HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE, M.P., Orcnd Matter Loyal Orange Avisodation of Britiih Ameriea. HON, N, CLARKE WALLACE Grand Master Loyal Orange Association of British America* t HIS ACTION ON THE "REMEDIAL BILL" AND WHAT LED UP TO IT. BY REV. C E. PERRY, Past Grand Chaplain and Past Grand Organizer* WITH AN APPENDIX BY REV. W* W. COLPITTS, Of Manitoba and North- West Conference. AUTHOR'S EDITION. 1897. "■ ' ' ''j i EMMANUU 174595 r.? AUTHOR'S PREFACE The Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, a sketch of whose life appears in these pages, is the eighth Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Association of British America. The Grand Orange Lodge was organized in Canada in 1830. Since that time we have had a number of eminent men at the head of the Association, but none more influential and truly loyal to the great principles of our noble Association than Brother Wallace. The warrant author- izing the erection of this Grand Lodge was signed by Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, who, at that time, was Grand Master of the United Kingdom, and brother of William IV. The first Grand Master of British America was Ogle R. Gowan, M.P. He swayed the sceptre from 1830 to 1846. He was succeeded by George Benjamin, M.P., who occupied this honorable position for ten years. Then George L. Allen came into power, and for three years viii author's preface. ruled the Order. The next to assume the insignia of this high oflfice was John Hillyard Cameron, M.P. Among the tokens of respect accorded this ruler was the nam- ing of one of the influential lodges of the city for him, Cameron L. 0. L. 613. Following Cameron was Mackenzie Bowell, M.P., who held the office for eight years. Henry Merrick, M.P. P., was Bo well's successor, and then W. J. Parkhill, M.P. P., occupied the position for four years, and has now the honorable distinction of being Grand Treasurer of British America. This brings us to the subject of this sketch, Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, who now finds himself at the head of an Order greatly increased in numbers, in intelligence and , influence. It is a matter for congratulation that our principles are bein^^ better understood, both by adherents and outsiders ; and men are discovering that the Orange Order does not exist simply to provoke Roman Catholics to ire. It has been a matter of general remark that recent Twelfth of July celebrations have been characterized with that decorum that is befitting a great and growing organization whose chief profession is to " Fear God and honor the King." There are now under the jurisdiction of the Grand AUTHORS PREFACE. IX Lodge of British America, 1,680 Primary Lodges, 250 District Lodges, 90 County Lodges, 10 Provincial Grand Lodges. Sixty of these Primaiy Lodges are in the ancient colony of Newfoundland. During the year 1896, 40 new lodges were organized, and 9,302 persons were received into the lodges, and after deducting all losses there remains a net gain of 8^845. The Association owns pro- perty to the amount of $1,200,000. The expenditure last year was $31,868 ; of this amount there was over $29,000 given to the widows and orphans of deceased O^^ngemen who belonged to the Grand Lodge Benefit Fund. In this regard we are under great obligation to our present Grand Master, N. Clarke Wallace, for successfully pressing through Parliament the " Orange Incorporation Bill," by w^iich we are able to hold our property and administer our funds legally for the good of all concerned. HON. N. CLARK B WALLACE. BIOGRAPHICAL. BY REV. C. E. PERRY. N. Clarke Wallace is the son of the late Nathaniel and Ann Wallace, both of Carney, in the County of Sligo, Ireland. The former came to Canada in 1834, the latter in 1833. They were married in Woodbridge (then called Biirwick) in 1839. From this union there sprang seven children, five sons and two daughters. The subject of this sketch is the fourth child, and was bom on the 21 t of May, 1844, in Woodbridge, where he has ever since resided. He married Belinda, seventh daughter of the late James Fillmore, of Ottawa, on the 7th of June, 1877. They have living four sons and three daughters. The eldest son, a lieutenant in the 36th Battalion, is seventeen years of ^ge. The youngest k a little girl of nearly fpiu' years. After attendance at the Pullic School and six, 12 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. months' training in the Weston Grammar School, Clarke Wallace engaged in the honorable occupation of teaching school, and for more than five years prose- cubed this work to the mutual advantage of teacher and scholar. Whilst so employed, he had ample time and opportunity to see how under proper inspection the Public School can be made a power for good ; and is it too much to say that here, employed as a teacher of youth, he imbibed those principles that he afterwards so grandly enunciated on the floor of the House of Commons, when a political party sought to win the approbation of the hierarchy by breaking down the Public School system of Manitoba ? At the close of his engagement, he joined his brother, Thomas F. Wallace, in the business of gen- eral n.erchants in Woodbridge, v%^hich they established at Christmas, 1867. Succeeding in this venture, ten years later they built the Woodbridge Roller Flour Mills, which they bill continue, in addition to the general merchandise, both of which they have built up to large proportions and have made profitable by their enterprise and industry. Both Thomas F. and N. Clarke have taken an . active interest in all public enterprises, the former having been for many years, and is now, reeve of the town and chairman ot the Public School Bo/ird, '-^ i - .- V ■ HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 13 as well as mauager of the great Woodbriige Fair. The latter was first deputy-reeve of Vaugnan from 1874 to 1878, and warden of the County of York the latter year, when he was also elected a member of the Dominion Parliament for the West Riding of York, the first Conservative elected in a straight contest for twenty-four years. He had on this occa- sion a majority of 202. He was re-elected in 1882, in 1887, and again in 1891, each time by increased majoritie-5, the last by the noble majority, 806. On his appoint rient of Controller of Customs of Canada, in L^ecember, 1892, he was re-elected by acclamation. This important office he retained till December, 1395, when the Bowell Government in an unwise and unprincipled attempt to capture the Roman Catholic vote, determined to coerce Manitoba and force Separate Schools upon an unwilling f .*o- vince. N. Clarke ♦Wallace found himself face to face with either endorsing their plans and supporting their measures or resigning his position of power and emolument. He was rot long in reaching a conclu- sion, but immediately resigned and gave the Govern- ment Remedial Bill the most determined and active opposition in the House of Commons, and with the aid and co-operation of a few other resolute men, succeeded in compelling the Government to witlidraw 14 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. « the bill. When the battle was transferred to the country in the general election of 1896, he fought on the side of Manitoba and the Public School with remarkable ability in many constituencies beside his own, and no doubt helped to turn the scale in favor of freedom. In West York, though opposed by two candidates of widely divergent views, thus placing him between two fires which it was alleged would take away from him all the votes of both political parties, he secured the largest majority ever recorded in the history of this country, viz., 4,068. The country was not un- grateful. It saw a man for principle sacrifice power, give up large salary, and turn in this matter against the party under whose banner he had won so many victories, rather than see a young and rising province against its will put at the feet of Rome, and the verdict of posterity will join with that of West York in its splendid majority. He has always taken a very active interest in parliamentary affairs; in no sense was he a mere " figure-head " or " voting machine," to do, and to do only, as he was told. He was chairman of the Committee of Parliament that investigated the opera- tions c^f combinations injurious to trade, afterwards introducing and carrying through parliament a bill HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 15 to prevent their mischievous practice. This bill, though emasculated by the Senate, had still sufficient force to break up those in existence at that time (1889), and which were rapidly extending. In 1890, he introduced and carried successfully through parliament " The Orange Incorporation Bill," which had been tried but without success in the old Parliament of Canada in 1857 and 1858, in the Local Legislature of Ontario on several occasions, and in the Parliament of the Dominion by John White, M.P., and by Hector Cameron, Q.C., M.P, On all these occasions, notwithstanding the able support of its friends and the righteousness of its cause, so many were afraid to provoke the ire of Rome that the bill was invariably lost, until N. Clarke Wallace, who could neither be cajoled nor intimidated, pushed it to a successful issue, and thereby won the everlasting gratitude of every true patriot and loyal Orangeman. In 1884, Mr. Wallace was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. In the stormy times of 1891 and 1892 he conducted the proceedings of that committee when it became the centre almost of parliamenta I y business, and the Investigations that took place there from day to day c^iuseu the most intense interest and excitement in the country. Here, us elsewhere, his was the master hand that guided. 16 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. In the Loyal Orange Association Mr. N. Clarke Wallace has from his early years taken the most active part. It may be truly said, " He was born in the purple ot* that order." The first Orange Lodge, No. 28, was established by his father and a few other active spirits in 1847, having its place of meeting over his father's cooper shop. He served first as secretary after his initiation in 1866, then in succes- sion to his father and his brother George in the Primary District and County Mastership. The latter position he held for very many years. He became Grand Treasurer of Ontario West in 1876, and retained that office for five or six years. In 1885, he was by the votes of his brethren elected to the position of Deputy Grand Master of British America. In 1887, he was further promoted to M. W. G. M. and S. of the Order, succeeding Bro. W. J. Park- hill, whom he tried to induce to retain the office longer. In 1888, he attended the meeting of the Triennial Council at Carrickfergus, Ireland, repre- senting the Orangemen of Canada, and was there elected Vice-President. In 1891, he was elected in Toronto, President of that Great Council of the Orangemen of the World, and was re-elected to that position at the Triennial Meeting of that body held in W^estminster Hall, London, England, in July, 1894, a HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 17 position he still holds, as well as the office of Grand Master of British America. The latter position he has held during the most stormy and trying times that the Association has experienced, and yet grate- fully we record the fact that to-day, having emerged from those trials, and overcome the difficulties by which it was environed, it is stronger in Canada than it ever was before, and its principles and practices more widely esteemed. Mr. Clarke Wallace is a member of the Church of England, and was for about twenty-five years super- intendent of the Sunday School in Woodbridge, until acceptance of the ControUership compelled him to be continuously from home. He is a strong man, vigorous morally, mentally and physically ; his strong good native sense makes him much sought after at public gatherings, and as chairman or speaker he always adds to the enjoyment of the occasion. And it is earnestly hoped that his life and health may be spared many years to his family and his country, and should another crucial point in his history ever b*^ reached, may he a,gain be able to imitate Israel's great law-giver, who refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer afflic- tion with the people of God than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. / ' ^ r 4 ? /.•■■• ■»- APPENDIX. BY REV. W. W. COLPITTS, And should it be asked, " Why this brief sketch of an honored life ? " several reasons may be given. First, now that the " Manitoba School Question " may be regarded as fairly and honorably settled so far as Dominion politics are concerned, and our country saved from being set back centuries educationally, we think a good purpose is served to have placed before every true patriot and faithful Orangeman in a suitable form some description of the man whose picture adorns this work, and whose public life is here so briefly sketched, and who under God was largely instrumental in defeating that tyrannical and iniquitous order usually styled the " Remedial Bill." And though the matter is still fresh in most minds, yet a brief review of the same may be of some good to those into whose hands these pages may fall. It is now nearly fourteen years since the writer first crossed the Louise Bridge that spans the Re(j 20 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. River, and a few moments afterwards stepped upon the platform at Winnipeg. A little later he saw Fort Garry, and though the work of dismemberment had then begun, yet there were still the old buildings, and part of the wall and the gateway through which Wolseley marched his troops, to find the place evacu- ated, for Riel and his rebels had quietly slipped away. What a throng of sensations crowded his mind as he gazed at the building where Scott had been confined, and from which he had been led forth to be shot to death — a man whose chief crime was that he was an Orangeman ! Thirteen years' intimate acquaint- ance with that great w^estern country — out there when Riel led that second rebellion that sent him to the scaffold that he earned years before, and that a too patient people were so slow to accord him, the writer can trace the present agitation on the " School Question" back to those times as one can trace a river back to the hills from whence it springs. The same iron hand, though often in a velvet glove, that sought to grip firmly the political destinies of what was to be a great country, and mould and shape it after the sweet will of the hierarchy, is seen to-day at the throat of all free education and free discussion as well, as witness the suppression by ecclesiastical mandement of a French paper in Quebec that dared - >. , - ■ ■^: , HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 21 to express itself independent of Romish dictation, and Archbishop Langevin now, as Archbishop Tache then, arrogates to himself the right to control the schools which the children of Roman Catholics attend. But a little time ago, in Montmorency County, a reporter of the Herald was put to the door by a priest to whom he had gone to obtain information concerning public instruction in his parish, and told him, " The laity have nothing to do with the schools. The questions of education concern the bishops alone." The attitude which Monseigneur Langevin has taken is based on this idea, that the parents have nothing to do with the conduct of the schools. It is he and he alone who is the judge of such a matter. When it comes to paying the taxes, however, it is the father, the mother, the whole family, who are con- cerned. The whole question, in short, resolves itself into the point whether the children belong to their fathers and their mothers; whether those who pay their taxes, by their money, for the teachers, the con- struction of the school buildings and their mainten- ance count for nothing. 4 ' His Grace is violently opposed to a loyal trial of " the policy of conciliation offered by the Green way Cabinet. Will His Grace shoulder the school ex- penses which he would oblige the Catholics of Mani- 22 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. tolia to pay, while all the other inhabitants of that province receive their public subsidies, to which the Catholics contribute their share ? The result of the deplorable attitude of Mgr. Langevin is easy to foresee. The few Catholic schools which he would have them maintain will be absolutely inferior, hundreds of children will be deprived of education, and the Catholic population, already poor, will be crushed under burdens too great for their resources. His Grace will be the cause when Catholic immigration will not direct itself to Manitoba, and when even the population which is already there will decline day by day. ' ' Mgr. Langevin is a young man without large ex- perience of life. He will carry in the sight of history responsibilities before which wiser and more experi- enced men shrink. He may live long enough to realize the fault he is committing at this moment. ' If it be asked, "Why not give the schools over to the control of the clergy ?" we answer that a celibate clergy who put away from themselves the joys and responsibilities of paternity, from the very nature of things can have but little sympathy with the child, and less for the parent. And there is little fear of any difficulty arising in arranging the Public School nervice where no denomin^-tional distiwptioi:^ is paad^, HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 2^ at least as far as the parents are concerned, if they are not pushed to make objections by the clergy. For what parent is not glad to see his child have a fair chance to secure an education untrammeled ? And who that has ever had an opportunity to judge but has seen that Separate Schools intensify denomina- tional bigotry, and frequently engender hate, until the terms " Papist " and " Heretic " become a battle- cry as soon as they meet off their school grounds ? But let the children sit at the same desk, con the same lesson, recite to the same teacher, be Catholic or Protestant, and when they come to go out into the world they will carry with them mutual esteem and respect. But Manitoba under the Norquay Govern- ment did have Separate Schools, and a fair trial was made to meet the wishes of Mgr. Tache. Why were they not continued ? We answer without hesitation, because they were most inefficient in every regard, unless their proficiency in the dogmas of the Church be accepted as education. First, they were not pro- perly supervised or inspected. And what " Separ- ate School " ever was ? On this point Hon. Israel Tarte, speaking at Cornwall, Dec. 6th, says ; " When the Norquay Government was defeated, the position was this. During the whole time that the Separate School law had been in force, Mr. (now Senator) 24 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Bernier was Superintendent of the Separate Schools. But would you believe it, he never once visited one of the Public Schools, but he drew his salary of $4,000 a year regularly. But not only that, but in one year alone he got $8,000 for certain translations of English into French on account of Separate Schools. I say after investigation, that the Separate School funds were shamefully misapplied or misappropriated, just as you choose to put it. For my part, I call it fraud, pure and simple. If an investigation were to be held, and I hope it will, it will be shown that I am not too strong in my language. Such an investigation, too, would show that the educational system of these Separate Schools was the most inefficient ever pre- tended to be given to a Christian community. And there is no doubt on the minds of those who liave lived in Manitoba and closely watched succeeding events in this regard, that when a full investigation is made the hon. gentleman's opinion as expressed here will he abundantly confirmed. Is it not a fact that the Separate School always closes its door to efficient inspection ? Not long since, at Ottawa, when the Govemi*^ent sent special inspectors to examine these schools, thev met with determined resistance. Of course, the resistance took a passive form, but they were told by the ecclesiastics In charge Hon. n. clakke Wallace. 25 that they had received their orders to retire when the inspectors entered. We are shut up to the conclusion that efficient inspection is not to be tolerated by the Roman Catholic clergy, they having no desire that their schools, conventual or otherwise, should have their teaching and methods of government published to the world. And this, I take it, is really the great objection that Mgr. Langevdn has to the present settlement. Then he sees further the old regime that has relegated to ignorance and comparative seclusion so many young people of the Church over which he reigns, that has put its iron heel of suppression on everything like mental and material progress, must now give way. That this is no fanciful statement, I point the reader to St. Boniface and other French settlements in Manitoba, that had tlie first hold com- paratively on the country, that made finest selections of soil and were secured in their titles, but which have been altogether outstripped in the race by those who had not these advantages. " When I contrasted," says Mr. Tarte, ** St. Boniface with the modern city of Winnipeg, I could almost have cried. Winnipeg is a modem city with 40,000 people ; St. Boniface, which had the stiirt in the race, has probably a population of 1,400. It is going back instead of moving forward. The late Archbishop had tlie idea of I'ountling a great 26 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. French-Canadian colony, which should l)e isolated from all other peoples and interests. Quite fatal. He obtained large tracts of land, and held them against all outsiders. Look at the result to-day. I felt sick at heart to think of the way my countrymen had been handicapped.'