IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V \ ^ // {./ > y /^ Photographic Sciences Corporation \ .V ^ :\ \ -'''\ " ^«^:\ '" 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 It te pelure, con h n 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 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. _.^' X 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 turnele 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- 10 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 passer 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 M 11 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- I n II 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 sustainerity, 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 u ti 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 ns 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^ 15 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" ^ 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 18 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 19 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 decint d that 114 of f)*y''*t6m of schools, and while approving the new law, if passeers 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 bnnctcnt 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 flnf 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 i( 9 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 Legislaturut 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. 26 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. MM 27 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 we 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, 1rter 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- 28 ! 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 tf 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 30 M 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'/^®^^ 31 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 82 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 sepl*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 33 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 ane 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 34 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. 35 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 86 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 37 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 88 " 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 ; 39 " 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 40 " 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, 41 " 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 43 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- 48 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 : — H " 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* 46 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.