinf,^ ITow many persons in Manitoba, outside
of tliat church, will atHrm that on this question the State ounht to yield ?
Is it possil>le to i)iia<^ine such a thinj^ occurrin;^ in any Canadian
Province other than (^nehec ^ It conies then to this, that at some point
the State has to take issue with the Roman Catholic church, and why
not take it at the point where the establishment of separate schools is
demandetl f'

The arguineiit that the State should yield to th(i conscientious
scruples (jf Ivoinan Catholics to the extent of f,n'antinf( state aided
Catholic schools, to he put umler the control of the church, sounds a little
out of place, too, when ailvaiiced on behalf of a church that is not, to
say the least, pre-eminently liberal in conceding on its own part freedom
of conscience. I find in a recent pul)lication this declaration attributed
to Pope Pius JX : "The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in
" defence of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error, a pest of
" all others most to Ik; dreaded in a State." And consistently with this
view the church of Rome, in a country where she did not endanger her
own position by such a course, would, as history suggests, disregard the
appeals of other denominations to be allowed special j)rivileges because
of conscientious scruples. Far be it from me to plead this attitude of
the Catholic church as a ground for justifying the refusal on our part of
denominational school s to Catholics if they had a fair right to them.
Protestants claim to be guided by iiKjre liberal views than to act
towards Catholics necessarily as tlu; latter might, under particular circum-
"jstances, act towards them, and they pride themselves on the extent to
which they allow liberty of con.science to all. It is quite enough for my
purpose to contend that in establishing a uniform system of secular
education, the Province is not doing a real injustice as long as it offers
ei\\iii\ rights in respect of that education to all. It may be that the
opposition of Catholics will make it quite impossible to establish a
national system that will unite all sects, but that does not decide that
such a system would be unjust.

I have no difficulty, therefore, in coming to the conclusion that if
no other issue is raised than the one question of the justice of establish-
ing, at the wish of the majority, f^uch a system of education as we now
have, against the protest of one religious denomination, the verdict musi
be awarded in favor of the Government's action. The only point I
could have a doubt upon is a.s to whether the religious exercises will not
really be denominational as against Catholics ; but I understand that the
objections of the hiei'archy to the system would be quite as pronounced if
there were no such exercises.

QUESTIONS THAT RAISE DOUBTS.

And yet, though you and I should concede, most fully (as I do for
my part) our very decided preference for a purely national, as against
a purely denominational, or a mixed national and denominational system
of education, there may be room to doubt the wisdom of the Legislature
in tiie attempt to abolish separate schools — if, in the first place, there is

of Cfl

«ui »L ii ijjuiim «aHmBjji

nitobn, outside
)U<;ht to yield i
any Canadian
, at SDnio point
irch, and why
rate schools is

?. conscientious
u(r state aided
1, sounds a little
that is not, to
vn part freedom
ation attributed
es or ravings in
error, a pest of
tently with this
ot endanijjer her
;ts, disregard the
rivileges because
this attitude of
al on our part of
r right to them.
iws than to act
)articular circum-
on the extent to
uC enough for my
ystem of secular
long as it offers
may be that the
e to establish a
not decide that

;onclusion that if
istice of establish-
ication as we now
, the verdict musi
?he only point I
exercises will not
nderstand that the
e as pronounced if

TS.

fully (as I do for
lational, as against
3minational system
1 of the Legislature
first place, there is

any higher law or right restraining our power to legislate finally in
that direction ; or if, in the next })la('e, there are circumstances in the
present position of the Province making the exercise of that power
unreasonable

THE CONSTITUTIOXAL QUESTION.

The Roman Catholic minority assert that our Legislature has no
power to abolish separate schools, whicli tliey claim arc secured to tlu-m
l)y the ConstW,uUop; ^ In support of this contention they plead both
Federal and tWtiiicuil Statutes, und thev .'eciare tluit nothini-' short (^f
an Imperial Act can takti away their rights in this iesj)ect. I will draw
your attention sliortly to the clauses under which this claim is made,
We have, as you know, two Acts of Parliament settling our Constitution :
The British North America Act of the Imjx'rial Parliament, commonly
called the Confederation Act ; and the Manitoba Act, under which our
Province was formed, j)assed hy t!ie Federal Parliament in the first place,
and confirmed afterwanls Ijy an Impc.'rial Statute. By the Confederation
Act the right to legislate on certain local subjects, including education,
was relegated to the local legislattires. But while the jurisdiction given
to the Leu'islatures, as to these local matters *jenerallv, was exclusive and
unlimited (subject only to disallowance), the power to legislate as to
education was expressly limited. This will appear from the first sub-
clause of Section 9.3 of the Act of Confederation. The first part of the
Section enacts that: "In each Province the Legislature may exclusively
" make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the provi-
"sions that follow," and then comes the first sub-clause in these words:
" Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege
" with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have
" by law in the Province at the union."

The provisions of the Confederation Act were made to appl}' to
jManitoba on its union with Canada, excepting so far as they were inap-
plicable or were modified by the Manitoba Act itself. It can hardly be
said that the clause above (juoted could apply to Manitoba. There were
no denominational schools established in the Province at the time of the
union as to which there were rights recognized by law. Denominational
schools were in existence here but they were not established by law, nor
had any class of persons, by law, any right or privilege with respect to
them. The statesnu-n who framed the Manitoba Act doubtless saw that
the clause as it stood would not affect the new Province for which they
were drafting a Constitution. Had the clause been such as would have
applied to us, no doubt they would have left it just as it was, but inas-
much as it would not apply, they prepared a new clause that would, and
this is the way in which Parliament passed it : —

" Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privi-
" lege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons
"had by law ox iiractice in the Province at the union."

This clause yon will observe is part of the Manitoba Act itself, and
of course applies to the Province. The only change made from the gen-

eral Act was the introduction of the words " or practice.'' Manifestly
these words were introduced into our Act for some purpose. Manifestly
too, the purpose of the clause as a whole was to limit the power of the
Legislature to legislate on the question of education, in regard at all
events to denominational schools. The clause expressly declares this.

Parliament in passing it had clearly in view, that there might be
denominational schools in Manitoba at the time of the union — and that
certain classes of persons might have been at that time " by practice," if
not by law, in the enjoyment of some right or privilege with respect to
them. And in view of such possibility Parliament proceeded to provide
that the Legislature of Manitoba should have no power to pass any law
that would prejudicially affect such rights or privileges. Parliament had
some years before passe<l the sub-clause of the Confederation Act already
quoted, and there is no doubt at all as to what its purpose was in so do-

ing.

It was done with the avowed object of

PERPETUATING SEPARATE SCHOOLS

for the Catholic minority in Ontario, and for the Protestant minor-
ity in Quebec. Is it necessary to argue that Parliament must have
had a like object in putting every word of the limiting clause in the con-
stitution of Manitoba ? Surely tiiat is too evident to require argument.
Once more let me recall the fact that the clause without modification
would not be applicable to Manitoba, because of the non-existence of de-
nominational schools established i)y law. Let us keep before us also the
further truth that there were in fact denominational schools in the Pro-
vince though not recognized by law. Is it not perfectly plain that the
object of the modified clause introducing the words " or practice " was to
make sure that the Local Legislature should not have the power to inter-
fere with the privileges of those who in future might enjoy such .schools ?

Now it sometimes happens that an Act of Parliament does not have
the effect that was intended by the body that enacted it. It is pos-
sible that this may turn out to be a case in point. I think it would not
surprise us if it should be held, that this clause does not restrict the pow-
er of the Legislature to abolish, at all events, the denominational schools
that were established by itself undt>r the late system. Indeed, if I mis-
take not, the current of legal opinion in the Province is in that direction,
and that view seems most reasonable. Yet it is by no means a certain
conclusion that the Legislature can at the same time create a system that
entirely excludes denominational schools. The truth is that here, as in
the case of many other questions of constitutional law, it is not safe to
affirm any positive opinion until it has been judicially decided upon by
the court of ultimate resort. Take, for example, this view of the ques-
tion : Catholics at the time of the union had denominational schools.
These were supported by the Catholic Church and by the people who
held to that faith. These people were not required to contribute a dollar
to the support of any other schools or system of schools. One of the
" rights or privileges," in fact, which that class of persons had in practice at

le.'' Manifestly
ose. Manifestly
the power of the
in regard at all
declares this.

there might be
union — and that
" by practice," if
! with respect to
eeded to provide
• to pass any law
Parliament had
ition Act already
)se was in so do-

•LS

*rotestant minor-
ment must have
jlause in the con-
jquire argument,
out modification
i-existence of de-
before us also the
hools in the Pro-
;ly plain that the
practice " was to
le power to inter-
joy such schools ?

ent does not have
d it. It is pos-
hink it would not
, restrict the pow-
ninational schools
Indeed, if I mis-
iu that direction,
means a certain
;ate a system that
is that here, as in
\ it is not safe to
decided upon by
view of the ques-
linational schools,
y the people who
contribute a dollar
ools. One of the
3 had in practice at

that time, was to give exclusively, so far as education was concerned, to
the support of their own denominational schools. They are no longer
free to do so. That privilege has been taken away from them. They
are bound to pay taxes for the support of the public schools, to the ex-
iclusion of their own, and as a consequence, to the manifest injury, if not
the ruin, of the latter. One may well hesitate I submit before coming to
the conclusion, in view of the terms of the Manitoba Act, that our new
/law is really within our powers.

) THE NEW BRUNSWICK CASE

From the published report of the speech of the Attorney-General on
the introduction of the Bill it appears that he spoke with considerable
confidence as to its constitutionality. Such confidence on the part of the
learned promoter of the measure doubtless goes far to assure us on the
point. At the same time I may be pardoned if I make a reference to one
part of his argument which I humbly think does not lead to the conclu-
Bion that he sought to draw. I refer to the New Brunswick case, which
Iklr. Martin (quoted as a precedent tending to establish our right to pa.ss
the Bill. " In New Brunswick," said the Attorney-General, according to
the report in the Tribune, " they have purely denominational schools,
" When the time came for that province to abolish denominational
" schools and to establish a system such as it was proposed to establish
" here, it was decided by the then Minister of Justice, Sir John Macdon-
" aid, by the Courts, and by the Parliament of Canada that under the
" provisions of a clause exactly similar to the one governing in this case,
" with the exception of the words ' or practice,' the legislature of the
" Province had a perfect right to sweep away all these denominational
" schools, and to bring the system down to the National system which it
" was proposed to introduce in this province."

Let us see how far this language of the Attorney-General is justified
Is it indeed true that denominational schools were established in New
Brunswick ; and was it in fact held that " under the provisions of a clause
exactly similar to ours " with the exception named, the legislature of
that province had a right to abolish denominational schools ? I have
read the New Brunswick case with some care, but I confess that I fail to
find anything to justify such a statement. The truth is that so far from
having been held that the New Brunswick Legislature had such a power
under such a clause, it was distinctly held that such a clause never
applied to or was in force in that Province. I was surprised to read in the
Attorney General's speech, the statement that Sir John Macdonald, the
Courts and the Parliament of Canada had decided otherwise. Neither Sir
John Macdonald nor the Courts nor Parliament ever dil so, so far as
I can ascertain. Had the Attorney General examined the records,
he would have discovered that when Sir John Macdonald was asked to
disallow the New Brunswick Act of LSTl his reply contained this
language : —

" The Act complained of is an Act relating to common schools, and
" the Acts repealed by it apply to Parish, Grammar, Superior and com-

il
11'

" mon schools. No reference is made in them to separate, dissentient j
" or denominational schools, and I do not find that any statute of the '
" Province exists establishing such special schools. As, therefore, the
" Act applies to the whole school system of New Brunswick and is not ^^^^
"specially applicable to denominational schools the Governor General ^"^'

" has no rii^ht to interfere." some

SGrio
The meaning of this language is perfectly plain. The provisions of gj-ati
the Act of Confederation restricting the power of the Legislature of the « gg^
Province (sub-clause one above cited) applied exclusively to rights held k ^^^^
by law in respect to denominational or separate schools established at « ^^
the union. Tiicre were none sucli in New Brunswick, said Sir John, and
the restraining clause therefore did not apply to that Province and did
not, in conse(pience, limit the power of its Legislature.

To the same effect was the view of the Law Officers of the Crown .
in England, whose opinion on the question was sought by the Canadian

pre
or

in w
in ar
wher

Parliament. " The Roman Catholics of New Brunswick " wrote these

Law Officers, '' laid 'no such r'ujhh as are tlie subject of enactment in i"'".^.*

the British North Auierica Act, section 1)8." That is to say. New pf j.

Brunswick had no denominational schools established by law ; the Con- ,-

federation Act did not apply, and the power of the Legislature was ' , '

therefore unfettered.

was {

Again, the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, before which the by la
ca.se was fully argued, decided that the Act was constitutional on the lef'isl
very same ground, declaring, in the words of the Chief Justice : " thai woul
tlte establishmevt of denominational schools ivas not recognized or toba.
'provided for " by law at the union. No other Court expressed a differ- as to
ent opinion. This

How far from correct, therefore, was the Attorney General in "^^' ^
declaring tliat such a decision as he states was pronounced by Sir. John
McDonald or the Courts ; and, as to the Parliament of Canada, it never « p^^*
was seriously suggested in that body that the first sub-clause of Section «' ^ut
93 applied to New Brunswick, and that its legislation of 1871 was on» (^.^^
that ground beyond its powers. Mr. Costigan himself, who championed
the cause of the New Brunswick minority in Parliament, rested his case
mainly on the proposition, not that the law was unconstitutional, but^ho
that it was unjust to an important section of the Queen's Canadian ^he (
subjects, and should as a matter of general Federal Policj' be disallowed, pov'e
The statements of the Canadian and Imperial Law Officers, of the Court>i^ J^^
and of Parliament, in the New Brunswick case, are of value in their ^fff-c
stroni; affirmation of the rights of the Provinces to lesrislate as to^hat
education generally ; but a decision that the restraining clauses of the ™'^'J<
Confederation Act did not upplg at all to the maritime province does^he
not materially help us to interpret the meaning of a clause that is evenP*""^'
wider, and that docs undoubtedly apply to the Prairie Province. Grant- ^^Ki-"*
ing that the constitutionality of the Act may by possibility be sustaine<l.|^. ^l
I am compelled to say that the strong statements of the Attorney ^^•'^'^
General, based on the New Brunswick case, do not help to that conclusion. ^ "^'

)arate, dissentient
my statute of the
As, therefore, the
inswiek and is not
Governor General

The provisions of
Legislature of the
•ely to rights held
lols established at
said Sir John, and
Province and did

APPEAL TO OTTAWA.

