„r%^

V^,

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

SIM IIM

" IM IIIII2.2

.i IIM

12.0

i.8

1.25 1.4 16

►

//.

($>

;?§■

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde

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

I I Cover title missing/

La titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

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

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

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

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

n Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es

r~p^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
I I Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqu^es

r~7J Pages detached/

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Pages ddtach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualitd in6gale de Timpression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

I I Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

□ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mair, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas dt6 film^es.

D
D

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'urrata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires;

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

2BX

32X

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

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
fiimage.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires origirtaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

1 2 3

4 5 6

»'

^t.

» I

«>*♦"

•■(

7o7

THE LEGISLATION AND HISTORY
OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN

UPPER CANADA:

FROM 1841, UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE REVEREND DOCTOR RYERSON'S ADMINIS-
TRATION OF THE EDUC \T10N DEPARTMENT OF ONTARIO IN 1876 :

Including variocs Private Papers and Doodments on the Sobjecjt.

J. GEORGE HODGINS, m.a., ll.d., f.rg.s.,

Barribtbr-ai-Law,

bmbarian k>v tub bllucation dbpartment for ontario, and hditor of thb " docrulmtarv
history ok bducation in uppbr canada, 1791-1876."

The School Law of Ujiper Canada lecogiiizes Individual Rights ; deals with each Individual
for himself, and does not ignore, or proscribe, him from the Public Schools, and all the privi-
leges connected \vith them, except at his own request.— {7?ei;. J>r. Ryerion to the Hon. John
A. Macdonatd, i'nd of April, 1855. Page S9.)

U must be aclinowledged that a combined Secular, with Separate Religious Instruction, is
the only safe, just, and defensible system of National Education. —(i?ev. Dr. Eyerton to the
Ooveriwr-Geneml, Sir Kdvmnd Head, January, 1S58. Page ISl.)

TORONTO:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BRIGGS, WESLEY BUILDINGS.

1897.

\t>l

THE LEGISLATION AND HISTORY

OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN

UPPER CANADA:

FROM 1841, UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE REVEREND DOCTOR RYERSON'S ADMINIS-
TRATION OF THE EDUCAiiCy DEPARTMENT OF ONTARIO IN 1876 :

Includino various Private Papers and Documents on the Subject.

J. GEORGE HODGINS, m.a., ll.d., f.r.g.s.,

Barristrr-atLaw,

mbkarian of tiik education dbpartmbnt for ontario, and editor op ti1r " docl'mgntarr
history of education in upper canada, 1791-1876."

The School Law of Upper Canada recot^nizes Individual Rights ; deals with each Individua
for himself, and does not ignore, or proscribe, him from the Public Schools, and all the privi-
leges connected with them, except at his own request. — (Rev. Dr. Ryetson to the Hon. John
A. Macdonald, tnd of April, 1S53. Page 89.)

It must be acknowledged that a combined Secular, with Separate Religions Instruction, is
the only safe, just, and defensible system of National Education.— (/fcv. Dr. Ryergon to the
Gooernw-Oeneral, Sir Edmuiul Head, January, 1S58. Page 131.)

TORONTO :
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BRIGGS, WESLEY BUILDINGS.

1897.

•i ■- ' J •> >

Entered according to Act o( the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand
eight hundred and ninety-seven, by John Grohqr Hodoins, at the Depart-
ment of Agriculture.

PREFATORY REMARKS.

In the outline of " The Story of My Life," prepared by the
Rev. Dr. Ryerson, during his later years, he briefly summed
up what he had been able to accomplish, as Head of the
Education Department for Upper Canada, during his incum-
bency from 1844 to 1876. He then added these words: —

"I leave to Dr. J. George Hodgins, my devoted Friend of over forty
years, and my able Colleague for over thirty of these years, the duty of
filling up the dettiils of our united labours in founding a System of
Education for my native Province, which is spoken of in terms of strong
commendation, not only within, but by people outside of, the Dominion."

Feeling that an almost filial duty was thus devolved upon

me, I prepared a Prospectus, in 1884, of such a Volume as I

then projected, including a sketch of the " Legislation and

History of Separate Schools in LTpper Canada," which I now

publish, intending, at some future time, to carry out further

the wishes of my revered Friend. In that Prospectus I said : —

Not only did Dr. Ryerson entrust me with the whole of his private
correspondence with Public Men and Ministers of State on educational
matters, but I have also had a voluminous correspondence, from time to
time, with him myself, when he was absent, on several important subjects
connected with our School System. These, with various private memo-
randa and other information, will be available for the Volume.

I then thought, (as I expressed it,) that such a personal
record would likely be of more interest to the next generation
than it would be to the then present one, — especially as so
many storms and personal conflicts had marked the era of Dr.
Ryerson's administration, — creating, at the time, much undue
prejudice, which might still linger in the memories of men, and

Prefatory Remarks.

exert an unduf influence on the minds of many. Time, and a.
calm review of what has heen accomplished, notwithstJinding
the a<lverse circumstances, and the opposing influences, under
which our School System was founde<l, would, I then felt, alone
dissipate that prejudice, and do full justice to Dr. Ryerson, and
to those who stood by him, in his efforts to place our National
System of Schools upon a broad, safe, and comprehensive basis.

Having been intimately and confidentially connected with
Dr. Ryerson for thirty-two years, in the great work of his
later life, {i.e., from his appointment, in 1844, to 1876,) the
projected work would necessarily largely partake of a pereonal
character, — so far as he and I and othei's were concerned.

This, on the whole, will be found to greatly add to its interest
and value. Besides, I alone am in a position to verify some facts
which were mentioned in private conversation, or in his cor-
respondence with nie, and which are known only to myself.

It was twelve years since the Prospectus, to which I have
referred, was written. Time warns me that if the work, pro-
jected in 1884, is to be published, it is now time to prepare it.
1 have, therefore, determined to issue the first instalment of it,
in the shape of the " Legislation and History of Separate
Schools in Upper Canada," from 1841 to the close of Dr.
Ryerson's administration, in 1870.

A second Volume, containing a more general review of our
Educational System, from 1844 until its later development,
will be prepared, (D.V.,) and will be issued in due time. Such
a publication will include a large number of private and confi-
dential Letters and Papers of my own, together with those
which were entrusted to me by Dr. Ryerson,— in fact, a Volume
containing what may be called the private, or " inner," history
of the Education Department for Ontario, including many facts
and incidents of my long personal connection of fifty-two years.

Prefatory Remarks. v

with it and with those " in authority " in the Department, and
in the Executive Government of the Province, during that time.

I have been the more convinced as to the desirability of
publishing the present somewhat condensed, yet sufficiently
•detailed, history of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in
Upper Canada, as a contribution to our Educational History and
Literature, from the fact that men, in whose practical wisdom
and judgment I have confidence, have encouraged me to do so.

I have received the following Letter on the subject from
my esteemed friend, Dr. W. T. Harris, the LTnited States
•Commissioner of Education, at Washington, which I may very
appropriately insert in this place. He says : —

I am much interested in your proposed Work on the Separate Schools
of Upper Canada. The problem, of which it will treat, is one of great
importance ; and Ontario has found a solution of it that can never fail to
interest Public men and Educatoi-s.

Certainly, no other Person has equal facilities with yourself for eluci-
dating every condition bearing upon the expediency of Sepamte Schools.

The references called forth by your valuable " Documentary History of
Education in Upper Canada," are such as tf) awaken interest in the new
work ; and, it seems to me a wise measure to have them both distributed
in printed form.

Among the champions of Roman Catholic Separate Schools
in Upper Canada, whom Dr. Ryerson encountered, none was
more pronounced, or even bitter, in his language than the
Editor of the Canadian Freeman newspaper of Toronto.

On his retirement from the editorial chair, in 1873, he bade
Dr. Ryerson good-bye, in language which, on the whole, was
generous and kind. In his valedictory he gives so graphic a
sketch of Dr. Ryerson's somewhat stormy life, and yet also
of him as a man of purpose, of nerve, and of unswerving
fidelity to the cause which he had espoused, that I cannot for-
bear quoting it. The Editor said : —

Before relincpiishing the editorial pen, we should like to say a few words

Prefatory Remarks.

on a gentlemiin whom we Imve for years Hteadfastly opposed, and whcjse
opinions on many, but especially eduaitionul, matters, we have strenuously
combated, and, nevertheless, have in a certJiin sense admire*!, and would,
were he aught but the Chief Superintendent of Education, hold in the
highest esteem. . . .

The Reverend Egerton Ryei-son holds what the civilization of this age
terms "liberal" views: he advoaites the advancement of the masses, or
educjiting every one, no matter what his positicm in society may he. The
best part (»f an eventful life has been devoted by him to carry out his
peculiar opinions on this subject. He is essentially a mivn of one idea, and
he is a very determined, resolute, and personally courageous person. It is
individuals of his stamp who have made their uiark in the world. As to
politics, he has re^illy none ; but in free thought, in educating the masses,
he does believe. From the various Educational Systems of constitutional
England, despotic Prussia, republican America, Holland, Ireland, and
Scotland, with the assistjince of his own jiowerful intellect, he haa
perfected a i)lan, according to non-Catholic ideas, .ni improvement on all of
them, maintaining their best, rejecting their worst, features. He has
been assailed by various Denctminations and classes of our citizens, by
dissatisfied freeholdei-s, liy childless ratepayers, by Representatives of
Churches, by Grit and C^)nser^'ative newspapers, by politicians, and by
administrations holding the most opposite views, and yet he has managed
to stand his ground, and not only this, but to enfox'ce his educational
opinions on the great majority of the people of this Province. At one
time he is reported by a Tory Governor as "a dangerous man," and a
certain Toronto journal has pui-sued him with fierce malignity for years,,
and all kinds of politicians have at different periods attacked him in the
bitterest way, and yet Egerton Ryerson has triumphed, and is at this day,
in spite of all opposition, the great and successful vindicator of free,
universal education. This is the man whom Governments do not care tO'
interfere with, and who cannot be crushed ; who, in spite of his seventy
years, is still as fresh and as vigorous as ever, and as ready, in defence of
his ideas, to smite his enemies "hip and thigh," either through a public
journal, or in a pamphlet of 365 pages. During our entire career we have
opposed the Doctor ; but we are fully aware how difticult it is to make
headway against a man of his ability, holding l)ut one idea, and resolved to
win. We have often wished that a Ryei-son would present himself as a
representative of our Catholic masses, to fight as determinedly for us as he
has for his Protestant fellow-countrymen, — a man who would endeavour,
under all circumstances, to procure what his Eminence Cardinal CuUcn
and the Irish Hierarchy are now labouring to attain, — a Catholic, purely
Catholic, education for Catholic people. . .

In retiring from the management, [of the Canadian Freeman,] we would
wish to offer the right hand of fellowship to all we have encountered, . . .

Prefatory Remarks.

vir.

and to part on Ami<»U)le terms with all from whom we hjive differed. Fore-
moat among these is the Chief Superintendent of Education, and we have,
therefcjre, devoted this, our hist article, U) him. We have written column
upon column against him, for the past fifteen years. We have tried with
all our might to put iiim down, and yet he is a man for whose talents,
resolution, and dc^gged perseveitmce we have the highest respect, and for
whose courtesy and gentlemanly l)earing towards our co-religionists we
offer our acknowledgments, and for whom the Protestant i)eople of this
Province will, at some not very distant period, do, what a learned Ameri-
can historian stated the North- West would do for Manjuette, — "build.
his monument."*

A word as to the attitude of the Church of England on this
question. It always held, (as a Church established in Upper
Canada by the Constitutional Act of 1791,) that, if the Church
of Rome were legally entitled to establish Separate Schools, ia
which the dogmas of that Church were to be taught, and to
receive a portion of the public funds for their support, much
more should that branch of the Church of the Empire in
Canada receive a like share of the public revenue, and for a
like purpose. Beyond that, the Church of England was not
disposed to go, nor to enter into any of the local controvereies
on the subject.

Traditionally the Church of England in Canada always held
the doctrine, which was so clearly stated by Dr. Ryerson,
in his Confidential Report to the Governor-General, in 1858„
(page 121,) and in which he maintained : —

That a combined secular, with separate religious instruction, is the <mly
safe, just, and defensible system of National Education.

No one was more sensible of the efforts made by Dr. Ryerson
to carry into effect this combined system of Education, than
was the venerable Dr. Strachan, the first Anglican Bishop of
Toronto. In his Charge to the Clergy, in 1856, he said : —

I am one of those who appreciate-

rerson

conceri

* It would, no doubt, gratify the former Editor of the Canadian Freeman,
(James G. Moylan, Esq., now of Ottawa,) to know, that a few years after Dr.
Ryerson's death, in 1882, a handsome Monument was erccteil, in 1889, to his
memory, in front of the Building in which he spent the last years of his official
life.

^111

Prefatory Remarks.

very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and his administrative
capacity. I am a'so most willing to admit that he has carried out the
meagre provisions of the several School enactments, that have any leaning
to Religion, as far as seems consistent with a just interpretation of the law.

No less cordial were the words used by Bishop Bethune, in
his Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 8rd of July, 1872, in which
he said : —

I have to thank you for yf)ur Letter of the 1st instant, . . . and to
•express my gratiticjition that. I had the opportunity, [in the Synod,]* to
bear my humble testimony to your zealous and righteous efforts to promote
the sound education of the youth of the Province.

I believe that, in the endeavour to give this a moral and religious
direction, you have done all that, in the circumstances of the country, it
.was in your power to accomplish.

None have been more true and faithful in their maintenance

■of the Public School Sy teiu in Upper Canada, than have been

Members of the Church of England. This was promptly and

very heartily acknowledged by Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter of

the 31st of December, 1858, to the Hon. George Brown, when

he said : —

To the honour of the Church of England, and ' the hcmour of Canada,
and especially to the honour of the Gentlemen themselves, the Episco-
palians stood forward as a jdialanx against the .seductions presented to
them by tlie Tacl\e Bill, as introduced in 1855. . . . T feel it no less
niy duty, than my pleasure, to express my own gratitude, and, I believe,
that of Upper Canada generally, to Messrs. J. W. Gamble, W. B. Robin-
son, John Langton, (leorge Crawford and D. B. Stevenson, for the earnest
and noble ; .nd -liieh they took on that occasion, as the champions of tiie
unmutilated Common School System of Ujjper Canada.

It was often a matter of .surpri.se to me, during the long
years of conflict on the Roman Catholic Separate School Ques-

* In his Address to the Angli(!un Synod of 1872, Bishop Bethune said :—
" I have confidenofc in the good intentions and righteous efforts of that vener-
able gentleman, (Dr. Ryerson,) to do what he cun for the amelioration of the
evils which the al)sence of syateniatic religious teaching of the young must
induce ; so that we may have a liope tliat, fron\ his tried zeal and unquestion-
able ability, a way may be devised oy wliicli such essential instruction shall be
imparted, and the terril)le evils we deplore to some extent corrected."

Prefatory Remarks.

the

tion, that so many of our public men shrank from a full, fair,
and patriotic discussion of it as a matter of public concern, —
apart from politics and denominational influences, — involving,
as that discussion would, the further question of appropriating
public funds for the support of Den': rninational Schools.*

And, after all, such a general and united expression of public
opinion would have practically narrowed the question down to
a simple determination, (1,) to maintain the integrity of our
Public School System against all who would seek to undermine
it ; and, in case Separate Schools were allowed, (2,) to recognize
and uphold the individual right of parents, — without compul-
sion or interference, — to choose for themselves the School to
which they should send their children.-f-

Even after the passage of the Clergy Reserve Secularization
Act of 1854, in which it was declared that " all semblance of
the Union of Church and State " was abolished, very many
of the men who had aided to crystallize this declaration in an
Act of Parliament, seemed unable to resist the pressure put
upon them to give the opposite doctrine a practical application,
in their maintenance and partial endowment, by public grants
anl by Municipal assessments, of purely Denominational

1 ,1

* In his confidontial Letter to Dr. Rj'eraon, in March, 1857, (page 117,) the
Hon. John Ehnsley urged Dr. Ryerson to press for tin "enquiry" into "the
whole of the Separate .Soliool question," by a Committee of the House of Assem-
bly, where a "combat," us he expressed it, "of dispasaioned argument," and a
" battle of cool investig tion," would take place. How he could expect either
of these results from a purely political body does not appear. All such dis-
cussions, or enquiries, to be ett'ective or satisfactorj-, must be conducted by a
totally different class of men, far removed from either political or denomina-
tional influences.

t Tliis right is expressly reserved to Roman Catholic Parents by Cardinal
Satolli, in his Letter to the Roman Catholic Arciibishops assembled in New
York, in November, 1892. He said : —

We strictly forliid anyone, whether Bishoj), or Priest, and this is the
express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff, througlj tlie Sacred Congregation,
eitner by Act, or by Tlireat, to exclude from the Sacraments, as unworthy,
Parents who choose to sen<l their ciiildren to the Public Schools. As regards
the children tliemselves, this enactment applies with still greater force. — (C'odc;
Plfii: Ball: Nnmhcr JOS, jmijt' 104, Coiif. Tit. 17., Cap. I., II. Tit. VII.)

ii!

X Prefatory Remarks.

Schools, the latter mode of aiding such Schools, Dr. %erson
characterized, in his Letter to the Provincial Secretary, in
1866, as "one of the worst and most degrading features of
Church and State connectioji, so formally renounced by our
Legislature." And, in general, these men either misrepre-
sented Dr. Ryerson's attitude on the (juestion, or, when they
did not, they left him to wage the war for unequivocal " equal
rights " and " no denominational preferences " alone.

It is singular that the promoters of Separate Schools, in
their desire for Legislation in the interest of these Schools, often
unwittingly placed weapons in Dr. Ryer.son's hands against
themselves. They frequently assumed that to be law which
was only so in their imagination ; and that to be fact, which
was, in reality, pure fiction. They generally, in framing " pro-
jects of law," provided, in their guileless zeal, for far more than
they desired, and embraced in their Bill a far wider range of
assumed " rights " than they had intended. This unpractical
mode of dealing with practical matters led, no doubt, to the
merciless dissection of the " project of Bill " drawn up by
the three Bishops of Upper Canada, in 1854-5, by Dr. Ryerson,
which is given on pages 87-92. His remarks, on page 91,
although severe, are, nevertheless, borne out by the fact that
a careless use of terms was employed, which were already too
comprehensive in their application, but which were, never-
theless, used by the framers of the Bill. Thus, the careless and
ignorant use of legal terms, in drawing up a will, has often led
to vexatious and protracted litigation.

I would ask attention to the two Chapters in tliis Book near
its close, — the XXX. and the concluding Chapter.

In Chapter XXX., the Question is asked, — " Was the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 18()3 a Finality ? "

So far as the facts therein nai'rated go, the answer is in the

I 'i

Prefatory Remarks.

affirmative. The Chapter is, however, specially interesting as?
a psychological study. In it are curious examples of mental
reservation, — in which silent assent meant negative acquies-
cence, and personal concurrence a dumb show, — passive and
unreal. Such examples of mental unconsciousness of simple,
plain facts is somewhat akin to mental colour-blindness, and
furnish striking illustrations of the subtleties of this somewhat
new, yet interesting, science of psychology.

The concluding Chapter will, I trust, appeal to all thougntful
men and lovers of their Country.

I have added, as Appendices to this Volume, two important
Documents. The first is a most carefully prepared " Analysis
and Comparison of the Roman Catholic Separate School Acts
of 1855 and 1863," by Dr. Ryerson. The second is the
" Decisions and Statements of Cardinal Satolli, — in regard to
the Canons of the Plenary Council of Baltimore," — addressed,
in the form of a Letter, to the eleven Roman Catholic Arch-
bishops of the United States, at their Meeting held in New
York, on the 13th-l7th of November, 1892."

J. George Hodgins,

Toronto, March 17th, 1897.

I i

CONTENTS

^ V.

VI.
VII.

VI 11.
IX.

Chapter

I. Preliminary Reniai-ks . . .
II. The Educational State of Upper and Lower Canada .

III. Educational Proceedings of the Canadian Legislature of 1841

IV. Petitions, praying that the Bible be used as a Class Book in

the Schools .........

Effect of these Petitions — Adoption of the Principle of Separate

Schools in Upper Canada ......

Separate School Legislation as affecting Upper Canada
Proceedings in regard to the Schools — Bishops Strachan, Power

and Charbonnel — Bishop Macdonell ....
Bishop de Charbonnel and his Changed Attitude in 1857 .
The Controversy with Bishop de Cliarbonnel in 1852
The Separate School Legislation of 184(5-1850 ....

1. Episode of the Disfillowed Common School Bill of 1849 .

2. Original Draft of the 19th Section of the Common

School Bill of 1850, and as passed ....
;{. The Fii-st Toronto Separate School Case, in 1851 .

4. Unrest and Uncertivinty — Mr. W. L. Mackenzie in 1851

5. The Seiwrate School Question, from 1841 to 1851 .
X. Incidents of the Sepirate School Contest, from 1852 to 1855

XI. Claim for Additional Grants to Separate Schools — Pressure on
the Government in 1852 ......

1. The Belleville Separate School Case, 1852 .
XTI. Second Appeal to the Government — Renewed Denuinds of
Bishop de Charbonnel .......

1. Second Toronto Case — Separate School Difficulties in

Two Wai-ds .........

2. Third Separate School Difficulty hi the City of Tonmto .
.'i. Renewed Agitjition by Bishop de Charbonnel — The

Tache Act Foreshadowed ......

4. Documents Submitted by the Roman Catholic Bishojjs
of Upper Canada to the Government, in 1854

(1) Comparative Table of Separate School Legislation in

Upper and Lower Canada ......

(2) Preliminary Statement of the Three Roman Catholic

Bishops of Upper Canada ......

(;t) Draft of an Act Bttter to Define Certain Rights to Par-
ties therein-mentioned

PAorr

. 11

25 1-^

35 —
37-
44 i/
4«^^

60 *^
53 t^
55

5(>i^
59 —

til>^
63-

71 *

U^
73 "^

75-

81 -

«./

85 /
85/

^Ta'^O

CONTENTS.

Chapter
XIII.

XIV.

The Tach^ Roman Catholic Separate School Bill of 1855

1. The Tache Separate School Act, as Amended

2. Passage of the Tach^ Separate School Bill, 1865

3. Sir Jolni Macdonald and the Tache Separate School

Act, (Pope's Memoirs) . ....
Private and Confidential Correspondence relating to the Pas-
sage of the Tache Act of 1855

1. Hon. John A. Macdomvld to Dr. Ryerson .

2. .Telegram from Dr. Ryei'son to J. George Hodgins .
n. Bishop Phelan to Hon. John A. Macdonald

4. Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson .

5. Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson .

6. J. Geoi-ge Hodgins to Dr. Ryei-son, (in England)

7. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England)

8. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England)
Effect of the Charbonnel Separate School Controversy upon

Lower Canadians — Nova Scotia ....

Page
, 92 t^

99/^

100 ^

102 -

102

104

105

106

107

XV.
XVI. Renewed Controversy -The Bowes' Separate School Bill, 1856 110

107

110
111
111
113

1. Letter from J. Geoi"ge Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson .

2. Letter from J. George Hodgins ttt Dr. Ryerson .

3. Dr. Ryerson on the Bowes' Separate School Bill
XVII. The Bruyere-Pinsoneault-Dallas Controversy

1. Bishop de Charbonnel Selected Roman Catholic Li-

brary Books .

2. Cardinal Wiseman Coasulted in London on Library

Books, in 1851 ........

3. Pamphlet Summaries of the Separate School Discus-

sions, 1856-1858

Renewed Efforts to Promote Separate School Legislation,

1857-1860

Confidential Report to the Governor-General on the Separate

School Question, in 1848 ......

1. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins .

2. Letter from Hon. J<jhn A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 123
Special Report on Roman Catholic Separate Schools, in 1858. 123
Abortive Separate Scliool Legislation, in 1858-1861 . . 125

Analysis of the Sc<jtt Separate School Bills of 1860, '61 . 126
XXII. Failure of Separate School Legislati(m, in 1862 . . . 127
Draft of Bill by Dr. Ryerson, in 1862, with Memorandum 128
The Bisho]) Lynch Appointment Episode, in 1862 '. . 130
Dr. Ryerson's Letter to 27ie Leader, 29th April, 1862 . 130
R. W. Scott's Attack on Dr. Ryerson in the House . 132

Private Letter of Bishop Horan, of Kingston . . . 133

XVIII.
XIX.

XX.
XXI.

114

115 "^

117 ^

118"^
121

*AOK

92 v

95.

99/--

CONTENTS.

Chapter
XXIII.

Paoe
. 134

Private find Confidential Letters in 1862

1. Telegram from Dr. Ryernon to Hon. John A. Mac-

donald 135

2. Letter from H(jn. Jf)hn A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 135

3. Telegram from Dr. Ryer,son to Hon. Jolni A. Mac-

donald ......... 135

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Note from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

Telegram from Di. Ryerson to Mr. William Ryerson 135
Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. A. Morris . . 135
Letter from Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 13*)
Letter from Mr. William Ryerson to Dr. Ryerson
Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. Geoi-ge Hcxigina
Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgina

11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. A. Morris

12. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

13. Letter from J. Geoi-ge Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

14. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins
Detailed Proceedings in regard to the Bill of 1862 .

XXIY. Separate Schools in the Anglican Synod, 1862
School Bill relating to Neglected Children
Dr. Ryerson's Ex[)lanation in regard to this Bill .

XXV. Passage of the Sej)arate Scln)ol Bill of 1863 .

1. Letter from Hon. J. S. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson

2. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

3. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

4. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

5. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

6. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

7. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

8. Letter from Dr. Ryei-stjn to J. George Hodgins

9. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

10. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

11. Letter from Dr. Ryerscm to J. George Hodgins

12. Letter frf)m J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryei-son

13. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

14. Telegram from Dr. Ryer.son to J. George Hodgins

15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. Geoi-ge Hodgins

16. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

17. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

18. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins

19. Letter from .1. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

20. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson

21. Letter from Rev, M. StfvfFord to Dr. Ryerson .

136

137

138

139

140

145 .

148 V-

150 t/

152 1^

153

15:^

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

CONTENTS.

Chai'tek Pack

XXVI. Dr. Ryerson on the Passing oi the Act of 186.S . . 160 -^

XXVII. Incidents of the Passing of the Act of 1863 . . . .164*/
XXVIII. Separate School Act of 1863— Mr. Scott's Statement . . 166
Reply of Sir Oliver Mowat, re B. N. A. Act, 18()7 . . 167
XXIX. Hon. Johii A. Macdonald on the Separate School Act of 1863 168 ,

Hon. A. Mackenzie on the Separate School Act of 1863
Hon. George Brown on Separate Schools ....
XXX. Was the Separate School Act of 1863 a Finality ?

Compact with the Representatives of the Roman Catholic

Church in 1862 and 1863

Hon. G. Brown and Hon. T. D. McGee on the Separate
School Settlement of 1 863 ......

Disclaimer of the Vicars-General that they were Parties to

the Settlement of 1863 .

Dr. Ryerson reiterates iiis Statement that these Vicars-
General were Parties t^) the Settlement
Further Testimony as to the Finality of the Separate School

Settlement .if 1863

Fruitless Appeal to Mr. R. W. Scott for Information on the
subject. .........

XXXI. British North America Act relating to Education

Legal Opinion oi Messrs. Ricliards, Crooks and Blake on
that Act ........

XXXII. Inspection of Roman Catholic Separate Schools .
XXXIII. French and German Separate Schools .

Why Perpetuate Nationalities in Elementary Schools ?
XXXTV. Dr. Ryerscm's Final Utterances tm Separate School Agitation 193 %^

The Separate School Bill of 1866 195 /

Letter to the Provincial Secretary on this Bill . . . 19ft —
XXXV. End of Dr. Ryerson 's Difiiculties in Separate School matters 199 >/
Concluding Chapter. Expediences of Separate Education considered

by Dr. Ryerson and Archbishop Ireland .... 200

170
171

172 //

174

177
179

180

182

183
184

185

187
189
192 -

APPENDICES.

1. The Roman Catholic Separate School Acts of 1855 and 1863 An-

alyzed and Compared, by Dr. Ryerson 206

2. Letter of Cardinal Satolli to the American Roman Catholic Bishops,

in November, 1892, on the Canons of the Plenary Council of
Baltimore •••...... 214

Consecutive Index of Subjects , , 220

Principal Personal References , , 221

' /

LEGISLATION AND HISTORY OF SEPARATE

SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA.

CHAPTER I.

THE HISTORY OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN UPPER OANADA.

/
•'

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

Most of the prominent actors on the stage of provincial poli-
tics, or public affairs, of fifty-six years ago, when Separate
Schools were first established in Upper Canada, have passed
away. And yet the impress of their hands, in framing the
legislative measures of those days, is felt and recognized in the
outlines and main features of the school, municipal and fiscal
laws of to-diiy. Up to that time, most of the statutes which
were passed were, it is true, either temporary in their object,
or more or less crude in their character. They have long since
been repealed or have bee i greatly modified in their purpose
and scope, especially those relating to Education. A brief
reference, however, to the school laws and policy of these times
may prove interesting.

Up to 1841, only three enactments had passed the Legis-
lature of Upper Canada, providing for the establishment of
Primary Schools, viz., those of 1816, 1820 and 1824. Grants
were made by the Legislature from time to time, but no specific
enactments for the regulation, or management, of the Primary
Schools were made by it, except those mentioned.

What the state of education was, in Upper Canada previous
t\. the school legislation of 1841, may be stated in a few words.
2

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In a petition of the United Presbytery of Upper ('anada, pre-
sented to the House of Assembly in 1830, the signers say :—

It is with deep regret that your Petitioners, (in their ministerial
capacity, connected with a very large portion of His Majesty's subjects in
this Province,) are compelled to sjvy that the state of education is, in
general, in a deplorable condition.

In 1831, a Resolution was introduced into the House of
Assembly which further stated : —

That there is in this Province a very general want of education ; that
the insurticiency of the Common School Fund to 8upi)ort competent,
respectable and well-educated Teachers, has degraded Common School
teaching from a regular business to a mere matter of convenience to
transient persons, or common idlers, who often stay but for one season,
and leave the Schools vacant until they accommodate some other like per-
son, whereby the minds of the youth of this Province are left without due
cultivation, or, what is worse, frufjuently with vulgar, low-bred, vicious
and intemperate examples before them in the persons of their monitors,
(i.e., Teachers).

In 1837, the Leirislative Council refused to concur in a Com-
mon School Bill, passed by the House of Assembly, and gave
as a reason for not doing so, that : —

It could not pass the Bill, because it proposes to levy an assessment
at the discretion of the Justices of the Peace, to the extent of l|d. [3 cents]
in the £ [^4], to support Common Schools ; and as Acts have lately passed
imposing rates on the inhabitants of several of the Districts, for the pur-
pose of defraying the expense of building Gaols and Court-houses, and for
the construction of macadamised roads, the Council fear that the proposed
assessment for Common School Education might be found burthensome.

Thus, because Gaols, Court-hoiises and Roads were considered
more necessary and important than Schools, the last Act for
the promotion of Education ever })assed by the U}»per Canada
House of Assembly was rejected by the Legislative Council !
Such was the untoward state of affjiirs when the Legislative
Union of Upper and Lower Canad.i ook place in 1840.

!) iJ

■ «im.» <

'I \ I

Educational State of U. and L. Canada, 1841. 11

CHAPTER II.

EDUCATIONAL STATE OF UPPER AND LOWER CANADA, 1841.

DuiiiXG the first Session of the Parliament of United Canada,
in 1841, a vigorous effort was made to induce the Government
and Legislature of the day to provide, in the Common School
Act, for the use of the Bible as a class, or text, book in the
Schools of the Province.

The Governor-General, Lord Sydenham, who so strongly
recommended to the Legislature that " <lue provision be made
for the Education of the People," — which he declared to be " one
of the tirst duties of the State," had evidently misgivings as to
the unanimity of the Legislature on the subject. He, there-
fore, counselled the Members of both Houses, in his opening
speech, that : — •

If it should be found impossible so to reconcile conflicting opinions .so
as to obtain a measure which may meet with the approbation of all, , . .
steps may, at least, be taken by which an advance to a more perfect
system may be made.

Nor were the apprehensions of the Governor-General on this
subject of dealing witFMie subject of popular education ground-
less. It was well known that, in the newly-elected House of
Assembly, there were two active opposing educational forces.
The one was desirous of giving, as they expressed it, a decidedly
Christian and scriptural character to the proposed educational
legislation. With this object in view, they addressed vigor-
ously expressed petitions to both Houses of the Legislature —
to the number of forty — praying that the Bible, in its entirety,
should be definitely prescribed as a class, or text, book in the
Connnon Schools, about to be established, and liberally endowed,
in the United Provinces of Canada. One section of this object-
ing force, representing the Church of England, petitioned the

U. C. Separate School Leoislation.

Legislature that children ol' that Church shoukl be educated hy
it, with tlie aid of Puhiic Grants and School Assessments. The
other section of this opposing force contented itself with object-
ing to the principle of the proposed Connnon School Bill, and
desiring that the Bill " should not become law until the opinion
of the Roman Catholic, imd that of other Religious Denomina-
tions, be known."

This twofold question, thus raised in the first Legislature of
United Canada, was felt at the time to present an almost un-
surmountable difficulty in dealing with School legislation. Its
being raised there, when the establishment of a general and
comprehensive system of elementary education was determined
upon by the Govermnent.. need not liave been a matter of
surprise. It was inevitable, considering the past educational
history of each of the Provinces, now united under one Gov-
ernment and Legislature. The Hon. Mr. Day, Solicitor-General,
in introducing his Common School Bill, stated that were it not
for—

A few institutions, supported by private benevolence, and maintained
by the exertions of a class of men to whom he, (Mr. Day,) could not pay
too high a tribute of praise — he alluded to the Roman Catholic clergy — no
means for public instruction existed (in Lower Canada).

In other words, the onl^'' education which existed in Lower
Canada was provided by the Roman Catholic clergy. It was
natural, therefore, that the petition of the Roman Catholic
Bishops to the Legislature should desire that no educational
measure should pass " until the opinion of the Roman Catholic
and other Religious Denominations be known."

In the case of Upper Canada, it was generally known at the
time, that the Bible was in use in the Schools of the Province,
generally, chiefly with a view to verses from it being learned
off, or memorized, by tlie pupils attending the Schools.

From the very first, public sentiment in Upper Canada was
strongly in favour of public education being " based on Chris-
tian principles," as it was expressed, more or less distinctly, in
the successive Charters of King's, Victoria and Queen's Colleges.
This was the special plea of those who, more than fifty years

Educational State of U. and L. Canada, 1841. 13

a<^o, advocated the secularization of the Clergy Reserves to
purely educational purposes. Some even favoured the diver-
Hum of iliis " Church Property" to educational pui'poses, on the
ground that the education, which it would promote, would bo
HO entirely " based upon Christian principles," that the so-called
" secularization ' would be the means — by reason of the wide
diffusion of the Clergy Reserve moneys — " of promoting the
Christian education of the whole people."

The fii"st Legislative enactment on behalf of Common Schools,
in Upper Canada was passed in 181(), nine years after Gram-
mar Schools were established. There was no direct provision
in that Act for giving religious instruction in the schools ; the
practice then being for pupils to learn verses from the Bible
as already intimated. But, the Trustees were directed to
" examine into the moral character and capacity of any person
willing to become a Teacher " ; but this liad reference only to
moral conduct, and not to his religious opinion.

Experience, however, showed that something in the shape of
religious instruction was desirable, and that it should be " dis-
seminated among the people." In 1824, therefore, a Common
School Act was pas.sed, the preamble of which stated that, —

It would greatly advance the happiness of society to disseminate moral
and religious instruction among the people.

The Act, therefore, declared that : —

For the benefit of all classes of His Majesty's subjects, and for the
encouragement of Sunday Schools, and for affording the means of moral
and religious instruction in the more indigent and remote settlements in
the several Districts of this Province, there shaU be annually paid the sum
of One Hundred and Fifty pounds (£150), to be laid out and expended for
the purchasing of books and tracts, designed to afford moral and religious
instruction, to be distributed among the several Boards of Education
throughout the Province. . . .

)

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

CHAPTER III.

EDUCATIONAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN
LEGISLATURE OF 1841.

In 1840, the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were by
Act of the Imperial Parliament, (3rd and 4th Victoria, Chapter
35,) united under one Government and Legislature. On the
20th of July, 1841, the Hon. Solicitor-General Day introduced
a Bill into the House of Assembly, " to make provision for the
Establishment and Maintenance of Common Schools through-
out the Province." This School Bill of 1841 was introc^iced into
a mixed Legislative Body, composed of Members from both
sections of the Province, elected to act together for the first
time, in a matter on which the Representatives from each
section held very diverse views, and, in the main, very ill-
defined ones on " religious education." The result may easily
be imagined. A dead-lock ensued ; and this dead-lock was
only ended by the Government entirely abrogating its func-
tions, as defined by itself at the beginning of the Session,
and submitting its own measure — carefully prepared, as Mr.
Day, its framer, had explained — to a mixed general Committee
of the House, not chosen geographically, or fairly, in proportion
to the Members representing each section of the Province, but
at haphazard, and by giving Lower Canada about two-thirds
of the Members of the Committee, and Upper Canada a little
over one third. The number on the Committee, therefore, stood
as follows : Lower Canada, fifteen, and Upper Canada, eight ;
or twenty-three in all.

The result of such a proceeding may have been easily antici-
pated by the more thoughtful men in the Legislature ; but, if
so, it could scarcely then have been provided for by them. No
Committee under strong pressure from without, as this one was,

:l.-^vi

Separate Schooi Legislation, U. C, 1841.

could have given that judicious and careful consideration to
the subject, which was necessary in dealing with so difficult
and delicate a matter as this was. The time was too short ;
and the immediate object to be gained was too general and
undefined to enable the Committee to lay down, at once, a
safe and practical rule by which Separate Schools could be
established. As it was, it recommended to the House that any
rumber of persons, of either faith, by merely dissenting " from
the regulations, arrangements and proceedings of the Com-
mon School Commissioners," could establish a Separate School I
The practical need of such a School, on conscientious grounds,
was not to be the motive, or grounds, of action on the part
of dissentients, but simply that if they objected to the official
School Regulations, they could express their dissent, and then
be free to establish a rival school, and claim funds to support
it, — not according to the number of children in attendance
at that school, but according to the number of the residents
who had expressed their dissent from the official School Regu-
lations, or from the " arrangements " and " proceedings " of the-
Township School Commi.ssioners.

It is a matter of fact, that up to 1841, no Religious Body, or
other persons, mooted, much less advocated, the question of the
necessity, or desirability, of Separate Schools, as part of a gene-
ral system of education. Their establishment was, as I have
shown, due to peculiar circumstances, and as the i-esult of a
dead-lock in the Legislature, and of an effort, in consequence
thereof, at compromise and conciliation, under strong pres-
sure from various opposing influences. The.se influences, as-
pointed out, were brought to bear on the Government, and
compelled it to abrogate its functions ; and these influences
were also brought to bear, with ill eftects, on the mixed
Legislature of the ii.owly united Provinces of Upper and Lower
Canada, and its Special School Committee.

It was this introduction, in 1841, of the principle of Separate
Schools which gave rise to that prolonged and bitter contro-
versy, and which produced that unhappy discord which prevailed

U. C. SEPARA.TE School Legislation.

during the earlier period of Dr. Ryerson's administration, —
especially from 1850 to 1863.

A far more troublesome and difficult question to deal with
was the apathy on the part of some, and the persistent opposi-
tion, on the part of others, to a National System cf Education,
projected, as it was, on the comprehensive lines laid down
by Dr. Ryerson, in his elaborate and illustrative preliminary
Report of 1845-46.

These two passive, and yet opposing, forces were sure to give
way in time, which they did ; but the purely denominational,
or sectarian, questions, as they were characterized, remained, to
be a source of irritation for many years. And this feeling
was greatly increased by the persistent effiarts made by the
opponents of Separate Schools to hold Dr. Ryerson personally
responsible for the very introduction, and afterwards, for the
extension, of the principle of Separate Schools in Upper Can-
ada; whereas his desire was to deal with this difficult and
delicate question rather as an incident, or adjunct, to a provin-
cial system of education, (and that solely with reference to the
conscientious convictions of individuals,) and not as affecting a
religious community, as a unit, or as a Church. He thus sought
to settle the question on sound principles and, as he believed,
on a safe and prudential basis.

In reply to a Letter, which I addressed to the late Sir Francis
Hincks, (who was a Member of the first Parliament of United
Canada,) asking him why it was that the Government referred
the School Bill to a tjeneral Committee of the House of Assem-
bly, he wrote as follows, under date of Montreal, 15th August,
1884:—

The School Bill was, as you state, introduced into the Legislature by
the Hon. C. D. Day, Solicitor-General, (late Hon. Mr. Justice Day,)
without any clause in it relating to Separate Schools. Petitions were pre-
sented to the House, praying that the Bible should bo made a class-book
in the Schools ; and I imagine that the Government, to get rid of the
responsibility of dealing with a very difficult (juestion, proposed and carried
a reference of the Bill and the petitions to a Select Committee of all parties
in the House. That Committee was about twenty-one (23) in number. . .
I think that Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada, [and Separate Schools in

Separate School Legislation, U. C, 1841.

Upper Canada,] were provided fur in the same way ; although, of course,
the Separata Schools would have been generally Roman Catholic in Up[)er
Canada and Protestant in Lower Canada. The Bill was [iassed, as reported
from the Select Committee, on which all parties were represented.*

F. HiNX'KS.

Montreal, loth of August, 1884.

The appointment of this Select, or Mixed General, Committee
to deal, at its pleasure, with a Goverment measure, was clearly
a violation of the principle advocated by the Government Mem-
bers of the House in the early ^. j,rt of the Session. For in-
stance, a motion was made by the Hon. George MofFatt on the
8th of June, 1841, to appoint a number of Standing Commit-
tees, among them one on " Education and Schools." This, the
Attorney -General and Solicitor-General, resisted, on the gi'ound
that it was the duty of the Government —

To originate all important measures of public utility.

And these gentlemen asked, how the Government could —

Obtain the confidence of the House if those measures were to be taken
out of their hands, and bi-ought before the House in tlie shajjc and detail
essentially different from that in which the Government desired to bring
them forward ?

Mr. William H. Menitt explained what had been the former
practice in the Upper Canada House of Assembly, and stated
that in that House —

They had been in the habit of appointing C<jmmittees on all subjects,
. . . But now they had a different system ; and they had reason to
expect that satisfaction would hereafter be given, because . . . the
Memliers of His Excellency's Administration assert that we have now
" Responsible Government."

* Tlie only reference to this matter which Sir Francis Hiiicks gives in the
"Reminiscences of [his] Public Life" is the following : — " The Bill for establish-
ing (^onunon Schools, and for granting a liberal smn annually for their main-
tenance, was introduced by Mi'. Solicitor Day, whose recent death, after a most
honourable public career, has been very greatly deplored by his fellow-citizens,
and was carried witliout opposition. It is worthy of notice that, after the
introduction of the School Bill, a number of Petitions were presented, praying
that the Bible should be adopted as a School Book. This led to the reference
cf the Bill to a large Select Committee, which recommended the introduction of
the Separate School clause, whicli was not in the Bill as originally introduced. '
(Pages tiS and 69.)

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Nevertheless, the Government Coinmcn School Bill of 1841
was referred, with the consent of the Government, to a mixed
General Committee of the House, and by it was reported to the
House essentially different, in "shape and detail," and in im-
portant particulars, from that in which the ( iovernment had
introduced it. It was in this way that the Separate School
principle was incorporated in the Bill, when it came out of the
hands of this mixed an i irresponsible Connnittee of the House
of Assembly.

The Members of the Government ir 1841 wei'e : The Hon-
ourable Messieurs Robert Baldwin Sullivan, John Henry Dunn,
Dominick Daly, Samuel Bealey Harrison, Charles Richard
Ogden, William Henry Draper, Robert Baldwin and Charles
Dewey Day.

The select General Committee of the House, to which Mr.
Day's Common School Bill was referred, consisted of twenty-
three members — eight only from Upper Canada, and fifteen
from Lower Canada. The Upper Canada members were :
Messieurs Samuel B. Harrison, John S. Cartwright, Malcolm
Caiiicron, William H. Merritt, Thomas Parke, David Thorburn,
Francis Hincks and John Prince — 8.

The members from Lower Canada were : Messieurs Charles
D. Day, John Neilson, John Simpson, George Moffatt, Frederick
A, Quesnel, John W. Dunscombe, Thomas C. Aylwin, Robert
Christie, Augustus N. Morin, Marcus Child, Etienne Parent,
Colin Robertson, Benjamin Holme.s, Stephen S. Foster, Amable
Berthelot and Denis B. Viger — 15.

Having asked Sir Francis Hincks if there had been, in 1841,
any understanding among Lower Canada Members of the
House of Assembly that, by the treaty of Capitulation of Que-
bec, Lower Canada Roinan Catholics could demand Schools of
their own faith, as a right, he replied as follows : —

T Ofui assuro you that no sucli ((rn'Mtion was rai.sed as that of the right
to Separate Schools, on the ground of the stipulations of the old Treaty of
Capitulation.

I was entirely opposed myself to the Bible being made a class-book
in the Schools. F. H.

Petitions: Bible as a Class-Book.

CHAPTEK IV.

PETITIONS PRAYING THAT THE BIBLE BE USED AS A
CLASS-BOOK IN THE SCHOOLS.

Dr. Ryerson, as is well known, liad thus nothing to do with
the introduction of the principle of Separate Schools into our
School System. That was done, as I have shown, in 1841, three
years before his appointment to office. It was owing princi-
pally, as pointed out, to the well-intentioned, but misdirected,
zeal of those who sought to influence the newly elected and
mixed Legislature of the time, to make the Bil)le a class-book,
in the Common Schools. The Hon. William Morris advocated
this view ; and, in his remarks in the Legislative Council, on
the Common School Bill of 1841, he said : —

With respect to the ditticulty which is presented to our view by the
Petitions which daily come bef(n'e the House, from Roman Catholic and
Protestant Bodies, I would just observe, that if the use, by Protestants, of
the Holy Scriptures in their Schools, is so objectionable to our fellow-
subjects of that other faith, the children of both religious persuasions must
be educated apart ; for Protestants iiever can yield to that point, and,
therefore, if it is insisted upon that the Scriptures shall not be a class-
book in Schools, we must part in peace, and conduct the education of the
respective Bodies according to our sense of what is riglit.

The Hon Peter B. DeBlaccjuiere, on the other hand, con-
tended that —

To attempt the introduction of the Holy Scriptures, as received by
Protestants, as a class-book in the Common Schools, when Ronian Catho-
lics were to be educated in the same Schocjl, was worse than useless ; it
was oppressive ; it was dangerous ; and it nuist arrest all progress in
education. ...

The petitions presented to both Houses of the Legislature,
praying tliat the Bible be prescribed as a class-book in the
Schools, were from different Religious Bodies, and were inore
or less diverse in their character. They were all, however,

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

equally embarrassing to the Government of the day. As from
their effect upon the School legislation of the time, tliey may
be considered of historical interest.* Of those which were
printed by the Legislature, I give a specimen, as follows : —

1. A petition from the Clergymen and Members of the Church
of England at St. Armand West, Lower Canada, stated that : —

The Petitioners, while they ai'e anxious to promcjte throughout the
Province the diffusion of general knowledge, are, in their own minds con-
vinced that knowledge, to be productive of any real benefit, or substantial
good, to the people, must be guided by the unerring wisdom of God, as
revealed in His Word. . . .

That humbly, also, but conscientiously believing that the Biblfe, as
given by God, must be received as a whole, and cannot, without rashness,
or detriment, either be added to or diminished from, . . . your Peti-
tioners consider that they would ill discharge their duties as Christians, and,
consequently, as believers in the whole Book of Revelation, if they did not
deprecate in any contemplated establishment of Schools, every attempt to •
introduce into them extracts only from the Holy Scriptures, whereby the
Word of God would be abridged and mutilated, and the imperfect selec-
tions of uninspired men be substituted for the inspired Word of the
Almighty, expressly revealed for man's benefit and guidance ;t

* In one of Dr. Ryerson's Letters, he says: — "The principal opposition
which, in 1846, and for several years afterwards, I encountered was that I did
not make the Bible compulsory in the Schools, but simply recognized the right
of Protestants to use it in the School, (not as an ordinary reading book, as it was
not given to teach us how to read, but to teach us the way to Heaven,) as a
book of religious instruction, without the right, or the power, of compelling any
one to use it." — ''Story of My Life" page 4J9.

t This strong language is not borne out, or confirmed, by experience. The
Hon. P. B. DeBlacquiere, in his remarks on the Common School Bill of 1841,
in the Legislative Council, stated that "judicious selections, suited to the age
and capacities of those to be instructed " was a practical want in the Schools.
This practical want was supplied by the Education Department for Ontario
in 1888, and also in Chicago, " under the supervision of the Chicago Woman's
Educational Union, in 1896. The latter is a Book of 150 selections from the
Bible, entitled : " Readings from the Bible, selected for Schools, and to be read
in Unison." It is also suggested that the selections be "memorized." The
publication of this Book was the result of a largely signed petition to the
Chicago Board of Education, asking that a " Reading Book, consisting of selec-
tions from the Sacred Scriptures, such as in use in the Schools of Toronto,
Canada, or similar selections, (with the approval of both the Roman Catholic
and Protestant Churches,) be put into use in the Public Schools of Chicago."
The "Scripture Readings" issued by the Education Department of Ontario,
and to which reference is made above, embraces 292 Selections, or Lessons, and
extends to 434 8vo pages. The Chicago Selections number 150, and extend to
190 12mo pages. In addition to the Table of Contents, as in the Ontario
Selections, the Chicago Book contains a Topical ladex, and an Index of Texts.

Petitions: Bible as a Class-Book.

Wherefore Petitioners humbly pray that not only may the Bible . . .
be recognized as the clas8-bof)k, to be universally tjiught in all Public
Schools and Seminaries throughoyt the Province, in which Protestants
shall receive their education, but that it may be put into the hands of all
such scholars, in its full and unabridged state, and that no part of it may
be withheld from them.

These strong sentiments, expressed by Members of the Church
of England in Lower Canada, were re-echoed by their breth-
ren in Upper Canada, through the medium of The Church
newspaper, which had been established in 1837 by the Rev. Dr.
A. N. Bethune, afterwards, (in 1867,) second Bishop of Toronto.
The Church, of July 24th, 1841, said :—

In the Provincial Parliament, an attempt will be made to introduce &
new and comprehensive System of Education. In anticipation of this,
Members of various Christian Denominations have presented petitions to
the Legislature, praying that provision may be made for the use of the
Holy Scriptures in all Schf)ols receiving any Public Grant. In such »
petition as this, we consider it the duty of every man to join, and thus
record, {to borrow the forcible language of the Qriehec Mercury,) "their
abhorrence of the principle that would reconnnend the putting of garbled
extracts from the Sacred Volume in the hands of the rising generation."

The whole subject will, we fear, be found environed with many diffi-
culties, and we have a shrewd suspicion that something like the Irish
System of Education will be thrust upon our acceptance. We confess that
we cannot, at present, see any likelihood of a speedy and satisfactory
settlement of this question ; for its discussion must necessarily bring to
the surface every element of political and religious discord. At all events,
however, there is one jjoint of Protestant unanimity — and that is, to insist
on the free and unmutilated use of the Authorized Version of the Holy
Scriptures in every School supported by the State.

2. A petition was also presented to the Legislature on the
18th of August, 1841, from the Right Reverend Remegius
Gaulin, Roman Catholic Bishop of Kingston, and from the
Reverends A. Manseau and H. Hudon, Administrators of the

• Diocese of Montreal, stating objections to the principle of the
School Bill of 1841, and desiring —

That it may not become law, until the opinion of the Catholic and other
Religious Denominations be known.

3. A petition was presented on the same day from the Right

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Reverend the Bishop and Clergy of the Church of England in
Toronto, praying —

That the education of the children of their own Church may be entrusted
to their own pastors ; and tliat an annual grant from the asssesments may
be awarded for tlieir instruction.

4. In a petition presented to the Legislature from tlie Right
Reverend the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, and the
Bishop of Sidyme, his Coadjutor, on the 23rd of August, 1841,
it was stated that they entertained a hope that : —

When the House will adopt a law for the encouragement of Education
in this Province, they will watch carefully that it shall contain no enact-
ment which can prejudice the interests of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects ;
also, that it will be based on the principles of justice.

6. The petition presented to the House of Assembly by the
Reverend James George, "Moderator of the Presbyterian
Church of Canada, on behalf of said Church," prayed that an
enactment be made prescribing the use of the Bible in all the
Schools of the Province.

CHAPTER V.

•Ih

EFFECT OF THESE PETITIONS— ADOPTION OF THE PRINCI-
PLE OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA.

Of the forty-two petitions presented to the House of Assembly
in regard to the Honourable Solicitor-General Day's Com-
mon School Bill, thirty-nine prayed for the use of the Bible
in the Schools. All of these, as well as the Government
Bill itself, were referred to the Special and Select Committee
already named. The result was that, in the attempt to deal
with, and to provide for, the diverse circumstances of Upper
and Lower Canada alike, a far more ill-digested and unwise
scheme for Separate and Dissentient Schools was framed by the
Committee than was evidently intended, or desired, by the
Upper Canada Members of the House, or by the Petitioners

Principle of Separate Schools, U, C, Adopted. 23

from that part of the Province. This is apparent from the
fact that, after a year's trial, the Act was wholly repealed ; and
that, in the special School Act for Upper Canada, framed by
the Hon. Francis Hincks, none of the Separate School provi-
sions of the Common School Act of 1841 were retained. The
conditions on which Separate Schools could be established were
greatly restricted, and the principle, or basis, on whicli they
were aided was narrowed down from the indefinite, yet collec-
lective, one of the total number of dissentient inhabitants
interested, to that of the actual one of the attendance of
individual pupils at the School concerned. Nevertheless, the
Government, having adopted the unusual course of submitting
one of its Cabinet measures to the revision of a mixed Select
Committee, had no option but to concur in what that Com-
mittee proposed as a solution of the difficulty. With this now
memorable addition to the Government Education Bill of 1841,
made solely by the Select Committee, it received the Royal
assent on the ISth of September of that year.

The principal provisions, relating to Separate Schools, intro-
duced into Mr. Solicitor-General Day's Common School Bill of
1841 by the Select Committee, to which it was referred by the
Government, were as follows : —

XI. Be it enacted, Tliat wlienever any number of the Inhabitants of
any Township, or Parish, professing a Religious Faith different from
that of the majority of tlie Inhabitants of such Township, or Parish, shall
dissent from the Regulations, Arrangements, or Proceedings of the Com-
mon School Commissioners, [elected in each Township,] with reference
to any Common School in such Township, or Parish, it shall be lawful for
the Inha])itants, so dissenting, collectively to signify such dissent in writing
to the Clerk of the District Council, with the name, or names, of one or
more persons elected by them, as their Trustee, or Trustees, for the pur-
poses of this Act ; and the said District Clerk shall forthwith furnish a
certified cf)py thereof to the District Treasurer ; and it shall be lawful for
such Dissenting Inhabitants, by and through such Trustee, or Trustees,
who, for that purpose, shall hold and exercise all the rights, powers and
authorities, and be subject to the obligations and liabilities hereinbefore
assigned to, and imposed upon the Common School Commissioners, to
establish and maintain one or more Common Schools, in the manner and
subject to the Visitation, Conditions, Rules and Obligations in this Act

i> S

' Hi

: n

U. C. Separate School Legislation,

provided, with reference Ui other C<3inmon Schools, and to receive from
the District Treasurer their due pl-ojjortion, according to their number, of
the moneys appropriated by Law tnO rained by assessment for the supfiort
of Common Schools, in the School District, or Districts, in which the said
Inhabibints reside, in the same manner as if the Conunon Schools, ho to be
established and maintained under such Trustee, or Trustees, where estab-
lished and maintained under the said Conunon School Commissioners, such
moneys to be paid by the District Treasurer, upon the Warrant of the said
Trustee, or Trustees.

•ii

XVT. Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Governor of this
Province to appoint, from time to time, in each of the Cities and Towns
Corp(jrate therein, not less than six, nor more than fourteen i)ersons, (one-
half of whom sliuU, in all cases, be Roman Catholics, and the other ha'f
Protestants, ) to ))e a Board of Examiners for each City, or Town, Corporate ;
of which said Board the Mayor shall be Chairman, but shall have no vote
other than a casting vote ; and the said Board shall be divided into two
Departments, one of which shall consist of Roman Catholics, and shall
exercise the duties hereinafter assigned to the Board of Examiners in and
over the Common Schools attended by Roman Catholic Children only, and
shall, in such case, appoint their Chairman ; and the other Department
shall cfmsist oi Protestants, who shall exercise their said duties in and over
the Common Schools attended by the Protestant Children only, and shall,
in such cases, appoint their Chairman ; — and, in all cases, in which the said
Common Schools are attended by Roman Catholic Children and Protestant
Children togetlier, the said duties shall be exercised in and over the same
by the whole Board of Examiners ; and the duties of the said Board, and of
the said Departments hert^jf, in the several cases ab(ne mentioned, in and
for the said Cities and Towns Corporate, resjjectively, shall be to examine
the persons recommended as Teachers by the corporation, and reject them,
if unqualified, on the ground of character or ability ; and to regulate for
each School se2)arately the course of study to be followed in such School,
and the books to be used therein, and to establish general rules for the
conduct of the Schools, and comnuniicate them in writing to the respective
Teachers. . . .

The same Act provided that no person should be appointed a
Teacher, unless he were a British subject, and had been duly
examined. An exception to this provision was made in Sec-
tion four of the Act, in favour of " pei'sons known as les Freres
de la Doctrine Chretienne."

Separate School Legislation, U. C, 1843.

(CHAPTER VI.

SEPiVRATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION AFFECTING UPPER
CANADA ALONE, 184.'i.

It was soon found that the general Education Law, framed in
1841 for the whole Province, wan not acceptable to Upper
Canada, or suitable to its needs, or condition. Nothing, how-
ever, was done in regard to education during the Legislative
Session of 1842. But, in the next Session, the Hon. Francis
Hincks, having, since 1841, become a Member of the Govern-
ment as Inspector General, introduced a Common School Bill
into the Legislature of 1843.* In that Bill, no part of the
Separate School legislation of 1841 was included — it being
considered at the time objectionable in principle, and unjust
and unwise in its financial detail. The strongest objection
which was felt at the time to the law of 1841, so far as it
related to Separate Schools, was to the element of discord in
neighbourhoods which it authorized and sanctioned, by the
general permission which it gave to those, who might express
dissent to the official Regulations prescribed for the government
of the Common Schools, to withdraw their children from the
School, and set up a rival one in the same place. The law also
provided tliat if even the Regulations were unobjectionable,
dissent might be expressed to the " arrangements " or even to
the " pnxieedings " of the School Commissioners, and then the
right would arise to the dissentients ; and they would, under
the law, be justified in setting up a rival School, with the
same right as the local School to sliare in the School moneys,
" according to their number," {i.e., of dissentients.)

* The School Law of 1.841 was also found to be un8uite<l to Lower Canada ;
and, in the same Session of 1843, the Hon. A. N. Morin introduced a School
Bill for Lower Canada into the House of Assembly.
3

U. C. Separate School Legislation,

Such an unstatesmanlike mode of dealing with a difficult
social (juestion was seriously felt on all sides ; and the Law of
1841 was, in 1843, wholly repealed. The Hon, Francis Hincks,
a Member of the Government, undertook the task of providing^
in that year, (1843,) a School Law for Upper Canada alone, in
place of the General School Act of 1841. In his Bill, he
omitted the whole of the provisions for Separate Schools,
which were contained in the School Act of 1841, and intro-
duced the following provisions for such Schools in its place : —

LV. And be it enacted, That in all cases wherein the Teacher of any
Comnjon School shall happen to be a Roman Catiiolic, the Protestant
inhabitants siiall be entitled to have a School with a Teacher of their own
Religious Persuasion, upon the application of ten or more resident free-
holders, or householders, of any School District, or within the limits
assigned to any Town, or City, School ; and, in lika^nanner, when the
Teaclier of any such School shall hap])en to be a Protestant, the Roman
Catholic inhabitants shall have a Separate School, with a Teacher of their
own Religious Persuasion, upon a like api)lication.

LVT. And be it enacted. That such applications shall be made in writ-
ing, signed with the names of each resident freeholder, or liouseliolder, and
addressed and delivered to the Township, Tt)wn, or City, Superintendent,
[with names of Trustees], and upon the compliance of such Trustee, and of
the Township, Town or City Superintendent, with the requirements t)f this
Act, such School shall be entitled to receive its share of the public appro-
priation, according to the number of children of the religious persuasion
who shall attend such Separate School, which share shall be settled and
adjudged by the Township, Town or City Superintendent, subject to an
appeal to the County Superintendent ; and such Separate Scht)ol shall be
subject to the visitations, conditions, rules and obligations provided in this
Act, with reference to other Common Schools, or to other Town, or City,
Schools estjiblished under this Act.

It will be noted that these provisions of the Upper Canada
School Bill of 1843 ai'e much less general than those in the Act
of 1841. They dealt with a practical case, and gave no room
for capricious action, founded on mere difference of opinion in
regard to the " regulations, arrangements, or proceedings, of the
School Commissioners." The Act of 1843 provided that the
course of study and text-books agreed upon b}' the Trustees
were subject to the approval of the Local Superintendent.
. Provision was first made in this Act for the protection of

Bishops Strachan, Macdonell, and Power.

those children, whose parents or guardians objected to have
them " read or study in, or from, any religious book, or join in
any exercise of devotion or religion."

Hon. Fi'ancis Hincks, in a Speech which he delivered in
1843, thus explained the reason why the Comnjon School Act
of 1841 was superseded by an Act introduced by himself in
1843, and, in the case of this Province, confined to Upper
Canada alone. He said : —

No one is more Hensible thjin I iuii of the defects of the lute School Law,
(of 1841.) so great, intleeil, were they, tluit it has been found impossible to
work it. That . . . School Law whs not framed by any Ministry,
responsible, or otherwise ; it was hastily put together in a Select Conunittee
of the House of Assem))ly, consisting of [twenty-three] Members ; without
that deliberation* and care which such a measure ought to have and received.

CHAPTER VII.

PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD t'o THE SCHOOLS— OF BISHOPS

STRACHAN, POWER vXD CHARBONNEL—

BISHOP MACDONELL.

I. BISHOP STRACHAN.

Bishop Strachan strongly opposed the Separate School pro-
visions in the Hincks' School Act of 1843, which applied to
Upper Canada alone. He wished to have Church of England
Schools, " pui-e and simple." In his Charge to his Clergy in
1844, the Bishop said : —

When the School Act was inider discussion in the Legislature, in 1841,
I petitioned that the Church should be allowed her share of the public
money in proportion to her numbers.* Witli this reasonable request,
there was a disposition to ctjmply, as appears from the eleventh section ;
but the Act was found contradictory and impracticable, and no benefit

* This was the provision in the discarded Act of 1841, which the Bishop
wished to be restored in the Act of 1843. The same recjuest was invariably
preferred, and that very fiequently afterwards by promoters of Separate
Schools, but was as invariably refused by Dr. Ryerson.

W"P

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

•* ir

could be derived from it during its continuance. I petitioned again, while
the new Act [of 1843] was under consideration, praying that the sum
appropriated by the Legislature for the use of Common Schools might be
divided among the recognized Denominations of Christians, in proportion to
their respective numbers,* or in proportion to the funds raised by each, or
from the combination of both. . . . No notice was taken of this
application. . . . The former law of 1841 was dropjied, and a new
statute was enacted (in 1843), in which, throughout its seventy-one clauses,
there is no reference to Christianity. — (Bishop Strachan's Charge to his
Cleiyij, January, ISJfJf, page 39.)

It is proper to remark here that this proposition of Bishop
Straehan to have Separate School moneys divided among tlie
Deno)niuations " in proportion to their respective numbers "
was a principle which, during his administration, Dr. Ryerson
strenuously opposed. Ho held that to do so would be practi-
cally to endow churches, as such, — professedly for school pur-
poses, — but, nevertheless, a recognition of the right of these
Cluu'ches, in their corporate capacity, to a share of the public
funds, for the promotion of Sectarian Education. Reference to
this matter is made in a subsequent part of this Book.

For several years after the passage of the Acts of 1841 and
184S no demand was made by the Representatives of the
Roman Catholic Church for any extension of the principle of
Separate Schools, as it bad been agreed upon and settled by all
parties in the House of Assembly in these years. The Church
of England, however, persistently made a claim, year after
year, for a share of the School moneys for Parochial Schools ;
but the claim was never recognized, nor acted upon, by the
Government, or Legislature. ,

H. BISHOP POWER.f

During the life-time of the Right Reverend Dr. Michael
Power, Hrst Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, he acted in a

* Dr. Ryerson was invariably opposed to this proposal, as it involved the
principle of Clmrcli Endowment. .See Note on the preceding page.

tTlie Riglit Reverend Michael Powei, D.l,., was a native of Nova Scotia.
He was elected Bishop of Toronto on the 17th of December, 1841 ; was conse-
crated on tlie 8th of May, 1842; died from fever, caught while ministering to
the fever-strioken Irish omigraiita in Toronto, on the Ist of October, 1847.