* And handicapped they were in those schocis that existed in Manitoba previous to the Free School Act, passed by the Green way Government. lor any system of education that only proposes to teach what to think, and not how to think, must in the very nature of things dwarf the intellect. For these schools, true to the traditions of the Church all down the centuries, as seen in every land where their hand was laid with authority upon the education of the people, repressed, sternly repressed, fair investiga- tion both in science and religion. Italy itself has at last grown tired of priestly domination in its schools, and abolished the old system. And is it to be sup- posed now, when France, Italy, and many other Roman Catholic countries are throwing oft' the man- acles, that a young and vigorous province like Mani- toba is going quietly to submit to have the cast-oft shackles riveted to her ankles ? But let not the reader imagine that we wish for a moment to deprive our fellow-countrymen of any BON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 27 privilege that we enjoy ourselves, and we think that the settlement now offered Manitoba gives to the ecclesiastic all the privileges that he ought to ask. And we are glad that there is no discrimination between Protestant and Catholic, and that all the schools are to be inspected by an inspector that knowis no denominational difference, We continue, as of yore, to advocate " Equal rights to all, special privileges to none." • There have been two rebellions in the North-West, and none know better than the hierarchy the 'causes that led up to them. It is to be hoped that blind zeal and religious fanaticism will not so provoke the public mind as to lead to results that cannot fail to be disastrous to those who appeal to racial and sectarian prejudices. I am glad to believe that, so far as Dominion politics is concerned, the Manitoba School question is settled. " They " (writes one a little time ago) " can tight within that province to their heart s content, but if Langevin or Lafleche, or Cameron, or O'Brien, or anyone else attempts to bring the matter within the arena of Federal politics again, he will be worthy of the execration and contempt of all Canadians. And I believe their efforts will be met with such a storm of resentment as will make clear even to the 28 Hon. N. CLARKE WALLACE. hierarchy that Canada is for Canadians, and not for Rome." I believe that Canada has reached a new era in her history. We have a Premier, a French- Canadian, who combines in his person the best of both types of Canadian public life. The French people are follow- ing him rather than the Church. Once having tasted of liberty, they will not easily become enslaved again. And in this way Wilfrid Laurier may become the saviour of French Canada. The movement for better schools in Quebec at the present time is tlie direct result of the people's victory over the priest at - the polls in June last. I expect turmoil and storm, and we may see temporary reaction, but I believe the power of Rome, Canada's worst public foe, is broken, and the day is coming when the splendid vivacity and brilliance of the French mind will be set free to unite with the more sturdy qualities of the English-speak- ing sections of our people. As a result of this move, ' there will grow up in this North land a nation remarkable for its high mental and moral character, and which shall give to the world the finest example of democracy, governing itself in the interest of all its citizens and of all the world. At present I look to Wilfrid Laurier as the liope of Canada, for I think lie will be able to attract to his HON. N. CLARKE WALLACBJ* 29 Side such men as N. Clarke Wallace and others of that class who prefer righteousness to power gained at the sacrifice of principle. Thus aided, he may help us to resolve our personal and national pre- judices into a larger unity, and will be able to give to the world an example of assimilated thought and purpose in national life such as we have never had. A second reason for this sketch of the life of Hon. Clarke Wallace lies in the stimulus that it is calcu lated to give every man of principle to stand by his colors. The Orange institution has long been regarded as a kind of caudal appendage that would wag with deliglit whenever the political party was patted on the liead. Astute politicians in nmstering forces and counting numbers, previous to elections, always seemed to think that Rome was one and indivisible, and as goes Rome so goes the country. Other peoples would break into factions, and could be flattered or cajoled as circumstances demanded. And it must be admitted that there was too good reason to believe that this was not far from the truth. But the last Dominion election was a wonderful awakening to many who had their little dream. Sir Charles Tupper, trained as he was in the home of a Baptist clergyman must from his earliest boyhood liave had f 30 UON. N. CtARTtE WALLACE. principles inculcated at utter variance with those recently avowed on the platform and in the House of Commons. But he saw the exigencies of his party — a party by the way that had on its roll honored names, and claimed the adherence of men of whom Canada may well be proud — and he chose in an evil hour to ally himself with the hierarchy, and stooped to do their bidding and coerce Manitoba. Had he but listened for a moment, surely the shade of his once Great Chief would have whispered, "You cannot check Manitoba." He evidently thought that his own party in the House would stand by him. Did he not know that some of his political associates were pledged men, pledged to stand by religious liberty to all classes and give to every child the opportunity of obtaining a common school education ? What of such pledges ? Was he not familiar with men who had for the sake of honor and salary broken the most solemn pledges, and thrown the most sacred declara- tions to the winds, characterizing them as the offspring of moments of weakness ? Sir Charles was no stranger to the elasticity of the ordinary political conscience, and had reason to believe that those around him would, for the sake of continued office and salary, join him in the high bid he was making for the Catholic vote. What then must have been HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. .SI his surprise and chagrin, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved the " six months' hoist," to see Hon. Clarke Wallace step boldly forth and second the motion, and that, too, in a short speech that will be remem- bered for many years — remembered for its outspoken manliness, remembered as coming from the lips of a man who was thereby leaving office and emolument that he might thereby preserve a conscience void of offence toward God and man ? The days of heroism are not all past. There are yet, when circumstances demand it, men who will so far forget all selfish considerations as to stand fear- lessly forth for the right when to do so brings not only loss of pecuniary kind, but contumely, misappre- hension and scorn. ** Here is a hero staunch and brave Who fighti3 an unseen foe ; Who puts beneath his feet Selfishness, base and low ; Who stands erect in manhood's Might, undaunted, undismayed; A braver man than draws the sword In fray or in raid. He may not win a hero's name . Nor fill a hero's grave, But truth will place his name Among the bravest of the brave.*' 32 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACil. That speech delivered by Hon. N. Clarke Wallace on Tuesday, March 3rd, in the House of Commons, had a wonderful effect not only on those who heard it, but as it came to us in the west, it seemed as if from the very ranks of the enemies of the Public Schools there had stepped forth a champion for Manitoba's rights, who would make his voice heard for good. And so it proved. 1- ^;-- -^ . r SPEECH OF HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE, M.P., ON THE REMEDIAL BILL. Ottawa, Tuesday, March 3rd, 1896. Mr. Wallace — Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of this House will set aside party feeling for the time to rejoice that we have the pleasure of having again with us the present leader of the House, the Hon. Secretary of State (Sir Charles Tupper). Though political lines divide us, we all recognize, I hope — at any rate the Conservative party in this House and throughout the Dominion recognize — the splendid services rendered to Canada prior to Con- federation and since then, by that honorable gentle- man, and recalled to our minds so vividly this afternoon. For my part, I have always admired his splendid courage, which has brought the Conservative party and the country as well through many difficult crises. I recall one particularly, that during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I remember with pride and pleasure the indomitable courage exhibited by the Hon. Secretary of State during that trying period, He, like our other great 34 HOX. N. CLARKE WALLACE. leader, Sir John Macdonald, always had faith in our country and its possibilities. But, while I say that, and while I have followed the honorable gentleman during many years in this House with very great pleasure, and though to-day I closely adhere to the doctrines of the Conservative party, as I understand them — to the principle of Protection and those oth^^r and large principles leading to the confederation of the Empire and closer connection with the Motherland — I regret that on the question he has brought before the House to-day I am unable to follow him. The honorable gentleman called to mind the fact that Canada before Confederation was divided on racial and religious lines, and that at Confederation those lines disappeared, and the questions which had seri- ously divided the old provinces were left to be settled by the various provinces, and, as he very aptly said, we have been a happy family ever since. I regret that, by this bill, which, I presume, was left to him as a legacy, a pledge to bring which before the House was made before he became a member of the House and a member of the Government, he should take such action as must divide the country on racial and religious lines. I believe that while these questions were kept in the domain to which they properly belong, that of the provinces, the provinces have always settled them fairly and satisfactorily, and each province has been satisfied and has done its part to upbuild the Dominion. That being so, I all the more regret that a bill should be brought forward HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 35 which will revive these racial and religious questions in the House of Commons and in the Dominion, and plunge us again into those very difficulties which Confederation was intended to overcome. Now, sir, with reference to another matter alluded to by the honorable leader of the House, I have a few words to say. He referred to the people of bigoted and fanatical impulses, and he said the man who pro- moted a war of races or creeds is an enemy to Canada. I quite coincide with that statement ; I believe that those who promote these difficulties are enemies to Canada. But, while that is my belief, I repudiate the implication that those who are opposing this bill are open to be characterized by any such words. It is not upon us who may think proper to oppose this bill that the charge can be thrown that we have done anything to promote racial or religious strife. If we oppose this bill, as I shall oppose it at every stage, at the same time I repudiate the implica- tion that I am responsible for bringing this question before the Parliament of Canada. Sir, this is a very serious matter. The leader of the Government has told us, this afternoon, that this is the most important question that has come up since Confederation. 1 agree with him in that view, and I go this far in saying that before that question was ever brought up to be fought over in the Parliament of Canada, and to create disturbance of a kind which we all must deprecate and deplore, I say, that every effort should have been made to prevent it. This is a new form of - - r ^ --- - 36 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. legislation, it is something unknown heretofore. It is true, there is a provision for it on the statute-book, there is a reserved power ; and the highest courts have declared that we have the power to enact some sort of legislation to remedy grievances, if grievances exist. But I say that before we undertook to legis- late in this way, every resort should have been exhausted, every effort should have been made to avoid it. I cannot agree with the statement that every effort has been made to have the Province of Manitoba settle this question themselves. I am forti- fied in that opinion by the documents that have been presented to the House, by the drastic order that was made last March, asking the Province of Manitoba practically to re-enact a system of Separate Schools which previously existed, and which were found to be wholly unsuitable to the circumstances and condi- tions of the country, which were found to give a very inadequate education to the children, and which was productive of very poor results in every direction. So I say that, for my part, though I shall oppose this bill, I shall not quietly rest under the implication that, by opposing it, I am promoting racial and religious disturbance in the country. On the con- trary, I say that the full responsibility of so doing will rest upon the Government who have proposed this legislation, who have thrust it upon the Con- servative party ; because the Conservative party, as I know it in the Province of Ontario, have not been, at any time in m^ recollection at any rate, in accorcj HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 37 with the principles of this bill. Now, w^hat are the facts of the case ? We have been told to-day that there is a legal obligation, that there is a constitu- tional order, as it were, and we were told by the honorable leader of the Government, that it is not a question of Separate Schools, but of the constitution. Well, sir, when that matter was first brought before the House of Commons, by way of resolution declar- ing in favor of the creation of a court to investigate these matters, a resolution moved by the Hon. Mr. Blake, and seconded, I think, by the present leader of the Opposition, there was no legal obligation contem- plated then, nor is there to-day, for enforcing any legislation that may be enacted. Sir John A. Macdonald, who was then the leader of the Govern- ment, asked Mr. Blake about this poii.t, when the latter brought in the resolution : "Of course, my honorable friend; in his resolu- tion " — (the resolution upon which the Act of Parliament was founded) - — "has guarded against the suspicion that such a decision is binding upon the Executive." The reply was: " Such a decision is only for the information of the Government, the Executive is not relieved from its responsibility. The answer of the tribunal will be simply for the information of the Government. The Government may dissent from that position." And that is the position of affairs in this case. An opinion has been given by the Judicial Committee of 38 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. tlie Privy Council, but that opinion is not a decision binding upon us. In that decision the Privy Council declared the constitutional powers of the Government but did not declare a policy at all. But, Mr. Speaker, because we have the power to legislate, does that imply that we are under an obligation to legislate ? It then becomes, sir, a political question. We have power to-day to legislate upon insolvency, but we are not doing so. We have power to-day to pass a prohibitory liquor law, but that does not make it compulsory on this Parliament to enact a prohibitory liquor law. And so, in this case, it is clear we have the power to enact some sort of legislation, though it is questionable whether we have the power to go as far as this bill goes, and such was the indication of the Privy Council, not in the line of the bill we have before us to-day, but some sort of legislation. But, for my part, I am not disposed to split hairs on that matte^', because I am opposed to the principle of Separate Schools altogether. I do not believe they are good ^or any country, and experience has proved that. The Province of Manitoba, in their wisdom, abolished the Separate School system after nineteen years' experience, and, after five or six years' experience, have twice, I believe, reaffirmed their adherence to that system, and on the last occasion by a majority almost unanimous, because both political parties in the Province are conmiitted to the maintenance of the Public School system. Therefore, I say, that the people of Manitoba, who have the greatest interest ii^ HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. .S9 this matter, whose whole legislation would be affected by this bill, if passed, have, by an almost unanimous vote, decided that they are in favor of a Public as against a Separate School system. But we are told that the rights that w^ere granted previous to the union have been infringed upon by provincial legisla- tion. But, Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council, in the case of Barrett against the City of Winnipeg, decided that there was no infringemc..^. of rights previous to the union; that there were no rights existing, either by law or practice, that had been interfered with. They further declared, that the legislation of 1890 establishing a Public School system was quite within the powers of the Local Legislature. They have reaffirmed that in their later decision, so that the fact stands to-day, that the Local Legislature of Manitoba, who, in their wisdom, have enacted a Public School system, and abolished the Separate School system, were acting (juite within the powers which the Manitoba Act gave them. But we are told, that rights and privileges were affected, and that there was a grievance. But, Mr. Speaker, while there may have been a grievance, it does not follow that either a moral or a political wrong has been done. The legal grievance referred to in the bill, consists in the ab(3lition of a privilege heretofore granted, irre- spective of whether tha^ privilege was founded on justice or reason ; and the privilege has been with- drawn. But a privilege was also given to the Pro- testants of Manitoba that they should have Prot^^stant 40 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. schools, because it said Protestants and Koman Catho- lics. That privilege has been withdrawn from the Protestants, so they have exactly, as I understand it, the same grounds for grievance as the Roman Catho- lics. But is it a grievance ? Is it a grievance that the children of the Roman Catholic population have supplied to them now efficient schools in place of inefficient schools ? Is it a grievance that there is a better system of education in the Province of Mani- toba for all the children of the Province, both Protes- tant and Catholic, than there was before ? Because where two schools were established before, and where the population was not sufficient to properly maintain those two schools, there is one efficient Public School to-day. But we are told : But these are Protestant schools, and therefore you are doing an injustice to the Roman Catholics by compelling them to send their children there. To that I have to reply that we have the opinion of the Privy Council exactly to the contrary. The Privy Council, in their first judgment oi Barrett vs. City of Winnipeg, said as follows : " They uinnot consent to the view which seems to be indicated by one of the members of the Supreme Court, that the Public Schools under the Act of 1«SJ)0 are in reality Protestant schools. The Legislature has declared in so many words ; that the schools shall be entirely unsectarian, and that principle is carried out throughout the Act." There is the evidence of tlie Privy Council after examination as to what the law was, that the schools HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 41 are entirely unseetarian, and therefore there is no such thing as compelling the children of Roman Catholics to attend Protestant schools. In their late decision the Privy Council reaffirmed, in almost similar phraseology, their decision. They said : " It is true that religious exercises prescribed for the Public Schools are to be not distinctly Protestant, for they are to be non-sectarian, and a parent may withdraw a child from them." So the schools now established, according to the statement of the Privy Council which examined into the question, are strictly non- sectarian. Who are asking for the repeal of this Act ? They are not, as I have shown, the people of Maniii'^ba, because they are almost a unit in favor of its main- tenance, and we have the best evidence to show, not only that the Protestant population but a large sec- tion of the Roman Catholic population are in favor of the Public School system, because they know, as we know here, that where a Public School system is only in vogue there are more efficient schools, and better progress is made by the pupils, a result that every parent desires. Who, then, are they who are asking for the repeal of the Public Schools Act of Manitoba ? They are not, I affirm, the people of the Province of Ontfirio. They are not the people of the great pro- vince and of the Territories to the west of Manitoba. I do not believe there is any province that would willingly desire to interfere in the affiiirs of Manitoba, because we had evidence in the Province of Quebec », ^ 42 hON. N. CLARkE WALLACE. during the last bye-elections, when the strongest efforts were made to secure the support of the electorate on the plea that Separate Schools were to be re-estab- lished in Manitoba, that the Government failed to receive support on that ground, though, as I say, strong appeals were made to the people. So we may safely conclude that the people of the Province of Quebec are not interested, as they should not be interested, in forcing Separate Schools on the Pro- vince of Manitoba. Then who are they who are forcing these schools on the Province ? We have evidence here, I am sorry to say, that the hierarchy are inter- ested in doing so, and have interested themselves very much. I will refer to that matter more particularly later on. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to this fact, that if they succeed in forcing a Sepa- rate School system on the Province of Manitoba against the wishes of the people of that province, they are not going to stop there. They will immedi- ately demand that the same system be applied to the Territories as they are formed into provinces, and they will even make their demand without waiting for the formation of the Territories into provinces ; and we have evidence before us to-da}'^ that the Legis- lature of the North- West Territories, or rather the North- West Council, passed a school Act during the last session of the council, but through some means which we do not quite understand, although we know the fact, the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor was not given to the Act, and, tht^reforo, it did not HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 43 })econi(3 law. I have not lieard ot* any proper reason given why the Governor did not affix his signature to the document, which it was (juite within the power of the North- West Council to enact, and therefore I say there has been a miscarriage of law in some respects, and we are told, and it has not been contra- dicted, that this course was taken because of the strong opposition of Archbishop Langevin, to the measure, and in consequence of his protest. We do know that the same course was attempted with respect to legislation passed by the North- West Council some years ago. I have here a copy of the protest of Archbishop Langevin's predecessor, Arch- bishop Tach^, sent to the Government against that law, and calling on the Government to disallow it ; but Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, refused to disallow it because the Council of the Territories, he said, had not exceeded the powers conferred on them by the Canadian Government ; and as, therefore, the law was intra vires, he had not the r\iy:ht to interfere. A strong feeling was aroused against him by Archbishop Tache, because he refused to disallow the Act. The same state of things pre- vails to-day, and this explains the fact that the Act passed by the North- West Council is not a law on the statute books to-day. Not only will the hierarchy go to the North-West Territories, if this bill is carried in this House, and have the same law to establish Separate Schools enacted there, but they will get power to go back to the legislatures which have 44 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. declared that they do not want Separate Schools. They will go to British Columbia. Why not ? If this law is right for Manitoba it must be right for British Columbia. An hon. Member — No. Mr. Wallace — An hon. member says " No." I pre- sume he thinks they would not want a Separate School system there. Mr. Amyot — It is not in the constitution. Mr. Wallace — They will go and ask to have the constitution altered. Some hon. Members - Oh, oh. Mr. Wallace — Why not ? If they have the right to force this school system on Manitoba, they w411 claim the right to force it on British Columbia and Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We will then find ourselves in this position, that every year there will be interference with the edu- cational legislation of the various provinces. I hold that we should approach this subject with the greatest care — or rather we should not approach it at all — because then; will be difficulties, and no man can see Tthere the ditiiculties will end. Hon. gentlemen say that the pa.s.'a.)^e of this Act now will settle the ques- tion. TIhj very Act of itself is evidence to the con- trary. What does the last clause say ? It reserves t<i the Dominion Government further power, and the power may be given as soon as it is shown that the powers conferred by this bill are inade(|uate to the proper carrying out of the terms of the Act. We HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. , 45 were told that the Separate Schools were granted to the Province of Manitoba, First, because there was n< treaty and by that treaty they were entitled to Sepa- rate Schools. Mr. Speaker, there was no treaty that gave them that right. There were four treaties, so- called, or bills of rights, made up there. Two of these were by a convention or a mass meeting of the people ; there was one, at any rate, made by the pro- visional government of Louis Riel, and the fourth was said to be made, but I think the evidence is con- clusive that the fourth so-called treaty, or bill of rights, was a forgery. But, even if it were not a forgery, and even if these third and fourth treaties were in existence, the then Governor-General of Canada, Sir John Young, refused to treat upon the basis of these, because they were the product of a rebellious government. He consented to treat upon the basis of the first and second, which were from a convention of citizens assembled in Winnipeg, and this convention sent these Bills of Rights down here, and had them brought before the people, and it was the second of these which was the basis upon which the Manitoba Act was founded. Therefore there is no treaty. In the second Bill of Rights, and in the first and third there is no mention of Separate Schools of any form. In the fourth one, this bogus one, which we claim, and which the evidence amply proves was a bogus one, there is mention of Separate Schools ; but that was never considered by Sir John Young or by the Government of that time. Now, we are told. 46 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Mr. Speaker, that by tlie law they should have Sepa- rate Schools. But, sir, the decision of the Privy Council, to which I have already alluded, does not bear out that proposition. The decision of the Privy Council does not make it compulsory in any way that there should be a Separate School Act. Indeed, I should say that the Privy Council does not give a decision at all, but simply expresses an opinion to the effect that : If the Parliament of Canada chooses to enact such legislation within certain restricted limits, it has power to do so. I claim that this Parliament of Canada is as free as air to-day not to enact a single line of legislation upon this matter. It becomes a political question, and for the future prosperity of this Dominion, for the future quietness of this Dominion and its peace, I think that the Government should stay their hand even now, and decide to with- draw this bill. I say that, because the bill will provoke disaster, it will provoke (quarrels, it will set province against province, and race against race, and religion against religion, and it will be of no benefit whatever to those whom it is intended or designed to serve. I say, sir, that the Government in this matter have made a great mistake, and that it is not too late yet for them to retrace their steps. Mr. Speaker, there is not a line in the Public Schools Act of Manitoba that interferes with the liberty of either the parent or the child. It does not interfere in any way with the liberty of the people to educate their children in religious subjects as they may please. It HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 47 does not interfere in any way with any of the privi- leges that it is proper they should enjoy. Therefore the conscientious convictions of Eoman Catholics amount to this. They say : We want our children educated in the dogmas of our Church in the Public Schools. F>ut, sir, I say that we have no right to teach the dogmas of any Church in the Public Schools of the country. If w^e acknowledge that right we must concede it to every religious denomination. We nmst give the same rights to the Presbyterians, to the Methodists, to the Baptists, to the Mennonites and to all the religious denominations in that country. Then we would find ourselves in this position. One school teaches what another school denies, in one school the dogmas of one Church are taught, and in another school the dogmas of another Church directly in oppo- sition to it are taught. Sir, I say that they have no right to do that at the expense of the State. Each Church should do that at its own expense. I say it is not the duty of the State to engage in such w^ork, and I say that the State which undertakes to do it is making a great mistake. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, what is the experience of all countries in this respect ? We know that in almost every country where they have tried it, they are endeavoring to abolisi., or have abolished it to-day. The Separate School system — the ecclesiastical system it may perhaps be more properly called — has always been a failure in educating the people. It is not the object of these ecclesia.stical schools to 48 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. educate the people in the ordinary branches of educa- tion, but the object is to inculcate the dogmas of their ChurcJi ; and the history of all countries proves, that they have always failed when they have undertaken to teach, not only the dogmas of their Church but to give a general education. Why, sir, look at our own country. We go to foreign countries, and we see the failure of such education there, but come down to our own country, and what do we find ? I have here a copy of the Montreal Gazette having information bearing on the question, but before I refer to that, I will speak of the failure of such an educational system in other countries. They have tried the education of the people by the Church in all countries, and it is not confined to the Roman Catholics, because the Church of England, and the Methodists, have all had more or less of the idea in their minds, that their school should be a church school. I repeat that it has been a failure, wherever that has been tried. In Belgium, which is almost exclusively a Roman Catholic country, they have made the schools non- sectarian. They have taken away the sectarian schools and established non-sectarian schools in their place. In Italy they have done the same thing, and they had great need for it, and I am told they find the most satisfactory results from the change, because Italy, which was the cradle of the arts, had degener- ated until almost half of the people were illiterate. Now Italy has adopted the system of non-sectarian sc]kk)1s and the people are getting a good educu- HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 49 tion. In Ireland the same result has been found. They have established a system of national schools there. In every province of Australia, the non- sectarian S3^stem of schools has been established. Then again, in the United States, our nearest neigh- bor, we know that the greatest efforts have been made by the archbishops, and bishops, and priests, and all the dignitaries of the Church to attempt to fasten upon the states of the union a sectarian system of education. But, I believe that in every State of the American union to-day, the non-sectarian is the system of schools established by law. Here in Canada, in the Province of Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island, and in British Columbia, we have non-sectarian schools and the people get along without Separate Schools. In the Province of Ontario we have sectarian schools, but the fact is, that two- thirds of the Roman Catholic popula- tion are to-day being educated in the Public Schools. My honorable friend beside me says " No." Well, I make the statement, and I make it on good evidence, and I would ask that honorable gentleman to produce proof to the contrary. In the Province of Ontario two-thirds of the Roman Catholic pupils are educated in the Public Schools, and there is no interference with their religious convictions there. They get the same fair-play as the Protestant pupils. I have the evidence of Roman Catholic people in the locality where I live that they are the strongest advocatos of the Public School system under which they were 50 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. educated themselves, and they are good members of their Church, too. In the Province of Quebec we have a system of Separate Schools, or rather of religious schools, and I will read an extract from the report of the Superintendent of Education for that province, as published in the Montreal Gazette. In his report for 1895, Mr. Boucher de la Bruere says : " The country schools are not as good as they might be. The children leave them without having received a sufficiently lasting impression to make them wish to increase their knowledge. ... To quote from one inspectors report, the slow increase in efficiency is due to the apathy of most of the members of the School Board — too many of whom are unable to read — to the indifference of parents to the miserable salaries paid to teachers, which makes it difficult to obtain competent ones. ... In one district, another inspector declares, where 166 schools were in operation, 38 teachers were without certificates, and ^Q the year before. . . . Most of the teachers are entirely ignorant of the first principles of pedagogics, have no system in their work, and content themselves by making their pupils learn their books by rote. . . . The pupils recite their lessons fairly well, but without understanding their meaning. . . . As it is declared that the average salary to teachers is, in some districts, $108 for ten months' work, and as some must get considerably less than this, and as these small wages are not always promptly paid, it is not difficult to understand what is behind the teachers indifference. ... To put it briefly, the people, in too many cases, do not appreciate their duty to their children in the way of education. They are content to fit them to be hewers of wood and drawers of HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 51 water for their more fortunate or better educated fellow-citizens." In the face of that, I think it is not unfair to ask those priests who have interested themselves so much in the educational affairs of the Province of Manitoba to pay a little more attention to the educational affairs of the Province of Quebec, where it is so badly needed. I have also a report in my hand upon the operation of the Separate School system in this city of Ottawa. In response to a complaint which was made, the Hon. Geo. W. Ross, Minister of Education for the Province of Ontario, appointed three commissioners to visit the Separate Schools in this city, and gave them full powers to investigate and report. In that report, the first thing that attracts my attention is that the teachers, whose duty it is to teach loyalty to the children under their care, were themselves disloyal, disobeying the instructivons of the Minister of Educa- tion, who had ample power conferred upon him, and who delegated ample power to these commissioners to make the inquiry they did. Here is a portion of their report : " On arriving at this school the next morning, Brother Director Mark informed them that ' his higher superiors had given instructions that he was not to allow the commissioners to examine the classes.' They next visited La Salle school. Here they were received by Brother Director Philadelphus, who said ' he had orders not to allow the inquiry in this school.' -^ - " The commissioners retired, and having doul)ts as '4 52 HOy. N. CLARKE WALLACE. to the extent of the resistance to be offf red, they returned to La Salle school, and were informed by Brotlier Philadelphus, that *as soon as the commis- sioners entered a room, a brother in charge would leave his class. The pupils would be allowed to remain, and be at the disposal of the commissioners. Nothing would be said to them (pupils), to set them against the commissioners, the teacher would not answer any (juestions the commissioners might ask him. He (teacher) would give them no information regarding his class. In fact, the resistance to the inquiry meant everything short of using force.' This view of the official instructions to the Brothers was confirmed by Brother Director Mark, on whom your commissioners called a second time, and both gentle- men assured the commissioners that the same order had been issued to all the Brothers in the city." These gentlemen found they could not resist the commissioners, but would have to submit. Then the commissioners proceeded to examine the classes, and they say : " Thus, in a class of fifty-one boys of an average age of over ten years, working in multiplication with a multiplier of three figures, not one had the correct answer to 7x8x2-3x7-7, written on the black- board in this form. In a class of thirty-one boys, of an average age of eleven, none had the right answer to 7x8x4-6-2x9. In the other classes only a few pupils got the correct result." I might go on all through this book and show, per- haps, not as bad a state of things as this, because it could not be worse, but a general want of progress in these schools. For instance, in a cbiss of tifteeii HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 53 pupils, seven failed to give a single correct answer ; in a class of thirty-nine pupils, ten failed to give a single correct answer; in a class of twenty-four pupils, eleven failed to give a single correct answer ; o^nd so on. But I will not take up the time of the House in detailing these facts. I will simply say that all through this book is to be found evidence of the utter failure of the Separate School system in the city of Ottawa. If that be the history of these schools here, we do not need to go to the Province of Manitoba for evidence of the inefficiency of the Separate Schools there. We have the evidence furnished by the Manitoba Government, by the inspectors there, by all those in authority, that the whole system of Separate Scliool education in Manitoba was utterly inefficient — that the pupils did not get that education w^hich they might properly be vrjxpected to get, and therefore the system was changed and the Separate Schools were abolished. Now, I said a moment ago that I thought those gentlemen, tl . members of the hierarchy in the Pro- vince of Quebec and in other provinces who were interesting themselves so much, might well devote their energies to Improving their own schools, instead of attempting to force upon Manitoba a system of Separate Schools, which is not wanted by the people of that province. The utterances of these gentlemen are, in my opinion, utU'rly uncalled for, and are sub- versive of the freedom of the peoph; of Canada ; and, if they are not so already, such uttorancos should 54 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. be made contrary to the law. In every election that takes place an attempt is made by these gentle- men to interfere and force their views, illegally, as I contend, on the people of the country. I will just read to you a small portion of a letter w^ritten by Bishop Cameron, of Antigonish, during the recent election contest in the County of Cape Breton. In this letter he says : " And yet we meet the appalling spectacle of a mul- titude of men who are loud in their prayers of liberty and justice and religion arrayed against remedial legislation, the only available means under the consti- tution of redressing that wrong, and then doing all they can to perpetuate the monster evil, subversive of religion, justice and liberty, in order to attain their own selfish ends. In defiance of God, and to our shame, among those hell-inspired hypocrites. Catholics are to be found." Now, Mr. Speaker, I object personally to be put in that class even in such good company. Mr. Foster — Your objections may not hold. Mr. Wallace — I think they will hold with the people of Canada. Now, we have another gentleman, Archbishop Langevin, w^ho makes a statement as to the duty of Catholics, with which I have not so much to do, except to say that no archbishop has the right, under the laws of this country, to interfere with the free exercise of men s voting power. He has the right to exercise his IVanchise without interference from anybixly, but the hiws of this country prevent an employer from intimidating an employee and prevent HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 55 one man interfering with another. And they apply exactly to this case. Archbishop Langevin says as follows : "It has been said, falsely, that the Catholic hie- rarchy in this Dominion of ours, is to settle the school question. No, the Catholic heirarchy — you know it, and I can say it plainly — the Catholic hierarchy lead the Catholics in their religious convictions, and all those who do not follow the hierarchy are not Catholics. When the hierarchy has spoken there is no use for any Catholic to say the contrary, for if he does he is not longer a Catholic ; such a man may carry the title, but I declare this as a bishop : I say to-night, and I say it with plain authority, a Catholic who does not follow the hierarchy on the school question is no more a Catholic, and who will be the one to entitle such a one to the name of Catholic ?" Now, I contend that that is an intolerable species of intimidation. The Roman Catholic bishops have no right to intimidate any voter by any such penal- ties. We know that the members of the Roman Catholic Church, like the membei-s of every other Church, desire to be in good standing with their Church; and therefore, when they are read out of that body, when they are deprived of those advantages which the Church says it confers on members in good standing, because they do not choose to follow the dictates of that Church upon any (|ueation, that is an intolerable interference with the liberty of the subject. 