Assuming, however, that the strictly constitutional question is
decided in our favor, I see another and a greater difficulty before us.
There is a further clause in the Act of Confederation, re-enacted with
some modifications in the Manitoba Act, which affects the question very
seriously. The third sub-clause of the same 93rd section of he Confed-
eration Act is in these words : " Where, in any Province, a system of
" separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union or is there-
" after established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal shall lie
" to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision of any
•' provincial authority atfecting any right or privilege of the Protestant
'' or Roman Catholic minority in relation to education."

„ p By the terms of tliis clause it will be seen that there are two cases

T\ r W C ,7"^ in which an appeal will lie to tfie Governor in Council. First,— Where
t by tlie Canadian .^^ ^^^^ Province separate schools existed by law at the union. Second, —
viclv wrote lese ^j^g^j^ nxich. a system was established after the union by the provincial
;t_ot enactment m ig^ij^i^^ure. Now the framers of the Manitoba Act must have seen, and
V^*^ 1 '^ ^^A,' n Parliament nmst have seen, that this clause could not certainly at that

^ T r^ 'l t '^' *^"™*^' ^"'^ posiibly might never, apply to Manitoba. The first condition

le Legislature was g^^ij j^^^. apply at all because it was not even a province till the union

was accomplished, much less a province having separate schools existing

before which the by law. The second condition could not apply unless and until the
istitutional on the legislature should establish such a system, which it might never do. It
ief Justice : " thai would have been useless, then, to adopt the clause as it stood, for Mani-
not recognized or toba. It was determined, therefore, as it would appear, to modify it so
expressed a differ- as to ensure a right of appeal to the minority here beyond all doubt.

This was <lone by striking out the two conditions entirely and making
borney General in *^^^ clause read in this plain and simple language :—

meed by Sir. John «< \j^ appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any

»f Canada,^ it never «« ^q\^ ,,r decision of the Legislature of the Province, or of any provincial
b-clause of Section «autl >rity, affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman
n of 1871 was on" (Jatl. )lio minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education."
If, who championed

lent, rested his case Once more we must give the amended legislation a meaning, and

nconstitutional, but^^'O can doubt that it was intended and that it has the efiect, to give to

Queen's Canadian *^^ Catholic minority in Manitoba an absolute right of appeal to the
*olicy be disallowed. Governor General in Council against any legislation affecting their rights
[Rcers of the Court- in relation to education. xVnd who will say that our new law does not

of value in their affect the privileges claimed by Catholics ,' Let me further point out

to leo-islate as to^'i^**'^ the elimination of the two conditions was not the only amendment
nin*i- clauses of then^^'^^ to the clause in ciuestion. As it appears in the Imperial Statute,
time province does*^*-' clau.se provided for an appeal from any act or decision of any

clause that is evenP^^'^'^^cial authority. Nothing is said about an appeal from provincial
3 Province. Grant- ^®K^''*'^*''^'n. It seems indeed as if it .simply aimed at securing the right
ibilitv be sustained.*^ appeal from executive or administrative acts of the provincial author-
s of the Attorney i^^e*^ ^n the carrying out of the law. Parliament, however, .seemed bound
p to that conclusion.'*® "^^^^ sure, in the case of Manitoba, that there should be an appeal

PI!' I

against provincial legislation, and so the clause was made to provid ^™
expressly for such an appeal. P'o

Granting once more that there is a possibility of a decision tha^^ ^
sub-clause one, even as modified in the Manitoba Act, does not restraii
us altogether from legislating in the direction of abolishing separat,
schools and creating a system that does not permit of their existence, i:
there any doubt that under sub-clause three the Roman Catholics have c
clear right of appeal from our new law. Failing to succeed on the confcro
stitutional question, is there any doubt that they will make the appeawit!
and if the appeal is made If n

Att(
WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE THE RESULT ? hav

Let us first understand clearly what this right of appeal means, I
must not be confounded with the power of disallowance, which is simpl ,
a prerogative right that enables the Governor General, on the advice o

his Council, to veto legislation that the Dominion Executive have no autl .

in I

i,«l \

ority to alter or modify in the slightest degree. An appeal under tlii* .
clause, on the other hand, gives the Dominion Government complete
authority to deal with the question, as one within its own jurisdiction, an
it may decide that the law passed by our Legislature must be changed o
modified in accoi'dance with its own views. In other words, the opinion P^
of the Dominion Government are to prevciil, in this particular case, ove
those of the Legislature of Manitoba. And in order to give the Federa '
Executive an efiective means of carrying out its views, it is provided in tl' Ne
next sub-clause, that if the Legislature of Manitoba shall fail to make tl." Pr
law conform to what is demanded by the Ottawa Government then tli" th(
Parliament of Canada shall have the right to pass remedial legislatio" dis
that will have that effect.

The result is that our power to legislate in the direction of abolisljjjaj
ing separate schools, if we have it at all under sub-clause one, is not fincw^.^
but is subject to be decided in the end by the Parliament at OttawQf ^
Remember that we cannot, under our constitution, object to that Parlii^y
ment dealing with the question. Let no one be carried away with tL^JQ^j
thought that we can fight the Dominion authorities in this case, as ^Vg3fe^
did in the disallowance matter. There we were fighting for our rights angig^j
for the maintenance of the constitution. The power of Manitoba t
charter the Red River Valley Railroad was subject to no appeal to ar.
higher authority that might change or modify the charter. In the ca * es<
of the Education Act, however, our jurisdiction over the question "w£
limited from the ont-start, and has gone — for the time, entirely, tl" co
moment an appeal is entered. Under the appeal the Dominion Goveri" th(
ment first, and then the Dominion Parliament, in a certain event, has tl"Ac
absolute right to deal with the question. In such a^ase the Parliamei* of
pt Ottawa has the same right to pass remedial laws to give effect to tl*8,n
opinions of the Federal Executive, as it has to pAss laws relating to tl* th
Customs Tarifl* or the Department of Dominion/Lands. And the rovers' 't
by the Federal Government and Parliament of any part of our new A* we

Ifi^

IS mf

ade to provid ^^'^^^^'^S ^^® rights thus protected would not be an interference with
provincial rights but the exercise of a power expressly conferred upon
them by the constitution, and the exercise of which they have no right

r of a decision tha^Q ygf^gg ^^ ^^iQ appellants.

Let, does not restraic

abolishing separat. A PRECEDENT.

of their existence, i:

nan Catholics have , Have we any precedent to guide us in forming an opinion as to the

) succeed on the conprobable action of the Government and Parliament of Canada in dealing

'ill make the appeaf>'ith our School Act under an appeal ? I think we have a very suggestive.

If not a conclusive one, in this very New Brunswick case. Probably the
Attorney General was not familiar with this phase of it, else he would

ESTJLT ? have given it a wide berth, instead of courting enquiry into its history.

THE NEW BRUNSWICK CASE IN 1872.

3f appeal means. I
mce, which is simpl

ral, on the advice o j ^^^^ already made casual reference to the action of Mr. Costigan
lecutive have no autl .^ Parliament, in seeking to have the Act of 1871 disallowed. He made
in appeal under m^^^ motion in that direction in the Commons in May 1872, Sir John
lovernment complet^^^^^^^j^j ^^.^^ ^^^^ .^^ p^^.^^ ^^^^^ several amendments had been
own jurisdiction, an^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ down. Mr. Colby, a leading Protestant Conservative
e musi be cliangea Ojgpygggjj^^jjg o^ Quebec County, and now a member of the Dominion Gov-

jr words the opmi" Vnment, moved an amendment in these words :—
5 particular case, ove

3r to give the Fedeni " That this house regrets that the School Act recently passed in

rs, it is provided in tl' New Brunswick is unsatisfactory to a portion of the inhabitants of that

shall fail to make tl." Province and hopes that it may be so modified at the next session of

government then tli" the Legislature of New Brunswick as to remove any just grounds of

remedial legislatio" discontent that now exists."

This amendment was on the 29th May 1872, carried by the decisive
! direction of abolisl majority of 117 to 52, the leaders on both sides, if I mistake not, sup-
clause one, is not finapQ^ting it. I may explain that while in New Brunswick before the passing
irliament at Otta\yof w^^^ Act complained of, there were no denominational schools established
object to that Parli<ijy 1^.,^^ vet the educational authorities had been allowed to pass regula-
arried away with tL^jons which practically enabled Catholics to have denominational
!S in this case, as AVexercises in the public schools in the Catholic districts. Mr. Edward
ing for our rights angjake in the course of the debate on the question used this language : —
ower of Manitoba t

t to no appeal to ar. " Although the system of denominational schools was not actually
charter In the ca * established by law, still denominational teaching in tlie public schools
over the question "was practically acknowledged, and he (Mr. Blake) deeply regretted the
e time entirely, tl" course pursued by the legislature of New Brunswick in inserting in
he Dominion Goven" the new School Act a clause provii^.lnfj that every school under that

laws relatino- to tl' their schools according to their own views. The change in the law as

nds And the rovers' 't operated upon the Roman Catholics was a harsh change and was not
/ part of our new A* necessary to satisfy the scruples of Protestants."

The House of Commons by a vote of more than two to one declare ^ n<
its assent to these views of Mr. Blake. In other words, the Common hen
of Canada protested in the strongest terms against the action of tliund
legislature of New Brunswick in depriving Roman Catholics of privilegt this
that they had practically enjoyed in tlie past, although they had no lega^o\
sanction for them. It was enough for the Parliament of the Dominiotjgnjc
to know that for many years the minority had "in practice" at lea.st, enjoj^f (
ed these advantages, to move its members to protest thus earnestljfchoi
against their being taken away. X a

The New Brunswick Legislature, however, adhered to its new lasvon
and declined to act on the advice of the Commons. I confess that nif^^?
sympathy was with the Legislature. It had a clear and undenied rigi ^'^^'^
to pass the Act. It represented the people of New Brunswick, and WhJ^^'
elected to deal with just such (jucstions, and I doubted the propriety ^f^
the Connnons tendering its advice unsought. I am citing the facts, hou^^'^
ever, simply to show how opinion at Ottawa ran on the question. *^^^'

THE SAME CASE IN 1875. Act

But this was not the end of it. The matter came up once more w^^
1875, the Liberals being then in power. Mr. Costigan moved at thi , '
time, not for disallowance, but that the Queen be memorialized to amen 7*^ *
the British North America Act so as to provide that the Catholics ' Ji ^,
New Brunswick shoukl have the same rights in respect to Separat .
schools as were enioved by the Catholics of Ontario and the Protestant ^ '

in ATI

of Quebec. To this motion an amendment was proposed by Mr. Cauchoi^ ,

seconded by Mr, Blake, as follows : — ,

•^ whc

" That on the 29th May, 1872, the House of Commons adopted tliyinc
" following resolution (setting out the one already quoted). That thifor
" House regrets that the hope expressed in said resolution has not bee not
" realized, and that an humble address be presented to Her Most Gracioi;allo
" Majesty the Queen, embodying this resolution, and praying that Httuti
" Miijesty will be graciously pleased to use her influence with the Legi^urgt
" lature of New Brunswick to procure such a modification of the saiand
'' Act as shall remove such grounds of discontent." the

This amendment was carried by the solid vote of 114 to 73. Mor*"®
than half of the minority voted against it, not because of want of syii *°^
pathy with the complaints of the Roman Catholics of New Brunswicl
but because it did not go far enough to meet such complaints. M

Costigan himself, as well as all the French Conservatives, voted agair
the amendment. The division proved, in fact, that the House, in tli"
proportion of over four to one, went as far, at least, in the direction (
demanding Separate Schools in New Brunswick, as the language of tli ^^

"ot
en

amendment declared. And what did that declaration mean ? Thi

th^

indeed, that the House of Commons reo-arded the action of the Ne" P^

Brunswick Legislature as so harsh to Roman Catholics that not only di y^'

it feel called on to address a strong remonstrance to that body in 187: ^^
urging a redress of the grievance ; but failing to accomplish that purpos

vsSsbssisBk,' ■

I two to one declare j^ new House of Commons deemed it proper in 1875 to call on the Queen
,'ords, the Common|ierself to interfere, and to plead with the Legislature of that Province to
it the action of tliundo the alleged wrong. And on what grounds did the Commons take
'atholicsof privilegfihis position ? In the first place, as Mr. Blake put it in 1872, they were
gh they had no lega|noved by the fact that the Roman Catholic minority had in the past
nt of the Dominiu^njoyed the privilege of giving religious education in the public schools
actice" at least, enjo} of districts peopled by themselves. The withdrawal of that privilege,
•otest thus earnestl|ihough quite constitutional, was deemed harsh. But in the next place,

1 cannot doubt that this further circumstance weighed much with the

lered to its new la\Co'^n^O'^s in passing judgment. The Separate School question had been

I confess that ni fought out in Old Canada prior to Confederation. Shortly before the

r and undenied ricl U'^io'i was consummated, and after a bitter struggle extending over many