Bishops Strachan, Macdonell, and Power.

friendly way with Dr. Ryerson on the Provincial Board ot*
Education, (afterwards the Council of Public Instruction,) of
which he was Chairman until his death. This I knew as a
matter of fact, for I was at every Meeting of that Board up to
the time of the greatly lamented d^ath of Bishop Power, on the
1st of October, 1847.

Years afterwards, this friendliness of action on the part of
Bishop Power was questioned by the Hon. John Elmsley, of
Toronto, by Vicar-General Bruyere, of Toronto, and by Bishop
Pinsoneault, of London. In a Letter from the latter to the
Vicar-General, published in The Leader newspaper of the 20th
of February, 1857, the Bishop said : —

Need I say it is notorious that both these zealous Prelates, (Bishops
Macdonell and Power,) laboured most faithfully and strenuously — in their
own times — to establish thorough Catholic Schools, whenever and wherever
circumstances permitted them.

Dr. Ryerson dissented from this strong statement of Bishop
Pinsoneault, and, in The Leader of the 27th of February, 1857,
said ; —

In reply to this suitement (of the Bishop), I remark :

1st. There is not a vestige of proof to sustain it in any circular or
letter, or writing, put forth by either of the excellent Prelates mentioned.

2nd. That, although the provisions of the law for Separate Schools
have existed since the conunencement of the present system in 1841, ;vnd
although Bishop Macdonell chiefly resided in Kingston, and Bishop Power
in Toronto, but two Separate Roman Catholic Schools were established
under the hiw, in either Kingston, or Toronto, until after the death of
tliese Bishops.

;5. That Bishop Power not only acted with the Board of Education, (a
mixed Board,) and presided at its Meetings until the week before his death,
but his name stands first of the six Members who individually signed the
tirst Circular to the Municipalities of l^jjper Canada, on the establishment
nf the Normal School,* (a mixed Scliool,) as the great instrument of giving
ert'oet to our system of Common Scliools.

4. The' late Bishop Macdonell died l)efore I had any connection with

* The opening ami dosing jiaragraphs of this Circular are as followa :

" Wo to whom the (hity has been assigned, (to select and reeoininend proper

books and libraries, and to establisli a Normal School for the better odiuation

of School TeacheVH in Upper Canada,) liave undertaken it with a deej) conviction

of its importance and ditticulty, and with an earnest desire to perform it in a

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

our School System ; but I knew the sentiments of Bishop Power from
frequent intercourse and consultation with him on Schoc»i matters, and I
know that he and Bishop Charljonnel — on his first coming to Toronto —
professed not to desire Separate Schools lieyond what they, (Roman
Catholics,) termed 'protection from insult;' that is, in such cases only
where Roman Catholic children could not attend the Common Schools
without being insulted and being imjjosed upon on account of their religion.
The necessity of a Separate School they lamented as a misfortune, instead
of advocating it as a principle. In this feeling I entirely sympathized.

In reply to a Letter of mine, dated the 1st of October, 1847 —
in which I informed Dr. Ryerson, then abseut from Toronto, of
the death of Bishop Power, — in a Letter, dated the 3rd of
October, he said : —

The death of Bishop Power astonished and deeply affected me. He
was a very valuable Member of the Provincial Board, and an exceedingly
agreeable man. I hope the Board has a suitable Resolution in refereiio3
to him. (Such a Resolution was passed by the Board.)

In a Letter addressed, in 1855, to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald. Dr. Ryerson thus referred to Bishop Power : —

Bishop Power, virtually a Canadian, being born in Nova Scotia, had a
patriotic desire to elevate the Roman Catholic i)opulation of the Country,
and believed thsvt it would be best effected by their children being educated
with the children of other creeds, wlierever party feeling did not oppose
insurmountable obstacles to it. -(Correspondeiice between the Chief Superin-
tendent and othM' persons on the subject of Separate Schools, 185S-1S55,
page 50.)

* V

manner that will promote, to the greatest possible extent, the best interests of
the Country.

The Board of Education earnestly hope that this sulneet (the Normal School)
will receive the favourable consideration of the several District Councils; and to
their early as well as patriotic and benevolent attention we earnestly recom-
mend it. It is the purpose of the Board to educate young men for Canada,
as well as in it, etc.

t Michael, Bishoi' of Toronto,

Chairman.

EOERTOX RyKRSON.
H. J. (iKASKTT.

S. B. Harrison.
■ JosKPH (y. Morrison.

HlItlH S(U)K1K.

J. S. Howard.
Education Oftice, Toronto, August 4tli, 184('.

J. (lEOROE HonoiNs,

lierordiiiij Clerk;

Bishops Strachan, Macdonell, and Power.

In his address at tlie opening of the Normal School for
Upper Canada, in November, 1847, Dr. Ry arson thus referred
to the then recent decease of Bishop Power, and to the harmony
which had characterized the Meetings of the Provincial Board
of Education, up to that time : —

One fcvent, indeed, has occurred, over which the Members of the Board
have reas in to nu)urn — the decease of fhe Right Reverend Prelate, who,
by Iiis c(jlleagues, had been unaninujusly chosen Chairman of the Board,
and whose conduct, as Chairman and Member of the Board, was marked by
a punctuality, a courtesy, a fairness, a zeal and intelligence which e^^.title
his memory to the affectionate remembrance of his colleagues and the
grateful esteem of every member of the comnnuiity. ... I cannot
reflect upon the full and fretjuent convensationu which I have had with him
on subjects of public instruction, and with the scrupulous regard which he
ever manifested for the views and rights and wishes of Protest^ints, without
feelings of the deepest respect for liis character and memory.

Further, in referring to 'the preparation of the Regulations
in regard to Religious Instruction in the Schools, Dr. Ryerson
said, in his Annual Report : —

It affords me pleasure to record the fact . . . that before adopting
the sectiim in the printed Forms (tnd Begulutions on the "Constitution and
Government of the Schools in Respect to Religious instruction," I submitted
it to the late Roman Catholic Bishop Power, Chairman of our Board, who,
after examining it, said that he would ncjt object to it, as Roman Catholics
were fully protected in their rights and views, and as he did not wish to
interfere with Protestants in the fullest exercise of their rights and views.

In addition, I may say that Dr. Pw,yerson, in a jirivate Letter
to Hon, Attorney-General Draper, dated Deceniber 17th, 1846,
thus explained his proceedings in regard to the preparation of
the clause in the Regulations relating to Religious In.struction
in the Schools. He said : —

T submitted the clause first to Reverend Mr. Grasett, as a Member of
the Board. He (juite approved of it, as he felt exceedingly anxiuus that
there should be such an explicit recognition of Cln-istianity in our Scliool
system. . . . T showed it also to Bishop Strachan. After he had read
tlie Section, he .said he believed [ had done all that couhl be done on that
subject, and that ... he would write a Circular to his Clergy, recom-
mending them to act as School Visitors, and to do all in their jxiwer to
promote the efficiency and usefulness of the Connnon Schools.

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

•i^ ji

The Hon. W. H. Draper, in a private note, to Dr. Ryerson,
in reply, dated the 1st January, 1847, said: —

I am iiKjre gratified than I can express that you liave so successfully
met the difficulty about the Religious Instructi(jn of children in Common
Schools. You, (to whom I expressed myself about three years ago on the
subject of the importance of not dividing religion from secular instruction,)
will readil y understand the pleasure I feel that, in Common Schools at least,
the principle and proposed application of it, for mixed Schools, has been
api)roved by the Bishop of my own Church, and l)y the Roman Catholic

Prelate.

W. H. Draper.
Montreal, 1st of January, 1847.

The first and last paragraphs of these Regulations i Reli-
gious Instruction in the Schools were as follows : —

As Christianity is the basis of our whole system of elementai-y educa-
tion, that principle should pervade it throughout. Where it cannot l)e
carried out in mixed ScIkjoIs to the satisfaction of both Roman Catholics
and Protesbvnts, the law provides for the establishment of Separate
Schools. And the Comnum School Act, securing individual liberty, as
well as recognizing Christianity, provides : —

"That in any Model or Couunon School, established under this Act,
no child shall be recjuired to read or study in or from any religious book,
or to join in any exercises oi devotion or religion which sliall be objected
to l)y his jiarents or guardians."

With this limitiition, the peculiar religious exercises of each School
must be a matter of undei'standing between the Teacher and his employers.
This must be the case in regard both to Separate and Mixed Schools.

(2. Q note tio)i, from the Regulations of the Irish National Board.)

3. The foregoing <iuotfitions (which might be greatly extended) from
the Irish Connnissioners' Reports are made liecause their system may be
considered as the l>asis of the Upper Canadian system — their books having
been adopted and their methods of instruction l)eing about to be introduced
in the Provincial Normal School. That sy.stem is Christian, but not
sectarian ; secures individual riglit and denominational privileges, and is
founded on revealed truth. The Gein'ral Lesson,* hung uj* in every School
of the Irish National Board, and carefully inculcated ui)on the pupils, is
recommended for universal adoption in lT|)per Canada. — (Special Report
on the Measures irhieh hare been adopted for the estalilislnnent of (t Normal
School, and for carrying into effect ijeneraUii the Common Scliool Act, 'J
Vict. ch. .Kx. B\i the Chief Sni)erinte)i,dent of Schools ; Montreal, ISIfl, pages
CO, 01.)

* This General Lesson is practically the substance of the Golden Rule.

111!

Bishops Stuachan, Macdonell, axd Power.

III. BISHOP MACDONELL*

As to Bishop Macdonell, his proceedings in regard to Schools
are detailed pretty fully in the examination of the Reverend
Dr. O'Grady, Parish Priest at York, by the \V. L. Mackenzie's
Grievance Committee, in 1835, and also in the evidence of other
Witnesses. This evidence goes to show that the British Govern-
ment authorized a grant to be made to Bishop Macdonell for
Mission and Educational purposes, of One Thousand pounds
(£1,000) sterling a year. Four Teachers were brought out by
him from Scotland, viz. : Messrs. Hammond, Murdoch McDonald
and McPherson. Colonel Alexander Chisholm, M.P.P. for Glen-
garry, in his evidence before the Grievance Connnittee, stated

* The Right Reverend Bi.shop Macdonell was born in July, 1762, near Lw'h
Ness, Inverness-shire, Scotland. He was educated at the Scottish Colleges, tir.st
at Paris and afterwards at Valladolid, where he was ordained in 1787. In
1794, Mr. Macdonell conceivjd the idea of forming some Scotch Roman Catho-
lic operatives, out of work, into a Regiment. This was done with \he King's
sanction, and he became Chaplain to the Glengarry Fencible Regimetit, first in
Guernsey, and then in Ireland. In 1802, the Regiment was disbanded ; and in
March of that year, Mr. Macdonell obtained the Sign Manual for a grant of
land for every Officer anu soldier of the Regiment whom he couhl introduie
into Upper Canada. On his own arrival, he was appointed to the Mission of
St. Raphael, Glengarry, On the I2tli of January, 1819, he was nominated
Bishop of Rha?sina, and Vicar Apostolic of Upper Canada, and was con.secratcd
as such in Quebec on the SIst of December, 1820. On the 27th of January,
1826, he was appointed Bishop of Regiopolis, or Kingston. On his return
from England, he resided in York, at the corner of Nelson (Jarvis) and
Duchess Streets. In 1836, he removed to Kingston. In 1839, he went to
England. On a visit to Ireland, he took cold from exposure of rain, and
also in Scotland, where he died on the 14th of January, 1840. His remains
were, in 1861, removed to Kingston, and buried there. Mr. 1). A. O'SuUivan,
Q.C., LL.D., in his "Essays on the (Roman Catiiolic) Cliurch in Canada,"
speakitig of Bishop Macdonell, says: — "He was a martial figure in the history
of (tiiat) Church in this country, and had many difficulties to encounter. He
had been Chaplain in Ireland during the trouble of '98 ; . . .he was
missionarv in Cana<la during the War of 1812, and Bishop of Kingston during
the Rebellion of 1837. . . . He was named a Legislative C^ountillor in
1834 (see paf/e 27 of Ihif rolnme), shortly after the creation of his See, and
was in receipt of a considerable pension from tlie (Britisli) Government of tl>o
day (pages LJl, 13.'). Arciil)ishop Cleary, in a letter to the Toronto Catholir
Hiijisfo; of October 7tli, 1894, says tiiat Bishop Mat'donell "raised two
regiments of Scotch Fciuibles from am(jngst his own people, and led them for
waid and cheered them on by his ])rcsence ami bravery in several battles witli
tlie enemy in Eastern Ontario. This," the Archbisluip says, "profoundly
touclied the hearts of tiie statesmen in the Foreign Office in Loiulon, and in tiie
Governor-General's Citadel in Quebec ; so much so, that in token of high
appreciation, he received from the King a ])ension for life, winch was after-
wards doubled, and then <|uadruple(l, and made hereditary in perpetuity to his
successors in office after he had become Bishop of Kingston."

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

that three of these Teachers taught Roman Catliolic Schools in
CJlengarry, and one a Connnon School. The Bishop himself, in
a letter to the Reverend Dr. O'Grady, dated Deceml>er 1st,
1«30, stated that: .

After receiving the Prince Regent's thanks for my own conduct in
defence of tlie Province during the bite war, (1812,) the Colonial Minister,
VmvI Bathurst, increased my own salary, and sent orders to the Executive
(Tovernment of Upper Canada to pay so much — in the aggregate One Thou-
sand pounds (£1,000) -annually to a certain number of Clergymen and
Teachers, that 1 was to reconnnend.

A Letter from Sir John Colborne, about the same time, in-
formed the Bishop that one-fourth of this grant was to be
expended in paying the salaries of Teachers.

bishops macdonell and power.

As to Bishop Macdonoll's proceedings in educational matters,
the late lamented Reverend M. Stafford, Parish Priest at Lind-
say, in a private Letter to me, written in May, 18.S5, said: —

There are Letters in manuscript hy Bisho[) Macdonell — first Roman
Catholic Bishop in I'pper Canada — which yon will find very interesthig.
. , . He imported Teachers from Scotland, . . . and wrote strongly
to the Government against allowing Teachers from the I'nited States into
this country, and advocated the training of native Canadians for Teachers.

In this matter of training Teachers for Canada, and in Canada,
Bishops Macdonell and Power were (juite agreed. See the
Circular on the subject to District Councils, in a note on page
22, ante. The exclusion of Teachers from the United States,
as suggested by Bishop Macdonell, was jirovided for in the
Connnon School Acts of 1841 and 1843.

I have referred to these matters relating to Bishops Mac-
donell and Power the more fully, from the fact that, in the
Separate School discussions of later years, it was frequently
asserted that these Representatives of the Roman Catholic
C'lnirch in Upper Canada had, during this period, and always,
demanded Separate Schools as a right. This was not so ; for,
as a matter of fact, the desire for " protection from insult," and
the claim for individual right of conscience in the Schools,

Blshops Strachan, Macdonell, and Power.

were the only pleas put forth by them from 1841 to 1851, and
then, only in special cases recjuiring such protection, or inter-
vention. This will be apparent, not only from the proceedings
of Bishops Macdonell and Power, but also from the moderate
language ol the only two petitions from Bishops sent in to the
■ House of Assembly in 1841, and (juoted on pages 13 and 14-
The single petition sent from Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church, addressed to the House of Assembly, in 1850,
only asked that such a measure be granted as to enable Roman
Catholics to establish Separate Schools in Upper Canada, but
without specifying details.

BISHOP CHARBONNEL AND HIS CHANGED AITITUDE IN 1852.*

Such, as a matter of history, was the attitude of the acknow-
ledged Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Upper
Canada towards the Public Schools down to 1851-52. Even
Bishop Charbonnel, who, in addition to his hierarchical rank,
was a French nobleman, (Count de Charbonnel,) gave abundant
evidence that, if left free to exercise his own judgment, he
would have continued to act in harmony witii Dr. Ryer.son, as
a Member of the Council of Public Instruction, Of this, as an
Officer of the Council, I felt assured, from my knowledge of the
Bishop, and from the nature of my intercour.se with him. He
was an accomplished gentleman, and was always most agree-

* The following .sketch of Bishop Cliarbonnel is taken from the Mail news-
paper of the 2()th of March, 1891:— "The Right Reverend Annaml Francis
Marie Charbonnel was born in 1802, in Monistrol, Department of Haiite-Loire,
France. His uncle was the celebrated Cardinal (charbonnel, of Puy. His
mother was a daughter of the Manjuis d'Agrain, the Hrst President of the
Parliament of Dijon during the Revolutitmary period. In 1819 lie entered the
Seminary of St. Sulpice, and was ordained as Priest in 182o. He commenced
active work in tiie Church at Lyons, and was such a faitliful worker that he
had frequent offers of promotion, all of which, for a long time, he refused. He
was a born soldier, as well as a devout son of the Roman Catholic Church ;
and, in 1834, he received the Cirand Cross of the Legion of Honour from Louis
Philippe, for services rendered to the Orleans dynasty during an attempted
rising in Lyons. The Queen of France and the Church Dignitaries again urged
promotion, but he declined these proffered honours, and came to Canada in
1839. He luid not been long in Canada ere honours were again pres.sed on him,
and, it is said, tiie Governor-General, Lord Sydenham, was anxious for iiis
promotion. He, however, declined tiie offers, and in 1847 he worked night and
day among the Irish emigrants, wlio were being decimated by the typhoid out-

U. C. Separate School Legislatiox.

able and courteous in his manners. His sudden change of
demeanour towards Dr. Ryersou was a matter "of surprise and
regret to the Members of the Council, as it was wliolly unex-
pected. He may have felt wounded at being, in some respects,
])Iaced in a false position by his opponents in the press, and by
Dr. Ryerson's keen criticism on his unnecessarily misunder-
standing of what he attacked ; for Dr. Ryerson felt both sur-
prised and hurt at the changed attitude of his former courteous
friend, the Bishop. He, no doubt, felt it due to the Chief
Superintendent of Education to account for the change in their
official relations ; and this he did, in a Letter addressed to Dr.
Ryerson, dated the 1st of May, 18o2, and in his Letter to the
Hon S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the Council of Public Instruc-
tion, dated the 2Gth of the same month. There was, never-
theless, in both of these Letters, a latent spirit of resentment,
which may have influenced him in expressing himself in the
almost dictatorial and dogmatic spirit, in which these Letters
were written — a spirit which, I am sure, was as alien to his
feelings, as they were to his nature. In his Letter to Dr.
Ryerson, of the 1st of May, 1852, he said : —

"All my previous intercour,se with you and the Council of Public
Instruction has been polite and Christian, and sometimes tolerant to an
extent that I have been required to justify."

/' »

break. He was seized with the disease, and it was only by his removal to the
healthy area that his life was saved. On his partial recoverj' he proceeded to
France, and was present in Paris in 1848, during the terrible days of the
barricades. His brother was killed in the fight at the Faubourg St. Antoine
barricade. He was invited to enter the French Parliament, in succession to
his brother, as representative for Upper Loire, but he declined the honour. As
soon as his health was (juite restored Pope Pius IX. urged him to take the
Bishopric of Toronto. He accepted the honour, and the Pope conducted the
consecration in person. In 1859 the late Archbishop Lynch was appointed
Coadjutor BisJiop of the Diocese, and in 1860 Bishop Charbonnel resigned his
charge, returned to France, and entered the Order of Capuchins, Province of
Lyons, in which he continued till the time of his death, 25th of March, 1891.
He was made titular Bishop of Sosopolis in 1869, Archbishop of the same place
in 1881. Diu'ing the time he was in charge of the Toronto Diocese he introduced
the Christian Brothers, and the Sisters of St. Joseph to Ontario. He founded
tlie House of Providence and other charitable institutions, and completed St.
Michael's Cathedral."

Controversy with Bishop Charbonnel, 1852. ST

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP CHARBONNEL, 1852.

In his Letter of 1st May, 1852, Bishop Charbonnel quoted the-
Canons of the Roman Catholic Council of Baltimore, "sanc-
tioned," as he stated, " by the Supreme Head of our Church,
one and universal." The Canons quoted by the Bishop were
as follows : —

Council Prov. Bait. I., Canon XXXIV. — Wherean very many youth of
Catholic i)arents, esj)ecially among the poor, have been and still are, in
many parts of this Province, exposed to great danger of losing their faith,
and having their morals corrujjted, from the want of proper teachei's, to
whom so important a trust can be sjifely confided ; we judge it indis-
pensably necessary to establish schools, in which youth may be nurtured
in the principles of faith and morals, while they are instructed in literature.

Canon XXXV. — Since not unfrequently many things are found in the
books which are generally used in the Schools, in which the principles of
our faith are impugned, our dogmas falsely expounded, and history itself
perverted : on account of which the minds of the y<jung are imbued with
errors, to tlie terrible loss of their souls ; zeal for religion, as well as the
jn'oper education of youth and the honour itself of the American Union,
demand that some remedy be pi-ovided for so great an evil. Therefore we
determine, that there shall be pu))lished for the use of Schijols, as soon as
jjossible, books entirely expurgated from errors and approved by the
authority of the Bishops, and in which nothing may be contained which
might produce enmity or hatred to the Catholic faith.

Council Prov. Bait. IV., Canon VI. — As it appears that the system of
public instruction, in most of the Provinces, is so devised and administered
fis to encourage heresies and gradually and iiupercei)til)ly to fill the minds
of Catholic youth with em)rs, we admonish pastors that, with the utmost
zeal, they watch over tlie Christian and Catholic education of Catholic
youth, and tt) take especial pains lest such ytnith use the Protestant version
of the Scriptures, or recite the hynnis or prayers of Sectaries. It must be
carefully provided, that no books or exercises of this kind be introduced in
the Public Schools, to the danger of faith and piety.

ill

■i^ !i

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Now theHe CanoiiH, the Bishop adds, "are tlie i)erfeot oxpresHion of our
sentiments."*

After referring approvingly to the policy of Archbishop
Murray, ^vholn he characterized as " the Dove of Dublin," f in
successfully resisting the Regulation which —

Recjuired that in all the Schools for the Education of the Poor in
Ireland, the Bible, without notes, slundd be read in the presence of all the
2)upils of the Schools^^ and that the Catechism, and all books of that kind,
should be excluded.

The Bishop further urged that, as in the case of the Irish
Schools which, through the influence of Archbishop Murray,
had been made " more acceptable to the Catiiolics," so the
Government here should give the Roman Catiiolics of Upper

* In connoction with the foregoing extracts from the Canons of the Baltimore
<Teneral Council, it is interesting to quote the later ones of that Council, of
a very different spirit, as interpreted by Cardinal SatoUi, in his Letter to. the
Archbishops aaseniljled in New York, in November, 1892, viz. :—

"II. Where there is no Catholic School at all, or wlieii the one that is
available is little fitted for giving the chihlren an pducation in keeping with
their condition, then the Public Schools may be attended with ii safe conscience,
the danger of perversion being reudeied remote by opportune remedial and
precautionarj' measures, a matter wliich is to be left to the conscience and
judgment of the Ordinaries. — (Xo. 1!>S, paije 103.)

t In the year 1845 I went to Dublin to master the details of the Irish
Education Office system of Administration and Management. While there, I
frequently met Archbishop Murray, who was one of the Counnissioners of
National Education, (as was Archbishop Whately). He was a most apostolic
looking man, gentle, kind and courteous. I also accompanied Dr. Ryerson on
his visit, while in Dublin, to Archbishop ^^'hately — the very opposite, in
appearance and manner, to Arclibishop Murray. He was, indeed, very
courteous ; and, as Dr. Ryerson wished to introduce as nnich of the Irish
National School System as was suitable into our Upper Canada School arrange-
ments, he received many useful hints, as well as several very excellent sugges-
tions, from the Archbishop. During my daily visits to the Education Depart-
ment in Dublin, I formed a most agreeable acquaintance with the Right Hon.
Alexander Macdonell— a relative of Bishop Macdonell, of Kingston. That this
feeling was reciprocated by Mr. Macdonell, is shown by the following extract
from Dr. Ryerson's Letter to me, dated, "Paris, August 23rd, 1855," in which
he said : "Chief Justice Robinson, (with whom and Captain Lefroy we break-
fasted in London,) told me that Mr. Macdonell, of the National Board in
Dublin, mentioned you to him in very high terms." I also formed a pleasant
friendship witli Dr. Robert Sullivan, (Principal of the Dublin Normal School,)
with the Professors and Masters, viz. — Rev. Mr. McGaidey, Mr. John Rintoul
and Mr. T. U. Young— the latter a sonin-law of Wilderspin, ami an active
promoter of the system of that noted man. I also met many other distinguished
men at the time, — Commissioners of Education, and others.

In a letter, addressed l>y Dr. Ryerson to the Provincial Secretary, on the
22nd of July, 1857, he thus referred to this personal matter: "On my recom-

CONTllOVERSY WITH BiSHOP ChAUBONNEL, 1852.

Canada a system which would be ecjually " acceptable " to
them. He concluded his letter as follovv.s : —

I have said tliat, if tlie Catechisin were sutticiontly taught in the family
or )jy the Pastor, so rare in this large Diocese ; and if the Mixed Schools
were exclusively for secular instruction, and without danger to our
Catholics, in regard to Masters, Books and companions, the Catholic
Hierarchy might toleiate it, as I have done in certain localities, after having
made due en(|uiry.

Otherwise, in default of these conditions, it is forbidden to our faithful
to send their children to these Schools, on pain of the refusal of the
Sacraments :* l)ecause the soul and heaven are above everything ; becauHe
the foot, the hand, the eye, occasions of sin, ought to be sacrificed to
Sfilvatiftn, ])ecause, tinally, .Jesus Christ has coiitided the missiim of instruc-
tion, which has civilized the world, to no (<thers than the Apostles and
their Successors to the end of time.

It is their right, so sficrod and inalienable, that every wise and paternal

mendation, Mr. J. (i. Hodgins reliiicjuished liis salary for a year, went lionie to
Dublin at his own expense, and devoted a year to the careful study of the
whole mode of conchicting tlie System of Education in Ireland, in all the details
of each of tlie seven Brandies of the great Education Office in Dublin, and
returned to Canada in 1846, with the highest testimonials of the Irish National
Board of ICducation."

In response to this Letter, the Provincial Secretary stated tliat His Excellency
the (iovernor-Gcneral-in-Conncil had Hxod my salary at £500 per annum ; and
then added tiie gratifying information tiiat "His Excellency lias further been
pleased to direct tiiat Mr. .J. G. Hodgins, the present Deputy Superintendent
of Education, be allowed, from the 1st of July, 1857, an addition to his salary
of £500, the sum of £50 per annum during his tenure of that office — in con-
sideration of hia long and lal<orious services in connection with the establishment
of a new Department" — that of Education.

Note. — I duly received this " goo<l service allowance" of Si^UO a year until
1869, when it was stopped on the occasion of a motion m the House of Assem-
bly, by the Hon. Edward Blake. It was restored some years later, but ceased
entirely in 1889.

It is now forty years since I received this gratifying recognition of services
rendered from 1844 to 1857. It was the only favour which I ever received from
any of the many Governments under which I have continuously .served in the
same Department for over fifty-two years.— J. (4. H.

* Quite a modification must liave been made in the Canons of the General
Council of Baltimore, as interpreted and explained by Cardinal Satolli in his
letter to the Roman Catholic Archbishops, in November, 1892. The explana-
tory interpretation of the Canon, as quoted by Bishop Charbonnel, is as follows:

" V. We strictly forbid anyone, Avhether Bishop or Priest, and this is the
express prohibition of the .Sovereign Pontiff, through the Sacred Congregation,
either by act, or threat, to exclude from the Sacrament, as unworthy, parents
who choose to send their children to the Public Schools. As regards the
children themselves, this enactment applies with still greater force." — (No.
108, pane 104, Coiif. Tit. VI., Cap. /., //., Tit. VII.)

NoTK. — The other piaragraphs of this remarkable Letter of Cardinal Satolli
are considerate and conciliatory, and may bo inserted hereafter. — J. G. H.

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

'^^ i

Government has made laws res[)octing instruction only in hannony with
the teaching Church — the Bishops united to their supreme and univers;il
Hea(' and this right is so inviolable, that of late, as well as in fonner
times, in France, in Belgium, in Prussia, in Austria, as in Ireland, the
Bishops, with the Pope, have done everything to overthrow, or modify,
every School, or Univei"sity, System opposed to the mission given hy Jesus
Christ to His sjicred College, "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations," etc.

On this part of the Bishop's letter, Dr. Ryerson replied as
followf

The . <wal with which your Lordship's letter concludes, — cont4iining
an expression of sentiment, and a statement of facts which I have often
seen ascribed to the Authorities of your Church, but whicli I have never
before seen so l)rofidly and exj)licitly avowed by any of its dignitaries, —an
avowal whicli I could not have credited, did it n(jt appear over your Lord-
shii)'s own signature.

It is here clearly claimed that the Pojie and Bishops of the Roman
Cathf)lic Churcli are the only j)ersons authorized l)y God himself to direct
the education of youth, and, therefore, that all others undert^iking that
work are invading the prerogative of God ; that all legislation on the
subject nuist liave the sjinction of 'the Bishops with the Pope ;' and that
they have done, and will do, all in their power to overthrow or modify
every system of Public Instruction, from the School to the University,
which " ""ot under their control. Such being your Lordship's sentiments
and i 'ons, 1 am glad that you have frankly avowed them.

Y>,. n'dship's last Letter shows that the claims set up by your

Lordship are not merely for "religious liberty and equal rights," but for
the absolute supremacy and control on the part of your Bishops, with the
Pope, in our System of Public Instruction. . . . But I doubt whetlier
such efforts will meet with iiuicli sympathy from a large portion of the
Members of the Roman Catholic Church, as I am persuaded they will not
from the people <>f Upper Canada at large. I can ai)peal to the history of
the pa.st in proof of my acting towards the Roman Catholic Cliurch in the
same spirit as towards any otlier Church ; but I uuist be unfaithful to all
my jjast precedents, as well as to the trust re{)osed in me, and the almost
unanimous feeling of the Country, if I should not do all in my power to
resist — come from wliat (piarter it may — every invasion of "the blessed
principles of Religious Liberty and E(jual Riglits," among all classes of the
people of Upper Canada. — {Letter to Bishop Charboimel, 12th of May, 1852.)

In his Letter to the Hon. S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the
Council of Public Instruction, dated the 26th of May, 18.52,
the Bishop was even more explicit as to the official influence

Controversy with Bishop Charbonnel, 1852. 41

which had been brought to bear upon him, requiring him to
answer for his Chri.stian and courteous liberality. He said : —

"All my precedentH with you, tho Ilevurond Doctor, and the Council of
Public InHtruction, hiive been jiolito and ChriHtian, and, sometiineH of a
tolerance, I'or which my Church has made me responsible."

Bishop Charbonnel had abundant evidence of the fairness
and courtesy of Dr. Ryerson in his treatment of the supporters
of Separate Schools. This he admitted in his Letter of the
27th of June, 1851, (juoted on page o4>, post. He even compli-
mented Dr. Ryerson on his "sincere liberality." Nothing,
therefore, could have been easier, (had he not been acting
under adverse influences,) or more practical than to have con-
tinued his own courteous and friendly conduct, and, from time
to time, to have conferred with Dr. Ryerson, in that same
friendly spirit, on the whole subject, before entering into an
unpleasant correspondence with him; and, as was supposed,
with the view of discharging an onerous duty, which the Balti-
more Council, or other authority, had evidently imposed upon
him as Bishop.

By conferring personally with Dr. Ryerson he could have
ascertained the exact conditions upon which the grants, and
what grants, were available for Separate Schools, — the relation
of these Schools to the Municipal Councils, and to the Public
School System. He could also have ascertained what were
the causes, if any, which operated against Separate Schools;
what Text- Books were authorized, and various other details in
regard to the practical working of our School System, which
were evidently unknown to him. Such an enquiry would have
shed a flood of light on the whole question for the Bishop, and
would have greatly simplified his treatment of it, should he,
after such enquiry, have felt it necessary to enter into official
and even unfriendly correspondence on the subject. All this
would have been very easy for him to have done, as, up to this
time, the relations between the Bishop and the Chief Superin-
tendent were most friendly, and most propitious for intercourse
of such a nature. But, as the Bishop had been called upon by
the authorities of his Church, as he stated, to "justify " his

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

-A

1 .•

hitherto " polite and Christian " intercourse with Dr. Ryerson,
he, therefore, felt himself called upon, without any prelimi-
nary enquiry, to enter upon a controversy, which was so much
regretted, rendered doubly unpleasant from the fact that he
frequently assumed that to be "law," and consequently "jus-
tice," which was neither the one or the other, but often the
reverse.

This fact, and their superior local knowledge of the princi-
ples of our School Law, added point to the criticisms of writers
in the press on the Bishop's course, and greatly prolonged and
intensified the discussion. It also bcought into the hostile
field writers, on the Bishop's side, who lacked the literary skill,
courtesy, and gentlemanly bearing of the Bishop. Besides, for
want of the necessary practical information on the subject,
their eflforts only tended unnecessarily to complicate the whole
question, and, by added bitterness to the discussion, to render
the satisfactory settlement of the question the more protracted
and difficult.

I make the foregoing remarks with sincere regret, for my
personal intercourse with Bishop 'Charbonnel was always most
pleasant. He even did me the unexpected favour of saying
and -writing some very kind things' in regard to certain of my
official proceedings, which he thought were both fair and cour-
teous. He was a man of generous impulses, and, in the best
and highest sense, an accomplished and enlightened man of the
world.

That Dr. Ryerson felt very keenly the changed attitude of
Bishop Charbonnel, may be gathered from the following
extract of his Letter, in reply to the Bishop, in May, 1852 : —

Your Loidsliip refers to the friendly and cordial character of the inter-
course which has taken place from time to time between your Loidahip
and the other Members of the Council of Public Instruction, including
myself. T can assure your Lordship that the feelings of respect and
pleasure attending that intercourse could not have been greater on your
part than on mine, and I, therefore, felt greatly surprised, pained and dis-
appointed, when I read your Lordship's letter of the 24th of March last,
denouncing that whole System of Public Instr :tion which I liad under-
stood your Lordship to be a Colleague in promoting ; attacking the princi-

Controversy with Bishop Charbonnel, 1852. 43

pies on which I have acted during the whole period of my official connection
with that System ; impugning the motives of its founders, reflecting upon
the chfiracter of the people of Upper Canada, and advocating that which
would be subversive of their hithr,Tto acknowledged rights of local self-
government.

Toronto, 12th of May, 1852. E. Ryerson.

The matter complained of by the Bishop chiefly arose, not
by operation of the School Law itself, but apart from, and
often outside of, that law altogether. Thus his complaint of
the smallness of an apportionment to a Separate School was
due to his want of knowledge, that it was caused, not so much
by a non-observance, or violation, of the law ; but, in almost
every case, from the smallness of the attendance of children
at the School. The use also of Goldsmith's History of England
was the voluntary act of the Separate School Tj'ustees them-
selves, for the book was neither imposed upon, nor authorized
as a Text-Book in, the Schools by any official authority what-
ever.

In reply to a demand that Municipal Councils should be
required to provide Houses for Separate, as for Public Schools,
and that they should not provide Houses for Public Schools,
without also providing them 'for Separate Schools, Dr. Ryerson,
in his Letter to Bishop Charbonnel, of March, 1852, said : —

I have observed, with regret, that demands for exemptions and advan
tages have recently been made on the part of some advocates of Separate
Schools which had not been previously heard of during the whole ten
years of the existence and operations of the pri. /isions of the law for
Separate, as well as Mixed, schools. I cannot but regard such occurrences
as ominous of evil. It is possible that the Legislati'i-j may accede to the
demands of individuals praying, on grounds of conscience, for unrestricted
liberty of teaching — exempting them from all school taxes, with a corre-
sponding exclusion of their children from all Public Schools — leaving
them perfectly free to establish their own Schools at their own expense ;
but I am persuaded the People of Upper Canada will never sufler them-
selves to be taxed, or the machinery of their Government to be employed,
for the building and support of Denominational School-houses, any more
than tor denominational places of worship and clergy. . .

Toronto, 13th of March, 1852. E. Ryerson.

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In further reply, to Bishop Charbonnel's Letter of the 24th
of March, 1852, Dr. Ryerson said : —

But if, according to your Lordship's advocacy, a Municipality must
be compelled to tax themselves to provide Separate School -houses for
Religious Persuasions, in addition to Public School-houses, there may be
a high degree of "civil liberty" secured to certain Religious Persuasions,
but a melancholy slavtuy imposed upon the Municipalities. The liberty
of teaching, any more than the liberty of preaching, by any Religious
Persuasion, has never been understood in Upper Canada to mean the right
of compelling Municii)alities to provide {jlaces of teaching, any more than
places of preaching, for such Religious Persuasion. Such liberty, or,
rather, such desjiotic authority, possessed by» any Religious Persuasion, is
the grave of the public Municipal liberties of Upper Canada.

Toronto, 24th of April, 1852. E. Ryerson.

Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter of reply to Bishop Charbonnel, of
the 12th of May, 1852, also said: —

The people and Legislature of Upjjer Canada have repeated ^v repudiated
tlie claim, that the authority and Officers of the law ought to bt employed
to impose and collect taxes for any Religious Denomination. E. R.

CHAPTER IX.

THE SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION OF 1846-1850.

In the first draft of School Bill submitted to the Government
by Dr. Ryerson, in 1846, he simply copied the provisions of the
Act of 1843, relating to Separate Schools, as they stood in that
Act. — (See page 45, pos/.)

In 1847, he submitted a draft of Bill for the Establishment
and Maintenance of Common Schools in Cities and in Towns
corporate. In this Bill, he sought to modify the Separate
School provisions of the former Acts, and to give them a less
positive form. His explanation of this cho.nge is as follows : —

"There is one provision in this Act, on which I desire to offer a few
words of explanation, as its nature and oljjects have been misajiprehended.
I refer to the power which it gives to the School authorities of each City

Separate School Legislation, 1846-1850.

and Town to establish Denominational or Mixed Schools, ah they may
judge expedient. It has not, perhaps, occurred to those who have com-
mented on this clause, that a similar provision, under a much more
objectionable form, has been incorporated into each of the three Common
School Acts for Upper Canada, which have been passed since the Union of
the Provinces, in 1840.* It has been provided, in each of these Acts, that
any ten householders of any School Section can demand a Separate School,
and a portion of the School Fund to support it. I have never seen the
necessity for such a provision, in connection with another section of the
Common School Law (of 1843), which provides that "no child shall be
compelled to read any religious book, or attend any religious exercise
contrary to the wishes of his parents or guardians;" and, besides, the
apparent inexpediences of this provision of the law, it has been seriously
objected to as inequitable — permitting the Roman Catholic Persuasion
to have a Denominational School, but not granting a single Protestant
Persuasi(m the .same privilege. It has been maintained, that all Religious
Persuasions should be placed u|)on equal footing "before the law;" that,
although several Protestiint Persuasions may be agreed as to tlie translation
of the Scriptures, which should be used, they are not all agreed as to the
kind and extent of the religious instruction which should be given in a
School — the very object contemplated in tlie establishment of a Separate
School ; and, therefore, each Protestant Persuasion should be placed upon
the same footing as the Roman Catholic Persuasion. This is the cise
under the provisions of this City and Town School Act (of 1847), and,
therefore, the authorities of no Religious Persuasion have opposed, or
petitioned, against it, as some of them did against the previous School Act.
But, the City and Town Common School Act does not give the power to
any one Religious Persuasion, much less to any ten householders of it [as
did the Acts of 1843 and 184H], to demand a Separate School : that power
is taken from all Religious Persuasions alike, and given to the Public
Scho(jl authorities, appointed by the elected representatives of each Town
or City. — (Dr. Ryerson's Annual School Report of 1847, page S3.)

The course of events, in regard to Separate School Legisla-
tion, up to the end of 1850, is thus briefly narrated by Dr.
Ryerson, in his Letter to the Hon. (ieorge Brown, dated tlie
28th of December, 1858, as follows: —

. . . The provision fur Separate Scliools was made in the 55th and
6«)th sections of Mr. Hincks' School Act, 1843, and by re-enacting the
same clauses in the 32nd and 33nl sectitms of the School Act of 1840.
The draft of the last Act was prepared l)y myself, at the recpiest of the
Government. .

*i.e., in September, 1841 ; December, 1843, and May, 184(5.

./'

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In 1847, I Hubmitted the draft of the Act for the better organization
of Schools in the Cities and Towns of Upper Canada. The provision for
Separate Schools was made in the 3rd clause of the 6th section of that
Act, as follows : —

' ' It shall be the duty of the Board of Trustees of each City and Town,
Thirdly, to determine the number, sites and description of Schools which
shall be established in each City or Town, and whether such Schools shall
be Denominational or Mixed."

This last phrase of the clause was omitted in the Act of 1850, the fonuer
part of the clause fully comprehending it.

EPISODE OF THE DISALLOWED SCHOOL BILL OF 1849.

During these years, from 1846 to 1849, a persistent, but not
very influential, agitation originated in the Bathurst District
against the School Law and the Chief Superintendent of
Education. It was taken up and championed by the Hon.
Malcolm Cameron, who was originally fi'om that District,
although, at the time, a Member of the Government, represent-
ing the County of Kent. The result was, that a draft of
School Bill, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, and sent to the Provincial
Secretary on the 23rd of February, 1849, was entrusted by the
Government to Mr. Cameron, — the Hon. Francis Hincks being
abseiiu in England. Referring to this matter. Dr. Ryerson, in
a Letter to me from Montreal, said : —

As to the immediate objects of my coming, it is well tliat I did come.
The Inspector-General, (Hon. F. Hincks,) expressed himself very glad that
I liad come. ... I understand that the School Bill is wholly Mr.
Malcolm Cameron's. ■•

Montreal, 27th of April, 1849. E. Ryerson.

In a Letter to the Hon. James Leslie, Provincial Secretary,
Dr. Ryerson said : —

I have been informed, upon authority which I cannot doubt, that the
[Cameron] School Bill has been chiefly drafted by a person, who has,
during tlie last three years, been writing in a District newspaper Jigainst
myself, — a person who, as Chairman of the Education Conunittee of the
Bathurst District Council, has put forth three Council documents reflecting
upon myself, — the only Municipal Council documents of the kind which
havfc appeared in Upper Canada. . . .

Toronto, 12th of May, 1849. E. Ryer.son.

Separate School Legislation, 1846-1850.

Further, in a Letter addressed to the Hon. Robert Baldwin,
Attorney-General, in July, 1849, Dr. Ryerson said : —

I am credibly informed that Mr. Cameron stated to a leading Member
of the Opi)()sition, that he had adopted my suggestions in reference to the
Bill, . . . [and yet] Mr. Cameron told the Rev. H. J. Grasett
(Rcct«r of St. James", Toronto), that lie (Mr. Cameron) had not read
my communicjition respecting it.

Toronto, 14th of July, 1849. E. Ryeksox.

In his Letter to the Provincial Secretary, already (juoted, the
12th of May, 1849, Dr. Ryerson adds : —

I now submit to the Governor-Gereral in Council, that nearly every
section of the Common School Bill, which is not contained in the pi'esent
Act, or in the draft of School Bill which I submitted to the Government
in February last, is obviously theoretical, cumbrous, intricate, expensive
and inefficient.

The whole of the proceedings, relating to the School Bill,
took place in Montreal, at the time of the burning there of
the Parliament House, on the occasion of the passage of the
" Rebellion Losses Bill," which had produced a popular out-
burst. After the excitement had subsided, it was found, on
examination, that, not only had many objectionable features
been introduced into the School Bills, as passed, but that also
omissions of sections, relating to Separate Schools, had, with-
out notice, been made. This naturally created a strong feeling
of resentment on the part of the Roman Catholics ; and they
naturally demanded that the injustice, thus done to them by
the Government, would be remedied. In consequence of this
state of feeling, Dr. Ryerson felt it to be desirable that the
confidence thus lost should be restored. In a Letter to me,
he thus stated what it was proposed to do in the matter : —

I am happy to say that the (Malcolm Camert)n) School Bill of last
Session is upset. The Members of the Government — even the Govenior-
General— have pei-sonally examined into what I stjited in my Letter to
Mr. Baldwin, of July last, and have come entirely into my views. Mr.
Cameron is now out of office. . . . Mr. Ilincks said, that he concuiTed
in every sentiment in my Letter '.o Mr. Bfildwin, and in regard to the
whole matter. . . . The Government desire to bring in a new Bill, to
be given into his hands, . . . when prepared. . . .

Montreal, 29th of December, 1849. E. Ryerson.

raf

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

, ■ k- 5

The result was, that Dr. Ryerson was requested to prepare
a new and comprehensive School Bill, which would embrace all
of the best features of the preceding School Acts, and any
improvements which time and experience had shown to be
desirable and necessary. Nevertheless, the leading newspapers
of the day unwisely justified this surreptitious proceeding, of
Mr. Cameron, on the ground that the proposed remedy would
be a new concession to the Roman Catholics ; and, on the
appearance of the proposed School Bill of 1850, the Nine-
teenth section of it was vigorously attacked. In reply to these
attacks. Dr. Ryerson, in a letter to The Giote, newspaper of
Toronto, replied as follows : — '

You say that when the present party, (Baldwin-Lafontaine Government,)
came into jjower, (1848,) "the Common School System was free from sec-
tarian elements, but they have introduced the wedge, which threatens to
destroy the whole fabric."

By tliese statements . . . you represent the provisions for Pro-
testant and Rt)man Catholic Separate Schools, in certain cases, as of recent
introduction, and peculiar to the present School Bill of 1850, when it is a
fact that the same provision was introduced into the School Bill of 1841,
and was also re-introduced by Mr. Hincks in his School Bill for Upper
Canada of 1843. . . . The provision [of the Act oi 1843 was retained,]
and in the same words in the School Bill, which the Hon. W. H. Draper
introduced, and had passed, in 1846. The provision, therefore, which
you represent as "fatal," has existed, [even in a more extended form,]
from the beginning of the present School System, in 1841, — was formally
introduced by the Reform Government, [in a modified form,] into the School
Act of 1843, . . . was concui'red in by the same gentlemen, when
they were in opposition ... at the time when it was brought forwai-d
by the leading members of the Conservative party in 1846.

Toronto, 27th of July, 1854. E. Ryerson.

In continuing his narrative of the School Legislation of
1841-1847, Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, of the 28th of December, 1858, said : —

Such was the st^ite of the law in regard to Separate Schools, and my
course in resjiect to it, when, in 1849, an Act was passed, under the
auspices of the Hon. Malcolm Cameron, a Member of the Govei'nment,
just after the burning of the Parliament House in Montreal, and a
few h(iurs before the close of the Session ; an Act which I considered so

■'

Separate School Legislation, 184G-1850.

objectionable tlmt I preferred resigning oflico to acting under it, and which
I was authorized to set aside ; and, at the s;inie time, to prepare tlie draft
of another Act to replace it — a draft which liecanie tlie School Act of 1850,
containing the provisions of the School Acts of 1846 and 1847, with such
modifications and additions as experience had suggested. . . . Tlie
Act of 1849 contained no provision for Separate Schools ; it also abolished
the provisions of the previous Act which authorized Clergymen to act as
Visitors of Schools. . . . Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Hincks stjited that
they had never examined the Bill of 1849 before it passed ; and it never
came into operation.

In tlie original draft of the li)th Section of the School Act of 1850,
I proposed to place the authority for establishing Separate Schools upon
tlie same footing as that on whi!h it had been placed in Cities and Towns
by the Act of 1847 — namely, to leave it in the hands of the Township
Council, as it had been left in the hands of the City or Town Board of
Trustees. . . .

INCIDENTS OF THE PASSING OF THE NINETEENTH, OR SEPARATE
SCHOOL, SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1850.

In continuation of his Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of
December, 1858, Dr. Ryerson said —

The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, having had their sus-
picions and fears excited by the unexpected and imnoticed omission of
the Separate School clauses from the Act of 1849, had Representatives,
both clerical and lay, in attendance, to watch the nature and progress of
the School Bill of 1850, and they protested against the provisions of the
19th Section, as originally introduced. Sevei'al leaders of the high Episco-
palian jjarty were also in attendance to get a clause, providing for Church
of England Separate Schools, introduced into the Bill. An Amendment
to the 19tli Section was concerted and .agreed upon by the clerical Roman
Catliolic and high Episcopalian parties, by which any twelve Members
of either Church could demand a Separate School in any School Section
of Upper Canada. . . . The leaders on both sides of this new com-
bination were very active, and, in the course of a few days, boasted that
they would have a majority of fourteen or twenty votes against the
Government, on the 19th Section of the Bill. A copy of the Amendment
f>f the conibinationistB was procured for me, and I was informed of the
probable defeat of the Government <m the question. I saw, at once, that
the proposed Amendnent, if carried, would destroy the School System ;
and, in order to break up the combination and save the School System, I
proposed to amend the 19th Section of the Bill, so as to secure the right < if
establishing Separate Schools to the applicants, as provided in the School

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Acts of 1843 and 1846, only substituting twelve heads of families for ten
freeholders or householders. This was acceptaljle to the authorities of the
Roman Catholic Church, wln> said, that they did not wish to oppose the
Government of Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin, unless compelled to do so ;
and they then advised all the Roman Catholic Members of the House to
vote for the Government section of the Bill, as amended. When the ques-
tion came uj) in Committee of the whole House, the leader of the high
Church combination, who was not aware of the counter movement, rose to
move the famous Amendment which was to defeat, if not oust, the Govern-
ment ; but he was surprised to find that not one of the Roman Catholic
Members rose to vote for it, and only six or eight Episcopalians standing
up, "few and far between," in its behalf, to the great anuisement of the
other Members of the House. On Mr. Hincks moving the Section, as
amended, it was cai-ried without a division, and it constitutes the 19th
Section of the Act of 1850.

The 19th Section of the Common School Act, as introduced,
and as passed, is as follows. The substituted words in the
Section, as finally passed, are in italics : —

■i^

Original Draft of the 19th

Section.
(The words struck mit are in Italics.)
"It shall be lavfnlfor the Muni-
cipality of any Tvwnship, if it shall
judge efcpedient, to authorize the
establishment of (me or more Sepa-
rate Schools for Protestsmts, Roman
Catholics, or Coloured People, and in
any case it shall prescribe the limits
of the Divisions or ^Sections for such
Schools, and shall make the same
provision for the holding of the first
meeting for the election of Trustees
of each such Separate School, as is
jtrovided in the fourth Section of
this Act, for holding the first School
meeting in a new Section : Provided
always, that each such Separate
School shall go into operation at the
same time with alterations in School
Sections, and shnll be under the
same regulations xn respect to the
persons for whom such School is

" J< shall be the dut}j of the Muni-
cipal Council of any Tounship, and
of the Board of School Trustees of any
City, Totvn, or Incorporated VilUuje,
on the application, innn-iting, of twelve
or more resident heads of families, to
authorize the establishment of one or
more Separate Schools for Protes-
tants, Roman Catholics, or Coloured
People ; and, in such case, it shall
prescribe the limits of the Divisions
or Sections for such Schools, and
shall make the sar^e provision for
the holding of the first meeting for
the election of Trustees of each such
Sepaiate School, or Schools, as is
provided in the fourth Section of
this Act, for holding the first School
meeting in a new School Section :
Provided always, that each such
Separate School shall go into opera-
tion at the sjime time with alterations
in School Sections, and shall be under
the same regulations in respect to

Separate School Legislation, 1846-1850.

permitted to be established, as are
Common Schools, generally : Pro-
vided, secondly, that none but Col-
oured People shall be allowed to vote
for the election of the Trustees of
the Separate School for their chil-
dren, and none but the parties
petitioning for the establishment of,
or sending children to a Sepjirate
Protestant or Roman Catholic School,
shall vote at the election of Trustees
t>f such School : Provided, thirdly,
that each such Separate, Protestant
or Roman Catholic School shall be
entitled to share in the Sdwol Fund,
accwding to the number of children
of tJie religious class or persuasion
attending such School, as compared
with the tvhole number of children of
School age in the Township; and the
Separate School fm- children of Col-
oured People sludl share in the School
Fund, according to the number of such
children of School age resident in such
School Section for Coloured children,
as compared with the whole number of
children of School age resident in the
Touynship: Provided, fourthly, that
the Trustees of the Common School
Sections, within the limits of which
such Separate School Section, or Sec-
tions, have been formed, shall not
include the children attending such
Separate School, or Schools, in their
return of children of School age re-
siding in their School Sections.

the persons for whom such School is
permitted to be established, as are
Common Schools, generally : Pro-
vided, secondly, that none but Col-
oured People shall be allowed to vote
for the election of Trustees of the
Separate School for their children,
and none but the parties petitioning
for the establishment of, or sending
cliildren to a Separate Protestant or
Roman Catholic School, shall vote
at the election of Trustees of such
School : Provided, thirdly, that each
such Separate Pnjtestjint, or Roman
Catholic, or Coloured, School shall be
entitled to share in the School Fund
according to the average attendance of
pupils attending each such Separate
School (the mean attendance of pupils
for both summer and rvinter being
taken), oa compared with the whole
average attendance of pupils attending
the Common Schools in such Citij,
Town, Village, or Township: Pro-
vided, fourthly, that no Protestant
Separate School shall be allowed t>i
amj School Division, except when the
Teacher of the Common School is a
Roman Catholic, nor shall any Roman
Catholic Separate School be allotted,
except when the Teacher of the Com-
mon School is a Protestant : Provided,
fifthly, that the Trustees of the Com-
mon School Sections, within the limits
of which such Separate School Sec-
tion, or Sections, shall have been
formed, shall not include the children
attending such Separate School or
Schools in their return of children of
School age residing in their School
Sections."

The 19th Section of the School
amended, passed unanimously.

Ac of 1850, as thus

-ii

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In a Circular to School Trustees, dated the 12th of August,
1850, Dr. Ryerson thus explains the nature and object of this
19th Section of the School Act of that year : —

The provisiDn of the 19th Section, as fur as it relates to Sei)arate Pro-
testant and R<jnian Catliolic Schools, is substantially the same as that
contained in the 65th and ofith Sections of the School Act of 1843, and in
the 32nd and 33i'd Sections of the School Act of 1846, with the exception,
that the present Act imposes more effective restrictions and conditions in
the establishment of sucli Schools than either of the former Acts refeiTed
to. Under the City and Town School Act of 1847, the estjiblishment of
Separate Schools in Cities and Towns was at the discretion of the Munici-
palities, and not at that of the applicant parties. No complaint having
been made against this provision of the law, even in Cities and Towns, it
was, at first, proposed to extend the application of the same principle and
provision to Townshi;- Municipalities ; but, objections having been made
to it by 801110 (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) Membera of the
Legislature, the provision of the former School Act was re-enacted, —
requiring, however, the petition of twelve heads of families, instead of ten
inhabitants, as a condition of establishing a Separate School ; and aiding
it upon the principle of average attendance, instead of at the discretion of
the Local Superintendent, as under the former Acts. But, notwithstand-
ing the existence of this provision of the law, since 1843, there were, last
year, but thirty-one Separate Schools in all Upper Canada, — nearly as
many of them being Protestant as Roman Catholic ; so that this provision
<if the law is seldom acted upon, except in extreme cases, and is of little
consequence for g( od or for evil, — the law providing effectut. protection
against interference with the religious opinions and wishes of parents and
guardians, of all classes, and there being no probability that Separate
Schools will be more injurious in time to come than they have been in
time past. It is also to be observed, that a Separate School is entitled to
no aid beyond a certain portion of the School Fund for the salary of the
Teacher. The School-house must l)e provided, furnished, warmed, books
procured, etc., by the persons petitioning for the Separate School. Nor
are the patrons and supporters of a Separate School exempted from any of
the Local Assessments or rates for Connnon School purposes. The law
provides equal protection for all classes and denominations ; if there be
any class, or classes, of either Protestant or Roman Catholics, who are not
satisfied with the ecjual protection secured to them by law in Mixed
Schools, but wish to have a School subservient to Sectional Religious
purposes, they should, of course, contribute in proportion, and not tax a
whole connnunity for the support of sectarian interests. — (Chief Superin-
tendent's Circular to Totmship Councils, dated the 12th of August, 1850.)

■?5~ffS«B?WWW»»!S^

Separate School Legislation, 1846-1850.

In a Circular to City and Town Board of School Trustees,
in regard to this 19th Section, dated tlie 8th of October, 1850,
Dr. Ryerson said : —

. . . This provision of the Act . . . is no new provision, but
one which has existed upwards of seven years, — since the commencement
of our present Common School SyHtem. It has clearly been intended, from
the beginning, us a protection of the minority against any oppressive or
invidious proceedings on the part (jf tlie majority, in any School Division,
in addition to the ordinary provision of the Act, prohibiting the compulsory
attendance of any child upon a religious exercise, or reading a religious
book, to which his parents or guardians shall object. The existence of so
few Sejiarate Schools (only about thirty-one in all Upper Canada, and
nearly one-half of them Protestant) shows that the provision for their
establishment is rarely acted upon, — as the Local School Authorities
seldom find occasion for it. And as there can be no Separate School in a
School Division, unless the Teacher of the Mixed School is of a different
Religious Persuasion from the applicants for such Separate School, the
Local Board of Trustees can always, if they think proper to do so, make
such a selection of Teachers as will prevent the establishment or continu-
ance of Separate Schools. — (Chief Siipemdendent's Circular to Board* of
School Truatees, dated 8th October, 1850,)

THE FIRST TORONTO SEPARATE SCHOOL CASE IN 1851.

A difficulty occui'red later on, in 1850, which necessitated
the interference of the Chief Superintendent of Education, in
favour of the Roman Catholic Separate School Trustees of
the City of Toronto. In his Letter to the Hon. George Brown,
written in December, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus states the nature
of that difficulty, and the remedy for it, as follows : —

In the latter part of 1850, certain Roman Catholics api)lied for a second
Separate School in the City of Toronto. The Board of School Trustees
rejected their application, upon the ground that the 19th Section of the
School A.ct of 1850 did not require them to permit the establishment of
more ' han one Separate School in the City. The applicants applied to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a Mandamus to compel the Board of School
Trustees to grant their recjuest. The Court decided that-
According to the letter and grammatical construction of the Act, a City,
or Town, was only a School Section, and the Trustees could not, therefore,
b§ compelled by law to grant niore than one Separate School, wluitever
might have been the intention of the Legislature. . . .

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Dr. Ryer8on then goes on to say that —

The [Roman Catholic] Hupporters of the Ministry of that day . .
sought a Legishitive remedy for a defect in the law, and applied in the
proper (juarter for that purpose. Mr. Hincks declined taking their com-
plaint intfj consideration without consulting me, — I being then iibsent in
the United States and England, making the first selection of l)ooks for
the Public Libraries, and arrargements for procuring them. On my return
in June, 1851, Mr. Hincks gave me the papei-s, and referred the Roman
Catholic Bishop, [Charbonnel,] and Vicar-General, [Macdonell,] to me.
1 could not for a moment admit the Draft of the Bill they had prepared;
but stated frankly, that I had not intended to deprive them of any rights
as to Separate Schools which had been conferred on them by the Act of
1846 ; that I had never anticipated, or thought of, the construction of the
19th Section of the Act, which had been put upon it by the Court of
Queen's Bench ; that, by the Act of 1846, Cities and Towns were divided
into School Sections as well as Townships ; that the City of Toronto,
under that Act, was divided into fourteen School Sections, in each of
which there might be a Separate School, according to the conditions of that
law. But, I asked them, as there were now no School Sections in the
Cities and Towns, whether the right of having a Separate School in each
Ward would not be sufficient ? They answered in the affirmative ; where-
upon, I wrote a Draft of an Act for that purpose, and they expressed their
entire satisfaction with it.*

By recjuest, I afterwards met the greater part of the Members of the
House, at an appointed time, and explained to them the position of the
Separate School (juestioii, ai.d what I thought best to be done under the
circumstances. The Honourable John Ross brought into the Legislative
Council the Bill, of which I had prepared the Draft. It soon passed both
Houses, and became law.

[The Upper Canada Members voting for it were : Messrs. Baldwin, Bell,
W. H. Boulton, Hincks, J. A. Macdonald, Meyers, Prince, Sherwood, and

* In a Letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Bishop Charbonnel, written in June,
1851, he said: "Very Uev.^and Dear Doctor, I regret very much not to
' ' be able to attend the meeting [of the Council of Public Instruction] tliis
" morning ; I leave to-day for London ; but I will be back for the solemn
"ceremony of Wednesday [2nd July — the day on which the corner-stone of
"the Normal School Building was laid, ana at which the Bishop was present
" and took part in the ceremony].

" I see, with full hope, that the redress of the wording of the clause in
"behalf of the City Catholic Separate Schools [Toronto] is in your hands and
" heart ; and, if Canada East has for Superintendent a Doctor Meitleur, owing
"to the sincere liberality of our Government, and its Superintendent for the
" West, our condition for the Education of our dear children will become good
' ' and better.

" Respectfully and devotedly, yours in Christ,

" fARMANDUS, Fr. My. R. C. Bp. of Toronto.
" Toronto, 27th of June, 1851."

Separate School Legislation, 1846-1850.

Stevenson — 9. Lower Canivda Menibei'H, 10 ; totfil, 25. Those opposed
to the Bill were : Messrs. Hopkins, Mackenzie, McFarlime, J. C. Morrison,
James Smith, and J. Wilson — 7, all from Upper Canada. ]

The operation of this Act was confined to Cities and Towns ; its very
wording shows that it was no innovation, and no concession; but a restora-
tion of rights previously enjoyed. The title of the Act was : —

An Act to Define and Restore Certain Rights to Parties therein mentiimed,
L'f and 15. Vic, Cap. III., received the Royal Assent on the 30th of
August, 1851.

Whereas it is expedient to remove doubts, which have arisen in regard
to cert<iin provisions of the Nineteenth Section of the Upper Canada School
Act of 1860 ; and. Whereas, it is inexpedient to deprive any f>f the parties
concerned of rights which they have enjoyed under preceding School Acts
for Upper Canada : Be it therefore enacted, etc., That each of the parties
applying, according to the provisions of the said Nineteenth Section of said
Act, sliall be entitled to have a Separate School in each Ward, or in two or
more Wards united, as said party, or parties, shall judge expedient, in each
City, or Town, in Upper Canada : Pn)vided always, that each such School
shall be subject to all the obligations and entitled to all the advantages
imposed and conferred upon Separate Schools by the said Nineteenth
Section of the said Act.

f
;;f|

UNREST AND UNCERTAINTY — MR. W. L. MACKENZIE'S BILL, 1851.

These two untoward circumstances — the unauthorized omis-
sion of all provision for Separate Schools in Mr. Cameron's
School Bill, of 1849, and the inability of the Trustees to
establish more than one Separate School in the City of Toronto,
as decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, in 1851, acted
unfavourably upon the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church,
and created a feeling of distrust and uncertainty on their part.

What also kept this feeling of suspicion and unrest, on the
part of the Roman Catholics authorities, alive, was the constant
ertbrts of prominent members of the House of Assembly, from
1851 to 1856, to repeal the 19th Section of the School Act of
1850. Generally, these gentlemen con+^nted themselves with
the introduction of a brief Bill, simply declaring that —

"The Nineteenth Section of the School Act of 1850 shall be, and is
hereby, repealed."

Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, however, in his Bill of August, 1851,*

* Mr. Mackenzie moved this Bill as an amendment to the Act given above.
It was rejected by a vote of 26 to 5.

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

^ives his reasons for doing so, in the preamble. The extract
from the preamble is interesting, from the fact, that it embodies
the " popular " objection then urged against the existe,nce of
Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper Canada and gives
specific reasons for this objection. First, he declares —

1st. That the cstuhlishnient of Sectarian, or Separate, Schools . .
is a dangerous interference wiih tlie Coninion Seliool System of Upper
Canada, and, if iillowod . . . cannot i'ea8onal)ly be refused to .
()tlior Religious Denominations.

2nd. That if it is just that any number of Religious Sects should Iiave
Sei)arate Common Schools, it is no ^ess reasonable that they should have
Separate Grannuar Schools, (^ollogesand Professorships in the Universities.

.■{rd. That it is unjust in the State to tax Protestants, in order to j)ro-
vide for the instruction of children in Roman Catholic doctrines, or to tax
Roman Catholics for the religious education of youth "in princii)le8 averse
to the Church of Rome."

4th. That the early separation of children at School, on account of the
creeds of their parents, or guardians, would rear nurseries of strife and
dissension, and cause thousands to grow u\) in comparative ignorance, who
might, vnider the Common School System, obtain the advantages of a
moral, intellectual, literary and scientitic education.

5th. That the repeal of the Nineteenth Secticm of the Upper Canada
School Act, passed in 1850, would discourage Sectarian education, and be
productive of peace, harmony and good-will in Upper Canada.

THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION FROM 1841 TO 185L

We thus See, that from 1849 there were two potent influences
at work to excite fears, and to disturb the harmony and com-
parative quiet which had prevailed in Upper Canada during
the preceding six or eight years, on the subject of public
education. Even on the part of Roman Catholics, there was
little or no desire to agitate for the promotion, or extension, of
Separate Schools during these years. This, Dr. Ryerson points
out with evident satisfaction, in his second letter to Bishop
Charbonnel, written in April, 1852, as follows: —

The CoMuion School System ... of Upper Canada . . . has
been in operation for ten years ; which was cordially a|)proved of and
supported by the late lamented Jtoman Catiiolic Bisiiop Power ; which was
never objected to, as far as I know, by a single Roman Catholic in Upper

Separate School Legislation, 184(5-1850.

luenccH
x\ coiu-

puV)lic

Ciiniulji, ilui'iny the life of Bishop Power, tlmt excellent Prehiteund pntriot,
1 . . . still jiilheie to my freiiuent umiimlitied expressions of
ftdniirivtion at the opposite course pmsiietl l>y your honoureil lunl devoted
Predecessor, Bishop Power ; . . . I uiiiy note the facts that .
the only Bo'iian (\itliolic Member of the Legislative Assembly elected in
Upper Canada, [Hon. J. Sandtield Macdonald,] has repeatedly declared
himself opposed to the very principle of Separate Schools ; an<l that the
only County Municipal Council in Uiiper C'anada, in which a majority of
the members are I{oman Catholics, has adopted resolutions against the
Sectii>n of the School Act, which permits tlie estal)Iishment. of Separate
Schools, under any circumsbmces. The facts that, out of .■{,(MK) t'onnuon
Schools, not so many as fifty Separate lloman Catholic Schools have ever
existed or been applied for, in any one year, in all Cpper Canada, and that
the number of suoli So|inrate Schools had gradually diminisiied i«t less than
thirty, until within the last twelve months,* and that, during ten years,
but one single complaint has l)een made to this Department of any inter-
ference witii the religious faitli of Roman Catholic children ; and that not
a Roman Catholic child in Cpper Canada is known to have been proselyted
to Protestantism by means of our Public Schot>lH ;— these facts clearly
show the general disinclination of Roman Catholics in Cpper Canada to
isolate themselves from their fellow-citizens in School matters, any more
than in other counnon interests of the Country, and the nnitually just.
Christian and generous spirit in which the School, hh well as other counnon
affairs of the Country, have been promoted l)y Goverimient, by Municijial
Councils, and by the people at large, in their various School Sections. The
exceptions to this j)ervading spirit of the people of Upper Canada, have been
"few and far between;" and, in such cases, the provisiim of the School
Law, permitting the establishment of So|»arate Schools in certnin circum-
stances, has been made use of, and just about as often by a Protestant, as
by a Roman Catholic, nunority in a School Municipality. But the pro-
vision of the law for Separate Scliools was never asketl, or advocated, until
since 1850, as a theory, but merely as a protection, in circumstances arising
from the peculiar social state of neighi)ourhoods, or MuMici[talities. I
always thought the introduction of any provision for Separate Schools, in a
popidar System of Common Education like that of Upper Canada, was to be
regretted and inexpedient ; l)ut finding such a iirovision in existence, and
that parties concerned attaching great imi)ortance to it, I have advocateil its

* The following Table sliows the iiinubm' of Protestant and (Ionian Catholic
Separate Scliools reported, since 1847 : -

Year 1847 . . . 41 Separate Schools of all kinds.

It 1848 . . . 32 II .1 .1

I. 1849 ... 31 M I. ..

„ 18f>0 . . . 46=21 Roman Catliolie and 25 Protestant.

II 18ol . , , 20=10 Human Cathuliu uikI 4 Pruteutunt,

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

continuance — leaving Separate Schools to die out, not by force of legislative
enactment, Ijut under the influence of increasingly enliglitened and enlarged
views of Christian relations, rights and duties, between different classes of
the connnunity. I have, at all times, endeavoured to secure to parties
desiring Separate Schools, all the facilities which the law provides — though,
I believe, the legal provision for Separate Schools has been, and is, seriously
injurious, rather than beneticial, to the Roman Catholic portion of the
community, as I know very many intelligent Members of that Church
believe, as well as myself. I have as heartily sought to respect the feelings
and promote the interests of my Roman Catholic fellow-cidzens, as those
of any other portion of the community ; and I shall continue to do so. . .
Toronto, 24th of April, 1852. E. Ryerson.

Such was the brief yet comprbhensive survey of the state of
educational affairs in Upper Canada, when, as events proved,
the untoward influences and proceedings to wliich I have
referred (on pages 47 and 55), produced their effects, both on
the popular leaders of the day, and on the authorities of the
Roman Catholic Church in Upper Canada. From that time
forward, each party " set its camp in hostile array." The policy
of the leading newspapers of that time, and the aggressive, yet
practically futile, efforts of Members of the Legislatiu-e, from
1851 to 1H56, to repeal the Separate School provisions of the
Law, naturally excited, and kept alive, on the part of the
Roman Catholic authorities, the suspicions and fears enter-
tained by them, as mentioned by Dr. Ryerson.

The result of all this unrest was the couunencement of an
agitation and conflict, of more or less intensity, which lasted
until the passage of the Roman Catholic Separate School
" Finality Act," (as it was called,) in 18G3. Then, a season of
comparative quiet and tran(|uility prevailed for a time ; and
the " Finality Act," of 186.S, became the basis of the Legisla-
tion in the British America Act of 186G, which secured to the
Roman Catholics of Upper Canada the right to have Separate
Schools under that New Constitution of the New Dominion.

Separate School Contest from 1852 to 1855.

CHAPTER X.

INCIDENTS OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL CONTEST FROM

1852 TO 1855.

I SHALL, in this Chapter, trace the progress of events which
finally led to the adoption, by the Legislature, of the first
complete Upper Canada Separate School Act of 1855, — the
" Tach^ Act."

Few, of the present day, can realize the extent and bitter-
ness of the contest which ended, for a time, in the final passage
of the Tachd Separate School Act. The brunt of the battle
fell upon Dr. Ryerson. He was the bete fioir of the pro-
moters of Separate School Legislation ; — and that, because, as
guardian of the integrity of the Public School System of
Upper Canada, he refused to assent to any measure which he
conscientiously believed would militate against the success and
prosperity of that System. He was, from his very position, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Education Department, and as
practically an arbiter between two opposing forces, the target
at which both parties aimed their arrows. What added to his
difficulty, in dealing with this somewhat intricate and delicate
question, was the fact, that the Government of the day, —
very wisely and properly, — referred all parties dealing with
this question to him. Sir John Macdonald refus(;d, in his
pleasant, courteous way, all consideration of details of Separate
School Legislation, until the parties concernetl had first con-
sulted the Chief Superintendent of Education in regard to
them. If approved and recommended by him. Sir John was
prepared to consider any question proposed to him on its
merits. In this w^ay, parties, desiring modifications in the
legislation aftecting Separate Schools, had to submit their
proposals to the Chief Superintendent, witli whom they were
sure to have them di.scussed with fairness, but also with a

-I

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

clearness of perception as to their effect and purpose, which
might not always be apparent to those who proposed them.*

Nevertheless, Dr. Ryerson, in thus discharging his duty, was
exposed to a double fire ; — on the one side, from the champions
of Separate Schools, who charged him as being personally
hostile to their rights and interests ; and, on the other side,
by open and covert attacks, as the betrayer of the cause which
he was bound to defend, and as a tool in the hands of the
Hierarchy, for the promotion of their alleged unpatriotic and
selfish ends.

Thus attacked. Dr. Ryerson was not slow in returning the
fire of his opponents. He had to defend himself from the
attacks of a powerful press, who reiterated the charge, over
and over again, that he was untrue to the cause of unsectarian
Education, and for making, (although he only carried out in
the least objectionable form,) the concessions in favour of
Separate Schools, which had their origin in the Hon. Mr. Day's
Common School Act of 1841, and whicli were embodied, in a
less objectionable form, in the Hon. Mr. Hincks' Act of l848.-f*

There was another circumstance, already referred to, which
tended still further i,o excite the hostility of the combatants on
both sides against Dr. Ryerson, especially, when the studiously
passive attitude of the Government prevented a successful
attack being made upon it. And that was, as I have already
observed, the practical and prudential policy of the Leaders of

* The Hon. Senator R. W. Scott, the promoter of the Roman Catholic
Separate School liills of 18(50, 18(51. 18(52 and 18(53, thus narrates his experience
of Dr. Ryerson, in conferences with him on the subject of Separate Scliools :^
"It is duo to his, (Dr. Ryerson's, ) memory to say that, I found him always
ready to meet the wishes of the minority,— that he exhibited no prejudice, or
bigotry ; that, had larger concessicms been sought for, Dr. Ryerson would not
have thrown any obsta(!le in the way." — (H(iii.t(ird Report of Hon. R. W. Sroff'i
Speech in the Senate, on the 4tli of April, IS94-)

t On this point, the Hon. R. W. Si ott, iji his speech, (already referred to,)
saitl : — "There was a strong feeling pn vailing with (Roman) Catholics that he,
(Dr. Ryerson,) was hostile to the (Separate School) Act. People believed that
l.e was always decidedly against Separate Schools." . . . Speaking of the
"appeal " Section in the Act of 1863, Mr. Scott said that, "it was simiJiy based
on the idea that the Chief Suj)erintendent was not friendly to the Separate
School System, which was a mistake, be(!auB0 he was sincerely canxious to do
what was really fair to make the law workable."— (i^eec/t in the Senate, on tht
4th ofA]ir!l, 1S94.)

Claim for Additional Grants.

the Government for tlie time being — Robert Baklvvin, Francis
Hincks, John A. Macdonald, or John SandfielJ Macdonald — *
to pass no School Bill, nor entertain any measure relating to
elementary Education in Upper Canada, which h{i,d not been
examined, modified and approved by the Chief Superintendent
of Education.

It can easily be understood that, under such circumstances,
a great deal of correspondence and conferences, between pro-
moters of Separate Schools — clerical and lay, chiefly the
former — took place with Dr. Ryerson, during these educa-
tionally stirring times. Having enjoyed the strong personal
friendship and unbounded confidence of Dr. Ryerson, I was
cognizant of all the proceedings, conferences, and correspond-
ence which took place in this noted controversy. I was often
present at his confidential conferences with various parties, —
for he felt it to be desirable, although not always necessary,
to have a third person present at these conferences.

ii-j-v

:\i']'*-

:' r

CHAPTER XI.

CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS TO SEPARATE SCHOOLS.
—PRESSURE ON THE GOVERNMENT IN 1862.

In 1852, a claim for an increased appoi'tionment to Separate
Schools was pressed upon the Government — as the apportion-
ment on the basis of attendance at the Separate Schools did
not supply sufficient funds for their support. In dealing with
this demand, as raised by Bishop Charbonnel, Dr. Ryerson
wrote to him, as follows : — ,

In regard to the alleged injustice done to Roman Catholics, in the distri-
bution of School moneys, so fre(]uently asserted by Your Lordship, there
is one circumstance which I may mention, in addition to the facts and
reasons I have given, (in this Letter,) in reply to Your Lordsliip's state-
ments and claims. The Board of School Trustees, in the City of Toronto,
have caused a very careful incjuiry to be made into the census returns and

■/J

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

tax rollc of the City, in order to ascertain the comparative amount of taxes
paid by R^man Catholics and Protestants. The result of that inquiiy is,
that while f)ne-f()urth of the entire ])opulation of the City is I'eturned as
Roman Catholics, a fraction less than one-twelfth of the taxes is j)aid liy
them.* ... It is, therefore, clear that no class of the population is
so much benefited by the General School Taxes, in proportion to what
they pay, as Roman Catholics ; and hence assuming — what the pe(jple and
Legislature of U])per Canada have repeat idly repudiated — that the author-
ity and Officers of Irfiw ought to be employed to impose and collect taxes
for any Religious Denomination, the sums of School Money which would
be payable, when apportioned u])on the basis of property, to Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, would be much less than what the School Act
now allows such Scho(jls, upon the basis of the attendance of pupils. Of
all classes in the ct)mmnnity, the Roman Catholics have the strongest
rea-son to lesire the System of Mixed Schools ; and every efiV)rt to urge
them to apply for Separate Schools, so far as it succeeds, impf>ses upon
them additional pecuniary burdens, at the same time that it must inflict
upon them losses and disadvantages to which they are not now subject.
Toronto, 12th of May, 1852. E. Ryeksox.

Notwithstanding these facts, a strong pressure was brought
to bear upon the Government of ohe day, demanding that
additional aid should be provided for the Roman Catholic
Separate Schools. This demand was communicated to Dr.
Ryerson, at the time, by the Hon, Francis Hincks, (who had
then charge of the Educational Legislation of the Govern-
ment), in a Letter, written from Quebec, as follows : —

(Confidentidl.)— The Roman Catholics, (I understand,) are preparing a
Bill, which will be passed. It is clear that we must do something. Better
abolish the 19th Section [<^f the Connnon School Act of 1850] at once, than
render it a mockery, as in cases where there are Free Schools. Again, it
would not do to share the tax where Free Schools are established. We
must decide to do something, and I think we are disposed to do it where
Free Schools are established. A separate coluuni should be placed in the
roll, and the parties to state whether they desire their share of tax to be

* The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Toronto claimed
.■£1,1.50 for their Schools ; and in reporting upon this demand, the Committee of
the Board of School Trustees state that — "From a recent return, Your Com-
mittee find that the total annual value of the taxable property in the City
amounts to £186,983 5s. : — of this, the proportion held by Roman Catholics is
£15,750 10s. The total net amount of scliool tax for last year, at 2Jd. in the
pound, was fl,8(X): the net proportion contributed by the Roman Catholic
inhabitants was £156 10s." — (Rij)ort of Free School Commiftee of Board of
Sehool Trwitees/or the City of Toronto, 'dated 19th May, 1S52.)

Claim for Additional Grants.

given fur such Scliool. They might participivte prDportiountely in the G(»v-
emment grant. Where tliere are Free Schools, the Asuessors will generally
be Protestants. There is no danger of fraud. The [Roman Catholic]
people will be able to act independently and indirectly, and will, perliaps,
support the Free Schools, if fairly c<mducted. The plan is worth trying.
If we refuse this, we will prol)ably get worse. Write to me on this i)oint,
Quebec, August 9th, 1852. F. Hixckh.

i ''I

i I"'!

i I

THE BELLEVILLE SEPARATE SCHOOL CASE, 1852.

The immediate cause of all this trouble and difficulty was a
Separate School case, which occuiTed in Belleville in 1852, and,
incidentally, tiie case of Chatham, to which Bishop Charbonnel
had referred in his second Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 7th of
March, 1852.

In a Letter to the Hon. A. N. Morin, Provincial Secretary,
dated the 17th of April, 1852, Dr. Ryerson discussed these two
cases. The object of these cases of appeal, he said, was : —

To compel the Local School Municipalities to apply a portion of all the
School moneys they might raise towards the cost of the erection and repairs
of Separate School-houses, as well as to the .salaries of Separate School
Teachers, — a provision that was never contemplated by the School Act,
and a demand that was never before made, since I have been connected
with the Department. — {Return of Correspondence to the House of Assemblii,
1851-1852, page 34.)

Dr. Ryerson's reply to the foregoing Confidential Letter of
the Hon. Mr. Hincks, was written on the 26th of August, 1852.
In it he enclosed a draft of School Bill, — the fourth Section of
which was designed to meet the cases of the Belleville, Chat-
ham and other Separate Schools.

The Belleville case led to a law suit, with a view to deter-
mine the question raised. It appears tliat in establisliing " Free
Schools" in that place, the property of Roman Catholics and
Protestants alike, as ratepayers, were assessed for the support
of these free Schools. Dr. Ryerson, in a published Letter on
the subject, states the case as follows : —

The Roniti,:! Catholic supporters of Separate Schools, claimed a share of
all the moneys raised ]jy the Municipality, as well as of the Legislative
apj)ortionment, in proj)orti<jn to the average attendance of pupils at their

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

School, as compared with the attendance at the Common Schools ; V)ut the
Board of Common School TruHtees in Belleville refused to pay them any
more than a Legal share of the School Fund,— that is, a share (according to
the average attendance of pupils) of the Legislative Grant, and a sum e(|ual
to it, raised by tlie Town Corpf>ration, but not a share in any additional
sum, or smns, raised ))y tax for School purposes. I was appealed to, and
interpreted the law, as above stated, — adding, that it was voluntary with
any local Corporation whether they would allow Separate Schools to share
in all the School Funds provided by local tax, or only in what the Act
defined as the School Fund. The Roman Catholic Trustees instituted legal
proceedings to recover a share in the School moneys to which they had con-
tributed as ratepayers, Jind they failed. A new element of agitation was
thus furnished. . . . And, the case of the Roman Catholic supporters
of the Separate School in Belleville was viewed as one of hardship, (such as
was said could not be exj)erienced by the' Protestants of Lower Canada,)
and was certjiin to lead to one or two results, either of which would render
the establishment or continuance t)f Free Schools impossible.

The one result was the giving to the supporters of Separate Schools the
right to share in all School mimeys raised by the Municipality, as well as
paid to it, — which would prevent Municipal Councils from doing anything
at all, as they would not be tax collectors for any Religious Denomination
whatever.

The other result was, the limiting of the power of local Councils to
collect a sum ecpial to the Legislative apportionment, and no more, — which
would, of course, render Free Schools impossible.

To avoid both of these evils, — to leave Roman Catholics no ground for
complaint, — to afford full scope for the estjiblishment of Free Schools,
where the people might wish to establish them, I recommended that, on
proper notice, given before Februai-y in each year, the supporters of Sepa-
rfite Schools should be exempted from paying any Municipal School Rates
whatever, but be empowered to collect their own School Rates, and
examine their own Teachers, and that they should be also precluded from
sharing in any Municipal moneys, unless a Municijulity chose to levy and
collect their School Rates for them. . .

These suggestions, for the solution of the Separate School
difficulty in Belleville, and others elsewhere, were embodied in
tlie fourth Section of what was designated as the " Supplemen-
-tary School Bill of 1853."

The suit of the Belleville Separate School Trustee against
the Town Council, was not decided until early in 1853. The
decision in that case was given by Chief Justice Robinson, and
■was concurred in by Mr Justice Burns. It was to the effect,

Claim for Additional Grants.

that no Mandamus against the Town Council would be granted,
as it was the opinion of the Chief Justice that —

As the School Act of 1850 now stands, what a Separate School,
established under the 19th Clause, is entitled to share in, is tlie sum
apjjortioned by tlie Chief Superintendent out of tlie (iovernnient Grant,
and a sum . . . raised by local assessment to meet that Grant, — raised,
I mean, for tlie payment of Teachers generally, and not upon an estimate
for any specific purpose.

In his Letter to the Hon. Mr. Hincks, (to which I have
referred on page 63,) accompanying the Draft of the Supple-
mentary School Bill of 1852-3, Dr. Ryerson said, in regard to
the fourth Section : —

This Secticm proposes to relieve the parents and guardians sending
children to Sepai'ate Schools from paying any Scliool tax whatever, and
then allowing them to share with the other Schools according to average
attendance of the same Municipality in the Legislative School Grant alone.
In case such a provision were adopted. 1st, There would be no provision
in the School Tj<iw reijuiring a pul^Uc Municipal t<vx for Denominatior d
Schools, and all opposition and clamour against it would cease. 2nd,
There could be no complaint from any quarter that the supporters of a
Separate School paid more or less than they received from the School
Fund. 3rd, All the inhabitants of a Municipality, except those who
might choose to send their children to a Separate School, could proceed
with their School interests, as if no other class of persons were in existence.
4tli, The Teachers of Separate Schools would be relieved from appearing
before the County Board of Public Instruction for examination, and thus
the last vestige of possible agitjition between the supporters of Separate
Schools and the Municipal authorities, in relation to the sul)ject at all,
would be removed. Then the Section does not, any more than the 19th
Section of the existing law, give the persons who petition for, and send
cliildren to, the Separate Schools, control over all the Roman Catholics, or
Protestants, of the Municipality ; but only over those of the religious per-
suasion of the Separate School, who clioose to sujjport it. — (Betutii of
Correspondence on Separate Schools, printed by wder of the Legislative
Assembly, 185J-1855, page 21.)

This draft of Bill, sent to Mr. Hincks, in August, 1852, was
transferred by him to the Hon. Attorney-General Richards,
who made some modifications in it, of which Dr. Ryerson did
not approve.

On the 6th of September, 1852, Mr. George Brown introduced

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

a Bill into the House of AHseinbly, " to repeal such clauses of
the Comuiou Schools Acts of Upper Canada, as authorize the
establishment of Sectarian Schools endowed with the Pul)lic
Money." This Bill was never pressed to a vote, and was " dis-
charged" on the 4th of June, 1853.

In November, 1852, Dr. Ryerson went to Quebec to confer
with the Government in regard to the Supplementary School
Bill, then in the hands of the Hon. W. B. Richards, Attorney-
General, and other matters. In a private Letter to me, M^'itten
while there, on the 11th of November, 1852, he said : —

The School Bill, (except the Separate School fourth Clause, and the
Clauses pre{)ared by Mr. Joseph C. Morrison,) was introduced into the
House of Assembly on Saturday niglit, and the Attorney-General wishes
nie to stay until it is disposed of. . . . In redrafting the Separate
School fourth Clause, the Attorney-General thought that he was carrying
Hiy views into effect. The Hon. John Ross-, Solicitor-General, told him
that he, (Mr. Ross,) was sure that the Clause did not embrace my views.
They both now agree with me ; and I am to prepare the Bill, (as so agreed
upon,) innnediately after my return to Toronto.

Quebec, 11th of November, 1852. E. Ryersok.

In January, 1853, Archbishop Turgeon wrote to Bishop
Charbonnel, as follows : —

I am haj)py to tell Your Lordship, in answer to your Letter of the 1st
insUint, that the Hon. A.N. Morin . . . assured me that himself and
his Colleagues were in the linn resolution to give the (Roman) Catholics
of l^pper Canada the sjime advanbiges whicli the Protestiints in our pjvrt of
the Province enjoys.*

-f P. F. Turgeon, Archbp. of Quebec.

- Quebec, 11th of January, 1853.

The Bill, when revised and recast by Dr. Ryerson, was sent to
Attorney-General Richards ; and Mr. Richards, in reply, said : —

(Private. ) — Herewith you have a copy of the School Bill, as I think we
can introduce it. I have ctnisulted with our friends as to the fourth Sec-
tion. We have altered it, in some respects, fi'om the draft you sent ; ))ut
I believe I liave retfiined those i)ortions wliich embody the principle to
which we had all assented. ...

Quebec, 14th of February, 185.3. W. B. RicHARns.

* From the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown," 1886, pages
292.293.

Claim for Additional Grants.

After the Bill had been introduced into the Le<^i.slature, the
frieudu of Separate Schools pressed the Governmunt still
further to give coherence and stability to their System of
Separate Scho<jls, by authorizing the establishment of Boards
of Separate School Trustees in Cities and Towns. The
Attorney-General then sent the following Telegram to the
Chief Superintendent of Education : —

Ih there any objection to allow TruHteo.s of Separate Schools in Cities
and Towns to form a General Board to manage their own Schools. If not,
fflegraph at once ; if there are olijections, write at length, innnediately.

Quebec, 20th of April, 1853. W. B. Richards.

Dr. Ryerson telegraphed that there were objections ; that he

vould write to-morrow. On the morrow, he replied at length,

^ requested. I give the main points of his Letter, as follows : —

1. It is a new demand. It was never before mooted, much les.s
admitted. ... It involves the introduction of principles which have
never been admitted into [the Separate School portion of] our School
System. . . . Why this new demand ? if it is not to avoid c(jnditions
which have been heretofore required in regard to the establishment and
existence of Separate Sc1uk)1s.

2. It has been a principle maintained in every successive School Law
of Uppe." Canada, that there should be no Roman Catholic, or Protestant,
Separate School in any School division, or ward, of a City, or Town, excejjt
where the Teacher was of a different religious faith from the applicants.
But, if there be a City, or Town, Board of sectarian School Trustees, the
Common School Board may employ ever so many Teachers in the ward
Schools of the same faith of tlie advocates of the Sectarian Schools, yet it
will not prevent the establishment and su[)port out of the public revenue
of Sectarian Schools in these very wards. This i', placing Sectjirian Schools
upon a t(jtally different fecundation from that on which they have always
stood ; it is the introducti<m of a system of Sectarian Schools without
restriction, and almost without conditions, as it is proposed to relieve the
Teacher employed in tliem from all examination.

3. Such a Board could estjiblish as many Sectarian Schools as they please,
and without requiring any public certificates of (jualitication from the
Teachers employed. Such a Board can recognize the Teacher, or Teachers,
<»f every private School kept by j)ersons of their Religious Persuasi<m.

. . Thus such a Board in Toronto might recognize and claim public
aid for every child tjiught in the convents. .

4. A large portion of the public mind is chafed at the perpetuation of,
and provision for, Separate Schools in aiiy form ; but I have endeavoured,

«8

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

(during my Into provincial tour,) to render this provision tf)lerHblo, by
stating thiit no new principle would he introduced, but only the modified
appliuition of a principle already recognized and acted upon under succes-
«ive Acts of Parliament.* 1 should deplore the revulsion which T fear will
take place in the public mind, should a new and unfair provision be made,
and fresh facilities be provided for the multiplication of Sect^irian Conunon
Schools, — the symbols and instruments of growing mischief in the country,
from the proceedings adopted and the spirit inculcated during the last year.

5. 1 think the safest and most defensible ground to bvke, is a firm refusal
to sanction any measure to provide, by law, increased facilities for the
multiplication and perpetuation of Secbvrian Schools, [but to intimate] a
readiness to remedy any injustice, or hai'dship, which the ojjerations of the
existing law may be c<mceived to involve, but to do nothing more.

Toronto, 2l8t of Ajn-il, 1853. E. Ryerson,

The following Letter was written by Attorney-General
Richards to Bishop Charbonnel, — as given on page 293 of the
" Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown," 1886 :

I hope that the provisions of the [fourth Section of the Supplementary
fichool] Bill will be such as to prevent future disputes and difterences. As
I sjiid to you personally, I have endeavoured, [in that Bill,] to give the
Separate Schools in Upper Canada the same rights and powers that the
Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada have.

Quebec, 30th of May, 1853. W. B. Richards.

As the Bill was being moved into Committee of the whole
House, on the 3rd of June, 1853, IVIr. George Brown, seconded
by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, moved —

That it be an instruction to the said Conunittee, that they have power
to make provision in the said Bill, for the repeal of such sections of the

* As to the nature of the conferences with various parties at the County
•School Conventions of 1852-1853, to which Dr. Ryerson here refers, he thus
explains his proceeilings at them, in his Special Report, laid before the Legisla-
ture in 1858: — "In the winter of 1852 and 1853, I made an othcial tour of
Upper Canada, and held, by appointment, a Public School meeting in each
County, — having previously prepared the first draft of the Supplementary
School Act of 1853. On the provisions of that draft of Bill, I consulted the
most intelligent and experienced men in School matters in the several Counties,
and especially on the clauses of the fourth section of the Act. I think I am
warranted in saying, that those intelligent men of all parties whom I consulted,
without reserve, unanimously agreed to those clauses of the Separate School
Section ; but were also strongly of the opinion, with myself, that no further
concession in that direction should be made under any circumstances, or could
be made without endangering the whole National School System, and violating
individual and municipal rights." . . .

Claim for Additional Grants,

fSU

School Acts of Upper Ciinrtdu now in force, as iiuthorizo the eHtiihlishinont
and continuance of Si'parate Scliools, and for tliu removal from the said
Sup|)lementary Bill of all recognition of any portion of the oonnnunity in a
aectnrian cai)acity.

This motion was lost by a vote of 1 1 yeas to 4() nays. Mr.
David Christie then moved, seconded by Mr. John Langton: —

Tliat the wijrd.s, "and also to make provinion that, in the management
of any Connnon School, which derives any portion of its support from the
funds of the I'n^vince, there shall be no teaching, or other practice, per-
mitted, wliich can, in any way, do violence to the religious feelings and
opinions of any cliild, i>r of tlie parent, or guardian, of any child attending,
such Common School," ha added at the end thereof.

This motion was lost by a vote of IG yeas to 42 nays. On
the final passage of the Bill, on the 7th of June, 1853, the
Upper Canada vote stood as follows : — Yeas : Messieurs Cam-
eron, Dixon, Hincks, McDonald, (Cornwall,) McLachlin, Patrick,
Richards, Ridout, Rolph, Sherwood, and Wright, (East York):
11. Nays, (all Upper Canada Membera,) viz. : Messieurs Brown,^
Burnham, Christie, (Wontworth,) Crawford, Fergu.son, Gamble,
Lyon, Mackenzie, Malloch, Seymour. Shaw, Smitli, (B^rontenac,)
Smith, (Durham,) Stevenson, Street, White, and Wilson : 17.

The following is an analysis of the fourth Section of the
Supplementary School Act, relating to Roman Catholic Separate
Schools, which received the Royal Assent on the 14th of June,
185.3:*—

1. Subscribers to an amount equal to the School Rtites for the support of
a Separate School, are relieved from the payment of such Rates for Public
Common Schools.

2. Each Sojjarate School to share in the Legislative Grant, but not in
the Municipal Assessment.

.'^. Exemption from School Rsites only to extend t(j the period of sending
children to the Separate School.

* The Home District Council, on the 1st of July, 185.3, petitioned against
this Separate School provision in the Supplementary School Act. The Petition
expressed "deep regret" at having discovered in this Supplementary School
Act, that " the principle of Separate Schools is again recognized. ... No
one denomination should be preferred before the other, . . . and no facili-
ties should be given for the establishment of Sectarian and Separate Schools^
etc." The Petition is signed by Mr. Joseph Hartman, M.P.P., and by Mr.
J. Elliott, County Clerk. Other Councils sent in similar Petitions.

I !

■m

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

4. Return of names of supporters of Separate Schools, and the names of
the children sent, to be sent by the Separate School Trustees, to the Local
Superintendent of Schools, half-yearly ; also the amounts subscribed.

6. The Local Sui)erintendent siiall send the names of supporters of
Separate Schools reported to him to the Clerk of the Municipality ; and the
Clerk shall omit such names from the Assessment Roll, except in case a
rate for a School building had been imposed before the retiu'n to the Clerk
of such names.

6. The provisions of the 18th Section of the School Act of 1850, shall
apply to Trustees and Teachers of Separate Schools, (i.e., in regard to
penalties for false returns.) . "

7. Separate School Trustees shall be a Corporation, with power to assess
for Separate School Riites, or collect .Subscriptions.

8. Subscribers to, or supporte 's by rates, of Separate Schools, shall not
vote for Public School Trustees.

CHAPTER XII.

SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT- RENEWED
DEMANDS OF BISHOP CHARBONNEL.

Some time after the passing of the Supplementary School Act
of 1853, fresh demaixls on behalf of Separate Schools were
made, chiefly in private Letters to the Hon. Francis Hincks,
by Bishop Charbonnel. The Editor of The Globe newspaper,
referring, in that paper, to this Supplementary School Act, thus
addressed Dr. Ryer.son : —

And did this third concession to the claimants of Separate Schools
satisfy thein ? Was your oft- repeated assurance realized, that "the exist-
ence of the provision for Separate Schools" in the national system pre-
vented "oppositions and combinations which would otherwise be formed
against it?" On the contrary, the separatists only advanced in the extent
of their demands, and became more resolute in enforcing them. The very
next year, the matter was again brought to a crisis — a general election
came on — Bishop Charl)onnel pressed his demands— and Mr. Hincks ci>n-
sented to bring in yet another Sectivrian School Act.

In his fifth Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of December
31st, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus replied to these remarks of the
Editor: —

Second Appeal to the Government.

I have (already) shown that, while the Act of 1853 removed all giounds
of complaint of per8f)nal hardshi}) by supportei-s oi Sei)arate Schools, and
thus granted wliat they professed to desire, it involved "no strengthening
of tlie sectanan element," hut facilitated and secured the extension of Free
Schools. Bishop Charbonnel himself professed to be satisfied with the Act
of 1853. So much so, that in a ^'Pantoral Address on the Upper Canada
Supplementary School Act of lS5-i," dated Toronto, 9th Jnltj, 1S53, he com-
menced with the following words :

Owing to the equity of our Legislature, dearly l)eloved brethren, the Catholio
minority of Upper Canada are to enjoy, for the education of their children, the
same advantages enjoyed by the Protestant minority of Lower Canada.

It is true that Bishop Charbonnel . . . receded from his previous
otticial acceptance of that Act, and put forth new complaints and di-mands.
He did so through the public papers, and he did so in private Letters to
Hon. Mr. Hincks.

SECOND TORONTO CASE — SEPARATE SCHOOL DIFFICULTIES

IN TWO WARDS,

The cause of mast of tliese new demands appear to liave
originated chiefly in the City of Toronto. First, there was a
complaint of a Separate Sciiool difficulty in St. D;.\id's Ward,
then in St. James' Ward, — which were dealt with specifically
by the Chief Superintendent of Education, as they arose That
of St. David's Ward was brought before the Chiel Superin-
tendent of Education, by the Hon. John Elmsley, to whom he
replied, as follows : —

It appears from your statement tliat, in the Public School of St.
David's Ward, six Teachers are employed, and oidy <ine of them is a
Roman Catholic ; and, as I understa'id, he is not the Principal of the
School. The (piestion tlien is, whether, under such circumstances, the
twelve heads of families are entitb>d tn a Separate School I T think they
are. ... It is clear that, in eacli of the Cnnunon Schools referred to,
[ill the Act of 1860, 19th Section,] the law assumed the existence of but
one Teacher. . . . I do not think, theref.-.e, that the amployment of
one Roman Catholic among several teacliers of a Common Sclmnl in St.
David's Ward, precludes tlie Roman Catholii; heads of families, whom you
represent, from having a Separate School, if they desii-e it.

ToaoNTO, 30th of August, 1853. E. Rverson.

The character of the various complaints and demands, made
by Bishop Charbonnel, at this time, may be gathered from the

••5

.^C;!).^: .:>£-.'

U. C. Separate School Legislatiox.

following Letter, which the Hon. F. Hincks wrote to Bishop
Charbonnel, as given in the " Life of Archbisliop Lynch, by
H. C. McKeown," 1880, pages 293, 294:—

I have learned wifli inuoli regret from your Letter of yesterday, [2nd of
August, 1853,] that a fresli ditticulty has arisen regarding your Schools in
Toronto. Believe nie, my attention will l)e promptly given to the subject
of the grant, with a view to find a remedy, if there be any attempt to
obstruct a law lionestly intended by the Government to heal up wounda
which were nmst injurious to the peace of society.

(Quebec, 3rd of August, 1853. F. Hincks.

Shortly afterwards, Mr. Hincks wrote the following Letter
to Dr. Ryerson, on the subject of these complaints : —

(Conjidentiul.) — I spoke t(j you about the new dithculty witli Bishop
Charlxmnel befoi*e leaving Toronti>, and am sorry to tind that the Govern-
ment is likely to get into very serious embarrassment regarding a ([uestion
which I hfid lioi)ed was hapi)ily settled. . . . Tiiis vexed (piestion
nearly upset tlie Government last Sessi(jn. Judge Richards can tell you
that I do not magnify its imi)()rta? ce.

Note, that if by any means you refuse, practically, the Separate
Scln)ols, we are just whei'e we wer,j ; and the tight has to come oft' with tiio
same parties, as it would have had to come ■ '>fore the Legislature of last
Session. Bishop Charbonnel will petition, and demand, legislatiim. Hi.s
Bill will have the support of all, or nearly all, of the Lower Canada Mem-
bers ; and, tlien, what is the Government to do ? I assume, of course, that
the Government refu.ses to bruig in any Bill. Perhajis tlie Government
might be broken up on that point, but suppose it is not? If we. Upper
Canadians, insLst in opposing such a Bill, ve will, at all events, be beaten
in Lower Canada, and then Messrs. Morin and Drummond, etc., will
certjiinly resign, and we shall get gentletnen of the Cauchon School and
of the Upper Canada Tories to govern the country for longer than you
imagine. If, again, oiu Lower Canadian Colleagues support the Bill as an
open question, wliich thoy would insist, [jrobably, in doing, and carry it,
then, wliat would our position be ?

I cannot speculate on wliat T would do in such a case, but you will at
once see the embarrassment ; and I can assure you few things would grieve
me more than the diinger o'" meddling with our Upper Canada School
System, which is so admirably worked out by you.

Your influence at present, 1 need not say, is all that you can well
desire. You have had i>roof of it ; and T may say to you, in the strictest
confidence, however, that, for several weeks, we have been in a position of
not a little embarrassment in arranging our University Senate, because I

Second Appeal to the Government.

would not listen to your being proscribed. I must, in justice, say that the
objection to you is not within the Government. It is external, in part. . .

I have put all the points of embarrassment in the other case before
you, with a view of ascerUiining whether you can aid in settling this affair
quietly. I cannot but look upon the action of the Toronto School Trustees
in appointing Teachers, (as they have done,) as intended to thwart, indi-
rectly, the Separate School Trustees. Now, I feel it is a wise policy to let
them try our late (Supplementary) Bill fairly. I confess I do not see my
way clearly. The effect of not appointing Roman Catholic Teachers woidd
be to proscribe them. Pray, however, think over the matter and give me
your views, confidentially, as soon as po.ssible. You will see, and feel, all
my embarrassment, and 1 am certain you will try and help me out of it, if
you can.

Quebec, 18th of ^.ugust, 1853. F. Hincks.

Ill reply, an intimation was ^iven by Dr. Ryerson to Mr.
Hincks, that the matter would be carefully considered, and,
that in submitting a draft of Bill " to make further provision
for the Crrainmar and Common Schools of Upper Canada," next
year, two or three Sections would be added to meet some local
difficulties which had been experienced in carrying out satis-
factorily the foiirth Section of the Supplementary School Act
of 1853, relating to Sejjarate Schools.

Ill the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown,"
188(), the following Lftier, written hy Vicar-General Cazeau to
Bishop Charbonnel, is given on page 294 : —

I have seen Mr. Hincks. Your School question vexes him very much.
He will write strongly to Mr. [Ryei'son], to make him interpret the Law in
such a w.iy na to do justice to (Roman) Catliolics. If tlie Law is not
interpreted as necessary, a new one shall be enacted, in order to recjuire
imperiously tliat the (Roman) Catholics of I'pper Canada sliall be treated
witli the same liberality as the Protestfints of Lower Canada, and thus
justice shall bo obtained.

Quebec, IHth of August, 185.'i. C. F. Cazeai, V.G.

TIIIIID SKPA1<.\TE .SCHOOL DIFFICULTY IN THE CITY OF

TORONTO, 18.")4.

Most of tiie Sejmrate School ditficultios wiiich arose occurred
in the City of Toronto This, Dr. Ryerson stated, in a Letter
to Hon. John Klmsley, in reply to some complaints, (in regard
to the making of certain School Returns,) which he brought
before Dr. Ryerson early in 1854. Dr. Ryerson said : —

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In this City al<jne, throughout all U[)j)ei' Canada, has ditticulty arisen,
sucli as your Lotter indicates — showing clearly that it has arisen from the
disposition and ol^jects of the parties ccjncerned, ratlier than from anything
difficult in the provisions of the law. 1 know not how these provisicms can
be plainer ; hut no legal provisions are plain when efforts are made to
employ them for otlier tlian their obvious and legitinifite objects.

Toronto, 10th of May, 1854. E. Ryerson.

The difficulty, in tJiis case, was the refusal of the Treasurer,
or other OflScer, of the City Council to refund certain School
Rates collected by mistake, or in error, from Sepai'ate School
supporters, during the year 1858, owing to some objection to
certain returns made by the Separate School Trustees. The
matter having been referred to the Finance Committee of the
City Council, Dr. Ryerson addressed a Letter to Mr. Angus
Morrison, the Chairman, urging the Committee to accede to the
demand for a refund of the taxes. He said : —

Under the circumstances, [of defective, or incomplete, returns,] I think
you will agree with me, that it is hardly fair, and not doing "as we would
be done ))y, " to take advantage of any alleged technical omissions in the
first half-yearly returns of the Separate School Trustees, made witluu a
few days after the passing [of the fourth Section] f)f the [Supplementary
School] Act (of 1853), recjuiring them [to make these returns]. ... 1
think it but equitfible that the law should be administered in the s<ime
spirit in regard to the Trustees and supporters of Separate Schools, — what-
ever may be our opinion of the expediency, or inex[)ediency, of estjiblishing
such Schools.

Toronto, 20th of May, 1854. E. IUerson.

Notwithstanding the intimation to the Hon. Mr. Elmsley, on
the nth of May, tluit, in regard to the point of his complaint,
the law was " clearly in his favour, and that there could be
little doubt, or difficulty, in his obtaining a speedy remedy,"
yet, on the 25th of that month. Dr. Ryerson was made
responsible for this very difficulty, with the authorities of the
City of Toronto. In his Letter to Hon. Mr. Elmsley, he said : —

In to-day's issue of a newsjiaper organ of your (Jhurcli, published in
this City, called tlie Gatliolic Cithcn, I am as.sailetl for liaving, from vile
motives, introduced this provision of the Act, [in regard to returns] ;
whereas, tlie fact is, that, although I prepared and recommended the
general j)rovisionH of the fourth Section of the Sup))lementary Soliool Act,
it so happens that the restrictive words —

Second Appeal to the Governmekt.

the

"Nor shall said exemption extend to School rates, or taxes imposed, or to
he imposed, to pay for School-houses, the erection of which was undertaken, or
entered upon, before the establishment of Separate Schools."

Were not submitted, or suggested, by me, but were suggested by the
late Hon. Attorney-General, (now Judge,) Richards, — than whom no man
in Canada could desire more anxiously what was most liberal, as well as
just, towards his Roman Catholic feUow-citizens. And the circumstance
that this clause of the Act, so vehemently exclaimed against by the news-
paper organ referred to, originated in a mind the least liable to be charged
with, or" suspected of, intolerance against Roman Catholics, aiid was
approved of by the Roman Catholic, as well as other. Members of the
Gcn'ernment and Legislature, is an ample refutjition of the insinuation.s
referred to, and a sufficient proof that the provisions of the fourth Section
of the Supplementary School Act were conceived in the spirit and interest
of the utmost fairness and liberality to all parties concerned.

Toronto, 25th of May, 1854. E. Rverson.

renewed agitation by mSHOP CHARBONNEL — THE TACHI^:

ACT FORESHOWED.

Notwithstandino- these efforts of Dr. Ryerson to remove diffi-
culties and to answer objections, as they arose, a movement
was set on foot to obtain further legislation, more favourable
than ever, for Separate Schools. In a Letter from Dr. Ryerson
to Bishop Charbonnel, in August, 1854, he thus referred to this
movement : —

During some months jjast, your Lordship has been pleased several times
to attack me personally by name — attticks which have been often repeated
and variously enlarged ui)on by the newspaper organs of your Lordship. . .

1 am (juite aware that these attacks upon me, in connection with the
provisions of tliu law in regard to Separate Schools, were designed to
influence the recent elections ; and for that very reason I thought it proper
not to notice them until after the eleeti(ms — that your Lordship might
have every possible benefit t)f them, and that I 'aight not give the slightest
pretence for a cliarge that I interfered in the elections. ... I may
remark, that wlien [)ubli(^ men have said that they will advocate granting
the same privileges to the Roman Catholics in l^pj)er Canada as are enjoyed
by Protestfuits in Lower Canada, they are (juite right, and say no more
than I have said from the beginning, — no more than I have sincerely
intended, — no more than each succeeding administration has intended, — no
more than the late Attorney-General (now Judge) Richards believed was
fully secured to them by th»} Supplementary School Act for 1851^ ; for,
after he and I had gone over the several clauses of the fourth Section,
(relative to Separate Schools,) of the Supplenientiiry Scho*)l Bill, he asked

ill

U. C. Separate School LE(;iisLATioN.

me if the supporters of the Separate Schools were now placed on the same
footing in Upper Canada as in Lower Canada ; 1 replied, I believed they
were in every respect, — that, in some particulars, there was a difference in
the mode of proceeding in the two sections of (,'anada, and the payment of
all School moneys by County and Town Treasurers, which did not exist in
Lower Canada, — that, in regard to these peculiarities, nothing was reipiired
of the Trustees of Separate Schools, which was not required of Trustees <»f
Public Schools, with the single excepti«jn that, in the semi-annual returns
of the former, the names of children and tlieir parents or guardians were
included, with the amounts of their School su})scriptions, in order that it
might be known whom to exempt from the payment of Public School Taxes.
But I desired the Attorney-General to examine for himself the provisions
of the two laws in regard to Sej)arate Schools. At his recjuest, I took the
School Law of Upper Can.ida, as existing and as proposed, and he took the
School Law of Lower Canada, and went over the provisions, clause by
clause, relative to Dissentient Schools, while T referred him to the corre-
sponding clauses of the School Laws of Upper Canada ; and after he had
finished, he said the equality in the two casos was }»erfect, and he was
prepared to defend it. After this examination, and with this conviction,
the Attornoy-General, witli the concurrence of liis CVtlleagucs, brought the
Bill before the Legislative Assembly, and it was passed.

Toronto, 2Hth of August, 1854. E. Ryerson.

In his fifth letter to Hon. George Brown, written in Decem-
ber, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus specifies these complaints, made
about this time, (1854,) and which led to the further proposed
legislation in the 'I'ache Act. The chief complaint was : —

That the money paid to Separate Schools was ajtportioned and i)aid
by the Local Superintendents in Townships, and l)y tlie lioard of Coiumon
School Trustees in each City or Town ; that the apjxationment of it was
sometimes ])artial ; and the payment of it often delayed under various pre-
tences, to the great inconvenience and vexation of irustees of Sejtarate
Schools ; and it was urged that, as the Cliief Superintendent of Education
in Lower Canada apportioned and paid the School money to the Trustees
of Dissentient Schools, so should the same officer in Upper Canada apj)or-
tion and pay the School moneys to Se))arate Sch.)ols.

In the same letter to Mr. Brown, Dr. Ryerson said :—

As to this complaint, [ l)elieved it frivolous, as in the cases adduced
to justify it, tlu! Trustees of Separate Schools had not complied with the
conditions and re<iuirements of the law, .ind the Secretary of their Board
in Toronto had refused to do so, juid yet demanded the money otlierwise
payable to the Separate Schools ; thft f believed it was desired to place me
in a position in which contiinied complaints could be made against me to
the Government, and I be at lengtli compelled to yield to their demands.

,,e«t*>il^J:ij

f^'^ '

Second Appeal to the Government.

Mr. Hincks thuuylit otherwise, and |)re.s,se(l mo to uiidertiike the trtsk of
Jil)i)ortioning aiul piiying the money to Separate Schools, as did the Super-
intendent in Lower Canada, and did not leave it to the Lf)cal Superintend-
ents and Boards of Oonnnon School Trustees.

In a Letter to the Attorney-General, Dr. Byerson refers to the
complaint which had been made, as to the former mode of pay-
ing School moneys to the Separate School Trustees. He said : —

Some time last summer, the late Inspector General, (Hon. F. Hincks),
connnunicated with me on this subject, and sugf^ested wliether I could not
undertake to distribute and pay the School Grant to Separate Schools, as
this would be satisfactory to the complaining j>arties. I expressed my
conviction, that tliis would not satisfy Bishoj) Cliarbonnel — that I was
satistied he had ulterior ol)jects in view — tiiat his object was to get a
measure ^y which tlie Catholic jwpulation, as a Body, would be separated
from the Public Schools., and the Municipalities made tax-gatherers for the
Separate Schools. But, in deference t(/ Mr. Hincks' wishes, and as he liad
done so much to aid nie in my work, and to promote the Public Schoo'
System, and seemed to think it would i)e satisfactory, T consented to
underbike the task proposed, although I had expressed strong objection
to it in my i)rinted Report for 1852. — {Letter to the Hon. John A. Mac-
do)Mld, dated, Toronto, 2nd April, 1855. Correspondence, etc., printed by
the llonse of Assembhj, 1855, pwje 53.)

Dr. Ryerson took with him to Quebec the draft of Bill of
September, 1854, t ) which he i*eferred. In a private letter to
me, dated at Montreal, the 10th of the same month, he said : —

I arrived at Quebec yesterday morning, and left last evening, having
done all that could be done in the circumstances, [change oi Ministry].
I gave the Hon. Mr. Hincks the draft of Bill, after having shown it to
Mr. John [afterwards Mr. Justice] Wilson, of London, Mr. John Langton,
and Mr. Jolni W. Gamble. Mr. Hincks will see to it, the same as if lie
were in office. . . . Mr. Hincks lias received a letter from Monsignor
Joseph Eugene, the Roman Catholic Bishop, of Bytown, vei'y much in the
style of Bishop (Jharbonnel's first threatening Letter to me. Mr. Hincks'
reply is a masterpiece, and it brought tlie Bishoji to hif. senses.
The whole will be published. The Ministry having resigned, Sir Allan
Macnal) was sent for, by Lord Elgin, to form a Ministry. . . . He
has agreed to carry the measures to whicli the Ministry were pledged ; and
Mr. Hincks has promised him (Sir Allan) his support, and that of his
friends. ... I afterwards conversed upon the wliole affair with Mr.
Hincks and Lord Elgin. There is a perfectly good understanding between
Sir Allan and Mr. Hincks. . . . Publish my Letter to Bishop Cliar-
bonnel, of the 26th of August, as was intended.

Montreal, 10th of September, 1854. E. Ryerson.

M^afrC:.

,5 :

111

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

With a view to expedite the passage of the Bill sent to Mr.
Hincks, Dr. Ryerson went to Quebec the next month, so as to
confer with the Macnab Ministry on the subject. In a private
Letter to me from Quebec, he said : —

I think tlifit tho shcirt Schftol Bill will he introduced, and j)a.ssed, hefore
the fuljouininent. This 8ul)ject is coniniitted to the present, and the late,
Attorney-General. I went over the Bill with them to-day. They entirely
approve of it. Mr. [now Sir John] Macdonald is to confui with Mr. Morin
<in the Separate School clauses of it, until after which, he does nfit wish
me to leave.

Quebec, 28th of October, 1854. E. Ryerson.

In October, Dr. Ryerson again wrote me a private Letter, as
follows : —

The Government approve of my draft of the School Bill. Even Mr.
Morin — (the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Government) — has
expressed himself satisfied with what I have recommended. I have got
them to bring it in inunediately, and to have its provisions ap|)ly t<; this
year ; and, for which, I am much indebted to Mr. Hincks.

Quebec, 31st of October, 1854. E. Ryerson.

Dr. Ryerson thus continues the narrative of these events, in
his fifth letter to Hon. George Brown, dated December, 1858 : —

In 1854, I submitted a draft of a short Bill, which was passed and
became the Act 18 Vic, Chap. 142, intituled: "^n, Act to make Further
Provision for the Oroinnuir -find Common Schools of Upper Canada."

In connection with the draft of that Act, I submitted separately the
drafts of three clauses, to remove the ground, or pretext, of the three
complaints now made ; and these three sections contained the ultiiiutturii
of what I was willing to do in regard to Legislation <m the subject of
Separate Schools -since in the Letter enclosing them, dated (>th September,
1854, I remarked as follows to Mr. Hincks : —

I think our next step must be, if further Legislation be called for, to take
the sound American gi'ound of not providing for, or recognizing. Separate
Schools at all. In this we should liave the cordial support of nine-tenths of
the people of Upper Canada ; while, in the course now pursued, tlie more you
concede, the more yon contravene the prevalent sentiment of the Country, and
the greater injury you are inflicting upon the great ))ody of tlif^ parties for
whom Separate Scliool are professedly demanded, but who have not, as far as
1 am aware, any safe and adequate means of speaking for themselves, or even
of forming a juilgnient.

In his Letter to the Hon. F. Hincks, of the 5Ui of September,
1854, Dr. Ryerson said : —

Second Api'eal to the Government.

The following Sections reljite to SejMvrate Schools, anil, without vnuler-
laining our General System, provide for all that, even the ultra, advocates
of Separate Schools profess to demand, and all I tliink the Country win
1)0 induced to give. [Then follows the explanation of the three Sections
proposed in 1854.] These three Sections relieve tlie Trustees of Separate
Schools from making any return, or including any item in any return what-
ever, not re(iuired of other Trustees ; leave the api)licants for Separate
Schools to do anytliing, or nothing, as they please ; but do not permit
them to make the Municiital Council their School-tjix Collector, nor give
them the Legislative School Grant, except hi proportion to the average
number of children they teach.

Those .Sections of draft of Hill m 1854 were in the following
terms : —

VI. And be it enacted, T'liat so nmch of tiie 4th Section of the Act,
1(5 Vic, Chap. 185, as re([uires each supporter of a Separate School to
subscribe, or pay, a cei"t*iin sum, in order to be exempted from the pay-
ment of the Public School R^ites, and so much of the said Section of said
Act as recpiires the Trustees of a Separate School to include, in their .semi-
annual x'eturns, a statement of the names of the children attending such
School, or of the names of parents, or guardians, sending children to such
School, or of the sum, or sums, sub.scribed or {)aid by each of the sup-
porters of such School, shall be, and is hereby repealed : Provided, always,
that the supporters of a Separate School, or Schools, in onler to be entitled
to exemption from the payment of any Public School Rites for any one
year, as authoriiced by the .sjiid 4th Section of the Act, 1(5 Vic, Chap. 185,
shall, on, or before, tlie first day of February, of such year, connaunicate
in writing, with their names and places of residence, to the Clei'k of the
Municijjality in which stich Separate School, or Schools, are situated, a
declaration to the elfect, that they are supporters of such Sejiarate School,
or Schools.

VII. And be it enacted. That the Trustees of Separate Schools, elected
in each of the Wards of any City, or Town, in Upper Canada, shall have
authv)rity to unite, during their pleasure, into one Joint Board of Trustees,
for the management of the several Separate Sch<;ols in such City, or Town.

VIII. And be it enacted. That the Chief Superintendent of Schools for
Cpper Canada shall have authority to determine the proportions of the
Legislative School Grant, which may be payable, respectively, according to
law, to Public and Separate Schools; and shall have authority to pay the
sums thus apportioned in such manner as he shall judge expedient, upon
the conditions, and at the time prescribed by law : Provided, always, th.it
such returns shall be nuule to him, and in such manner, by all parties
concerned, as he shall rcijuire, to enable him to decide upon the amount,
and payment of said sums. — {On-y'spondeKce on Separate Schools, page f24,
printed bij order of the Legislative Assembly, 1855.)

U. C. Separate School Legislation,

In the Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of the Slwt of
])ecember, 1858, ah'oady quoted, Dr. Ryerson said: —

It will be seen above that my Letter, enclosing a draft of a Hh(»rt
School Bill to Mr. Hincks, anil three clauses relating to Separate Schools,
on the mode of i)aying School money to them, was dated the ()th of
September, 181)4. A few days after, Mr. Hincks resigned office, and the
Sir Allan Macnab administration was formed. In the meantime, Bishop
Charbonnel was most active in writing to Members of the Government and
the Legislature, impugning me, comitlaining of the law, and enlisting other
Roman Catholic Bishops with him.

The following Letters will show the nature of the influence
which was thus being used, in 1854, to promote the passage of
a purely Roman Catholic Separate School Bill.

In September, 1854, Vicar- General Cazeau, of Qiiebec, thus
writes to Bishop Charbonnel, (as given on page 295 of the
" Life of Archbishop Hughes, by C. H. McKeown ") : —

All the Lower Canadian Ministers will be mainbvined in the [Sir A. N.
Macnab] Cabinet. I do not deceive myself in telling your Lordship that
they agreed, as a condition of their alliance with Sir Allan, that justice
should be done to your (Roman) Catholics about Separate Schools.

Quebec, 11th of September, 1854. C. F. Cazeau, V.G.

Bishop Phelan of Kingston, in a Letter, (quoted on page 295
of the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeown," 188G,)
addressed to Bishop Chai-bonnel, said : —

I have a Letter from our Attorney-General, (Hon. John A. Macdonald),
in which he promises that he will pass a Bill tliat will l)e satisfactory to us
all. Notwithstanding all his j)romises, I still feel anxious to see that some
action should be taken on our School Bill [of 1854].

Quebec, 11th of Septeml)er, 1854. C. F. Cazeau, V.C.

Dr. Ryerson, in the foregoing Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, already quoted, further states that : —

Among the exti'acts of correspondence that Bishop Charbonnel after-
wards published, are the following, which I quote from the Toronto Mirror,
of July 18th, 1856 :—

From Vicar-General Cazeau to Bishop De Charbonnel :

It has been resolved, in the Council, that Justice should be done to the
Separate Schools. Sir Allan hastened to tell nie that he had always been
favourable to them ; and I replied, tliat your Lordship had always relied on
liini.

Quebec, 28tli of December, 1854. C. F. Cazeau, V.G.

»>*"■

Second Appeal to the Government,

In a Letter written by Bishop Phelan, in January, 1855, as
given in Mr. C. H. McKeown's " Life of Archblsliop Lynch,"
(1886 J the Bishop said :—

I have (lelnyed writing to you until I hud an interview with tlio Attor-
ney-General, (Hon. John A. Macdonald,) who assures nie that he has had
prepared a Bill for us in Upper Canada. He says he gave it to the Hon.
A. N. Morin, a (Ilonian) Catholic in conununication with the Rigiit Rev.
Dr. De Charbonnel, The Chief Superintendent read it attentively, and
said nothing again.st its provisions.*
KiNOSTON, 8th of January, 1855. -I- Patrick Phel.vn, Hp. of Carrhoe.

Soon after writing the foregoing Letter, Bishop Phelan ex-
pressed his doubts in regard to Dr. Ryerson's silence, and
addressed the following one to Bishop Charbonnel -.f —

I assure you I have my misgivings about the new School Bill as unobjec-

able to , (Dr. Ryei-son,) and, therefore, I earnestly requested the

Attorney-General, (Macdonald,) to send u.s a coj)y of it, that we might

.send it back to him, with our remarks on the margin of it.

KiNo.sTON, 16th of January, 1855. + Patrick Phelan, Bp. of Carrhoe.

From the Bi.shop of Bytown to Bishop I>. Charbonnel :

Your protestation reached me here in the mid.st of the Imsh. 1 signed and
sent it innneiliately to Bishop Phelan ; were it lost, .sen<l me a duplicate. We
ask merely, and only, for the law which rules Lower Canada. Go to Quebec,
if you can, for you are, amongst us, the moat able to treat the School Question
with the Government.

BvTowN, 2ad of March, 1855. + Jos. Euoknk, Bp. of Bytown.

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF
UPPER CANADA, TO THE GOVERNMENT, IN 1854.

The following documents were submitted to the Government,
in 1854-55, by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Kingston,
Toronto, and Bytown (Ottawa) : —

1. Comparative Table of Legislati(m on Separate Schools in Upper and
Lt)wer Canada.

2. Draft of a School Bill for Upper Canada, prepared by the three
Roma- Catholic Bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and Bytown, (Otbiwa,) in
1854-55.

* To wiiom this Letter was written is not stated— most likely to Bishop
Charbonnel. There must have been some misapprehension in regard to Dr.
Ryerson reading a Separate School Bill, apparently for the first time, and
making no objection to its provisions. This was entirely contrary to his usual
practice in such cases.

+ " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeown," 1886, page 29(5.

.cOi

^>€>

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

IIIM mil 2.5

=i m

ilU IIIIIZ2
=

1.8

125 1.4

M 6" —

►

'¥.

/}.

->?^

"c^

/^ '■?^"

<pm

/m.

Photogre^hic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

i^^4ii.

Q>-

jt_

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Comparative Table of Le<j'mlation on Separate Schools in Upper and Lower
Canada, Prepared by 'the Roman Catholic Bishopfi of Kingston, Toron'o,
and Bytown (Ottawa).*

IN UPPER CANADA.

Dissenters must

or havinu Separate Schools, be twelre\
heads of families ; apply to and be
authorized by persons apposed to them.

Separate
School
Sup-
porters

Can-
not 1

Have a Separate Schjol where a Catholic
teaches a Common School, nor provide
by themselves for the Election of
Trustees '

■A.f 19th Section.

Nor elect for Trustee a Clergyman having \ . g, , gg„f :q„
no Property / '

j^jjjgj. /Contribute to the Common School Build- \ A. 27th Section,
\ ings and Libraries - - - / B.t 4th Section.

^Be less than 21 in Toronto - - A. 22nd Section.

Exercise the same powers as the Common) A. 19th Section,
School Trustees - - - - / B. 1st Section.

Can
noti

Separate
School -j
Trustees

Circumscribe their Schoolb wherever they 1 . miu o »• „

J. I _ "^ j-A. 19th Section.

,1'

Nor r'^ceivo any sliare according to pupu- \ t. i^ j^ o„„t,iQ„

lation f ■

Receive their shares from the Chief Super- 1 . j, jj _„ __ i
intendent, and apply to him for any V ". , *
case they like ....

Avail themselves of the Municipal Assess- \
\^ ment and Collecting ■ ■ ■ J

'Take a census durirg the greatest heat\
and cold /

And twice a year the names of Parents)
and Pupils, witli daily attendance - /

Must'{ The names of Subscribers to Separate)
Schools, having no child thereat - (

And the amount of their Taxes, even\
unknown J

^Collect Taxes from Parents and Subscribers

ditto.

Separate Schools Are visited by Clergymen of different faith A. .32nd Section.

* I have the Original of this Comparative Table and Draft of School Bill, as

Sroposed, in 1854 and 1858, by the tliree Bishops named, in my possession. —
. (1. H.
tN.B.— "A." means the Upper Canada School Act, of 1850; "B.' the
Supplementary School Act, of 1852.

i(!f!

Second Appeal to the Government.

From those pen-dtiea geneml dissatisfaction of Dissenters, who cannot
have either Separate Schools, or the money due for thom ; witness Toronto,
Hamilton, London, St. Catharines, etc., etc.

IN LOWER CANADA.

Dissenter'i may

( In any nuiubei' whatever, head.s of families"
or not, establish .Separate School, with-
out petition to, or authoiization from,
' persons opposed to them

Have Separate Schools even where a Dis-
senter teaches the Common School -

A. * 26th Section,
"B.* 18th Section.

Keep Common School Buildin/^s fc- them-'J
selves, far from being obliged Ko oon-l . „^., ^ .•
tribute to Common School Buildings or j ^- -''"' a«ction.
Libraries ..... j

Elect for Trustee a Clergyman having no) t> /..i t- ,.■

„ t.„ ='•' =■ B. 6th Section.

L property ..... j

Separate School
Trustees.

Are only six in Quebec and Montreal; \ . .„ , ^ . .
larger Cities tlian Toronto ■ - j^' *"*''^ **''"

on.

Have all the same powers as the ComnMjn ) . noii o *•
o u 1 "- i 1 A 26th Section.

School xruatees . . . . f

Circumscribe their Schools as they like B. I8th Section.

May apply to the Chief Superintendent l ,^ ^ .

for any case, and receive from him their } i> loii c< i.-
shares in all School Funds - - j ^- ^^^'^ '^««*^«"'

On ea«y Reports and Certificates

\A. 27th Section,
/ B. 18th Section.

According to their population in Quebec^
and Montreal, iud wherever they are |^A. 26tli and 43rd
please<l with th'i Municipal Assessment, j Sections,
and Collecting .... J

If not, they provide for both, and get It, ,oh u ^■
, ' "^ 1- i ti 1 * } B. 18th Section,

shares according to attendance ■ |

LCannot be visited l)y Clergymen of Rome A. 33rd Section.

the

From those liberal clauses working libei-ally, full satisfaction of Pro-
testants.

For further particulars, see the Pamplilet of Angus DaUas, just pub-
lished, entitled: " T/te Common School Sydem; its Principles, Ojieration
and Restdts." Toronto : Thomps<m & Co., Printei-s, Queen Street Eiist. t

* N.B. — ••A." means the Lower Canada Scliool Act, 9 Viot., Chap. 27 ;
"B." 12 Vict., Chap. 60.

t (Note. — I have referred to this and otlier Pamphlets in a subsocjuent
Chapter J. (i. H.)