15ut we Jiave still further an ultimatum from the 56 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Rev. M. M. Paquet, from Lav^al University, who writes to the press as follows : " Rev. L. A. Paquet, of Laval University, in con- formity to the desire of the episcopal authority of his diocese, Archbishop Begin, and with his express approval wrote to VEvenement a two-column letter on February 18tli, from which the following is taken : " Is it not infinitely better, therefore, that, having the right and the occasion, the central power should raise up a rampart of religious justice and protection, that will resist all winds and all tempest ? I may add that, given a party spirit which so profoundly divides our public men, it is not from a particular political group that we can look for the force of union necessary to rally under the same banner all Catholics. The hierarchy alone can hope to produce this union by calling upon our legislators, and especially upon those whose conscience it controls, to rise for a moment above the temporal interests which animate them to forget their political divisions and, taking the judg- ment of the Privy Council of England as their starting point to make it a solid basis of a truly remedial law. To the ecclesiastical power, then, belongs the right to judge whether the interference should take place in the form of command or of counsel." It evidently has taken the form of command in some cases : " And when the interference takes an imperative form, as in the case of the Manitoba schools, only one thing remains to be done by the faithful, and that is to ol>cy." An lion. Member — That strikes you. Mr. Wallace — No, but I am afraid it does strike HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. ' 5? some in this House, because I remember hearing that the hon. member for Ottawa County (Mr. Devlin) who went down to Cape Breton, was one of the loudest there in his desire to resent any attempt at interference. Mr. Devlin — Were you there ? Mr. Wallace — I was not, but I was told it by a member of Parliament who was there ; and we are now told by the public press that the hon. gentleman is now in the position of Davy Crockett's coon who exclaimed, " Don't shoot. Colonel, I will come down." And the hon. gentleman has come down. Mr. Paquet went on to say : " And when that interference takes the imperative form, as in the case of the Manitoba schools, only one thing remain.^: to be done by the faithful, and that is to obey." Now, I see that the functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church claim that it is the duty, not only of the electors but of members of Parliament, to obey them, and that is another interference or attempted interference with vhe rights and freedom of the Canadian people, which should not be tolerated, and will not be tolerated either. Now, a good deal has been said about a commission to investigate this matter; and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Martin) was loudest in his demand for a commission. Why, what does he want a commission for ? Is it to get at the facts ? I am told he is the author of this Act of hSDO, which we 58 ' HON. N. CLAUKE WALLACE. are called on to abolish, and surely he made a full investigation before framing that Act. If he did not, he should have, before he undertook to pass that law. We heard that he made an investigation and that he found the Separate Schools were very defective — not only defective but utterly useless — and should be abolished, and they were abolished accordingly ; and I cannot see exactly why he should demand a com- mission or what good a commission could do him. I suppose his intention is to enlighten his fellow-mem- bers on this subject. But there is another way of proceeding. While I think a commission is utterly unnecessary, I believe that a convention or a meeting of the two governments, or of representatives of these two governments, would have smoothed away many of the difficulties which are now presented to us. But some say : But you are opposed to Separate Schools altogether. So I am. I do not think this bill should have been brought into the House of Commons at all. I do not think that a Separate School Bill should be passed anywhere. But, if the Province of Manitoba, after passing a Separate School Bill, choose to reverse their decision, that is a thing with which the other provinces have no right to interfere. The Confedera- tion Act gives the various provinces power to establish Separate Schools if they so desire, and I presume it is not the business of any other province to interfere with them if they embody that desire in the shape of a statute. So that, if there are any grievances of any kind — which I Ciinnot see, for m}^ part — the people of HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 59 the Province of Manitoba are the people to remedy those grievances. But they have stated that they will not establish a system of Separate Schools in the country, because they have had experience of Separate Schools, and they have had an experience of a Public School system, and they prefer the latter to the former. I am sorry that the question has been brought before the House of Commons, and that it has become a bone of contention in every province of the Dominion. For this aofitation is not confined to the Province of Manitoba, but is going on in every province. At a time when the people of Canada should be, if possible, more united than ever ; at a time when the Old Land is menaced and threatened by enemies who are jealous of her gi^eatness, her power, and her pre-eminence among the nations, instead of bringing in here a pro- posal that must divide the people of Canada, we should carefully avoid all such questions and should join together, as we did in the resolutions passed the other day, and« presenting a united front, should be ready to assure the people of Great Britain that we have sunk our minor differences, and are determined to do our duty as a portion of the great Empire in maintaining its supremacy both on sea and on land. In this view, it is all the more unfortunate that we have this bill and this contentious subject thrust upon the people. I hope the bill will not become law, for, if it does, it will only mark the commencement of litigation and serious disturbance throughout tlie 60 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Dominion. The matter does not end with the passage of this bill, for the bill itself provides for further legislation. And we know that the people of Manitoba will resist as strongly as they can, legally and con- stitutionally, the attempt to force upon them a system of education obnoxious to them. They will bring the bill before the courts, testing its constitu- tionality and in every other constitutional way they will resist it. I shall, therefore, have pleasure in recording my vote against the bill and in favor of the six months' hoist, as moved by the hon. loader of the Opposition. Then, when two days after, the news reached us that T. S. Sproule, M.P., had followed in the same line, going fully into the history of the whole matter, we felt assured that Manitoba would not be coerced, and coerced she has not been. And now we deem it only right to place that speech so able and opportune beside that the reader has already perused. ^^ SPEECH OF T. S. SPROULE, M.P., ON THE REMEDIAL ACT, MANITOBA. Ottawa, Thursday, March 5th, 1896. Mr. Sproule — In rising to continue this debate I must first express the regret which I experience in being obHged to differ with political friends with whom I have been associated for a long- time and with whose lines of policy I have usually worked in hearty accord. It is a matter for regret amongst politicians on either side of the House when they find themselves out of accord with the political party with which they have worked many years, and you readily understand, Mr. Speaker, as I have no doubt the House does, that it is a very strong provocation which will induce any member of Parliament to go against his own political party. It is only the conscientious convictions which I hold on this question, and the interpretation which I put upon the constitution that we have heard so much about of late, and the understanding I have with regard to the rights of the majorities and minorities, that induce me to take the stand which 62 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. I take to-night. But we owe a duty to our country as well as to our party, and there will sometimes come in most men's lives a time when they are obliged to leave party, and stand for what they regard as the best interest of the country. As representatives of the people we are sent here, as far as possible to reflect the views and the sentiments and the wishes of our constituents in whatever part of the country they live. In endeavoring to do that to-night, I am about to speak on the line which I have mapped out. We are asked in connection with this debate, what duty we owe to our constituents ? The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Masson) my colleague, who spoke on this question last night, said that it is not usual for the Government to submit a question to the people by way of a plebiscite ; but they go up and dow^n the country, and hold meetings; they watch the press of the country, and by that means endeavor to ascertain the sentiments of the people, and then to keep themselves in accord with those sentiments in discharging their duties as legislators or as a Government. Now, if that be the case, and I presume it is a fair exposi- tion of the case, I wonder how hon. gentlemen sup- porting the Government of the day and composing the Government of the day can justify their posi- tion upon this question, or pretend to say that they are in accord with the sentiment of the country. At the outset, I may say that I regret to find that the Government are, in my judgment, so much out of - accord with the sentiment of the country. Wliy do I HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 63 say so ? How do I estimate or gauge public sentiment on this matter ? I take the press of the country, from one end of it to the other, especially that press which represents the political party to which I belong, and which endeavors to give voice to their sentiments, to defend their policy, to support their conduct ; and I say that the Government must regret to-day to find that there is scarcely an important Conservative paper which is defending them and their policy in endeav- oring to pass the bill that is before the House. If you go from Prince Edward Island in the east to Vic- toria in the west, and look over the Conservative papers in this country, I think you might count on the five fingers of your hand all those that come out and give a straightforward support of this measure, and of the policy of the Government in attempting to pass it. Then I take the independent press of the country. I might mention a few of them, but they are so well known to this House and to the people that it is scarcely necessary for me to do so. But it would not be out of place to ask, in reference to those papers that have supported the Government so strongly in the past, where are they to-day ? The only one that is giving even a half-hearted support to their policy is the Mail and Empire, of Toronto ; and yet it has never, so far as my judgment enables me to understand it, adduced any respectable argument either to defend or justify their course to-day. If w^e leave out of account the Mail and Empire, w^here do wie find the rest of the papers ? Where do we fipd 64 ' HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. the World, the next greatest exponent of the princi- ples of the Conservative party ? We find that it is arrayed against the Government's course on this ques- tion. Where do we find the Toronto News ? Where do we find the Toronto Telegram ? Where do find we the Toronto Star ? Where do we find the Hamilton Spectator ? I might go over the whole list, and I find in almost every instance that those papers are arrayed against the party, and they believe that they are voicing the public sentiment. Then, if they are voicing public sentiment, how can the Government to-day be in accord with that public sentiment ? If it be the duty of the Government to reflect public senti- ment in their legislation, then I ask how can they square this legislation with the sentiment of the country, as expressed by these papers ? Now we are told by the hon. member for North Grey that in order to ascertain what public sentiment is, the Government go out into the country and hold poli- tical meetings. Well, if I take the expression of the public meetings that have been held in this country, do I find any stronger evidence of public sentiment being wdth them than it is as expressed through the press ? I can assure you that the verdict of the people is to the contrary, as expressed in public meetings that have been held for the last two or three years in every part of the country. Why, they have scarcely gone upon a single platform and dared to say that in the end they were bound to pass reme- dial legislation, and asked the electorate of this / :?' HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 65 country to endorse it, and where the electorate have endorsed it. When they went into North Oatario and put up their candidate, w^hat were they obliged to do ? They were obliged to have their candidate keep from the knowledge of the electorate his inten- tion regarding remedial legislation, as they knew, otherwise, that he could not receive the support of the people. I ask the hon. gentleman from North Ontario (Mr. McGillivray) what course did he take in trying to induce the electorate to support him ? He said : I am not going to be pledged in this matter ; but I point you to my record in the past as to what you may expect from me in the future. Have I not gone through two or three political fights in the Province of Ontario ? Mr. McGillivray — The hon. gentleman is mis- stating my pccition in North Ontario. Mr. Sproule — In what respect, I would like to know, am I misstating the hon. gentleman's position ? I was going on to say that according to what I read in the papers which reported him pretty extensively, his language was to this effect: The electorate of this county know my record, because I have fought two political fights in provincial campaigns on this question. They know the stand I have taken on the question of Separate Schools ; they know what I have said. Now, then, I tell you that I am standing to-day upon the same ground that I have always stood. Now, Mr. Speaker, what was that ground ? Was it in sup- port of a remedial law which would force Separate 66 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Schools on Manitoba, or was it against it ? Why, if I understand the ground the hon, gentleman has taken in the past, it was that when Ontario and Quebec entered into a compact at the time of Confederation ^ they accepted these Separate Schools as an arrange- ment between the two provinces. They are here to stay, and we cannot help it. But I shall never sup- port their extension into any other province or any other part of the country. That was the record upon which that hon. gentleman sought election, and it was upon that record that the people accepted him. But had that hon. gentleman come out plainly and told the electorate of North Ontario : I am going dow^n to vote for remedial legislation — I am assr ;ed by men who ought to know the situation, that he would have been buried under a majority of nearly a thou- sand votes in his own riding. Is that an evidence that the Government are fully entitled to accept as voicing public sentiment in favor of this legislation ? No ; I say it is not. Then if I go to Card well, what does public sentiment tell me there ? It tells me that the Government candidate who had apparently, at least, come out and admitted that he was prepared to sup- port the policy laid down by the Government upon this question of remedial legislation, was buried under a liopeless mass of votes ; he was buried so far as his political life is concerned, never to rise again, at least in that constituency. But the hon. gentleman who frankly opposed the policy of remedial, legislation, was accorded the support of the majority of the HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 67 ' voters of Cardwell, and public sentiment declared against interference with Manitoba. Then the Gov- ernment went down to Montreal Centre and tested public sentiment there. But did public sentiment endorse the legislation they propose to-day? No, sir; but the candidate who was put up to oppose them now sits in this House in opposition to the Government. Then they tested public sentiment in Jaccjues Cartier, and met with the same response. Look also at the result of their efforts in Vercheres. In fact, in almost every constituency where they have tested public sentiment up to the present time, they have been defeated. They went down to Cape Breton to elect the hon. Secretary of State, and by a hercu- lean effort, by dint of exercising all the power they could bring to bear, they did manufacture sufficient public sentiment to endorse their present course. But I say there are many men of intelligence to-day who, as I read in the public press, are observing the signs of the times as indicated in the way we judge public sentiment, and who have come to the conclusion that the voice of the country is against the Government in this attempt to interfere vnth the rights of Manitoba. There is no mistaking it, arid if hon. gentlemen consti- tuting the Government do not believe it to-day, a time will come when they will rucognize it, when at the elections the people will speak with a voice so strong that they cannot misunderstand it, and many mem- bers who now fail to recognize that voice, as indicated by public sentiment, will be left in the laiuority after 5 68 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. the votes have been counted, and they will then recog- nize that they misunderstood public sentiment and acted contrary to it. Mr. Sproule — Mr. Speaker, in continuing the de- bate on this most important subject, I may refer for a few seconds to the portion of it under consideration when you left the Chair at six o'clock. I was endeavoring to give then what, according to my judgment, was public opinion and public sentiment on this measure, and how far they were in accord with the action of the Government in dealing ^vith this most important measure. There is no doubt that no (piestion which has engaged the attention of Parliament for a great man}^ years in this country is regarded as of as much importance as the one before the House to-day. On this question above all others, you might naturally look to the press of the country for an exposition of public sentiment, and also as manifested by public gatherings, through church assemblies and similar channels. I was endeavoring to show that if we examine the press of the country there can be no mistake as to what public sentiment is, because while the press supporting the (lovern- ment in their policy, their National Policy, their measures relating to the fast steamship line an(i the development of trade, and on ahiiost every other line of policy which has been under consideration during "^ the last fifteen or sixteen years, those journals have ^, been notably silent as regards saying anything endors- HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 69 ing the measure now under the consideration of the House. On the contrary, there is scarcely a Conser- vative paper in the country but has given out some discordant sound, some note of warning, some sugges tion which might induce the Government to abandon what very many regard as an insane course they are following at the present time and desist from seeking to force on an unwilling province a bill that will take away rights that every province has heretofore enjoyed, which the Province of Manitoba has hereto- fore enjoyed, and which in the opinion of the large majority of the people it should enjoy in the future. So far as my judgment goes, there can be no mistake as to what public opinion is. Then if the Govern- ment are running counter to public opinion and thereby lose the support of their own friends, they should not blame their friends, but rather blame their own blindness that leads them in a channel which compels their friends to desert them. Why do I oppose this bill at the present time ? I oppose it because it is making a serious inroad on principles which have been heretofore regarded as sound. What are those principles ? This bill is interfering in the first place with the rights of the Province. There is no one who is ac<|uainted with the history of Canada and has watched closely affairs during the last twelve or fifteen years who failed to regard with a good deal of suspicion anything that raises the (|ue8tion of provincial rights or causes antagonism between any province and the Federal 70 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Goveriiiueiit, because we have had several fights in this country on that line, and the lesson taught is to avoid in future as much as possible any interference with the rights of the provinces. Only a few years ago we had a very great struggle on provincial rights, it occurring on the Streams Bill. Two or three enactments were passed by the Provincial Legislature, They were disallowed by the Dominion Government on the (juestion as to the right of a province to control streams within its own territories. What was the result ? When the question was taken to the courts, the highest court of the Empire decided against the Dominion. In the meantime a very strong feeling had been aroused. The agitation that had been carried on against the Dominion Govern- ment for interfering with what a great many regarded as the rights of the Province had created a feeling of antagonism against the Dominion Government, which threatened to be very serious. But for the fact that the highest court of the Empire decided against the Dominion Government and in favor of the Provincial Government controlling those rights, we do not know how the agitation would have ended, or what dis- astrous results would have flowed from it. Then we had a struggle as regards the claims of a province to own minerals and timber. This again involved the question of provincial rights, end ended in a decision against the Dominion, and the Province was secured in the rights which it enjoys to-day, and which the people thought they were entitled to enjoy at that tiON. K. CLARKE WALLACE. 