Brunswick and waj®^^'^' ^^^® question seemed to be settled for a time by the passing of the

ted the propriety ( JP^blic School Act of 1863, through a combination of the Catholic and

citino- the facts hov^^"'^®^^*''^^^^ ^^^^ against the most strenuous opposition of the Pro-

the^iuestion ' testant Liberals. Two years later, in adopting the scheme of union,

all parties in the Parliament of Canada accepted the terms of the

Act of 18G3 as a final settlement of the vexed question, as far as

■ Ontario was concerned, while provision was made for giving the Pro-

'\ * ^ 1 f tl i^'^^^'^^s o^ Quebec dissentient schools under their own control. In

^ » . ,. ^. order to perpetuate the system thus settled on in these two Provinces,

' ,/ p i.u,i:p„ the clauses of section 93 of the Confederation Act were agreed to, so

,. , o nar-t*^^^ ^^^ local legislatures might not have the power to re-open the

^ ^^h p, , "■ settlement. Now it was very natural that the great majority of the

11 M\ r u 1 o '^6'^b^^s from Ontario and Quebec (and they formed a great majority

^ ' of the Commons) having assented to a certain scheme as being on the

whole the best that could be got to suit all classes in these two Pro-

ommons adopted tliyinces, should feel that the same scheme would be the best settlement

quoted). That thifor any other Province containing a mixed population. It was therefore

solution has not bee not surprising that the House of Commons, when asked to advise dis-

to Her Most Gracioi, allowance of the New Brunswick Act, or to seek a change of the Consti-

d prajnng that Httution, though admitting that there was no justification for the veto, should

lence with the Legi^urge, as a solution of the difficulty, the same compromise that Ontario

lification of the saiand Quebec had agreed to. This view of the matter was presented to

the Commons in the debate of 1875 by the then leader, of the House and
' of 114 to 73 Morth® Government, the Hon. Alexander McKenzie, and I quote the follow-
use of want of syiiingfrom his speech at that time:—

iich complaints M " ■"• believe in free schools, in the non-denominational system, and if
atives voted affaii>" ^ could persuade my fellow countrymen in Ontario and Quebec or any
t the' House in tli" other province to adopt that principle, it is the one I would give prefer-

ist, in the direction (" ^nce to above all others.
+>,„ inn.vn«n.o nf fi," after I had aseatintht

■^ ^ -^ ^ For many years

the lano-uao-e of tl." ^^^^^ ^ '^^^ ^ ^^^^ i" ^^^^ Parliament of Canada I waged war against

iration mea'n? Tlii"*he principle of separate schools. I hoped to be able — young and inex-

actiou of the Nt""P^'''^^^^^®'^ ^^ ^ then was — to establish a system to which all would

)lics that not only di" yi^ld their assent. Sir, it was found to be impracticable in operation

that ' body in 187:" ^^'^ impossible in political contingencies."
complish that purpos

1 ('

i. . *:

Mr. McKenzie proceeded to refer to the Act of 1863 and to the coir,
pact entered into for embodying the principle of it in th
and continued as follows : —

^ „ , . .nal
e Coniederatioi^Qjj,

nee,

" I heartily assented to that proposition, and supported it by speecprob
" and vote in the Confederation debate, and Sir, the same grounds whict sec
" led me on that occasion to f^ive loyal assistance to the Confederatiorf oi
" project, embracing as it did a scheme of having separate schools f<>lbe (
" Catholics in Ontario and for Protestants in Quebec, caused me to fef|y h
" bound to give my sj'mpathy, if I could not give my active assistanc.|iat
"to those in other provinces, who believed they were laboring under tli^rej
" same difficulties and suffering under the same grievances that the Catl»nd
"olics in Ontario complahied of for years." ibat

It was in sympathy with the view thus presented that 114 of tl.T,^ ^^
ibers of the Commons, though unwilling to go so far in aiding tli \^

mem i

Catholic minority as 40 or 50 other members were, stood up to expre^

egis

reirret at the action of the Legislature of New Brunswick, and to bejr < •
their Sovereign to use her influence to persuade that bodj' to provi(!^
separate schools for Catholics. Among the members wdio at that time se ^
in the House applauding these utterances of the Liberal Leader, and wl; |
in the division stood up wnth him and voted for the resolution of Messr !
Cauchon and Blake begging of the Queen to interfere, so as to secui^nj •
separate schools for the Catholics of New Brunswick, was Mr. T/tomfju^j 1
Greemvay, then representing South Huron in the Commons, and nOjQtjjt,
filling the high position of Premier of Manitoba.

Again I wish to say that the action of the Commons seems a Httyjjjg
out of place. It was admitted that the Legislature had the exclusi\yj^]^
right to legislate in the matter, and the Federal Parliament had no coygg^j.
trol whatever over it by appeal or otherwise. The Commons interferfeg^m
in the matter without authority and without invitation. The only justQj.
fication one can suggest for its action would seem to be that it was j^gjj
means to prevent the adoption of Mr. Costigan's more dangerous propos-ig^gj.
tion, which would probably have prevailed over a simple negative votig^i
It was better to tender a bit of advice to New Brunswick even unaskog^jj^
than to call on the British Parliament to interfere with the rights of tl

Local Legislatures under the Constitution.

e
ess,
wr

When we find the Government and Parliament of the Dominion ^*^

1872 and 1875 taking such a strong stand in a matter beyond their rigi'^®

and without solicitation, is it likely they will fail to be equally decidt^ ^

in a case like ours which they are bound to hear and decide by way i'Y^3

an appeal expressly provided by statute, and where we have for niir^* ^

twenty years 1 y our own law provided denominational schools ft*^"*^

Catholics. }^^^

he
I very much fear for my part that this great question, instead (^ ^^^

being happily settled, as many of you perhaps may have imagined, y ^

only beginning to be opened up. We shall have in the first place, f q,

struggle in the courts which will doubtless be appealed from one tril^g

1863 and to the coirjnal to another until a decision is reached at the hands of the Privy

in the Contederatioi|iouncil ; and then we shall, if the case is deci<led in favor of the Prov-

;|ico, liave this appeal under snh-clauso throe to tlie Dominion Government,
ipported it by speecgrobably then to the Dominion Parliament. From either of these bodies

same grounds whictsee nothinf^ to expect on our part but a decision adverse to the spirit
to the Confederation our recent legislation. I sue no reason to doubt that the majority of
I separate schools fojbe Commons will still vote as our own Mr. Greenway did in 1875. And
ec, caused me to fef|y legislation of the Dominion Parliament we shall, in that event and to

my active assistanflnat extent, be absi)lutely bound. In other words we have not the power,

re laboring under tlit repeat, to legislate finally on this question, and our legislation is liable

vances that the Catl*nd likely to be reversed by an appellate power. And you and I without

ibating one jot our preference for, and support of, a purely national

>nt d that 114 of f)*y''*t6m of schools, and while approving the new law, if passe<l under

f' ■ ■ I'no- f]^'^^*^'' conditions, may well doubt the wisdom, to say no more, of passing

^ ' , 1 < ® egislation that is likely to lead to the question being made a foot ball

'' ' . , " 1 A [} between parties and factions in Dominion politics, with the almost cer-

nswick, and to beg c . f i. i- i • • • i i. r^.^

, , , 1 , '^- iain result ot havmg our opinions reversed at Ottawa.

hat body to provic ^ '

s who at that time si * CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR PRUDENCE.

Deral Leader, and wl

B resolution oi Messr g^^ even if we had the absolute power to pass the recent legislation,
riere, so as to^ secui^uj jf there were no con.stitutional restraints limiting our right to do so,
'ick, was Mr. ihomi^ji^([ that without appeal ; are there not circumstances in our present
3 Commons, and nOjQgition that suggest a doubt as to the prudence of our action ?

It is not, I think, too much to say that there are circumstances
)mmons seems a littyjjjch might well have decided us not to act in the matter at least
ure had the exclusi\yjthout very grave deliberation. The Catholics have for nearly twenty
rliament had no co^gg^i-g pr^gt enjoyed the privilege of denominational schools, a privilege
; Commons mterfer6Qgui.g(^l^ as they at least thought, by the Constitution and provided
ition. Ihe only jusIqj them at all events by our own Legislature. This privilege has
to be that it was ^q^^ continued during all these years by the common consent of all
are dangerous propos,ig^sgQ3^ practically without a protest. The long enjoyment of a par-
b simple negative votjg^ljj^j. privilege by a class of people, under legal authority, is usually
mswick even unasKeg^jjgjj to give some colour of right to a claim for its continuance, un-
with the rights oi tlegg^ indeed, a change of circumstances arises which makes its continuance

, wrong to other classes. EspL-cially is this the case where the privilege
nt of the Dominion ^^ been granted to a class who claim it as a matter of right. It is
bter beyond their rifl'^® thing to refuse special privileges to any class on the establishment
to be eouallv decidt'^ ^ system for the first time ; it is quite a difierent thing to take
and decide bv way r^^y ''^ privilege long enjoyed by law and by common consent. It is
^re we have for ni*'^^ ^^^^ more difficult, I repeat, when it is a case in which the classes
ainational schools t't'^^^ enjoyed the privilege claim to have had it conferred upon them as a

aattor of compact or treaty, even though they may fail to justify
he claim. This question of continuing or abolishing separate schools,
it question, instead i^ qqq j^-^ ^yhich we have to deal, not simply with what we may justi-
lay have imagined, y g^g right in the abstract — we have to consider also what, in view
'e m the first place,* q^j. mixed population, our diversity of opinion and our actions in
ppealed irom one trilj^^ ^ast, is expedient and politic. We have to consider what is likely

to give the greatest satisfaction, on the whole, and in view of i^*'

the circumstances, to all classes. We are not legislating for a hoinfP!''

geneous people, nor for a people that we can by Act of ParliaineT"

weld into homorreneity. .

• ^ •= "^ , , .ro\i

We are not called on under any circumstances, as I think, jppj^

abandon the position that it is the right and duty of the State f^u^]

control, as well as to provide for, elementary education. Nor is t| \j

fact of the existence of Separate Schools for many years to be takc^ „

necessarily, as a bar to their abolition ; if their abolition will, on igitu

the whole, work for the jrreatest ijood of both Catholics and Protestaii'

and if their continuance will clearly work for evil. But we ou<,'

very carefully to consider, not only whether we are rjally able j'*^

accomplish such abolition, but also how far it will bring about t ^ ^^
1 • Dro

good we aim at. * f,

A PARALLEL. not

In discussing this phase of the question I must refer once more '
its history in old Upper Canada. That history affords a striking paralpw^'
to our own case. For ten or twelve years the Catholic minority ^^^
Upper Canada had enjoyed denominational schools with the concurrent t-h
of all classes. Then an agitation arose for their abolition and, as mig >
be expected, this was at once followed by a bolder and more aggressr tak;
attitude on the part of the hierarchy in their support, and in denunci-^on:
tion of the public system. It has ever been one of the lessons taug' obj(
by experience, that an attack on institutions that are by any class ' jece
people held dear, has the effect of rallying such people to their suppo Xfc v
and to a resistance of every effort to destroy them. The more deti com
mined the attack, the more surely are the ranks of the defending par; ^y^q
closed up for such resistance. In Upper Canada the fight for Nation ghoi
Schools was ably and vigorously led by the then Liberal Leader, Geor, ^I^q
Brown, backed by the entire Liberal Protestant vo'^e, and by not a i'e n
Independent Conservatives. But the leaders of the latter party join-
hands with the Catholics, and aided by the French vote from Low'^*^,
Canada, they succeeded in passing the Scott Education Bill of 18(! ..
I have already referred to the fact that this measure, which was ^^^ •
some extent a compromise, was afterwards accepted as a final settl..^
ment of the vexed question by all parties. , . ^'

DR. RYERSON'S VIEWS.

iny <

The '

Amongst the prominent men of the time who took part in tdaini
discussion during the agitation, was the Rev. Dr. Egerton Ryersc j
This distinguished man, for over thirty years, filled the position i
Chief Superintendent of Education for Ontario with consumniii

em.

ability and success, and he was the founder in fact of the system ^^

that Province. As many of you know, he was an eminent clergynit i.|q|

of the Methodist church. He was a Protestant of the most pronounc' ^ ^
type, and he most vigorously resisted what he deemed to be the aggn.

y«Mi

»MB«i«-»TTrtffWTnT*^ ,i

and in view of j*^'' encroachments of the Catholic Church Any disposition he may
irislatino' for a hoiii^P'^'''^'^ ^^ have shown in the way of inakinj^ concessions to Roman
JV Act °of ParliameT*''"'''^"^' ^^^^ scarcely, therefore, he attrihuted to what is sometimes

iscribed as " trucklinfr " to that church. At the time I speak of, some
flpovisions of an ohjectional character, relatinji^ to Separate Schools in
inces, as I think, ^per Canada, liad been carried in Piirliament hy the votes of French
duty ot the State (|Einl>ers from Lower Canada. This fact tended to embitter the feeling
ucation. Nor is t| Upper Canadians af]fainst the entire Separate School system, and
ny years to be tak(j|e ajritation for its abolition waxed hot. In connection with this
abolition will, on tijitation Dr. Ryerson, in 1858, wrote as follows : -
holies and Protestaiim ..r^- ^ • • ^.i x i i i i- i- i. u i.

evil But we ouf' '^^ "^ surprising that a deep and general feeling should be

iQ are r-allv atle'' *^^^'''^"®'^ ^^ ^'^^ western part of the Province, and that many per>sons
will bnn<r about t ^^^^ have been all along assenting parties to the Separate School
° provisions of the law, should resolve to sweep these provisions from

the statute book. * # * * gut in t^is view I can-

not concur."

ust refer once more He goes on to give his reasons for this attitude, resting his opinions
Drds a strikin<T paralioainly on the fact that Catholics had so long enjoyed Separate Schools,
Catholic minority hat it woukl be an injustice to them to take them away. In support

with the concurren*' <ihis view he proceeds to say :—
volition and, as mig << Giving corporate powers to a large religious community, and

and more aggressi- taking away those powers, are two different things. And though the
art, and in denunci -^jonferring of them in the first place may have been unwise and
)f the lessons taug' objectionable, yet depriving the parties of them after they have

are by any class ' received and enjoyed them, may be still more unwise and objectionable.
3ople to their suppo Ifc wouhl be a grave offence indeed, on the part of one of our religious
m. The more dett communities, that would justify the repeal of their college charter,

the defending part whether it were wise to grant it in the first place or not; and it
the fight for Nation should be an offence equally grave that would justify the repeal of
iberal Leader, Geor, the rights granted by the establishment of Separate Schools."

ihe latter nartv ioin. These words of Dr. Ryerson may help us to realize that there
ich vote from Lovv'^^y ^^ doubts as to the wisdom of our course, and that we should
acation Bill of ISf'*'*' ^^ lulled into the idea that our Government and Legislature have
^asure which was '^^*^'y settled tlie question for us. Dr. Ryerson's language will have
ted as a final setH'^^''^ weight too, when we reflect that there was no constitutional

lifficulty at that time standing in the way of the abolition of Separate

Schools, while there was no pretence that the Catholic minority had

my constitutional or statutory right to demand their continuance.