«4

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In the Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of the Slst of
December, 1858, ah-eady quoted. Dr. Ryerson proceeds: —

Bishop Charbonnel proceeded to Quebec, a few days after which I was
officially telegraphed to proceed there also. ^ I was there shown the "pro-
testfition " against the l^pi)er Canada School Law, signed by Bishop De
Charbonnel and two other Roman Catholic Bishops.* I went over the
''protestation," item by item, first with the Attorney-General for Upper
Canada (Hon. Jcjhn A. Macdonald), and then with the Attorney-General
for Lower Cfjnada (Hon. A. N. Morin), and .showed that the statements as
to the ine(iuality of the law in regard to Separate Schools in Upper and
Lower Canada were unfounded ; and I examined the (Bishop's) Draft Bill,
clause by clause, and maintained that it was inadmissible, and not at all in
harmony with the professed objects proposed, but an invasion of the rights
of the people and Munici[mlities of Upper Canada. It was then proposed
that I sh(juld meet Bishop De Charbonnel, with the two Attorneys-General.
I did so, and afterwards Bishop De Charljonnel and myself, (by request),
discussed the (juestion alone ; but, after hours of discussion, we were where
we began. I refused to concede any more than I haa proposed in the
three clauses addressed to Mr. Hincks, on the p?"evious September, and he
refused to accept those clauses, or state his demands.

-■\fter several days, I returned from Quebec, supposing that I had, at
least, satisfied the Law Officers of the Crown of the justice of our Separrfte
School Law, as it was, and having the firm l)elief that no Separate School
legislation would take place that Session.

But, that I might leave no means in my power unemployed to maintain
the integrity of our School System, and that I might place on record the
substfince of what I liad stivted verbally at Quebec, I addressed, on my
return to Toronto, a letter to the Hon. Attorney-General John A. Mac-
donald, dated Toronto, 2nd April, 1866, "on the Roman Catholic Bishops'
comparative Table (jf Legislation on Separate Schools, and draft of a new
School Bill for Upper Canada." In that Letter, of over seventeen printed
pages, octavo, I discussed—

1. Bisiiop Charbonnel's statements respecting the School Livws of Upper
and Lower Canada, in regard to Sej)arate Schools.

2. The nature of demands made in Bisliop Charbonnel's Draft of Bill,
."i. Course o; proceeding which I liave pursued, and which Bishop

I'harbonnel has puraued, towai-ds me, in respect to Separate Schools. —
{See OrtTespondence oh Sepiirate Schools, printed by order of the Legislative
Assembly in 1855, pp. 39-55.)

* It is published in the Official Correspondence on Separate Schools,
(pp. 34-37,) with a Draft of Bill annexed, printed by order of the Legislative
Assembly, 1855.

Second Appeal to the Government.

DR. RYERSONS criticism OF THIS TABLE, AND HIS REPLY TO
THE STATEMENT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.

In his Letter to Attorney-Genei'al Macdonald, written on the
2nd of April, 1855, Dr. Ryerson made an elaborate reply to the
statements in this Table. His opening paragraph was as follows :

The statements contivined in tliis ' ' Comparative Table of the Legislation
on Separate Schools," are the same as those which were delivered by Bishop
Charbonnel at the "Catholic Institute" in Toronto, and published in the
Catholic Citizen, in July, before the last general elections, and afterwards
shown by me to be wholly incorrect, in a Letter addressed by me to the
Bishop, and published in the Toronto papers, date<l the 26th of August,
.1854.

The preliminary statement of the three Bishops, to which
Di'. Ryerson refers, and their Draft of Bill, are as follows : —

1. Preliminary Statement of the three Roman Catholic
Bishops.

The only efficient remedy to that inveterate wound in a country which
wants, above all, union and peace for its progress and prosperity, is to
repetvl clauses 19 of the School Act, of 1860, and 4 of the Supplementary
Act, of 1853, of Upper Canada ; to place Separate Schools for every-
thing under only one Official, not opposed to Separate Schools, and give
them an etiual share in all School Funds. On that principle, and on
the Legislation of Lower Canada, is framed the foUowino project of a
School Bill [for LTpper Canada] : —

2. " An Act to better define certain Rights to parties therein
mentioned, as drafted by the three Bishops.

Whereas, tlie (Clauses of the Schi>ol Acts on Separate Schools in Upper
Canada do not secure all that is granted to tlie dissenters in Lower Canada,

I. Be it enacted. That the Clause 19 of the 13 and 14 Vict., Chap. 48,
and Clause 4 of the id Vict., Chap. 186, be, and are, repealed.

IL That in any School Secti<m, when the arrangements for the Common
School shall not be agreeable to any number whatever of dissidents, those
dissidents may signify, in writing, to tlie Cliairman of the Boai-d of Com-
mon School Trustees, their will of having (me or more Separate Schools,
and give in the names of three Trustees, freeholders or not, elected by a
majority at a public meeting, ccmvened liy three heads of families of the
same School Section, and lield according to the clauses 4 and 5 of the
Sohool Act of 1860 : Provided, that no Member of those dissidents shall
be allowed to vote at any Connr.on Scliool election within the School Sec-

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

tion in wliicli their Separate School sliall be eHtablished. (<S(> it is in Lower
Cawida, see 9th Vict. , Chap. 27, Section sUG. )

III. Tliat the said Trustees, by the only fact of the said signification
and election, sluill form de facto a Corporation under the name of ,
liaving all the same rights and powers, as defined and extended in Common
School Acts of Upper Canada and in this Act, subject to the same duties
and penalties as the Board of Common School Trustees, such as defined
in the clauses 12 and 13 of the School Act of 1850, with the exception
that they will be exclusively accountable to the only one Official appointed
nd hoc for copies, reports, etc. : That Board also shall be renewed partly
at each Annual School Meeting, as provided by the clause 3 of the School
Act of 1850. {So it is in Lonvr Canada ; see Longer Canada Act.)

IV. That in localities divided into Wards, each Ward this year, within
two months after the passing of this Act, and every year after, on the
second W^ednesday of January, shall elect one tit person to be a Trustee
of one or more Separate Schools, and hold office until his successor be
elected at the ensuing year, or himself may be re-elected, if he consent
thereto ; that those Trustees shall form one Corporation, under the name
of , having the same rights, subject to the same duties and
penalties as mentioned in the preceding Clause III., witli the same excep-
tion that they will be accountable, for such conditions as may be required,
exclusively to the only official appointed for the superintendence of
Separate Schools ; and that any majority of the MemV)er8 present, at any
meeting regularly held, at which there shall be an absolute majority of the
Members of the Board, may validly exercise all the powers of the Coipora-
tion. — (So it is in Lo\oer Canada, see 9th Vict., Cliap. 29, Section •''>.)

V. That the said Trustees may circumscribe their Separate Scliools as
they like, (so it is in Loiver Canada, 12th Vict., Chap. 50, Section 1 8,) recrnvQ
children of their faith from other School Sections, {so it is in Lower Canada,
9th Vict., Chap. 21, Section 29,) and (pialify Teachers for their Separate
Schools, until tliey have a Separate Normal School.

VI. That tlie said Trustees shall be entitled to receive from their said
s])ecial Superintendent, on a report such as required by him, such sums
out of the Government Grant, out of all the taxes for School and Library
purposes, and out of any Provuicial, or Municipal School Funds, as pro-
portionate to the poj)ulation they represent, according to the last official
census, {so in Lower Canada, 9th Vict., Chap. 27, Section 26; 12th
Vict., Chap. 50, Section 18,) itrovided that those sums shall be expended for
School jiurposes : Provided, also, that should any Municipal Corporation
refuse to jmy any portion of tlu)se sums, either the Chief Superintendent
shall deduct a sum, equal to the deficiency, from the apj)ortionment f)f the
current and following years, until full payment, or the Secretary of the
Board shall refer the case to the Superior Court, who will judge of it, and
«hall order the payment by all legal means.

Second Appeal to the Government.

VII. That such of the j)rovi8ion8 of the Common School Acts of Upper
Canada, as are contrary to the provisions of tliis Act, shall be, and are
hereby, repealed.

VIII. That generally all woi-ds and provisions of this Act, doubts and
difficulties arising about it, shall receive such large, beneficial and lil)eral
construction as will l)est ensure the attainment of this Act, and the enforce-
ment of its enactments, according to their true intent, meaning, and spirit.
— (So in Lotcer Canada, 9th Vict,, Giap. 27, Section 55.)

IX. That the j)resent Act shall take effect from the first of January
of this year, 1855."

We, the undersigned, hereby declare that nothing short of the above
will satisfy the conscientious convictions of the Catholics of this Province.
+ Patrick Phelan, Bp. of Carrhoe, Adm't. Apostolic.
(No date + Armandus Fr. Ma., Bp. of Toronto.

given.) + Jos. Eugene, Bp. of By town.

In his Letter to Hon. Attorney-General John A. Macdonald,
dated the 2nd of April, 1852, and published in the ' Corre-
spondence," laid before the House of Asse»nbly, in 1855, Dr.
Ryerson thus analyses the provisions of this Bill, as proposed
by the three Bishops : —

This Draft of Bill is the first document that Bishop Charbonnel has
printed, stating explicitly what he and his Colleagues demand. This
document speaks for itself ; and no private professions, or disclaimers, as
to what is, or is not, desired, or intended, will be of any value, in the face
of what is here sunnnarily and deliberately demanded as necessjiry to
" satisfy the conscientious ccmvictions of the Catliolics of this Province."

The professed ()bject of Bishop Charlwnnel's statements and Draft of
Bill, is to secure to the Roman Catholics in Ujjper Canada what is enjoyed
by Protestants in Lower Canada ; but the provisions of the Draft of Bill
itself would confer upon Roman Catholics in Upper Canada what is not
enjoyed by Protestants in Lower Canada, or in any other civilized country.
Under the pretence of assimilating the School Law of Upper Canada to
that of Lower Canada, in regard to Separate Schools, an attempt is made
to place tlie property of every Pi-otestant in Upper Canada, the power of
every Municipality, and the School Fund itself, in subjection to the
promoters of Separate Schools, without their being subject to any of the
restrictions and o})ligations to which Separate Schools in Lower Canada
and Public Schools in Ujjper Canada are now subject. An analysis of the
jirovisions of this Draft oi Bill will more than justify this assertion.

1. The first feature of this Di-aft of Bill that I shall notice, is, that
wliich relates to the accountability, or rather non-accountability of SejMirate
School Trustees, and the conditions of tlieir claims upon tlie School Fund.

U, C. Separate School Legislation,

The third and fourtli Sections provide a special Superintendent for Separate
Schools, to whom al(»ne they are t<» make returns, and such returns only as
he may require ; and, on ' a report, such as (the sixth Section prescribes)
required by him,' are Provincial and Municipal School Funds to be paid to
Sepanite School Trustees, and that, according U> the last official census of
the population. Now, every one of those provisions is contrary to the
School Ljvw of Lower Canada. Here is a special Superintendent for Sepa-
rate Schools, wliich does not exist in Lower Canada ; here is no provision as
to the kind of returns, or when the returns shall be made, or how attested,
all of which are prescribed by the School Law of both the Canadas, and
are not left to any one man, and especially a man chosen to promote a
special object. Nothing is prescribed as to the length of time Schools shall
be kept open, in order to share in the School Fund, or how conducted, or
any inspection. Under such provisions, there might be one Separate
School in a Township, or City, that School not kept open more than thiee
days in a year, nor contain more than three pupils, and yet, according to
the Separate School ratio, the Trustees of it receive several hundred pounds
of the School Fund ! It is also here provided that all the money thus to
be given to Separate Schools, shall be paid to the Trustees, and that with-
out any personal respoiisibility, on their part, as to the expenditure of this
money ; whereas, the School Law of Upper Canada does not permit any
part of the School Fund to be paid into the hands of School Trustees at all,
but to legally (jualified Teachers alone, on the written ortlers pf Trustees.
2. The second feature of this Draft of Bill, which I notice, is, that it
annihilates the individuality, and individual right, of choice on the part of
the members of the Religious Persuasion of the Separate Schools.* The
second Section provides that 'any number whatever of dissidents,' in a
Municipality, may establish a Separate School ; the third section makes
three persons sigtiitied by themselves de facto a Corporation ; and the sixth
Section makes them the representatives of the whole population, according
to the last census, of the persuasion to which they belong. Thus, any

* This idea of tlie right of individuals, an<l of independent action on the part
of the supporters of Separate Schools, assumed, as a matter of course, by Mr.
Hincks, in his Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 9th of August, 1852, also runs
through the whole of Dr. Ryerson's writings, in regard to tlie Separate School
(luestion. He points out tliat a different and opposite principle ia prominent in
tne legislation of those who promote Separate Schools. Thus he says : " The
second proviso [in the Acts prepared under the auspices of Col. Tachfe, in 1855,
and of Mr. R. W. Scott, in 18(50-1863] is, that the Roman Catholics, as a body,
shall be defined as 8Ui)porters of Separate Schools, and thus, by law, be
excluded from the Connnon SchcH)ls." riiis was in tlie first project of the Tach6
Bill referred to, — thus depriving every Roman Catholic of the right, or liberty,
of choice as to whether he would support a Common, or a Separate, School ;
and also depriving every Roman Catholic parent of the right, or liberty, of
choice, as to whether he would send his children to the Connnon, or Separate,
School. — (Dr. Hytr8ont " Rtniarlts on tht Separate School Agitation," February,
1865, page IS. )

Second Appeal to the Government.

three PrieHtw, or any other three Members of mich PerHimnion, can erect
theniselveH into a Corptiration, to represent and control the whole popula-
tion of that Persuasion in a Municij^ality, and claim and receive into their
own hands School moneys of eveiy kind, according to the numbers of such
Persuasion, as certified by the last official census, though nine-tenths of
such Persuasion might wish to remain, and have their children educated
with other classes of their fellow-citizens. No such monstrous provision
exists in the School Law of Lower Canada. In the Section of the Act
there, authorizing the dissentients to receive a portion of the assessment^
on their protesting against the assessment iwlopted by the Conunissioners,
(Section 18, of the Act, 12th Vict., Chap. 50,) it is only the parties making
the representation that are included, and they only receive what they them-
selves pay to the Collector. The law there does not make the last ofiicial
census the basis of distribution ; much less does it ignore individual right
of choice. So the School Law of Upper Canada recognizes individual
rights ; deals with each individual for himself, and does not ignore, or
proscribe, him from the Public Schools, and all the privileges connected
with them, except at his own retiuest.

3. The third feature of this Draft of Bill, (for which, see pages 85-87,
ante,) is, that it transfers all the Common School property of Up[)er
Canada from its present occupiers to the Trustees of Separate Schools.
The seventh Section repeals all the Provisions of the present "Conunon
School Acts of Upper Canada " that "are contrary to the provisions of this
Act " ; and the thii'd Section gives to the Trustees of Separate Schools
all the rights and jjowei-s, which the 12th and 13th Sections of the School
Act of 1850 give to the present Trustees of Common Schools ; and the 12th
Section of that Act includes the possession, and control, of all Conunon
School property in l^pper Canada. Truly, this is a very ingenious and
modest provision to " satisfy conscientious convictions ! " And this is far
from being all ; for,

4. A fourth feature of this Draft of Bill is, that it gives the Trustees
of Separate Schools unrestricted power to tax all ])roperty in Upper
Canada, — not only that which belongs to the supporters of Separate
Schools, but that which belongs to every Protestant and every Roman
Catholic in Upper Canada I The present Upper Canada School Ijaw makes
the Trustees of Separate School Corporations, and gives them the sjime
power in the management of their own Schtxils, and in respect to all persons
for whom such Schools are esbiblished, as is jjossessed by the Trustees of
Common Scliools, but the " conscientious convictions " of Bishop de Char-
bonnel, and his Colleagues, recjuire nmch more. They claim by the 3rd
Section of this Draft of Bill, "all the same rights and powers " which the
12th Section of the School Act of 1850 gives to the Connnon Scliool
Trustees. These " rights and powers," thus claimed, are not restricted to
any class, or classes, of persons, but are absolute and universal. The only

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

restriction on tltein iH that which in conttiined in the l.'kli Suction of
the same Act, — a Section imposing a fine of Five [xmnds upon a Trustee
convicted of " knowingly signing a false report," — a Section of no effect in
connection with the other provisions, whiclj relieve Separate Schools of all
inspection, create for them a special Superintendent of tlieir own, and with
no obligation, to make any returns, except sucli as he may rejjuire fi-om
them. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 18th, 29th and Hist Sections of the
School Act of 1850, (13th and 14th Vict., Cha[). 48,) and the 4th, 5th, (Jth,
9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 1.3th and 17th Sections of the Supi)lement!vry School
Act of 1853, (1<) Vict., Chap. 185,) impose various restrictions and obliga-
tions upon Trustees in regard to the exercise of the large powers which the
nineteen clauses of the 12th Section of the School Act of 1850 confer upon
them, — thus preventing them from levying any rate upon the supporters of
Separate Schools ; re(iuiring semi-annual returns ; limiting their applictitions
to Councils, etc. , etc. ; but the 8rd Section of this Draft of Bill discards all
these restrictions and obligations, and demands for the Trustee Coi'[)ora-
tions to be created, absolutely, and without restrictions, all the ' ' rights and
powers," as well as all the property, which the 12th Section of the School
Act of 1850 confers ui)on Connnon School Trustees, the ninth clause
of which Act authorizes them " to apply to the Municii)ality of tlie
Township, or employ their own lawful authority, as they may judge
expedient, for the raising and collecting of all sums authorized in the
manner hereinbefore provided, to be collected from the freelujldei's and
householders of such Section, by rate, according to the valuation of taxable
property, as expressed on the Assessor's, or Collector's, Roll. " Here is no
restriction as to persons, or property ; all are subject to the tfixing power
of the Separate School Trustees, — whom this Draft of Bill makes the sole
School Trustees ! And, in this connection, it is also to be observed that
the proviso in the 2nd Section of this Draft of Bill allows none but dis-
sentients to vote at the election of these Trustees. This is also the pro-
vision of the present law ; but the present law restrains the acts of the
Trustees thus elected, to the projjerty and persons of the dissentients.
This Di-aft of Bill, however, while it restricts the elective franchise to a
particular class, gives the Trustees elected by that class, power over all the
taxable property of all classes of freeholders and householder in the
Section ! Nor is this all, for —

5. A fifth feature of Bishop de Charbonnel's Draft of Bill is, that it
gives the Trustee Corporations it creates, ecjual power over the Municipal
Councils as over individuals. The ninth clause of the 12th Section of the
School Act of 1860, above quoted, gives the Trustees power to apply, at
their pleasure, to the Municipality, to impose School rates ; and the 18th
Section of the same Act makes it the duty of such Council to levy and
collect the amount of rates thus apjjlied for, from all the taxable property
of the Section concerned ; and tlie ttth Section of this Draft of Bill re(iuires

Second Appeal to the Government.

the Specijil Superintendent to pay the uniount of such taxes, or, from the
Chief Superintendent, if the Municiiwlity fails to do so, Tlius is every
MuniciiMility in Uj)per Canada, as well as the School Fund, subjected to
the discreti(inary demands of Separate School Ti'ustees, Nor is even this
all, for —

0. A sixth feature of this Draft of Bill is, that it ties the hands of all
Public School Trustees, (were any to exist, ) from doing anything for their
own School without doing also as much for the Separate Schools ; for the
Hth Section of this Draft of Bill recjuires "all taxes for School and
Library purposes," as well as "any Provincial and Municipal Funds," to
btj paid to the Trustees of Separate Schools, in proportion "to the popula-
tion they represent, according to the last official census." Thus, whatever
might be done by any parties for the erection of Public School-houses, or
the support of Public Schools, they could not niise a penny by tiixes, even
from themselves, without dividing it witli the Trustees of Separate Schools,
who are not subject to corresponding obligations, — who may do nothing
whatever, — and who are to receive, not in proportion to their taxable pro-
perty, but in proportion to population, though the ratio of that population
may be three times that of the taxes they pay, as is the case even in the
Cit} of Toronto.*

I might remark upon other minor features of this Draft of Bill, and
show its operations in other aspects ; but the six features I have exhibited
sufficiently prove that it contemplates the complete destruction of our
Public School Systenj, and the subjection of the School Funds, Munici-
palities and property, and the whole ])opulation of Upper Canada, to a
Religit>us domination, such as is without a parallel in any age, and is
incompatible with the free government or liberties of any Country. I
doubt whether the ingenuity of man could devise, under meeker preten-
sions, and in fewer words, the destruction of the Educational Institutions
and the constitutional liberties of a whole people, and their prostrate sub-
jection under the feet of a Religious Denominaticm. The authors of this
Draft of Bill must have ])re8umed marvellously upon their own powers, and
xipon the simplicity of the Members of the Legislature. I am persuaded
that no person will more [)romptly recoil from and repel such a measure
than the great body of the Roman Catholic Members of tlie Legislature,
and of the community, who will be grieved, and ashamed, to see the worst
imputations of their opponents exceeded by the monstrous propositions

* The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Toronto, in 1852,
claimed £1,150 for their Schools; and, in reporting upon this demand, the
Cotrmittee of the Board of School Trustees state that—" From a recent return
your Committee find that the total annual value of the taxable property in the
City amounts to £186 983 5s. : — of this, the proportion held by Roman Catholics
is .£15,750 10s. The total net amount of School tax for last year, at 2^d. in the
pound, was £1,800; the net proportion contributed by the Roman Catholic
inha]>itants was only £156 lOs."

■I- t

J: 1^1

1 4

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

covertly involvwl in what is demanded by Binhop Charb<jnnel, and his Ci»l-
leagucM, under the pretext of " Hatibfying their conscientious convictions."
The Members of the Legislature now have the issues of the whole
question before them ; and they, as well as the people of Upper Canada
at large, will understand their rights, their interests, and their duty. —
{Letter to the Hon. Attorney. General John A. Macdonald, dated the 2nd of
Ajrril, 1855. Correspondeiwe printed by order of the Ho^uie of Assemhly,
1865, pages 46-49.)

CHAPTER XIII.

THE TACHE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855.

The just yet severe criticism which the Draft of the Separate
School Bill, — which was practically the ultimatum of the three
Bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and Bytown, — called forth from
Dr. Ryerson, and others, prevented its being submitted to the
Legislature at that time. It was, however, re-submitted to the
Government in 1858, apparently without any modification, not-
withstanding Dr. Ryerson 's adverse criticism of it. (See Dr.
Ryerson's private Letter to me, of the 30th of January, 1858,
pages 121, 122, post.) The duty of preparing a less crude and
sweeping measure was, apparently, entrusted to the Hon. L. T.
Drummond, M.P.

This Drummond Bill was introduced into the Legislative
Council by the Hon. Sir E. P. Tach^. In his fifth Letter to the
Hon. George Brown, dated the Slst of December, 1858, Dr.
Ryerson thus refers to the circumstances under which this
Tachd Bill was submitted to the Legislature ; —

This Letter, (i.e., the one addressed to the Hon. John A. Macdonald,
Attorney-General, on the 2nd of April, 1855, — with the exception of the
two telegrams, which I will give presently. ) was the bvst Letter I wrote
to any Member of the Government, (at that time, ) on the Separate School
Law.

Then, as to the sequel. About the middle of May, six weeks after I had
returned fr(»m Quebec, a Separate School Bill was introduced by Sir E. P.
Tach^ into the Ijegislative Council, repealing all preceding Separate School
provisions of the law, and substituting one Act in place of them, including

The TACHti Separate School Bill of 1855.

the three cLiuses, whicli I luul tmiiHiuitted to Mr. Hincks in the previous
September. Tliat Bill wuh profesHedly doHigiied to (isHimilnto the Sepiirate
School LuiWH of Upper and Lower Canada, and waH, iijion the whole, drawn
up with great fairness, — iinpf)sing upon the supporters of Separate Schools
several forms and recjuirements which had never before been imposed upon
them, and simply because such forms and re({uirements hud been imposed
upon the supporters of Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada. But the
Bill contained a provision, (which I had always resisted,) to compel the
Municipalities to be tax-collectors for Separate Schools, and for giving
Separate Schools an undue share of School money ; and also another pro-
vision for establishing Sej)arate Schools of every kind, without limit, such
as would have divided the Pn^testjint population into endless jjarties, and
destroyed the School System. Tlie Hon. L. T. Drummond, Attijrney-
General for Lower Canada, is said to have prepared this Bill, while Col.
Tache' introduced it into the Legislative Council, — there being then, (as was
stated,) no Upper Canada Member of Government in the Council.

As to the manner and instruments of preventing that Bill from passing
in its original form, and striking out its objectionable clauses, the following
facts will show. My first intelligence of the Bill was by the Telegram, of
whicli the following is a copy, addressed to me by Mr. J. W. Gamble,
M.P. :—

" Quebec, May 18th, 1855, — To Dr. Ryerson, — Are you aware of provisions
of Government Bill, relation Separate Schools, introduced into the Legislative

Council ? Copy mailed your address to-day.

"J. W. Gamble."
To the above I replied forthwith : —

" To J. W. Gamble, Esq , — I have not seen the Bill, and know nothing of it."

On receiving a copy of the Bill from Mr. Gamble, I addressed the follow-
ing Telegram to the Hon. Attorney-General John A. Macdonald, Quebec : —

" Have seen Mr. Tach^'s Separate School Bill. High Church Episcopalians
alone are gainers. All others are losers. In the 14th Section, the person
should 1)6 of religious persuasion of Separate School. It should be so worded
as not to include Municipal (-oimcil Assessment. Why not restrict the 2nd
Section, and the whole Bill, to Roman Catholics alone ?

"Toronto, May 19, 1855. " E. Ryerson."

After further considering the Bill, I addressed the following Telegram to
the Hon. Attorney-General Macdonald, Quebec : —

" Mr. Tach^'s Roman Catholic Separate School Bill, amended as suggested,
and confined to Catholics, is harmless. Otherwise destroys School System.
Any ten persons, ubing name of any Persuasion, can avoid paying all School
taxes by complying with forms of Bill, and adopting, as their's, any Lady's, or
other. School, to which they send, or subscribe, a few shillings, or pence.

" Toronto, May 22nd, 1855. " E. Ryerson."

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

To the foregoing, I received the following reply : —

" To Rkv. Dr. Ryerson, Toronto,- I agree with you, and will make altera-
tions aa you suggest..

" '^UBBKc, May 22nd, 1855. "John A. Macdonald."

What influence the above Telegrams had in striking out the worst
features of the Bill, and especially when the Attorney-General afterwards
aniende<l the Bill, aa they suggested, the reiuler can easily judge.

The Tacht^ Bill passed the Legislative Council on the 21st of
May, but not without the following Protest from the Hon.
James Crooks, of Flamboro', Father of the Hon. Adam Crooks,
Q.C., the tirst Minister of Education for Ontario: —

Dissentient :

Because the settled policy of every Government is to provide that all of
the subjects live in amity and good-fellowship, one with another, and that
whatever differences may exist among them, as to forms of Religion, or any
other matter, it is doeme.l good policy that the yt)uth, as far as possible, be
brought together at Public Schools for Education at an early period of life,
leaving to their Parents, or other Guardians, the duty of instructing them
in the forms of Religion they profest , and the principles of the Christian
Religion.

That following out these judiciims principles, the Imperial Govermuent
have erected and endowed a number of [Queen's] Colleges in Ireland, [one
each in the Provinces of Ulst«r, Munster, and Connaught.] Some Pro-
fesst>rs of Religion, not Protestnnt, are there successfully employed, and
heretoft>re with perfect success : Whereas, by passing the present Bill, the
asperity of feeling, one towaixls another, engendered by different forms of
Religion, is [terpetuated, and the policy of the Imperial (Tt)vernnient set at
naught.

Jameh Crooks.

LE(iisLATivE Council, 2l8t of May, 1855.

The Taciie Bill, as it passed the Legislr.tive Council, was
sent down to the House of Assembly, and, on the 22nd of
May, it was moved by th" Hon. John A. Macdonald, Attorney-
General, West, seconded by the Hon. William C'aylcy, that the
Bill be read a first time. In amendment to this motion, Mr.
(Jeorge Bi'own, seconded by Mr. Joseph Hartman, moved that
it be read that day six months. The votes of the Upper Canada
Members on this motion were : Brown, Christie, Delong, Eraser,
Gand)le, Hartman, Langton, Lumsden, Mackenzie, Mathewson,
Merritt, Patrick, Rankin, Rolph and Wright (15), and Darehe

The Tache Separate School Bill of 1855.

and J. B. E. Dorion, of Lower Canada ; total i 7. The Upper
('anada nays were : Bowes, Larwil!, Powell, Cayley, Church,
Clai'ke, Crysler, J. A. Macdonald, R. McDonald, Sir A. Macnab,
John Ross, James Ross, Shaw, H. Smith, Southwick, Sperce,
Stevenson (16). Lower Canada nays, 45 : total, 61.

On a vote for a " cjill of the House " on the same day, to
consider the Bill, the Upper Canada yea votes were: Aikens,
Brown, Christie, Belong, Eraser, Gamble, Hartman, Langton,
Lumsden, Mackenzie, Merritt, Patrick, Rankin, Rolph and
Wright (15), and 6 Lower Canada yea votes, viz. : Bcllingham,
Darche, DeWitt, J. B. E. Dorion, A. A. Dorion and Papin;
total, 21. The Upper Canada nay votes were: Bowes, Cayley,
Cluu'ch, Clarke, Larwill, .1. A. Macdonald, R. McDonald, Sir A.
N. Macnab, Powell, John Ross, James Ross, Shaw, H. Smith,
Spence and Stevenson (14), and 41 Lower Canada nay votes;
totiil, 55. The following is a copy of the Tache Bill, as passed :

TiiK Tache Sei'akate Scho<»l Bill ok 1855, (18 Vict., Chap. 131.)

Whereas it is expe«lient h» iiinund the laws relatinj^ to SejMirato Scliools
in Upper Canada, so far as tlteij affect the lioman Catholic inhabituutt
thereof: (h) Be it therefore enacted l)y the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty,
by anil witli the advice and consent (»f tlie Legislative Coiuicil, and of the
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, constituted ami as.send)led
by virtue of, and under the authority of, an Act passed in the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of (ireat B itain and Irclrind, and intituled, An Act to
reitnifc the J*roriiu-cs of Upper <ui(/ Loirer Caiiaiht, and for the Government
of Canada, and it is hereby enacteil by the authority of the same, as
follows : —

I. The Nineteenth .Section of " ^/ic Upper Canada School Act of IS50,"
and the Fourtli Section of " //u' Upper Canada Supplcmentarit School Act of
1853," and all other provisions of the sjiid Acts, or »>t any other Act, incon-
sistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby i-epealed, .so /(tr on?;/ na
then seceraUti niatc to the lionian ddholics of Upper Canada {b). [13 and
14 Vict., Chap. 48, !< xix. 14 and 15 Vict., Chajt. 111. 1(> Vict., Chap.
185, Ji iv., repealed. I

IL Any nuMd>er (»f persons, not less than ^^cp heads of famiiies, being
freeholders, or hon.seltohlers, resident within aiiij School Section, of any
Township, or within an\i Ward (famj Citij, or Tonn,(<t) a)al heimj licman
Cfitholics, (/») may convene a public meeting of i)ersons desiring to esUvblish

(a) Amended in the Tjegislative Council.
(f>) Amended in tlie House of Asweiubly.

i'i-l
I jji

ill

1 .Ilk

li
1

■

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

H Separate School for Roman Catholi'.s (h) in sucli School Section, or
Ward, (b) for the election of Trustees for the niiinageinent thereof.

III. A majority of the persons present, not less than ten in nnmber, (h)
heim/ freehoUhrs, or householders, (a) and heintj Eoma)t, Catholics, (6) at any
such meeting may elect three persons, resident mthin siieh Section, (a) to
act as Trustees for the management of such Separate School, and any
person, heiiuf a British subject, (b) may be elected as such Trustee, whether
he he a freeholder, or householder, or not.

IV. A notice addressed to the lleeve, or to the Chairman of the Board
of Common School Trustees, in the Township, City, or Town, in which such
Section is situate, may be given by all persons resident nnthin snch Section,
beinfi freeludders, or householders, and beiiuj lioma)i Catholics, (b) favourable
to the esbiblishment of such Separate ScIkjoI, whether they were present
at such meeting or not, declaring that they desire to establish a Separate
School in such School Section, and designating, ])y their names, professitms,
and places of abode, the ])ersons elected, in the manner aforesjiid, as
Trustees for the management theret)f.

V. Every such notice shall be delivered to the proper Otticer by one of
the Trustees so elected, and it shall be tlie duty of the Officer receiving the
same to endorse thereon the date of the recepticm thereof, and to deliver a
copy of the same, so endorsed and duly certified by him, to such Trustee.

VI. From the day of the date of the reception of every such notice, the
Trustees therein named shall be a Body Corporate under the name of "The
Trustees of the Roman C'atliolic Se))arate School, for the Section Number

, in the Township, (City, or Town, as the case inay be,) in the
Ctmntyof ."*

VII. If a Separate School, or Separate Schools, shall have been established
in more tluin one Ward of anij Cit>i, or Tonm, the Trndees of sttch Separate
Schools may, if they think fit, fonn an union of such Separate Schools, (b)
and, from the day of the date of the notice in any public newspa[)er, pub-
lished in such City, or Town, announcing such union, tft^ Trndeea of tha

* In the original (5th and 8th Soction.s of the JJill, ns introduced into the
Legislative Council, the words " Episcopalian," and "Jewish, Coloured," etc. ,
"as the case may be," were inserted. In the "Rough Draft of a Bill,"
the corresponding words used were " Denominations," and " Denominational
.Schools." Tl' ; word "Episcopalian" was, in each case, altered in the Legis-
lative Council to " Protestant, In the House of Assembly, all of these words
were struck out. Tlie 7th Section, as printed in the original Bill, was struck
out in the House of Assemblj-. It was as follows: " VII. Persons favourable
to the establishment of Separate Scliools, sliall elect one person only to i)t a
Trustee for the management of one, or more, Separate Schools in each Ward of
every City and Town, in Upper Canada, divided into Wards; and every
Trustee so elected shall form a Body Corporate, imder the name of the Trustees
of the Roman Catholic, JUpiscopaliaii , [altered to " Protestant,"] Jewish,
Coloured., School, etc., an the case may be, (struck out in the Council,] Separate
School for Ward of the City, Town, Village, as the case may be, of

, in the County of . (See Mr. Elmsley's Lettei-, page llV, post.)

The Tachi^: Separate School Bill of 1855.

several Wards shall, together, (b) form a Body Corporate, under the title <b)
of "The Doard of Trustees of the Roman Catholic United (h) Separate
Schools for the City, (or Town,) of , in the County of ."

VIII. All Trustees elected, and forming a Body Corporate under tins
Act, shall have the same power to impose, levy and collect, School Rates,
or Subscriptions, upcm, and from, persons sending children to, or subscrib-
ing towards, the Support of Separate Schools, and all other powers in
respect of Separate Schools, as the Trustees of Conuuon Schools have and
possess under tlie provisions of the Acts hei-einbefore cited in respect of
Common Schools ; and they shall also l)e bound to perform all duties
recpiired of, and shall be subject to all penalties provided against, the
Trustees of Comii.on Schools ; and Teachers of Separate Schools shall be
li(Me to all penalties provided against Teachers of Common Schools.{b)

IX. All Trustees elected under this Act shall remain in office until the
second Wednesday of the month of January next, following their electicm,
on which day in each year an Annual Meeting shall be lield, connnencing
at the hour of ten of the clock in the forenocm, for the election of Trustees
for Separate Schools theretofore esbiblished but no Truscee shall })e
re-elected at any such Meeting without his consent, unless after the expira-
tion of four years from the time when he went out of office.

X. All Trustees elected under this Act shall allow children from other
School Sections to be received into any Separate School under their man-
agement, at the request of the parents, or lawful guaixlians, of such
children, provided snch children, or their parents, or guardians, are Roman
Catholics; and no children attending such School shall be included in the
return hereafter provided to be made to the Chief Superintendent of Schools,
nuless tliey shdl be Roman Catholics. (b)

XI. A majority of the Trustees in any Township, or Village, or of the
Board of Trustees in any Town, or Village, elected under this Act, shall
have power to grant Certificates of Qualification to Teachers of Separate
Schools under their management, and to dispose of all School Funds of
every description coming into their hands for School pin-poses.

XII. Every person pa]iing rates, ii^hether as proprietor, or tenant, (a) who
on or before the first day of February of any year, shall have give" nf>tice
to the Clerk of the Municipality in which any Separate School is situated,
that he is a Roman Catholic, and a {b) supporter of such Separate School,
shall 1)0 exempted from the payment of all rates imposed, within svch Ward,
or School Section, (b) for the support of Connnon Schools, and of Conunon
School Libraries, for the year then next following, and every Clerk of a
Municipality, upon receiving a}uj such notice, shall deliver a Certificate to the
person giving the same, to the effect that s)i,ch notice has been given, and
slwunng the date of such notice y (a) but any person who shall fraudulently
give any such notice, or shall wilfully make any false statement therein,
shall not secure any exen»ption thereby, but shall, on the contrary, be

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

liable to a penalty of Ten Pounds currency, recoverable, with costs, before
any Justice of the Peace, at the suit of the Municipnlity intereste*! :
I'rovided cUicays, that nothing herein contained shall ej-empt any such person
from paying any rate for the support, of Common Schools, or Common School
Libraries, or for the erection of a School-house, or School-Itorises, which shall
haiK been imposed before stich Separate School icas eslahlished. (b)

XI^T. Every Separate School estaljlished under this Act shall be entitled
to a share in the Fund annually granted l^y the Legislature of this Province
for th; support of Comwion (6) Schools,* according to the average number
of pupils attending such School during the twelve next jn-eceding months,
or during the number of months which may have elai)sed from the establish-
ment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average
number of pupils attendingt School in the same City, Town, Village, or
Towhship : Provided always, that no Separate ScIkjoI shall be entitled to a
shai in any such fund unless the average number of pupils so attentling
the same be fifteen or more, (periods of epidemic, or contagious, disease
excepted : Prcrided, (dso, that nothituj herein contained shall entitle any
such Separate School within any City, Toum, Village, w Township, to any
part or portion of School moneys arising or accruing from local assessment for
Common Sclwol purposes within any such City, Totcn, Village, or Toini-
ship, (a) or the County, or Union of Counties, unthin which such Town,
Village, or Township, is situate : Provided, also, that if any Separate School
shall not have been in operation for a rchole year at the time of the apportion-
ment, it shall not receive the sum to tvhich it ivould have bee^i entitled for a
whole year, but onii/ an amount proportional to the time during which it has
been kept open.(b)

XIV. The Trustees of each Sejiarate School shall, on or before the
thirtieth day of June and the thirty-firat day of December of each year,
transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Schools for tapper Canada a ci>rrect
statement of the names of the children attending such School, tt>gether
with the average attendance during the six next preceding months, or
during the luimber of months which may have elapsed since the est^iblisli-
ment thereof, and the number of months it sh<dl Jiave been so kept open, (6)
and the Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the propoi-tion
which the Trustees of such Separate Schools will be entitled to receive <jut
of sucli Legislative Grant, J and shall pay over the amount thereof to such
Trustees, and every such statement shall be verified under oath, before any

* After the word " Schools," the following words were struck out in tlie
House of Assembly : "and in any f\nid arising from any other source whatso-
ever, set apart for Common School purposes."

t After the word "attending," the words, " the Conunon," were also struck
out,

:J: After the word "grant," the words, "or other fund, as aforesaid, accord-
ing to law," were struck out in the House of Assembly. The words, "any
Justice of the Peace," were substituted for the words " the Judge of."

The TAcHf^: Separate School Bill of 1855.

Justice of the Peace (/>) for the County, or union of Counties, within which
such Separate Scho«il is situate, by at leivst one of tlie Trustees making the
same.

XV. But the election of any Trustee, or Trustees, made under this Act,
shall becfiuie void, unless a Seiwimte School he estal)lished under his, or
their, management, within two months from tlie election of such Trustee,
or Trustees.

XVI. And no person subscribing towards the suppcjrt of a Separate
School, or sending children tliereto, shall be allowed to vote at the election
of any Trustee of a Connnon School in the City, Town, Village, or Town-
ship, in which such Separate School is situate.

PASSAGE OF THE TACHE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL, 1855.

Several aniendineiits were made to the Bill, as I have shown,
during its passage tlirough the House of Assembly, and these
amendments, [as noted in the Bill, on pages 9.5-100,] having
been concurred in by the Legislative Council, the Bill received
the Royal assent on the 30th of May, 1.S56.

Speaking of the passage of the Bill by the Legislature, at
this time, Dr. Ryerson, in his fifth Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, of the 'ilst of December, 1858, said : —

. It is of little consecpience whether Membei-s of the Opposition,
or others, prevented the Bill from passing, as originally introduced. The
School System of Upper Canada is ecjually the property of all parties, not
of one party. . . . The (jrovermnent, and the Catholic and French
Membei-s of the House, could not d<» otherwise than listen to the remon-
strances of their own friends, and especially of Members of the Church of
England, which the Bill, as introduced, was adapted to conciliate and
favour. But, to the lionour of the Church of England, and to the licmour
of Canada, and especially t^t the honour of the (ientlumen themselves, the
Episc(»palians stood ft)rward as a phalanx against the seductions presented
to them by the provisions of the Bill as introduced. ... I feel it
no less my duty than pleasure, to express my own gratitude, and, I
believe, that of Upper Canada generally, to Messrs. (ianible, Stevenson,
W. B. Robinson, Langton, and Crawford, for the earnest and noble stsind
they took on that occasion as chamjtions of the unmutilated Common
School System of Ui)per Canada.

In a private Letter to me in June, 1855, Dr. Ryerson said : —

'"Xti

Note. —The 18th Section, i)n)vi(liiig for a " large, beneficial and liberal con-
struction " of the Act, was struck out as unnecessary in the House of Assembly,
The original 7th Section, relating to Ward Schools, was also struck out ; so
that the number of Sections in the Act was reduced from cigliteen to sixteen.

100

U, C. Separate School Legislation.

I met Mr. George Brown, M.P., on the boivt this afternoon. He says
that the Separate School Bill underwent variou.s changes, — all to the
disadvantage of the Supporters of Separate Schools ; — that the Bill, as
finally passed, was (|uite a different Bill from the original one which we
have ; that tlie substivmial debate on the subject took place at the seccmd
reading of the Bill.

Hamilton, 8th of June, 1855. E. Ryerson.

SIK .JOHN MACDONALD AND THE TACH^ SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT.

Mr. Josepli Pope, in his " Memoirs of the Right Honourable
Sir Jolid Alexander Macdonald," thus refers to Sir John's
proceedings in reganl to the Tache Separate School Bill of
1855 :—

Parliament, which had adjourned on the 18th of December, 1854,
re-assembled in Quebec on the 23rd of February, 1855.

. . . A Measure was passed, (during the Sessitm of 1855,) dealing
with the Scho(>l System of Upper Canada. The latter was introduced into
the As8en»l)ly by Mr. Macdonald, who stjvted that the principle of the Bill
was not new, for already, under the law. Separate Schools existed in both
sections of the Province, so that the people would keep <mly, in a more
acceptable form, that which they already had. Petitions, numerously
signed in Upper Canada, had urged upon the Government and Legislature
the necessity for a change.* The old law jjrovided, that, if twelve house-
holders petiti(med for a Separate School, the Municipal Council was
compelled to grant it. The Bill introduced by Mr. Macdonald enacted
that five heads of families could estfiblish a Separate School ; that Trustees
would be elected, precisely as before. The old law was retained to this
extent, that Roman Catholics might set up a School in a Protestant com-
munity, or Protestants in a Roman Catholic community, or Jews, or
Coloured people, in either ; t but Protestants could not dissent from Pro-
testants, nor Roman Catholics from Roman Catholics.

Mr. Macdtmald sjiid, tliat he was as desirous as any (me of seeing all
children going togetlier to the Conunon Schools, and, if he could have his
own way, there would be no Separate Schools. But we should respect the
oi)inions of others who differed from us, and they had a right to refuse to
accept such Schools as they could not conscientiously approve of. It was
better to allow children to be taught at School such religious principles as
their jmrents wished, so long as they learned, at the same time, to read

* The majority of the Petitions from Upper Canada was against, rather than
for, the Separate School Bill. — J. G. H.

tAll reference to "Jews, or Coloured people," was struck out of the Bill
by the House of Assembly, (see page 96, ante). — J. C. H.

The Tach^ Separate School Bill of 1855.

101

newspapers and books, and to become intelligent and useful citizens. —
{Vol. I., pages 137, W8.)

In a subsequent part of the " Memoirs," Mr. Pope says : —

I have already shown what was Mr. Macdonald's position in regard t<>
the question of Se})arate Schools. The following ([notation, from one of
his speeches, delivered about this time, presents his views on the subject
very clearly : —

I have called the attention of the people to the fact that the 19th Clause
of the Connnon School Act of 1860, became law long, long before I was in
the Government at all ; so that the merit of it, or the blame of it, is not
with me, but rests entirely with the Baldwin-La Fontaine Administration,
as it was brought in under the auspices of Mr. Baldwin, particularly, —
that pure, and honest, man, — of whom I always love to speak, though we
were opposed in {)olitics. And, if it be asked : why we die' not repeal it, I
answer, in the first place, that it is one thing to give a right, or a franchise,
and another thing to deprive people of it ; and, in the second place, we
have the indisputable evidence of a disinterested witness, — a man whf>
cannot be suspected of any leaning towards Popery, — I mean, the Rev. Dr.
Ryerson, a Protestjvnt clergyman himself, at the head of the Common
School System of Upper Canada, — a person whose whole enei-gies have
been expended in the cause of Education, — who states deliberately to the
people of Canada, that the Separate School Clause does not retard the
progress, or the increase, of Common Schools ; but that, on the contrary,
it " widens the basis of the Common School System." If I thought that it
injured that System, I nmst say that I would vote for its repeal to-morrow.

You nmst remember, also, that Lower Canada is decidedly a Roman
Catholic country : — that the Protestant population of Lower Canada is a
small minority, and, if Protestant School" v.ere not allowed there, our
Protestant brethren in Lower Canada would be obliged to send their
children to be educated by Roman Catholic Teachers. Now, I don't know
how many Protestrtnts, or how many Roman Catholics, I may Ije at this
moment addressing, but I sjiy that, as a Protesbint, I should not be willing
to send my son to a Roman Catholic School, while I think a Roman
Catholic should not be compelled to send his to a Protestfint one.

Li Lower Canada, the Teachers are generally the Roman Catholic Clergy,
and, of course, it is their duty to teach what they consider truth, and to
guard their pupils against error. But, tlie system in vogue there is more
liberal than even ours, in that it not only permits the estjiblishment of
Protestant Schools for Protestant children, but allows the whole Municipal
machinery to be employed to collect the rates t'< maintain them. In dis-
cussing this subject, I have always found that, when it is fairly laid before
the people, they always, by tlieir applause, signify their approbation of the
consistent course of the Government in regard to it. — {Pages 170, 171, and
172, Vol I.)

102

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Ill

CHAPTER XIV.

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1855.

1. From the Hon. John A. Macdonahl , Attorney-General, to
Dr. Ryeraon, Chief Superintendent of Education.

I have this day given notice of the Bill to amend the law respecting
Grammar and Common Schools. The Clause relating to . . . Separate
Schools has been omitted. It is not yet decided wliether that subject shall
be touched during the present Session, or deferred until the meeting (of
the Legislature) at Toronto, in February, 185(>.

The Clauses relating to Vagrant Children have likewise been omitted,
as I do not wish to insert any clause that might impede the passjige of
the Bill. [Note. — This subject was again dealt with in 1862. See the
Church of England Separate Scliool proceedings of that year, in a separate
Chapter.— J. G. H.]

I think it is likely that we will send the Bill to a Sjjecial Committee, as
you suggest. I shall have that settled in a day or two, when I will write
to you, or, perhaps, send a telegram. If a Special Committee is struck,
your testimony will undoubtedly be retpiired.

Quebec, 2nd of March, 1855. John A. Macdonald.

2. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgina.

Dr. Ryerson, havi.ig been summoned to Quebec, sent the
following Telegram to me while there : —

Yours received. . . . All right about Separate Schools. . . .
Prepare copies of all Correspondence with Suj)porters of Separate Schools
since 1852.

Quebec, 2nd of April, 1865. E. Ryerson.

3. Letter from Bishop Phelan, (as given on pages 296 and

297 of the '• Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeoivn") to

the Hon. Attorney-General Macdonahl, as follows: —

Although you informed me in your last Letter that it is, and always was,
your object to enable the (Roman) Catholics to educate their youth in their

Private and Confidential Correspondence. 103

)ls

own way, it does not appear, however, at present, tliat you intend making,
at this Session, any of the amendments in the present School Act wliich
you recjuired me to communicate in writing to you.* If this was the case,
wliat was the use of asking me for my views on tlie subject of Sepirate
Schools ? I am awai'e of your difficulties on this point ; the Chief Superin-
tendent of Schools for Canada West, especially being opj)osed to any .
measure that would be favourable to our Separate Schools, and conse-
quently determined to prevent, if possible, the amendments we require.
But, I trust, that neither you nor the Ministry will be prevented from
doing us justice by your allowing us the sjime rights and privileges for our
Separate Schools as are granted to the Protestants of Lower Canada. If
tliis be done at the present Session, we will have no reason to complain ;
and the otlium thi-own upon you of being controlled by Dr. Ryerson will
be e^cct'jally removed. If, on the contrary, the voice of our opponent,
[Dr. Ryerson,] upon this subject of Separate Schools, is more attended to
and respected than the voice of the (Roman) Catholic Bishrips, the Clergy,
and nearly 200,000 of Her Majesty's loyal (Roman) Catholic subjects,
claiming justice for the education of their youth, surely the Ministry that
refuses us such rights cannot blame us for being displeased with them,
and, consequently, for being determined to use every constitutional means
to prevent their future return to Parliament. This, of course, will be the
disagi'eeable alternative to which we shall be obliged to have recourse, if full
justice be not done us at this Session, with regard to our Separate Schools.
Kingston, 16th of April, 1855. + Patrick Phelan, Bp. of Carrhoe.

This Letter, the writer of tlie " Life of Archbi.shop Lynch "
states, " was sent to the Attorney-General, (Hon. John A. Mac-
donald,) witli the concurrence of the other two Bishops of
Canada Wi .st," — i.e., of Toronto and Bytown.

It will be noticed that the tone of some of these Letters,
chiefly those from the Bishops, and which refer either to Mem-
bers of the Government, or to Dr. Ryerson, in 18.58-1855, are
singularly peremptory and menacing in their tone.

In the foregoing Letter, Bishop Phelan reproaches Attorney-
General Macdonald with " being controlled by Dr. Ryerson,"

* The " aineiidments " to which Bishop Plielan here refers may be those
contained in the "Draft of a School Bill for Upper Canada, pi-epared by the
three Bishops of King.ston, Toronto, and Ottawa, and intituled : 'An Act to
better define certain rights to parties therein mentioned,' " accompanied by
a " Comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools in Upper and Lower
Canada," (pages 85-87, rtw/fi.) No other measure of the kind appears to have
been submitted by tlie Bishop at this time. That Bill of 18o4 seems to have
been again submitted to the Attorney -(Jeneral in 1858, as mentioned to me, in
a i)rivate Letter fi'om Dr. Ryerson, dated the 30th of January, 1858, pages 121,
122, post.

ill)

104

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

and warns him that, " if the voice of " this, " our Opponent
. . . . is more attended to and respected than the voice of
the Catliolic Bishops, Clergy, and " people, ..." every
constitutional means" will be used "to prevent" the return of
the Ministry "to Parliament." He also refers to the Chief
Superintendent as being especially " opposed to any measure
that would be favourable to Separate Schools, and, conse-
quently, determined to prevent, if possible, the ainendments
we require."

Language of this kind seems strange, coming, as it did, from
one who, from his position, would naturally insist on those
" in authority under him " discharging their duty fearlessly
and conscientiously ; and yet, for doing so, as no one could
question, both Attorney-General Macdonald and Chief Super-
intendent Ryerson are spoken to, and of, in this Letter, in a
manner the very reverse of just, fair, or right, and with an
assumption of the power to control their free action, which
neither of them could either submit to, or acknowledge.*

4. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson:

The press ut business . . prevented me from writing to you

before. Your official Letter, dated the 2nd of April, arrived after the
other papers relative to Separate Schools had l)eeii laid before the House.
— [Page 87, ante.^

It is just as well, as the new (Separate School) Bill, while it pleased Dr.
de Charbonnel, could do no harm ; and it is just as well to avoid contro-
versy on the subject.

I was pleased to learn, by your Telegram, that this new Bill, as limited
to Roman Catholics, is better than the old Law. I stated so in the House,
on your authority, and said, that ' ' no one could doubt your devotion to
the cause of Common Schools ; and no one could fear your over-attachment
to Sectarian Institutions." George Brown and John Lsington were both
obliged to admit that, with the amendments I consented to, tht> Bill was

* The testimony of Senator Scott, as given on page 60, ante, is in striking
contrast with this language of Bishop Phelan. Mr. Scott, who had to do with
Dr. Ryerson in difficult and delicate negotiations, and conferences, on the
Separate School (juestion, says that lie " always found him ready to meet the
wishes of the minority ; that he exhibited no prejudice or bigotry. . . .
The idea that the Chief Superintendent was not friendly to the Separate School
System . . . was a mistake, because he was sincerely anxious to do what
was really fair to make the [Separate School] Law workable. — (Speech in fhe
Senate in 1894.)

Private and Confidential Correspondence. 105

was

quite innocent ; and tliey only votetl against the pannage of the Bill, as a
proof of their tliHlike to Separate Sch<K>lH on any condition. So we have
got well out of that ditticulty.

(There was quite a combination of parties in the House against the
junction of the Grammar and Common School Boanls in Cities, Towns,
otc. ;* and so many remonstrances were made against it by Grammar
School Trustees, that I was threatened with a goml deal of difficulty from
both sides of the House. As there was no pressing necessity for the
change, and I did not want to risk my Bill, I struck out the clauses, and
we got the Bill through without difficulty. When wo meet in Toront<v
next Winter, we am talk (jver the required improvements in the School
Bills at our leisure.

(Your Tour in Europe will, doubtless, suggest to you many improvements
in practice and theory, which you may want the Legislature to sanction.
To-day I reccjnnnended your application for leave of absence to the favour-
able consideration of His Excellency. . . .

(With every wish that your proposed journey may set you up again, and
enable you to continue your public services in the cause of Education with
undiminished vigour. I am, etc.,)

Quebec, 5th of June, 1855. Joh:; A. Maci>onald.

5. From the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryeraon: —

Our Separ.ite School Bill, which is as you know, quite ha rmless, passed
with the approbation of our Friend, Bishop de Charbonnel, who, before
leaving here, formally thanked the Administration for doing justice to his
(Jhurch.

He has, however, got a new light since his return to Toronto, and now
says that the Bill won't do. I nee<l not point out to your suggestive mind,
that, in any article written by you on the subject, it is politic to press two
l)i>ints on the attention of the public.

First. That the Bill will not injuriously affect the Common School
System. (This for the people at large. )

Second. That the Separate School Bill of 1855 is a substantial boon to
the Roman Catholics. (This is to keep them in good humor.)

You see that, if the Bishop makes the Roman Catholics believe that
tlie Separate School Bill is of no use to them, there will be a renewal of
the unwholesome agitation, which I thought was allayed. I send you the
Bill as passed.

P.S. — I received your Telegram.

Quebec, 8th of June, 1865. John A. Macdonald.

* This paragraph of Sir John A. Macdonald's Letter is inserted on account
of the recent revival of the question in the City of Toronto. Dr. Ryeraon was
so strongly opposed to the union of Grammar and Common School Boards, that
he provided in a later Act for the severance of such unions.

1D6

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

In June, 1855, after the ptvssage of the Tach^ Roman Catho-
lic Separate School Bill, Dr. Ryerson left for Europe, to
purchase articles for the Educational Museum, and to make
arrangements in regard to the purchase of Books for the
School Libraries.

G. Letter from J. George Hoclgma to Dr. Ryer8on,(in England):

I Mend you by innil six copies of the tirat part of the Correspondence on
Sepftnite Schools. . . . The Catliolic Citizen, of this City, has, to-day,
rather a weak article ridiculing Protestjints for their opposition to the
Roman Catholic Separate Schools, and holding Mr. George Brown and his
friends responsible for the alterations n.ade in tlie Bill. . . . The
Editor .says that the <jbject of Roman Catliolics, in asking for tlie measure,
was "not so much to place (Roman) Catholics in an isolated position, in an
educational point of view, as to sepaiivte them from an unchristian system
<if Education. ...

The Prescott Telvxjmph has a Letter in it from the Rev. E. P. Roche,
Itoman Catholic Priest, to Mr. Wm. Patrick, M.P.P., in reply to his
statement in the House of Assembly, tliat he (Roche) had asked him to
vote for a Special Superintendent of the Roman Catholic Separate Scliools.
He denies it, and attacks Mr. Patrick with bitterness, and "the bloated
bigot, Dr. Ryers(m," — "playing," (as lie says you do,) "with admirable
tact and dexterity, liis Ijorrowed literary apparatus to the metamorphosing
(rf bad Catholics and good Protestants into most accomplished Yankee
'know-nothings.'" I (juote tliese extracts only to show you that another
storm is likely brewing.

The Toronto Examiner, of yestertlay, says that it is likely you have gone
to Europe to "try and induce the Roman Catholics there to relax their
opposition to public Education in Canada ! " This paper is now apparently
under Mr. W. L. Mackenzie's control.

Toronto, 28th of June, 1865. J. George Hodoins.

7. From J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) : —

I have sent to Attorney-General Macdonald your Circular to Roman
Catholic School Trustees,* and the forms prescribed under the authority of

* The following are the only parts of this Circular which refers to the
general question of Roman Catholic Separate Schools :

You will herewith receive a copy of "An Act to amend the Laws relating
to Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper Canada." For the provisions of
this Act, I am not entitled to either praise or blame, as I never saw it until it
appeared in print, after its introduction into the Legislature.

1, I have ever believed and maintained that the provisions of the law, as
previously existing in respect to Separate Schools, were conceived in a kindly
reeling, and were equitable and liberal. I am so persuaded still. But these
provisions of the law having been complained of by Bishops of the Roman

ini

Effect of the Charbonnel Controversy.

107

the Roman Cittholic Hupiimte School Act of 1855. He acknowledged them
on the 2nd inHtant, an followH :

"(Quebec, .'}Oth of .Tiily, 1865. — Dear Sir, — AhNence from Quebec has
prevented me from anHwering your favour before. I nm obliged for the
fomiH for the Separate Schools, which seem well adapted for the purpose
intended. The Circular to the Trustees of Sepamte Schools is very satis-
factory, lam, etc., — John A. MACDONALn. "

The i)ublished correspondence in regard to Separate Schools, lias elicited
no remarks from the press, so far as I have seen, except in the case of the
Hiimilton Gazette. I send the extract to you.

Toronto, 4th of August, 1855. J. Georot. Hoikjins.

8. From J. Oeorge Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) : —

I have had the form of Annual Report of the Roman Catholic Separate
School Trustees to the Local Superintendent of Schools made out. I had
a good deal of doubt on the "ubject, particularly as you yourself seemed
undecided in the matter. At all events, it will test the point, as to
whether these Trustees are under the same obligations, as to reporting, as
are the Common School Trustees ; and I think it well t<i maintain the
right of the Local Superintendent to exercise a supervision over Separate,
as over Common, Schools. I have quoted the authority, — for making tlie
report, — to the Local Superintendent, from the Roman Catholic Separate
School Act of last Session. The Departmental Regulations on the subject
are absolutely necessary, — as our experience has proved to us this summer
and autumn. . . . The Roman Catholic Separate School Trustees at
Kingston and Belleville seem disposed not to give us the return of daily
attendance of pupils at their Schools, and it is on that attendance the
apportionment to these Schools is based. They make objections to do so.

In his Letter to me of the 30th of July last, [see above,] the Attorney-
General approved of the forms for Roman Catholic Separate Schools.

Toronto, 31st December, 1855. J. Geoboe Hodoins.

Catholic Church, the new Separate School Act is the result, — an Act which
confers upon members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, powers and distinc-
tions which are not possessed by any class of Protestants in Upper Canada, and
which their own Representatives would never consent to confer upon them.

2. While in our Public Schools, the religious rights and faith of pupils of all
persuasions are equally protected, and whde I am persuaded of the Superior
advantages of those Schools in respect to both economy and all the appliances
of instruction, I shall, on this very account, in addition to the obligations of
official duty, do all in my pcwer to lessen the disadvantages of those who prefer
•Separate Schools, and secure to them every right and advantage whicn the
Separate School Act confers. — (Ciratlar, dated 15th June, 1S55.)

i|H|Hil

lUHUIIIIr

108

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

CHAPTER XV.

EFFECT OF THE CHARBONNEL SEPARATE SCHOOL CONTRO-
VERSY UPON LOWER CANADIANS— NOVA SCOTIA.

Among the many private Letters left with me by Dr. Ryerson,
is one from Mr. E. Goff Penny, of the Montreal Herald, (sub-
sequently a Senator,) dated the 13th of August, 1855, and
endorsed by Dr. Ryerson as : " On the effect of the Controversy
with Bishop de Gharbonnel upon the Minds of French Cana-
dians." It is as follows : —

Having this day received from Quebec a copy of the t^i-st part of some
Correspondence between yourself and Bishop de Charbonnel, I was
reminded of a conversation which lately took place between myself and
a Canadian friend of mine, which I think it may gratify you to read an
account of.

As I know, to some extent, what are the discomforts ■ f mainbuning and
exercising an opinion for oneself, and what is the satisfaction at finding
that a pronmlgation of opinion has had its effect in a ([uarter, or (juarters,
where we supposed it impossible to make any impression, I have taken the
liberty, though our acquaintance is slight, to write you a line on the subject.

My friend is a highly respectable bourgeois of Lcmgueuil, — a man who
has been engaged in business . . . but is now living upon his me8Ui>s.

. . He has no children ; can speak no English ; can read and write
and makes himself acquainted with the current events of the dn' .
as detailed in La Minerve, and lately in Le Pans. Ft)r the rest, a persoj;.
of extreinely strong, unprejudiced mind, and, as far as I know, not at ,ii/
affected by Protestantism, except in so far as he has no ill-feeling tow.vr<]s,
and has considerable regard for, some of its professors. We were convers-
ing about the locjil School of the Village, when he suddenly drojiped the
subject, by sjvying : "There is one man in Upper Canada whose talents I
esteem above those of any other man in the Country." I asked who he
spoke of. "Oh," said he, " M. Chef Surintendant Ryerson." I could
not at first understand how he had acquired this high opinion of you, inas-
nmch as I thought it not very probable that he could have seen many of
your writings. But he soon told me that his opinion was founded upon

Effect of the Charbonnel Controversy.

100

your coiitr()vei"sy witli Bishop de Chaibi)nnel, some two or three years ago.
He sfiid that the Bislio[) was, in his opinion, complettly confuted. But,
he added, what perhaps was not (juite so complimentary to you as the other
portions of his discoui-se : "What surprises me most, is how a man, who
has tlie reputfvtion which Count de Charbonnel gained here, could possibly
expose himself openly to be reproved for misrepresentation, and, through-
out the correspondence, ct>uld exhibit such poor powers of reasoning,
joined with so nnich ill-temper. "

I said to him tliat the Minerve would never have translated the Corre-
spondence ii: its ett'ect had beeu anticipated, — at least if it had been
anticipated that the effect it had hful upon him would be general. He
laughed, and said : "Oh, it was very (faw:he on tlieir part ; but some of
them are so foolish that they cannot see the plainer 1/ folly, if it only come
from a Bishop."

I do not think my friend ver}' different from scores of quiet, intelligent
Canadians, a little above the class (jf habitants throughout the cf»untry, so
that the translation of your Correspondence, meant, of course, to damage
you with the Lower Canadians, may have really had a very different effect
among minds of that class, which eventually influences public opinion.

"Herald Office," Montreal, E. Goff Penny.

13th of August, 1855.

The Hon. B. Wier, in introducing to Dr. Ryerson Mr. William
Annand, M.P.P., and Editor of The Nova Scotian, Halifax, by
Letter, added the following : —

The great question of popular Education is now exciting the minds of
the people of Nova Scotia. And it seems to many of us ([uite impossible
to overcome the difficulties and prejudices which meet us from every (juar-
ter, — more particularly with reference to the Roman Catholic portion of
our people. I do not know of anyone in the Provinces so well calculated as
yourself ti> advise a course calculated to meet the difficulty, fis you have
had many yoai's' exjjerience, and have given your time and great talents
almost exclusively to the subject. VVe failed to carry an Assessment Bill
last summer, but still ho[>e that, duiing tlie recews, some plan may be
devised to meet tho obstructions which beset us. . .

Mr. Annand will confer with you on the general subject.

Halifax, 8th of May, 18b6. B. Wier.

110

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

CHAPTEE XVI.

RENEWED CONTROVERSY— 'THE BOWES' SEPARATE
SCHOOL BILL, 1866.