71 time. That contention also raised a great deal of agiti t/ion. This agitation which went on, intensified and accentuated the feeling that the provinces should know what rights belonged to them, and be accorded those rights without any interference. Then we had a question of provincial rights somewhat similar to the very important question which is now under discus- sion. Hon. gentlemen will remember that we passed the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, and by that Act we practically took away the right of the Province to charter local railways, a right which all the provinces had enjoyed up to that time ; or, in other words, we put a monopoly clause in the charter of the company, which prevented the Manitoba Government from exercising what was the undoubted right of every province, to grant charters for railways within its own territory. What was the result ? A very serious fight took place, a very strong agitation was carried on. It was considered a grievance which at the time was difficult to remove. And what was the result of that agitation, and what was the result of that strife / We were obliged to buy back that monopoly from the Canadian Pacific Railway at a very great cost, for the purpose of appeasing the feeling and the anxiety of Manitoba, and we were obliged to give them back the power which they thought, under the constitution, they should enjoy, and which they complained was unfairly taken from them. Until that was done we had nothing like a settlement of that question. All these things have 72 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. tended to create a feeling of antagonism between the Government of Manitoba and the Dominion Parlia- ment. Then, after that, we had what was known as the Jesuits' Estates Act. That was a question dealt with in this House and discussed at very great length. Upon what ground did we, who voted with the Government upon that occasion, justify the vote which we gave ? It was solely upon the ground — I speak at least for myself — that we were upholding the rights of the Province of Quebec. We got our information upon that question from a source which v/ould be regarded as sufficient authority to satisfy most members of the House. We got our advice from the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. We were told that at Confederation the rights of the pro- vinces were laid down, and amongst these undoubted rights were : first, the control of the land within their bounds, to sell that land, to give it away, or to use it as they saw fit. We were told that the right of the control of educational affairs rested with the pro- vinces. We were told that it did not matter whether it accorded with the views of the majority of the Dominion Parliament or not, the right of the Province was to control its educational affairs. We were told that, so long as the provinces raised money according to the ways laid down in the British North America Act, it <lid not matter how they spent it. It was said to us, that the provinces might grant licenses to raise money, or they might sell their lands to raise money ; but, so long as they raised it according to the consti- fiON. N. CLAtlKE WALLACE. 73 tution, they could use it for any purpose they desired, no matter whether it was agreeable to outsiders or not. I remember distinctly putting a question to the Rififht Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald about that. I said : Suppose that a Province should pass a law to use money for a purpose which, in the judgment of the Dominion Parliament, and in the judgment and the wisdom of the people of Canada, would be detri- mental to the interests of the Dominion, or to the interests of the other provinces, or even to the interests of the Province itself, would the Dominion Parliament be justified in vetoing that law^ ? And Sir John Macdonald' s answer was : So long as they raised that money in the manner laid down under the con- stitution it is a matter of unconcern to us, and it is none of our business, if they pitched that money into the St. Lawrence or into the fire. And he further said : They have sold a portion of what was their own land, and they have raised money ; they are now using this money on educational lines, and they are entitled to do so, and, whether it is agreeable or dis- agreeable to us, it is the right of the Province, and we must be satisfied with it. Upon that understanding, and believing the right hon. gentleman to be a greater authority than I on provincial rights, although it was against my judgment, and although it was against the judgment of my constituents, I supported the Government on that occasion. And, sir, I remember that the Riglit Hon. Sir John Macdonald said, in answer to the same question : It may come 74 HON. N. CLAUKE WALLACE. back to you in the Province of Ontario to-morrow, and how could you be so inconsistent as to oppose the right of the Province of Quebec to deal with her own land, her own i .oney, and her own education, if, on a similar question arising in the Province of Ontario, you were obliged to vote the other way ? Those were the arguments then used by Sir John Macdonald, in the case of the Jesuits' Estates Act. Now, sir, I regard this present question as being on the same lines. Manitoba has seen fit to deal with education. It ^* ^ the right of that province to deal with that ma a ^r. It is true., it is said, that Manitoba can deal .v^ith it only within certain limits. I admit, there is a proviso in that, but it has been the gener- ally accepted principle heretofore that every province had the uncontrolled right to deal with education, and every province had used that right according to its will, and there has been no interference with it up to the present time. This is the first time in Canadian history that we have been asked to interfere with that right of a province. We are asked now to endorse a principle, the very opposite of the principle we stood by, when the Province of Quebec was making a fight for her rights. We stood by the Pro- vince of Quebec then on a question which was very unpopular with us, which, in the judgment of many, was wrong ; but we stood by the principle, believing that we stood up for the rights of a province. If that rule is applied to the Province of Quebec, then, why should it not be applied to the Province of HON. N. CLARltE WALLACE. 75 Manitoba to-day ? The same that appHes to one should apply to the other ; the same rights the one provir ce has, the other province ought to enjoy. Sir, I oppc se this bill because it prevents the will of the majority from being carried out. The invariable principle is, that majorities must rule. Some say, that iiajorities should not always rule, but they do rule in every walk of life. If you go into a business corpoi ation, the majority rules; if you go to a church meeting, the majority rules; if you go to a township council, the majority rules. Mr. Devlin — If you go to Turkey, the majority rules, jOo. Mr. Mills (J^nnapolis) — And the majority in heathen r'ountries rules. Mr. Sproule — I am talking about civilized life, as we understand it in the British Empire. I say that in eve^y part of the British Empire it is regarded as the coirect principle that the majority shall rule, and whate>'er decision the majority comes to, it is gener- ally recognized to be right. Now, it does not matter whether you apply the principle to a township council or to a municipal corporation, the principle that the majority rules is the principle that holds good. Why should a rule the reverse of this be applied to the Province of Manitoba ? In the Pro- vincial Legislature there, the majority rules. In this very House the majority rules by their voice. Whethe" the minority acquiesces in the principles promulgated or not, it does not matter; the majority 76 HON. K. CLARICE WALLACE. rules. The Province of Manitoba has rights, or she thinks she has rights, which she was entitled to enjoy, and, according to her understanding of her rights, she is dealing with a question in which she is vitally interested. A large majority of her people have come to the solemn conclusion, that it is in their interests and the interests of their province, that they shall in future have a different system of education from what they had had up to the year 1890. And yet to-day we are trying to prevent that majority from ruling in the Province of Manitoba. We are told, that this is something embodied in the constitu- tion, and that therefore it should be held most sacred, and we should not disturb it. There is no doubt there is some show of argument for those who hold that view, and I will deal with it later on. I have here the debates which took place in 1865 and 1866, when they were trying to bring about Confederation, and I have looked at the discussions which took place upon the resolutions on which the British North America Act was founded. I see here one of the eminent men of that day, forecasting what might be the dangerous result, if you insist in taking away the rights of the majorities. And to-day, in the light of experience, it seems to me to be verified to the letter. John Sandfield Macdonald, who was a Roman Catholic, was speaking against that provision of this resolution, which was intended to place upon provinces rights for minorities which could never be changed, no matter what the changed condition of the country or ttON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 77 character of the people. He moved a resolution in opposition to that, and, in supporting his resolution, he said : " I rise, sir, to propose another amendment. I can assure the House that I never knew a measure of anything like this in importance go through with so few attempts to amend it. Nor do I rise for the mere purpose of putting my amendment on record, for I do feel that the views I am about to express, and which I have ever held since I have been a member of this House may not commend themselves to any consider- able number of the members. I have no desire that the rights of the Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada should be abridged." He had no desire that they should be abridged, but he refused to endorse the principle that the resolution granting them should be perpetual. " I have no desire that the rights and privileges of any other denomination shall be interfered with in any respect; but I wish hon. members to bear in mind that the experience w^e have had in this country, not to allude to that of the neighboring State, proves that a denial of the right of the majority to legislate on an^ given matter has always led to grave con- sequences. I need only mention the Clergy Reserve question. This, it must be recollected, was forbidden to be legislated upon by the Union Act ; yet it was the cause of fierce strife and legislation for many years. The original constitution of the United States prohibited the question of slavery from being inter- fered with by Congress ; yet an agitation for its sup- pression was early commenced, and has at last ter- minated in civil war. The agitation of the Clergy 78 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Reserve (|uestioii produced a rebellion in Upper Canada. I say, sir, that by making a constitutional restriction in respect to the schools of the minority, we are sowing the seeds from which will in the end arise a serious conflict, unless the constitution be amended. The minority will be safe on a question relating to their faith and their education in a colony under the sway of the British Crown ; but if you expressly withdraw that question from the control of the majority, the rights of the minority will not be safe in either section of the Province, if you distrust the action of the majority. It is our duty, sir, to see that a question which affects us so dearly as the edu- cation of our children — a question which has before now created no little excitement in Upper Canada — shall not be withdrawn from the management of the Local Legislature. We ought not to deprive them of a power which they will want to exercise, just because they are deprived of it, and provoke a desire on their part to alter the system. You may rely upon it other religious bodies will be sure to protest against any particular creed having special rights, or an exclusive monopoly of certain privileges, whatever they may be. I should be astonished if anyone in this House would say, either to the Protestant minority in Lower Canada or to the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada : " You are not to trust to the justice of the majority." Have they ever known a country where the majority did not control affairs and where the minority had not to submit ? And yet we are asked to-day to prevent the majority in Manitoba controlling the affairs of that province, although we have never known a civilized country where it was not the case that the majority controlled and the minority submitted. He goes on : HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 79 " Does not the majority rule and the minority sub- mit in England and in France ? I have never heard of any case where this was not the case. The minority is safe against undue encroachment on its right, and I am willing to trust to the sense of justice of tlie majority of Upper Canada to preserve the religious and educational liberties of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada. I am now getting somewhat ad- vanced in years, and I am the more anxious to put my opinions on record, because before long I shall have the satisfaction of saying, though perhaps not on the floor of this House, that I protested against resolutions intended to prevent the free expression of opinion by the majority of the people of Upper Canada, and the exercise of a power which ought to be entrusted to them." We can see to-day, in the light of experience, the foresight and intelligence of the late John Sandfield Macdonald in the forecasting what might be the result if the rights of the majority in a province were taken away, and they were not allowed to exercise the rights that belong to every civilized country. He went on to move a resolution as follov/s : " That the following words be added to the original motion : ' And that it be an instruction to the said committee to consider whether any constitutional restriction which shall exclude from the Local Legis- lature of Upper Canada the entire control and direction of education, subject only to the approval or disapproval of the general Parliament, is not calcu- lated to create widespread dissatisfaction, and tend to foster and create jealousy and strife between the various religious bodies in that section of th$ Province/ " 80 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. He goes on to say : " If hon. gentlemen think they are going to silence the bitter feelings which have been engendered in Upper Canada in consequence of the attempt to make permanent a certain system of education, they are mistaken ; and I desire to have the expression of the opinion of the members of this House on the subject, whether they think that the restriction in the pro- posed constitution I have mentioned is calculated to bring alx)ut harmony, and whether it is not better to let the Catholics of Upper Canada and the Protectants of Lower Canada protect themselves, or rather trust for protection to the sense of justice of their fellow- subjects." An hon. gentleman who opposed that motion said : '' Though I am against the Separate School system, I am willing to accept this Confederation, even though it perpetuates a small number of Separate Schools. Under the present legislative union we are pow^erless in any movement for the abrogation of the Separate system ; it is even very doubtful if we could resist the demands for its extension. We will not be in any worse position under the new system, and in one respect we will have a decided advantage, in that no further change can be made by the Separate School advocates. We will thus substitute cei-tainty for uncertainty. I deeply regret that the hon. member should Imve thought it necessary for any purpose to A^ove this resolution." • He did not contemplate any further changes, but he was willing to accept what was then in existence in Upper arid Lower Canada. HON. N. CLARKE \/ALLACE. 81 Mr. Devlin — Who held that language ? Mr. Sproule — It was Mr. A. Mackenzie. Mr. Devlin — The late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie ? Mr. Sproule — Yes, I think so. Now, I think I have made clear two things. The first is that it was never contemplated at Confederation to compel any province that came into the union to accept Separate Schools, but only to accept the solemn com- pact made between Upper and Lower Canada, and to act on the understanding that that compact should be carried out. Acting on that understanding, in two or three local elections in the Province of Ontario in . which the school question engaged a great deal of attention, I steadily refused to say one word against Separate Schools in Upper or Lower Canada, because I considered that under the solemn compact made at Confederation, the rights enjoyed by the minorities in the two provinces should be maintained. But I held that it was never contemplated, when Confederation was brought about, that similar rights should be extended to every province that came into the union, and I am justified in that belief by the resolutions that were moved at that time. Some say that we are bound not only to give Separate Scliools to e^ery province that comes into the union, but after it comes in, and it engrafts on its statutes some privilege in regard to schools that may or may not be justifiable, tho t privilege nmst remain there forever. I say there is nothing in the resolutions to wanant that conten- tion. In reading the resolutions assigning to the 82 HuN. N. CLARKE WALLACE. legislatures of the provinces the subjects which they could control, I find this laid down : " The Local Legislature shall have powei bo make laws respecting the following subjects:" Among these is : " Education, saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may nossess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation." But it says nothing about the same right being extentled to any other province that may come in. That was the solemn understanding come to when these resolutions went to the Home Government as a basis for legislation. But we are told to-day : '* Oh, but the British North America Act says so-and-so." In the Legislature one honorable gentleman got up and contended that the bill that passed the Imperial Parliament shouM not become law until it was sub- mitted to the Parliament of Canada, and the Parlia- ment of Canada had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it, and either assenting to or dissenting from it ; and also until there was an appeal to the people upon it. One reason he gave for that view wtis : We know by experience, he said, that it some- times happens that w^e make laws on certain lines ; but if, after these law^s have been made and become constitutional laws, certain provisions are found in them that were never contemplated, we ought to have some opportunity of examining them before we are HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 83 asked to assent to them. In opposition to that, the Attorney-General, wlio was afterwards Sir George Cartier, spoke as follows : " In reply to what the honorable member for Hochelaga has just said, I shall merely tell the honor- able members of this House that they need not take any alarm at the apprehensions and the predictions that the honorable gentleman has made." Tliat was the danger of something creeping into the law which it was never contemplated should be embodied in it. " I have already declared, in my own name and cm behalf of the Government that the delegates who go to England will accept from the Imperial Govern - ment no act but one based on the resolutions voted by this House, and they will not break faith in order to bring back any other. (Hear, hear.) I will pledge my honor and that of the Government to that effect, and I trust my word of honor will, at least, have as much weight with the House and the country as that of the honorable member for Hochelaga. (Cheers.)" And it was accepted on that ground, but there was the resolution, there was what the Provincial Legisla- ture was to have, the right to control education, save only as regards the compact entered into between the two Canadas. But afterwards, in clause 98 of the British North America Act, an improvement was intro<luced that goes even further than that. It says : " All the powers, privileges and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on 84 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. the Separate Schools and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects, shall be, and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen's Protestants and Roman Catholics in Quebec. " Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union, — " « That only applied to the two Canadas, Upper and Lower Canada, and it did not contemplate any other province. It did not contemplate that the resolution I have read should extend to any other province. It did not contemplate that it was to extend to pro- vinces comin<^ afterwards into the union. It says : " Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union, or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an a))peal shall lie to the Governor-General in Council." That does not give the right to establish them and then say that, once established, they are never to be disturbed afterwards. Now, the delegates who were acting on behalf of Manitoba were not satisfied with what had taken place in New Brunswick about education, and they wanted to pass a law which would go further than the British North America Act went, and secure for themselves greater powers and improve their position. They passed what is known as the Manitoba Act. Here is the clause of that Act applying to the subject : '' In and for the Province of Manitoba the said HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 85 legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the follow^ing • provisions : " Nothing in such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the Province at the union." They went further than the British North America Act, because that Act only provided that they shall enjoy what they have at the time of the union. But it was changed because of the New^ Brunswick case. The minority had not the right to have Separate Schools in law^, and, therefore, that right could not be given back to them. The minority should enjoy the right which they had on going into the union. Is any right taken away from them w^hich they enjoyed when they came into the union ? Did the Privy Council say so ? The Privy Council did not say any- thing of the kind. The Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba had not that right in practice, because there were no Separate Schools there in practice ; they had what is known as parochial schools, which they might establish to-day upon the same basis. And, therefore, we are not going beyond the bound of reason, when we say tluit they had not the right, under the Act providing for the incorporation of Manitoba into Confederation, to appeal against the Manitoba statute winch did away with Se[)nrate Schools, because they did not eniov the liuht to Separate Schools when they camt* into tlu' union. 