Che Ontario Catholics, in fact, had then no such case to support their

10 took part in tdaims as their co-religionists in Manitoba have to-day.

Jr. Lgerton Ryersc j ^^ ^^^-^^ convinced that the opinion of the great majority of

ed tne position ^^ people of Manitoba is most pronounced in favor of a national sys-

^ t^^ f fh^""^^"f""""®°^' ^ ^™ convinced that the action of the Government in the matter

act 01 tne system ^^ oqqu, generally approved, on the assumption that it was consti-

a eminent clergynu„j..^^^l . ^^^j j i^^iieve there has been a very general feeling, and that

the most pronounc^^ j^jj unreasonable one, that a time like the present, when the

med to oe the aggrt "^

' I

Ministers of the day have a strong backing in the House, was tlijjit

f)roper time to bring about the change, assuming that it could l|th
egally and fairly done. liut I have from the beginning been cot^xo
scious of such difficulties in the way that I was unable to see aii|oii
reasonable hope of ultimatfly attaining the desired en<l. That end ^^ \
take it, is a harmonious union of Catholics and Protestants undei- jwec
uniform system. An ideal system theoretically is a good thing t]^l)
aim at, but in practice we have to seek rather a system that ca^m
be worked with success. in the matter of etlucation, more perhfi]'Hy
than any otlier questions with which we have to deal, tlie ultimat, is
.success of the system is dependent upon the extent to which it j w
approved by all classes and denominations. Our purpose I repeat is ii'jan(
simply to abolish Se])arate Schools but to establish schools which wiavii
unite Catholics and Protestants in happy unison. My doubt is whetlneno
that can ever be accomplished by coercive legislation such as we liaveju
passed, and wliether that legislation under existing circumstances wi
not in fact tend in exactly the contrary direction.

ESSENTIALS IN A PROPER SYSTEM. '^^^'

lath
I think there are certain propositions which should be laid doufie p
as the foundation of a sound school system. And first of all, the Staif a i
should provide for the establishment of schools for elementary educatioted
available to all classes on equal terms. Then, the State should givnd i
such liberal aid as the public treasury can afford, for the purpose tg he
furnishing such education. That aid should be given with the sini^^e Fi
view of furnishing education in secular branches. The State shoulagun
regulate and control the administration of the system generally, iihese
eluding jhe (qualification of teachers, the subjects of secular study, tlo th
choice of text books and the conduct and inspection of schools. Tl.U ri
State should in fact see that, as far as can be, the full measure of seculaspe
education shall be furnished in all schools receiving public aid. Then i.he c
rate-payer in a school district should be exempt from liability to p.n ac
rates, because of his belonging to any particular denomination. Thchese
conditions being fulfilled, I see no reason why provision should not hiera
made for religious exercises in the schools ; and while our ideal is a s}Oath
tern in which these exercises shall be absolutely uniform and non-dro w
nominational (if that be a possible thing), I can see no very serious objmjur
tion, if under certain circumstances they partake of a denomination.oho<
character. Assuming that one of the municipalities in Russell had bcure v
colonized by the Methodist Church and that all the children in certain dif»nd i
ricts in that municipality were those of Methodist parentage ; would it isduc;
such a case be a very serious wrong, if the religious exercises in the schoi £ th^
of these districts were modelled after the teachings of John Wesley ? Ai-ricts
what if the Methodist Minister of the district should once a week, ixen
once a day for that matter, give the children an hour of teaching leno
religious truth following the same worthy model ? I venture to sa}- i.ny i
would be a good thing for these children to have such a privilege. 1 (norc
ll I'-f' understand that it is a necessary condition of a national plan of educatitiave

the House, was th^^^ the truths of Christianity should not be systeniaticully tau^rht
ing that it could Ifthiii the scliools. Praeticiilly it is difficult to have it so in most Ani,do

beginning l)een cor^xori countri«!s, bocause of tlic division of Christians into so many sects.
:as unable to see ari|o,n this fac-t, i.idr.jd, the whole ditlieulty arises. Were we all of one
ed end. Ihat end ,^t it wouM not exist. It would be quite proper, and surely advan-
l rrotestants under «ryous if it were practicable, to have «dcmentary education accomitanied

IS a good thing tfth teaching of a religions character ; but because of our divisions we

a system that ca^iaud that " e(iM;d rights" be extended to all, and ns the only practical
acation, more perhaii^y ,,f ivjiching this conditi<jn, perhaps the luajority of us conclude that
:.o deal, the ultimat, j.s better to have nonrsectarian schools. But if we have a large district
>ctcnt to which it i which the population is all Catholic or all Protestant, I do not under-
•urpose I repeat is ii'jand th.it there is any serious objection to the schools in such district
ih schools which winving religious exercises of a denominational character — 1

My doubt is whetlii^jjominational as between Protestantism and Catholicism,
nsuch as wo have in
net circumstances -i A PRACTICAL NATIONAL SYSTEM.

mean

\vi

STEM.

Now, this consideration suggests, it seems to me, a system, which,
rhile avoiding the defects of the old plan, and the objections of Roman
Jatholics to the new one, may give fair .satisfaction to both sections of

should be laid doufie population, and that without yielding any of the essential features

first of all, the St;uf a truly national system. If we go into the French Parishes on the
eleinentary educatidl^ River, we fln<l them chiefly peopled by French speaking Catholics,
he State should givnd if the new public school .system is imposed on them their schools will
i, for the purpose (g heretofore be mainly attended by Catholic children. The trustees will
^iven with the sin^^ French speaking Catholics and the teachers will be the same. Now,
1. The State shoulasuming that the provincial authorities see to it that the teachers of
system generally, iihese schools are properly (qualified, that the work of secular education
of secular study, tla tfiem is as far as possible fully and properly carried out and that in
:ion of schools. Tl.U respects, in no far as secular education is concerned, they pass the
ull measure of secuJQspection of the State ; what great practical wrong is done by permitting
1 public aid. Then ihe children of the Parish to receive in their schools religious education
from liability to p;in accordance with the Catholic faith •* And what if the teachers of
enomination. Thehese parish schools should have a badge of approval at the hands of the
)vision should not liierarchy, indicating that they are accepted as proper teachers of the
lile our ideal is a S}Oatholic catechism as well as of the national course of secular study ?
uniform and non-d^o what extent would the public schools of the rest '^f the Province be
no very serious objenjured, or injustice be done to the children attending these public

of a denomination-ohools, if, in every Catholic district in the Province, where the schools
i in Russell had bet;re wholly attended by Catholics, the church were allowed to pi-escribe
lildren in certain dis^nd to conduct its own exercises ; so long as the full measure of secular
)arentage ; would it isducation demanded by the State is supplied to every child ^ And what
ixercises in the schorf the Legislature should declare that these schools in the Catholic dis-
Df John Wesley ? Aiiricts are to be regardeil as "separate" for the purpose of religious
ould once a week, exercises, from the public schools which are acceptable to all other

hour of teaching ienoiuinatlons, but in wdiich Catholic exercises may not, any more than

I venture to say my other sectarian exercises, be allowed ^ And, if wo go thus far, what

ch a privilege. 1 more is practically involved in permitting Roman Catholics, where they

nal plan of educaticiave a population large enough for that purpose, to form a school exclus-

ively for Catholic children, in which they shall enjoy these privileges
I am assuming that such Separate Schools, as we may term them, coultj^
only be established under conditions to be regulated by the Legislatur
and, amongst such conditions, I assume would be these ; — Every schoQl
district created by the State would be prima /acie a public school distric
and the Separate Schools would only be established by the voluntarij
action of the Catholic rate payers where they are sufficiently numeroui
within a certain and reasonable radius. Every Catholic rate payer eve
within such district, who did not by his own wish and act attach himseltlt
to the Separate School ; and every Catholic ratepayer, without any exhen|
ception, not within the district, would be a supporter of, and taxed fosy r
the public schools. I am assuming that in so far as secular education ioio
concerned, these separate schools would be under the control of the StattaJth
The State would declare the secular qualification of teachers, whicliOse
would be the same as for public schools ; the State would conduct theijiBh
examination as to secular qualification just as in the case of public schorjflcc
teachers ; the State would provide for and carry out the inspection ojjiioo
these schools, just as in the case of public schools ; and the secular texiten
books which would be altogether approved by the State, would be, iiossil
the main, if not altogether, the same that are prescribed for the publihrou
schools. The administration of the separate schools would, in fact, exceperha
as to the matter of religious instruction, be in the hands of the samur p
Board or Department of Education that manages the public schoolsf th
In truth, such schools would form a section of the public system, for purpini
poses of secular education, which alone the State should take part iniade
but they would be " separate " from the public schools in so far as theihat
would be permitted to include Catholic religious instruction under thegisli
control of that church, in their course of training. A national systenhey
with a separate element such as this, is not your ideal nor mine ; but wa p'
are now looking for a practical system where the ideal cannot be had ojegi?
is impracticable. Is there really anything that looks very hurtful froniona
a practical standpoint in all this ; anything to mar very seriously tlimr o
public schools of the land ; anything to threaten ruin to our educationatanc
system ; anything that endangers the Protestantism of the majority >f a <
There is in it, undoubtedly, a departure from the true ideal ; a departuroiino
that comes from yielding to the demand, perhaps unreasonalDle, of Romarathe
Catholics ; and it involves, as I think, giving them special privileges-
privileges, however, that in the estimation of most of us, will work only h
to their own injury, in that they will be, as we think, practically unabL '
to bring up the separate schools to the standard of the public schools fo:[t is
secular education. Because of these and other objections, some of whidn IJ
I have indicated, I would, if we were establishing a plan of education ir.'or i
the country for the first time, and if we were untrammelled by any coiiorev
stitutional restraints, or by any limitations of our power in the premiscs^hat
most earnestly oppose the creation of a separate system. I would follov^ectf
rather, the enlightened example, as I think it is, of our American neiglix)oas
bors, in building up a truly national plan of secular education witl.^lob
absolute equality between all denominations. pub]

tier

njoy these privileges I But when I look at the experience of Ontario and the result of
may term them, couLif agitation there — when I read the utterances of great Statesmen
ed by the Legislatur<j|| fairminded men, confessing that time and experience has taught them
these: — Every schoqit the ideal national system which they had supported with the
a public school districi#iiiest enthusiasm in their days of "youth and inexperience," was
ed by the voluntarilipossible of attainment and impracticable in operation " — when I
sufficiently numerouAU the compact entered into in Ontario and Quebec, as the best
tholic /ate payer eve^tion of a difficulty they had struggled with for a decade,
md act attach himseltJIt compact being entered into by the best minds in the Provinces —
yer, without any exlien I know that the intention of Parliament in creating this Province,
3r of, and taxed foi^ repeatino, in terms that were made applicable to our position at the
is secular eaucation ifi|on, the restraininir clauses of the Confederation Act,) was to secure to
le control of the Stattsi^holics here the same rights that were by that compact guaranteed to
1 of teachers, whidiijse in Ontario — when I know that the Catholic minority relied on
3 would conduct theii|h being the meaning as well as the intention of the law — when I
3 case of public scho( jflcct that the only possibility cf our having the power to abolish separate
>ut the inspection o:^ools lies in the chance of the Manitoba Act not having the effect
and the secular texifcended at the time it was made law — when I consider that even that
State, would be, iioasibility has to be settled by litigation, to be carried at our expense
ribed for the publihrough all the courts to the foot of the Throne, and to be determined
would, in fact, exceperhaps in the end against us — when I am reminded that in any event
! hands of the saniuir power to legislate is not final, 'but subject to appeal to the opinion
s the public schoolsf the Dominion Executive and of the Dominion Parliament against the
iiblic system, for purpinion of our Legislature — when I read once more the urgent appeal
hould take part iniade by the Dominion Parliament to the Legislature of New Brunswick,
Dols in so far as thethat was in no way restricted as to its powers, nor hampered by past
nstruction under thagislation), that it might concede separate schools in a province where
A national systeuhey had never been established — and when I am met by the fact that
al nor mine ; but wa pursuance of the provisions, of our Constitutional Act, our own
eal cannot be had Ojegislature, with unanimous vote nineteen years ago, ci-eated denomina-
s very hurtful fronional schools here, which the minority have continued to enjoy under
.r very seriously tlimr own laws ever since — I say that when I consider all these circum-
1 to our educationatances, and I am bound to give them consideration, I have not the shred
n of the majority »f a doubt, that the more prudent course would have been to oft'er to the
e ideal ; a departuratiinority a concession in the shape of a sj'stem such as I have described,
■easonable, of Romarather than venture on so turbulent a sea as we are now sailing into.

f'^utwiU tolfe THE SYSTEM OF 18G3, IN FACT.