As intimated by the Hon. John A. Macdonald, in his private
Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 8th of June, 1855, the " new-
light," which, in that Letter, is spoken of, seems to have shed
its power of illumination on the mind of Mr. John G. Bowes,
Mayor of the City of Toronto, and also its M.P. In the
Session of 1856, he introduced a Bill into the Legislature to
modify the twelfth Section of the Tach^ Separate School Act
of 1855. Dr. Ryerson was absent, in Europe, at the time.
The following I^etters were, therefore, addressed to him there : —

1. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, {in Europe):

Mr. John G. Bowes, Mayor of Toronto, and a Member of the House of
Assembly, has given notice of a Bill to modify already the Roman Catholic
Separate School Act of last Session ! I do not know the nature of the Bill,
but I hear that one modification proposed is to give the power of dispensa-
tion from payment of a Separate School tax into the hands of the Separate
School Trustees, — that their certificate will be sufficient to exemi)t the
parties holding it from School taxation. . . . T send you a copy of the
remarks made by Mr. Bowes, in introducing his Bill. You will see also,
from the enclosed, that the Hon. G. E. Cartier has made the explanatory
remarks, which he promised me he would make. ... I send you a
copy of my last Letter to TJie Mirror, (Roman Cathcjlic organ.) I trust
that it will lead to a stop being put to letter writing in that paper on the
part of dissatisfied Separate School parties,

ToEONTO, 23rd of February, 1856. J. Geor<!E Hodgivs.

The Bill, which Mr. Bowes introduced into the Legislature,
was as follows : —

1. The Twelfth Section [cjf the Separate School Act of 1855] shall be,
and is hereby, repealed.*

* This "twelfth Section" of the Separate School Act of 1855, will be found
on page 97, ante.

The Bowes' Separate School Bill.

2. Notwithstanding anything in the above-named Act, or in any other
School Act, or Acts, to the contrary, every person paying rates, whether,
as proprietor, or tenant, who, when required to pay his School Taxes, or
Rates, shall present to the Collector a certificate, in duplicate, from tht*
Secretary-Treasurer of the Trustees, or of any Board of Trustees, of any
Jlc^man Catholic Separate School, or Schools, that he has paid all School
Ratios, or Taxes, required by such Trustees, or Board, for the then current
year, shall be exempted from the i)ayment of all Rates, or Taxes imposed
for the building, or the support, of Common Schools, or Common School
Libraries, for the same year ; and it shall be the duty of such Collector to
retain on '3 of the above-nam'^l certificates, and sign his name to the other,
to be retui/red by him to the ratepayer.

2. Letter f^^om J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in Europe)':

Mr. Joseph Hartman, M.P. for (North) York, was here to-day. He told
me that the Bowes' Separate School Bill will come on in two or three days ; —
that Mr. Bowes will not move that it be read, but that some one else in
the House will do so, whom Mr. Bowes did not name, but that lie (Mr.
Bowes) will support it, and that, with Lower Canada influence, it may
IKiss. He thinks that the editorial article in The Mirror, which I sent to
you, is indicative of a i)lot which is on the tiqris ; — that the [)olicy of the
Lower Canada Members of the Cabinet is to drive you from ottice ; that
the School Bill which you sent to Attorney-General, (H(m. John A.
Macdonald,) would have been introduced long V^efore this only for the
opposition of John A. 's Lower Canada Ct>lleagues, and that they will not
consent to its introduction. Now, therefore, is the time to stand firm, and
not be driven, or cajoled, or checkmated, in this matter.

I suggested to Mr. Hartman, that it might be well for him to move for a
Return of all Petitions on the Separate School question which have l)een
presented to the Legislature, with a view to concentrate in one point all
the sentiments of the Country on that subject.

Toronto, 7th of July, 1856. J. Georcje Hodoins.

DR. RYERSON S HISTORY OF THE BOWES SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL.

In his fifth Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of December
81st, 1858, (already quoted,) Dr. Ryerson thus continues his
narrative of the efforts made to promote Separate School
Legislation in 185G : —

After the close of that Session of 1855, I left for Euroi)e, and did not
return until an advanced period of the next Session of the Legislature, at
Toronto, when I learned that Mr. Bowes had introduced a short Bill,
{)refes8edly t<i amend the twelfth Section of the Tachd Roman Catholic

112

U. C. Separate School Legislation,

Separate School Act of 1856, but which, in reality, would Imve involved the
subversion of our whole Common Schf)ol System ; though I do not think
Mr. Bowes, (and perhaps few others,) had any idea of the scope and effect
of the ingenious Bill which had been put into his hands, as he withdrew it,
shortly after I pointed out to him its real character. A private Member,
bringing in such a Bill, shows that the Government i uuld not do anything
on the subject ; and, on my first conversations with Upper Canada Mem
bers of the Government after my return from Europe, I learned that thej
intended to vote against Mr. Bowes' Bill, which they afterwards did, (wi.en
it was tjiken up by a Lower Canada Member,) and, for doing which, the
Roman Catholic Members of the Government, and othei-s, were denounced
and exconnnunicated by Bishop de Charbonnel, — who thus employed the
highest power of the priesthood to control Upper Canada School Legisla-
tion and Government. . . .

After the failure of Mr. Bowes' Bill in the Session of 1855, it was
officially announced in the public papers, by Roman Catholic Episcopal
authority, that that Bill would be brought up again, and presented at the
next Session of Parliament. In view of that announcement and threat, I
analyzed the Bill in my Report for 1865, and exposed its unjust and
dangerous provisions to the public, as also the course of aggression which
had been pui"sued against the people of Upper Canada by the extreme
advocates of Separate Schools. It was in that connection, and with a view
to such threatened agitation and aggression, that I sjiid in my Annual
Rep'<H for 1855, (written in 1856) :—

L if the parties, for whom Separate Schools are allowed and aided
out of the Legislative School Grants, according to the average attendance
of pupils, (which is the principle of distributing the ScIkjoI Grant among
the Common Schools in all the Townships of Upper Canada, ) shall renew
the agitjition upon the subject, and assail and seek to subvert the Public
School System, as they have done, and endeavour to force legislation upon
that subject, against the voice and riglits of tlie peoi)le of Upper Canada,
by v<jtes from Lower Canada, and the highest terrors of ecclesiastical
authority, then I submit that the true and only alternative will be to
abolish Separate Schools altogether, and substitute the provisions of the
National System in Ireland, in regard to united, secular, and separate reli-
gious, instruction, and extend it to Lower, as well as to Upper, Canada. —
{Annmd Report for 1855, page 11.)

A difficulty having arisen with the Trustees of the Kingston
Roman Catholic Separate Schools, in regard to their returns of
the attendance of pupils at the Separate Schools there, Bishop
Phelan wrote to Bishop de Charbonnel on the subject, as stated
on page 298 of the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H.
McKeown," as follows : —

The BRUYkRE-PlNSONEAULT-DALLAS CONTROVERSV. 113

I see tliiit Dr. Ryersou gives his own interpretjition to our new School
Bill, [the Tache Bill of 1855,] stilting that the amendment of 1851 is
repealetl ; but it is our Attorney-General's opinion that it is not repealed.
The Doctor reads in our daily reports, the "daily attendance," instead of
the "average attendance." Now our Solicitor-General, Mr. H. Smith,
has blotted out the woixl "daily," and authorizes the Rev. Mr. DoUard
CO hold to this.*

Kingston, 11th of July, 1856. -i- Patrick Phelan, Bp. f)f Carrhoe.

U 1,1

CHAPTER XVII.

THE BRUYERE-PINSONEAULT-DALLAS CONTROVERSY.

The years 1856, 1857, and 1858 were among the most memor-
able in the history of Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper
Canada, — not, by any means, for what was done in regard to
them, but for what was said, by those who were the Represen-
tative champions of the cause, — pro and con.

I have already pointed out, (on page 42,) what was the
character of the prolonged agitation, founded upon an unneces-
sary misconception of facts, in regard to the Roman Catholic
Separate Schools, which was commenced by the Rev. J. M.
Bruyere, (then Rector of St. Michael's Cathedral, Toronto,) in
December, 1856, and was closed by Bishop Pinsoneault, — who
entirely endorsed the Rev. Mr. Bruyere s proceedings, — in Feb-
ruary, 1857.f

* I personally had to deal with this matter during Dr. Ryeraon's absence in
Kurope. In my Letter to him in January, 18i)6, I said : " I have a reference
from the Government in regard to the Rev. P. DoUard, of Kingston, and my
refusal to accept the Returns of attendance at tlie Separate Schools there.
I think I have explained matters satisfactorily to the (Jovernment." See also
the last paragraph of my Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 31st of December, 1855,
on page 107, ante.

t In a Letter to the Rev. J. M. Bruyore, dated the 10th of February, 1857,
Bishop Pinsoneault thus addressed him : — " Concerning what you have said
about Public Libraries, the question is not wliother you were right or wrong,
with regard to the exact number of Catholic books said to be on their shelves,
but whether you had good ground for denouncing them as dangerous to faith
and morals. Now, most emphatically do I endorse your sound views on this
question, for we can hardly be less opposed to mixed Libraries than to mixed
Education, — the same principles of faith and morals being equally involved in
both systems."

114

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

One of Mr. Bruy^re's objections to Dr. Ryerson's Public
School Library scheme, (which was the cause of this attack
upon him,) is thus stated, and replied to, by Dr. Ryerson : —

Mr. Bruyere's statement in regard to books in the Official Catalogue for
Public Libraries are unfounded and contrary to fact. While he exclaims
against the Histories of "infidel Hume and the sceptical Gibbon," he
ought to know that neither of these works is in the "Index Expurga-
torius," while Archbishop Whately's Logic and Macaulay's History are
thus distinguished. He says, " D'Aubigne"8 History of the Reformation "
is in the Catalogue, — which is not the fact. He says there is no such book
in the Catalogue as "Cardinal Wiseman's Lectures," — whereas "Cardinal
Wiseman's Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed
Religion " are on the Official Catalogue, and also Bossuet's Universal
History. Mr. Bruyere likewise says, "in vain will we look in these
Public Libraries for Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church ; Gahan's Church
History ; History of the Church by Reeve," when the titles of each of
these three Histories are printed in the Official Catalogue ; as is also that
of Lingard's History of England ; Mylius' History of England ; Fredet's
Ancient History, and Fredet's Modern History !

Bishop de Charbonnel Himself Selected Roman Catholic

Books, in 1853.

These works were inserted in the Catalogue three years ago, on the
recommendation of Bishop de Charbonnel, to whom was communicated the
wish of the Council of Public Instruction that he would select the Roman
Catholic Histories he judged best, as the Council, on the disputed ground
of civil and ecclesiastical history, intended to select a certain number of
standard works on each — leaving it to what Mr. Bruyere himself calls the
"good sense, honesty, and liberality of the Municipalities in Upper
Canada," to procure which they might please ; and most of them have
made a fair selection of Histories from both sides.

Cardinal Wiseman was also Consulted about Books in 1851.

Nay, when in London in 1851, making selections of Library Books for
examination, and arrangements for procuring them, I had, (on the strength
of a letter of introduction from a high quarter,) an interview with Cardinal
Wiseman, to whom I briefly explained the principles on which I proposed
to promote the establishment of Public School Libraries in Upper Canada,
—the avoidance of doctrinal and controversial works of any religious per-
suasion, as between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and the selection of
the best popular works in all the departments of human knowledge, and I
wished His Eminence to favour me with a list of books and their pub-
lishers, such as were approved by his Church and in harmony with the

The BRUYilRE-PlNSONEAULT-DALTiAS CONTROVERSY. 115

character and objects of the proposed Canadian Libraries. Cardinal Wise-
man frankly replied, that nearly all the books printed and sold by Catholic
publishers, were doctrinal expositions and vindications of the Roman
Catholic Church, or such as related to questions between Catholics and
Protestants, and, therefore, not adapted to the non-controversial and non-
denominational Libraries I proposed to establish. Yet, after this, I applied
to Bishop Charbonnel, . . . and inserted in the Catalogue every
historical library book recommended by him, and more than the histories
enumerated by Mr. Bruyere. Thus, throughout, have I pursued a fair,
a kind and generous course towards Roman Catholics, and have treated
them with a consideration which has not been shown to any Protestant
denomination.

During the Separate School controversies of these years, three
noted Pamphlets were issued, bearing on the question, including
one by Mr. Angus Dallas, — a Merchant in Toronto, — under the
signature of "A Protestant," in 1857, and others. The primary
cause of this new movement and agitation was the issue of a
Lenten Pastoral by Bishop de Charbonnel, in 1856.

SUMMARIES OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL DISCUSSIONS, 1856-1868.

After the passage of the Tach^ Roman Catholic Separate
School Act of 1855, there was a lull in the Separate School
controversy for a time ; but the issue of Bishop de Charbonnel's
Lenten Pastoral, in 185G, had the effect of sounding again the
tocsin of war. The Letters of the belligerents, which had,
during the preceding years, been published, chiefly in the news-
papers, were, in 1857, — forty years ago, — collected together into
three separate pamphlets. The following titles of these pam-
phlets give a practical historical view of the whole controversy,
and are, in fact, a literary curiosity in a way. These titles are
as follows ; —

1. Dr. Ryerson's Letters in reply to the attacks of Foreign Ecclesiastics
against the Schools and Municipalities of Upper Canada, — including the
Letters of Bishop de Charbonnel, Mr, Bruyere and Bishop Pinsoneault, —
104 pages.

(Note. — In a prefatory word " to the Reader," in this Pamphlet, it is stated
that "nc ) of (the Authors) have been consulted ; and none of them , . .
are aware of the present publication, — certainly. Dr. Ryerson is not.")

2. Controversy between Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent of Educa-
tion in Upper Canada, and Rev. J. M, Bruyere, Rector of St. Michael's

(irri

116

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Cathedral, Toronto, on the Clergy Reserves Funds ; Free Schools j's. State
Schools ; Public Libraries and Common Schools, Attacked and Defended.
Rev. J. M. Bruyere for the Prosecution ; Dr. Ryerson for the Defence.
To which is appended a Letter from the Right Reverend Dr. Pinsoneault,
of London, C.W., to the Rev. J. M. Bruyere, on the Subject of the late
Controversy with Dr. Ryerson, — 108 pages.

(Note. — In the Introduction to this Pamphlet, it is stated that "Dr.
Ryerson declined ... to accept the invitation to join in the publication
of this Correspondence ; and Rev. M. Bruyere was induced to assume the whole
charge of the publication. "

3. Statistics of the Common Schools : Being a Digest and Comparison
of the Evidence furnished by the Local Superintendents and the Chief
Superintendent in their Reports for 1855, with suggestions applicable to
the approaching Crisis. In a series of Seven Letters to the Honourable
John A. Macdonald. By A Protestant, — 56 pages.

Appended to this Pamphlet was a second one, of 23 pages,
with this title : —

Suggestions on the organization of a System of Common Schools, adapted
to the Circumstances and State of Society in Canada : Being a series of
Three Letters addressed to the Honourable John A. Macdonald. By A
Protestant, — total, 79 pages.

This Pamphlet was written by Mr. Angus Dallas,* in 1857.
In 1858, he published a fourth Pamphlet, entitled : an " Appeal
on the Common School Law ; its Incongruity and Maladminis-
tration," etc., — 32 pages. Mr. Dallas was a man of a literary
turn, but a legislative theorist, in matters of education.

These various Pamphlets, and those relating to tlie Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, officially prepared by Dr. Ryerson,
and printed by order of the House of Assembly, in 1855 and
1858, show what a state of educational unrest existed in Upper
Canada at the time. It culminated in the determined, yet
abortive, efforts, for the time, which were put forth by the
Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1860, 1861,
and 1862, to get a Separate School Bill passed by the Legis-
lature.

* Appended to the Comparative Table, (prepared by the three Roman
Catholic Bishops,) on pages 82, 83, ante, is this Note : " For further particulars,
see the Pamphlet of Angus Dallas, just published, entitled, "The Common
School System; its Principles, Operation p.nd Results." This Pamphlet was
published by Mr. Dallas in 1855.

Renewed Efforts for Separate School Legislation. IIT

:i- P.'

CHAPTEK XVIII.

RENEWED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SEPARATE SCHOOL
LEGISLATION, 1857-1860.

In 1857, one of the most active lay promoters of Separate
Schools in Toronto, and of the Legislation of 18G0-62, 63,
(Hon. John Elmsley,) wrote a " confidential " Letter to Dr.
Ryerson, of nearly ten foolscap pages, urging him to refer —

The whole of the Separate School question, from beginning to end, to a
Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly, . . . and to pursue
that proposal until [he had] succeeded in calling the attention of the Legis-
lature to this most important subject.

Mr. Elmsley then makes the following appeal to Dr. Ryerson,
as Chief Superintendent, to comply with his request. He said :

Your position will enable you, if you press the proposition for enquiry
before a Select Committee of the House of Assembly with vigour and
earnest sincerity, to obtain that most desirable end. The present Admin-
istration [Macdonald-Cartier] are, I am well aware, most unwilling to face
the difficulties of this grave subject ; but when the demand for investi-
gation comes from the Chief Superintendent of Education, it cannot be
withheld. Forward ! then, my dear Sir, be not deterred by seeming
obstacles ; they must all vanish before your steady and sturdy purpose of
finally obtaining your wishes.

You have publicly thrown down the gauntlet ; the friends of Separate
Schools have caught it up, and now challenge you to the combat, — the
combat of dispassionate argument, — the battle of cool investigation.

Should the House of Assembly grant such a boon, you would, of coursCf
be prepared to sustain your position by all legitimate means at your
disposal.

On the other hand, the friends of Separate Schools would not be behind
in stating very forcibly all tho grounds upon which they base their dissatis-
faction with the School Laws, as they now subsist, and . . . would
endeavour to counteract the effects of your Annual Reports to the Gover-
nor-General. ...

118

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Mr. Elmsley then goes on to say : —

I enclose for your consideration the Draft of a Bill, which may be pre-
flonted to the Legislature this Session. I have submitted it to the proper
■tiuthorities placed in charge of our Separate Schools ; and now await
either their action, or their refusal to act, if it should be considered
inexpedient to move in the matter this year. . . .

This Draft of Bill comprises all Religious Denominations recognized by
Law in Upper Canada. . . . We can have no kind of objection to the
Law being limited to ourselves, and by the substitution of the words,
" Roman Catholic," for the words, "Religious Denominations," this limi-
tation can be very easily effected.

Among Dr, Ryerson's papers, (in my possession,) together
with this "confidential" Letter from Mr. Elmsley, were two
Drafts of a Separate School Bill. They have neither name nor
date on them. This one Draft is headed : —

Rough Draft of a Bill to be entitled : An Act to Repeal the Laws
relating to Separate Schools, and to authorize the establishment of Schools
by any of the Religious Denominations recognized by Law in Upper
Canada.

This Draft had evidently been subjected to a good deal of
revision by some party, or parties, for, after revision, it was
reprinted, under thfe title of a —

Draft of Bill, entitled : An Act to repeal the Laws respecting Separate
Schools, so far as they relate to Roman Catholics, and to authorize the
-establishment of Schools by Roman Catholics in Upper Canada.

Twelve is the number of Sections in both Drafts of Bill, but
they are very much enlarged and altered in the revised copy.

CHAPTER XIX.

CONFIDENTL\L REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION IN 1868.

The belligerent character of the discussion on Separate Schools,
during these last three years, (1856-1858,) no doubt induced
the Governor-General, (Sir Edmund Head,) to send a confiden-

•.;u»:Mh<dfi.'i.>

Confidential Report on Separate Schools.

119

tial Memorandum to Dr. Ryerson, in which he enumerated a
number of points in regard to the Sepai'ate School ciuestion, on
which he desired specific and detailed information from the
Chief Superintendent. In asking for this information, Dr.
Ryerson was informed that, —

His Excellency wishes it to be understood that he makes these en(|uiries
simply fur his own information, and without implying that there is any
probability of change in the existing Separate School Law.

Dr. Ryerson's confidential Report to the Governor-General
on the Separate School question, extends to twenty-three fools-
cap pages. I only give those portions of it which are not
already, in substance, contained in this History. In the first
part of his confidential Report he said : —

As to the actual state of the Law in Upper and Lower Canada, in
regard to Separate Schools, I append a Paper, which was prepared by Mr.
J. G. Hodgins, the Deputy Superintendent of Education, and printed in
1856, containing, in parallel columns, the provisions of the respective Laws
in Upper and Lower Canada on Separate Schools, with notes in the margin,
showing the points of agreement and difference in the provisions of the
Law in each section of the Province. '■=

On examining this comparative view of the provisions of the Law in
both sections of Canada, it will be seen that the advantage, upon the
whole, is on the side of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada. The
School Laws of Upper Canada secure a protection, in religious matters, in
the Public Schools that the School Law of Lower Canada does not secure
to the Protestants ; nor are the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada required
to express any dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Public School
Trustees, in order to be entitled to establish Separate Schools, as are the
Protestants of Lower Canada. . . .

It is worthy of remark that, on the passing of each of the three Acts,
(1850, 1863, and 1855,) amending the Law in regard to Separate Schools, the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto and the Upper Canada Roman Catholic
newspaper organs expressed their entire satisfaction with them, (at the
time,) but afterwards complained of them, when it was found that they did
not accomplish the object predicted at the time of their enactment by
some of these newspapers, — namely, "that they would deal a death-blow
to the State School System." . . .

It may be asked, why is it that the provisions of the School Law, in

* This Comparative Table is too extensive to be inserted here. It is printed
as Appendix "A," (pages 56-68,) to the " Special Report on the Separate School
Provisions of the School Law of Upper Canada," etc. Printed by Order of the
Legislative Assembly, 1858.

180

U. 0. Separate School Leqislatign.

regard to Dissentients, operate so much more successfully in Lower, than
in Upper, Canada 'i I answer — . . .

1. It is not the wish of the Protestant inhabitants of Lower Canada to
overthrow a National School SyHtem, as is avowed by the leading Komiui
Catholic advocates of Separate Schools iti Upper Canada.

2. The supporters of DisHentient Schools in Lower Canada are, as a
whole, more intelligent and more wealthy, and know better how to proceed
and manage their atfiiirs than the supporters of Separate Schools in the
rural parts of Upper Canada. . . .

li. The cordial co-operation of the first Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto, (the Right Reverend Michael Power, D.D.,) in 8ui)port of the
Public Schools, — before the introduction of the new counselH and feelings
against them,— the greater resources, conveniences, cheapness and effi-
ciency of the Public, over the Separate, Schools, the equal protection of the
religious scruples and rights of all classes of pupils in the Public Schools,
instead of their being Denominational, as they are, for the most part, in
Lower Canada, — the serious disadvantage which Roman Catholics experi-
ence, and inflict upon their children, by isolating them from other classes
of youth in t'.ioir intellectual training and social intercourse, are all circum-
stances and considerations unfavourable to Separate Schools, . . . and
weigh strongly with a large [jroportion of the most intelligent Roman
Catholics. . . .

The existence of the provisions, (for Separate Schools,) at all, is clearly
against the feelings of the great majority of the people of Upper Canada ;
and it ha been considered by numbei's of most intelligent jjcrsons as
inconsistent with, and dangerous to, the stability of a National System of
Education. But T combated these apprehensions, ... so that there
was no agitation on the subject, when Bishop de Charbonnel, in 1852, and,
after him, other Roman Catholic Clergy and their newsj)apers, commenced
an attack upon our whole School System, . . . and demanded that
the Roman Catholics, as a body, should be incorporated into a Separate
organization, and receive Legislative School Grants and Municipal School
Funds, according to their numbers, with a [Provincial Rom.an Catholic]
Superintendent from among themselves, — thus claiming absolutely a large
portion of Public and Municipal Revenue and local corporate powers of
a vast extent, as an endowment for the exclusive teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church, — a thing never mooted in respect to the Protestants of
Lower Canada, — never heard of in any free country, and subversive of the
right of individual liberty and choice among the Roman Catholics, and
inconsistent with the rights of Municipalities, and of individual property
among the Protestants. . . .

It is this double aggression by Roman Catholic Bishops and their sup-
porters, in assailing, on the one hand, our Public Sdiools and School
System, and invading what has been acknowledged as sacred constitutional
rights of individuals and Municipalities ; and, on the other hand, in

■.■Ji^ia." -.^UfJMdMnaSitilf «^

Confidential Report on Separate Schools.

121

demanding the erection and support, at the public expenHo, of h Roman
Catholic Hierarchical School System, which han aruuaod, to so grout an
extent, the people of Upper Canada against permitting the continuance
any longer of the provisions of the Law for SopaMte Schools.

And it must be acknowledged that a combined secular, with separate
religious instruction, is the only safe, just, and defensible system of Na-
tional Education.

In conclusion, I beg to add a word as to the interference of parties in
Lower Canada with the School System of Upper Canada, . . . The
feelings, habits, municipal and other institut'.ons, of the iiihabitantH in
each Province has been e(|ually and exclusively consulted in their construc-
tion and development. . .

There has been no intorfer»>nce in Upper Canada with the School Sys-
tem of Lower Canada, which has been framed and carried into effect in
accordance with the wislies of the inhabitants there, and of their Represen-
tatives in Parliament.

I deprecate the interference of Bishops and Priests in Lower Canada, or
of their Representatives, . . . (as has been alroady exj>erienced,) with
the School System of Upper Canada, — the wishes of wh(»'^e inhabitants and
their Representatives are entitled to no leas considerati' lan those of

Lower Canada, especially when the fundamental princi) >f our School
System is eipial and impartial protection to all Religious . aiasions, "^nd
equal educational advantages for all.

Toronto, January, 1858. Eoekton Ryerson.

In connection with this Report, Dr. Ryerson was summoned
to Quebec by Sir Ednumd Head. While there, I received from
him the following confidential Letter, in I'egard to his visit : —

1. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (Quebec,) to J. George Hodgins : —

{Confidtntial.) — I was desired to come here by the Governor-General's
direction, on the Separate School business. The Roman Catholic Bishops,
(Dr. Charbonnel is here,) are "moving heaven and earth " to get a Separate
School Bill passed this Session ; and the Upper Canada Members of the
(Government are determined, if possible, to prevent anything being done
on the subject until Parliament goes to Toronto.

The enclosed papers have been printed and distributed among the
greater part of the Members of the Legislature. They are signed by the
Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto, Kingston, and Bytown, declaring that
nothing short of the adoption of the "project" of the accompanying Bill
will satisfy the conscientious convictions of (the Roman) Catholics. "'^

• From this description of the " Papers printed and distributed among tlie
Members" of the Legislature, it would appear that they are identical with
those which were presented to the Government by the three Bishops named, in
1855, and which will be found on pages 81-83 of this volume.

122

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

I am g^ad that they have thus committed themselves to a simple dictation
as to what they really demand, — which, you will see, is an absolute control
of all the taxable property of all classes of the inhabitants of Upper Canada.

I, this morning, pointed out to Attorney-General John A. Macdonala,
the falsity of each particular of the accompanying comparison between the
School Laws of Upper and Lower Canada, when he said they were really
"frivolous, whtn not untrue." He was to propose to Messrs. Drummond,
Cauchon, and Cartier to meet me on the same subject. I have not yet
learned whether they will do so, or no.

T have insisted that all the Correspondence which I have had with
parties on Separate Schools, since the 1st of January, 1853, should be
laid before the House ; and the Governor-General, (Sir Edmund Head,)
thought it very desirable. Mr. Joseph Hartman has given a notice of a
motion to that eft'ect. I hope that you Avill have it prepared as soon
as possible, — including everything that has passed between complaining
parties and other parties and me, including my Letter [of 1854] to Bishop de
Charbonnel, published in the newspaper some months since. I intend also
to include in the Return the enclosed Statemt^nt, (and Draft of BUI,) with
refutations of it. You can make notes on it, as it will facilitate my doing
so when I get back. . . . There is a strong desire on the part of the
Representatives of the English part of Lower Canada to be annexed to
Upper Canada in their School System. Sir Edmund Head is very anxious
for it. He highly approved oi my Report on the *' New Brunswick
College Question ;' and has sent it to the authorities of McGill College,
to (-ee if they cannot adopt something of the same kind.*

Hon. William Cayley, (Inspector-General,) has admitted to-night that
I am right about the division of the Common School Grant of £60,000,
between Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Caii.ida now gets £20,000,
and Upper Canada £21,000. We had a laughable discussion in regard to
it, and referred the question of the. interpretation of the forty-tirst Section
of the Upper Canada Common School Act of 1850 to .Judge Badgely, who
had come in ; and he, on Mr. Cayley's own statement of the abstract
question, (putting his hand on my mouth, and not letting me state the
case,) decided in my favour, as to both the £50,000 Grant, and any suc-
e3eding Grant for Common School purposes. I also found in Dr. Meilleur's
School Report for Lower Canada; that he stated the same thing as I had
in regard to the division of the former Grants. I showed it to Sir Edmund

* In August, 1854, Sir Edmund Head, then Lieutenant (iovernor of I v
Brunswick, appointed Dr. Ryorson, with Hon. J. H. Oiay, (Chairman,) l-.ir.
(now Sir William) Dawson, (then of Nova Scotia,) Hon. J. S. Saunders, and
Hon. James Brown, (of New Brunswick,) Comniisaioneis, "to enquire into the
present state of King's College, [there,] its management and utility, with a view
of improving tlie same, and rendeving that Institution more generally useful,"
etc. Tlie Report, to wliich Dr. Ryorson makes reference, was written by him
in December of that year.

Spe(iial Report on R. C. Separate Schools. 123

Head, who said that it was practical proof of my correctness. Judge
Badgely said that Dr. Meilleur's statement removes all possible doubt as
to what had been done on the subject. . . .

Quebec, 30th of January, 1858. E. Ryerson.

2. Letter frovi Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson: —

You had better get some, independent Member to move foi^any Report
on Separate Schools which you may desire.*

Toronto, 28th of April, 1858. John A. Macdonald.

CHAPTER XX.

SPECIAL REPORT ON ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE
SCHOOLS IN 1858.

Aftei: confei'ring with Sir Edmund Head in regard to the

Confident' \1 Report, which Dr. Ryerson had prepared, at his

request, it was considered desirable that the substance of that

Report, with such modifications as might be necessary, should

be prepared, with a view to its being laid before the Legislature.

On his return from Quebec, therefore, Dr. Ryerson prepared a

" Special Report " on the Separate Schools, Text-Books, and

other matters, and sent it to the Provincial Secretary on the

20th of April, 1868. The renewed agitation, in regard to

Separate Schools, rendered such a Report the more necessary, —

especially as an effort was then being made to obtain further

legislation in favour of these Schools. Mr. Thomas R. Ferguson,

M.P., had sought to counteract such efforts, by introducing, as

was the habit, ar abortive Bill into the House of Assembly,

early in April, 1858 : —

To repeal the several Acts, and parts of Acts, authorizing the establish-
ment and maintenance of Separate, or Sectarian, Schools in Upper Canada.

• On the -ith of May, the House of Assembly, on motion to that effect,
adopted an Add-c:?a to the (Jovernor-fienoral, asking for " Copies of any Report,
or Reports, that have been made to him by the Chief vSuperintendcnt of Kduca-
tion for Upper Canacia, during the present year, on the subject of Separate
Schools." This motion had referoni-e to Dr. Ryerson's "Special Report on the
Separate School provision of the School Law of Upper Canada," etc. This
Report was laid before the House of Assembly on the 7th of May, 1868.

124

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

The measure, as was usual, was not pressed to a vote, and no
legislation on behalf of Separate Schools took place in that year.

Dr. Ryerson felt, however, that it was necessary to counteract
the movement which had been set on foot to obtain this legisla-
tion, and especially, to controvert the claims whicli had been
put forth in connection with it. In the " Special Report,"
which he had prepared on the subject, he thus explained, (on
page 15,) what he believed to be the issues involved ir "this
renewed controversy." He said : —

Certain Dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in Upper Canada, for
whose members the Separate School provisions of the School Law were
specially designed, have assumed, since 1852, a threefold position, essen-
tially different from what they had ever professed.

1. They have advocated Separate Schools, (not as a protection against
wrong in particular cases, but) as an institution and agency of their Church,
and as a dogma of faith, and a rule of duty binding upcn all their adherents,
and in all places.

2. They have advocated the support of these Schools by Municipal
taxation, as well as by Legislative Grant, and that according to the number
<:f their Chui-ch population, and not according to the number of children
they might teach, or even according to the number of those whe might
desire Separate Schools for their children, — thus leaving their own Church
adherents without any right of individual choice, and the Municipalities, or
Common Schorl Trustees, without any power to levy a School rate, to erect
a School-house, or furnish a School, or support a Teacher, or for any
School purpose whatever, unless a corresponding sum, according to popu-
lation, was given in support of the Roman Catholic Church Schools !

3. They have . . . avowed their great and ultimate object to be
the destruction of the National School System of Upper Canada, and have
invoked aid from Lower Canada to accomplish it.

To show that I am quite correct in my remarks in reference to the first
of the positions above stated, it is only necessary to recollect the means
which the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, (Dr. de Charbonnel,) em-
ployed to enforce his Church teachings, when, in an ofhcial Circular, (or
Lenten Pastoral of 1856,) to the Clergy and Laity of his Diocese, he said : —

"Catholic electors in this country, who do not use their electoral power in
behalf of Separate Schools are guilty of mortal sin. Likewise parents who do
not make tho sacrifices necessary to secure such Schools, or send their children
to Mixed Schools. Moreover, the Confessor who would give absolutior >o such
parents, electors, or le£ slators as support Mixed Schools to the prejudice of
Separate Schools, would be guilty of a nioital sin."

I may also add, that each of the three Bills prepared and insisted upon

Abortive Separate School Legislation.

125

by the authority of several Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, in-
volved all, and a great deal more, than is implied in the aecond of the
above stated positions.*

Dr. Ryerson always felt an insuperable objection to the
second of the foregoing demands, — that is, that the Municipal
assessment and the Legislative School Grant should be appor-
tioned " according to the number of the [Roman Catholic]
Church population, and not according to the number of children
they might teach." On page 13, of his Annual School Report
for 185.5, (written in 1856,) he said : —

I have re.^8on to believe that it is, by extreme exeitions of ecclesiastical
authority that many Roman Catholics can be made to endorse the teach-
ings, [enforced by thi<< same authority,] against the character and cherished
institutions of a graut majority of the people of Upper Canada. . . .
Hence the efforts to deprive them [the Roman Catholics,] of the exercise
of choice, by not leaving them to express their individual wishes, from year
to year, but endeavouring to include them as a body [in their demands].
. . . Hence, also, the efforts to make Municipal Councils the imposers
and collectors of Bates for Separate Schools, on account of the reluctance
of many of the ratepayers concerned to pay Rates for the support of
Separate Schc^is, and, in order to avoid the contact of Church authority
with them. Hence, likewise, the efforts to get apportionments for the
support of Separate Schools, not according to average attendance, (which
is the principle adopted in regart to Public Schools,) but according io the
population in the locality of a whole Religious Persuasion. . .

CHAPTER XXI.

ABORTIVE SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN 1858-1861.

Except for the correspondence in regard to Separate School
matters, which took place with the Education Department, no
legislation on the subject was attempted in 1859. Mr. Fer-
guson re-introduced his Separate School Act Repeal Bill of

* For one of these Bills, see The. Correspondence, on Separate Schools in Upper
Canada, printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, in a Return to an
Address, dated the 2nd of April, 1855. A copy of it will be found on page 85,
a reference to this and the others on page 118.

126

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

1858, but only as a feint, for it was not pressed to a vote, but
was dropped, In 1860, the Hon. G. W. Allan introduced a Bill
into the Legislative Council, to modify the restrictions in the
sixteenth Clause of the twenty-seventh Section of the School
Act : 22nd Victoria, Chapter 64, but it failed to pass during
that Session.

In that same Session of the Legislature, Mr. R. W. Scott,
(of Ottawa,) introduced into the Legislative Assembly the
first of his series of Roman Catholic Separate School Bills,
which he brought in successively in the following years, 1861,
1862, and 1863. It was read a first time on the 16th of March,
1860. This Bill consisted of five Sections, and provided for
the repeal of Sections numbers eighteen, twenty, twenty -three,
twenty-nine and thirty-four of the Tachd Separate School
Bill of 1855, and the substitution therefor of other sections in
their place.

In this year, (I860,) the prolonged parliamentary discussions
on the Toronto University Question, and the visit of the
Prince of Wales, engrossed public attention, that nothing fur-
ther took place in the Legislature in regard to Roman Catholic
Separate Schools.

In 1861, Mr. Scott again renewed his efforts to obtain legis-
lation in favour of Separate Schools, and again failed to do so.
On the copy of his Bill in my possession, the late Mr. Alexan-
der Marling, LL.B., for many years Chief Clerk in the Depart-
ment, and my successor in January, 1890, as Deputy Minister
of Education for Ontario, has made the following notes : —

This Bill is similar in most essentials to that of the Hon. John Elmsley,
(see page 117,) with the following exceptions : —

1. Mr. Scott requires a notice by the Roman Catholic Separate School
Trustees annually, of the names of their supporters, upon which list the
Municipal Collectors are compelled to collect their rates.

2. Mr. Elmsley permits the Municipality to allow the Collector to
ascertain who are Roman Catholics, and all such are to be exempted from
Common School rates, unless they object ; but he also provides that the
Municipality shall collect from the Roman Catholic ratepayers the same
proportionate amount as from other ratepayers, from which it is clear that
this amount is to go tjo the Separate Schools.

amamiimmm

■HflB

Failure of Separate School Legislation.

127

3. There is, indeed, a singular coincidence in the purport of the Scott
and Elmslcy Bills, although the words in both are different.

Mr. Marling then gives the following analysis of each Sec-
tion of Mr. Scott's Bill of 1861 :—

I. The words, " Village, or Town," are added to this Section, authoriz-
ing five heads of families to call a meeting for the election of Trustees.

II. Notice to bo given by one Trustee of the meeting for the election of
Trustees, instead of by the Roman Catholic inhabitants favourable to the
establishment of the Separate School.

III. Givcs power to Roman Catholics in different School Sections to
unite, as in the case of Wards of a City. (This is the same as in Mr.
Elmsley's Bill.) The word "contiguous," used in this Section, is very
objectionable, as too indefinite.

IV In City and Town Separate School Boards, only one Trustee is to
be elected for each Ward. (The same in Mr. Elmsley's Bill.)

V. After giving a notice before March in any year, no annual notice is
required to exempt ratepayers : a list of supporters of the Separate School,
on the bare authority of the Trustees, is to be given to the Municipal
Clerk ; and there is no provision for verifying this list ; and this list will
also exempt those in "contiguous" Municipalities.

VI. This Section takes away the limitation to Separate Schools having
fifteen pupils, (which Mr. Elmsley's Bill leaves in,) and gives Separate
Schools a share in the Municipal Assessment, (which Mr. Elmsley also
does.)

VII. This is the same as in the present Law, except as to the oath of
Trustees, which is not retjuired. (Same as in Mr. Elmsley's Bill.)

VIII. This Section obliges the Municipal Collector to collect Separate
School rates. (Mr. Elmsley proposed only to permit them to do so.)

Although this Bill was introduced and read a first time, on
the 23rd of March, 18G1, yet it never reached a second reading,
hut was discharged from the Ordei-s of the Day in the House
of Assembly, on the IGtii of the following May.

-41

CHAPTEK XXII.

FAILURE OF SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN 1862.

Early in the year 18()2, Ur. Ryerson souglit to meet the
reasonable objections which had been urged against the Tache
Separate School Act of 1855, in that it contained no provision

128

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

authorizing the establishment of a Roman Catholic Separate
School in an Licorporated Village. They could be established
in a rural School Section, and in the Ward of a City, or Town,
but not in an Incorporated Village. Dr. Ryerson, therefore,
submitted the following Dralt of Bill to the Government in the
early part of March, 1862, being —

An Act to Re.store Certain RifJHTs to the Parties therein-
mentioned, IN respect to Separate Schools.
Whereas it is expedient to restore to the parties therein-mentioned
certain rights of which they were deprived by the Act [of 1856] : 22nd
Victoria, Chapter 65, of the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada : Her
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council
and Assembly of Canada, enacts as follows :

1. The words, "any Incorporated Village, or Town," shall be inserted
between the words, "within" and "any," in the third line of the eighteenth
Section of said Act.

2. So much of the thirty-fourth Section of said Act as requires Trustees
bo make their Returns or Reports under oath is hereby repealed.

3. It shall be lawful for the majority of the ratepaying supporters of the
Separate School, in each School Section, (in two or more School Sections,)
whether in the same, or adjoining. Municipalities, at Public Meetings duly
called by the Separate School Trustees of each such Section, to form such
Section into a Separate School Union Section, of which union of Sections
the Trustees shall give notice within fifteen days to the Clerk, or Clerks,
of the Municipality, or Municipalities, and to the Chief Superintendent of
Education ; and each such Separate School Union Section, thus formed,
shall be deemed one School Section for all Roman Catholic Separate School
purposes.

4. The twenty-ninth Section of said Act : 22nd Victoria, Chapter 65,
shall be amended as follows :

After the first notice retiuired to be given to the Clerk of the Munici-
pality by the supporters of a Separate School Section, each subsequent
annual notice reijuired by Law to be given, of the names and residences of
the supporters of a Separate School in any rural School Section, City,
Town, or Incorporated Village, shall be given in writing by the Trustees
of such Separate School ; but subject, in case of incorrect returns, to the
penalties imposed by law on School Trustees in case of other false returns.

5. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their registers, ) shall be
subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time, by the
Department of Public Instruction for Upper Canada.

Dr. Ryerson accompanied this Draft of Bill with the follow-
ing explanatory memorandum. He said : —

Failure of Separate School Leglslation.

129

No new principle is introduced ir^to this Draft of Bill, nor does it
contain any provision, (except those of the last Section,) which was not
embraced in the Common School Acts of 1860 and 1853.

The framers of the Roman Catholic School Act of 1855 aimed to assimi-
late the Separate School Law of Upper Canada, with the Dissentient
School Law of Lower Canada, but they were ignomnt of the effect of some
of the provisions of their Act, arising from the Municipal System of Upper
Canada, in connection with School Sections, Assessments, etc.

The provisions of the accompanying Draft of Bill only restore to the
parties concerned rights of which they were deprived by the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 1855.

I will now advert to the specific provisions of the accompanying Draft.

1. The supporters of a Separate School cannot establish a Separate
School in an Incorpcjrated Village, nor in a Town, as such, though they
may establish a Separate School in any School Section, or any Village not
incorporated, and in any Ward of a [City or] Town. Such anomalies
should, of course, be corrected, as the first Section of the Bill proposes.

2. Since 1856 the managers of Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada
have not been required to make their Returns and Reports on oath ; nor
is there any reason why the Trustees of Separate Schools in U^pper Canada
should be recjuired to do so, especially Jis the penalties are the same for
making a false Return, or Report, whether made on oath, or not, as the
ordinary Trustees are not required to make their Reports, or Returns, on
oath, and Separate School Trustees were not reijuired to do so before
they were required to do so by the Tache Bill of 1855. The second Section
of the Bill provides to abolish this invidious and needless anomaly.

3. Two or more Common School Sections can be united into one ; nor
is there any just reason why Separate School Sections should not be
allowed to do the same, as is provided by the third Section of the Bill.

4. The requiring each individual supporter of the Separate School to go
and notify the Clerk of the Municipality annually, imposes a needless
trouble and burden, after the first such notice ; and when the School is
once organized, the annual notice of the names and residences of the
supporters of the Separate School is quite sufficient, as the only object of
such notice is to give the Municipal Council such authentic information as
to the parties and properties to be exempted from Common School Taxes,
and as the Trustees are liable to a penalty if they insert any name in their
notice," without the authority of the bearer of it.

6. The fifth Section has been prepared with the consent of the Heads of
the parties concerned, upon the principle that Schools thus receiving
public aid upon definite and periodical Returns, should be subject to such
examination, from time to time, as may enable the Department which
pays the money, to ascertain whether the conditions of its payment have
been fulfilled.

Toronto, March, 1862. E. Rybrson.

130

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

THE BISHOP LYNCH APPOINTMENT EPISODE IN 1862.

In order to emphasize his desire to secure the continued
co-operation of the Representative of the Roman Catholic
Church in Toronto on the Provincial Council of Public Instruc-
tion, Dr. Ryerson wrote the following Letter to the Provincial
Secretary on the subject, and Dr. Lynch was appointed : —

I have the honour to submit to the favourable consideration of the
Governor-General-in-Council, the appointment of the Right Reverend
Doctor Lynch, Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, as a Member of the
Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, in place of the Right
Reverend Doctor de Charbonnel, who has removed from the country.

I am happy to be able to add, that Bishop Lynch has authorized me to
present his name for this appointment ; and that between his Lordship
and myself an entire agreement has been come to on the Separate School
provisions of the Law.

Toronto, loth of March, 1862. E. Ryerson.

When it was known that this appointment of Bishop Lynch
had been suggested to the Government by Dr. Ryerson, he
was called to account, in the leading newspaper in Toronto, for
it, on the ground that he had called on the Bishop to secure
his influence in favour of the Government candidate in Toronto.
To this charge Dr. Ryerson replied, through The Leader news-
paper, on the 29th of April, 1862, as follows : —

I never called upon Bishop Lynch in behalf of the Government, much
less did it submit a School Bill to him. . . .

In respect to what occurred between Bishop Lynch and myself, it may
be proper for me to remark, that my first conversation with Bishop Lynch
was to ascertn,in how far we were agreed, or could agree, as to the correc-
tion of acknowledged anomalies and inecjualities in certain provisions of
the Separate School Law, as it now exists. The Bishop had already
reduced his views to writing, and on comparing his notes with mine, there
was found to be little difference. It was then proposed that his Lordship
should, on an appointed day of the following week, call at the Education
Office, when I would have the proposed measure prepared in the form
of a Bill. On the appointed day, the Bishop, with the Very Rev. Angus
Macdonell, Vicar-General, of Kingston, called at the Education Office,
when we consi lered the whole question, and agreed in our views respecting
it — not involving the introduction of any new principle, but the restoration
of rights and privileges which were actually enjoyed by Roman Catholics
under the School 4ct9 of 1850 and 1853, but which were taken away by

:':■:■ ,*1*I4*»»'*W ft .:;

Failure of Separate School Legislation,

131

the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855, prepared, though it was^
by the Hon. L. H. Drummond, and under the auspices of certain Ruman.
Catholic Bishops, but in ignorance of the working and effect of some of its
provisions, arising from the nature of our Municipal Institutions.

It is but just for me to remark, that I found the views of Bishop Lynch,
as also those of another Roman Catholic Bishop, [Horan, of Kingston, see*
his Letter, page 133,] with whom I have had communication on the subject,
moderate and constitutional, appreciating the rights of citizens and the
institutions of our country, as well as the interests and institutions of their
own Church. In these high ([uarters, 1 must say that I heard no such
pretensions or assumptions as those involved in some of the provisions of
the Roman Catholic Separate School Bill, now before the Legislative
Assembly, and introduced by Mr. Scott, of the City of Ottawa, who seenia
to have become the organ of an ultra party in the Church of Rome, that
has caused much trouble on the Separate School ({uestion in Upper Canada.
Mr. Scott's present Bill is very ditferent from the moderate and reasonable-
one which he introduced two years ago. Some of the provisions of Mr.
Scott's present Bill are unobjectionable ; others are impracticable, and must
cause endless disputes ; others are inconsistent with rights of Municipali-
ties and citizens, and such as, I think, no Member of the Legislature can
constitutionally consent to. If Mr. Scott's Bill be pressed, I hope, for the
honour and character of Upper Canada, it will be rejected by the united
vote of both parties of Upper Canadian Representatives.

(Note. — See Mr. Scott's personal attack on Dr. R/erson, (in regard to
this Letter,) on the next page. )

Dr. Ryerson then proceeds to give a generous and a genuinely
patriotic reason why the wishes of moderate and reasonable
Roman CathoUcs should be met, in removing anomalies and
impracticable provisions in the Separate School Act. He said :

I feel that I am not second to Mr. Scott himself in my desire to see-
every needless impediment removed to the easiest possible working of the
Separate School Law.

Some months since I took the liberty to suggest to a Member of the
Government, that, as this was the first Session of a new Parliament, and,
as the Roman Catholics had shown as much loyal feeling and British
enthusiasm as any other class of citizens, in the late apprehended collision
between Great Britain and the United States, [in regard to the Mason and
Slidell "Tren^ afiair,"] and as the French of Lower Canada had unani-
mously evinced that feeling in a manner beyond all praise, and some ofi
their Bishops had sent out the most patriotic Circulars on the subject,,
the Government and Parliament could very appropriately and gracefully
respond to such a noble manifestation of national loyalty and patriotism^

132

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

by removing all that is justly objectionable in the Roman Catholic Separate
School Law ;* but the accomplishment of so just and legitimate an object
is very different from perpetrating so great an act of injustice to Upper
Canada, and indicting so flagrant a wrong upon many of its citizens and
institutions, as the passing of Mr. Scott's present Separate School Bill.
Toronto, 29th of April. 1862. E. Ryerson.

When this Letter reached Ottawa, on the .'iOth of April, Mr.
R. W. Scott took occasion, on tlie next day, to raise a " ques-
tion of privilege," in regard to it, and to assail Dr. Ryerson for
liaving written such a Letter, instead of replying to one from
luni, which, he stated in the House, he had written to Dr.
Ryerson, enclosing a copy of his Bill, two weeks before. In
this statement, Mr. Scott was entirely astray. I have the copy
of that Letter, and it is dated on the " 26th of April, '62." Dr.
Ryerson did not receive it in Toronto until the 28th, and, on
the next day, (the 29th,) he, very properly, wrote the Letter in
The Leader, which caused Mr. Scott to raise his " question of
privilege." In doing so, he said : —

In his opinion, the conduct of the Chief Superintendent of Education,
— a paid Ofhcer of the Government, — in the course he had taken, was
very censurable. Nearly a fortnight ago, he had sent him a copy of his
Bill, with a request that he would express his views thereon. But,
instead of replying to his communication. Dr. Ryerson came out in a
strong Letter to The Leader, in which he thought proper to indulge in
unwarrantable reflections on himself personally, and called on the Mem-
bers of both sides of the House to throw out the Bill. He asked, if the
House was. in that manner, to be dictated to by Dr. Ryerson ? ... It
really was monstrous that, in this way, the Commons of Canada should be
lectured and dictated to by their salaried servant. —{Globe Report.)

To this gratuitous attack on Dr. Ryerson by Mr. R. W. Scott,
the Hon. John A. Macdonald replied as follows : —

* Tlie only response wliich this warm-hearted tribute to the kintlneas and
loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects called forth from Mr. R. W.
Scott, in the House of.Assenibly, on the 1st of May, 1862, was the following : —
" It was nothing more than a gratuitous impertinence for Dr. Ryerson to coun-
Bel that a Separate School Bill should be grunted because, forsooth, the Roman
Catholic Bishops wrote to the Cur^s to extend their hospitality to the troops
which were sent to defend the country. . . . He asserted that it was an
insult to the people of Canada that such language should be used by their paid
officer." — (The Globe Report of Mr, R. W. Scot(\s remarks on his '* Quedion of
Privilege," in the House of Ameirtbly, on the 1st of May, 1862.)

Failure of Separate School Legislation.

13a

He thought it scarcely fair to a functionary holdin}{ the high and impor-
tant position of Dr. Ryerson, for tho Member for Ottawa to refer to him aa
he had done. It was a very proper wish for him to desire to set himself
right, and he ought not to have taken the opportunity of attacking the
Chief Superintendent, aH he had done. If he thought that Dr. Ryerson
had behaved as lie ought not to have done, it was nothing but reasonable
that the attention of the House should be called to the act of wrong-doing.
But this course should not have been taken without due notice being
previously given, in order that a full opportunity might be allowed to
such functionaries to defend themselves.

So far as I have been able to ascertain, Mr. R. W. Scott never
publicly made the amende honorable for this j^ratuitous and
unjust attack on Dr. Ryerson, — the result of his own absurd
mistake. (Privately he acknowledged it, however ; see page 140. )
Mr. M. C. Cameron gave him an opportunity to do so; but h©
remained silent, when, on the 8rd of June, 1862, (more than a
month after he had made his attack,) Mr. Cameron said :

The promoter of this Bill, on a former occasion, used very strong lan-
guage in disapproval of Dr. Ryerson's conduct. He was now disposed to
accept that gentleman's view, as more favourable to himself.

The "promoter" of the Bill, however, preferred to sit stilly
and leave to others the duty which he should have been chiv-
alrous enough to have cheerfully performed.*

private letter from bishop KORAN, OF KINGSTON.

Immediately after the conference at the Education Office
with Bishop Lynch and Vicar-General Macdonell, as men-
tioned in the Letter, (on page 130,) Dr. Ryerson sent a copy of
his Bill, " to Restore certain Rights," etc., to the Right Reverend
Doctor E. J. Horan, Bishop of Kingston, for his information.
In reply, Bishop Horan said : —

I have read with attention the proposed amendments to the Roman
Catholic Separate School Bill, which you were so kind as to send to the

* I wrote two notes to Mr. Scott early in this year, (1897,) in regard to the
"finality" of the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, — and inciden
tally in reference to the apparent discrepancy,— which, in his Senate Speech of
April, 1894, he failed to notice, or explain, — respecting the presence of two of
the Roman Catholic Clergy, (instead of one,) at the conferences between him
and Dr. Ryerson, settling, in 1862 and 186.3, the terms of the Separate School
Bills of those years. Mr. Scott had, therefore, thus another opportunity to
make any statement, or explanation, he pleasetl, had he wished to do so ; but
he neither acknowledged, nor replied to, either of my Letters. — J. G. H.

134

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

II '

"Vicar-General (Miicdonell) for his peruHal and mine. I thank you for this
mark of courtesy, and shall always endeavour to make myself deserving
of it.

I fear that your proposed amendments are not sufficient, and that they
-would not do away with the principal difficulties we met with in establish-
ing and maintaining our Schoo'"

If there is to be imy legishi u this matter, as T hope there will be,

it should be of a kind tu set is l^/Ug-vexed question at rest, by dealing
•with the true grievances of which Roman Catholics complain, and granting
them those rights to which they have an unquestionable claim.

I have made out a draft of the points, which I consider should be
embraced in any amendments to the present Law. I am aware that all is
not contained in what I propose ; but still, I believe, an Act containing
those points would give very general satisfaction.

I should feel most happy. Rev. Sir, if your views on this subject could
coincide, as I then could hope, with the help of your powerful influences,
to obtain for my co-religionists a boon they have so long desired. . , .
Your much obliged Servant,

KiNOSTON, 22nd of March, 1862. + E. J. Horan, Bp. of Kingston.*

CHAPTEK XXIII.

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS IN REGARD TO THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1862.

The Separate School Bill, to which Dr. Ryerson refers, in his
Letter to The Leader, of the 29th of April, (page 130,) was
introduced into the House of Assembly by Mr. Richard W.
Scott, of Ottawa, on the 7th of that month. On the 26th of
that month he enclosed a copy of it to Dr. Ryerson, then in
Toronto, expressing a hope, in his Letter of that date that the
Bill would meet with his approbation, and added, in his Letter,
that he wanted the Bill " to be a tinality.

Three days after writing this Letter, Mr. Scott, (on the 29th,)

* I knew Bishop Horan when he was Principal of the Laval Normal School.
He was a most interesting man to meet and converse with. He was conse-
crated Bishop of Kingston, in succession to Bishop Plielan, on the 1st of May,
1858, and died on the 16th of February, 1875.

■^7^

Private and Confidential Letters.

185

moved the second reading of his Bill, and, on the Ist of May,
made an attack on Dr. llyerson for not replying to that Letter.
The Bill, having paHsed the second reading, wjis referred to a
Special Committee of the House of Assembly. Its history and
untimely fate is best detailed in the following private and
confidential coiTespondence which took place in regard to it : —

(1. TeiegraTn from Dr. Ryerson to the Hem. John A. Mac-
donald : —

Will endeavour to see you on Monday.
Toronto, 11th of Maich, 1862.

I write a few lines this evening.

E. RVERSON. )

2. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson:

I send you a copy of the Separate School Bill, and would like to have
your opinion on the subject as soon as you can conveniently send it.*
Quebec, 28th of April, 1862. John A. Macdonald.

3. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald : —

Scott's Separate School Bill most objectionable and injurious. It ought,
by all means, to be rejected. Have written. See my short remarks and
appeal, [of the 29th of April, 1862,] against the Bill in yesterday's Leader.^:

Toronto, Ist of May, 1862. E. Ryerson.

4. Note from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins : —

I see that I must adopt very prompt and decisive measures against
Scott's Separate School Bill. I wish you would liave the enclosed Tele-
grams written out, . . . and send them immediately to the Hon. John
A. Macdonald, to my Brother William, and to Mr. Alexander Morris.
Those to my Brother and Mr. Morris must be paid. I am gaining ; but
am getting on slower than I had expected. |

Toronto, May the Ist, 1862. E. Ryerson.

* The succeasive Roman Catholic Separate School Bills introduced by Mr.
Scott into the House of Assembly, are as follows : — Bill No. 69, Received and
Read, 16th of March, 1860; Bill No. 11, Received and Read, 23rd of March,
1861 ; Bill No. 2, Received and Read, 7th of April, 1862 ; Bill No. 3, Received
and Read, 27th of February, 1863 — four Bills in all. The only one which
became Law was that of 1863.

t This Letter will be found on page 1.30.

X Dr. Ryerson was ill in be<l when he wrote tins Note to me. The Tele-
grams, (numbers 5 and 6,) sent to Mr. William Rveraon, M.P., and to Mr.
Alexander Morris, M.P., were the same as the one i sent to the Hon. John A.
Macdonald.

136

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

7. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Kyerson:

Prioate, I am truly grieved to learn of your protracted illness. I
should think that change of air would do you good. The proposed visit to
Quebec will be of great service to you, and I ain very anxious to see you.

Mr, R. W. Scott . , . introduced the present Bill without showing
it to me. Notwithstanding this, I thought it well to support the principle
of his Bill, on the understanding that it should be sent to a Special Com-
mittee and made to suit me. Scott has been looked up to as the exponent
of Roman Catholic views on the subject ; and the Bill, when "amended to
suit," will be carried through thv House by him, and must be accepted by
the Roman Catholics as their Bill.

You will see that Scott objected to your Letter of the 29th of April,
1862, [in The Le<(ikr of the 30th, page 130,] and Mr. H. M. Foley took
occasion to insinuate that I had got you to write it in order to help James
Patton,* — at the same time that I pretended to be a friend of the Roman
Catholics. My answer to Scott was that his veracity was not impeached in
any way ; and that, if he chose to make a motion specifically on the sub-
ject, he might do so, on due notice, and I was ready to meet him.

I will keep back the action of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the
expectation of your speedy arrival here.

Qu-'.BEC, 3rd of May, 1862. John A. Ma(,*uonald.

8. Letter from Mr. WiUiam Ryerson to Dr. Ryerson: —

I have received your Letter this morning You object strongly to
Scott's Bill. I am afraid your objections come tfjo late. When the Bill
was first introduced, I spoke to John A. Macdonald to forward to you,
without delay, a copy. He jjromised to attend to it ; but your objections,
even by telegraph, were not received until the debate on the Bill had
closed. Your Letter in The Leader, of the 29th of April, [page 130,] was
not received until next day.

I was prevented by sickness from attending the House on the day when
the subject was again brought up by Mr. Scott. The feelings excited
against you by him are very strong. The sneers, insinuations, and charge*
against you, I am told, were received with laughter and cheers from both
sides of the House ; while but one single individual, John Hillyard
Cameron, opened his mouth, or uttered one word, in your favour. +

* James Patton, Kwj., LL.l)., Vice-Clianccllor of the University of T onto,
wab tlien spoken of as a Candidate for the Legislative Council.

t The following is what Mr. John Hillyard Cameron said in the House of
Assembly, on the 1st of May, 1862, in reply to Mr. R. VV. Scott's attack on
Dr. Ryerson : — " He regretted to see that a certain amount of feeling liad been
manifested against the Rev. Chief Superintendent of Education for Uppei'
Canada ; l)ut he could not see that his conduct could, in any respect, be called
blamable. He occupied tlie important office of Chief of the Education Depart-

Private and Confidential Letters.

lar

The cause of such feelings are : that you have expressed, or stated, to
several persons, that you had no great objection to Scott's Bill, — that,
with some few amendments, ii would be harmless, etc. You now say that
the Bill now introduced is entirely different from the former one, or the
one to which you alluded [in your Letter to Tt.e Leader, page 130]. All
this may be true ; but your friends knew nothing of the difference ; and
you have negleated to inform them, until too late. And, even now, you
have not stated one point, or one clause, of the Bill to which you object,
nor have you given your reasons for objecting to the Bill itself. You
merely condemn the Bill ia toto, and call upon the House to throw it out.

Your enemies, and you have many such, call you vain, insolent, pre-
tentious, and I know not how much more ; while your friends, now
committed to the principle of the Bill, have nothing to say. I greatly
fear that the Bill, with some amenduients, will be sustained by a large
majority.

I would say more, but am unable, as I have been sick for several days.

. . I should be glad to hear from you. I shall write again as soon as.
I am able.

Quebec, May the 5th, 1862. William Rverson.

9. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (London,) to J. Oeorge Hodgins :

I am better than when T left home, (for change,) but I gain slowly.

. . I enclose you the first part of my reply to Mr. Scott, etc, . .
The effort to look over it has caused much pain in my head. ... I
had hoped to have been able to proceed with my remarks on the provisions
of Mr. Scott's Bill, but I shall not be able to do so .

I have thought it best to have my remarks on this Scott Bill printeu,.
but I leave it to your discretion at present.

London, Ontario, 19th of May, 186f;. E. RvEESCii.

10. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (London,) to J. Oeorge Hodgins :

The Doctor has cautioned me against mental exertion for some time to
come, but I thought T would finish the document, of which I sent you the
first part, . . . but before I had written a page ... I had to lie

inent of Upper Ciinada, and b-^d, as such, the care of seeing that the educational
wants of that section of the Province were properly attended to. A Bill hail
been introduced into the House by a private Member, which affected the Edu-
cation Department, and wliich would entail changes of a very serious nature.
The Rev. Superinton<",ent liad expressed his opinion on this Bill ; and was he to
1)0 punished for having done so? He felt assured, that if the Bill came up for
a third reading, in a similar form to that in whicii it came up for a socond
reading, a very large number of the Upper Canirda Members would oppose*
it."— {(flohr. Report.)

it'^

138

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

*'!

{'Ml'

down. . . . From the reported crisis at Quebec, it may not be
necessary for mo to go there at all on the subject of the Separate School
Bill. . . .

London, Ontario, 27th of May, 1862. E. Ryerson.

11. Letter frovi Br. Ryerson to Mr. Alexander Morris, M.P. :

As you referred to me, in your remarks on the second reading of Mr.
Scott's Separate School Bill, as approving of the general provisions of that
Bill, I beg to say that I never saw the Bill until the day before the second
reading of it was moved, [i.e., on the 28th of April, 18G2,] Mr. Scott's
note, enclosing a copy of the Bill to me, [at Toronto,] being dated only
three days before he moved the second reading of it, and more than two
weeks after he had introduced it.

I felt that the only alternative of duty left to me was to apprize the
Members of the Legislature for Upper Canjida of my views of the Bill, — it
being a private, and not a Government, measure, — as I had done, in
regard to a Bill introduced into the Legislature, in 1856, by Mr. John G.
Bowes. From that time until last week, I have been unable, (from
illness,) either to prepare a Memorandum, or to come to Quebec, on the
subject of the Bill.

Since I came to Quebec, I find that several of the most objectionable
Sections of the Bill have been rejected, or amended, by a Select Committee
of the House of Assembly ; and, after 'engthened explanations and discus-
sions between Mr. Scott and myself, other clauses of the Bill, which I
thought objectionable and injurious, or impracticable, have been erased,
or amended, so as to render the Bill harmonious, with what I believe to
be the integrity and efficiency of our Common School System, while it
remedied the defects in the Law, of which the supporters of Separate
Schools have complained.

This day the Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church have
accepted the Bill, as thus amended, and have, in connection with Mr.
Scott and myself, apprized the Head of the Administraticm of our agree-
ment in the provisions of the Bill ; and at. Jie piedent, as well as the late,
frovernment, have assented that Mr. Scott should proceed with his Bill,
(as thus amended, and agreed upon,) I can have no wish but that the
measure should be passed, if approved by a majority of the Representa-
tives of Upper Canada, as best for the interests of our Public School
System, and for the > venienco of the supporters of Separate Schools.

I herewith enclose you a copy of the Bill, as agreed to, and amended, so
that you may use it, as well as this Letter, in such a way as you may think
proper, in your place in the House.

Quebec, 1st of June, 1862. E. Ryerson.

^if:

Private and Confidential Letters.