86 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. That right was given them after they came into the union. The union was consummated in 1870 and Separate Schools were given in 1871, and the Roman Catholic minority are enjoying to-day all the rights they enjoyed on coming into the union, and no right which they enjoyed then is taken from them to-day. Therefore, they cannot complain fairly on that line. We are told that the constitution shows that they shall enjoy certain rights. Now, I would like to ask this House, what are constitutions ? They are only compacts between governments and individuals, made to suit the necessities of the time and circumstances, and, as time goes on and conditions change, as people die and pass ott* the stage of action and others take their places, as the necessities of the time and chang- ing circumstances and conditions may require, those constitutions may be changed. Constitutions are not immutable. At one time one of the provisions of the British constitution was, that there sliould be Church and State. Where is Church and State to-day ? Where would it be to-day, if that constitution never changed ? The old system of Church and State has been done away with by the very descendants of the men who were the strong advocates of it years ago, and who regarded it then as one of the safeguards of the British constitution. But, as time, as conditions, as the circumstances changed, it was a wise act to do avvav witli it. There was a time when a Roman Cath ''ic could not hold any office. But is there any- one to-day who, in his wisdom, will say they have no HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 87 right to liokl office, as well as any Protestant ? Things have changed, and tliey hold office to-day by virtue of the will and consent of the majority. Mr. Devlin — Has the Manitoba Government the right to change the constitution granted to it ? Mr. Sproule — Yes, so the British North America Act says. It has the right to change its own consti- tution in certain lines. I shall not specify all the lines, but it has that right. But I say that constitu- tions are only compacts, which only last so long as those compacts suit the situation, the circumstances, the conditions and the age in which they are applied; and, when they are not in harmony with the age, they must be changed. Mr. Amyot — Would the Province of Quebec have the right to change the constitution, so far as Separate Schools are concerned ? Mr. Sproule — I have shown the honorable gentle- man that, under the solemn compact they have entered into, they are pledged to Ontario to retain those schools, and I do not look at it as standing in the same relation at all. I have given the reasons. It is because that compact was entered into before Confederation, under which that province must have Separate Schools, but, as regards Manitoba, the com- pact was only that they should enjoy what they had on going into the union ; and on going into the union, Manitoba had not Separate Schools. The seigniorial tenure was, at one time, a very burning (juebtiou in the Province ol* QuebLC. It was S(S HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. at one time suitable to tlie wants of the people, but, h 3 time and conditions changed, it was abolished by law. We had a Clergy Reserve fund that gave a cer- tain portion of land for the benefit of the clergy, and that was embodied in the compact between Upper and Lower Canada and formed part of' our constitution. Is it standing to-day ? No, long since the Clergy Reserve lands were taken away from the clergy and used for the purposes of the country, because the changed conditions of the day rendered the change necessary. The constitution of the United States provided that Congress should not interfere wdth slavery. Enlightened public opinion in that great republic, however, demanded that slavery should be done away with, because it was inhuman and not in consonance with the advanced state of civilization, and not in harmony with human feeling and sympa- thy : and, although the American constitution pro- vided that it should not be changed, what did the people do ? They first made a compromise, what is known as the Missouri compromise, and declared that slavery should not go beyond certain bounds. But that was not sufficient ; public opinion was too strong to stand slavery to any extent, however limited, and they abolished slavery, though they were obliged to do it by changing the constitution, though, in order to etfect that change, they had to resort to arms and cause the loss of tens of thousands of valuable lives and millions of money, and though they had to accomi^lish that chanire by one of the t^reatest civil Hon. N. claUke waLlack. 80 Wars the world has ever seen. The constitution, how- ever, had to be cLianged, because the requirements of the time demanded it. What are constitutions, if they are not made to suit the requirements of the times and of the age in which we live ? If the con- stitution of Manitoba became entirely unsuited for the requirements of Manitoba, would it be wise to insist that Manitoba should abide bv it, and not effect a change ? I say it would be most unwise. Because she saw lit to think otherwise, because she seeks to make this change, are we going to abuse her ? No. I would like to ask honorable gentlemen : Suppose that through some inadvertence or malicious design, or from any other cause, you had engrafted upon the constitution of that country a Separate School system that was entirely unsuited to the civilization of the age, entirely unsuited to the rcjuirements of the rising generation, who ouglit to be given a fair educa- tion. It is said that this Separate School system is a good one; but suppose that the Separate School system had been the worst. Merely because that system had been engrafted upon the constitution, must it remain there forever? Would that be common sense or common wisdom ? Would it justify any class of men in abiding by it ? Would not these men rather be justified in so amending the constitution as to bring themselves into harmony with their environ- ments and with the requirements of the country in which they find themselves ? Why is this bill objec- tionable ? It is objectionable mainl}" because it 90 Hon. n. clauke wallacK. establishes two systems of educational law, and two systems of education in a country where they can hardly afford to support one system. We hear it often said : Suppose the people of Quebec were to do with their Separate Schools there what the people of Manitoba have done with the Separate Schools there. But the cases are not at all the same, and the com- parison is not a reasonable one. You can only com- pare things that are, to some extent, alike. I go to the Province of Quebec, and I find the people settled on narrow lots that extend a mile and a quarter in length, but are only, if I remember well, forty rods in width. A family lives on the front of each lot, and the front of the lots is like a continuous village. The people are congregated in large numbers in a small space. If the people want two schools they may be quite able to support them, for they are numerous enough and wealthy enough to do so. But compare that with the conditions in Manitoba. Half of the land is kept as a reserve, and not settled at all in some places ; the people can get 160 acres each, instead of eighty acres each, and there are only four families in a mile, instead of from eight to sixteen. Is it to be supposed that the same rules are applicable to the people of Quebec that are applied to the people of Manitoba? Tsot at all. The Provincial Goveniment, in their wisdom, decide that the conditions were such that it is impossible to impose two school systems upon the people, that the people are too weak and cannot maintain them in efficiency. That is the #•• • HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 91 reason why they did not wish to perpetuate the two systems there. I have here a pamphlet that deals with the subject, and it shows that the population there is sparse and scattered. Reading this pamphlet, one gets an idea of what it means for such a popula- tion to attempt to maintain two school systems. This pamphlet takes 198 school sections and shows that in 1894 the average attendance in no single one of them reached ten. Some of them are as low^ as live, and the line of figures runs nine, five, eight, seven, six, seven, nine, and so on. Everv one of them is below" ten. What would be the condition in that country if you were to insist upon the establishment of another school system amongst these people who are struggling to maintain one system of schools ? Would such a thing be wise ? A few years ago we had an appeal from Quebec. I remember that a number of Protes- tants from one part of that province came here and asked this House to provide means to transport them to the neighborhood of Calgary so that they might settle together where they could keep up their schools and churches. As an evidence of the difficulty of maintaining these institutions where populations were sparse, they show^ed us a map of that country where the Protestants, one by one, had been bought out by th3 Roman Catholics until they had become distributed in very small numbers, yet in much larger numbers than can be found in the settled country districts in Manitoba. And they said : We are unable to keep up our societies, we are unable to maintain 92 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. our churches, we are unable to support our scliools, because we are so few in number. When they were asked : Why do you not attend the schools of the majority, as the Roman Catholics of Ontario attend the Public Schools there ? the answer was : If the schools in Quebec were of the same nature as the Public Schools in Ontario wiiere the object is to give a secular education and not teach the religion of any particular Church first, we would send our children to them. But in those schools they teach principles that are regarded as inimical to the belief of a Protes- tant denomination. Therefore, we cannot send our children to their schools, and we are too weak to keep up our own schools. Is not that the condition in Manitoba ^ And if the (?ovemment came to the conclusion that this condition of things overburdened the people, and decided that it would be better to give them one system of national schools where religion was not taught, where the tenets of no particular Church were taught, have they not strong reason for doing so ? For whatever may have been said, I have never seen it proven tha,t any religious creed or the tenets of any particidar Church were taught in tliese schools. They go through the foria of reading the Lord's Prayer, and they occasionally read a passiige of Scripture ; but they have never introduced any catechism or the teaching of the dogmas of any Church. They have made a system of national schools in which the chief desire is to givt^ tlie rising generation tliat tH^eulai* education which is HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 93 necessary to lit them for becoming good citizens. We are asked to compel the people of Manitoba to go back to the dual system, and to carry on that dual system under two sets of laws, one set of schools under the control of their own laws, and one under laws passed by this Parliament. Wliat must be the result :* It must engender a feeling of strife and resentment in the minds of the majority which, if aroused now, may not die out within the lifetime of the youngest member of this House. We are told that we should pass this bill and settle the question finally. If I could hope that this would be a final settlement of this question, I confess that I should be inclined to do a great deal that I would not otherwise do. But I regard it as only the commencement of this figlit, if this is forced upon the people contrary to the will of the majority there. Now, I object to Separate Schools on principle. But while saying that, I have no feeling against those who regard Separate Schools as the right schools. The principle w^hich I regard as right in this country is to bring the children up together in one school, where they will learn, through the associations of youth to love and respect each other, where they will play together, where they will learn to tolerate etich other's eccentricities, and learn that human nature is human nature in one, the same as the other ; where they will grow up together, having inculcated in their minds the same principles of education, science and knowled;:e that must be useful to them tbruuiihout 04 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. life. I regard it as a correct principle in the interests of the State that in school the children shall see nothing of the diversity of religion, though that may remain, and the Church has the right to teach it, but that it shall not keep the children apart in two hostile camps as is now being done. This is essentially why I oppose this bill. I do not care whether it is a weak bill or a strong bill. The bill has in it the principle of forcing upon an unwilling province Separate Schools which were <lone away with because the people regarded them as unsuitable to the require- ments of the situation or the condition of things in their country. Then again I oppose it because 1 think the State ought to control education. I believe the trend of the age is toward the State controlling education. Those of us who remember our schoolboy days will no doubt recollect when we went to what were called pay schools, and we paid so much a month for the support of the teacher. There was not much difference in the amount of religion taught in those schools and that taught to-day ; but they were pay schools kept up by voluntary subscriptions, and kept up by those who wished to educate their children. The State in its wisdom afterwards thought it necessary to take over the control of education because there was a large number of poor children in the country whose parents were unable or too careless to give them an education, and this made it possible for a very large percentage of them to grow up in ignorance. Believing that education ought to be the . HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE:. 95 birthright of every citizen of the British Empire, and that intelligence is the best guarantee for good citizenship, the State thought it right to give them an education, and therefore, it took the schools of the country under its eont'^o). Instead of having pay schools, instead of having parochial schools, instead of having church schools, we have what is known as free schools controlled by the State. As soon as the free school system was introduced in Upper Canada it was regarded as the best system yet devised for the people, and it has been controlled by the State from that time to the present. Now, then, I said that the trend of the age is tow^ard the State taking control of education. Why do I say so ? Because the day of private schools and parochial schools has passed away. ] am strengthened in that opinion by the history of other countries as well as our own. I need not cite the case of Upper Canada, because no one w^ould pretend to stand up to-day and say that we should revert to the old system of allowing churches to keep up their schools and private individuals to keep up their schools, instead of the State doing it. But we have gone further than that by taxing ourselves for the education of children whose parents are not able to pay for it, by giving money out of the public treasury to support j30or schools where the people are not able to tax themselves for it. In the Province of Ontario the development of our educational system has been along that line for the last thirty or forty years, until it is a recognized fact to-day that no one 96 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. would pretend to deny. I say again that the trend of the age is toward free schools, as shown by what ''has taken place in other countries. I take a work that I held in my hand, and in it I find facts drawn from the history of other countries which strengthen my conviction in that regard. According to the " Encyclopedia Britannica," Vol. 8, page 712, I find that all over Europe education is passing from the control of the clergy into the hands of the State. Europe is older than our country ; it has learned, as every country learns, by the experience of the past, and their experience has taught the wisdom of taking the control of education from under the hands of the clergy, fronx under the hands of the Church, and transferring it to the control of the State. The* same is said to be true even in Mexico, and Central America, and in South America. Then w^hen I come to look at some other countries I find that in Ireland, that benighted country, where it is sometimes said the people are steeped in ignorance, they have a system of national schools. Under the National School system of Ireland, Roman Catholics and Protestants are educated together. They have learned by experience the folly of keeping children apart when they are educated, because separate education, instead of harmorizing opposing sentiments and feelings, tends to accentuate them, tends to make them worse. Therefore, the wisdom of the Adminis- tration of Ireland has led them to devise wliat might be regarded as a national school system. Australia J. HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 97 has also come to the same conclusion, because the Common School system of Australia is based on the principles of perfect religious freedom, and the non-establishment of any particular form of religious belief. I need not give the history of the United States in regard to this question, as it is doubtless well known to members of this House. Although attempt after attempt has been made by the Roman Catholics, and in all honesty, in all sincerity, to bring the educational affairs of that country under the control of their Church, as they have no doubt a perfect right to attempt to do, I say that great country, which is regarded as in the forefront of advancement and civilization to-day, has never accepted the princi- ple of Separate Schools, and has never allowed educa- tion to pass from under her control. To-day her schools are free to every child of the State, and the children must be educated together in all State-sup- ported schools. Denominational religion is not taught in her schools, but the principles of religion that are common to all, are inculcated in many of them. I know something about the schools in the United States, because I passed some time in her educational institutions ; and although the State teaches some of the doctrines of religion that are common to all creeds, the same as are taught in many parts of this country, I heard no objection from any Roman Catholic. And although, as I say, application has been made from time to time for Separaiie Schools, the State has never abandoned her control of 98 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. education. No doubt some honorable gentlemen will remember that two or three years ago the question was asked of one of the high dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church of the United States, Mons. Satolli, Would the Church in the United States ailow the children of Roman Catholics to be educated in what were commonly called godless schools? and the answer w^as that, under the circumstances thev could do so — under the circumstances they were at liberty to send their children to the Public Schools. The Roman Catholics do not enjoy the privilege of Separate Schools there, as they do here. Now, then, in Mexico also, free Public Schools have been estab- lished, and whoever sends a child to the parochial school is fined. Experience has proven the wisdom of preventing parochial schools from controlling the education of the country, and the State has made it a punishable offence for anyone to send a child to a parochial school. On this question I find some facts quoted by Dr. Sidney. In the Republic of Central America children between the ages of eight and fourteen years are required to attend Public Schools; education is free, compulsory, and under State control. Then I come to South America, to the republics of that continent, with their fifty millions of population, and what system do we find there ? Until twenty years ago the education of the children was carried on in parocliial schools and under the control of the clergy ; but experience has shown the unwisdom of that system of educatiop, and they have HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 99 changed it. Their schools now are public, under the State control, and compulsory. The education of that great country is to-day closely modelled after the system prevailing in the State of Michigan. In that great country of fifty millions of people, wdioever sends a child to a parochial school is fined, and the parochial schools have been closed. Free schools have been established in Uruguay and Venezuela, under a system much the same as that prevailing in other republics I have mentioned. Then we come to New Brunswick, and we find that they have practi- cally State schools. They have State schools in the Province of Nova Scotia. They have State schools in Prince Edward Island. Then, I say, I am justified in the conclusion that the trend of the age is toward - the State controlling the education of the country. Why, I ask, should Manitoba be compelled to go back . to what is really an obsolete, an unsatisfactory, and an unsuitable condition of things for the needs of that province ? For that reason, again, I am opposed . to this bill. Now, sir, we are told we have a right to legislate because there is a grievance. What law has ever been passed restricting a man's rights that does not leav^e a grievance behind it i Is there any law that restricts us in any walk of life that does not give rise to some grievance, if we are to consult our own feelings when rights have been taken away from us ? ' But if, in the interest of the State, in the interest of humanity, it is necessary even to create a grievance by taking away certain rights, the State is Justified 100 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. in taking away those rights in the interest of the whole. And though there may be a grievance behind it, it is no justification for going back to the old condition of things simply because it is a grievance. Was there not a grievance in New Brunswick when the Provincial Government took control of the schools and changed the system ? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries fought that question eloquently in this House, declaring there w^as a grievance and a very serious grievance. But when Sir John Macdonald was appealed to, he refused to give back what they regarded as their rights, because, he said, it was the right of a province to control that matter, and he informed them it was their duty to go to the highest tribunal, the people, and fight out the question there. He told them to go first to the Provincial Legislature, and then to go to the people, because the people had the powder to change the representation in the Legisla- ture. He told the representatives of the minority to go before the people and convince them that their demand was a right and just one, and, he said, there was sufficient justice in humanity to grant what is right. Mr. CosTlGAN — Perhaps the honorable gentleman will permit me an explanation, as he referred to me by name. He has stated that the late Sir John Macdonald, when appealed to by the minority of New Brunsw^ick, told them that he could give them no relief, but to go to the Legislature. I think the honorable gentleman will find that they were sent, HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 101 not to the Legislature, but to the courts, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Sproule — I read the discussion a few days ago. The contention is that the courts of justice offer no redress and, therefore, the people hav^e to come here for redress, and that the British North America Act contemplated that we should come here for redress. But the understanding, as expressed by Sir John Macdonald, was that you must go b^xk to your own legislature, and if you do not obtain relief there, then appeal to the electors, because they can put out the members of the Legislature ; but, in Sir John Macdonald's opinion, we had no right to interfere. I read the debate in this way, and I am in the judgment of those who have read it as well as myself. Will Manitoba settle this question if left alone ? I believe, if Manitoba w^ere left alone she would ulti- mately settle it ; perhaps the minority would not get all they expect or claim, but the Province would settle it as satisfactorily as it was settled in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and the other provinces. I have sufficient respect for the judgment and fairness of the people of that great country, many of whom went there from Ontario and Quebec, to believe that they do not want to act unfairly to any of the people there, and if left alone they would settle the question in a way that would be satisfactory to the minority after a time. The minoiity are taking advantage of the law which exists there to-day, and I find they are bringing the . : ' V- 102 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. schools under the control of the law in increasing numbers every year. I have, therefore, the right to assume that not very great dissatisfaction exists there. Who are clamoring for this law? Are the people of Manitoba clamoring for it ? It is true that a largely signed petition has been sent here asking for the change, and I cannot shut my eyes to that fact ; but it was got up, I am credibly informed, by the hie- rarchy, and was signed by people who were asked to sign it, and they sent down the petition. This was all right. But the greater clamor comes from the Province of Quebec, many of whose people know little of the situation, whether Separate Schools joined with national schools can be worked or not. They are forcing the issue, and they are the party who are forcing the fight on the situation to-day. I do not believe, if they knew the situation as well as the people there do, if they knew the difficulties that Manitoba has to contend with, they would fight strongly and insist so vigorously in forcing on an unwilling people a measure that is not desired there, and compel them to restore the school system which was abolished because it did not suit them. There are some features of this contest that attract my attention at the present time, and which must attract public attention. One is the voice of the bishops and clergy on the question. We all under- stand that it is a serious offence to interfere with the riorht of a member of Parliament in the discharore of HON. N. CLAllKE WALLACE. 103 his legislative duties or to intimidate him. Those of us who know anything about the Roman Catholic religion, are aware that it is a very serious thing to take away from any member of that Church the rights of the Church, to tell a man who believes that through that Church alone he can find salvation, that the ecclesiastical authorities will take away from him the rights of the Church. I believe it :o be a very serious threat when you tell any man discharging his duties as a member of Parliament, or is about to go back to the elect' .>rs for endorsation or otherwise, that if you do so and so the Church will declare you to be no longer a Roman Catholic. I have here a state- ment which was put out a few" days ago, and it seems to me a very serious matter with respect to Roman Catholics in this House. I am sorry to mention it, and I do not do it for the purpose of creating any feeling, because I know" it may make some hon. members who are Roman Catholics feel that I am doing what I should not, as a Protestant do, in speak- ing of it. But I only speak of it because of the sentiments enunciated by the leader of the Opposition the other night. That hon. gentleman said : While I love my Church and revere my Church, and respect my Church, yet in the discharge of my duty as a Liberal in this House, following the principles of Liberalism as enunciated, known and carried out by the great Reformers of the British Empire, I refuse to be controlled in the discharge of my duty even by my Church, because I regard it as the first 1 : 104 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. duty of a member of Parliament to do his duty to the State, and while I am unwilling to come into conflict with my Church, I believe I know the situation better than they do ; I do not regard it as offensive because they imagine they are right in doing so : and I tliink they are rather objects for sympathy than otherwise. Father Lacombe, a very respectable missionary — I do not blame him for his utterance, because he thought he was doing right, and doing what he conceived to be his duty — declared that no man who opposed this Remedial Bill would be refjarded as a Catholic. He said : " If, which may God not grant, you do not believe it to be your duty to accede to our just demands, and that the Government, which is anxious to give us the promised law, be beaten and overthrown while keep- ing firm to the end of the struggle, I inform you, witli regret, that the Episcopacy, like one man, united to the clergy, will rise to support those who may have fallen to defend us." Archbishop Langevin of St. Boniface has stated his v^iews in these words : " It has been said, falsely, that the Catholic hie- rarchy in this Dominion of ours is to settle the school (juestion. No, the Catholic hierarchy — yon know it, and I can say it plainly — the Catholic hierarchy leaxls the Catholics in their religious conviction, and all those who do not follow the hierarchy are not Catholics." And he has instructed them that this was clearly their duty, becauHe tiie Church instructed tiiem in HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 105 their line of conscience, by telling them that it was their duty to support the bill which gives back these rights to the Church. " When the hierarchy has spoken there is no use for any Catholic to say to the contrary, for if he does he is no longer a Catholic. Such a man may carry the title, but I declare this as a bishop : I say to-night, and I say it with plain authority, a Catholic who does not follow the hierarchy on the school question is no more a Catholic, and who will be the one to entitle such a one to the name of Catholic ? Where is the society or government who will give him the right to call himself a CathoHc when I in my authority as a Catholic bishop, declare that such a man has no right to the name." Then, I say, the bishop is putting them outside the pale of the Church, and that is a very serious matter for Catholics. Sir, I regard that as a most unfortunate thing, because it is interfering w^ith what most people in this country look upon as the right of every mem- ber of Parliament to do, namely, to follow the dictates of his own judgment in matters where the State must control, and where tlie State must be above the Church, and above religion, and where members believe that they know the condition of things better than the men wlio are attempting to give advice. I do not blame the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church for doing so. I do not blame them for bring- ing every influence they can to bear upon the Church to do so, but I think it is unfortunate that that influ- ence should be brought to bear. A man who has the 106 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. •>. < courage of his convictions, and who lias the manhood and the integrity to say in the face of all that, I regard my duty to the State as so and so, and I shall carry it out, notwithstanding the fact that I may be buried under the anathema of the Church, and not- withstanding that the whole Church shall be arrayed against me, and support the party opposed to me ; I say that the man who has the moral courage to say that will be endorsed by the people of this country. They will regard him w^ith respect and honor, and they will look upon him as a greater statesman than they did before. This is one of the features of this contest which makes me to-day so very strongly against this bill. We are told that if we do not legis- late in this case, Quebec may take away the rights from the Protestants of that province. I was glad to hear the lion, member for Three Rivers (Sir Hector Langevin) speak in the generous and manly tone he did this afternoon, when he said that whether the minority in Manitoba got their rights or not, Quebec would never descend to any principle so low. I always had a high opinion of the French-Canadian people. I always regarded them as chivalrous, as honorable, and as disposed to do right to the minority down there. But above and beyond all that, I say that whether we legislate or do not legislate, the rights of the minority are not in danger in that pro- vince. There was a solemn compact entered into with the Province of Quebec in this matter, and I believe that no person would dare to break up tlie original HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 107 contract which was entered into between the ^.vo Canadas before Confederation, and embodied in the Confederation Act of 1867. And should the people down in that country wish to legislate upon that question, and if they felt as strongly on it as do the people of Manitoba, would the people of Manitoba be disposed to interfere with their rights ? I think they would not. And if the people of Quebec came to this House, would they be inclined to regard with quietness and courtesy any effort that w^as made to interfere with their rights ? I think they would not. They would be the very strongest to create an agita- tion that would be large in its proportions and dangerous in its results if they were not allow^ed to control their rights as they were allowed in the Jesuits' Estates case. They would tell us that any legislation against them was an interference with the rights belonging to their province, and they would not brook any interference. Now, what should tlie Government do with this question at the present time ? I say they should leave it to the people of the Province of Manitoba to deal with as in their judg- ment they think best. That was what they should have done in the first place. While the Jc iicial Committee of the Privy Council said to the minority, You have the right to appeal, what did that mean ? Some my that the Government are now only carry- ing out the judgment of the Privy Council. I do not so understand it. Although that was very fiercely contended a few^ months ago, no member of the Cabi- -i 108 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. net to-day will say that the Government is obliged to take this course because of the judgment of the Privy Council. That judgment of the Privy Council was an opinion in the nature of advice to the Gover- nor-in-Council here. It told then that the minority had the right to appeal to them for a hearing of their case. That was ail. They heard that case, and according to their judgment and wisdom they could say either " yes " or " no," you have a grievance and we will change that law, or, we will not change it. It was equally their right to say : We will not inter- fere with Manitoba, or, we will interfere. It was the right of this Government to say : If the circumstances are such that we ought to interfere, then we can interfere with it ; or, if the condition of things are such in Manitoba that they cannot successfully carry on two educational systems, we shall not interfere with it. But, sir, this Government were equally at liberty to say either one or the other. There is no judgment of the Privy Council telling this Govern- ment to interfere or not to interfere. Now, w^e are told that if this bill is passed the fight will be over. Well, sir, if I believed that I would be inclined to go a long way. I would be disposed to do many things I would not otherwise wish to do, if I thought the passing of this bill would be a finality in tliie matter. But, sir, can I shut my eyes to the agi- tation going on in the country to-day ? Can I shut my eyes to the unanimity of sentiment in Manitoba, where three elections have been run on that question, HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 109 and where there has been a majority in favor of the rights of the Province every time ? Can I shut my eyes to the fact, as we are told, that at least 85 per cent, of the people of Manitoba are in favor of allowing that province to work out her own destinies according to the law she has placed on the statute book ? Can I shut my eyes to the fact that all over the country there is no defence of the action of the Government by the press of the country who gauge and educate public senti- ment ? Can I shut my eyes to the fact that there has been scarcely a gathering all over this Dominion which says to this Government : Go on and do what you are doing to-day. No, sir, it is the very reverse. I therefore say that I have no right to assume that the passage of this bill would be the end of the con- test. I do not believe that the heart-burnings and the strife that is raised to-day, would all die out in a few months if we force Manitoba to do as she is not inclined to do. I believe that the sentiment of the country does not justify any interference with tlie Province of Manitoba in this matter. I believe that the public sentiment of the country is, that there shall be no interference. Now, then, what will be the result to the present Government if they persist in pressing this bill. It must, in my judgment, inevitably result either in their defeat in this House, or in their defeat in the country. It may be said that the country has not spoken. We have oft^n jisked them of late to appeal 110 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. to the country, and we have said that although we believe public sentiment is against you, yet if you appeal to the country, and if the voice of the country says pass that law, you will be justified in doing it. But they have not appealed to the country, nor given the electorate an opportunity to speak. If they are defeated in this House they must appeal to the country, and if then the judgment of the electorate is that the Government shall go on with the measure, then they will be justified. The Government will be fortified with public opinion behind them, and they will be fortified with the support of many friends in this House who are opposing them to-day. Sir, if I know anything about the public sentiment of the country, I say it is all adverse to the policy of the Government in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I can only express regret, as I did at the beginning of this debate, that I am obliged to place myself in opposition to the Government of the day. However, I do not believe that I am in opposition to the sentiment of the Conservative party of this country when I oppose the Government. I believe that the Government is against public opinion, and that I am with public opinion in doing as I am doing now. I believe I am in harmony with the sentiments of the people of Ontario to-day, when I am standing as I am against the Government on this question. I believe that I am also in harmony with the sentiments of the people of Manitoba when I stand up here to oppose the Gov- ernment on this occasion, I believe, too, that I am HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. Ill in harmony with the people of the North- West Ter- ritories because the same difficulty is looming up there, and that is another reason which leads me to think that this fight will not be ended soon. If we are successful in forcing Manitoba to-day, the next thing will be to force us to repeal the law which gave national schools to the North- West Territories. The Catholics regard themselves as having a griev- ance there the same as in Manitoba. Archbishop Langevin said so at Edmonton, I believe. He said : We are not reconciled to the laws which have been put on the Statute Book of the North- W^est Terri- tories; the national schools there do not satisfy us any more than the national schools in Manitoba. Therefore, I say that if the parties who are forcing on this remedial legislation succeed in getting it, the fight will commence in the North- West Territories as soon as the bill is passed. The School Bill passed in the North-West Assembly has been held in abeyance, and has not yet received the assent of the Lieutenant- Governor. Why is it held in abeyance ? Because the clergy do not approve of it. Now, I would ven- ture to ask this Government, as the authority either to veto that law or to allow it to go into operation, what they intend to do with it ? Do uL<^y intend to give the people of the North-West Territories the right to control education or do they intend to veto tliat law ? And if they veto it, will they start the fight there which they started on behalf of the min- ority in Manitoba ? Will they continue that fight ^. -- '■' y 112 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. also for five years, until they secure in the North- West Territories what they wish to secure in Mani- toba to-day ? I say that this justifies us in believing that the fight will not be ended by this bill ; but that the passage of this bill would be only the commence- ment of the fight. The fight must go on, though this Parliament must go to the country, and though dozens of members who support the bill to-day may be left at home by an exasperated electorate. As John Sandfield Macdonald said at the time of the birth of Confederation, if you take from the majority the right to control education, you do not settle the question for ever. It will loom up again. Like Ban- quo's ghost, it will not down ; it will come to the front, and the fight will continue. - Therefore, in the interest of humanity, in the interest of the people of Manitoba, who think they ought to enjoy freedom, as every westerner thinks they ought, I ask you not to exasperate them too far. If you do, the consequences may be something we do not wish to contemplate to-day. We all hope that the consequences may not be serious; but we all know what the feeling of the people of Manitoba was when we were obliged to hark back and repeal the monopoly clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway Act; and if we force this measure upon them, the results may be serious, not only to that country, but to Confederation, because it tends to destroy provincial autonomy. Then I .say, in the interests of all the provinces of this great Dominion, in the interests of HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 113 the people of that country, who live under a condi- tion of things entirely different from the condition of things here or in the Province of Quebec, let them enjoy the rights they are entitled to ; let them adopt laws suited to their conditions and environments, and carry out those laws according to their will, so long as they are doing no substantial injustice to any portion of the people. For these reasons I am about to vote against this bill. I am sometimes told that, in voting against the Government on this bill, I am voting for the Opposition. Well, it is fortunate that we can sometimes meet, even if we do not always meet. If I think the Opposition are right, I am generous enough and glad enough to record my vote with theirs. I want to see the bill killed ; the Opposition are moving with the 'same end in view, therefore we vote together. I do not regard it as an unmixed evil that I am voting v/ith them. I do regard it as an unmixed evil that I am voting against the Government, which I have loyally supported these seventeen years, because I think they are wrong on this question, and it is my duty to vote as I think right. Feeling, as I do, that the best thing we can do in the interest of the country is to kill this bill, I intend to vote for the motion made by the leader of the Opposition; and I was glad that he made that motion, because it gives us an opportunity to vote straight against this bill, and to kill it, if possible. On other lines I am with the Government. They may see fit to read me out of the party for taking the 114 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. V independent step I do. If they do so, that is their right, and they can act according to their own sweet will. But, so long as I occupy a seat in this House, I shall regard it as my right to vote according to the ' dictates of my conscience, and with such under- standing as I have, on every measure that comes before this House. Therefore, regarding this bill as a most obnoxious one, not only as doing away with a system of education that is the very best for the rising generation, but as taking away from the Province of Manitoba the right of control in educa- tional matters, whith it ought to enjoy, I shall have much pleasure in voting for the six months' hoist. And so from such men as these, some of them Con- - servatives in politics, some of them Liberals, was the . scheme to coerce Manitoba aborted. It never drew the breath of life, but its birth-pangs were sufficiently ^ acute to bring upon its parents confusion and over- /.