, practically unablt ■s'or let it be thought that we have no precedent for such a system,
le public schools fo![t ij^ in fact nothing more nor less than the system established in Ontario
iions, some of whidn 18G8 ; the system which has there prevailed with a few modifications
plan of education ir.'or more than a (juarter of a century, and had with various limitations,
imelled by any conorevailed for nearly a like period before that time. It is the system
wer in the premisesihat with all its defects, and with all its departures from the ideal non-
m, I would followjectarian plan, enables the premier province of the D-^-ninion to-day to
ur American neigh-Qoast of a standard of general education second to .lo country on the
ar education with^lobe ; which reflects the very highest credit on the statesmanship of her

public men ; and which at this moment stands higher in the estimation of
ligr own s jns than it has done at any time in her past history.

RECORD OF THE ONTARIO SYSTEM. ^

There is something very remarkable in the record of that system _^ ^
Ontario. I have stated that at its passage it was opposed by a majori^ •'
of the representatives of the province in the Parliament of the Unit'fl*^'
Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, by almost the entire Protesta*'''*''^
Liberal vote and by a number of Conservatives. Forced as it thus w^''
on the Province by the votes of the members from Quebec, against tl^ ^
protests of its own representatives, one would have expected a continut**^^*'
agitation against it. The striking fact however, is, that during the twent* * '
seven years that have clasped up to the beginning of this past winte'®''
not one voice has been raised, I may fairly say, in the whole extent ^^
that Province demanding the aV)olition of separate schools. The lead^^
of the crusade for their abolition before 18G8 wa.s, as I have said, tr^^'
late Hon. George Brown. Like Mr. MacKenzie he was, in his young^^^^
• lays, a most enthusiastic believer in the ultimate possibility <^^^
uniting Catholics and Protestants under one National System, and IPPP^
carried that enthusiasm into a great struggle to bring about that en
He carried on the fight till over his head the Bill of 1863 was made la^gj^^,
by the votes from Lower Canada. But like Mr. MacKenzie he realized '^y{{[^^
years rolled on the utter impracticability of uniting people of such hostil^Qu),
creeds by coercive legislation when tlie claims of the minority had beojjjce
so long conceded, and he accepted the provisions of the law of 1863 as qj s;^
final compromise. Speaking in the Confederation Debate Mr. Brow
said : —

(

'iqu

" I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed, an-pinif
" continue to oppose, sectarian legislation .so far as the public chest ^fer
" concerned, * * * but I have always admitted that the sectaria'Ubli(
" system, carried to the extent it has been in Upper Canada, had n'
" been a very great public injury. * * * An Act was passed in 180
" as a final settlement of the controversy. I was not in the House at tl
" time but if I had been I would have voted against the Bill." ts

]

orm.
nts '

Mr. Brown went on to say that this measure was accepted as

compromise by all parties, and intended to be perpetuated in the Confe _ .,

eration scheme. Then, replying to a remark of Mr. T. C. Wallbridge, h„\,}

continued : — ^„, ^

entfi

" Let the honorable gentleman introduce a Bill to-day to annul tio^^*''
"compact of 1863, and repeal all sectarian school acts of Upper Canad;-^^
" and how many votes would he get for it ? Would he get twenty out r
" the hundred and twenty who compo,se this House." , xi.-

I have no hesitation in expressing it as my own opinion that tl* snp
establishment of Separate Schools at that time was a mistake. I hav'^ig
always held to that opinion, but tl\e fact remains that it was .so decreec' ^l^'
and the re.>iUlt was incorporated into the Confederation scheme, and fron
that day to this the separate school provisions of 1863 have been acceptei.Ug (
by all parties as a final settlement of the whole vexed question.

reTEM.

AMENDMENTS IN ONTARIO LAW.

cord of that system ' ^^ ^^ t*^^ ^^^^ urgent demands have been made by a very consider-
opposed by a majori4^ section of the Ontario electorate, within the past few years, for
iament of the Unit*^^'^ amendments to the law — but nothing more. And indeed, that
the entire Protesta'^i^''^"'^ ^^^^ ^^^^"^ practically confined to an amendment in this one par-
Forced as it thus w<il'*i*' '^'^b' • — ''}' ^^^'^ ^*^*^' ^^ passed in 1868, every Catholic ratepayer
n Quebec ao-ainst tl** ^*^ ^^^ deemed a supporter of, and to lie taxed for, the public schools,
s expected a continu**^*^^'^ ^"^^ until he of his own voluntary act, took steps to be attached
lat during the twent* * -Separate School. It was alleged that amendments had been made
' of this past wintJ*®'' 1^*^'^' the effect of which was to make every Roman Catholic prima
1 the whole extent ^^ ^ Separate School supporter, and that he could only cease to be
! schools. The lead^^ ^'y J'^'i^^iiin ^ special application for that purpose. Even as to this
s, as I have said tt'^^^'*^"- however, it may be remarked that having come before the
e was, in his youiiL"^^^^' ^^ ^^^"^ held, as Mr. Mowat had always maintained, that the
timate possibility ,flifc'idm«'nts in question had no such effect. So tliat even that objection
ional System and ippp^^rs to have been without foundation.

??f p?^°"* ^^^^ ^" Of the fact, at all events, that the demand in Ontario was for amend-
TT • T^ ^ ^^""ent only, and not for the abolition of the Separate School system, the

cKenzie he realized -vidence is abundant. If we were to find any demand for abolition, it

people of such hostil^o^l.l ),u,,yly be a,„ongst the most pronounced Protestants in that Pro-

le minority had bee jjjc^. — t,he most active opponents of Romish aggression. Nowhere, I

e law 01 lood as m t;ni-f. can we find stronger representatives of this class, than in tlie

a Debate Mr. Bro\vi;q„jii Ki^l,t.s Association and in the Orange Body ; and no objection can

>e made to taking as an individual representative of that school of
always opposed, an'pinion, so prominent an exponent of it as Dalton McCarthy. Let me

s the public chest €fer jou to the opinions of these two bodies and of that distinguished
ed that the sectaria'Ublic man.

per Canada had n' EQUAL RIGHTS Ol'INION.

t was passed in 18(

t in the House at tl. In June, 1<S8(), The Equal Riglits Association held
the Bill." ta great convention, at which the members adopted

, , orm. The convention was attended by over 800 representative Protest-

, J . f|P p ^^ nts of the most decided type, and they considered and pronounced upon

T C^ W lll^'"i^*^ i"'^® puljlic school question. Did they demand the abolition of Separate

onage, '^^qJ^qoI^ ? jjy no means. A motion for their abolition was indeed pre-

.ented for consideration, but it was promptly suppressed ; and the

to-day to annul tliOl^^^^'i^o resolution was adopted, and is a plank in the platform of the

fcs of Upper Canaflf-^ociation to-day :—

g wenty out (. « yv^ record our approval of our national system of public schools in
'this Province, and we insist that every ratepayer should be deemed a
n opinion that tli'stipp^>rter of the public schools, unless he himself, of his own free will
a mistake. I hav'8igniti<'s his ijesire to be ranked as a supporter of Separate Schools, and
i-t it was so decreei'^**^ ^^"^'' "'^*^^ should be so amended as to be most explicit on this point,"
on scheme, and froi. ^ j^ .^ striking fact that the mover of this resolution, approving of

.i nave been acceptej-i^^ Ontario school system was no other than Mr. J. J. Hughes, the de-
d question. "^ "

in Toronto
their plat-

! i

feated Equal Rights Candidate for Peel, in the recent Ontario electif f

And in order that there might he no doubt as to his position at that tira'^

Mr. Hughes said, according to the Mail report of his convention speec^^

.■IP'
" So long as separate schools existed legally it would be impossiljii

"to interfere with them, but the citizens should demand that until a ni" *

" objects he should be ranked as a supporter of the public schools." ^e

OPINION OF ORANGEMEN.

ons
lie
)at

The members of the Orange Order in the Ottawa Valley to tlggoi
number of 4000 met in the Dominion Capital on the oth of NovemlWni
1889, and were addressed by the Rev. Mr. Wilson their Chaplain, by tiQ^i
now famous Col. O'Brien, M. P.. and by others, after which they pas.s(,|||it
this resolution on the motion of Rev. W. G. Crothers, seconded by Remch
F. W. Farries : " We would strongly urge the Government of Ontar,yett
"to * * * * remove all indefiniteness in the school lai^J
" so that every rate-payer shall be deemed a supporter of public shoo^j^e <
" unless of his own free will he desires to rank as a supporter of separaj^jm*
" schools."

MR. DALTON MCCARTHY'S VIEWS. jcho

m it

In his speech at the great E(}ual Rights meeting in Toronto in Octi-gacl
ber, 1889, Mr. Dalton McCarthy addressed himself to the school questicrj^ac!
and used this language : — ^joiyi

" He endorsed all the things set forth in the platform of this associs^'O *h
" tion, especially that the separate school law was to be placed beyoiij^y»t'
" question of doubt. The Roman Catholics had a right to separate schooli^'iOr
•' and he would not, for the present, raise his voice against that rigl->' ^'^
" guaranteed to them by the Constitution ; but there was no guarant(A ^^
" in that Constitution, and it was not their right and privilege when tlP®^*^
" Act was passed, that any priest or any person should have power to sa(I **
" that this man and that man were Separate School supporters and pi^®*^
" them to the trouble of having to go and put themselves down as publi^"® |
" school supporters." t'"® '

The views I have just cited were in line with all the opinions tha

had recently been expressed in Ontario by the strongest opponents o" ha

Catholic aggression in that Province. You will see that they are entirel " otl

in accord with each other. They demanded the amendment of the lav

relating to Separate Schools. It may indeed safely be said of every on

who assented to the resolutions and statements I have quoted, that li"^?^

wished for their abolition, but the point is that under existing circuiii '^^^

stances they declined to enter on an agitation for that end. ®P

. . . • . "ti(

It is to be observed that during the past winter and spring and wit! gyg,

a view, as many suspect, of arousing a feeling against the Mowat Govern gg^,

ment, during the recent Ontario elections, statements were made an ^g^\]

declarations of public opinion were sought, in favor of such an amend

HMM

lEWS.

I 29 '

ecent Ontario electi' v

lis position at thattiiiJi'^*' ®^ ^^^ Constitution as would give to Ontario the power to regulate

his convention speec'^*^^^y ^'^^ educational system. This, avowedly, was susfgested so as to

^ower the legislature to abolish Separate Schools, but the suggestion
would be impossil|^ met with no encouraging response. The demand for such a constitu-

mand that until a ni^al amendment can scarcely be said to have taken a recognisable shape,
i public schools." ^e agitation, in fact, is " without form and void." The Protestant

^sfcituencies have pronounced against it with most decisive majorities.
N. .^e council of the Equal Rights Association, it is true, took up the cry,

^ )at no convention of the body was called, so far as I know, in order to

ih 'X fil *° tiegonsider the resolution of June 1889, and it still stands as the official

the oth of Novemb^j^njon of the Association. A little reflection will, I think, convince the
tneir Ohaplam, by t<j|ders in the movement for constitutional changes, if we can call it such,
^er which they pass^j^t there can be no hope of the Imperial Parliament ever assenting to
lers, seconded by Rei^ch a thing. Ontario will, I have no doubt, stick to the present
overnment of Ontar,^tem ; and we may confidently look forward to seeing Mr. G. W. Ross
eness in the school lajj^Jing his efforts very earnestly for the next four years, to bringing up
orter ot public shoo:j^ grade of the Separate Schools as near as possible to the same high

supporter of separa,tiindard that charact^.rizes the public schools.

Let us not lose sight of the real objection we have against separate
jchools. It is not, I repeat, that we object to religious instruction in schools
, , _ . m its own account. It is because systematic and doctrinal religio'' .

ig m loronto m Oc^gg^hijior^ that will satisfy all sects, in a uniform system of schools, is im-
/O the school questiCjjfacticable owing to our religious divisions. And we deem it a departure

from the principle of " equal rights " when we appropriate public monies
atformof this associstOL the support of schools of one particular denomination, not controlled
to be placed beyoiiby.the State, but directly by the Church. This objection was minimized
fht to separate schoolitt Ontario under the scheme of 1863 by placing the schools under thecontrol
e against that rigl->f the State as already described. The objection could be even lessened, as
re was no guarantef confidently think, in Manitoba. I see no reason why separate .schools
id privilege when tlihcf*, governed as under that scheme, should not be made to meet fairly
lid have power to sa(I f^^'" ^^^ perfectly) all the requirements of the State for secular
supporters and pii^^^'Ching as imposed on public schools. Under a system so governed,
selves down as publish'® demand of the Anglican Bishop of Ruperts Land in his address to

the Synod last winter would be met when he said : —

all the opinions tha " If separate schools are to be aided by the State, the State should
ongest opponents c" have the same security for a sound secular education in them as in its
hat they are entire! " other schools."
endment of the lav
be said of every on ^^^- Meredith, the Conservative leader in Ontario, not long since, in

have quoted that li^^^^"^^'"n ^^^^ ^"^^"'^^'^^"^^'^ *''^'^^ ^^^ '^^''^'"^''^ ^^ ^^^"^ separate school law,

ider existing circuni ''^^^^ ^^^*^^ " ^^^ schools, whether public or separate, Protestant or Catholic,

at end. " supported by public money, should have one uniform .system of instruc-

, . J • I " ^^^^' ^'^'^ ^^ entirely under tlie control of the State." The uniform

t^ti M^^^f^r ^'* system of instruction referred to by xMr. Meredith of course related to

le iowat Ijovern gecular instruction, and the plan before us would just satisfy what he