139

12. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (Quebec,) to J. George Hodgins :

Yesterday morning the (Rev. Angus Macdonell) Vicar-General of
Kingston, — acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto
and Kingston,— and the Rev. Mr. Cazeau, Secretary of the Archbishop of
Quebec, as Representatives of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church, accepted the Separate School Bill, as proposed to be amended by
me, and agreed to by Mr. R. W. Scott ; and afterwards us four waited
upon the Premier, (Hon. J. S. Macdonald,) and informed him of the result
of our consultation, and the desire of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church that the Government would affirm and facilitate Mr. Scott's pro-
ceeding with the Bill. The Attorney-General, J. S. Macdonald, was much
pleased, and afterw^ards complimented me, as having done wonders by
coming down from Toronto ; and he said that he would assent to whatever
I had agreed to. . • . The Attorney-General is much pleased and
amused that the Separate School (juestion thus falls to his (Jovernment to
settle with so little trouble, or action, on their part, and that it is left to
him to recommend the appointment of the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto as a Member of the Council of Public Instruction, (page 130). He
says he will in((uire about it inunediately, and have the appointment made
and Gn~.etted. It is by procrastination and neglect in such matters that the
late Administration have lost immensely even among their warmest sup-
porters. ... If anything important occurs, I will write to-morrow
night.

Quebec, 2nd of June, 1862. E. Ryer.son.

13. Letter from J. Qeo^ye Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

I received a copy of Mr. Scott's amended Separate School Bill to-day.
. . . I can scarcely believe it is the one which, by telegraph, Mr. Scott
says that you had agreed to.

The word "adjoining," in the eighteenth line of Section three, will
give rise to disputes. I fear that it conflicts with the like restriction in
the Common School Act. When those Separate Schools can be thus
united, the residence of the Trustees should be within such united Sepa-
rate School Section.

Section four does not provide for the notitication to this Office of the
establishment of a Separate School.

I fear that the word "contiguous," in lines three and six, in Section
five, is too indefinite. . . .

I think thAt Sections eleven and fourteen cover too much ground, and
will have the affect of exempting too many persons as mere "supporters "
of the Separate School. The words: "other School Sections," in liTie
eight of Section eleven, are also (juito too indefinite. The words : " Muni,
cipality and Municipalities," in Section fourteen, are also too wide in their
application to tlie case of Separate Schools. . , «

140

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

The principle of Section twenty-three is a sound one ; but it is question-
able whether the Council of Public Instruction should have the power of
appointing Examiners.

Section eighteen unwisely reverses the present arrangement, and will
be too onerous on those who wish to support the Public Schools.

Section nineteen conflicts with Section three, and will load to disputes.
The second part of that Section is good in itself ; but it will also lead to
disputes in determining the "three miles."

Section twenty will have the eflfect of drying up the Clergy Reser\e
Fund, which is now applied to the Common Schools. . . . The
Municipalities may object to the Fund being claimed under this Section by
Separate School Trustees.

Sections twenty-six, twenty-seven and twenty-eight are, to my mind,
very objectionable.

There is no provision in the Act for the inspection of Separate Schools.

Toronto, 4th of June, 1862. J. Georoe Hodoins.

14. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

It is well that you got down to Quebec in time to modify Mr. Scott's
Separate School Bill. I sea by the telegram from Quebec, that he has
withdrawn it, chiefly owin^ to Mr. T. R. Ferguson's opposition. . . .

Toronto, 6th of June, 1862. J. George Hodoins.

15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins: —

I left Quebec last night by steamer. . . . You have seen that
Scott's Bill is thrown out. A strong feeling was excited against him in
the House on account of his statement that I had approved of his Bill, and
then his attack upon me, and his statement that he had enclosed it to me
fi'om Ottawa during the rece>^s. I showed him from his own Letter to me
at Toronto, that it was dated at Quebec on the 26th, only three days before
he moved the second reading of his Bill, on the 29th. . . . He was
deeply mortified, and admitted that he was wrong. . . .

Montreal, 7th of June, 1862. E. Ryerson.

DR. HYERSON'S DETAILED PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO THE
SCOTT SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1862.

In addition to these Private and Confidential Letters, Dr.
Ryerson, in July, 1862, wrote several others to the Editor
of The Jjeader, in reply to the attacks which were nmde upon
him, for having, (as asserted in The Globe newspaper at the
time,) become an —

Private and Confidential Letters.

141

Arch-traitor to destroy the work which he had employed nearly eighteen
years to establish and mature, — namely, the Common School System of
the country.

After dealing with other matters in his Letters to The Leader,
lie thus referred to the third abortive Roman Catholic Separate
School Act of Mr. Scott, of 1862 :—

When Mr. II. W. Scott, of Ottawa, introduced, during the late Session
of our Legislature, his Separate School Bill, incorporating several extreme
provisions in it, ac the suggestion of the Ultramontane party in Toronto,
that prompted Bishop de Charbonnel in his extravagant pretensions and
wicked crusade against our School System, I rose from a sick bed to
publicly entreat tlie Members from Upper Canada to reject so objectionable
a Bill, — the author having sent me a copy of it only three days before he
moved its second reading ; but as he had impressed the House with the
belief that I a[)proved of the Bill, a majority voted for its second reading,
with a view to refer it to a Select Committee, wliich pruned the Bill of
some of its extreme provisions, and reported it, as atnended, for the adop-
tion of the House.

Now, were there one particle of truth in the statement, that I was
conspiring with the Herman Catholic Bishops, and their agents, to subvert
our School System, I would, of course, not have objected to Mr. Scott's
Bill, as introduced by him ; much less would I have objected to it as
amended by a Committee of Upper Canada Members of the Legislative
Assembly. But proceeding to Quebec as soon as I was able to travel,

. . I saw a copy of Mr. Scott's Bill, as aniended by a Select Com-
mittee, which, it seems, was induced to consider the Bill before I could
get to Quebec, and reported upon it the day previous to my arrival there.

I at once objected to any legislation at all on the subject, except under
the auspices of the Government, who, I maintained, were responsible for
the protection of the School System, as wtll as for the judicial and financial
system, and for any and all measures necessary to correct the evils or
remedy the defects of the one as well as of the other. Two Members of
the present Administration, to whom I stated my objections and views,
admitted their validity. I also objected to several provisions of the Bill as
amended by the Committee ; but it being understood that the Government
would assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding with the BiL, provided it were
amended so as to meet my views, he consented to the erasure of the clauses
to which 1 objected, and to the insertion of the further amendments whish
I proposed. And what were those clauses and amendments '. . . .

The Select Committee had purged Mr. Scott's Bill of several of its Ultra
montane provisions, such as that of making the Priests ex-offi,cio School
Trustees, with power of taxation, — a provision not admitted in Catholic

142

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

France, or Belgium, or even in Austria. But the Bill, as reported by the
Committee, permitted Trustees of Separate School Sections to form Union
Sections to any extent they might please. To thi.s I objected, and insisted
that the ratepaying parents should be the judges as to forming Union
Sections for Separate Schools, as well as for Common Schools ; and, of
course, they would not agree to any Union Section eo large as to prevent
their children from attending the School, and especially as the Bill pro-
vided, (as amended by the Committee,) that no one should be recognized as
a supporter of a Separate School who should reside more than three miles
from it. My amendment was admitted.

Again, the Bill, as originally, introduced, exempted the supporters of
Separate Schools from paying Public School Rates, in whatever part of the
Province their property might be situated. The Committee limited the
exemption to the Municipality of the Separate School supporters. I
insisted that the exemption should be limited to the School Section, as all
property in each School Section should be liable for the education of the
youth of the Section — as it was by the joint labours of such youths and
their parents that the value of property in such Section was created or
maintained. My amendment was admitted.

By the Bill, as reported by the Committee, it was also provided, that
the Council of Public Instruction should appoint a Board of Examiners in
each County for examining Separate School Teachers and giving them
Certificates of Qualifications. 1 was aware that under the present Separate
School law, — Trustees of each Separate School give the Certificates of
Qualifications to their Teachers ; such Teachers have no public standing in
comparison of the Teachers of the Common] ScIkjoIs ; that many of the
Teachers of Separate Scho<jls in the Townships and Villages are so poorly
qualified that the most intelligent Roman Catholics in such places send
their children to the Public Schools ; that it was, therefore, desired to have
some form of examination that would raise the position of Separate School
Teachers. But I wholly objected to the creation of two distinct County
Boards of Examiners of School Teachers ; to the Council of Public
Instruction, being made the instrument of selecting a Roman Catholic
Board of Examiners in each County, — thus actually giving Separate
Common School Teachers an apparent superiority over Public Common
School Teachers, and creating the natural precursor of a Separate
Provincial Normal School. I delared my intention, should such a
provision become law, to recommend to the Council of Public Instruction
to appoint the present County Boards of Public Instruction as Examiners
of Separate School Teachers, as they are of Public School Teachers, and
to prescribe the same programme of subjects and classification as are
prescribed for Public School Teachers. This was formerly the practice,
and no objection was ever made to it until the Charbonuel agitation. The
result was the proposed dangerous innovation was abandoned, and the law

fs'-

Private and Confidential Letters.

14,*^

left as it is. Finally, the Committee consented to retain the following
extraordinary clauses in the Bill, as reported by them :

"2(). The Holidays and Vacations prescribed by the Council of Public
Instruction for the observance of Common Schools, shall not be binding on
Roman Catholic Separate Schools ; but the Trustees of every such. School
may pre8cril)e the observance of such other holidays and vacations 'ts they
may see fit ; provided, always, that the number of school days in any
Roman Catholic Sei)arate School shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-
nine days in the first half of every year, nor one hundred and sixteen days
in the second half of the year." [The miiumnm of time each half year
that the Public Schools are retjuired to be kept open.]

"27. In all Roman Catholic Separate Schools, no rules shall be
enforced for the government and management of such Schools, and no
books shall be introduced or prohibited without the approbation of the
Trustees of such Roman Catholic Separate Schools."

To these Ultramontane clauses I objected in totu, as unsanctioned by the
example of Lower Canada in regard to the Dissentient School-i, and as
unparalleled in any country in respect to Schools to which legislative aid is
given. I wi.shed that the Separate Schools in Upper Canada should be
subject to public authority and oversight, the same as are Dissentient
Schools in Lower Canada. The result was the erasure from the Bill of
these two clauses, and the substitution of the following in their place : —

"25. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their Registers,)
shall be subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time,
by the Chief Superintendent of Education ; and shall be subject also to
such regulations as may be imposed, from time to time, by the Council of
Public Instruction for Upper Canada."

Such are some of the essential modifications which T got made in Mr.
Scott's Bill, even after it had been amended and recommended by a
Select Committee of the Legislative A3semy)ly, — so much so that a Member,
well acquainted with the nature and administration of the Schoi»' Law,
, • . said, on reading the Bill, as thus modified, "it is better than the
present Separate School law, I wish it would pass the Legislature." . . .

Nor did I stop witli these essential changes in tlie provisions of thiw
Bill, though now rendered unobjectionable. I stated that I would resist
its further progress in the Legislature, except on two conditions : — First,
th.at the Bill thus modified sliould be accei)ted as a settlement of the
question by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Cliurch. Secondly,
that the Government should assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding with it. To
secure the former of these objects, Mr. Scott got the Vicar-General
Macdonell, (who had gone from Upjier Canada to Quebec in behilf <>f the
authorities of the Church to watch legislation on school matters,) and tlie
Reverend Secretary of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Quebec, (ihe
Head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada,) to meet me in the

144

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Parliamentary Library, wliere we discussed the provisions of the Bill, and
where they accepted it on the part of the authorities of the Roman
Catholic Church as finally amended in its present form ; after which two
copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon and accepted, were made, — the one
for Mr. Scott, and the other lor myself ; and the parties concerned waited
upon the head of the Administration, and informed him that they accepted
the Bill as thus modified, and requested the assent of the Government to
Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill. . .

Every one who examines this third and expurgated edition of the Bill,
will see that it brings back the School system in respect to Separate
Schools, as near as possible, to what it was before the passing of the
Roman Catholic Separate School Bill of 1865. . . .

This is an object I have been most anxious to accomplish. It was with
this view that, before the late Session of Parliament, I conferred with
Roman Catholic Bi shops in Upper Canada, within whoso dioceses most of
the Separate Schools are established, — resolved that if they, abandoning the
extreme pretensions of Bishop de Cliarbonnel, desired nothing more than
that the amendment of the Separate School Law of 1855, so as to restore
to the supporters of Separate Schools what that law deprived them, I
would reconunend a measure to that effect. (Page I'M.) 1 felt no disposi-
tion to renew the causeless, and, to Roman Catholics, injurious Separate
School agitation of Bishop do Charbonnel, but the simple removal of evils
caused by the Separate School Bill of 1855, which was one of the fruits
of the Charbonnel agitation. I accordingly prejiared a draft of Bill of
former claims which was accepted, entitled, " An Act to restore to parties
therein named certain rights which they heretofore enjoyed, and of which
they have been deprived by the Separate School Act of 1855." . .
(See page 128.)

It is a fact, known to the country, that from the commencement of the
Ultramontane Separate Scliool agitation, under Bishop de Charbonnel,
down to the Ultramontane Separate School Bill introduced into the
Legislature at its late session, by Mr. Scott of Ottawa, I have both
publicly and privately resisted every measure or clause that would, in the
slightest degree, weaken our Common School System.

Toronto, 10th of July, 1862. E. Ryerson.

Discussion in the Anglican Synod in 1862. 145

CHAPTER XXIV.

SEPARATE SCHOOL DISCI SSTON IN THE ANGLICAN SYNOD

IN 1862.

During several years preceding 1802, the Anglican Church,
through its Toronto Synod, invariably petitioned the Legisla-
ture annually on behalf of Church of England Separate Schools.
It took no part, however, in the current discussions of the day
on the subject of Roman Catholic Separate Schools, except to
base its argiunent for Church of I'higland Separate Schools on
the existence of tliose for Roman Catholics, under the authority
of the Legislature. It claimed etpial rights, — that was all.

Being a Lay Representative in the Synod of June, 18(52,
from the Cathedral Church of St. James, Toronto, I naturally
took part in the discussion on Church of England Separate
Schools, when the yearly question on the subject came up. I
took occasion to refer to the proposal which Dr. Ryerson had
then made to the Government, in the preceding March, to pro-
vide a wa}'" by which "tiie most needy and neglected" children
in Cities and Towns might be reached and educated. In this
matter, I said, that he had consulted the Bishop and other ex-
perienced men on the subject. For this Tlie Ulobe censured him.

When the Report of a Committee of the Synod, in favour of
Church of England Separate Schools, came up for adoption, I
objected to a statement in it to the effect, that, in Dr. Ryerson's
Bill, he liad " conceded the just claims of the Church of
England." The following report of my remarks in the Synod
is taken from The (rlohe newspaper of the time.* I said : —

* Several Meinheis of the Synod took pint in the dehate, but I only insert
the rcniarits wliich I made, witli a view to explain the nature of the Special
School Bill then proposed, in regard to " needy and neglected children," and
also to point out what liad been done, up to that time, on the general subject
of School Legislation.

146

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

r-ii

In thiit Bill, the words: "Church df Enj,'laii(l,'' did not occur at all.
Even the words: "Separiite Schools," hiid no place in it. But it was
Himply j)ropo8ed, in that Bill, to meet a want, and to supply a deficiency
which was felt in all the Cities and Towns. He had no duuht his Lordshij),
the Bishop, from his long experience in those matters, and his long acquaint-
ance with the Chief Superintendent of Education, nuist have arrived at
this conclusion, that all his amendments to the System of Public Instruc-
tion in this country had been of a directly practical character. The
measure which Dr. Ryerson prepared last winter, and submitted to his
Lordship, and, he believed, to the other Prelates of the Church in this coun-
try, and which, he believed, received their sanction, was of this nature :

We were aware that, in t lie Cities i.nd Towns of Upper Canada, there was
a large proportion of the juvenile population which never attend any School
whatever, Se[)arate, Connnon, or even Sunday Schools. We were also
aware that the agitation against the continuance of the Common School
System in the Cities and Towns, on account of its great expense, had been
repeatedly urged. A learned gentleman on the Bench (Mr. .Justice
Hagarty) had freijuently, in his Charges, called attention to this growing
evil in our midst. We all admitted the existence of the evil ; but parties
were divided as to how it should be remedied. He believed he might
separate those who entertained different views on the subject into three
classes. Fird, there were those vho contended that the Common School
System was unjust, that it taxed the people heavily to support the Public
Schools, but that it failed in bringing within their influence those very
portions of the j»opulation for whose benefit they were intended. They said,
therefore, that the great expense to which the Cities and Towns were put
on account of the Conmion Schools, was comparatively lost. , . .

There was another part of the community, whose views the Chief
Superintendent had endeavoured to meet, and which, after all their talk
on Separate Schools, had probably the deepest hold on the hearts of
every one present. The Chief Superintendent's object was to meet the
religious feelings jind sentiments of the country, not exclusively of the
Church of England, but of every Protestant Denomination in Upper
Canada. His object was not to change, but to supplement the Common
School System, and to bring within the doors of some School-house the
children now wandering about our streets, and being educated in the
School of theft and vice.

Dr. Ryerson had for years revolved it over and over again in his mind,
how he could meet this difficulty, whether by adopting the views he had
just referred to, or the view of the very small minority, the third party,
those who were anxious to have a law passed, called in other Countries a
Truancy law, to compel all children, if Schools were provided for them, to
attend those Schools, or else to give a good account of themselves.

One party, then, consisted of those who objected to the Common School

Discussion in the Anglican Synod in 1862.

147

System, on account of itH great fcx|)en30, and sought, by niuans of Separate
Schools, to meet the ditticulty, and to lessen the expense.

Mr. J. a. Hodgins gave notice that he would move, as an amendment
to the Resolution to he moved by Dr. Bovoll, and seconded by Rev. W. S.
Darling, the following : —

That, us members of the United Church of England and Ireland in this
Diocese, we do not desire to seek any interference with the Common School
System, as establislied by law, or to demand exclusive privileges not at present
shared in e(|nally by other Protestant Denominations in Upper Canada.

Dr. Bovell moved the following Resolution : —

That a respectful Memorial be again presented to the Legislature, setting-
forth the continHe<l desire of the Church of England and Ireland in Canada, to
have Separate Schools in Cities and Towns ;

And, further, to respectfully remind the Covenimeut that they seek not any
improper interference witli the Conunon Scliool System, as established by law,
but claim to be entitled to the same privileges, and to have a similar measure
of justice meted out to them as Members of the said Church, as have been
accorded to their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.

Mr. J. G. Hodgins asked that he might be permitted to give a brief
historical retrospect of this (juestion, since the first provision for Separate
Schools was introduced, twenty-one years ago, applying both to Upper and
Lower Canada, but chiefly designed to apply to the latter. j."in, words
used were: "Dissentient Schools," and the foundation of the Separate
School i)rovision of our law was designed primarily for the protection of
the Protestant minority of Lower Canada. The first law on this subject,
applicable to both sections of the Province, was not found to work satis-
factorily, and, in 1843, the Hon. F. Hincks introduced a law, in which was
continued the provision for Separate Schools in Upper Canada. In 1847,
Boards of Trustees in Cities and Towns were empowered to determine the
number and description of Schools, and to decide "whether they .should
be Denominational, or Mixed." In 1850, the law was revised, and provision
was made for the establishment of Separate Roman Catholic and Coloured
Schools. In 1855, the Tach*^ Act was passed, applying exclusively to the
Roman Catholics, but not with the entire concurrence of the Chief Super-
intendent. He agreed that our System of Public Instruction should be
based on Christianity. Provision was made for the Schools being opened
with prayer and the reading of the Scriptures. In 2,500 of the 4,000
Common Schools, the daily work was opened and closed with prayer ; in
2,800 the Scriptures were read daily. But the Church of England claimed
further, that religious instruction should be given according to her stand-
ards. Provision also had been made for this, by the regulations issued
two or three years ago, allowing Clergymen to come to the Schools and
give religious instruction to the children of their own persuasion for one
hour a week, after School hours.

■ *

148

U. C. Sej»arate School Legislation.

Dr. Bovoll had referred to the diHohedience of children in this country.
Wrts this the fault of the Common Schools? Ho asked gentlemen to look
at that card over the door of this Room, emanating from the Dopaitment
of Public Instruction, the first thing which children saw when they entered
school was, as shown on this card : " Hoi our thy Father and thy Mother."
When they turned round, they .saw th-tt other precept: "Fear (lod and
Honour the King." Of the Common School Teachers, 800 were Meml)ers
of the Church of England ; 1,250 were Presbyterians ; 1,250 Methodists ;
230 Baptists ; and 85 Congregationalists. All Clergymen, too, were Visitors
of the Common Schools

Mr. Hodgins then referred to the argument that, because Roman
Catholics had Separate Schools, the Church of England should have them
also. Was tiie principle of Separate Schools in itself a sound one? The
laity of this country did not think it was, and, if it was wrong for the Roman
Catholics, it was wrong for the Church of England, and two wrongs could
not make a right. The Roman Catholic standards, however, differed mi toto
from the standards of every Protestant Denomination, and that distinction
was recognized by the School Law. Rut to demand Separate Schools simply
because the Church of Rome had them, was beneath the dignity of the
Churnh of England. He had looked over the Resolutions passed on this
subject from year to year. They api)ear to have passed with very little
dissent, but he was satisfied that they did not represent the religious con-
victions of the laity of the Church of En<|land in Upper Canada. And he
would ask, if Separate Schools for tiie Church of England were established,
what guarantee had they for the religious instruction that would be com-
municated in them? (A Yok'k — "The Catechism would be taught.")
What guarantee, he would ask, was there that the children, by the instruc-
tion given them, would not be influenced in a direction in which many
Protestant Churchmen could not concur ? ,

The Bishop, before putting the question to the vote, wished to make a
few remarks. Last year, on this ([uestion, he said they had a right to
Separate Scho(jls, and that they ought not to appear before the Legislature
as mere suppliants. If 50,000 persons were reiiuired to petition the Legis-
lature for the rights of the Church of England, they could be got, and
they ought to continue to demand them until they were granted. He
could not, therefore, agree to the Amendment, although he .admitted it had
been introduced by Mr. Hodgins with groat moderation and great talent.

Mr. Hodgins' Amendment was then put, and negatived. Yeas — Clergy,
9 ; parishes, 12 ; total, 21. Nays— Clergy, 45 ; parishes, 29 ; total, 74.

SCHOOL BILL RELATING TO NEEDY AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN.

The Bill which Dr. Ryerson proposed to meet the special
case of " needy and neglected children," was as follows :

Discussion im the Anglican Synod in 18fi2. 149

1. Wherefts, there are largo numbers of children of School age not
attending any School in the Cities and Towns of Upper Canada, notwith-
standing the Schools in several of said Cities nn<l Towns arc free ; and,
whereas, it is the duty of the Legislature to employ ail practicable means
to prevent such children from growing up in ignorance and vice, by impart-
ing to them the advantages of a sound Christian education ; and, whereas,
it is desirable to exhaust all the agencies and inriuences of voluntary exer-
tion and religious benevolence, before resorting to measures of coercion, in
order to promote the education of the most needy ivnd neglected, as well as
of other classes of the population, of such Cities and Towns.

2. Be it enacted, etc., that it shall be lawful for any Benevolent Associa-
tion, Society, or Congregation, of any Religious Persuasion, or any two»
or more, such Congregations may write, in any City, or Town, to establish
one or more Schools in such City, or Town, in Upper Canada ; and any
premises and houses actpiired by such Association, Society, Congregation,
or Congregations, for the purposes of this Act, shall be held in the same
manner as are premises and places for the ordinary purposes of such
Association, or Society, or as are premises and jjlaces for public worship,
acquired and held by such Congregation, or Congregations.

3. Every such Association, Society, Congregation, or two or more Con-
gregations united, establishing a School, or Schools, shall notify the same
to the Chief Superintendent of Education, and to the Clerk of their
Municipality, on or before the first day of January, or the first day of
July, next after their esttiblishment, and shall, according to their usual
mode of appointing their Association, Society, or Church otHcers, apjjoint,
annually, three persons for the management of each such School.

4. The Managers of each School established under the provisions of this
Act, shall, on or before the tiiirtieth day of June, and the thirty-first day
of December, of each year, transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Educa-
tion for Upper Canada, according to a form prepared by him, a correct
statement of the number of pupils attending such School, together with
their average attendance during the six next preceding months, or during
the number of months which may have elapsed since the establishment
thereof, and the number of months it shall have been so kept o^ n ; and
the Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the proportion which
the Managers of such School shall be entitled to receive of the School
moneys aforesaid, and shall pay over the amount apportioned from the
Legislative School Grant to the Managers of such School, and shall notify
the Chamberlain, or Treasurer, of the City, or Town, in which such School
is situated of the proportion payable to it from School moneys provided by
local assessment ; whereupon such Chamberlain, or Treasurer, shall, upon
receiving such notification, pay said proportion to the Managers of such
School, or Schools, established under the provisions of this Act.

5. Every such School established under the provisions of this Act, shall

:^f

^*i

150

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

be entitled to assistance towards its support from the Common School
moneys of the City, or Town, in which it is established, (not including
School fees or moneys provided for the purchase of Public School sites, or
the erection of Public School buildings, and their appurtenances,) accord-
ing to the average attendance of pupils during each lialf year, as compared
with the half-yearly average attendance of pupils at the Common Schools
of such City, or Town.

6. The Managers and Teachers of every School established under the
provisions of this Act, shall be subject to all the regulations and obligations
which apply to Trustees and Teachei's of Common Schools in Cities and
Towns, shall keep a School Register, and make half-yearly returns and
annual reports in the form and manner and at the times prescribed in
regard to Common Schools ; and shall be subject to the same penalties, to
be collected in the same way, in case of false returns, as are imposed by
law upon Trustees and Teachers of Common Schools.

7. Any moneys which may be paid out of the Legislative School Grant
under the provisions of this Act, shall be expended in the payment of the
salaries of Teachers, and for no other purpose, and the Schools, with
their Registers, established by the authority of this Act, shall be 8ubjei;t
to such inspection as may ))e directed, '^rom time to time, by the Depart-
ment of Public Instruction for Upper Canada.

1^1

DR RYERSONS EXPLANATION OF HIS BILL RELATING TO NEEDY
AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN IN CITIES AND TOWNS.

The reference to Dr. Ryerson's Bill, relatiuo- to "needy and
neglected " children in the Anglican Synod, led to an animated
discussion in The Globe of Toronto at the time. In reply to the
Editor's criticism on his proceedings in the matter. Dr. Ryerson
said : —

There is one class, and unfortunately an increasing class, of the popula-
tion of Cities and Towns, which is without the sphere of any influence,
secular or religious, which has yet been exercised for the education of their
children. These are the children, (and not the children of Common
Schools) that swell the calendars of juvenile crime in Cities and Towns.
The problem is, What means can be emjdoyed to dry up this fountain of
idleness and crime, and make these now poor and neglected youth useful
members of Society ? Tlio influence of even our excellent Common Free
Schools has not reached them. Nay, in the presence of these noble
Schools the number of unschooled vagrant children increase, — at least in
the City of Toronto. In 1860, during an ofticial tour of Upper Canada, 1
submitted the question in various counties for public consideration, as to
whether the municipalities should not be invested with power to make

Discussion in the Anglican Synod in 1862. 151

regulations ii.r educational purposos in regard to vagrant children, between
the ages of 7 and 14 years, not attending any School, and not engaged in
any lawful employment. . .

It is admitted on all sides, that some agency is necessary, in addition to
ti.at now employed, to meet the case of vagrant children in Cities and
Towns. I have proposed to supplement and combine with our Common
Sch<iol agency the additional agency of voluntary religious and benevolent
*ftort, — an agency which has reached the cases of more degraded classes of
parents in London and Edinburgh, than any which exist in the Cities and
Towns of Upper Canada. . . .

In the measure which I proposed and submitted to the consideration of
Government on this subject, I adopted the course which I had invariably
pursued in regard to every measure I ever submitted to (iovernment for
the improvement of our School System. I prepared the first draft of it
without consultation with any one ; and then consulted all parties
ac<juainted and interested in the subject as far as I had opportunity. . . .

In the present case, the first person with whom I conferred was a
distinguished minister of the then United Presbyterian Church— a man of
large experience in our School System, and deeply interested in the
amelioration of the neglected classes of youth in Cities and Towns.
Afterwards, when I conferred with the venerable Bishop of Toronto, (as 1
had done in regard to every School Bill I ever proposed,) and such of the
■Clergy of the Church of England, (as well as of other Churches,) who
happened to call upon me, I was gratified to find that they were willing to
ticcept of my proposed measure for supplementing the Common Schools of
the Cities and Towns in order to reach, if possible, the cases of the
neglected and vicious j)oor, in place of what some of them had advocated
in regard to Separate Schools. This 1 regarded as so much gained to the
unity of our Common School System. Some of these gentlemen, after-
wards, (in Synod of the Church of England of Toronto,) made an
unauthorized and unwarrantable use of my name, anil ascribed to me
objects and views with which I had no sympathy. Mr. Hodgins, (Deputy
Superintendent of Education, and acijuainted with my views and proceed-
ings from the beginning,) who was a member of the Synod, corrected the
representations which were there made of my views. In the memorandum
which I had prepared on this Bill, 1 said : —

The giant evil of youthful demoralization is confessedly increasing in
nnr Cities and Towns ; and the importance of arresting it, as far as possible,
<!annot be over-estimated in regard either to these centres of population
themselves, or in respect to the country at large. In comparatively new
Cities and Towns, and a young country, the foundation of society should
be dee[)ly and broadly laid in religion, virtue and knowledge, and for that
puipose every possible religious infiuence and benevolent eftbrt should be
developed and associated with the instruction of the masses in rearing the
structure of society.

li ^:

152

U. C. Separate School Le«islation.

The chief and almost only remedy which has been i)ropo8ed for the evils
of youthful ignorance and crime in our Cities and Towns, is coercion, —
compulsory attendance at Scliool. Every member of society has
undoubtedly a right to such an education as will tit liim for his duties as a
Christian citizen, as much as he lias a right to food and clothes ; and
society has a right, and it is in duty bound to see that each of its members
is fitted for his duties, and not trained to be a public pest and burden. I
have frequently urged this view of the subject, and have suggested and
prepared measures to give it practical effect as an element of our Public
School System, especially in Cities and Towns. But I have found an utter
unwillingness on the part of public men of different parties, to do whRC
seemed to intrench upon individual and parental rights. . . . To
compel any class of children to attend the Public Schools, has proved
impracticable ; and, as it has been truly urged, could that be done /
Secular instruction alone would not reach the seat of the moral evils to be
corrected, of the moral and religious feelings, on the influence and culture
of which depend chiefly and essentially the results desired.

Under these circumstances, I propose to develop and encourage the
exercise of a voluntary, religious and moral agency which has hitherto
remained almost dormant in this country, which is practically discour.iged
by our free Public School System ; but which has accomplished, and is
accomplishing, immense good in behalf of the neglected and vicious poor in
many Towns in England and Scotland.

But I am far from proposing the establishment of ragged, or of any
description of Pauper Schools in Upper Canada. Our whole Sciool System
is founded on the opposite principle, — that of the mutual rights and
obligations of the citizen and the St'vte, — not of the pauper and the donor.
But I propose that our School System, which has not the vital power of
religious zeal and benevolence to bring into the Schools large numbers of
the most needy and dangerous classes in Cities and Towns, shall be
supplemented by developing and encouraging that religious spirit of
benevolence and zeal which, under great disadvantages, has wrought out
such beneficial results elsewhere. . .

CHAPTER XXV.

PASSAGE OF THE SCOTT SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL, OF 18»W.

After the failure of tlie Scott Roman Catholic Separate School
Bill, of 18C2, to receive the assent of the Legislature at its
Session of that year, renewed etibrts were made to have it

Passage of the Scott Sep. S. Bill, of 1863. 153

again introduced into the Legislature at its next Session, in
1863. Of this the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, who was
Premier at the time, had cognizance. He, therefore, on the 2nd
of February of that year, wrote to Dr. Ryerson urging him to
be down in Quebec about the middle of the month, when the
opening of the Legislature would take place. The following
are copies of the private and confidential correspondence which
took place in connection with the final passage of the Scott
Separate School Bill, of 1863 :—

1. Fro'iiu the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, Attorney-
General, to Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent of Education:

I think you sliDuld be down here about the time of the opening, as I am
clear thtat explanations, in regard to the School Bill,* which yon alone can
satisfactorily give, will be required, and it may happen that, without your
jn-esence, our explanations would not be acceptable to some.

Qi'EBEc, 3rd of February, 1863. , J. S. Macuonald.

2. From Dr. Ryerson, at Quebec, to J. George Hodgivs : —

I saw Mr. Sandfield Macdonald a few minutes yesterday morning. The
Draft of Grammar School Bill, and Memorandum, is being printed in slips
for the use of Members of the Government. I have not yet seen any
Members of the (iovernment but the Attorney-General. He wants me to
stay and help them tlirough the difficulties of the Separate School Bill,
which he is inclined to make a (Jovernment measure, — also the Grammar
School Bill. He is very friendly.
QuKHEC, February 24tli, 1803. E. Ryerson,

3. From J. George Hodginn to Dr. Ryerson, at Quebec : —

I enclose a Letter in reference to the School Bills, which may be of use
to the Premier. ... I called on the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, Roman
Catholic Bishop of Toronto, and the Rev. Dr. Cahill, from Ireland, yester-
day, and had a friendly interview with them of about two hours. The
Bishop was cordial in his praises of our Public School System, and of the
tolerance to the claiuis of his Church. In conversation with the Rev. Dr.
Cahill, he spoke in the highest terms of the state of afiairs in Canada, as
compared with other places, and of his utter dislike to the course of the
Montreal True IVifwss, and other kindred papers, in regard to you and
the School System. The Bishop promised to bring up Dr. Cahill to see

*«'.«■,, The flnimnwir School Bill, — a draft of which Dr. Ryerson liud trans-
mitted to the Govenmieiit, — and the Separate School Bill introduced by Mr. R.
W. Scott.
11

154

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

our establishment. In the course of conversation, the Bishop stated that
he had forbidden any of his Clergy to write in the newspapers without his
knowledge, and the revision, either by himself, or by some other Dignitary,
of their articles. I think that if simple justice and fair-minded treatment
were accorded to the Roman Catholics, he (Bishop Lynch) and others
would be made fast friends.

Toronto, March 26th, 18(53. J. George Hodoins.

4. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —

I had an interview with two Ministers, — the Attorney-General, (J. S.
Macdonald,) and Mr. William McDougall, — yesterday, respecting the Gram-
mar and Separate School Bills. The Attorney-General seemed rather
alarmed about what some one had said to him about giving Grammar
School Trustees, etc., more power ; but Mr. McDougall said that he had
read the Bill, with the Memorandum on it, and thought it a good Bill ;
that he had given it to Mr. Reesor, an old County Warden, and well
acquainted with School matters, and that Mr. Reesor thought it was the
very thing that was wanted. This (juite changed the aspect of the question
in the mind of the Attorney-General. I am to see the Upper Canada
Members of the Cabinet on the subject, as soon as they can meet me.
. . . Then came up the Separate School question. I read to them
your account of your interview with the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto, (Dr. Lynch,) with which they were much pleased. Mr. Mc-
Dougall thought it best to introduce my little amendment Bill, [to Restore
Certain Rights] of 18G2, but the Attorney-General thought it best to intro-
duce the Bill that the Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church had
agreed to, which was less objectionable than the one agreed to by a Select
Committee of the House, in 1862, and which was, in substance, the same
M mine ; that, if my amendments were introduced, the clauses would have
to be given, to show how they would read.

Both agreed that the Government should take the matter in hand. I
intend to propose to-day their introduction of the Bill, (with one altera-
tion,) as agreed upon by me in 1862, (after conference with the Repre-
sentatives of the Roman Catholic Church,) and with the Title of my
amended Bill. . . .

Quebec, March the 3rd, 1863. E. Ryer.son.

5. From Dr. Ryeraon, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —

The Ministry were to decide yesterday upon their course of proceeding
ui regard to the Grammar School Amendment Bill and the Separate
School Bill. . . . It is a sort of Bedlam to me to stay here ; but the
Attorney-General says that I must remain until they get over these School
ditticulties. . . .

Quebec, 5th of March, 1863. E. Ryebson.

Passage of the Scott Sep. S. Bill, of 1863. 155

6. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

I have just seen a copy of the Scott Roman Catholic Separate School
Bill. ... I do not see that it provides for an annual report from the
Separate School Trustees, — which it ought to do. ... I notice that
you and the Local School Superintendents are Visitors of these Schools ;
but why are you classed with these Officers ? as your functions, in regard to
these Schools, are so entirely different ; and it is only through them that
you would care to exercise any of your power, or authority, over them. . . .

Toronto, 7th of March, 1863. J. Georgk Hodoins.

7. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgina: —

I met the Attorney-General, J. S. Macdonald, at dinner, and had a good
deal of conversation with him. I expressed an earnest desire to return to
Toronto, . . . but he said I "must not leave," . . . that my
*' hints and suggestions to him on the School Bill, and on several other
matters, had already been of great assistance to him ; — that he did not
think he could spare me before Easter," etc. (This is entirely confi-
dential.) ... I think that both School Bills, (Grammar and Separate
Schools,) before the House will pass. . . .

QuEJiEC, 0th of March, 1863. E. Ryerson.

8. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —

Mr. R. W. Scott's Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to a
third reading to-day. I will try and get the addition you suggest inserted
at the third reading of the Bill. . . .

Quebec, 12th of March, 1863. E. Ryerson.

9. From J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

I see by the news telegram from Quebec to-day, that the Scott Separate
School Bill had a majority of ten Upper Canada Members against it. . . .
I have just seen a copy of the Bill, as amended in Committee. I would
never have agreed to Section six, in its form, in that copy. The words
*' Separate School Section," (though commonly used,) is unwarranted by
the Bill itself. That Bill does not provide for the establishment of a
" Separate School Section " as such, but for the establishment of a Separate
School in a " Common School Section," (quite a different thing.) . . .
Under the Bill, Separate Schools may be established in adjoining Munici-
palities, — that is, in adjoining Counties, as well as in adjoining Townships,
—and, in that case, be designated "Separate School Sections." . .

From the result of last night's vote, I feel convinced that the Roman
Catholic promoters of the Bill should have been contented with your
original Draft of Bill. That would have been comparatively harmless ; but,
as Tlie Globe shows to-day, the animus of the Bill is shown in Sections six

156

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

iii''

m
I?

and fourteen. The appeal, authorized in Section twenty-seven, is in the
nature of an unnecessary threat. It was not re(iuired to be inserted in
the Bill, as all of your decisions are, as a matter of course, subject to
appeal. ... It is another evidence of the animus of the Bill.*
Toronto, 13th of March, 18G3. J. Geokoe Hodoins.

10. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hod gins: —

The Scott Separate School Bill, as amended, passed the House of
Assembly last night, though a majority of ten M.nibers from Upper
Canada present voted against it. What course the Government will
pursue, in regard to it now, I know not, as I havo not seen any Member of
the Government this morning.

In consequence of the whole of yesterday having been occupied with
the discussion of the Sepai te School Bill, the Grammar School Amend-
ment Bill has been laid over until next Government day. This, 1 auv
afraid, will detain me here another week. . . . The Government is
weak. John Sandheld MacdonaLl has a poor opinion of many of his
supporters, and I am not surprised at it. . . . John A. is conducting
himself with great propriety. His speech last night, showing how he and
his party had their revenge on those of their opponents who had hounded
them through all Upper Canada as "supporters of Separatu Schools," and
as " slaves to the Priests," — but who had now to support this Bill, — was-
very amusing, and very effective.

Quebec, 14th of March, 1863. E. Ryerson.

11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins: —

There is a sort of crisis in the ministerial ranks here, on account of the
vote on the Separate School Bill. The Attorney General, (J. S. Mao-
donald,) told me this morning that, if his "Clear Grit " supporters did not
come to his terms, he would deal with them in a way that they little
anticipated. (This is eiitre nous.) The plan now is, I believe, for some
slight amendment to be made to the Bill in the Legislative Council, so as
to bring it back to the House of Assembly, so as to make the ministerial
supporters vote for it out and out. . . . The Attorney General i»
unwilling for me to leave, until the School Bills are disposed of. . . .

Quebec, IGth of March, 1863. E. Ryer.son.

12. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec: —

To an outsider like myself, the ministerial proceedings at Quebec are
interesting. ... As in war, so in politics, a clear-heaJed, prompt and
determined man, decisive in actiim, is the man to be relied on in a crisis
as he thus makes himself the hero of the public. It may not occur to

* The reason for the insertion of this "appeal" section was given by Mr.
Scott, in his speech in the Senate in 1894. (Seepage 166, post.)

Passage of the Scott Sep. S. Bill, of 186;^. 157

politicians in action at Quebec, that their proceedings there are daily
reviewed here with a calmness and a penetration, as to apparent motives
and results, that those on the spot cannot do. It is in this light, and
from this standpoint, that the action of the Attorney-General is viewed,
and he is judged accordingly. He has clearly shown a degree of firmness
t>n the Separate School question, (if he can maintain it), which localls the
days of Hincks. . . .

In regard to the Separate School Bill : I think that Section six, in its
present shape, is decidedly objectionable ; but Section twenty is very much
more so. This latter Section provides that the Roman Catholic Separate
Schools shall share in all Municipal School Rates, and all Municipal Grants
for Common School purposes, whether the Separate School supporters
have contributed to these Rates and Grants, or not.

I, of course, do not refer to the Rates required to be raised by the
County Council, as an equivalent to the Legislative School Grant, but I
refer to Grants which may be made by Township, Town, or City, and
County Councils, under the authority of the Municipal, (not School,) Act.
The Section, if passed, will have the effect of drying up, (or diverting
entirely from Common School purposes,) the Grants from the Municipal
Clergy Reserves Fund ; and thus the Separate School Act will come rudely
into collision with the policy and traditionary instincts of Upper Canada,
in preventing this Fund from being applied, (as has been so long and so
often advocated,) to Common School education.

The twenty-second Section should provide for the Separate School
Returns being made according to a form provided by the Education Depart-
ment for that purpose, as in the case of the Common Schools.

There is one omission in the Separate School Act, — if the design was to
.restore the provisions of the former Acts of 1850-53 ; and that is, that the
supporters of Separate Schools are not required to pay to the Separate
School a rate, or 8ubscri})tion, equal to what they would have had to pay
to the Common School, had they not been separated from it. As it is, any
supporter in one County of a Separate School in an adjoining County, (to
the extent of even a few cents), can escape all County, Township, or School
Section, rates altogether ! We well know what a premium this will be on
pure seltishness.

Toronto, 18th of March, 18G3. J. George Hodcia-s

IM. Fronn Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —

Mr. McGee made a very good speech last night about paying faithful
and efficient public servants good salaries. I will try and turn it to your
account. ... I ».'n to take a family dinner with the Attorney-General,
(J. S. Macdonald), this evening, as I have not been able to accept the two
previous invitations. ... 1 think that the trouble in the Government,
on account of the Separate School Bill, is not yet over. I think I

1 1

158

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

mentioned to you before, that I believe that the patched-up difficulty is to
be settled by getting some friend of the Government to introduce some
unimportant amendment, or amendments, to the Separate School Bill in
the Legislative Council, so as to have it brought again before the House of
Assembly, when each supporter of the Government there, or a majority of
them from Upper Canada, was to support the Bill. But I understand
that the Opposition in the Council are on the alert, and Col. Tache,
Messieurs Ross, Shaw and others are going to support the Separate School
Bill there intact, and they will probably have a majority, while the
professed supporters of the Government will be in the odd position of
striving to amend a Government Bill, and the Opposition supporting it
without amendment I Tf the Attorney-General does not, in some way,
have the vote of a majority of the House from ITpper Canada in favour of
that Bill, I do not think he will have it to become law. He is determined
that his professed supporters of the Government will support it on its
declared policy in regard to settling the Separate School and the Represen-
tation question, or he will leave them to their fate.

Quebec, 17th of March, 1863. E. Ryerson.

14. Tdegram from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgintt:

Get five thousand copies of the present and proposed Separate School
Act, as compared, printed, folded and sent in parcels of one hundred each
to Mr. Spink, (Parliamentary Distribution Officer,) by express, without a
moment's delay. Send them daily, us printed.

Quebec, 13th of April, 1863. E. Ryer.son.

15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins: —

The Members of the Government, and of all parties, have thanked me
most heartily for the analysis and comparative view of the Separate School
Law (of 1855) and Bill (of 1863).* Nothing that I have done, or written,
since the de Charbonnel controversy seems to have been so popular. Mr.
Skead, of Ottawa, (successor of the Hon. Mr. Vankoughnet,) wished me to
get a thousand copies for him, to send among his constituents, and otiier
Members expressed a desire to have large numbers for the same
purpose. . . .

The Attorney-General called upon me yesterday and said many agree-
able things. . . . It is very pleasant to be on such good terms with
the leading men of both parties, without being suspected of either, and it
being oerfectly understood by both that I take no part in their party
intrigues, nor ever betray them. . .

Quebec, 13th of April, 1863. E. Ryerson.

* This ' ' Analysis and Comparison " is appended to Dr. Ryerson 's annual
report for 1862, pages 160-170.

Passage of the Scoti' Sep. S. Bill, of 1863.

159

16. Letter from J. George Hodgina to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

Your telegram was received, and I put the matter in hand at once. I
Bent a copy of the "Comparison" to The Leader some days ago, with a
private note, recpieating the Editor to give it prominence, so as to allay the
agitation on the subject. He did so, and inserted the whole document,
with an Editorial Note. He again refers to the matter to-day. The Globe
gives no inkling of the contents of the Name paper which I sent to it. . . . I
see ih&t The Qxehec Mercury is quite jubilant over this " Cimiparison of
Separate School Acts of 1855 and 1863." . . .

Toronto, 14th of April, 1863. J. George Hodoins.

17. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgina: —

I telegraphed you a day or two ago, to get five thousand of my Com-
parison of the Separate School Bills of 1855 and 1863 printed and sent
down, for the use of the Members. The Attorney-General wishes the
expense to be charged to the Department, and has written nie a note to
that eft'ect, as it is the diffusion of information on this Separate School Law
and School System, without reference to party. Mr. G. Benjamin, M.P.,
told me that he was getting another edition prirted here also.

Quebec, 15th of April, 1863. E. Ryerson.

18. Letter from Dr. Ryeraon, Quebec, to J. George Hodgina : —

The Separate School Bill passed the Committee of the Whole in the
Legislative Council yesterday. The amendments are to be moved at the
third reading. There was a majority of two or three from Upper Canada
against the second reading ; but there is likely to be a majority from
Upper Canada in favour of the third reading to-day. I do not think that
any amendments will be admitted. . . .

Quebec, 17th of April, 1863. E. Ryerson.

19. Letter from J. George Hodgina to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —

I see by the news telegram from Quebec that the Separate School Bill has
I)assed the Legislative Council without any amendment ! This, I am sorry
for ; as it needed at the very least, the amendments which 1 suggested.
Of course, for the defects in the Bill, the Department will have to bear aU
the blame. ... I hope that, as a set-off to the Separate Schocjl Bill,
you will be able to get the proposed financial additions made to the Gram-
mar School Bill. They will aid the Department greatly by its Library
Scheme, to spread truth and knowledge in Upper Canada, as well as pro-
mote the public good.

Toronto, 18th of April, 1863. J. Geor(!F Hodgins.

20. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec: —

The Rev. Mr. Ryan, Roman Catholic Priest at Oakville, called this
evening to express his personal gratitude to you for your exertions in

^
w

160

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

getting tho Separate Schuol Bill paused . He says that this feeling is
:,.raeral among Roman CatholicH, for the Hignal service which you have
rendered them, after all the battles of "lang syne." Mr. Ryan was
formerly, and for six years, Roman Catholic Priest at Brantford ; and he
says that he will make it his business to wait upon your Brother William
to thank him for his generous speech in the House, and for his manly vote.
Mr. Ryan is a warm-hearted Irishman, and feels very grateful to
you. Thus, the lights and shades of the picture are presented to us. I
am sorry to say that the shades prevail ; but I trust that they will nob
overshadow us.

Toronto, 23rd of April, 1863. J. Georqe Hokoins.

21. Letter of the Rev. M. Stafford to Dr. Ryerson : —

Before leaving Toronto, I wish to roturn you my most sincere thanks
for the kind courtesy with which you gave me so much of your time and
attention this morning. I will be happy, on my return to Kingston, to be
able to tell my Bishop, and the old Vicar-General, (Macdonell,) of yonr
great kindness to me. . . .

Toronto, 20th of January, 1863. M. Stafford, Pt.

CHAPTEE XXVI.

DR. RYERSON'S NARRATIVE OF THE PASSING OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.

In 1865, in consequence of a renewed agitation for further
legislation in regard to Roman Catholic Separate Schools, Dr.
Ryerson issued a pamphlet on the subject, entitled : " Remarks
on the New Separate School Agitation. By the Chief Superin-
tendent of Education for Upper Canada." In it, he mentions
the result of his Conference with Roman Catholic Representa-
tives of Upper and Lower Canada, and then the final passage
of the Scott Bill of 18G3 :—

Mr Scott, a Roman Catholic lawyer, and, at the time. Member of the
Legislative Assembly for the City of Ottawa, introduced a Separate School
Bill during three successive sessions of 1860, 1861, p.nd 1862, but failed to
get it passed. After further consultation with the Members and Authori-
ties of his Church, he introduced his Bill again, (with sundry alterations
and additions,) in the Session of 1863. I believe he claimed the tacit
assent of the Government for his introduction of this Bill.

Naukative of the Passing of the Act of 18G3. 101

In tlie (liHCUHHioii on its second reading and reference to a Hpeciil
Coniniittee, Mr. Scott made a personal attack upon me.* I roinenibered,
as I still do, Lord Macau la y'.s advice, given as early as .lanuary, 1827, in
the Eilinbtntjh HfiHcw, in respect to replying to attacks. He says : —

" No mlHrepresentatioiis silionid l)o sufl't-red tu jmss luux'futed. When a HJliy
letter makes its appeuranoe in the corner of a provincial newspaper, it will not
do to say, ' What .stutF!' We nnist renieml)er that such statements constantly
reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly be believed."

1 therefore answered Mr. Scott's attacks, in a Letter addressed to him,
through the public jiresH. In that Letter, I also took occasion to point out
the anomalies in his School Bill, and to show that, under the pretext of
affording relief to Roman Catholics, it contained provisions which invaded
the priva^" ••ighis of citizens, the legal rights of Common School Corpora-
tions, ant 'ounty and Town.ship Municipalities. I also objected, as I
had '" ivate Letters to Members of the Government, against any

unotticii.. jcnber of the Legislature being allowed to introduce a Bill
affecting our Public School System, which had been established by the
Government, and which siiould be protected by it, and only legislated
upon by bills introduced by, and on the responsibility of, the Government
itself.

At this juncture, a change of administration took place : the Hon. J.
Sandfield Macdonald formed a new administration, and an adjournment of
the Legislature, for several weeks, was agreed upon. On the re-assembling
of Parliament, Mr. Scott'.s Special Connnittee reported his Bill with certain
amendments, which were printed ; but very general and strong opposition
in Upper Canada was entertained, and was manifesting itself more and
more to the Bill.

At this time I had proceeded, otticiiiUy, to Quebec ; and when asked my
opinion, I objected scarcely less strongly to the amended Bill, than I had
done to the Bill as first introduced. The opposition to it among Upper
Canada Members was very strong ; and the (iovernment did not a))pear to
of)untenance it. At length Mr. Scott called upon me, to exi)lain some
personal matters, and to know my specitic ol)jections to his Bill. I
replied, that I objected to the very principle of a private Member of
Parliament doing what the Government alone should do, namely, bringing
in measures to amend, (when deemed necessary,) a System of Public
Instruction for the country ; but Mr. Scott wished to know what objections
I had to the Bill itself. I then showed, and, at his request, lent him a
3opy of the amended Bill, with my erasure of objectionable clauses, and
notes on others reijuiring moditications to assimilate them to the Common
School law.

.^'M.

iMi

* In regard to a former gratuitous attack, in 1862, founded on Mr. R. W.
Scott's own mistake, see page 132, atite.

162

IT. C. Separate School Legislation.

Tlien follows in this luiiTative, an account of the stipulation
which Dr. Ryerson made with Mr. Sc(jtt that his assent to the
Bill in any form depended on its acceptance " by the Authori-
ties of his Chin-ch as a final settlement of the <|Uestion." This
matter will be treate<l in a separate chapter, under the iiea<linfj
of: " Was the Separate School Act of 1808 a Finality r'

In the same publication, Dr. Ryerson instituted a comparison
between the provisions of the Separate School Act of 1803 and
those in force in re<ifard to the Public Schools. He says : —

I am prepared to show, before any Committee, or tribunal, that the
Separate School Act of 18(53 contains all the provisions in behalf of
Trustees and supporters of Separate Schools, that the Common School Act
does in behalf of the Trustees and supijorters of ComuKjn Schools, (and
several additional ones, as shown above,) with two exceptions : —

1. The supporters of Common Schools have to j)rovi(le by assessment a
sum equal to the Legislative School Cirant, in order to be entitled to it.
The law formerly retpiired the same condition on the part of the 8up[torters
of Separate Schools, in order to their sharing in the Legislative School
Grant ; but they complained of it as a griev.mce, and the Separate School
Acts of both 1855 and 18G3 relieved them of that condition.

2. The Trustees of Common ScIkjoIs, as also Trustees of Separate
Schools, can levy and collect rates of their supporters for all school
purposes ; but, in addition, the former can call upon the Municipal
Councils to levy rates on their supporters for them, while the latter cannot
require the Municipal Council to levy and collect rates of their supporters,
though tliey could at all times levy and collect such rates themselves.

Dr. Ryerson thus points out the reason why the law is
restrictive in this matter : —

The reason of this difference is, first, the School Law of Lower Canada
took away in 1857, from Municipal Councils there, the power of levying
and collecting rates in behalf of Dissentient, or Protestant, Schools ; and,
of course, the Upper Canada School Act of 1863 contained a corresponding
provision in respect to Separate Schools. This, however, is of trifling
importance on either side, as Trustees can (juite as well, through their own
Collector, collect their School Rates, as to collect them by the agency of
the Municipal Council. But the [)rimary reason is, that on the principle
of the declared "separation of Church and State," the Municipalities, any
more than the Legislature, cannot impose and collect taxes for Church
Schools, any more than they can impose and collect taxes for Church
Buildings, or Church Ministers, of any kind.

It is, then, impossible to extend the provisions of the Separate School

Narrative of the Passing of the Act of 1863. i63

liiw, withimt including one or both of two things ; and both of these things
were included in the tirst drnfts, or copies, of the Sepanite School Bills of
1855 and ISiili. Tiie first of these provisions prohibited either Munici-
palities, or Trustees of Common Schools, from levying and collecting any
rate for either the building of a School House, or paying a Teacher, with-
out levying and collecting rates for the sujtporters of a Separate School, in
proportion to their population, as compared with that of the rest of the
School Section, or Municipality, — thus actually proposing to make
Municipalities and Protestant School Trustees tax-gatherers for Roman
Catholic Schools, — a practical illustration of the doctrine, that " the State
shall be subject to the Church," as well as that Protestants should not
only support the Public Schools, but collect rates to support the Roman
Catholic Schools, or have no schools themselves I The second provision is,
that the Roman Catholics, as a body, shall be defined as supporters of
Separate Schools, and thus by law be excluded from the Common Schools.
This was in the first project of the Bills referred to, — thus depriving every
Roman Catholic of the right or liberty of choice, as to whether he would
support a Common, or Separate, School ; and every Roman Catholic
parent of the right or liberty of choice as to whether he would send his
children to the Common or Separate School.

A recent Encyclical Letter frf)m Rome condemns this individual right of
judgment or choice ; . . . yet is it the very soul of our civil and
religious liberties, and as dear to the hearts of Roman Catholicp as to the
hearts of Protestants, though the former may not be able, equally with the
latter, to maintain by speech, writing and action, this birthright of our
common humanity.

Now, I assume that <jur Parliament never will legislate away the rights
of citizens and of men, by adopting either of these provisions ; without
doing which it cannot extend, as re<iuired, the provisions of the Separate
School Law. . . .

Separate Schools cannot be claimed upon any ground of right, as I have
often shown in discussing the subject in former years. All that any citizen
can claim as a right on this subject is equal and impartial protection with
any other citizen. All that can be claimed, or granted, beyond this, must
be upon the ground of compact, or of expediency, or indulgence. . .

This feature of the subject, — as it affects the future of the
youths educated in Schools isolated from those of the General
System of the Province, — will be discussed in the concluding
Chapter of this Volume. In that Chapter, the views of the
Roman Catholic Archbishop Ireland, on the subject of " State
Schools," will be given.

164

U. 0. Separatp: School Legislation.

CHAPTEli XXYII. ;

INCIDENTS OF THE PASSING OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL

ACT OF 1863.

Mr. R. W. Scott introduced his Roman Catholic Separate
School Bill, for the fourth time, on the 27th of February, 1803.
On the 5th of March, a motion was made for the ^ccund read-
ing of the Bill.

It was then moved in amendment, by Mr. Leonidas Burwell,
seconded by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, that the Bill be road
that day six months.

For this motion the Upper Canada vote was 21 yeas, and 34
nays. The total vote was, however, 22 yeas, and 80 nays.
The Bill was then referred to a Special Committee, consisting
of Messieurs R. \V. Scott, John S. Macdonalu, John A. Mac-
donald, William Clarke, and H. W. McCann.*

When the Bill, as amended, came back from this Committee,
it was moved by Mr. Donald A. Macdonald, (afterwards Lieu-
tenant-Governor of Ontario.) seconded by Mr. James Lyons
Biggar, that the following words bo addeil to the Second
Section : —

Provided always, that no such Separate School shall be established in
any Township, unless the Roman Catholic residents therein constitute the
minority of the inhabitants of such School Section.

The vote on this motion by the Upper Canada Members, was
33 yeas, (and 3 Lower Canada votes,) 3() ; the nays, 24, (and ;)4
Lower Canada votes) ; total, 3(i yeas, and 78 nays.

* On page 17, I have called attention to tlie fact that the first Government
Common School Bill of 1841, wliith provided for tlie ostablislinient of Separat:
Sohools, was referred to a Special Committee, in violation of tlie principles
of " responsihle (iovennnent." TliiH Hill, however, of 1S()3, was a pi'ivate one,
aiwl in private hands, until it was assumed by the (iovenunent, after it had
received Dr. Ryerson's approval.

Incidents of the Passing of the Act of 1863. 165

It was then moved by the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron,

seconded by Mr. W. Anderson : —

That the word : " Authorities" be left out of the twentieth Clause, and
that the following be inserted : Provided always, that the amount of the
Legislative Grant to any Separate School, in any one year, shall not exceed
the aggregate amount contributed by rates, fees, or otherwise, by the
supporters of such Separate School in said year.

The vote of the Upper Canada Members on this motion was,
34 yeas, (and 2 Lower Canada yeas), 36 ; the nays were 13,
(and 52 Lower Canada nays). Total : 30 yeas ; and 65 nays.

On the motion for the third reading of the hill, the Upper Canada yeas
were; Messieurs Anderson, Bell, (Russell,) BenjaiHin, Buchanan, Carling,
Clarke, Crawford, Foley, John A. Maclonald, John S. Macdonald,
McCann, McDougall, McLachlan, Patrick, Ryerson, Rykert, Scott, Sher^
wood, Simpson, Walsh, and Wilson : 21. Lower Caiiada yeas, 55. The
Upper Canada nays were : Messieurs Ault, Biggar, Brown, Burwell, J. H,
Cameron, Cockburn, Cowan, Daly, Dickson, Ferguson, Harcourt, Haultain,
Hooper, Jackson, Tones, Mackenzie, McKellar, Morris, Morrison, Mowat,
Munro, Notman, Powell, J. S. Ross, Kymal, Scatchard, Scol)le, Smith.
Stirton, White and Wright : 31. There were no Lower Canada nays.

Thus, 21 Upper Canada Members voted for the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, and 31 against it; ma-
jority of Upper Canada votes against thf Act, 10. The Lower
Canada yeas made the vote to stand thus : Yeas, 76 ; Nays, 31.

In the Legislative Council, on the motion that the Bill do now pass, it
was moved by the Hon. David Christie, seconded by the Hon. J. C. Aikens,

Tiiai the Bill be amended as follows :-

In Section 30, leave out the words : And shall be antitled also to a share
in all other public giants, investments, and alU)tments, for Common School
purposes, now made, or hereafter to bo made, '>y the Province, or the
Municipal autiiorities.

At the end of Section 3(», add the words : Provided, that a School shall
have been kept by a (|ualified Teacher, for at least six months during the
year. Contents, 12 ; non-contents, 44.

It was moved by the Hon. G. W. .Allan, seconded by the Hon. James
Gordon : —

Provided always, that no such Separate School shall be entitled to any
such grant, investinonts, or allotments, except under such circumstances,
and subject to the same restriction as such grants, investments, or aUot-
iiients, are made to Common Schools in Upper Canada. Contents, 13 ;
non-contents, 43.

166

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

On a motion that the Bill do now pass, the vote stood thus : Contents,
44 ; non-contents, 13.

The names of the Upper Canada Members who voted yea, v/ere the
Hon. Messieurs A. J. Ferguson- Blair, Malcolm Cameron, George Crawford,
William H. Dickson, Geoi-ge J. Goodhue, James Gordon, John Hmiilton,
E. Leonard, Donald Macdonald, W. McCrea, Roderick Matheson, Samuel
Mills, Ebenezer Perry, Robert Read, John Ross and James Shaw, 16, and
28 Lower Canada yeas) ; total, 44. Those who voted nay, were the Hon.
James C. Aikens, George Alexander, George W. Allan, Thomas Bennett,
Oliver Bl}.ke, George S. Boulton, Andrew JeflFrey. William McMaster,
John McMurrich, John Simpson, James Skead and Harmanus Smith, 13.
There were no Lower Canada nays.

The Upper Canada yeas were 16 ; the nays, 13.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863— MR. SCOTT'S STATEMENT.

In the Senate, oa the 4th of April, 18P-i'. Mo. R. W. Scott made
the following statement, in regard to the passing of his Upper
Canada Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1868 : —

In the British North America Act there is an ai)peal to the [Dominion]
Privy Col'- cil from any Act affecting the rights of the Catholic and
Protestant minorities. ... In the Manitoba Act . . . the appeal
shall be to the Governor-fJeneral-in-Councn from any Act, or decision of
the Legislature of the Province. . . . These words are peculiar to the
Manitoba Act alone,* proving most conclusively that there was a jealous
resolve on the part of the framers of the Act at the time, that there should
ba a direct appeal to the Governor-General-in- Council from any hostile
decisions, — that they were not to be forced into the Courts, — that the
remedy was to he short aiid quick. t

" Tliis is not so. The words relating to " appeal " is the same in both Acts.

t The subject of an appeal " from any Act, or decisicn, of the Legislature " of
this Proviiii.'C was brought \\\) in the Ontario House of Assembly on the IGtli of
March, 1895, '>v Dr. George Sterling Ryerson, \I. I'. P., nephew of tlie Reverend
Doctor Ryerson. TIw Globe newspa{)er tinis rcportu tlie cireuiustances : —

In the House <>♦' Assembly, tlie (juestion was aake<l by Dr. G. S. Ryerson as
to the application of the recent decision of the Imnerial Privy Council to the
Separate School Laws of Ontario. Tlie Premier replied that that decision did
apply to this Frovinoe.

Mu. RvKRSON asked whotlier, imder the recent decision of the Judicial
Committee of tlie Imperial Privy Council, the ameiidnients to, and clianges in,
the Separate Schools Act in Ontario passed since Confederation can he repealed

T^ f

Mu. R. W. Scoit's Statement,

167

These wonls are very peculiar. How did they occur? I think I know
sometliing of the history of them, inasmuch as the original words were
introduced in an Act that I drafted in the year 1862, or 1863. I hold in
my hand the original Act of 1863. . . . The conferences I had in
drawing up the Separate School Act in Old Canada in 1861, 1862 and 1863,
were chiefly with Dr. Ryerson. There was not on any occasion any
clerical interference. . . The conferences were held with Dr.

Ryerson in the Library, and it is due to his memory to say, that I always
found him ready to meet the wishes of the minority ; — that he exhibited
no prejudice or bigotry. . . . There was only one occasion when a
clerical gentleman was present, the Rev. Mr. Macdonell of Kingston,
Vicar-General, —and he was the only clerical gentleman who was present
on any occasion at the framing of these clauses. ■**■ I had circulars sent out
to the [Roman Catholic Separate School] Trustees all over Ontario, asking
for suggestions and advice, with a view to making the Law more workable.

Dr. Ryerson offered no impediment ; but there was a strong feeling
prevailing with [Roman] Catholics that he was hostile to the Act. People
believed that he was always decidedly against Separate Schools. I am not
aware that, after this [Roman Catholic Separate School] Act [of 1863] was
passed, there was a single appeal under it. ... I drew up the clause
[which is now the Twenty-Seventh Section of the Roman Cathohc School
Act of 18(l3t]. . . . There is where the idea was taken for an appeal,
as provided in the British North America Act. It was only to be found in
this particular Act ; and it was simply based upon that idea that the Chief
Superintendent, (Dr Ryerson,) was not friendly to the Separate School
System, which was a mistake, l)ecause he was sincerely anxious to do what
was really fair to make the Law workable. That is where the appeal comes

by this Legislature. And whether, in the event of the repeal of anv such
anieiidnuMits, an appeal will lie to tlie Governor-(4oneral-in-Council, under the
Ninety-Third, or other, Section of tlie Hritish Noi'tli America Act '!