= throw. I have great faith in this grand Dominion, and that faith has been greatly strengthened by the recent outspoken voice of the people, who arose in their might and swept from power men who dared to form an alliance with the hierarchy for political gain. Catholic and Protestant, Quebec and Ontario, joined hands to say we will not have these men to reign over us. The fight may be kept up. A tyrannical HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 115 mandamus may wipe out a few more papers in Quebec, an attempt may be made to throttle free discussion, but the attitude of hostility now assumed by a straggling few must result in final defeat. And this country that has in it all the elements of future greatness will go forth upon its mission. S --?-■. I \" '■ ■, ■* «■ <. CANADA: THE GREATER BRITAIN. ■-S; REV. CHAS. E. PERRY, I'att (J rand Chaplain and I'aet Grand OrganUtr. '\ CANADA: THE GREATER BRITAIN. A LECTURE BY REV. C. E. PERRY. Canada has been greatly undervalued by friends and foes. Many think of it as a country buried in snow. A little while ago when the President of the United States sent his bellicose message to the House of Representatives, the Americans boasted that they could take Canada any morning before breakfast. Their brag reminds one of the boy who was sent to set a hen. Being a long time gone his mother asked what detained him. Hy said that he had placed thirty- six eggs under the hen as he wished to. give her a chance to spread herself. Was the President actuated by a similar desire for the Eagle's extension ? We are often reminded of the numbei's that leave us for the United States. But we have lived to see many return, tired of grasshoppci's, cyclones, blixzards and divorce courts. ; -» - u 122 - HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. When we consider our great Dominion with its majestic mountains, fertile prairies, grand lakes, magnificent rivers and inexhaustible mines, resources , and possibilities, we have no hesitation in calling this the Greater Britain that is to be. Canada is forty times larger than Great Britain. You might roll / England through Canada and not make a dent. Drop Ireland into one of our great lakes, and forever / end *' Home Rule." Lose Scotland in one of our forests and never know it was there unless the odor • of its whiskey should betray its presence. Canada is bounded on the north by the Artie Ocean, east by the Atlantic, south by the United States, west by the Pacitic. In 1790, the United States had in round numbers a population of 4,000,000. Canada at the same time 200,000. In 1891 Canada had reached 5,000,000 and the United States 61,000,000. In 1790, for every one person in Canada there were twenty in the United States; now for every one in Canada there are but twelve in the United States. At the World's Fair in Chicago, out of 150 awards given in dairy exhibits, Canada carried off 126. In fruit Canada was equally fortunate and won 96 awards out of 105 against the world. Canada exhibited a cheese at the same fair, of such colossal proportions that broke down the platform built for it by their most HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 123 skilled artisans. Canada is one of the largest countries in the world, containing an area of 3,500,000 square miles, and is about one-thirteenth of the land on the surface of the globe. Larger than Australia, nearly as largo as the whole of Europe, and exceeds the United States in size by 127,000 square miles, and has as much fertile territory. It stretches 3,500 miles in one direction and 1,400 in the other. One of the lakes of Canada (Lake Superior) covers an area of 32,000 square miles, being 400 miles long, almost equal to the size of Ireland, and is the largest body of fresh water on the globe. This lake, with Huron, Erie, Ontario (unsalted seas), with the noble River St. Lawrence, forms unbroken communication for 2,140 miles. Canada has also a great coast line both on the Atlantic and Pacific. This is pierced by inlets, bays, and some of the finest harboi's on the globe. Her fisheries are among the richest in the world, and double the annual value of the United States fisheries, and nearly equal to the rest of the British Empire, and is a source of great wealth and is well worth protecting. Our forests are very valuable, containing sixty-nine varieties of wood. The exports of the products of the forest was in one year $21,000,000. An Englishman once remarked to me, " You have no seal mines in Canada t»o compare with those ef 124 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. England." I had the pleasure of informing him that whilst the coal area in his native land was 11,900 square miles, ours occupied 100,000. Our mines are only in their infancy, but English and American capitalists are just now awakening to the fact that the most extensive gold mines, and possibly the most productive in the world, are situated in Ontario at Rat Portage and on Lake of the Woods, and Rainy Lake, and Ro^sland, B.C., and it has long been known that the finest gold in the world is found in Nova Scotia. We also have some silver in the Lake Superior region. Lead and copper! The nickel mines at Sudbury are unH vailed in the world. And when the time comes, as is anticipated, to coat the warships with this metal, Canada can supply the world. We have struck sufficient oil in Canada to throw light upon the subject. And make the whole ma- chinery run smoothly. We are also a manufacturing people, and from the toothpick to the splendid har- vester we are making so much that tens of thousands are finding employment in our factories. In agricul- ture we are not excelled by any portion of the world. In one year in Ontario 86,000,000 pounds of cheese w&a manufactured. And Manitoba's No. 1 hard "^vheat 19 without a peer. In Ontario alone there is HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. • 125 invested in agricultural implements $1,000,000,000. In 1844, there were fourteen miles of railway. At Confederation 2,400 ; now the Dominion boasts of over 12,000 miles valued at $625,000,000. In 1868 we possessed 8,500 miles of telegraph, now 50,000 — * 15,000 miles of telephone wires with 7,292 post-offices. We have 650 regular publications, newspapers and magazines, 70 of which are daily papers, so that the world to-day in miniature is laid upon our breakfast table through the agency 3f the printing press. Our school system is the best in the world, as is proved in the intelligence of our people. The late Rev. Dr. Ryerson travelled through England, Germany and the United States and studied the schools of these countries as he saw them in operation. He then amal- gamated their excellent quplities, and gave us the best system in existence. In 1868, the total trade was $131,000,000 ; in 1883, it had grown to $230,000,- 000, an increase of $100,000,000 or an average of nearly $7,000,000 a year. Of our public works we need not be ashamed. The Canadian Pacific Railway, stretching from ocean to ocean, binds in one the different provinces of this great Confederation, and . is the longest railway in the world ; it is the most _ stupendous enterprise ever undertaken and success- fully accomplished by any country of the populatioi^ 126 • HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. - of the Dominion. The Intercolonial connecting Quebec with the Maritime Provinces is 890 miles in length and cost over $40,000,000. The Grand Trunk Rail- way was until the completion of the Canadian Pacific , Railway, the longest railway in the \7orld under one management, its total length bein^* 3,300 miles. Great things are confidently looked for in the way of Asiatic and Australian trade by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the splendid steamers that con- nect at Vancouver. The route is becoming already the great highway to the East. Trie British Govern- ment, with its usual foresight, is making use of this . route for the transhipment of its soldiers to its far- away possessions, and has granted the Canadian Pacific Railway a material subsidy of f 45,000 s'orling annually. Canada has constructed 73 miles oi: lanals at a cost of $30,000,000. The noble bridge that spans the St. Lawrence at Montreal is one of the largest railway bridges in the world, costing $5,000,000, con- taining 3,000 feet of masonry and 10,000 tons of iron, is tv^o miles long and is a triumph of engineering skill and one of the wonders of the world, and is fittingly named after our gracious queen, "Victoria Bridge." The magnificent pile of buildings at Ottawa is a tribute to the goo<l taste and natural aspirations of our Canadian people* If our young people wish t€> HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 127 leave Ontario, they need not go to any foreign country; we have plenty of room in our own Do- minion. The district of Alberta that takes in the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, has an area of over 100,000 square miles of beautiful land, and is especially fitted for pasturage. It is twice as large as Manitoba, four times as large as New Brunswick, five times as large as Nova Scotia, and forty times as large as Prince Edward Island, and can excel that province in its staple, a farmer having assured me that he lias raised 750 bushels of potatoes to the acre. Some of the towns of this Dominion have grown with great rapidity and are yet retaining their prosperity. A few years ago on the Petitcodiac River in New Bruns- wick was a small village called the " Bend," now the city of Moncton. It has now a population of 10,000, is lighted with electricity, has its street cars propelled by the same subtle fluid; besides its railway shops, employing seven hundred men, it has a sugar refinery, cotton mills, two daily papers, seven fine churches, and erected a school-house that cost S30,000, and a Y.M.C.A. building to cost $25,000. And so we might speak of Winnipeg whose growth is still more remark- able, and of Vancouver, and many others in the west. Previous to Confederation there were differences in currency and in the tariff' among the several provinces, ?■ .' 128 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. SO that in ptissing from one to another petty annoy- . anees were encountered. T. D'Arcy Magee voiced a truth when in 1865, he said, " We want time to grow, we want more people, more famihes to develop our resources. We want more extensive trade and commerce, more land tilled. We of the British North ; American provinces want to be joined ; that if danger comes we can support each other in the day of trial. We come to your Majesty who has given us liberty, ' to give us union, that we may preserve and perpetuate our freedom." That boon was granted. Canada at that time had a population of 3,000,000 ; it has in- creased to more than 5,000,000. The revenue has risen from $13,000,000 in 1868 to $38,000,000. The imports and exports have been increased from $131,- 027,532 in 1868 to $218,607,390 or a total increase of ' $87,000,000. The number of letters forwarded has increased from 18,000,000 to 92,000,000 ^.nd the total newspapers periodicals, books and parcels have increased from 18,884,000 to 87,830,000. The development of Mani- toba and the North- West, the creation of Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Portage la Prairie, and Neepawa, and other commercial centres prove our ability to make a country. So that the Dominion pf Ca^a^la, in the splendor of her cities, in the HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 129 magnitude of her public works, in the completeness of her educational institutions, in the intelligence of her people and indeed in all that goes to make up the greatness of the nation, Canada to-day occupies a position of proud pre-eminence. Its judicial system, its militar}^ organization, its superior ocean carrying trade, its excellent civil service, its municipal ' Home Rule,' its efficient postal-service, its admirable election laws, its beneficiary system of public charities, all combine to make Canada second to no country in the civilized world. And so long as this country continues pre-eminent in virtue, intelligence, and the reward of that which is good — continues to produce such statesmen as the one that these pages desire to honor, we will go forward to abiding prosperity. ^ -V ■* 'i " \> /■'•', DEATH OF HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. • Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, the member for West York in the Dominion Parliament for the last twenty- four years, and Most Worshipful Grand Master and Sovereign of British North America in the Loyal Orange Association, after a brief illness, following upon a year of failing health, died at his home in the village of Woodbridge on the 7th of October, 1901. His funeral took place at Woodbridge on Saturday, October 12th, and was one of the largest ever given a public man in Canada. About six thousand people attended the funeral, which, in keeping with his posi- tion, was conducted under the auspices of the officers of the Grand Lodge of the Loyal Orange Association. •'Nathaniel Clarke Wallace, born June 21st, 1844, died October 7th, 1901," was the inscription upon the plate of the casket. All business was suspended in Woodbridge. The houses and stores were draped in mourning. The Wallace residence was surrounded by a vast concourse of people waiting to get a last 132 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. look at the face of a man whom in life they loved and respected. Two special trains, comprising eighteen coaches, arrived from Toronto about 2 p.m. These contained a number of members of Parliament, the Mayor and aldermen of Toronto, many distinguished citizens and prominent members of the Orange Association. The funeral procession went round the village in order to give every one the privilege of showing their respect in following the body to the grave. The order of the procession was as follows, viz. : Six marshals of the Orange Order, two chaplains, two waggons heaped with flowers, the funeral carriage drawn by four jet black horses, Captain Tom Wal- lace with his bereaved mother following immediately after the hearse; several conveyances carrying the other members of the family and immediate relatives ; L. O. L. No. 28 of Woodbridge, Grand Lodge officers, members of Parliament and ex-members, Toronto aldermen and civic officials, county and district lodge officers. Then followed a large body of Orangemen, with a great number of villagers, farmers, etc., bring- ing up the rear. The chief mourners were the widow ; Capt. Tom Wallace, a son; Lieut. Leonard Wallace, G.G.B.G., a son ; James Wallace, another son ; Olive, Charlotte and Belinda, daughters; Clarke, a son; HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 133 George and T. F. Wallace, brothers; Mrs. Simpson and Miss Annie Wallace, sisters; Mrs. George and Mrs. T. F. Wallace, sisters-in-law ; Ross Wallace, Mrs. Avery, of Ottawa, Miss Gilmour, Rev. J. Hay lock and Hugh Gilmour, Ottawa. The following were the pall- bearers : Dr. Sproule, D.G.M.B.A., John McMillan, G.M.O.W., Hon. Dr. McFadden, G.M., Manitoba, Dun- can Munro, D.G.M.O.E., Thos. Gilday, G.M., Quebec, Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, P.G.M.B.A., W. J. Park- hill, P.G.M.B.A., E. F. Clarke, M.P., G.T.O.W., Thos. Essery, D.G.M.O.W., Dr. Beattie Nesbitt, W. A. Mc- Culla, ex-M.P, James Armstrong, Mayor Howland, Dr. Perfect, J. K. R. Bristol, J. P. Whitney, M.L.A., leader of the Opposition in the Local Legislature, Thos. Crawford, M.P.P., and D. McKenzie. Other Grand Lodge officers presei^t : Lieut. -Col. Scott, D.G.M.O.W., Rev. Wm. Walsh, G.C., Wm. Fitzgerald, D.G.S.O.W., Rev. H. C. Dixon, Rev. J. McLennan and Rev. Chas. E. Perry, Deputy Grand Chaplains, Wm. Lockhart, G.S.B.A., Wm. Cook. The sermon was preached by Rev. Mr. Swallow. He spoke very highly of the departed as a member of the Church of England. Among other things he said, in committing the body to the earth, he believed they could do so feeling that he was at rest in thp Paradise of God. 134 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. The Orange service was conducted by Dr. Sproule, Rev. Wm. Walsh and Rev. H. C. Dixon. The following were some of the prominent men in attendance: J. W. St. John, ex-M.P.R, William Lee, G.S.O.W., J. H. Delamere, P.G.M.O.E., Harry Love- lock, CM., Toronto, William McClary, ex-M.R, J. H. Pritchard, P.D.M., Centre Toronto, Thos. Haw, D.M., West Toronto, Alexander Hall, G.M.O.Y.B., Samuel Caswell, CM., Palmerston, J. S. Duff, M.P.P., Edward Tighe, P.G.M., Quebec, David Creighton, O. F. IVIarter, M.P.P, E. J. Humphrey, H. Wilson, RCM., St. Cath- arines, D. M. Jermyn, P.G.M.O.W., Robert Martin, W.M., 791, Dr. A. J. Hunter, CM., R. D. Perham, Montreal, W. H. White, P.C.M., St. Catharines, Geo. Turner, RCM., Thorold, Wm. Nicholson, P.G.M., Ham- ilton, A. Harron, P.C.M., Hamilton, Joseph Peart, P.CM., Hamilton, R. Graham, P.C.M., Hamilton, R. R.kar, P.CM., Peterboro', Hon. E. J. Davis, Col. Sam. Hughes, J. C Clarke, Dixon Craig, ex-M.P., David Turner, D.M., Rev. Peter Campbell, E. A. Colquhoun, M RR. E. A. Little, M.RR, W. B. Northrup, M.RR, Dr. Godfrey, Hon. Geo. E. Foster, E. A. Kemp, M.P., M. Richardson, M.R, W. J. Hill, M.RR, T. R. Purvis, James Purvis, James E. Thompson, D. T. Smith, R. Armstrong. J. Thompson, John Reid, A. J. Bennett, Arthur Mallaby, P.CM., West York, John Bailey, HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 135 Central Hotel, Weston, A. H. Birmingham, Robert Birmingham, P.G.S., W. E. Armstrong, T. E. Milburn, F. R Fox, J. S. Williams, John Burrows, A. E. Stew- art, W. Penny, J. Bush, W. Mason, R. Mc Bride, C. W. Plaxton, Barrie, Thos. Bassett, Dr. Howard, F. M. Clarke, Dr. Noble, Major W. J. Wright, D.G.M., Rev. A. McGillivray, W. Walker, Richard Sherlock, Savell Bros., C. Caldwell, R. B. Wallace, John Kennedy, J. P. Rogers, A. R. Williams, Aid. Cox, Aid. Wood, Aid. Graham, Aid. Hubbard, Aid. Lynd, Aid. Woods, Aid. Loudon, Aid. Hodgson, John Richardson, M.P.P., Richard Hynes, John Collins, J. Cochrane, J. R. Phillips, D. Hart, T. G. Hassard, J. R. Wilson, John Ham, James Parson, George Ford, P.C.M., Ottawa, W. J. C'jnron, Town Clerk, Toronto Junction, An- drew McMillin, P.D.M., John Clarke, John Chalmers^ W. Massey, W. H. Smith, W. D. Hunter, Hugh Fer- guson, Orangeville, W. G. McFarland, S. Caswell, S. W. Burns, C. C. James and Miss James, Priccville, C. Simpson, C. C. Robinson, R. H. Cosby, James Fuller- ton, D. T. Smith, R. C. Harris, J. Dunlop, H. Marsh. W. E. Smith, W. Bowerman, W.M. L.O.L. 19, Hamil- ton, Ed. Conlcy, C. H. Noble, John Ferguson, Wm. Baillie, D.M., West York, W Douglas, J. S. Davis, Mayor North Toronto, W. M. Johnston, J. T. Hender- son, W. B. Hurd, H. H. Carter, A. Allen, R. Brown, 136 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. John Boyd, F. P. Rumble, J. P. Rogers, J. G. Mar- shall, R. Willmot, W. H. White, John Muxlow, W. J. Greer, M. Cherry, Jas. Boyd, J. M. Thompson, P.G.M.O.Y.B., R. J. Newman, G.O.R.T.B., J. H. Smith, John Laxton, J. E. Laxton, R. J. Rose, C. J. Booth, H. Playter, R. Harper, A. Stewart, J. N. An^lin, C. Chamberlain, Thos. Clark, John H. Lennox, Thos. Plunkitt, John T. Hall, D.C.M. West York, W. Harris, Wm. Bunting, W. Dunseath, T. R. Bailey, R. W. Elliott, John Gavin, Edward Medcalf, J. J. Clark, D. Clark, F. Lloyd, Blaney Scott, S. B. Weir, H. Devitt, A. R. Williamson, W\ MeClary, ex-M.R, Thorold, J. T. Edworthy, C. J. Wilson, A. H. Monk- man, A. E. Crate, J. B. Hutchinson, J. D. Farquhar, John Slean, A. Bradley, R. Richardson, A. A. Bradley, J. E. Clarke, T. E. Conboy, John Jordan, Frank Scott, Wm. Bain, J. H. Deavitt, Jas. Fulton, John Burgess, L. Duncan, W. H. Code, P. Ellis, W. Maude, C. H. Baillie, A. Kirkpatrick, J. Fawcett, W. Sanders, W. J. Sykes, Levi B. Hurst, Bros. Flynn, Lithgoh, Com- bin, Stutt and Wm. Boke, of Weston, Bros. John Buchanan and Boke, Lambton Mills, Bros. Lucas, Martin and MoHatt, Little York, Thos. A. Dull', G.O.B.A., J. S. Leighton, S.O.M.B.F., John Woodhouse, P.D.M., A. Irwin, D.M., Geo. Synies, jun., CM., West York, Geo. Symes, sen., P.C.M., Bro. Brown, W.M, HOX. N. CLARKE WALLACE. 137 920, W. J. Irwine, C. Yeatman, H. Yeatman, Marshall Bros., Rowntree Bros., Dr. McVittie, W. Peterman, Mayor Armstrong, W. J. Wads worth, A. Fawcett, Bro. Brown, W.M. L.O.L. 328, New Toronto, S, Fitz- gerald, T. J. Armstrong, A. B. Rice, and hundreds of others. Bro. Wallace lost two brothers. Charles died in 1885 and Robert in 1893. I have travelled over nearly all of the Dominion, and have visited many lodges, and having known Mr. Wallace for many years, I am prepared to speak positively of his worth, work and popularity in the country. His life-long fidelity to Orangeism and Protestantism has given him a very warm place in every Orangeman's heart. One of his last speeches, perhaps the best he ever made in the House of Commons, was on the Coronation Oath, in which he protested against any change. Since the death of the late Grand Master, condolences have been pouring in on the family from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and wreaths were sent from all over the country, showing the respect the people of all classes had for the Hon. N. Clarke Wallace. Thanks are due Bros. Burkholder, of Woodbridge, and Burnett, of Brampton, who were in cliarge of the remains, and Bros. Humphrey and Ranks, who assisted. Mrs. Wallace and family have the sympathy and 138 HON. N. CLARKE WALLACE. prayers of all Orangemen of the Dominion. I was pleased to hear that Captain Tom Wallace received a South African medal from the Duke of Cornwall and York. Hon. Clarke Wallace's majority over Mr. A. Camp- bell in the last election, November 7th, 1900, was 874.