mis were made an ^j^^ed for, J ^

01 such an amend

CO-EDUCATION OF PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS* f,

mv\

But another objection which is taken against Separate SchoolsicH a
that they prevent the children of all sects from being educated toget'lOth^
thus creating divisions in society which work injury to the Stati.Jll'rg
entirely agree that the commingling of all the children in the land in W^
same public schools woi Id be a most desirable thing. Anything wliiw Pj
hinders " the unity of the community " is a hindrance to the progres>lrty |
the State. Is this unity going to be promoted by the enforced aboliti
under existing circumstances, of denominational schools for the Catli
minority ? Let us look this matter calmly in the face, and see how
we can ascertain the prol-able effect of our present legislation. Let a^rl
first look at the effect of the separate school system in Ontario as to t,pj|,j.£
question of unity. In that Province about one-sixth of the populatioij jf^
Roman Catholic. They have had separate schools there for nearly tiQinslJ
years. During all these years the Catholic Hierarchy have been exert^rtan
their influence with the laity of that church to withdraw their chiklijiibt
from the public schools. With ths extraordinary influence that )\iqo[
usually credit the clergy with being able to exercise over the faitlit|i0 t(
we would expect that, long ere this, nineteen-twentieths at least of tigjj
Roman Catholic children of Ontario are attending separate schools, l^^t ^i
what are the facts ? In Ontario there are in round figures about hali^gy v
million children attending the Public and Separate schools. Of taifdr*
number a little over 80,000 are Catholic. Of the latter it is officia
declared that about 50,000 actually attended the public schools, wli ^
only the remaining 30,000 and odd attend the Separate Schools. Jil^atui
think of this as the- result of fifty years operation of separate scho*'^^^^^^
Nearly one-sixth of all the school children of that Province are Rom "® P^
Catholics, yet not more than one-sixteenth attend separate schools, Tri;''^" ^'
it can scarcely be said of the Separate Schools of Ontario that they ha'^®*®
to any alarming extent kept the children of Protestants and Cathol;^.®^®^
from mingling and being educated together. The truth of this will nn**'^®*-
strikingly appear when we reflect that of the children who after ** ^
separate schools, a very large majority are in cities and towns. Does ^ *''^'
not strike you that even if there were no separate schools in existci'^®'^^
the children of Protestants in cities and towns would naturally dr/'**
into one set of schools, and the children of Catholics into a diffei'ent sr^^;"'
Is there any doubt of this ? Just imagine that in Toronto or Winni[it^"®[
or some other cit}', the separate schools are closed, and that there a^,
none but public schools. Imagine that even the Roman Catholic cler;^^^

have so far yielded, unwillingly of course, to the situation, that they h

ottl

not created Church schools in which to educate the children of tin? ^^

flocks, and that all in fact attend the public schools. Would we not

he V

such cities still have Roman Catholic teachers and Roman Cathol* f!'
trustees for the public schools ? A.nd there would of course be more th;.
one school in each city. Now does any one doubt that there would 1®S*^
a tendency, the moment the separate schools were closed, to provi'
Catholic teachers for some particular school in the city. And wou'/^®^^

ND CATHOLICS *^ ^^^^ ®*^^°^^ P''^*^^^^^'*^y ^^ exclusively attended by Roman Catholic

ildren ? I care not how it may be brought about, there will be in the
5t Separate Schoolsid a tenden v to separation. I may refer to this view of the matter in
Bing educated togetitOther connbction presently ; I now submit it just to point out that
ijury to the Statc.piirate schools are not responsible in a Province like Ontario to so
Idren in the land in "^t an extent as we would have thought for the separation of Catholic

inof,

Anything w

Protestant children into different schools, and for preventing the

ance to the progressitty that is thought to be so desirable.

the enforced aboliti

REASON FOR THE HARMONY IN ONTARIO.

schools for the Catl
face, and see how

Now let us see whether there is any explanation of the fact that in

tit legislation. Let ntario five-eighths of the Catholic children attend public rather than
^f l^*^ y'J''^'"^o as to t,pj^rate schools. Let us consider for a moment what the effect would

ih*^ f populatioij^ If^ against the contention and conviction of the Catholic minority, the

ere tor nearly tiegjslature of Ontario should set up a claim to have the power to abolish

fl"^l ^^^^ f^een exert:^p^r^te Schools, and that it attempted to exercise that power : do you

K raw their chiklrjppijt that there would be at once a tremendous revulsion against public
ry mtluence that j^ools on the part of Catholics ? Would not the parents of that faith,
nse over the faitht-h^ to-day send their children to the public schools, claim that they and

le ns at least of i^^i^ church were being wronged and persecuted ? I am not saying
separate schools. Ijj^^ ^^q\^ a conclusion on their part would be a just one, but I say that

figures about haliigy would so think. And so thinking, they would cease to send their
rate schools. Of t>iifdren to the public schools.

latter it is ofRcia

' public scliools wli ¥ The situation in short is this. Roman Catholics take the position

parate Schools. Jibiit under certain restrictions, and subject to certain regulations, they are

of separate schoi'*^^^^^'^^ under the constitution to establish and maintain separate schools.

Province are Roni'^® provincial law in Ontario recognizes this view of the constitution
iparate schools. Tri;"^*^ gives to Catholics perfect liberty to establish such schools under
ntario that they ha^®*^ restrictions and regulations, the Province however taking care
estants and Cathol:^ ®^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ standard of efficiency for secular teaching is fairly main-
ruth of this will nio*^^^*^^- Catholics thus deem themselves treated with perfect fairness,
children who attei^® antipathy to provincial law or to the protestant majority is aroused
and towns. Does ^ their part, and a condition of content and harmony prevails. But

schools in existen'^®''^ ^'^^ Ontario Government and Legislature to deny these claims of
v^ould naturally ^jr-'atholics and to force them against their will to support public schools

into a different st-^^^^^i^^^y- '^^ ^^ ^^^ manifest that the minority would look on such
'oronto or Winnipt^*^®^^ ^^ ^ persecution ? Would not the Catholic laity almost to a man
and that there a^"^^ ^^^ their clergy in resisting the abolition of their schools, even
man Catholic cler^^'^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^'^ not hitherto largely availed themselves of them? Would
ation, that thev ha"^^ *^® attitude of that laity bi turneil from one of entire harmony with,
le children of tlii^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ bitterest hostility to, the Protestant majority ? Would not
Would we not ^^ ^^^y Catholic school children, who had hitherto received their edu-
id Roman Cathol**^'^'^ under the same roofs and out of the same books and from the lips

course be more tlin'^ *^® same teachers, with their Protestant fellow children, cease to
hat there would |®8*''*^ these same Protestant children as their fellows and would they
closed, to provi'*®* thenceforth be trained to regard them as the children of their op-
pressors ? And would not the beautiful dream of '

provii
city. And won

the loving unity of

Hii

Catholic and Protestant children, reading and thinking and playing
gether — a dream that has made some approach at least to becomin
reality in Ontario, under the limited but State controlled s'^hciu '
separate schools — be now utterly dispelled ? un

EFFECT OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS HERE.

ite

Let us turn once more to Manitoba ; and it must be noticed not jpa
that in this Province Catholics form only one-tenth of the population q p
that the Catholic and Protestant communities are divided territorially^
a degree that does not hold in Ontario. In the latter Province go
Catholic population is, to a large extent, interspersed amongst Protested
and is not found to exist essentially in separate communities. In Alvisi
toba, on the other hand, it is mainly found in separate settleriK^eg
chiefly in the old French parishes and a few other districts. It follhoo
that if a separate system such as I have described were established lam
the separate schools would be limited to those French parishes, to ice
cities and larger towns, and to a very few other localities. Throufjlmbt
the Province at large, apart from such localities, we would not hflvigee
single separate school. The Catholic rate-payers in the greater pane cl
Manitoba would pay their taxes, in common with their Protestant ne'e c
bors, to the public schools ; and the children of Catholic parents in tjn.
part would attend the same classes and imbibe the same ideas, in s th
matter of secular learning as, those of Protestants. Even in Ontario, ade
of 700 municipalities, more than 500, I read, have not a single sep<iiiU 1:
school within their bounds. In how many municipalities out of our ccep
would separate schools exist ? In the whole of North-western Manit/inn
I take it, there would be, as things now are, but one possible sepai) th(
school, and that in the little Half Breed settlement at Port Ellice, If tb
really worth while raising all this trouble to prevent these old settarisl
from having the Roman Catholic Catechism taught in their schools ! \e c"
the French parishes on and near the Red River, Catholic schools wuloes
of course prevail ; but to what extent would that hinder the progres^e lai
the public schools of the Province at large, or retard education ? ray
Province would demand the like qualification for secular teaching on ot I
part of the Catholic as of the public shool teacher. The schools wcrill
be submitted to the same inspection, and the entire administration of arei
system would be open to the same public criticism. urn

I certainly believe that the separate schools will not, with all ided
efforts of the Provincial authorities, be made equal to the public scho^® c
This is a defect which I fear is not likely to be wholly overcome, and^tcei
that extent the children of Catholics attending these schools will be ion
sufferers. But the tendency, even in this respect, will be in the wayO^s*
improvement. The better education received by Catholic children intnd
public schools will spur the supporters of separate schools to aim at iud
same standard, and if the protestant majority in a kindly and gener-cco:
spirit of toleration concedes to the minority this privilege, claimed^®"
the latter as a right, will not the same influences operate with us as>l*c
Ontario to create a feeling of harmony and good will between the to tl
sections ?

; is;:i-sajj}gtai»::j^^

»*J

thinking and playing
at least to becomin
-te controlled aihcuh

EFFECT OF ENFORCING NEW LAW.

OLS HERE.

And how is it going to be if we attempt to enforce the present law ?
an assuming that it is held t(< be constitutional, which possibly it may
. I am assuming that it will not be modified on appeal, which I am
. ite confident it will be. But even if it is not modified, and if the

must be noticed not jpartment of Education succeeds in converting every Catholic school in
' ,. . , f P^P^^^^'^^'^B Province into a public school, an experiment which, by the way, it is
e divided territoriall>w to attempt— what, I ask, will be the result ? Unless the law ismade
the latter Province «o one step further, in the case of W^innipeg, for instance, so as to
rsed amongst ProtestyiJe the city into school divisions an<l to compel the children of each
communities. In Alviaion to attend the school within its own bounds, will not Cath-
in separate settleninoi as already suggested, send their children mainly to one particular
r»er districts. It follhool ? We may be sure they will be disposed to do so. Assuming for
d were estaoiished lample that St. Mary's school in Winnipeg, now, or lately under Cath-
ie rench parishes, toic control, is made a public school.— The School Board of the City will
localities. ThroufjJmttless in the future employ some Catholic teachers in the schools.
I, we would not havinBe teachers will probably be allowed to teach in St. Mary's school and
rs in the greater parte children of Catholics will flock to where the Catholic teachers are.
n t*V^'^°^^^*^"^-"*^'® cannot doubt that the influence of the clergy will tend in this direc-
Catholic parents in tjn. In defense of their rights, in resentment of the wrong done to them
the same ideas, in s they will contend) the catholic laity will rally round their clerical
s. Even in Ontario, aders; they will organize for resistance, and the power of the priest
e not a single sepniifl be greater than ever to keep the children out of the puplic schools
cipalities out of our ccept such of them as may be practically under Catholic control. As in
lorth-western Manitirinnipeg, so will it practically be in the rest of the province. And as
it one possible sepai) (jhe French parishes, how is it going to be ? Unless the administration
nt at Port Ellice. If the new law is to be a farce we must have Catholic trustees in these
3vent these old settarishes. These trustees will appoint Catholic teachers. In their schools
•ht in their schools '{ le children will be almost all, and in most of them exclusively. Catholic.
, Catholic schools wuloes anyone doubt that such schools, even under the new law, will
i hinder the progre<>e largely Catholic in tone, and that Catholic instruction will in some
retard education ? >fty or another be imparted ? How are we going to prevent it ? Let it
secular teaching on ot be said that the presence of some Protestant children in these schools
f. The schools woriU prevent such a state of things. I take leave to doubt whether the
re administration of arents among the Protestant minority in the Catholic parishes will be
"• uming with an intense desire t(» send their children to the schools pre-

will not, with all uied over by Catholic trustees and teachers. The bitter antagonism that
il to the public schoh* attempt to enforce the new law will arouse, will tend to make it
'holly overcome, and^coeedingly difficult for Protestant children to have satisfactory educa-
lese schools will be ion in schools in Catholic settlements. That antagonism is not going to
I will be in the wayoase after a laspe of a few years. They who think otherwise have
Catholic children intittdied to but little purpose the working of the papal organization — its
e schools to aim at tlldied, deliberate, patient, purpose, and its unparallelled machinery for
a kindly and gener^omplishing its ends, as well as its unalterable determination to attain
privilege, claimed h^na. The result will be that the schools in the parishes will after all be
operate with us as>ractically Catholic. Let me here anticipate an objection that may be made
. will between the to ^^^ conclusion I draw from the proportion of Catholic children attending

the public schools of Ontario. I have heard it suggested that the public
schools they attend are in many instances situated in Catholic districts
and are practically under Catholic control. If this be the fact it but
establishes my proposition that even after we establish our public school
system, the tendency in Catholic ditstricts will be to have church teaching
in the ])ublic schools within these districts, and it does not lessen the
force of the contention that separate schools do not keep the children
separated to any extent.

Wo, of the majority, pride ourselves on being actuated by a laudable
desire to bring about the common education of the children of all classes
in perfect unity. After much earnest consideration o2 the whole ques-
tion, and with a prepossession most strongly in favor of public, and
against separate schools, I candidly confess that I do not believe we can
bring this union and harmony about by an enforced abolition of Catholic
schools under the circumstances that have .so long existed in Manitoba.
I sincerely Iwlievc, and that belief is every day strengthened, that our
course is calcul'^iod to have entirely the opposite effect. My view is that
we should aim to keep the doors of the public schools open as wide as
possible to the admission of Eoman Catholic children, and I am convinced
that the stirring up of religious strife and sectarian animosity is the
surest way to drive them out. Had we, in abolishinof the recent educational
system, adopted one combining uniform secular teaching, with the limited
provision for separate religious instruction that I have described,
we would have removed the chief objections to our late system ; we
would have secured that our money should be devoted to secular edu-
cation, and w" might have done all this without a religious convulsion or
a disturbance of t'^e harmony that has so long and so happily existed ;
and I think we would have done no injury to Protestantism.