Sir Olivkr Mowat— Under the deoisions of the Judicial Conuuittee of the
lm{)erial Privy Council, the enactment.^ of the Legislature of Ontario in regard
to Sepaiute Schools since Conf>Mlcratio!i can be repealed by this Legislature.
The eti'ect of such a rej)eal is autiioi itatively declared by the late Jutlgnient of
the Judicial Conunittee of the Imperial Privy Council, and I can add nothing
to what appears from tlieir Judgment as to wliether, in the event of such rei)eal,
an apj)eal would lie to tlio (jlovernor-({eneral-'n-('oiinciI, under the Ninety-
Thiid, or other, Section of the Bi'itish Noi'th America Act.

* There is a sitigular disc'repancy here. The two Vicar8-( ieneral were
present at both of the conferences held with Dr. Ryerson in lS(i2 atid 186.'}.
See pages 139, 154 and 162.

t Dr. Ryerson's note appended to this Section of the Separate School Act of
1863, in his " Roman (Jatnolic Separate Schools Act of ISoO and 18fi3 Com-
pared," is as follows: "I'his is ... a new legal provision. 'I'lie latter
part of this Section is needless, and is not contained in the Craiinuar, or
Comm'in Schools, Act, as all dcci&ions of the Chief Superintendent may be
appealeil from to tlie (lovei'nor-in-tJouncil. His decisions have been apjtcaled
from o!i several instances, ])ut have, in every instuice, been sustained." —
H'/iie/SnpcriiiteiKli'nt's Anunal Report for ISO J, pat/e 170.)

168

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

in. It does nut exist anywhere else. I intended the appeal, [in the Act
of 1863,] to be prompt and direct. It was thought that the Governor-in-
Council would be the fairest tribunal, and they would dispose of it at
once. ... In our Public Schools in Onrario, as they were originally
established, Religion was intended to be taut,ht. . . . D. Ryerson was
sent abroad to examine the [School] Systems in England, Crermany and
the United States. . . . He was a man of very large observation, and
one whom I always found free from prejudices, and possessed of a fair and
just mind. He says: — "In France religion formed no part of the
elementary education for many years, and, in some parts of the United
States, the example of France has been followed." . . . I should like
to point out some evidences that Dr. Ryerson's prophecies have been, to a
considerable extent, fulfilled in the Eastern States, where this system of
separating God from the Schools was first introduced. . . . {Hansard
Senate Debater, J,th of April, 1S'J4.)

CHAPTER XXIX.

SIR JOHN MACDONALD AND HON. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE
ON THE SPJPAIIATE SCHOOL ACT OF 18(«.

]VIr. JosEi'H Pope, in his| " Memoirs of Sir John MacdonaM "
thus refers to the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863 :

Mr. Macdonald's brief respite from the cares of office had done wonders
for him ; and he took his seat at the opening of the Session of Parliament
on the 12th of February, 1803, reaily for the fray. . . .

His experience told him that the (J. S.) Macdonald-Sicotte Government,
pledged to the impossible scheme of the " double majority," could not
hope to weather the Session, in the face of the opposition rising against
them, — not only among the Conservatives, but also in the ranks of the
Reform party. A new ground of dissatisfaction against them was speedily
afforded l)y the Separate School measure of Mr. R. W. Scott, which the
Ministry supported. This action of Messieurs Foley, McDougall and
Wilson was reprobated by The Glohc newspaper, which unsparingly
denounced them for their political recreancy in thus yielding up another
principle of Liberalism.

"Representation by population and no Sectarian Schools "had long
been watchwords of the Uoforin party ; yet here was a so-called Liberal
Ministry "basely sacrificing their principles to the exigencies of party.
That Mr. John A. Macdonald should aid in riveting the fetters of Rome

Sir John Macdonald and Hon, A. Mackenzie. 169

upon a free people was to be expected ; " — such a course was in conformity
with his whole record ; but that such men as Foley, Howland, Wilson, and
. . . McDougall . . . should, for the sake of oftice, league them-
selves with the foes of religious liberty, was enough to cause one to despair
of humanity. Mr. Macdonald warmly supported the Scott Bill, which had
been before the House during his term of office, when it was bitterly
opposed by those very Members now forming the Upper Canadian section
of Sandtield Macdoiiald's Cabinet. The spectacle presented by these men,
now speaking and voting in favour of the Bill, was, in the judgment of Mr.
Macdonald, "a splendid vindication" of the policy of the late Govern-
n;ent, and of the principle which he had long advocated with respect to
the School System of Up])er Can,".da.

The appeal of Tin (rlohc . . . was not made in vain, for, wliile Mr.
Scott's Bill passed, it was carried by the votes of Lower Canada, and of
Mr. John A. Macdonald and his personal friends. A large number of the
Upper Canadian supporters of the Government, greatly to the wrath of
Mr. J. S Macdonald, voted against it, thereby placing the Ministry in a
minority of ten votes, as regarded Upper Canada.

Having form illy announced their resolve to abide by the ''double-
majority " principle, the Ministry, by this vote, were placed in an embar-
rassing position. The tjuestion was put direct to the Premier, whether he
proposed, in the face of a declared opposition of the majority of its repre-
sentatives, to force the Separate School Act upon Upper Canada. To this
pertinent question, Mr. Sandtield Macdonald made an evasive reply, but
the "double-majority " principle was then heard of for the last time. . . .

In an argumentative and temperate speech, Mr. John A. Macdonald
proceeded to explain the reasons upon whicli his motion of non-confidence
was based. . . He asked : Did the Prime Minister, (J. S. Mac-

donald,) in his efforts to maintain himself in office, reflect that, in forcing
the Separate School measure upon Upper Canada, against the will of a
majority of its Representatives, he was doing violence to the convictions
of his whole political life ! (Vol. 1., pages 244-240.)

. . . There remains b^ t one question of practical politics in relation
to which I pnjpose to outline Sir John Macdonald's attitude. I refer to
those issues of race and religion, which periodically threaten the peace of
Canada. . .

In 1855, he introduced, and carried, a Bill in the interest of the Separate
Schools of Upper Canada, against the bitter opposition of George Brown.

In 18i)l\ he supported, by speech and vote, Mr. R. W. (now Senator)
Scott's Act, establishing a System of Separate Schools.

In 1867, he perpetuated this right to the Roman Catholics of Ontario.
. . . (Vol. II., page 248.)

170

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

THE HON. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE AND THE SCOTT ROMAN
CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.

The following is taken from "The Life of the Hon. Alexander
Mackenzie, by Mr. William Buckingham and the Hon. George
W.Ross":—

The great measure of 1863 was Mr. R. W. Scott's Bill respecting
Separate Schools in Upper Canada. Mr. Scott had introduced the Bill
several times, and had advanced it so far in the previous Session as to
reach a division on its second reading.

The principle of Separate Schools was first introduced into Canada
under an Act of 1841, and was further enlarged by the Act of 1855. Mr.
Scott proposed still further to extend the privileges of Roman Catholics
with regard to Separate Schools.

The main features of Mr. Scott's Bill were : — Extending the facilities
for establishing Separate Schools in rural districts ; permitting Roman
Catholics to give notice of their intention to become Separate School
supporters once for all, instead of annually, as under the former Act ;
relieving Trustees from certifying the average attendance of pupils under
oath ; providing for the inspection of Separate Schools, and for their
general administration [?] through the Council of Public Instruction.

In the session of 18G2, the Bill passed its second reading ; but, owing
to the defeat of the Government, it stood over. The Bill passed very
quickly through all its stages, and was approved by the House on the 13th
of March ; the yeas being 74, and the nays 30. When the second reading
of the Bill was under consideration, Mr. Bur well moved, seconded by Mr.
Mackenzie, what is conmionly known as " the six months' hoist."

On that motion Mr. Mackenzie gave his views on the question of
religious instruction. He opposed the Bill on three grounds : Firstly, he
feared it would be injurious to the Conmion School System of the Province.
Sexondly, he feared it would lead to a demand for Separate Schools from
other denominations. Thirdhj, the establishment of Separate Schools in
certain localities would divide the re.sources of the people, already very
limited, and thus lower the standard of education. " He had no desire,"
he said, "to make this a religious question, as he was not disposed to vote
against any Bill, which even Roman Catholics themselves deemed necessary
to secure perfect freedom in the exercise of their religious faith ; but, as
our School System was undenominational, the Bill under consideration
was therefore unnecess'^'y. '

The vote on this P.ili was "^e drst substant'al decision of the House to
which the principle of 'douol.- majority" would apply, as 31 members
from Upper Canada voted against it, v.hile its supporters from Upper
Canada numbered only 21. , ,

Sir John Macdonald and Hon. A. Mackenzie. 171

Mr. John A. Macdonnld rallied the Upper Canadian Members of the
(Jovernment — MajDougall, Foley, Wilson and Sandfield Macdonald — on
their change of front on the question of Separate Schools, ((uoting from
the Journals of the House how, in previous years, they had voted either
against the principle of Separate Schools, or for the repeal of the existing
Separate School Act ; while now, they were practically responsible for a
Bill extending the scope of Separate Schools. The Premier was also asked
if the measure was to be forced on Upper Canada in the face of the
opposition of a majority of its Representatives ? To this Mr. Sandtield
Macdonald made no reply.

The agitation which arose in Upper Canad&, on account of the Separate
School policy of the then Government, greatly weakened them in public
estimation.

THE HON. GEORGE BROWN AND SEPARATE SCHOOLS.

For one who devoted so large a portion of his time and
attention to the (juestion of Denominational Education, it is
suipi'ising how little is said on the subject by his Friend and
Biographer, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. Even what is
said is both meagre in detail, and somewhat apologetic in spirit
and tone. In referring to Mr. Brown's part in the Separate
School controversy, Mr. Mackenzie, (in Chapter V. of his " Life
and Speeches of the Hon. George Brown,") says : —

Like all religious, or semi-religious, controversies, this one developed
hard words, and harder feelings. . . . Apart from the special contro-
versy, . . . (in England, on the "Papal aggression,") there was much
agitation in Canada West over the demands for Separate Schools for
lioman Catholics. . . . It is not to be denied that deep offence was
taken at many articles in Tlw Globe, and other papers, by a large majority
of the Roman Catholics who did not come into personal contact with Mr.
Brown personally, and appreciate his kindly and honest nature. Locking
back, it is impossible to deny that many harsh words were written, which
had better not have been written. .

When Mr. Brown formed his Cabinet in 1858, it was upon an agree-
ment that the Separate School question would be dealt with, after a full
iiKijuiry should be made into the School Systems in other Countries, —
Catholic and Protestant ; — and there is no reason to doubt, that had his
Ministry been permitted to go on, means would have been found to har-
monize the various views held by himself and his political Associates.

The Amended Separate School Act of 18U3, and the immediately suc-
ceeding arrangement effected in the Confederation Act, removed this ques-
tion from the field of controversy ; but, even before then, nearly all
irritat»f)n had ceased in Ontario. . . . — {Pages -33-35.)

172

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

CHAPTER XXX.

WAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF

1863 A FINALITY r-^

One of the most unpleasant and harassing features of the

Roman Catholic Separate School Question was the unsettled

opinions and uncertain moods of its chief supporters.

The supposed settlement of the question in 1850, by the

adoption of the then well-known " Nineteenth Section of tlie

(General School Act" of that year, w\as hailed by those then

interested as embodying a very practical way of meeting the

individual conscientious convictions of Members of the Roman

Catholic Church. It was so regarded by them until after the

Meeting of the Roman Catholic General Council at Baltimon;

in 18.51. By the promoters of that Council, or by his Church,

as he expressed it. Bishop de Charbonnel was, as he twice

intimated, practically called to account ; first, in his Letter to

Dr. Ryerson, of the 1st of May, 1852, he stated that: —

All my previous intercourse with you, and the Council of Public Instruc-
tion, has been polite and Christian, and sometimes tolerant to an extent
tliat I have been required to justify ; —

And then, afterwards, when he made his meaning on this
point more clear, in his Letter of the 26th of the same month,
to the Hon. S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the Council of Public
Instruction, he said : —

All my precedents with you, the Reverend Doctor, and the Council of
Public Instruction, have been polite and Christian, and sometimes of a
tolerance for which my Church has made me responsible.

* i.e. Finality hk to assumed " rights," ami as to such further demands for
Separate Schools, as would atl'ect tlie integrity and stability of our Public
School System; but not. of cour.se, Hnality in regard to iletails of adniiris-
t ration, or as to which would be the better way to do things which the 'aw
allowed, or authorized, or prescribed; — no doubt, just such a finality as VIr.
Scott meant, in liis Letter to Dr. Ryerson of the 2()th of April, 18(12, whej. he
said : " 1 want tlie Hill to be n/mditif."

Was the Sep. School Act of 1863 a Finality? 173

The result of the controversy which followed these state-
ments of Bishop de Charbonnel, in 1852, was the passage of
the much discussed Tache Roman Catholic Separate School Act
in 1855. That the passage of that Act Wiis satisfactory to
Bishop de Charbonnel at the time, is evident from the following
extract of a Letter from Sir John Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson,
dated the 8th of June, 1855, in which he said : —

Our Separate School Bill, which i.s, as you know, quite harmless,
passed with the approbation of our Friend, Bishop de Charbonnel, who,
before leavin;,' here, formally thanked the Administration for "doing ju.stice
t(j his Church." He has, however, got a new light since his return to
Toronto, and now says that the Bill won't do. . . .

It was such a " new light " as this, which so invariably broke
in upon the promoters of Roman Catholic Separate Schools,
after the passage of each successive Separate School Act, which
caused so much trouble ; and w^hich kept the Province in such
a state of educational turmoil and unrest, that it made it all
the more difficult for Dr. Ryerson to deal with each particular
case, or with the many imaginary grievances which were, as
often as real ones, the cause of the continued agitation.

It was this state of vacillation and uncertainty, on the part
of the promoters of Separate Schools, which so continually
embarrassed Dr. Ryerson in his administration of the Separate
School Law, as it stood, — even giving it, as he did, the most
liberal interpretation possible, or, as Mi*. R. W. Scott, in his
Senate speech of 1894, put it, when he said that —

Dr. Ryerson "was sincerely anxious to do what was really fair to make
the Law workable."

In accounting to the Governor-General, (in his Confidential
Report of 1868,) for the continual agitation of the Roman
Catholic Separate School Question, Dr. Ryerson said : —

It is worthy of remark that, on the passing of each of the tliree Acts,
(1850, 1853, and 1855,) amentUng the Law, in regard to Separate Schools,
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto and the Upper Canada Roman
Cath-jlic newspaper organs expressed their entire satisfaction with them,
(at tlie time,) but afterwards complained of them, wher. it was found that
they did not accomplish the object [desired]. .

174

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

COMPACT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH IN 1H((2 AND 1S63.

Before Dr. Ryer.son went down to Quebec, late in May, 1862,
he received a pri\ate Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald,
dated the 'ird of that month, in regard to the Roman Catliolic
Separate School Bill which Mi'. R. W. Scott sought to get pas8e<l
by the Legislature. In that Letter, Mr. Macdonald said : —

. Scott . . . introduced the present Bill without showing
it to me. . . . He lia.s been looked up to as tlie exponent of Roman
Catholic views on the subject ; and the Bill, when "amended to suit me,"
will be carried through the House by him, and must be accepted by the
Roman Catholics as their Bill.

After Dr. Ryerson reached Quebec late in May, he wrote me
a private Letter, dated the 2nd of June, 1862, in which he said :

Yesterday morning the (Rev. Angus Macdonell) Vicar-General of
Kingston, — acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto
and Kingston, — and the Rev. Mr. Ca^.eau, Secretary of the Archbishop of
(.Quebec, as Representatives of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church, accepted the Separate School Bill, as proposed to be amended by
me, and Jigreed to by Mr. R. W. Scott ; and afterwards us four waited
upon the new Premier, (Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald,)* and informed
him of the result of our consultation, and the desire of the Authorities of
tiie Roman Catholic Church that the (Jovernment would affirm and
facilitate Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill.

In his Letter to TJte Leader newspaper of the 10th of July-
1862, Dr. Ryerson again referred to the conditions of his con-
currence with the Roman Catholic Separate School Bill in the
hands of Mr. Scott, and said : —

When at Quebec, ... I stated that I would resist its further
progress in the Legislature, except on two conditions :—

First. That the Bill thus modified should be accepttsd as a settlement of
the (juestion by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.

Secondly. That the Government should assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding
with it. To secure the former of these objects, Mr. Soott got the Vicar-
General Macdonell, (who had gone from Upper Canada to Quebec in
behalf of the authorities of the Church to watch legislation on school
matters,) and the Rev. the Secretary of the R man Catholic Archl)ishop of

* The Hon. Jolm Sandfield Ma(;<lonal(l succeeded the Hon. .John A.
Macdonald as Attorney-General and Premier, on the 24th of May, 1862.

Was the Sep. School Act of 1863 a Finality ? 175

Quebec, .the Head of the Roinnn Catholic Church in Canada,) to meet me
in the Parliamentary Library, where we discussed the provisions of the
Bill, and whore they accepted it on the part oi the Authorities of the
Roman Catholic Church, as finally amended in its present form ; after
which, two copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon and accepted, were
made, — the one for Mr. Scott, and the other for myself ; and the parties
concerned waited upon the Head of the Administration, and informed
him that they accepted the Bill as thus modified, and retjuested the assent
of the Government to Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill. . .

Practically, the same procedure was observed by Dr. Ryerson
in 1863, when the Bill was finally passed, as the following
extract from his narrative of the circinnstances, which lie
published in 1865, will sIkjw. In that narrative, he states that
he pointed out to Jlr. R. W. Scott, the promoter of the Bill of
1863, what were his objectiims to it. . . . He then proceeds : —

In a day or two Mr. Scott called upon me again, stating that, having
consulted his friends, he acceded to my objections, and would propose to
amend the Bill accordingly. I replied that I still objected to any other
party than the (Joverninent conducting a measure of that Icind through the
Legislature ; but as he removed from the Bill what I considered objection-
able, I w(juld waive my objections on his proceeding with the Bill, and
would aid him to get it passed, — on two conditions : —

First, that it should be assented to on the j)art of the Government, and
therefore passed on their responsibility ; and secondl}', that it should be
accepted by the Authorities of his Chui-ch as a final settlement of the
iiuestion. On this latter point, T addressed Mr. Scott as nearly as I can
recollect to the following etl'ect :—

" You are only a private Member of Parliament ; you are not a Representa-
tive of the Ronian Catholic Church ; you may assure the House, as well as
myself, that this Bill is accepted as a final settlement of the .Separate School
(juestion ; so did Sir Etieiuie Tauiie, when lie introduced the Sepaiute School
Bill of 1855, and even on its final passage its advocates assured the Legislature
that it would put at rest the agitation of the Separate School ijuestion. Xow
it is said tliat they had no authority from tiie Heads of youi- CInn-ch to make
such statements ; and so it may he said in regard to any assurance you may
give as to this nieas''re being accepted as a final settlement of tlie (juestion by
the Authorities of ' oiu' Church ; and unless I am satisfied of that, I will do
what I can to { revent the passage of youi' Bill, however modified, and will urge
tl).e standing upon the settlement of the question, as agreed to in KSo.'S."

Mr. Scott called upon me again, I think, the following day, and told me
that he had seen the Archbishop of Quebec, the Head of the Roman
Catholic Church in Cannila, and that the Archbishop had agreed to accept

_ 'is-

^.:^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^^ ..^ /^ Mr

1.0

I.I

C2 i.

IIIM
IIIU

116

2.2
2.0

1.8

•

1.25 1.4

1.6

6" —

►

ei.

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

.•V

^9)

^.\

><i?i^
^J^

■<^

ri7

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14S80

(716) 872-4503

Pl7

176

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

the Bill as I proposed ; and that, as the Archbishop was not able to go out
himself, he proposed that his Secretary, the Very Rev. Vicar-General
Cazeau, and the Very Rev. Vicar-General Macdonell, — who had been sent
by the Bishops from Upper Canada to watch the legisbtion on educational
matters, — should meet me on the subject.

I agreed to the meeting proposed, to be held the following day, in the
Parliamentary Library. At that meeting, Mr. Scott pointed out the
erasures, and read over the clauses amended, to each of which in
succession, the Ecclesiastical Representatives of the Roman Catholic
Hierarchy in Canada, nodded assent as explicitly as did any couple ever
nod assent to the vows contained in the Marriage Service.'''

Then Mr. Scott had two copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon, made
out and compared, — the one for himself and the other for me, and
proposed that we should all wait upon the Premier, (Hon. J. Sandiield
Macdonald,) and state to him the result. We proceeded to the Speakcr'.s
room, where, (not J, but,) Mr. Scott, informed him of the result of our
conference, and the two venerable Ecclesiastics earnestly requested thu
Attorney -General to give the support of the Government to Mr. Scott's
Bill, as a satisfactory and final settlement of the Separate School question.!

* It is possible that on this silent nodding "assent" that the two Vicars
(ieneral base their denial of assent to the settlement of this Separate School
question of 1863, as stated iu their joint Letter of the 11th of March, 1865. Dr.
Ryerson was natm-ally imsuspicious, and he must, therefore, have been too
credulous in his belief that when the Vicars-General " nodded assent " to each
clause of the Bill, as read over to them, they "merely," (as stated in their
Letters,) "accepted it as an instalment of what they believed the (Roman)
Catliolics in Upper Canada were justly entitled to," . . . and consentecl
leluctuntly to have it introduced, with Dr. Ryerson's amendment to it. . . .

Dr. Rjerson was clearly of opinion that no such qualified assent to the
■•' compact " or " settlement " was given by the Vicars-Ceneral.

t In the " revised edition of Mr. Scott's speech in the Senate," on the 4th of
April, 1894, he said: "The conferences I ha<l in drawing up the Separate
School Act of 1861, 1862 and 186.3, were chiefly with Dr. Ryerson. There was
not, on any occasion, any clerical interference. It has been recently stated
that tlie Archbishop of Quebec interfered. I deny that. The conferences
were held with Dr. Ryerson mi the Library. . . . There was only one
occasion when a clerical gentleman was present,— the Rev. Mr. Macdonalci (••«(•),
of Kingston, Vicar-General, — and lie was the only clerical gentleman present on
any occasion at the framii.g of the clauses." In his speech Mr. Scott makes no
mention of the two conferences with Dr. Ryerson of the two clerical gentle-
men and himself in the Library. In their Letter to the Editor of The Globe, of
the 11th of March, 1865, they state that they were present at a conference in
the Liljrary — one of them was the Vicar-General of Quebec, and Secretary to its
Archbishop. Mr. Scott, when he sp.id that the Archbishop of Quebec did not
"interfere" in the Separate Schooltiuestion of Upper Canwla, was probably
not aware of the Letters which were written on the sul)ject by the Archbishop,
and by his Vicar-tieneral, which are given on pages 66, 73 and 80. These
Letters of the Archl>ishop's Secretary could scarcely have been written, nor his
conference twice with Dr. Ryerson in the Parliamentary Library, on the subject
of the Upper Canada Separate School Bill, without the Archbishop's direction,
or sanction.

Was the Sep. School Act of 1863 a Finality { 177

It was with this understanding, and under these circumstances, that the
Bill was supported by the Government, and passed through the Legislature.
But even then, though I had, at the request of the Premier, prepared and
published notes on the Bill, showing its harmony with the School System
of Upper Canada, and recommending its adoption, and, though it was
supported by the leaders of tlie then Conservative Opposition, as well as
by the Government ; yet such was the opposition in Upper Canada to any
further legislation on the subject, that a majority of ten Upper Canada
Members of the Legislative Assembly voted against it, and a majority of
only two or three Upper Canada Members of the Legislative Council voted
for it.

I affirm, therefore, that the passage of the Separate School Act of 1863,
was an Honourable Compact between all parties concerned, for the final
settlement of that question ; and that the renewed agitation of it, in less
than ./*vo years, is not only a violation of that Compact, but a warning to
the people of Upper Canada, that if they are compelled again to legislate
on the subject, their peace, and the safety of thei" institutions will require
them to sweep the last vestiges of the Separate School law from their statute
book, and place all Religious Persuasions in the same relation of equality
to their Schools as exists in the New England States, and in the neighbour-
ing State of New York. . . .

THE HON. GEORGE BROWN, T. D. McGEE AND BISHOP LYNCH
ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL SETTLEMENT OF 186.3.

That two of our leading politicians and public men of the
day held the name opinion of this question of the " finality," —
as I have defined it, — of the Roman Catholic Separate School
Act of 1863, there can be no doubt. Tiie Hon. Thomas D'Arcy
McGee, — representing the Roman Catholics, — v.'a8 one, and the
Hon. George Brown, — representing the opponents of Separate
Schools, — was the other. The Hon. George Brown, in his
speech on the Resolutions relating to the Confederation of the
Provinces on the 8th of February, 1865, and in reference to the
Roman Catholic Separate School settlement of 1863, said : —

Now, it is known to every honourable Member of this House that an
.\ct was passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy.
I was not in Quebec at that time ; but if I had been there I would have
voted against that Bill, because it extended the facilities for establishing
Separate Schools.

It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman
Catholic Authorities, and carried through Parliament, as a final compro<

178

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

mise of the ({uestion in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proponed
that a provision sliould be inserted in tlie Confederation Scheme to bind
that compact of 18G3, and declare it a final settlement, so th'it we should
not be 'mpelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our
arms, a aiting fresh attacks upon our Common School System, the
]>ropo8ition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. . . .
Hut assuredly I, for one, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as
a necessary condition of the scheme of union ; and doubly acceptable must
it be in the eyes of honourable gentlemen opposite who were the authors
of the Bill of 1863. . . .

The Hon. Mr. McGee, on behalf of tlie promoters of the Bill
of 1863, referring to Mr. Brown's statement that the condition
in the Confederation Scheme, affecting the Separate Schools of
Upper Canada, would be " doubly acceptable " to the authors of
that Bill, replied on the next day, as follows : —

I will merely add, in relation to an observation of my friend, (Hon.
George Brown,) last night, on the subject of Catholic Separate Schools in
Upper Canada, that 1 had accepted, for my own part, as a finality, the
amended Act of 1863. I did so, for it granted all the petitioneis asked,
and I think they ought to be satisfied. I will be no party to the reopening
of the (juestion. . . . (ParUnmentary Deludes on the subject of thv
Confederation of the Brititih North Amerkan Frorhu-es, pages 95 and IJ^i,
Qnehec, 1865.)

The Globe newspaper, having assumed that the Canaduin
Freeman, a Roman Catholic newspaper, was the organ of
Bishop Lynch, in saying that the Separate School Bill of 1863
was " an insult to the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada," the
Bishop caused his Secretary to write the following Letter to
The Globe :—

His Lordship wishes it to be understood that lie has no official orgiin. He
wishes ine also to state, that tis far as he knows the sentiments of his Right
Reverend brethren, the Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada, and of the Catholics
generally, they are quite satisfied with Mr. Scott's Separate School Bill.*

Toronto, 20th of March, 1863. Georok Njrthoravk.s,

*0n the 2nd of March, 1865, Bishop Lynch wrote as follows to The Glohe -. —
When earnestly pressed to accept [the Separate School] Bill of 1S63 as a
finality, I studiously avoided the term. ... I said I was content
["quite satisfied " wore the words used, see alxjve], with the Bill, as were also
nij' Brethren in the Episcopacy, as far as I knew their sontimentd. ... I,
therefore, rejoice that I did not use the word " finality," which even, hail I
used it, couhl certainly not be interpreted "final" under any and all ciicuni-
stances, but final so long as the position of the two Provinces remained un-
changed.
Toronto, 2n(l of March, 1865. f John Joseph Lynch, liUhop of Torovto.

Was the Sep. School Act of 1803 a Fixality :* 179

After the piihliL-iition uf Dr. Hyerson'a Letter of the ]Kth of March, 1865, (in
reply t« tliat of VicaruOeneral Cazuaii ami Mac<h)nell,) in which l>r. Rycrwin
qiiotefl tlic KiHhop's wohIh, liishop Lynch wrote a Hecon<I Letter to The Olofte,
(on the 22n<l of that month,) in which \w naid : —

In the Krot |Nirt (of the itentcnov <|uotu<l liy ])r. Ryurson in his Letter of
the IHth of Marcli, 1H65,] I deny that I uho<1 the word " Hnal." In the second
part, I defined tiiu meaning which shotdd attach itself Ui the term, had it Itecn
used by me.

What the Bishop (hd say in the ".second part" was: "but
linal so long as the position of the Provinces remained un-
chanjyed." These were the exact words (juoted by Dr. Ryer.son.
The Bishop's explanation does not seem to make his original
statement any different from what it was in his Letter of 2nd
of March, 18()5, or any the clearer. Dr. Ryerson. in referring
to this Letter, closed his narrative of 1805 on this subject as
follows : —

I have becume accustomed tu respect the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, like
the late lamented Binhup Power, as a just and hunuurable man ; and I
have hoped to be able in future yeara, as I have the last two years, to act
cordially with him in all School matters. I have not yet heard that his
Lordship, or any Roman Catholic Prelate in Upper Canada, has authorized
this new agitation ; and I shall be much surprised and disappointed to
learn that such has been the case in any instance.

DISCLAIMER OF THE VICARS-GENEUAL THAT THEY WERE CONSENT-
ING PARTIES TO THE SEPARATE SCHOOL SETTLEMENT OF 1S63.

Soon after the publication of Dr. Ryerson 's Statement, the
two Vicars-General concerned, (to whom he had referred as
being present at the conference of 1863, (and also at that of
1862,) with Mr. >Scott, wrote a Letter to The Globe newspaper,
in which they said : —

As the names of the undersigned have been very improperly made use
of in a pamphlet written, it appears, by Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent
of Education for Upper Canada, in connection with a Memorial from the
Catholics of Upper Canada, reciuesting that some amendments should be
made to the present Separate School Bill, we deem it proper, in order to
elucidate the truth, to make the following declarations : —

First. — It is not true that one of us had been deputed by the Archbishop,
and that the other represented the Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada, with
a view to come to an understanding with Dr. Ryerson in reference to the
amendments to be made to the Separate School Bill. . . .

Secmid. — It is quite true that both of us, seeing that the Bill, as it was

180

U. C. Separate School Leoislatiok.

introduced by Mr. Hcott, Member for Ottawa City, had no chance of being
Hccepted by a majority of the Houne, owing to Dr. Ryerson's violent
opposition to some of its measures, consented, reluctantly, to have it
introduced vith Dr. Ryerson's amendment to it, but upon their own
responsibility, and without consulting either Bishop, or any other person ;
and because we considered it as some improvement on the former Separate
tSchool Law.

Third. — It is also true that we both consented to call upon Hon. John .5.
Macdonald, then Prime Minister, in company with Mr. Scott and Dr.
Uyerson, and re<juested him to get the Government to support the Bill in
its amended state ; but it is not true, that they have ever considered the
Bill as a tinal settlement of the Separate School question, or that we ever
even thought of anything of the kind. We merely accepted it as an
instalment of what they believed the Catholics of Upper Canada were
justly entitled to, and, liad we thought that a day would arrive when
our conduct would receive a different construction, we would not have
failed to protest against it.

Angus Macdokbll, V.-O.

fjUEBEC, 11th of March, 1865. C. F. Caxeau, r.-(V.

DR. RYERSON REITERATES HIS STATEMENTS THAT THE SEPARATE
SCHOOL ACT OF 1863 WAS A FINALITY.

On seeing this Letter in The Globe newspaper, Dr. Ryerson
wrote in reply to it as follows : —

. . . The following facts are not disputed : —

1. That I was opposed to Mr. Scott's Bill, as introduced by him on the
ground, [formerly stated, viz., that I objected to any unofficial Member of
the Legislature being allowed to introduce a Bill affecting our Public
School System, which had been established by the Government, and which
should be protected by it, and only legislated upon by Bills introduced by,
and on the responsibility of, the Government itself].

2. That Mr. Scott removed my opposition to the Bill itself by removing
what I objected to.

3. That he took steps to remove my two-fold objection to his proceeding
with hib Bill, by getting the assurance of the Authorities of his Church
that the Bill would be accepted as an end of the Separate School agitation ;
and the assent of the Government to the passing of the Bill.

These facts are not disputed. The question then arises. What object
could have been proposed by Mr. Scott's asking me to meet Vicars-General
Cazeau and Macdonell in the Parliamentaiy Library ? It could not have
been for me to meet them as individuals ; for it was not a fig's importance
or interest to me whether they, as individuals, accepted the Bill or not.

Nor could I have consented for a moment to meet any Lower Canada

Was the Sep. School Act of 1863 a Finality ? 181

Priest, (however reputable, and whatever his position,) as an individual <>n
the subject ; for I privately and openly denied the right of any individuals
of Lower Canada to interfere with such a question in Upper Canadii.
Besides, I knew nothing of Mr. Cazeau, or of his relations to the Archbishop
of Quebec. 1 had never seen him ; I only met him in the capacity in
which he was named to me by Mr. Scott, as the Archbishop of Quebec's
Secretary, and Representative, as Vicar-General Macd(mell was mentioned
as the Representative of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada.

The very proposal for me to meet them in any other capacity would
have been absurd. Wliether Mr. Scott defined their position and relations
accurately, or not, in his request to me to meet them, I have no means of
knowing. But 1 have no doubt of it ; and in no other than in their
official capacity could I have met them on such a subject.

The next question is, What object could there have been in the interview
at all, except to satisfy me, and, through me, others, that the Bill would
be accepted by the Authorities of the R(mian Catholic Church as a final
settlement of the Separate School agitation ?

My objection to legislating at a!' on the subject was, that it would only
be the starting point and pretext of another Separate School agitation, as
there was no more assurance of the Bill being accepted by the Authoritie.'i
of the Roman Catholic Church, as a final settlement of the question than
of the (Tache) Act of 1855.

It was to furnish that very assurance that Mr. Scott desired me to meet
Messrs. Cazeau and Macdonell. That was the sole object and reason for
the interview, as it was not to discuss any clause of the Bill ; nor was there
any discussion of them. And whatever terms were employed, and what-
ever understanding was come to must have been employed, and understood,
in harmony with the sole object and reason of the interview.

As to the terms of the statements made by Messrs. Cazeau and Mac-
donell, you [the Editor] have so thoroughly analyzed them, that I need not
say anything more on the subject. I will only add two remarks : —

The first is, that if Messrs. Cazeau and Macdonell had caused it to be
understood (at the time) that the passing of the Bill was not to finally
settle the (juestion of Separate School agitation, but was, — as they [now]
state in their Letter —

Merely accepted as an instalment of what they believed the [Roman] Catho-
lics of Upper Canada were justly entitled to —

I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that not only would I
not have been a consenting party to it, but that neither the Government,
nor five Upper Canada Members of the Legislature, would have entertained
it for a moment.

My next remark is, that not only did the Hon. T. D. McGee accept it
as a final measure, and the Members of the Legislature so consider it ;
but the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto (Dr. Lynch) has, in his Letter

182

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

in 27ie Globe of the 6th instant, [dated the 2nd instant,] declared that it
was BO accepted, — thus furnishing a complete refutation of all statements
to the contrary, and conclusive evidence of the accuracy of what I have
stated. His Lordship says that it was accepted as —

Final, so long as the position of the two Provinces remained \mchanged.

Toronto, 18th of March, 1865. E. Rverson.

further testimony as to the finality of the separate

SCHOOL settlement OF 186.3.

So far as I have been enabled to ascertain, no reply was
made to this conclusive Letter of Dr. Ryerson. In the follow-
ing year, (1866,) Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter to the Provincial
Secretary, of the 4th of August, 1866, again referred to the
binding character of these conferences with the two Vicars-
Oeneral and Mr. R. W. Scott, as follows : —

1. I refused even to consult with Mr. Scott in regard to his Separate
School Bill of 1863, much less to be a party to its passing into an Act,
«xcept on two conditions : —

First. That what we agreed upon should be accepted by the Authorities
of his Church, as a final settlement of the Separate School question in
Upper Canada.

Secondly. That it should have the sanction and responsibility of the
Government for its passing.

The manner in which the authorized Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church met Mr. Scott and me in the Parliamentary Library, at
<^uebec, and in which a duplicate copy of the Bill agreed upon was made
out, — one for each party, — and in which both parties waited upon the
Head of the Ministry, and represented the Bill, as thus agreed upon, to
settle the question in Upper Canada, is well known, and was shortly after-
wards published.

Nothing can be more dishonourable and truthless, than for either party
now to deny that settlement of the question, and seek to subvert it.

Toronto, 4th of August, 1866. E. Ryerson.

In the "Appellant's Factum," submitted to the Supreme Court
of Canada, in 1891, by Mr. John S. Ewart, Counsel for the
Appellant, he says : —

4. Some years prior to 1867, when "The British North America Act"
was passed, the Parliament of the late Province of Canada had passed a
Separate School Law for Upper Canada, which was understood to be a
final settlement of a long-standing subject of contention. . . .

Was the Sep. School Act of 1863 a Finality ? 183

fruitless appeal to mr. r. w. scott for information

on this subject,

As it was desirable tliat light should be thrown upon the
conflicting statements of Dr. Ryerson and the Vicars-General,
in regard to the compact entered into between Mr. Scott and
them in regard to the Separate School Act of 1803, I wrote to
him the following Letter on the subject : —

About a month ago, 1 wrote to you a Letter, asking if you could furnish
me with any information, (not already published,) regarding the passing of
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, — of which you were the
principal promoter. I also enclosed to you a copy of the Publisher's
Prospectus of the work on the subject which I was about to issue, so that
you might be aware of the character of the Book, for which I had asked
you for information.

Up to this time, I have neither received any acknowledgment of the
receipt of that Letter, nor any reply to it. I wrote to you a few years ago
on the same subject, and with a like result.

In the Pamphlet on Roman Catholic Separate Schools, which Dr.
Ryerson published in 1865, he said, (speaking of that Act) : —

Tlie passage of the Separate School Act of 1863 was an honourable oomut»/it
between all parties concerned for the final settlement of the question.

Shortly after the publication of that Pamphlet, the Very Rev. Vicars-
General Cazeau, of Quebec, and Macdonell, of Kingston, — whom you had
introduced to Dr. Ryerson as authorized Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church in this matter, — wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Olobe,
dated the 11th of March, 1865, in which they repudiated the statement of
Dr. Ryerson, in regard to their action in the matter.

Dr. Ryerson replied on the 18th of that month, (March, 1865,) and
reiterated his previous statements, and referred to you in connection with
the matter. No doubt, you saw both Letters at the time, or subsequently.

Please let me know if, at that time, or afterwards, you corroborated the
statements of the Vicars-General, or those of Dr. Ryerson, or dissented
from the statements of either party ?

I have seen nothing from you on the subject, and, therefore, I should
be obliged if you would now be kind enough to give me the desired infor-
mation on the subject.

ToKONTO, 20th of February, 1897. J. George Hodoins.

Up to 20th of March, 1897, not even the simple courtesy of
an acknowledgment of this, (or any of my previous Letters to
Mr. R. W. Scott,) has been received by me.

:pi
J

Ik'i

184

U. C. Separate School Legislation,

CHAPTER XXXL

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT RELATING TO EDUCATION.

Among the Resolutions adopted by the House of Assembly, on
the 13th of March, 18G5, was the following: —

43. Besoh'ed, That the Local Legislature of each Province shall have
power to make Laws respecting

(». Education ; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant, or
Catholic, minority in both Canadaa may possess, as to their Denomina-
tional Schools, at the time when the Union goes into effect.

It was upon this Resolution that the following provisions
of the Imperial British North America Act : 30th and 31st
Victoria, Chapter 3, Section 93, (18G7,) were founded : —

In and for each Province, the Legislature nriy exclusively make laws in
relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions: —

1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or
privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any class of persons
have by law in the Province at the Union.

2. All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union, by law conferred
and imposed in Upper Canada, on 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 Protestant,
and Roman Catholic, subjects in Quebec.

3. 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 appeal shall lie to the Governor-General-in-Council
from any Act or decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any right,
or privilege, of the Protestant, or Roman Catholic, minority of the Queen's
Subjects, in relation to education.

4. In case any such Provincial Law, as, from time to time, seems to the
Governor-General-in-Council requisite for the due execution of the
provision of this Section is not made, or, in case any decision of the
Governor-General-in-Council, on any appeal under this Section is not duly
executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then, and, in
every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require,

B. N. A, Act Relating to Education.

185

the Parliament of Canada may make Remedial Laws for the due execution
of the provisions uf this Section, and of any decision of the Govurnor-
(ieneral-in-Oouncil, under this Section.

LEGAL OPINION ON THE FOREGOING 9.3kd SECTION OF THE
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT.

The following is the joint opinion of Messrs. Stephen
Richards, Adam Crooks and Edward Blake, on the legal effect
of Provincial Legislation under the authority of the 93rd
►Section of the British North America Act of 1867, obtained in
that year by The Globe Publishing Company of Toronto : —

The effect of the 93rd Section taken by itself is to confer upon the
Provincial Legislatures exclusively the power to make laws in relation to
Education, subject to certain restrictions, or provisions ; but, at the same
time, to authorize the Parliament of Canada, in certain cases, and only so
far, in those cases, as the circumstance of each case require, to pass remedial
laws on the same subject. The restrictions, or provisions, to which the
Provincial Legislatures are subject are as follows : —

Ist. The first sub-section provides that no law of the Provincial Legis-
lature shall prejudicially affect any right, or privilege, with respect to
Denominational Schools which any class of persons has established by
law in the Province at the time of the Union. '

2nd. The second sub-section provides that all the powers, privileges and
duties, which, at the time of the Union, are by law conferred and imposed
in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools ar /" School Trustees of Roman
Catholic subjects, shall be, and they are, by thu sub-section, extended to
the Dissentient Schools of Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in the
Province of Quebec. We think the Schools referred to are those established
under the School Law of Lower Canada.

3rd. The first sub-section, it will bu aeen, restrains the Local Legislature
from prejudically affecting any existing right, or privilege. The second sub-
section requires the extension o', aad does extend to, Dissentient Schools
in Lower Canada certain powers, privileges and duties, but there is no
obligation to introduce a system of Separate, or Denominational, Schools
into any Province where no such system now exists. If, however, the
Legislature of such Province should hereafter establish a Separate, or
Denominational, School System, then the right to the continuance of the
system is so far secured by the third sub-section, that an appeal would lie,' ,
under that sub-section, to the Governor-in-Council, from any Act, or
decision, of any Provincial authority affecting any right, or privilege, of the
Protestant, or Roman Catholic, minority in relation to education. The
right of appeal given by this sub-section applies also to Lower Canada and
13

f«fn

186

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

bo any Province, where a system of Separate Schools prevails at the time of
the Union. The effect of an appeal, under sub-section three, is considered
Uelow.

The above embraces all the restrictions, or obligations, by this Section
imposed on the Local Legislatures ; and subject thereto, any law which a
Provincial Legsilature may enact on the subject of Education will have
effect, but the Parliament of Canada may, in the causes, to which the fourth
sub-sectiim applies, but only to the extent authorized thereby, modify, or
render inoperative, the local enactment.

4. Under the 4th sub-section there are two cases, or classes of cases, on
which the Parliament of Canada may pass certain remedial lav/s on the
subject of Education : —

First, — Where such law is not made by the Local Legislature as to the
Governor-General-in-Council seems requisite for the due execution of the
provisions of this 93rd Section, the Parliament of Canada may, so far only
as the circumstances of the case re(]uire, make remedial laws for the due
execution of the provisions of the Section. The Governor-in-Council, we
take it, should make known to Parliament, by Order in Council, Message
or other Official Act, what law he considers necessary.

Second, — Where an Appeal is made to the Governor-in-Council under
the 3rd sub-section, and his decision thereupon is not duly executed by the
proper Provincial authority, the Parliament of Canada may, so far only as
the circumstances of the case require, make Remedial Laws for the due
execution of siich decision.

It is only in the above cases, and to the extent mentioned, that the
Parliament of Canada have authority to legislate under this Section, and,
in each case, the preliminary action of tlio Governor-in-Council, referred to
in the preceding paragraphs, is necessary to give jurisdiction.

Among the " provisions" bo be executed, contemplated in the first case,
are those of the 2nd sub-section ; for, though that sub-section seems at once
to extend to the Province of Quebec all privileges, powers, and duties
therein mentioned, yet legislation may be required to arrange the
machinery and details for practically carrying out the provisions referred to.

Possibly cases may arise affecting the provisions of the 1st and 3rd
sub-sections, in which the Governor-in-Council might act without any
Appeal being had to him.

The Appeal provided by the 3rd sub-section is, from "any Act, or decision,
»f any Provincial authority affecting any right, or privilege, of the Protestant,
or Roman Catholic, minority, in relation to education," in any Province in
which a system of Separate, or Dissentient, Schools exists by law at the
time of the Union, or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the
Province. This gives the right of appeal from any Act, or enactment, of the
Local Legislature affecting the right, or privilege, mentioned. Also, from
decisions affecting such right, or privilege, by the Department of Education,

Inspection of Roman Catholic Sep. Schools. 187

or any Hiinilar authority, having charge of the adniinistrHtion of the law on
the Bubject of Education, on mattors wliich a jurisdiction, or discretionary
action, is, by law, given to such Department, or authority, so that, in cauo
the Legislature in a Province, where a system of Separate, or Dissentient,
Schools is established, enact a law affecting an existing pri\ ilego, of the Pro-
teat,int, or Roman Catholic, minority, in relation to Ed. ition, an Appeal
will lie to the Governor-in-Council ; and, if his decision upon such Appeal
is not executed, or carried out, by the Local Legislature passing the
necessary law for the purpose, the Parliament of Canada may make a
Remedial Law necessary for the execution of such decision ; but, to warrant\
the Appeal referred to, there must be an existing right, or privilege, to be
affected by the local enactment appealed from. So, also, in case of an
Appeal from the decision of the Department of Education, or other similar
authority, if the decision of the Qovernor-in-Council is not duly executed
by the Department, or other authority referred to, the Parliament of
Canada may pass the law requisite for enforcing the decision.

But the decision to be appealed from must be one afi'ecting an existing
right, or privilege, of the minority. No new rights, or privileges, are to bo
uciiuired by means of an Appeal under the 3rd and 4th sub-sections.

Stephen RicHAima.

Adam Crooks.
Toronto, Mirch 9th, 18B7. Edward Blake.

We also incline to the opinion that an Appeal would lie to the (lovernor-
in-Council from any decision of a Provincial Court affecting any existing
right, or privilege, of a minority, and tha'^ the Governor-in-Council may
declare it necessary to pass a law providing the requisite machinery for the
enforcement of his decisions, and that Parliament may, upon such declara-
tion, and, at the failure of the Local Legislature to act, pass such law.

Adam Crooks.

Edward Blake.

CHAPTER XXXII.

INSPECTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOLS.

Although the Roman Catholic Separate School Act specifically
provided for the inspection of Separate Schools, yet the right
to do, under that Act, was resisted in Kingston and Toronto, as
the following statement will show : —

The Separate School Law having authorized the Chief

188

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Superintendent, of Education to provide for this inspection of
Separate Schools, and also tho Registers of those Schools, the
Inspectors of Grammar Schools were authorized to inspect such
of these Schools as were within the limits of that part of
Upper Canada assigned to them for inspection pui-poses.

In October, 1865, the Inspector appointed to the eastern part
of Upper Canada was refused permission to inspect the Register
of pupils' names, and the record of their attendance, at the
Roman Catholic Separate School in Kingston. This refusal
having been reported to the Chief Superintendent, he wrote to
the Chairman of the Roman Catholic Separate School Board in
Kingston on the subject. In his Letter he said : —

As the Law reijuires me to make and pay the a})jK;rtii)nment of tlie
Legishitive Grant to Separate Schools, it is my duty and right to see
whether the dabi on which T make and i)ay such apportionmeiit are
properly prepared and are reliable. This can only he done by having the
Registers of Separate Schools exuuiined by a duly appointed Otticer.

The 26th Section of the Sejjarate S^^hool Act of 18H3 expressly provide*
that "The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, with their Registei-s 8hall he
subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time, by the Chief
Superintendent of Education." . . .

The same objection was made by Archbishop Lynch in

Toronto late in 1871, and he addressed the following I^etter on

the subje»;t to the Chief Superintendent of Education : —

To our great amazement we Hnd that our Separate Schools are visited by
tlie Inspectors of the Counnon Schools. We tjike tliis occasion to protest
against this intrusion, as it is contrary to the .spirit of tlie Law estJiblishing
Separate Sclu>ol8 ; and we will be obliged to give notice to the Trustees
not to receive those visits ; not that we are afraid of them, but we do not
want their interference.

In his reply to the Archbishop, Dr. Ryerson said : —

I beg to observe that the protest yon make, and the intention you avow,
are in direct opposition to tlie Separate Scliool Act, the twenty-sixth
Section of which expressly provides [for siich inspection.] (See tliis
Section (juoted above.)

I have construed tlie Sei^arate School Act, to authorize Trustees of
Se{)arate Schools in Cities, Towns and Incorporated Villages, to appoint

. . the Local Superintendent of their Schools ; l)ut tliat does not
preclude this DejMirtmeiit from directing an inspection of the Register and
condition of any Separate School.

French and German Schools, 1851-1876.

189

Dr. Ryerson then referred to the General Regulations under
which the Grammar School Inspectors were directed to inspect
Separate Schools in the neighbourhood of Grammar Schoois.
He then said : —

I believe these visits were very accoptiible to the Managers iind Teiichers
of '^he Separate Schools, and the Inspector's report respecting them was
most favourable. . . . But in one (Kingston) he was refused admittance
. by the head Teacher of the principal Separate School. .

A few days after I had written [to Kingston on the subject], I received
a Letter from the Roman Catliolic Bishop of Ki>igston, (Dr. Horan,) apolo-
gizing for the conduct of the head Teacher of tlie Separate School, who had
luistfiken his duty, and assuring me that the Inspector would be courteously
received at any time he might think proper to visit the School. . .

1 win adduce indubitable proof that I have sought to administer the Law,
as nuich for the benefit of Separate Schools, as of Public Scliools, and have
given the Separate Schools the advantage of every doubt, and of any
discretionary power I might have, to assist them.

But while I have thus sought to aid Separate Schools to the utmost
extent of my i)ower, and to give the most liberal ccmstructior of the School
Liiw in thoir behalf, t nuist say that 1 think your Grace's protest and inti-
mated courae of proceedings, are directly contrary to the express provisions
of the Separate School Act — the inspection of whicli class of Schools, under
the authority of this Department, is nt)t, as a matter of suffrage, at the
discretion of the Trustees of Separate Schv>ols, but a matter of right,
provided for by law, and which every government ought to possess, and
exercise to inspect, at its discrt»tion, the doings of every School, or Insti-
tution, aided out of the public revevues of the Country.

Toronto, 5th of December, 1871. E. Ryerson.

No further difficulty was experienced in this matter.

1 1

CHAPTEK XXXIII.

SCHOOLS IN FRENCH AND GERMAN SETTLEMENTS, 1851-1875.

There was one class of Separate Schools which gave the Chief
Superintendent very little trouble. These were the B'rench and
German Scliools, — c hiefly Roman Catholic , — which were scat-
tered here and there throughout Upper Canada. All that had
to be done in their case was to give them such teaching
facilities, as enabled them to go into operation under Teachers

; !

190

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

who could speak the language of the ratepayers concerned, and
that language only.

Happily that facility could be given under the general, — not
the Separate, — School Law, and that with the sanction of the
Chief Superintendent.

There were two principles which Dr. Ryerson laid down
at an early period in his administration of the Education
Department.

The first was, — that whenever he could meet special cases by
a liberal, and often, (with the sanction of the Government,) a
generous interpretation of his powers under the School Acts,
and in terms of his Commission as Chi'^f Superintendent of
Education, it was his duty to give that interpretation, in cases
not specifically provided for, — except by analogy, — in the
School Law.

The second principle which Dr. Ryerson laid down, and.
which he generally adhered to, was not to propose too frequent
legislation, with a view to meet special cases ; but only to seek
such legislation at intervals of from five to ten years.

Fortunp.tely I was familiar with Dr. Ryerson's views, as
expressed in the first of the foregoing principles, which he
had laid down for his guidance, when the first application was
made in 185i to grant a Certificate of Qualification to a Frencli
Teacher in the County of Essex, — which had been largely
settled by French-Canadians. At the time that this application
reached me from the Board of Public Instruction for the
County of Essex, Dr. Ryerson was absent in England, and I
had charge of the Department, as Acting Chief Superintendent.
I, therefore, submitted the application, which had been received,
to the Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, with
the recommendation that it be granted. This was concurred in
by the Council of Public Instruction ; and I was, therefore,
enabled to inform the Essex County Board that : —

The Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada has sjinctioned a
liberal construction of the programme to which you refer, making the term
"English" convei'tible into the term "French," where it occurs, and
when applied to French candidates for examination before the County

tv K f9 mnm ' mi>)u>tii fnmtmmim

KsrsaoeaMLXEKav

Frexch and German Schools, 1851-1875.

191

Board of Public Instruction. The certifiaite sliould, of course, be expressly
limited to teaching in the Fx'ench language.

■ A copy of this intimation was also sent to the then Local
Superintendent of Education at Sandwich, with the following
addition : —

The School Act exprtssly authorizes Trustees to employ any qualified
Teacher they please ; should, tlierefore, the one to whom you refer, obtain
a certificate from the County Board, the Trustees can engage his services,
and no Board, or School Officer, can prevent them, as lias been assumed in
a Mem<jrial transmitted to me by the Secretary of the County Board of
Public Instruction, from certain inhabitants of School Section No. 6,
Sandwicli.

In 1858, a partial extension of the principle here laid down,
was applied to German Teachers; and, to meet the case, a
knowledge of the German Grammar was, by the Council of
Public Instruction, substituted in the programme of examina-
tion, for a knowledge of the English Grammar.

In 1871, a further difficulty arose, owing to a delay of the
Council of Public Instruction tc provide fully for the examina-
tion and licensing of German Teachers in the German
settlements of Upper Canada. To meet a special case, which
occurred in the County of Waterloo, I told the Local Superin-
tendent, who had called upon me, in Dr. Ryerson's absence :

To grant six months' certificates to such German candidates as would
present themselves for examination in July ; and I said tiiat, by giving the
Department early notice oi the real requirements in the case, attention
would be given to the matter by the Council of Public Instruction, an(i
every provisicm made for the examination of such candidates, at all future
examinations.

This was confirmed by Dr. Ryerson ; and he informed the
Local Superintendent of the County, that examination papers
in German Reading, Spelling, Etymology and CJrannnar might
be prepared by Members of the County Board, and that tht;
other ordinary examination papers could be used in the case of
the Teachers wlio could read English.

Similar applications, made in 1872 and 1875, were dealt with
in the same spirit ; and, in this way, every facility was given
by the Education Department for the successful operation of

192

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

French and German Public and Separate Schools in the French
and German settlements of Upper Canada.

WHY PERPETUATE NATIONALITIES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ?

While a movement has been inaugurated in this Dominion
to discourage the use of a dual language, in certain parts of it,
a corresponding movement to discourage its use in the ele-
mentary Schools, in parts of the United States, received the
strong commendation of Cardinal Satolli, during his visit to
that country. Thus, in an article in The Forwm, New York,
for February, 1897, the Rev. Dr. McGlynn says: —

With regard to the (|ue8tion that has caused some disturbance, — of the
desiie of (Roman) Catholic immigrants of other speech than the English,
to maintain in their Churches, and Church Schools, for an indefinite time,
a foreign speech, and, in some measure, a foreign nationality. Archbishop
Satolli saw clearly, at an early day, how detrimental this must be to the
general interests of the Church ; . . . theref<jre, he not only compelled
a German pastor to restore a Church, (of which his Bishop had permitted
him to take possession,) to the use of the English-speaking people, who
liad built it ; but he also advised him to preach, even in his own Church, in
the " normal " language of the country. ... In the sjime spirit he
wrote, in Aja-il, 1895, to certain French Canadians in Connecticut, as
follows : —

Your attachment to your religion is most consoling, and that to your native
language most natural and praiseworthy. But, at the same time, you must
rememV)er that you have left the country in which the use of that language is
common, and have voluntarily come to another in which a different tongue is
spoken.

You must not, then, expect that here the same provision can be made with
the same perfection for the propagation and continued use of your own
language.

Cardinal Satolli can now, Dr. McGlynn says, make : —

. . Clear to the Pope, and his eminent advisers in Rome, that any
attempt to perpetuate here qnusi colonies of nationalities of foreign speech,
can. in the long run, but be ruinous to the religious interests of the next,
and succeeding, generations, who, by an inevitable attraction, will perforce
be Americans, and will glory in the name. . .

I have quoted these paasages from the article in The Foi'um,
by the Rev. Dr. McGlynn, and also the remarks of Archbishop
Ireland, in the concluding chapter, with a view to show what

ife.

Dr. Ryerson's Final Sep. School Utierances. 193

the opinion of distinguished and enlightened Roman Catholics
in the United States are, on questions which have a practical
bearing upon our own future, and on the " evolution," — so to
speak, — of the various nationalities among us into a homo-
geneous Canadian nationality, — loyal, brave, and true, — of
which we, as a people, might well be proud.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

DR. RYERSON'S FINAL UTTERANCES ON SEPARATE
SCHOOL AGITATIONS.

Early in the year 1865, a renewed agitation was commenced
in Upper Canada by the promoters of Roman Catholic Separate
Schools. In consequence of this new movement. Dr. Ryerson
issued a pamphlet to counteract its effects, under the title of
" Remarks on the New Separate School Agitation." In his
" Prefatory Notice," he said : —

Each succes.sive Separate Scliool Law agitation, during the fifteen years
from 1850 tt» 1865, has been commenced by attjicks uj u the Education
Department, and the Separate School Law for the time \k ing. .

I have felt it due to the supporters of our Public School System, to
furnish theni with materials for refuting tlie stsitements put forth for show-
ing the unreasonableness oi the demands made. . . . This I deem to
be the more necessary now, as a formal agitiition for the extension of the
Roman Catholic Separate School System has been inaugurated in various
jtarts of Upper Canada. Already influential meetings of Roman Catholics,
to promote this oject, have been held in Toronto, Kingston, Ottiiwa, Perth,
and other important towns, and resolutions of a more sweeping character
than usual passed unanimously.

The cause of this renewed agitation, Dr. Ryerson very pro-
perly asci'ibed to the movements then in progress, of a —

"Certain number of Protestants in Montreal, . . prompted by

the Montreal Witiiess," . . . who make pretentions, and claims to a
separate every-thing, — from the Chief Superintendent of Education down
to the humble Teacher, , . . involving the principle of subjection of
the State to the Cliurch, . . . incompatible with the universal educa-
tion of any i>eople — embodying views subversive of the School System,

194

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

and of Municipul rights in Upper Canada, and wliicli have been, again and
again, all Init unanimously condeunied by its Represenbitives and Electors.
Such pretentions, on the part of The Wittwua and othei's in Montreal, could
never have really prompted, any more than it can justify, this new Separate
School agibition in Upper Canada, though it may be the pretext for it.

There are, indeed, certain anomalies in the School Law of Lower Canada,
which by no means aft'ord to Protestants these facilities for Protestant
Schools, etjual to th(<se possessed by Roman Catholics for Separate Scliools
in Upper Canada ; but, I believe no one has been more ready to correct
those anomalies than the Hon. P. J. (). Chauveau, Chief Superintendent
of Educjition there, who has more than once otticially recommended the
amendment of the Ljiw for that purpose.

Mr. Hodgins, Dei)uty Superintendent of Educfition for Upper Canada,
when in Montreal in October last, having been apjilied to on the subject,
endeavoured to impress some of the parties concerned with the error of
their course — so at variance with the views of the i)eople of Upper Canada,
and so impracticable and unpatriotic.

I have ever objected to Lower Canada interference in Upper Canada
School matters ; and I do not think Upper CanaiU will interfere with
Lower Canada School matters.* ...

Dr. Ryerson then takes a rapid survey of the successive
Roman Catholic Separate School agitations, — those of 1851,
'52, 1857, '58, 18G0-63. In regard to the latter year, he says :—

The present Separate Scliool Law was passed, and accepted on the part
of the Autlun-ities of the Roman Catholic Church " as a final settlement of
the question." But, in less than two years, in 18(>4, '5, the old agitation is
recommenced, and the old terms of denunciation against the Se[)arate
ScIkjoI Ijfiw, and against the Chief Superintendent, are again
[indulged in] and put to work in the service of a fresh agitati(m, as |>ninted
out.

Dr. Ryerson then very properly puts this question : —

Now, can it be that acute Ecclesiastics and learned Lawyers, and alile
Statesmen of the Roman Catholic Church, have been deceived thus, time

* While in Montreal, in October, 1864, I wrote tlie following Letter to Dr.
Ryerson in regard to the matter to which he here refers. I said : —

I have seen Mr. William Lunn several times, and have sought to modify and
soften the ill-feeling wliich exists lietweeu the Protestant School Committee
and the Hon. P. J. 0. Chauveau, Chief Suporintondent of Kducation for Lower
Canada. They feel very strongly against him ; and although I do not think
liis policy and mode of dealing witii the difficulty is either wise, or judicious, in
all respects, I have told l)otli him and them that I could do, or say, notliing
which would either compromise our position in Upper Canada, or our friendly
relations with Mr. Chauveau.

Montreal, 8th of October, 1864. J. Georcsk Hoooins.

msz.

r ^i H. . l. Sl S. ^I . WU ».^fr^.^MUfl»^-.i.

Dr. Ryersox's Final Sep. School Utterances. 195

after time, as to tlie import and character of LawH which they tl<vjmselves
have fnvmed and advocjited [or have agreed to]? . . . 1 can truly say,
heyond the power of successful ci>ntradiction, that I have sought t<i the
utmost, to give the most liberal application, and the fullest att'ect to these
successive Separate School Acts. . . .

Speaking of the drafts of Bills, proposed by the supporters
of Separate Schools iu 1855 and 1863, Dr. Ryeraon said: —

The first draft of Separate School Bill, that of 1885, \. rohibited 'jither
Municipalites, or Trustees of Common Schools, from levying and collectings
any rate for either the building of a School House, or paying a Teacher,
without also levying and collecting rates for the supportei-s of Separate
Schools, in proportion to their populaticn ! . . . thus actually proposing
to make Municipalities and Protesfaiirc Trustees tax-gatherers for Roman
Catholic Schools I . . .

The second provision was, that the Romtui Catholics, as a Body, should
be defined as supporters of Separate Schools, and thus by law, be excluded
from the Common Schools. This was in the first " project" of the Bills
referred to, thus depriving every Roman Catholic of the right, or liberty
of choice, as to whether he would support a Common, or a Separate,
School. ...

THE separate SCHOOL BILL OF 1866 THE RESULT OF THIS

LAST AGITATION.

The result of this combined and sinniltaneous movement iu
Upper Canada, to re-open the " final settlement " of the Sepa-
rate School (question of 1863, was the introduction, without
notice, or warning, of a specious, and, as it happily proved, an
abortive measure affecting the integrity of the Public School
System of Upper Canada. The title of this Bill was as
follows : —

A Bill to extend to the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada
similar and ecjual privileges with those granted by the Legislature to the
ProtestJint minority in Lower Canada.*

* A Letter from Mr. Limn to Dr. Ryerson, written in November, 1866'
throws some light on this subject. He said : —

^^'e have recently had a meeting of leading gentlemen in Montreal, on tlie
Kducation (luestion, at which a nunuier of Resolutions were passed, appointing
a Committee of six, with plenary powers. Dr. J. W. — [afterwards Sir William]
— Dawson and I are on that Committee. We met Mr. — [afterwards Sir Alex-
ander] — Gait in town last week by appointment, wlio gave us a history of his
recent connnunications with Lord Monck and the Ministry. The result was, a
Minute of Council, approved by the Governor-General, guaranteeing to the
Protestants of Lower Canada the same rights possessed by the Roman Catholics

196

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

As soon as Dr. Ryerson heard of this new effort to tamper
with the Separate School Law Settlement of 1863, then he
wrote a strong and effective Letter to the Provincial Secretary
on the subject, pointing out to him the disingenuous character
of the Bill itself, and remonstrating with the Government for
permitting private Members of the House thus continually to
deal with a ((uestion involving Provincial and vital interests,
which the Government itself was especially bound to protect
and promote.

This Letter is the more interesting and important, from the
fact that it was the last of the kind which Dr. Ryerson ever
wrote on these ever recurring and pernicious agitations, —
which no compact, or understanding, seemed to be sacred
enough to which to bind the parties, or to prevent them from
making these periodical attacks upon the integrity of that Public
School System, which he had been at such labour and pains to
place upon, what he regarded as, a firm, sound and practical
foundation. Dr. Ryerson said : —

I observe tluit a discussion took place last night in the House of
Assembly on Mr. R. Bell's introduction of a new Sepai'ate School Bill for
Upper CcUiada; and I have, this nioniing, read the px'ovisions of that Bill,
the most disingenuous, partial and insidious that can be conceived.