AN UNWISE AGITATION.

I think it was unwise at this time for us to enter on another period of
public disquiet and agitation. For years we have lived in a state of agita-
tion. It was an agitation however in defence of rights secured to us by our
Constitution — an agitation to sustain the Constitution itself, and alto-
gether a just one. We have now been for a short time at peace and free
from turmoil. Our people are getting more contented, our institutions
have a chance of being built up and strengthened, and our financial posi-
tion, thanks to the present Government, is sound and satisfactory. The
eyes of the outside world are once more directed to us. We enjoy the
hope that the tide of immigration is about to set in, in our direction, to
an extent which has not hitherto been the case. And I believe that the
electorate of the Province will think twice and think carefully, before
they will willingly see our propects endangered by entering on an agi-
tation that will provoke the worst of all strifes, a religious one, while
failing to accomplish anv good. I believe our people will be disposed to
enquire first whether there is no way of securing a fair and reasonable
system of education without such attendant evils.

e public
districts
b it but
ic school
teaching
isen the
children

laudable
II classes
>le ques-
blic, and

we can
Catholic
[anitoba.
that our
w is that

wide as
onvinced
ly is the
acational
e limited
lescribed,
em ; we
liar edu-
'^ulsion or

existed ;

period of
s of agita-
us by our
and alto-
1 and free
stitutions
icial posi-
)ry. The
enjoy the
•ection, to
B that the
ly, before
n an agi-
ne, while
isposed to
easonable

DR. RYERSON ONCE MORE.

I have quoted already from the words of Dr. Ryerson. Lot me add
a few more sentences, from his powerful pen, written at the time of the
Separate School agitation in 1858 — words which seem to me to apply
to our case with considerable force : —

"The Legislature of Upper Canada can afford, and will, I am per.suad-
"ed, be disposed, as will also a ^reat majority of the people, to be gener-
"oua as well as just in regard to the provisions respecting separate
" schools, and to give our Roman Catholic fellow citizens reason to be
" grateful, rather than complaining, that they are associated in govern-
" ment and in all the rights and immunities of a free people with those,
" a fundamental principle of whose religion is right of private judgment
" and liberty of conscience, and among whom equal rights and privileges
" amongst all classes is a tradition of history. It is very true that auth-
" orizing the establishment of separate schools by law. and aiding them
" out of legislative school grants is granting to Roman Catholics more
" than their equal rights with other classes of the community ; but it is
" better to lean to the side of indulgence than to give a pretext for com-
" plaining of persecution. The Protestant inhabitants of Upper Canada
" are well able to be generous and indulgent, and they will have more to
" hope for and congratulate tliemselves upon, by permitting the separate
"school provisions of the law to remain as they are, than by giving the
" appea;'ance of returning evil for evil by abolishing them."

This, you will remember, is from an advanced Protestant, and the
highest educational authority that ever lived in Canada. Like the late
George Brown, and like Alexander McKenzie, Dr. Ryerson was, on prin-
ciple, strongly in favor of a national, non-sectarian system ; but long
before Mr. Brown or Mr. McKenzie by years and experience had become
convinced that it was impossible eftectually to abolish separate schools.
Dr. Ryerson had come to the conclusion that, as he put it, •' It is prepos-
terous to think of legislating separate schools out of existence ;" although
there was at that time no constitutional restraint on the power of the
Legislature to do so.

WOULD THE SYSTEM OF 1863 BE ACCEPTED ?

It may be said that if the present law is unconstitutional there must
remain a doubt whether it is in the power of the Legislature to make
even such a change as will introduce the Ontario law of 18GS, and that
at all events it would be subject to appeal to Ottawa. I admit both of
these propositions at once, but I answer, we have no right to assume
that the Catholic church will take exception to, or appeal against, a
scheme that that church itself approved for Upper Canada in 1863, a
scheme that was in fact introduced by a leading Catholic member in the
House, and supported by every Catholic in the land. And if an appeal
be made to Ottawa, I cannot conceive of the powers there failing to
approve of the very system intended to be perpetuated for Upper Canada,
under the Confederation Act, and accepted by all parties in that Province

There is, however, a circumstance which gives us a fair claim to
contend that, as regards this question, Manitoba is in some respects in a
different position from Ontario. In the latter Province the compact of
Confederation was the act of its own people. They submitted to be
bound by the terms of it, and they voluntarily and by their own act
tied thoiuselves down by it. We in Manitoba had no voice in the fram-
ing of our own constitution. It was created for us before we were in
existence as a Province. It may be urged, therefore, with a good show
of reason, that we ought not to be bound by it in the same sense that
Ontario should be. To this it will be answered that at all events we
accepted it antl organized our Government under it without protest ; and
that one of our first acts was to recoiinize the right of the Catholics to
denominational schools. And yet it is perfectly fair for us at least to
consider the propriety of seeking

AN AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION

that will enable us to legislate on the question without restriction or
limitation. Some important considerations arise in weighing the pro-
priety of seeking such an amendment. In the first place, are we likely
to succeed if we try ? I answer very confidently that we are not. The
compact of confederation was a final settlement of grave sectional and
sectarian difficulties that had long existed and had threatened a dead-lock
in government. The Imperial Parliament is not going to alter the terms
of that compact in essential matters, without the consent of all the
Provinces that were parties to it ; nor is it likely to consider that the
restrictions which were acceptable to and imposed upon Ontario and
Quebec by their own wish and for such a good end, can be a very serious
injustice to Manitoba with its mixed population, especially in view of
the fact that we have practically accepted the terms of it ourselves.
Apart from all that, it is unreasonable to expect that the Imperial Par-
liament will change the Constitution of any of the Provinces on the
school question, in the face of the protest of two-fifths .1 the population
of United Canada.

EFFECT ON QUEBEC PROTESTANTS.

But even if we could get the Constitution so changed, let us be
fully convinced that we are doing wisely in seeking it before we apply.
In so far as Manitoba is concerned, I see not the least objection to our
having the same exclusive and final power to legislate on education as
on any other local matters and I would hail the change as a step in the
right direction. But the amendment of the Constitution for Manitoba
in this respoct would practically re-open the question in the older
provinces, and I do not forget that the object of limiting the power
of the local legislatures as to education was not more the protection
of the Catholic minority in Ontario than that of the Protestant
minority in Quebec. Indeed a perusal of the debates on Confederation
will show the reader that those members of the House, who above all

others pressed for a clear provision in the Constitution disabling' the
provinces from interfering with the estahlislierl system, were the Pro-
testant members from Quebec. And we should weigh well the possible
effect on the position of Protestants in Quebec if the Legislature of
that Province were giren absolute control over legislation. H(>re let
me say that I do not at all yield to the argument which was pressed on U3
during the discussion, that the same consideration which justitied dis-
sentient schools in Quebec for Protestants, justifies the demand of
Catholics for separate .schools in Manitoba. There is really no paral-
lel between the two cases. The schools of the majority in Quebec
are church schools — purely denominational ; those of the majority in
Manitoba are, we claim, wholly unsectarian. The commendable spirit
of fair play that moves the majority in Quebec to concede dissentient
schools to Protestants, rather than compel them to support Catholic
schools does not therefore necessarily suggest that the majority in Mani-
toba, which has no denominational schools, should create for the benefit
of Catholics, separate denominational schools of their own. Neverthe-
less it is true that the law that protects the dissentient schools in Quebec
was intended, according to the Catholic view of it, to protect separate
schools in Manitoba. At all events, were the Provinces free to legislate on
education without appeal,* the Province of Quebec would be as free to
refuse dissentient schools to Protestants there, as we in Manitoba would
be to impose a national system on the Catholic minority here. And to
show that there is a feeling amongst the Protestants of Quebec as well as
amongst those elsewhere who .sympathize with them, that the opening of
the question might be attended with great danger to them, I will quote
the following suggestive utterances : —

At the Equal Rights Convention of 1889, the Rev. Principal Caven,
in opposing the proposition to abolish separate .schools, said : — " Their
" Protestant brethren in Quebec had also in some sense the system of
" Separate Schools and they must take extreme care they did not take
" ground that would be injurious to their brethren in the Province of
" Quebec." Mr. Lee, of Sherbroke, Quebec, at the same convention,
speaking for the Protestants of that Province, said : — " If Separate
" Schools were taken from the Roman Catholics in Ontario, the majority
" in Quebec would demand that the Protestant schools be taken from the
" minority in that Province. He did not think the convention could de-
" mand the abolition of Separate Schools in this Province and ask that they
" be retained in Quebec." And Dr. Davidson, perhaps the most prominent
man connected with the Equal Rights movement in Quebec, was quoted
lately as having written a letter to the council of the Association in Toronto
protesting against an agitation for the abolition of separate schools. ''■ It is
" easy for you," wrote Dr. Davidson " to say — ' do away with separate
" .schools ' — easy for you in your strong Protestant Province of Ontario.
" But as you are strong be merciful, and remember your weaker brethren
" in the Province of Quebec. * * * While we may blot out the 238
" separate schools occupied by Roman Catholics in Ontario, you also

" desire to blot out the 980 separate schools occupied by Protestants in
"Quebec." An appeal for very mercy's sake, yon see, from Quebec Pro-
testants, not to attack the Constitution, which alone secures to them
dissentient schools in their province.

I am not prepared, for my part, under all the circumstances, to seek
an amendment to the Constitution in this direction, so lonji^ as we can
get a measurably fair system of education free from interference by the
courts or by the authorities at Ottawa, or until we have exhausted every
effort to do so. Holdin<]f this opinion, I would have been compelled to
vote, had I been in the House, against the proposition of the English
speaking members of the opposition, as formulated in the following reso-
lution, moved as an amendment to the passage of the School Bill : —

" That such steps be taken a., will secure an amendment by the
" Imperial Parliament of the Britisli North America Act, and the Mani-
" toba Act, v/hereby the riglit of the Legislature of Manitoba to deal
" with educational matters in the Province shall be tirmly and surely
" established without appeal to the Governor General in Council or the
" Parliament of Canada."

RESOLUTION EMBODYING THESE VIEWS.

I had prepared, and had intended, hiid I l)een present and abie to
secure a seconder, to move a resolution in terms like these : —

" This House is of opinion, (in view of the questions arising under
" the Manitoba Act as to the right of the Legislature to abolish denomi-
" national schools, and having regard to the fact that such schools have
" been enjoyed by the Roman Catholic minority by common consent for
" many years), that it is prudent to confine the proposed changes in the
" school law, at this time, to such amendments as will remove the chief
" objections to the present system, and ensure the establishment and
" maintenance of a uniform and high standard of qualification in all
" teachers, and of efficiency in all schools ;

" And this House declares that our schools, in accordance with the
" well understood wishes of the majority, should be of a national and
" non-sectarian character, conceding the privilege to the Catholic minority,
" at the same time, of providing separate religious instruction in schools
" within districts mainly peopled by them. This right should, however,
*' be subject to and limited by, such proper safeguards and restrictions, in
" respect to the size and minunum Catholic population of these districts,
" and otherwise, as the wisdom of the Legislature may devise ;

" And having regard to the principle which this House hereby
" affirms, that public money for schools should be granted only for the
" purpose of promoting secular education, all such privileged schools
" should be subject to the same central control, and the same State
" inspection, as the regular public schools, in order that the like standard
" of efficiency for secular education may, as far as possible, be maintained
" in the one class as in the other ;

" And all Roman Catholic ratepayers who would, under a uniform
"system of public schools, be liable for school rates, ought to be rated
" and taxed as ordinary public school supporters, unless and until they
"have by their own voluntary act become attached to a privileged school
" thus established according to law."

Such an amendment, 1 dare say, would not have received the sup-
port of the majm'ity in the House, directed as it would liave boon, against
the proposals of a Government so strong in the Legislature. I can only
hope that at the end of the agitation on which we are now entering, we
may get out of it with no greater concession to Roman Catliolics tlian
such an amendment involves.

RELIGIOUS EXERCISES UNDER NEW SYSTEM.

And now to complete my remarks on this question, already extending
far beyond what I intended, I w'ish to warn those who desire the main-
tenance of religious exercises, not to say religious instruction, in tiie
schools, that the new system, if it remains in force, is practically certain
to result, ere long, in the discontinuance of all such exercises. The chief
promoters of the new law candidly declare themselves in favor of the
secularisation of the schools. That was, in fact, the government scheme,
from which it was diverted maiidy by the strong remonstrances of lead-
ing divines, who raised their voices in earnest protest against it. But
" convinced ajjainst their will." or rather driven most unwillino-ly aucain^t
their convictions, into a modification of their measure, by these remon-
strances, the promoters of the Act remain of the same opinion as before ;
and means will shortly be found to bring about the system first intended.
As I have already suggested, I do not think that it is possible to agree
on religious exercises that will be acceptable to both Catholics and Pro-
testants. If it is not, the position of the secularists will be greatly
strengthened, as there is after all, some force in the contention that if we
are to forbid the use of Catholic exercises it is unfair to permit exercises
which, according to the contention of that church, are anti-Catholic.

The proVjability of religious exercises being altogether abolished has
been present to the minds of many earnest men in Manitoba who fear
much injury from the result. Leading members of the clergy in the
difierent denominations have expressed the view that Separate Schools
are less objectionable than the exclusion of religion from the public
.schools. Said the Bishop of Rupert's Land at the meeting of Synod last
fall : — " I would infinitely prefer that the Roman Catholic church should
" continue to have separate .schools under satisfactory conditions for the
" State, to our schools being without religious instruction." And the
Synod of the Church of England applauded and approved the sentiment.
Principal King, of Manitoba College, and the Rev. Peter Wright, of
Portage la Prairie, voiced, I believe, the opinion of the Presbyterian
body in Manitoba, when the learned Princi[»al said that : — " If it were a
" fact that the Separate Schools could only be ei{uitaljly got rid of

" through the entire secularisation of our public school system, much as
" this end is desired, I could not consent to purchase it at such a cost;'' and
when Mr Wright backed up the same idea by the declaration that : — " If
" we cannot get rid of Separate Schools except at the cost of legislating
" the Bible out, by all means let the Separate Schools stand."

These considerations suggest to my mind one great advantage of the
Ontario system of 1863, even if it does fall short of our ideal. It allows
more freedom in the conduct of religious exercises in the public schools.
Concede to Catholics the right to have their own religious exercises in
the schools of their own districts, and there will be less difficulty in pro-
viding for a scheme of religious exercises suitable to Protestant denomina-
tions in the schools of the majority. I have no doubt that one of the
considerations leading to the general satisfaction with the system in
Ontario, is this very advantage in the way of greater elasticity for allow-
ing religious exercises acceptable to the majority.

FURTHER EVIDENCES FROM ONTARIO.

Let me relate some other facts shewing, in a marked way the
satisfaction given by the settlement of 1863. I have referred to the
decision of the Courts declaring in effect, that the main objection taken
to the separate school clauses was without foundation. The Government
in deference to public opinion, and so as to set the question at rest, passed
a declaratory Act last session affirming that the meaning of the law was
as the Court stated. Upon this being done, the Rev. Principal Caven, the
able and fair-minded President of the Equal Rights Association said, in a
letter published by him in April last, in the Toronto Mail that, "the
" recent modifications of the separate school law are in substance what
"our platform demands." Again at the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church of Canada, held at Ottawa a few weeks ago, the Rev.
Principal Grant of Queen's College, referring to the change in the law
since its establishment in 1863, expressed the opinion that, " if they
" could get separate schools as they luere established in Ontario, not as
" they had been made, that ivas a gcod practical compromise on the
" question." At the same meeting of the General Assembly, the Rev. Dr.
MacDonnell of Toronto, a leading member of the Equal Rights Associa-
tion, thus expressed his view of the attitude of the Presbyterian body on
this question : " Their desire was that in separate schools precisely the
" same education should be given and the same books used and there
" should be the same inspection " as in public schools — referring of course
to secular education, and the books used for secular education. And that
Presbyterian General Assembly of 1890, like the great Equal Rights
Convention of 1889 actually declined to entertain a motion that might
be interpreted as declaring for the abolition of Separate Schools. I
might quote so well known and eminent a Protestant divine as the Rev.
Dr. Cochrane of Brantford, Ontario, who in an address last winter, while
declaring that the granting of separate schools was a great mistake, and
that the system "seemed incapable of justification on any ground of right,

" principle or expediency," wound up with this significant language :
" But now that separate schools have been granted for so many years, I
" am not prepared to say that solemn pledges given to Roman Catholics
" should be broken by a Protestant majority, even were it possible or
" honorable." And I read about the same time in the editorial columns
of the Canada Presbyterian newspaper of Toronto, the principal organ of
that Church in the Dominion, these words : " It is easy to say, ' abolish
" separate schools,' but those who use that phrase very flippantly have
" no idea of the (juv, ^tion they are opening up. The man who assumes
" that none but Catholics are involved has never studied the problem."
I know not how far Mr. Joseph Martin, when, under the enthusiasm
created by Dalton McCarthy's eloquence at Portage la Prairie, he made
the announcement of the Government's new policy, had a proper idea of
the question he was opening up : I am at any rate of opinion that the
majority of the people of this Province, who were disposed to support
him in his movement, did not have the idea that so many difficulties
were in the way, or that consequences so serious were likely to follow.
And 1 humbly venture the suggestion that the sober second thought of the
great majority o*' Manitobans, after calm and serious consideration of the
whole matter, will agree with me that under all the circumstances, the
prudent course would have been to seek a settlement of the question
somewhere on the lines of the " good practical compromise " of 1863, as
the brilliant Principal of Queen's College put it at Ottawa, and on the
lines of the Equal Rights platform of 1889.

I trust I have made myself perfectly plain in this expression of my
views on the school question in Manitoba. I have at least sought and in-
tended to do so, wishing, as I do, to avoid all misunderstanding as to my
position. I do not leave room for any one to say that I am favorable to
separate schools as against a uniform non-sectarian system, if the latter can
be got without wrong. On the contrary, it is my view that the concession
of separate schools in 1863 in Ontario should have been refused, while
I fully recognize the difficulty hat presented itself to the statesmen of that
day. But, with Dr. Ryerson, I see a difference between refusing separate
schools at the outstart and removing them after they have been, not only
created by our own laws but protected, as they were intended to be, by
the Constitution. Even if every Protestant in the land joined hands with
his fellow Protestants to-day to bring their abolition about, I tell you that
we would have a serious task before us ; and the end, I am quite sure, even
if we succeeded, would be, not the establishment of an acceptable uniform
system of education, but the inauguration of a bitter controversy
between races and sects. The denominational system enjoyed by our
Catholic countrymen is like a tree that we ourselves have planted. We
have tended it, we have watered it, we have protected it ; to save
it from assault we have fenced it round with the Constitution itself ;
and my conviction is thac by attacking it now, we only give it a strength
that it never before possessed. That tree has in itself some inherent
weaknesses ; hundreds of Catholic parents in Ontario, we are assured, by

choice and against clerical pressure, send their children past the doors of
the separate schools to enter those of the public schools, because they are
guaranteed a better education in the latter. Had a state of harmony
prevailed here under a like system I dare say the same results would
follow. But when we attack that tree of our own planting, we but
enable it, like a natural tree withstanding the natural tempests, to strike
its roots deeper and deeper into the soil, giving it greater power of resis-
tance than ever. Such at least is my candid conviction, And I venture
to predict that the power of the authorities at Ottawa will, under the
appeal clause in the Constitution, be put forth for the protection of the
privileges intended to be guaranteed to the Catholic minority.

THE POSITION IN ENGLAND.

Since writing the above, my attention has been drawn to the present
position and tendency of the educational system of England, which I
think suggests some lessons to us under present circumstances. Let me
remind you that in England, since 18 1 J, they have had two sets of schools
— the Board schools corresponding to our public schools, and Non-board
or voluntary schools which are denominational. From a recent maga-
zine article (the Fortnightly Review, August, 189C) from the pen of Rev.
Mr. Digglc, Chairman of the School Board of the City of London, I quote
this description of the two sets : " The Board schools may be Christian,
" the Non-board school must be Christian. Christianity is the funda-
" mental idea upon which Non-board schools are based, and their essenti-
" ally religious character is the root from which their vitality springs."

The British Government gives a like grant of public money to the
denominational schools as it gives to the Board schools ; but local rates
are raised for the latter only, — the adherents of the denominational
schools, as I understand it, being compelled to pay their rates towards
the Board schools, where the latter exist, just as if they sent their child-
ren to them. It was expected, after the establishment of this double
system, that the voluntary schools, which alone existed before 1870,
would, when thus left at a disadvantage, gradually go out of existence.
It seems clear that they are, as might be expected, far behind the stand-
ard of the Board schools in efficiency. They have no legal machinery to
secure their efficient maintenance ; they occupy too often buildings
utterly unsuitable for schools ; they are miserably equipped, and as to
their management and the qualitication of teachers, they are in no way
under public control ; and yet, with all these drawbacks, instead of
dying out, as we would have expected, the following remarkable facts
are furnished by Mr. Diggle. In 1870, when the new system was
introduced, there were already in existence in England and Wales Non-
Board schools giving accommodation to 1,878,584 children. Since that
time, and up to the end of 1889, Board schools had been established with
accommodation for 1,858,792 little ones. During the same period, how-
ever, the accommodation in the Voluntary schools had increased to
3,581,649. That is to say, the new and additional schools of the denomina-

tional class that had bejn established since the introduction of the Public
system almost equal the entire number of Board schools that have been
opened. A most remarkable result in view of the fact that the people
who, without participation in local rates, maintain the accommodation
and supply the teaching for this 3,500,000 children are at the same time
heavily taxed for the maintenance of the schools in which the remaining
1,750,000 are being educated. What extraordinary vitality in the
denominational schools is indicated by these figures, and how strikingly
they suggest the effectiveness of the power that will be put forth in our
own Province by the Church of the 'minority to maintain its schools !
And what a serious draw-back to efficient elementary education in
England is suggested by these facts ! In at least ten thousand parishes,
out of a total of fifteen thousand, there is not a single school other than
those of a denominational character, and those form the only means of
providing education for the children of other denominations. A trial
of twenty years establishes the fact that it is quite impossible in England
to reduce education to a uniform national non-sectarian system, notwith-
standing all the weaknesses of the denominational plan. The great
element of strength in the denominational system no doubt is, as Mr.
Diggle puts it, that religious education is assured. And the Royal Com-
n.ission that was appointed to enquire into the whole question of educa-
tion recently, has, as has been pointed out in the discussion of our own
case, pronounced in favor of more definite religious education even in the
Board schools.

And so it comes that an agitation is going on in

England

to-day,

not for the abolition of denominational schools, which these facts prove
to be out of the question, but to bring them, in respect to secular educa-
tion, .-somewhat under the control of Public Boards, so as to enable the
State to have some guarantee of their efficiency. And there is also a
demand that they be put on the same footing us to participation in local
rates, as well as in the national grant, as the Board schools. " It is clear,"
says Mr. Digglo, " that an arrangement cannot be of a permanent kind
" which enables Board schools, which are possibly Christian, to be
" certainly efficient ; and condemns Non-Board schools, which are essen-
" tially Christian, probably to be allied with educational inefficiency.
" Every practical proposal, therefore, for the reform of the present
" educational arrangements, must assume the continued existence of
" Non- Board schools as a part of the provision for elementary education ;
" and also their existence, under conditions more favorable to educational
" efficiency, than obtain at the present time." And with a tone of con-
fidence indicating that he had reason to know the attitude of the Con-
servative Government of Lord Salisbury on the question, Mr,
Diggle adds, " It is in this spirit that the present Government are appar-
" ently prepared to re-open and re-consider the whole question."

Let me quote a few more sentences culled from this rather instruct-
ive article on English schools : —

" There are, no doubt, difficulties in every possible solution of the
question, but rational persons will seek in each solution which is offered
for acceptance, the minimum of difficulty with the maximum of advant-
age. Most people who understand the subject will concur in the sug-
gestion of allowing the ratepayer to express his preference with refer-
ence to a portion of his educational rates, considering them as proposals
which would tend to promote the efficiency of the schools ; to secure a
more substantial and responsible management of them ; and enable the
Government to exercise over them a more general and equable control
* * * while the essentially religious character and freedom of
the Non- Board schools would be absolutely preserved. * * * We
have to make up our minds that we can no more impose an absolute
state uniformity in educational matters than in any other upon which
" men think deeply and feel keenly. What we can do, and ought to
" aim at doing, is to give fair play for diffijrences of method in the
" mode of educating children, always insisting that the education given
" shall be thoroughly efficient" for the general purposes of the State."

Let us bear in mind that the difficulty in England arises, not from
the existence of denominational schools of one church only, but from
those of several denominations, mainly the Anglican and Roman Catholic
with a considerable number of Methodist schools. How fortunate for us
in Manitoba that all the Protestant denominations are willinff to unite
under one system. But will not the Catholic Church here hold out just
as firmly against the closing of their own schools as the Anglican and
Catholic Churches at home have persisted in retaining their denomina-
tional schools. And we shall have in this Province of necessity, as a
result of our new law, a class of schools attended by the children of Cath-
olics, under no pretence of any public control, receiving no public aid,
without any machinery for securing proper buildings, proper equipment,
properly qualified teachers, or efficient schools ; but just such as the
Church of Rome may give them and such as will be wholly under clerical
control. How much more like the part of wisdom would it have been
to allow the Catholic Church here perfect freedom to impart its own
religious instruction in schools controlled for secular purposes, and aided
for such purposes, by the State, with a security for efficient secular teach-
ing. And let us bear in mind too, that the necessary tendency of our new"
system, as I have tried to point out, will be — to use again the words of
Mr. Diggle, in describing the effect of attempting the establishment of a
non-denominational system in England, " to minimize the religious instruc-
"tion which may be given in the schools and thus by degrees io deaden
" and secularize the whole tone of the instruction given.'' The natural
consequence of such a result will be that the Anglican Church in Mani-
toba — yes, and perhaps the Presbyterian and other churches too, will
commence an agitation for religious education that can hardly fail to end
ill thebreaki' ■^ up of our national system and its degradation to a system
of purely denominational schools ; aiming less at imparting that sound
secular education that fits our children for good citizenship, than at in*

stilling into their minds the controversial points of belief in their several
sects.

To you, Electors of the Electoral District of Russell, and to the
thoughtful electors of the Province at large, I commend these sug-
gestions froih lie lips and the pens of leading educationists and statesmen
in the Oider lands ; and I commend to you the careful and earnest con-
sii.L/?>t? :i of the whole question in a spirit that rises above denomina-
tional narrowness and political partisanship ; seeking, as I am certain
you do, to see the building up of an educational system that will, as far
as can be, secure the highest standard of qualification in teachers and the
highest efficiency in secular education, combined with the utmost pos-
sible elasticity for adaptation to religious exercises and instruction,
suitible to the different Christian denominations. In seeking this we
rlo well to study the history of the question in the older provinces and
to benefit from their experience. Nor should we deem ourselves too far
separated from Old England herself to take a lesson from her pages, or
to study her splendid institutions which, having been built up under some-
what conservative influences, are being remoulded even now under, perhaps,
more progressive ideas, into still greater excellence, guided by the
teachings of experience and by the wisdom of her statesmen.

I had intended to discuss shortly some other questions, including
the creation of the Department of Education, the Dual Language question,
with perhaps a few words on the Hudson's Bay Railway and other
matters ; but the great space, much greater then I had expected, taken
up with the consideration of the school question, forbids my doing sj in
this letter. I may shortly, however, take another opportunity of say-
ing something to you on these matters. Meantime

I have the honor to be,

^^'uZk-L /«%

Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

JAMES FISHER.