When I went lately to Ottawa on Departmentjil business, I had no idea
that the Separate School Question of Upper Canada would be even mooted
in the House of Assembly ; but during the two days that I was there, I
heard that several Ecclesiastics were there from Upper Canada, though I
did not meet with any of them ; and I was told that, in settling the Lower
Canada School (juestion, it was intended by the advocates of Roman
Catliolic Separate Scliools to get further provisions on the subject in Upper
Canada. I need not repeat what I said to you and to Mr. Alexander
Mackenzie, and other Members of the Legislature on the subject ; but I
beg to offer tlie following remarks : —

1. I refused even to consult with Mr. R. W. Scott, in regard to his

of Upper Canada by the Separate School Act ; and giving them, also, the right
of appeal to the (General Legislature for amendments to the School Law, and to
the Legislature the right to legislate on that question.

This information is given to us with the understanding that it is not to be

Sublished in the newspapers, but may be communicated to any of our conti-
ential friends. I, therefore, give it to you.
Montreal, 7th of November, 1866. William Lunn.

^hife^.

Dr. Ryerson's Final Utterances.

197

Separate School Bill of 1863, much less to be a party to its passing into an
Act, except on two conditions :

First.— That what we agreed upon should l)e accepted by the Roman
Catholic Authorities of his Church as a final settlement of the Separate
School question in Upper Canada.

Second.— That it should have the sanction and responsibility of the
Government for its passing.

The manner in which the authorized Representjitives of the Roman
Catholic Church met Mr. Scott and me, in the Parliamentary Library at
Quebec, and in which a duplicate C()j)y of the Bill agreed ui)on, was made
out, one for each party, and in which botli parties waited upon the Head
of the Ministry, and represented the Bill as tlms agreed upon to settle
the (juestion in Upper Canada, is well known, and was shortly afterwards
published. And nothing can be more dishonourable and truthless than
for either party now to deny that settlement of the question and seek to
subvert it.

2. The question of the Sepamte School Law was thus settled for Upper
Canada, without any reference to what had been done, < >r might be done,
in Lower Canada.

'A. The School question between Roman Catholics and Protestants in
Lower Canada, is peculiar to Lower Canada, — having nothing analogous in
Upper Canada, except that there are Roman Catholics and Protestant-s
here, as well as there. The Roman Catholics in Lower Canada, beinf in
the majority, have resolved that the Schools of the majority there should
be Roman Catholic Schools, as much so as are the Convents themselves, —
except that they are Day, and not Boarding, Schools. The Protestants in
Upper Canada, being in the majority, have resolved that by Law, and in
fact, the Schools of the majority here should not be denominational, — not
Roman Catholic, or Protestant, but National, — equally conmion and accept-
able to Protestants and Roman Catholics. In confirmation of this fact, I
refer, not merely to the provisions of the Law, and the General Regulations,
but to two facts in connection with the operations of our Sclir>ol System.

(1). Of the 544 Roman Catholic Teachers of Connnon Schools employed
in Upper Canada, accoixling to my last printed report, 190 of them are
employed in the Separate Schools, and 354 in the Public, or National,
Schools.*

(2). Of the sixty odd thousand (60,000) Roman Catholic children taught
in the Common Schools in Upper Canada, all but seventeen thousand,
(17,000), — or about 43,000, — of them are taught in the Public, or National,
Schools. Thus a majority of neai'ly three-fourths of the Teachers, and
pupils of the Roman Catholic Church are connected with the Schools of the

* During the last full year (1875) that Dr. Ryerson was Chief Superintendent
of Education, tlie number of Roman Catholic Teachers employed was 726, — 516.
in the Public Schools, and 210 in the Separate Schools.

198

U. C. Sefauate School Legislation.

I I

majority, — they preferring tliose ScIiooIh to Separate Schools, notwith-
stjviuling the ecclcHiaHticul iiitiuence einj)loyed to sever them from the
Public, and connect them vvitli the Separate, Schooln, and, notwithstanding,
the facility afl'orded by Law for the establishment and support of Separate
Schools. I have conversed with a sufficient number of Roman Catholics,
•or rather, a sutticient number of them have come and conversed with me,
to satisfy me that a majority of the Roman Catliolic laity do really regard
the Separate School Law as an injury, rather than a benefit, to themselves
and families. I have given tlie most liberal interprebvtion and application
<jf tlie Sejiarate Schf)ol Law, as I am sure every Roman Catholic Priest and
T-rfvyman, who has had to df) with my Department, will testify.

4. I will not discuss the provisions of Mr. Bell's outrageous Bill. I uiay
remark that the very first provision proposes to make Municipal Councils
■fcix-collectors for the Schools of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the
most degi'ading features of "Church and Stsite " connection, so formally
renounced by our Legislature ; while, at the same time, by the Lower
■Canada School Act of 1857. the supporters of Dissentient Schools alone are
authorized to levy and collect rates for the support of their Schools. The
55th Section of Chapter 16, of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada
declares that : —

The Trustees of Dissentient Schools shall alone have the right of fixing and
collecting assessments to be levied on the inhabitants so dissentient.

5. I will not advert to the provisicn relative to Colleges and higher
Seminaries, except to observe that the wedge is there apparent, which it
has been long sought to get inserted in our system of Public Instruction, to
separate the Roman Catholics "as a Body" from the rest of the population
in School matters, and thus to accomplish a favourable Ultramontane object.

6. Nor will I notice the provision for a separate Superintendent, Council
■of Public Instruction, etc., except to remark that it is at variance with all
English, as well as American precedent. In Ireland, Separate Schools may
be established ; but there is one National Board of Education. In Eng-
land, thf)Ugh the system of Elementary Schools is denominational, [and was
wholly so until the Forster Act of 1870], there is but one Governmental
Department of Education.

7. If the two parties in Lower Canada agree upon a peculiar and double-
headed system, it is, of course, their own affair. I am persuaded that the
minority will "gain a loss" by it in many ways they now little anticipate.
But, I have not interfered with the Lower Canada System ; and I have
•1(1 vised all Upper Canada Members of the Legislature to leave the Lower
^^ anada School questions to be settled by parties connected with that
Province ; and then, not suffer them to interfere in our School affairs, any
more than that they should attempt to impoee upon Upper Canada two
Houses of the Legislature, because they wish for them in Lower Canada.

8. Although the Government cannot prevent a private Member from

End of Difficulties in Sep. S(;hool MAriEHs. 199

inHuItiiig Upper CaiDulii by tlie intnHluction of hucIi h Bill hh Mr. Bell's,
yet I tliiiik the people of I'pper ChiiucIh, as well hh Lower CdimdH, have a
right to look to Government for the protection, as well as the iini)rovenient
of their School System, and to give the decision and influence of the
Government against any Bill, or measure, which would subvert, or weaken
that System established under its aus|»icies, and maintnined by its authority,
as well l)y the all but unanimous voice of the people of Upper Canada.

E. Rykkhon.
Toronto, 4th of August, 18<$(J.

CHAPTEK XXXV.

END OF DR. RYERSON'S DIFFICULTIES IN SEPARATE
SCHOOL MATTERS.

Except in the duty of settling purely local differences, in
regard to Separate Schools, — receiving their reports and appor-
tioning to them the Legislative grant, Dr. Ryerson's relations
with the managers of these Schools after Confederation, in
1867, were pleasant and agreeable. Nothing particular occurred
during the years 1872-1876, in regard to Separate Schools, to
mar that harmony. His difficulties in the administration of
the Education Department, during these years, were of a very
different kind, and chiefly arose with parties who had no
connection whatever with Separate Schools.

Dr. Ryerson shared the fate of many a man before him.
He was a man of large and long experience, and one who had
mastered principles, and was familiar with various schemes of
education. He had personally to deal with, and combat,
educational and administrative theories, which he knew to be
thoroughly unsound, as they were impracticable; — theories
which were the result of superficial observation of such work
as his, and of experience gained in very different fields from
that in which he had laboured during the whole of his later
life. He often sought to get relief from what he felt to be
imnecessary burthens and new duties, — many of which were
made distasteful to him.

200

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

At leiifjtlj, on the 2lHt of Febiniary, 1876, he finally retired-
from the Headship <jf the Education Department, after having,
for thirty -two years, done noble service for his native country,
in founding its System of Public Schools, and in raising to a
high degree of efficiency its Urannnar Schools, and, in the form
of Collegiate Institutes, founding a number of local Colleges in
the various Counties of the Province.

I have already referred, — in a " Sketch " of his career as

['resident of Victoria C'oUege, — to Dr. Ryerson's reticence in

regard to the Department, after he had left it, and to his dislike

to having the subject mentioned to him In this connection, I

may say that, after he had retired from the Department, many

things done were spoken of, as though he had personal

knowledge of them, and approved of them, — but, of which, as a

matter of fact, he personally knew nothing. To me he confided

his inmost thoughts and feelings ; but, in regard to one thing,

he was very firm. He would not let me mention, c" discuss,

any Departmental matter. He said that he had " done with all

of that now ; — that things were in the hands of othei's, for which

they alone must enjoy the praise, or bear the blame." So I

ceased entirely to speak of our old work altogether ; and, in the

course of the year of his retirement, he went to England, where

he remained for ovei' a year. Within five years after his

return, he peacefully passed away, and was laid to rest in the

Mount Pleasant Cemetery in February, 1882, — just six years,

(and in the month,) in which he had ceased to be the Chief

Superintendent of Education for the Province of Ontario.

CONCLUDING CHAPTEK.

EXPEDIENCY OF SEPAR.\TE EDUCATION CONSIDERED BY
DR. RYERSON AND ARCHBISHOP IRELAND.

Apart from the purely local aspect of Separate School Educa-
tion, the question often forces itself upon the more thoughtful
among us, — whether the system of separate and isolated educa-

Expediency of Separate Education Considered. 201

H-i

tion for a jMjrtion of the future uierchants, profesHional men,
anrl ordinary citiztmH of a Count "y, is one which a wiHe, far-
neeinjj statesman Hhould endors(! and promote.

Any one who will read the later utterances of Dr. llyerson
on this subject, and the brave, practical, and outspoken words
of a distinguished Prelate of the American Roman Catholic
Church, — Archbishop Ireland, — will be led to ask himself
whether, after all, there is not "a more excellent way " to solve
this question than by persistently following an educational
noli me tangere system, wliich is fraught with so many dis-
advantages.

Archbishop Ireland practically puts the question in this
form : Whether an efficient system of State Schools, with a
sjitisfactory provision for religious instruction, would not be
best for all parties. After discussing the general question of
" State Schools," the Archbishop pi'oposes two plans by which
the subject of popular education might be successfully dealt
with. His views on this (|ue8tion will be given further on in
this Chapter.

Dr. Ryerson, in his remarks, deals chiefly with the question
from a national standpoint, and in its practical aspect, as to
liow the separate and isolated system of education fits the
children of its adherents and promoters for the after " battle
of life."

The discussion of this vexed question of Roman Catholic
Separate Schools in Upper Canada has been marked by so
nmch bad feeling and bitter personal controversy, that it is
refreshing to be able to contemplate it in the absence of both
of these exasperating adjuncts to its discussion heretofore.

In his general remarks Dr. Ryerson says : —

Separate Schools amnot be claimed as a right. . . . All that any
citizen can claim as a right ... is e(jual and impartial protection,
with every other citizen.

I think that no one will maintain that Sepivrate Schools are expedient
for the interests of the State. Nay, those interests are more or less injured
by every act of class legislation ; and its strength is weakened by every
sectional division, which its citizens have created by law. ... It was

202

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

n source of individual pride, and of strength to the State, in ancient days,
for a man to say ^' Jtiumanus S>im." ... So would we be so now, under
a legislation of "Equal Riglits " and privileges, — without distinction, in
regard to sect or party, for a man to say : " Canadensis Sum,'' . . .
standing in all respects upon the equal ground of riglit and privilege with
every other man (in Canada) in relation to the State and to the Law. . . .

The youtli, who grows up to manhood in a School of separation, coui-
niencos "the battle of life," not only with inferior mental and social
preparation, but comes forth into the arena of competition and enterprise
estranged from, and a stranger to, the habits, views and associations of
chose with whom his pursuits and ff>rtunes are linked. . . . There
may, now and then, be an exception, . . . but such an exanq)le is a
rare exception to the general rule, which dooms the victim of isolation to
inferiority, failure and obscurity.

The fact is, that the tendency of the public mind and of the institutions
of Upper Canada is to confederation, and not to isolation, — to united effort,
and not to divisions and hostile effort, — in what all have a cf >mmon interest.
The efforts to estsiblish and extend Separate Scliools, . . . are a
struggle against the instincts <./f Canadian Society, against tlie necessities of
a sjxH-sely populated country, against the social and political present and
future interest of the parents and youth thus separated [by these Schools]
from their fellow-citi/.ens. ...

These remarks of Dr. Ryerson present, in striking language,
the matured and thoughtful utterances of a Canadian states-
man. They also embody the views entertained on the system
of isolated and Separate School education, which ai'e shared in
by thousands of practical men, and by such thoughtful Roman
Catholics as the late Hon. Donald A. Macdonald, formerly
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and his noted bi'other,
Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, a former Premier of the late
Province of Canada, and afterwards of Upper Canada.

Among other distinguished Roman Catholics wno deprecated
isolated denominational education was tiie Right Hon. Thomas
Wyse, long an influential Member of the Imperial Parliament
and Educationist, and afterwards Her Majesty's Minister at the
Court of Greece, wrote lai'gely on the universal education of the
Irish People, and in favour of mixed Schools, as essential to its
attainment. In his well-known work on " Education Reform,"
he thus speaks of a system of Separate, or Denoi.'ii.'iational,
Schools, and of the kind of instruction given in theiii : —

Expediency of Separate Education Considered. 203

We grow Protestants and we gr<jw C'-tholics, . . . and degrade
i^eniinaries for the universal mind of the country into rival garrisons of
fact' on.

In a somewhat extended Report which I prepared, in the
autunni of 189G, at the request of the Minister of Education for
Ontario, I quoted at some length the eloquent and outspoken
words of the Most Rev. Archbishop Ireland, of St. Paul, in
answering the question, proposed by himself, at the Meeting of
the Aijiei'ican National Education Association, held at St. Paul
in 1890. The question which the Archbishop proposed to
discuss at that Meeting was : State Schools and Parish Schools :
Is union between them imjwssihle ?

Coming from so high and enlightened a Dignitary of the
Roman Catholic Church, as the Archbishop of St. Paul, Miiine-
sota, his utterance on this important subject will be read with
much interest and attention. They are like a ray of sunshine
on a darkened subject, and have the sound of a pleasant voice
amid jarring strife.

In answer to this (juestion, (in part) Archbishop Ireland
said : —

I am the friend and advocjite of the Stjite School. I uphold the Parish
8chool. I sincerely wish that the need of it did not exist. I would have
all Schools for the children of the people State Schools.

The right t)f the State School to exist, I consider, is a matter beyond the
stage of discussion. I fully concede it. To the child must be imparted
instruction in no mean degree. The imparting of this is primarily the
function of the child's parent. The family is prior to the State. The State
intervenes, whenever the family can not, or will not, do the work that
is needed. The place of the State, in the function of instruction is l(>ri>
parentis. .\8 things are, tens of thouwinds of children will not be instructed,
if parents remain solely in charge of this duty. The State must come for-
ward as an agent of instruction ; else ignorance will prevail. Indeed, in
the absence of State action, there never was that universa'. instruction
which we have so nearly attained, and which we deem necessary. In the
absence of State action, I believe univei-sal instruction would never in any
country have been posHil)le.

State action in favour of instruction implies free Schools. ... In
no other manner can we bring instruction within the reach of all children.
. . . Blest, indeed, is that nation, whose vales and hill sides the [free

■MMHi—

.^04

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

School] adorns, aiid blest the generations upon whose souls are poured
their treasures. . . .

It were idle for me to jjraise the work of the State School of America in
the imparting of secular instruction. . . . It is our pride and glory.
The Republic of the United States has solemnly aftirmed its resolve that
within its borders no clouds of ignorance shall settle upon the minds of the
children of its people. To reach this result its generosity knows no limit.
The Free School of America ! Withered be the hand raised in sign of its
destruction ! . . .

The American people are natumlly reverent and religious. Their Ljiws
and Public Observanc* breathe forth the perfume of religion. Tlie
American School, as it first reared its log walls amid the Villages of New
England, was religious through and through.

I would solve the difficulty by submitting it to the calm judgment of the
Country : —

I would permeate the regular State School with the religion of the
majority of the children of the land, be it Protestant as Protestantism caiii
be ; and I would, as they do in England, pay for the secular instruction
given in Denominational Schools according to results ; that is, each pupil
passing the examination before the State Officials, and in full accordance
with the State programme, would seciire to his' School the cost of the tuition
of a pupil in the State School.

There is also another plan : —

I would do as the Protestants and Catholics have done [for over twenty
years] in Poughkeepsie and other places in our Country have ag 3d to do,
to the greatest satisfaction of all citizens and the great advancement of
educational interests.*

Do not tell me of the difficulties of detail in working out either of
my schemes. . . . Other schemes more perfect in conception and eafsier of
application will, perhaps, be pre.sented in time ; meanwhile, let us do the best
that we can and do know."

It is delightful tol.urn from a contemplation of the narrow-
ness of the Canadian isolation system, so strenuously advocate<l
by the promoters of our Separate Schools, to the enjoyment of

* Having written to Archbishop Ireland for some information in regard to
the Poughkeepsie plan, which is otherwise known as "the Faribault scheme"
of education, he referred me to the Rev. James Nilan, Parish Priest at Pough-
keepsie, for definite information on the subject. He said, however, that "The
' Faribault Plan ' is nothing else than the ' Irish School Plan,' which has been
in working order throughout Ireland for tlie last fifty years. It was first
applied in this Country in Poughkeepsie, New York." . . .

In the Report, to which I have referred, the particulars of this Pouglikeepsiw
scheme arc given in detail.

Expediency of Separate Education Considered, 205

the large-hearted schemes and manly utterances of the Arch-
bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota.

There is, in these utterances, a statesmanlike f^rasp of the
<luestion, as it touches our social condition as a people, and as
it reaches forward and embraces the vast educational future yet
before us. For, after all, we are only in the early stage of
our intellectual growth, and have barely done more than lay
the foundation, of our three-fold educational system. The
men who were most noted for their far-seeing prescience in
laying these foundations, have only just passed away. They
were men who encountered endless difficulties, and opposition,
in accomplishing even what they did in this noble work.

No doubt the time will come, in this young and vigorously
growing country, — " this Canada of curs," — when the compre-
hensive views of Archbishop Ireland will prevail amongst those
who, at present, only see a prospect of the decay of their faith
in the hearts and minds of such of the Roman Catholic children
who would frequent the "State Schools" of this Province, —
where, it is well known, proselytism is never attempted, and
where there is no such thing as tampering with the religious
belief of any of the pupils.

When that eventful, and long-wished for, day comes, the
won<ler will be that there did not, long ago, arise a wise •
Separate School Counsellor in Canada, in the matter of public
education in the " State Schools," such as the large-hearted and
far-seeing ecclesiastical statesman, — the Archbishop of St. Paul.

206

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

APPENDIX No. I.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.
Compared with the Tache Act of 1865 on PA<iEs 96-99.

The following copy of the RomaM Catholic Act of 1863, com-
pared by Dr. Ryerson, with that of 1855, contains also his
annotations in its most important Sections. (See his Letter on
the subject on pages 158, 159.)

26 Victoria, Chapter 5, — "An Act to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper
Canada certain Rights in respect to Separate Schools." Received the
Royal Assent on the 5th of May, 1863.

Whereas it is just and proper to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper
Canada cei'tain rights which they formerly enjoyed in respect to Separate
Schools, and to bring the provisions of the Law respecting Separate
Schools more in harmony with the provisions of the Livw respecting Com-
mon Schools : Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, enacts as folio w.s : —

I. Sections eighteen to thirty-six, both inclusive, of Chapter sixty-five
of the Consolidated Statutes for Upper Canada, intituled, "An Act
respecting Separate Schools," are hereby repealed, and the followiiiif shall
be substituted in lieu thereof, and be deemed to form [)art t)f the said Act.

II. Any number of pei'sons, not less than live, being heads of families,
and freeholders or householders, resident within any Scluxjl Section of any
Towniship, Incorporated Village, or Town, or within any Ward of any City,
or Town, and being Roman Catholics, may convene a public meeting of
persons desiring to estfiblish a Separate School for Roman Catholics, in
such School Section, or Ward, for the election of Trustees for the manage-
ment of the same.

III. A majority of the {)ersons present, being freeholders, or house-
holders, and being Roman Catholics, and not candidates for election as
Trustees, may, at any such meeting, elect three persons resident within
such Section, or an adjoining Section, to act as Trustees for the manage-
ment of such Separate School, and any j)erson, being a British subject, not
less than twenty-one yenvn of age, may bo elected as a Trustee, whether he
be a freeholder, or householder, or not.

Appendix No 1.

207

(Note. — In Common Suhool Sections, any number present, however few, at a
lawful Meeting for the election of Trustees, can elect them. There is no reason
for a tlifferent provision in regard to the number present for the election of
Separate School Trustees.)

IV. Notice in writing that sucli meeting has been held, and of such
election of Trustees, shall be given by the j)artie8 present at such meeting
to the Reeve, or head, of the Municipality, or to the Chairman of the
Boiird of Conunon Sch<jol Trustees, in the Township, Incorporated Village,
Town, or City, in which such School is about to be established, designating
l)y tlieir names, professions and residences, the pei-sons elected in the
manner aforesaid, as Trustees for the management thereof ; and every such
notice shall be delivered to the proper officer by one of the Trustees so
elected, and it shall be the duty of the officer receiving the some to endorse
thereon the date of the receipt thereof, and to deliver a Cf)py of the same
so endorsed, and duly certitied by him, to such Trustee, and from the day
of the delivery and receipt of every such notice, or in the event of the
neglect or I'efusal of such officer to deliver a copy so endorsed and certified,
then, from the day of the delivery of such notice, the Trustees therein
named shall be a bt)dy corporate, under the name of "The Trustees of the
Roman Catholic Sepaiate School for the Section number , in the
Township of , or for the Ward of , in the City, «u' Town, (as the
case may be,) or for the Village of , in the County of ." (a)

(a) These Sections embrace the eighteenth to twenty-second Sections, inclu-
sive, of the existing Separate School Act of 1855, and are the same in sul)stance
as they ; as are the second and third Sections substantially the same as the
eighteenth and nineteenth Sections of the present Separate School Act.

V. The Trustees of Separate Schools heretofore elected, or hereafter to
be elected, according to the provisions of this Act, in the several Wards of
any City, or Town, shall form one body Corporate, under the title of "The
Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools for the City (or
Town) of ." {!,)

{h) This Section is the substitute for the twenty-third Section of tlic present
Separate School Act, (of 185.1,) and assimilates tlie provision of tiic law in regard
to Separate Schools and their supporters, to Miat of the Common Sciiool Act.

VI. It shall be lawful for the majority of the ratepaying supporters of
the Se])arafce School, in each Separate School Section, whetiiei- the Sections
be in the same or adjoining Munici[)alities, at a iud)lic meeting <luly called
by the Separate School Trustees of each sucli Section, to form such Sections
into a Sej)arate School Unicm Section, of which union of Sectj<ins the
Trustees sliall give notice within fifteen days to the Clerk, or Clerks, of
the Municipality, or Municipalities, .and to the Chief Superinteiulent of
Eilucation ; and each such Separate School l^nion Section thus formed,
shall be deemed one School Section for all Roman Catholic Sepamte
School purposes, and shall evei'y year thereafter be represented by three
Trustees, to be elected as in Connnon School Sections.

208

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

2. And the said Trustees shall form a body corporate, under the title of
"The Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholic United Separate Schools
for the United Sections, Nos. , (»is the case may be,) in the , (as

the case may be.)" (c.)

(c) This clause, or Section, is designed to provide that the supporters of
Separate Schools may form Union Sections, the same as tliey may now do in
the Cities, and Towns, and which supporters of Common Schools -may also do,
as provided in the forty-first, forty-second, forty-third and forty-fourth Sec-
fcions of the Consolidated Common School Act. Previous to 1855, the Township
Councils prescribed the boundaries of Separate, as well as of Common, School
Sections ; but as the names of all the petitioners for a Separate School had t<)
be included in the Separate School Section to be formed, they virtually formed
theii- own Section. By the Ronum Catholic Separate School Act of 1855, the
iMjundaries of a Separate School Section were made identical with those of the

l ^ , Common School Section, but no provision was made for the union of Separate

yM*'** Schools in adjoining Sections, as had been made for the union of Common School

" Sections. This clause supplies the omission of the Roman Catholic Separate

Y ' School Act of 1855.

\jOf VII. The Trustees of Separate Schools, forming a body corporate under

1 V this Act, shall have the power to impose, levy, and collect. School rat«s, or

*! subscriptions, upon and from yei"sons sending children to, or subscribing

towards the support of such Schools, and shall have all the powers in

respect of Sejjarate Schools, that the Trustees of Common Schools have

and possess under the pi'ovisions of the Act relating to Common Schools, (rf)

(d) This Section is the same as the twenty-fourth Section of the present
Roman Catholic Separate School Act.

VIII. The clerk, or other otticer, of a Municipality within, or adjoining,
which a Separate School is established, having possession of the Assessor's,
or Collector's, roll of the said Municipality, shall allow any t»ne of the said
Trustees, or their autliorized collector, to make a copy of such roll in so far
as it relates to the pei-sons supporting the Separate School under theiv
charge, (e.)

(e) There is no provision in the present Roman (Catholic Separate School
Act of 1855, by which the Trustees, or their Collector, can have access to the
Assessor, or Collector's, roll, as is provided by law, in regard to the Trustees
of a Common School and their Collector. This Section supplies the omission.

IX. The Trustees of Separate Schools shall take and subscribe the
following declaration before any Justice of the Peace, Reeve, or Chairman
of the Boaixl of Common Schools :— " I, , will truly and faithfully,
to the l)ost of my judgment and ability, discharge the duties of the office of
School Trustee, to which I have been elected :" — and they shall perform the
same duties, and be subject to the same penalties as Trustees of Common
Schools : and teachers of Separate Schools shall be liable to the same
obligations and penalties as teachei-s of Common Schools. (/.)

(/) This Declaration of Ottiee is required of Common Sciiool Trustees by the
Common School Amendment Act of 18G0 ; and tlie duties and penalties here

Appendix No. 1.

209

iniposetl upon Separate School TrustecH and Teachers are the same as those
imposed by the twenty-fifth Section of the Roman Catholic Separate School
Act of 18f)5

X. The TruHtees of Separate Scliools shall renmin respectively in office
for the same perit)d8 of time that the Trustees for Common Schools do, and
•as is provided by the thirteenth Section and its sub-sections, for the
Common School Act of the Consolidated Statutes for Upper Canada ; but
no Trustee shall be re-elected without his consent, unless after the
expiration of four yeai-s from the time he went out of office ; Provided
always, that whenever in any City, or Town, divided into Wards, a united
Board now exists, or shall be hereafter establisheil, there shall be for every
Ward two Trustees, each of whom, after the first election of Trustees,
shall continue in office two years and until his successor has been elected,
and one of such Trustees shall retire on the second Wednesday in January,
yearly in rotation ; and provided, also, that at the first meeting of the
Trustees after the election on the second Wednesday in January next, it
shall be determined by lot, which of the said Trustees, in each Ward, shall
retire from office at the time appointed for the then next annual election,
and the other shall continue in office for (me year lou'er. (g.)

{;/) This Section is a substitute for the twenty-sixth Section of the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 185t), and assimilates the Separate to the
Common School Law, in respect to the election of Trustees, and their continu-
ance in office, in both Sections, ami Cities, and Towns.

XI. After the esbiblishment of any Separate School, the Trustees
thereof shall hold office for the s»ime period and be elected at the same
time in each year that tlie Trustees of Common Schools are, and all tlie
provisions of the Commcm School Act relating to the mode and time of
election, appointments and duties of Chairman and Secretary at the annual

■ meetings, term of office and manner of tilling up vacancies, shall be deemed
and held to apply to this Act. (h. )

{h) This Section contains a general provision for assimilating the provisions
of the Separate and Common School Acts.

XII. The Trustees of Separate Schools may allow children from other
School Sections, whose parents, or lawful guardians, are Roman Catholics^
to be received into any Separate School under their management, at the
request of such parents, or guardians ; and no children attending such
School shall be included in the Retin-n, hereafter required to be made to
the Chief Superintendent of Education, unless they are Roman Catholics. (»')

(/) This Section corresponds precisely with the
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855.

I enty-seventh Section of

XIII. The Teachers of Separate Schools, under this Act, shall be sub-
ject to the same examinations, and receive their Certificates of (jualification
in the same manner as Common School Teachers gen«rally ; provided that

wwmiWBi'

>ntir>m,mnsr^fmi'ji>m^

210

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

persims qualitied by law as Teachers, either in Upper or Lower Canada,
shall be considered fiualified Teachers for the purposes of this Act.(j)

(j) This Section is a substitute for the twenty-eightii Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855 ; and is, all nnist admit, a very great improvement upon it.

XIV. Every person paying rates, whether as proprietor or tenant, who,
by himself, or his agent, on, or before, the first day of March in any year,
gives, or who, on, or before, the first day of March, of the present year,
has given to tjie Clerk of the Municipality, notice, in writing, that he is a
Roman Catholic, and a supporter of a Separate School situated in the said
Municipality, or in a Municipality contiguous thei-eto, shall be exempted
from the payment of all rates imposed for the suppcjrt of Connnon Scliools,
and of Common School Libraries, or for the purchase of land, or erection
of buildings, for Connnon School purposes, within the City, Town, Licor-
porated Village, or Section, in which he resides, for the then current year,
and every subsequent year thereafter, while he continues a supporter of
a Separate School. — And such notice shall not be required to be renewed
annually ; and it shall be the duty of the Trustees of every Separate School
to transmit to the Clerk of the Municipality, or Clerks of Municipalities,
(as the case may be,) on or before the first day t>f June in each year, a
correct list of the names and residences of all persons supporting the
Separate Schools under their management ; and every ratepayer whose
name shall not appear on such list shall be rated for the support of Com-
mon Schools.(/r)

(k) Thifi Section is a substitute for the twenty-nintli Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855. It substitutes the first day of Mai'ch for the first day of
February, — which can cause inconvenience, or disadvantage, to nobody, as
municipal rates for School purposes are never levied till long after March. The
proprietor, or tenant, by himself, or his agent, gives notice ; and it has ah eady
been legally decided that a notice by the agent of a proprietor, or tenant, is as
valid, according to the Separate Scliool Act of 1855, as a notice by himself in
person, and is so accepted and acted upon. It is unjust, therefore, to omit
expressing what is already held to be the law, merely to aftbrd an opportunity
and pretext for vexing and annoying individuals in certain localities. Another
provision in this Section is, that the notice shall not he repeated by the indi-
vidual annnallj', but shall be repeated, with his address, by the Trustees, as liis
agent. This is the practice which has already been pursued in some munici-
palities In Lower Canada, tlie supporter of the Dissentient, or Separate,
School never repeats, or renews, his first notice as a suppoi'ter of such School ;
and why should the Roman Catholic be require<l to do that in Upper Canada
which the Protestants are not required to do in Lower Canada, unless to incon-
venience and annoy him as nmch as possible ? Tiiis Section requires each
Roman Catholic, proprietor, or tenant, to give notice to the Clerk of the Muni-
cipality when he desires to become a suj)porter of a Separate School ; and the
eighteenth requires him to give notice to the same Clerk when he desires to cease
being a supporter of such Scliool ; and, in the interval, the Trustees are re»juired
annually to give to the same Clerk, (for the information of the Municipal Coun-
cil, in levying School rates,) the name an<l residence of each supporter of a
Separate School ; and they are subject to a severe penalty in case they make an
incorrect return.

«?^

Appendix No. 1.

211

XV. Every Clerk of a Municipality, upun receiving any such notice,
shall deliver a certificate t<> the p*irHon giving such notice, to the effect that
the Haine has been given, and showing the date of such notice.

XVI. Any person who fraudulently gives any such notice, or wilfully
makes any false statement therein, shall not thereby secure any exemption
from rates, and shall be liable tt) a penalty of forty dollai-s, recoverable,
with costs, before any Justice of the Peace, at the suit of the Municipality
interested.

XVII. Nothing in the last three preceding Sections contained, shall
exempt any person from paying any rate for the support of Common
Schools, or Common School Libraries, or for the erection of a School-
house, or School-houses, imposed before the establishment of such Separate
School.

XVIII. Any Roman Catholic who may desire to withdraw his support
from a Separate School, shall give notice in writing to the Clerk of the
Municipality before the second Wednesday in January in any year, other-
wise he shall be deemed a supporter of such School : Provided always, thai
any person who shall have withdrawn his support from any Roman
Catholic Separate School, shall iiot be exempted from paying any rate for
the support of Separate Schools, or Separate School Libraries, or for the
erection of a Separate School-house, imposed before the time of his with-
drawing such support from the Separate School.

XIX. No person shall be deemed a supporter of any Separate School
unless he resides witliin three miles (in a direct line) of the site of the
School-house. (I.)

{I) No explanatory remarks are required ; and no one will object respecting
the directions given, and the restrictions and penalties imposed by the fifteentli,
sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth Sections of the Bill.

XX. Every Sejmrate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund
annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the support tif
Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all otlier public
grants, investments and allotments for Conunon School purposes now
made, or hereafter to be made, by the Province, or the Municipal authorities^
according to the average number of pupils attending such School during
the twelve next preceding months, or during the number of months which
may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Separate School, as
ct»mpared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the
same City, Town, Village, or Township, (m.)

(m) This Section is a substitute for the first part of the thirty-third Section
of the Separate School Act of 1855. The point of difterence is, that this
Section gives Separate Schools the right of sharing in other " Public Grants,
investments, and allotments, for Common School purposes than the Parliamen-
tary School Grant. The only public grant, or investment, that can come within
this provision, is the Clergy Reserve Fund, when applied by Municipalities to
Common School purposes. This fund is distributed by law among the several

212

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

MuniuipalitieH, according to the mimlHsrof ratepayers in each, — Roman Catholic
ratepayers, of conrso, as well as Protestant. This fund forms no part of the
Common School Fund, and is not subject to Common School Regulations.
When a Municipal Council chooses to apply the portion of the Clergy Reserves
Fund apportioned to its Municipality to Common School purposes, it ought to
<lo so in the equal interest of all ttio ratepayers, and not in a way to exclude
any portion. If the Common School Law allows portions of those ratepayers,
(I)oth Protestant and Roman Catholic,) to have Common Separate Schools, they
are acting under law in availing themselves of this permission, as muvh as those
who avail themselves of the permission, to establish Common Schools. For a
Municipal Council to apply the share of the Clergy Reserves Fund placed under
its control, to ai<l one class of these Scliools and not the other, is as clearly to
exclude one class of rateiwiyers from their i-ightful share of that fund as if
they were proscribed by name. Some Municipal Councils have acted very
justly and fairly in regard to both classes of Common ."Schools ; and if any other
Councils ha>e done, or should do, otherwise, the Legislature should surely
protect rights of the minority against any such proscription.

XXI. Nothing herein contnined shall entitle any sucli Wt-parate School,
within any City, Town, Incorporated Village, or Township, to any part, or
portion, of Scliool moneys arising, or accruing, from local asse-ssment for
Common School purposes within tlie City, Town, Village or Township, or
the County, or Union of Counties, within which the City, Town, Village, or
Township is situate, (n. )

(n) This Section corresponds with the second proviso of the thirty-third
Section of the Separate School Act of 1855, and effectually protects all School
moneys arising from local assessment against any claims in nehalf of Separate
Schools.

XXII. The Trustees of each Separate School shall, on or before the
thirtieth day oi June and the thirty-first day of December of every year,
transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Eduuition for Upper Canada, a
correct return of the names of the cliildren attending such School, together
with the average attendance during the six next preceding months, or
^luring the number of months wliich have elapsed since the establishment
thereof, and the number of months it has been so kept open ; and the
Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the proportion which the
Trustees of such Separate School are entitled to receive out of the
Legislative grant, and shall pay over the amount thereof to such
Trustees, (r.)

(/•) This Section is identical with tlie thirty-fourth Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855, except that part which requires the returns to be made
on oath, — a requirement never exacted of Common School Trustees, nevei'
required of Separate School Trustees before 1855, — not required of the Trustees
of Protestant Separate .Schools in Lower Canada since 1856, — and for whicii
requirement no reason of justice, or necessity, exists, as the same penalties are
imposed for making incorrect retuns to obtain additional aid, as if they were
made on oath.

It may here be remarked, that the first proviso in the thirteenth Section of
the Separate School Actof 1855, (which says, "that no Separate Schools shall
be entitled to share in such fund, unless the average number of pupils attending
the same bo fifteen or more,") has been omitted. It was contained in the Bill

Appendix No. 1.

213

an Ki'Ht introduced, but was Htruck out, at the suggeHtion of the Chief Sui)erin-
ten(iont, who stated it to l)e UHelesH and inoperative, — not recjuirod in regard to
Common Schools, tlie average liaif-yearly attendance in some of wliich felllMjlow
fifteen,— antl althougli Separate Sclio<jl8 wiiosc half-yearly attendance did not
amoinit to fifteen, were not legally entitled to share in the Legislative School
(J rant, yet that any such School kept open by local liberality, according to
law, by a legally (luulitied Teacher, was e(|uitably entitled to ai<l according to
its working, whether its pupils numbered more or less than fifteen. •

There is aUo another point on which a remark may here be made. It has
been erroneimsly alleged that this Bill relaxes the existing law in reganl to the
time of keeping open St^hools each year. It will bo seen, by referring to
the first part of the thirty-third and the thirty-fourth Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855, that a Separate School is entitled to receive aid from the
F^egislative School Grant, in proportion to the time, (in connection with average
attendance,) it is kept open, whether more or less than six months ; and the
twenty-second Section of the Bill makes not the laast change in that respect.

XXIII. All JudgeH, Menibei-H of the Legislature, the hetidH of tlie
Muuicipivl bodies, in their resi)ective localities, the Chief Superintendent
and lj<jcal Superintendent of Common ScHcmjIh, and Clergymen of the
Roman Catholic Church, shall be Visitors of SejMirate Schools, (a.)

(n) Hitherto none but Clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church have been
admitted as Visitors of Separate Schools. This Section contains important and
liberal provisions in the right direction.

XXIV. The election of Trustees for any Separate School shall become
void, unless a Separate School be established under their management
within three months from the election of such Trustees.

XXV. No person subscribing towards the 8U})port <jf a Separate School
estjiblished as herein provided, or sending children thereto, shall be
allowetl to vote at the election of any Trustee for a Connuon School in
the City, Town, Village, or Township, in which such Separate School is
situate.

The provisions of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth Sections of the Bill
need no remark, and will be objected to by none.

XXVI. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their Registers,)
shall be subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time,
by the Chief Superintendent of Education, and shall be subject, also, to
such regulations as may be imposed, from time to time, by the Council of
Public Instruction for Upper Canada, (t )

(t) The provisions of this Section have not existed in any previous Act in
respect to Separate Schools ; they bring the Separate Schools as completely
under the control of Public Regulations and inspection as the Common Schools.

XXVII. In the event of any distigreement between Trustees of Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, and Locjil Sui)erintendents of Common Schools,
or other Municii)al authorities, the case in dis])ute shall be referred to the
equitable arbitrament of the Chief Superintendent of Education in Upper
Canada ; subject, nevertheless, to appeal to the Grovemor-in-CounciU
whose award shall be final in all cases, (n.)

■■n

214

U. C. Separate School Le(jislation.

(ft) This i8 alHo a new legal provision. The latter part of this Section \n
needlcHS, and iH not contained in the (iramniar, or Common, School Act, as all
dociHiontt of the Chief Superintendent maybe appealed from to the Uovernor-
in-Comicil. Hin deciHionH have been appealed from in several instancoH, but
have, in every instance, been sustained.

XXVIII. This Act hUhII come into force, and t^iko otteot, from and
after the thirty-HrHt day of December next : But all contractw and ongage-
nientH made, and ratuH impoHud, and all corporationH formed under the
HeiMirate School Iviw, hereby repealed, slmll remain in force, aH if made
under the authority of thi.s Act.

APPENDIX No. 2.

CANONS OF THE BALTIMORE GENERAL COUNCILS.
Dkoisions and Dirkctio.vs kor the Setti.inc! ok thk Scimoi, Question and

THK GiVINO OK ReMOIOITS EDUCATION, BY CARDINAL SaTOIXI.

g of

The following " Decisions and Directions ,foi' the Settlin
the School Question and the Giving of Religious Education,"
are pi'actically an annotated edition of the Canons of the Balti-
more General Councils, (quoted on page .*J7 of this Volume, by
Bishop de Charbonnel,) by the Most Reverend Franci.s Satolli,
Archbishop of Lopanto, Delegate of the Apostolic See to the
United States of America, — in a Letter to the Archbishops of
the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, assembled in
New York in November, 1892 : —

I. Whnt R<nnan Catholic Schools shmld be. — All care must be taken to
erect Catholic Schools, to enlarge and improve those already established,
and to make them equal to the Public Schools in teaching and discipline. —
OmcUiu Flen. Bait. III., No. 197, patje 10 1.

IT. Public Schools the Alternative. — When there is no Catholic School at
all, or when the one that is available is little fitted for giving the children
an education in keeping with their condition, then the Public Schools may
be attended with a safe conscience, the danger of perversion being rendered
remote by opportune remedial and precautionary measures ; a matter that
is to be left to the conscience and judgment of the Ordinaries. — Ibid., No.
198, page 10^.

III. Teachers Must be Qualified. — We enact, and command, that no one
shall be allowed to teach in a Parochial School who has proven his fitness

ij'i^t*' -" f *!-i-:<-.'-ft'g. I

AjM'ENnix No. 2.

215

for tlio poHitioii l)y |iri>vit)UH i-xiiiniimtioii. No IViust nIdiU hiivn tlio right
to uiiqtloy tiiiy toiicliur, luiilo or fiMuiiIo, in Iun Kcliool without n cortitifiito
of nbility, <ir tliploinii fntm the DiocuMin Boiu-il of KximiiiierH. - /^i<i., No,
W.i, fHuji I OS.

IV. Nofiniil ScIiooIh a Nrce.sitUii. — N<iriiml Schools, nn they iire cuUeil,
«re to he eHtiihUHliotl where they iire wanting und iire evidently uuceH.s)iry.
— Ibid., No. :20r>, iHUje I UK

V. I'ltientit free to Ounm' Si-iuhiIh — Ntt Pennltij to !»• imfxi.sfil on thetn, —
We strictly forhid anyone, whether Hishop or Priest, and this is the
express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff", through the Sacred (Nmgre-
gation, either hy act, or by theat, to exclude from the Sacraments as
unworthy. Parents who choose to send their children to the Public
Schools. As regards tiie cliildren themselves, this enactment applies with
still greater force.— Ibirf, No. WH, page 104, Ctmf. Tit. VI., Cap. I., II.;
Tit. VII.

VI. Hiyht of tlir Vhurrh to Teach. 'l\> the Catholic Church belongs the
duty and the divine right of teaching all nations to believe the tru h of
the Gospel, and to observe whatsoever Christ counnandetl, (Matt, xxviii.
IJ)); in her, likewise, is vested tiie divine right of instructing the young
in so far as theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, (Mark x. 14), (Conf. Cot •.,
Bait. PL, III. No. 194); that istowiy, she holds for hei-self the right of
teaching the truths of faith, and the law of morals, in onlor to bring up
youth in the haliits of a Christian life. Hence, absolutely and universally
8peaking, there is no repugnance in their learning the tir.st elements, and
the higher branches of the arts, and the natural sciences in Public Schools
controlled by the Sbite, whose ottice it is to provide, mainttiin, and protect
everything by wliich its citizens are formed to moral goodness, while they
live peaceably together, with a sutticiency of temporal goods, under laws
promulgated by civil authority.

For the rest, the provisions of the Council of Baltinu>re arc yet in
force, and, in a general way, will remain so; to wit: "Not only out of
our jMiternal love do we exhort C* holic Parents, but we connuand then>
by all the authority we possess, to procure a truly Christian and Catholic
education for the beloved offspring given them of (iod, born again in
baptism unto Christ, and destined for Heaven, to shield and .secure them
throughout childhood and youth from the dangers of a merely worldly
«ducati<»n, and, therefore, to send them to Parochial, or other truly
Catholic, Schools." United with this duty are the rights of Parents,
which no civil law or authority can violate or weaken.

VIT. Co-operntion loith the PtiblU; Schools. — The Catholic Church in
general, and especially the Holy See, far from condenuiing, or treating
with indifference the Public Schools, desires rather that, by the joint
actiim of civil and ecclesiastical authorities, there should be Public Schools
in every State, accoixling as the circumstances of the i)eople re([uire, for

.'1*1

216

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

the cultivation of the useful ui"t« aiid natural sciences ; but the Catholic
Church slirinks from tliose features of Pul)lic Schools which are oi)iiosed
to the truth of Christianity and to morality ; and since, in the interest of
society itself, these objectionable features are removable, therefore, not
only the Bishops, but the citizens at large, should labor to remove them,
in virtue of their own right, and in the cjiuse of moi'ality.

VIII. Parish Schools less Necessary than Formerly, — It is long since the
Holy See, after consultation with the Bishops of the United States of
Ame.ica, decreed that Parish Schools and other institutions under the
direction of the Bishops, each according to the conditions of its own
diocese, were opportune and necessary for Catholic youth, from the fact
that it was held for cerbiin that the Public Schools bore within themselves
a proximate danger to faith and morals, for various reasons {Cone. PI. Bait.
III., No. 194, seq.; App., page 279); viz.: because in the Public Schools a.
purely secular education is given,— inasmuch as it excludes all te.iching of
religion, — because Teachers are chosen indiscriminately from every sect,
and no law prevents them froni working the ruin of youth, so that they
are at liberty to instil errors and germs of vice in tender minds. Likewise
certain corruption seemed to impend from the fact that in these Schools,
or at least in many of them, children of both sexes are brought together for
their lessons in the same room.

Wherefore, if it be clear that in a given locality, owing to the wiser
dispositions of pul)lic authorities or the watchfid prudence of School Board,
Teachers and Parents, the above-nai ed dangers to faith and morals
disappear, then it is lawful for Catholic Par'uits to send their children to
these Schools, to acquire the elements of letters and art.«, jjrovided the
Parents themselves do not neglect their most serious duty, and the pastors
of souls put forth every efi'ort to instruct the children and train them in all
that pertJiins to Catholic worship and life.

IX. Bishops' Discretion as to Parochial Schools. — It is left to the
judgment and the wisdom of the Ordinaries to decide whether, in a certain
part of their respective dioceses, a Parochial School can be built and kept
up in a fitting condition, not inferior to the Public Schools, taking into
consideration the temporal condition of the parents, while graver needs for
procuring their spiritual welfare and the decent support of the Chiu-ch are
pressing. It will be well, therefore, as was the wont of our fonfathers,
and as was done in the early days of the Church to establish weekly classes
of Catechism, which all the children of the parish should attend ; f(»r the
better success of this measure let the zeal of Pastors in fulfilling their duty
and the love of Catliolic Parents leave no eft'ort unspared. {Cf. Cone. PL
Bait. III., No. 198)

X. Miifht of Pareids as to Choice of Schools. — No reproach, eitlier in
public, or in private, shall be cast upon Catholic Parents who send their
childrt to Private Schools or Academies where a better education is given

Appendix No. 2.

217

under the direction ol religious, or of approved and Catholic persons. If
they make sufficient provision for the religious training of their children,
let them Ub free to secure in other ways that education which the position
of their family requires.

XI. Arrangement tvith Public Schod Authoritiea Desirable. — It is greatly
to be desired, and will be a most happy arrangement, if the Bishop agree
with the civil authorities, or with the Members of the School Board, to
conduct the School with mutual attention and due consideration for their
respective rights.

While there are Teachers of any description for ihe secular branches,
who are legally inhibited from offending Catholic religion and morality, let
the right and duty of the Church obtain of teaching the children Catechism,
in order to remove danger to their faith and morals from any quarter
whatsoever.

It seems well to quote here the words of our Holy Father Leo XIII.
(See the Pope's Letter to the Archbishop of New York, and to the Bishops
of the Province) : —

"We further desire you to strive earnestly, that the various local
authorities, firmly convinced that nothing is more conducive to the welfare
of the commonwealth than religion, should, by wise legislation, provide
that the System of Education which is maintained at the public expense,
and to which, therefore, Catholics also contribute their share, be in no way
prejudicial to their conscience, or religion For we are persuaded that,
even our fellow-citizens who differ from us in belief, with their character-
istic intelligence and prudence, will readily set aside all suspicions and all
views unfavourable to the Catholic Church, and willingly acknowledge her
merit, as the one that dispelled the darkness of paganism by the light of
the Gospel, and created a new society, distinguished by the lustre of Chris-
tian virtues, and by the cultivation of all that refines. We do not think
that anyone there, after looking into these things clearly, will let Catholic
Parents be forced to erect and support Schools which they cannot use for
the instruction of their cu;ldren."

XII. Religions Instruction shotdd be Systematically Given. — As for those
Catholic children that, in great numbers, are educated in the Public
Schools, where now, not without danger, they receive no religious instruc-
tion at all, strenuous efforts should be made not to leave them without suffi-
cient and seasonable instruction in Catholic faith ar.d practice. We know,
by experience, that not all our Catholic children are found in our Catholic
Schools. Statistics show that hundreds of tliousands of Catholic children
in the United States of Amei^oa attend Sch^s which are under the control
of State Boards, and, in which, f< ".. that reason, Teachers of every Denomi-
nation are engaged. Beyond all doubt, the one thing necessary, i.e.,
religious and moral education according to Catholic principles, is not to be

218

U. C. Se»^\rate School Legislation.

treated either lightly, or with delay ; but, on the contrary, with all earnest-
ness and energy.

The adoption of one of three plans is recommended, the choice to be
made according to local circumstances in the different States and various
personal relations.

(1) The first consists in an agreement between the Bishop and the
Members of the School Board, whereby they, in a spirit of fairness and
good-will, allow the Catholic children to be assembled during free time and
taught the Catechism ; it would also be of the greatest advantage if this
plan were not confined to the Primary Schools, but were extended likewise
to the High Schools and Colleges, in the form of a free lecture.

(2) The second to have a Catechism class outside the Public School
Building, and also classes of higher Christian doctrine, where, at fixed
times, the Catholic children would assemble with diligence and pleasure,
induced thereto by the authority of their Parents, the persuasion of their
Pastors, and the hope of praise and rewards.

(3) The third plan does not seem, at first sight, so suitable, but is bound
up more intimately with the duty of both Parents and Pastors. Pastors
should unceasingly urge upon I'arents that most important duty, imposed
both by natural and divine laws, of bringing up their children in sound
morality and Catholic faith. Besides, the instruction of children apper-
tains to the very essence of the pastoral charge ; let the Pastor of souls
say to them, with the Apostle: "My little children, of whom I am in
labour again until Christ be formed in you." (Gal. iv., 19.) Let him have
classes of children in the Parish, such as have been established in Rome,
and many other places, and even in Churches in this country, with very
happy results.

Nor let him with little prudence show less ^r.ti for the children that
attend the Public Schools than for those that i' tend the Parochial ; on the
contrary, stronger marks of loving solicitude are to be shown them ; the
Sunday School and the hour for Catechism should be devoted to them in a
special manner. And to cultivate this field let the Pastor call to his aid
other Priests, Religious, and even suitable Members of the laity, in order
that what is supremely necessary be wanting to no child.

XIII. Certificated Teachers a Necessity. — For the standing and growth
of Catholic Schools, it seems that —

(1) Care should be taken that the Teachers prove themselves qualified,
not only by previous examination Ijetore the Diocesan Board, and by a
certificate, or diploma, from the School Board of the State, awarded after
successful examination. This is urged, first, so as not to appear regardless,
without reason, of what public authority requires for teaching.

(2) A better opinion of Catholic Schools will be created.

(3) Greater assurance will be given to Parents that in Catholic Schools
there is no deficiency to render them inferior to Public Schools ; that, on

Appendix No. 2.

219

the contrary, everything is done to make Catholic Schools equal to Public
Schools, or even superior.

(4) And lastly, we think that this plan would prepare the way for the
State to see, along with the recognized and tested fitness of the Teachers,
that the laws are observed in all matters pertaining to the arts and
sciences, to method and pedagogics, and to whatever is ordinarily required
to promote the stability and usefulness of the Schools.

XIV. Seasons for Normal Schools Being Efficient. — It is necessary that
what are called Normal Schools should reach such efficiency in preparing
Teachers of letters, arts and sciences, that their graduates shall not fail
to obtain the Diploma of the State. For the sake of the Catholic cause,
let there be among laymen a growing rivalry to take the Diploma and
Doctorate, so that, possessed of the knowledge and qualifications requisite
for teaching, they may com^-ete for, and honorably obtain, positions in the
public Gymnasia, Lyceums and Scientific Institutions.

The knowledge of truth of every kind, straightforward justice, united
with charity, the effulgence and appreciation of the liberal arts, — these a: -^.
the bulwarks of the Church.

Note. — All the above was read and considered at the Meeting of the Roman
Catholic Archbishops of the United States, — the difficnlties answered, and the
requisite alterations made, on November the 17th, 1892.

In regard to this meeting of the American Archbishops,
" The Quarterly Register of Current History," Volume II., of
1892, says :—

Cardinal Gibbons, who presided over the Conference, joined Archbishop
Ireland in support of the views of Cardinal Satolli ; and the Archbishops,
who were pretty evenly divided on the question, finally passed Resolutions
in substantial agreement with them. The most important step ever taken
in this country towards liberalizing the Roman Catholic Church in its
ar'.justment to American Institutions, has thus been made. — {Page 4^7.)

220

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

CONSECUTIVE INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Paqe

Early School Acts of Upper Canada 9

Education in Upper and Lower Canada, 1841 11

General Common School Act of 1841 14

The Bible as a Class-Book in the Schools . . . . , . .19
Upper Canada Common School Act of 1843 . . . . . .25

Irish National School System 32, 38, 112, 198

Controversy with Bishop de Charbonnel ... 37, 70, 75, 108

Separate School Legislation in 1850 49

Toronto Separate School Cases 53, 71, 73

Belleville Separate School Case 63

Dr. Ryerson's Letters to Hon. George Brown . . . 46, 48, 49, 53,

70, 76, 78, 84, 111
Project of a Separate School Bill by three Bishops . . . .85
The Tachd Separate School Bill of 1855 .... 92, 95, 100
Lower Canada and the de Charbonnel Controversy .... 108

The Bowes' Separate School Bill of 1856 110

The Bruy^re-Pinsoneault-Dallas Controversy 113

Confidential Report to Sir Edmund Head, the Governor-General . 118
Special Report on Separate Schools in Upper Canada .... 128
The Scott Separate School Bills . 126, 127, 134, 140, 152, 160, 164, 166

Clergy Reserves Fund •" . . • . 146

The Anglican Synod and Separate Schools . . . . . . 145

Appeal in the Case of Ontario 167

Sir John A. Macdonald and Separate Schools 168

Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and Separate Schools .... 170

Hon. George Brown and Separate Schools 171, 177

Finality of the Separate School Act of 1863 .... 172, 182

Hon. Thomas D. McGee and Separate Schools . . . . 178, 181
Compact with the Roman Catholic Representatives . . . 174, 180
Repudiation of it by Vicars-General Macdonell and Cazeau . . . 179

Fruitless Appeal on the Subject to R. W. Scott 183

British North America Act and Separate Schools . . 167, 182, 184

Legal Opinion on its Application ........ 185

Separate School Inspection . . . . . . . . . 187

French and German Scliools ........ 189

Renewed Separate School Agitation in 1865 ..... 193

Separate School Bill of 1866 195

End of Separate School Difficulties 199

Dr. Ryerson and Arclibishop Ireland on the Expediency of Separate

Schools 200

Appendices 205

:^ \

Principal Personal References.

221

PRINCIPAL PERSONAL REFERENCES IN THIS VOLUME.

:['

t)..i

' \

Aikens, Hon. J. C, 95, 165, 166.
Allan, Hon. G. W., 126, 165, 166.
Anderson, William, 166.
Annand, William, 109.

Badgley, Hon. Judge, 122, 123.

Baldwin, Hon. R., 18, 47, 48, 49, 50, 63, 64, 61, 101.

Bell, R., 54, 165, 196, 198, 199.

Benjamin, George, 169, 165.

Bertelot, A., 18.

Bethune, Bishop, 21.

Biggar, J. L., 164, 165.

Blacquiere, Hor. P. B. de, — see De Blacquiere.

Blake, Hon. E., 38, 185, 187.

Bowes, J. G., 95, 110, 111, 112, 138.

Bovell, Dr. J., 147, 148.

Bums, Hon. Judge, 64.

Burwell, L., 164, 165.

Brown, Hon. G., 45, 48, 49, 65, 68, 69, 70, 76, 94, 100, 104, 106, 111, 170,

171, 177, 178.
Brown, Hon. James, 122.
Bruyfere, Rev. J. M., 29, 113, 114, 115, 116.

Cahill, Rev. Dr., 153.

Cameron, Hon. J. H., 136, 166.

Cameron, Hon. Malcolm, 18, 46, 47, 48, 55.

Cameron, Hon. M. C, 133, 136.

Cartier, Hon. G. E., 110, 117.

Cartwright, Hon. J. S., 18.

Cayley, Hon. William, 94, 95, 122.

Cazeau, Vicar-General C. F., 73, 80, 139, 143, 167, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181,

182, 183.
Charbonnel, Bishop de, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 54, 61, 63, 68, 71, 76, 77,

80, 81, 84, 87, 90, 104, 105, 108, 109, 112, 114, 116, 119, 120, 121,

124, 130, 144, 172, 173, 214.

222

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Chftuveau, Hon. P. J, O., 194.

Child, M., 18.

Chisholm, A., 33.

Christie, Hon. David, 69, 165.

Christie, Robert, 18.

Clarke, William, 164, 165.

Colbome, Sir John, 34.

Crooks, Hon. Adam, 94, 185, 187.

Crooks, Hon. James, 94.

Dallas, Angus, 83, 115, 116.

Daly, Hon. D., 18.

Darling, Rev. W. S., 147.

Dawson, Dr. J. W., 122, 195.

Day, Hon. C. D., 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 60.

De Blacquiere, Hon. P. B., 19, 20.

De Charbonnel, Bishop, — see Charbonnel, Bishop de.

DoUard, Rev. P., 113.

Drummond, Hon. L. H., 72, 92, 93, 131.

Dunn, Hon. J. H., 18.

Dunscombe, J. W., 18.

Elgin, Lord, 77.

Elmsley, Hon. John, 29, 71, 73, 74, 96, 117, 118, 126, 127.

Eugene, Bishop, 77, 81.

Ewart, J. S., 182.

Foley, Hon. H. M., 136, 165, 169, 171.
Forster, Right Hon. W. E., 198.

Foster, S. S., 18.

Gait, Hon. Sir A., 192.

Gamble, J. W., 69, 77, 93, 94, 95, 99.

Gaulin, Bishop, 21.

George, Rev. James, 22.

Gibbons, Cardinal, 219.

Goldsmith, O., 43.

Gordon, Hon. James, 165, 166.

Grasett, R«v. H. J., 30, 31, 47.

Gray, Hon. Judge J. H., 122.

Hagarty, Hon. Chief Justice, 146.
Harrison, Hon. S. B., 18, 30, 36, 40, 172.
Hartman, Joseph, 69, 94, 95, 111, 122.
Head, Sir Edmund, 118, 119, 121, 122.

S-,

I i

Principal Personal References.

223

Hincks, Hon. Sir Francis, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, .45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,

54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, 84, 93, 147, 157.
Holmes, Benjamin, 18.
Hopkins, Caleb, 55.
Horan, Bishop, 131, 133, 134, 189.
Hudon, Rev. H., 21.

Ireland, Archbishop, 163, 201, 203, fe04, 205.

Lafontaine, Hon. L. H., 48, 50, 101.
Langton, John, 19, 77, 94, 95, 99, 104.
Leslie, Hon. James, 46.
Lunn, William, 194, 195, 196.

Lynch, Archbishop, 36, 66, 68, 72, 130, 131, 133, 139, 153, 154, 177, 178,
179, 181, 188.

Macaulay, Lord, 161.

Macnab, Sir A. N., 77, 78, 80, 95.

McCann, H. W., 1(54, 165.

McDougall, Hon. William, 154, 165, 169, 171, 196. .

McGauley, Rev. J. W., 38.

McGee, Hon., T. D., 159, 177, 178, 181.

McGlynn, Rev. Dr., 192.

Macdonell, Vicar-General Angus, 29, 33, 34, 35, 38, 54, 130, 133, 134, 139,

160, 167, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183.
Macdonald, Sir John A., 30, 64, 59, 61, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 92, 93,

94, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 116, 117, 122,

.123, 132, 135, 136, 156, 164, 165, 169, 171, 173, 174.
Macdonald, Hon. J. Sandfield, 57, 61, 69, 139, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,

158, 161, 164, 165, 169, 171, 174, 176, 182, 202.
Macdonald, Hon. Donald A., 164, 202.
Mackenzie, Hon. A., 164, 166, 170, 171, 196.
Mackenzie, W. L., 33, 55, 68, 69, 94, 95, 106.
Manseau, Rev. A., 21.
Marling, Alexander, 126, 127.
Meilleur, Dr. J. B., 122, 123.
Merritt, Hon. W. H., 17, 18.
Moffat, Hon. George, 17, 18.
Monck, Lord, 192.

Morin, Hon. A. N., 18, 63, 72, 78, 81, 84.
Morris, Hon. A., 135, 138, 165.
Morris, Hon. W., 18, 23.
Morrison, Angus, 74.
Morrison, Hon. J. C, 30, 55.
Mowat, Sir Oliver, 165, 166, 167.
Murray, Archbishop, 38.

2^4

U. C. Separate School Legislation.

Neilson, Hon. John, 18.
Nilan, Rev. James, 204.
Northgraves, Rev. G., 178.

Ogden, Hon. C. R., 18.
O'Grady, Rev. Dr., 33, 34.
O'SuUivan, Dr. D. A., 33.

Parent, E., 18.

Parke, Thomas, 18.

Patrick, William P., 106, 165.

Patton, Hon. James, 136.

Penny,*Hon. E. G., 108, 109.

Phelan, Bishop, 80, 81, 102, 103, 104, 112, 113, 134.

Pinsoneault, Bishop, 113, 116, 116.

Pius IX., Pope, 36, 37, 40, 163.

Pope, Joseph, 100, 101, 168.

Power, Bishop, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 56, 57, 120, 179.

Prince, Col. John, 18, 54.

Quesnel, F. A., 18.

Reesor, Hon. David, 154.

Richards, Hon. Chief Justice, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75.

Richards, Hon. Stephen, 185, 187.

Rintoul, John, 38.

Robertson, C, 18.

Robinson, Hon. Sir J. B. , 38, 64.

Robinson, Hon. W. B., 99.

Roche, Rev. E. P-, 106.

Ross, Hon. John, 64, 157.

Ryan, Rev. J., 159, 160.

Ryerson, Dr. G. S., 166.

Ryerson, William, 135, 137, 160, 166.

SatoUi, Cardinal, 38, 39, 192, 214, 219.

Saunders, Hon. J. S., 122.

Scobie, Hugh, 30.

Scoble, John, 165.

Scott, R. W., 60, 88, 104, 126, 127, 131-139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 153, 156,

156, 160-16?, 164-166, 169. 170, 172-176, 179-183, 196, 197.
Sherwood, Hoi>, , 64, 69.
Sirl-"ie, Tlir,): 22.

Simpson, Hoi n, 18.

Skead, Hon. .1.. i, 158, 166.
Smith, James, i; 69.

Principal Personal References.

225

. J

Smith, Henry, 113.
Spence, Hon. R., 95.
Spink, William, 158.
Stafford, Rev. M., M, 100. '
Stevenson, D. B., 55, 69, 96, 99.
Strachan, Rev. Dr., 27, 31, 148.
Sullivan, Dr. R., 38.
Sullivan, Hon. R. B., 18. '
Sydenham, Lord, 11, 35.

Tach^, Sir E. P., 88, 92, 93, 168.
Turgeon, Archbishop, ($(•, 176, 17H, 181.

Viger, Hon. D. B., 18. "

Wh^itely, Archbishtip, 38, 114. ' '

WiQr, Hon. B., l()i).

Wilson, Hon. John, 55, bf), 77, 166, 171.

Wiseman, Cardinal, 114.

Wyse, Right Hon. Thomas,' 202,

RJ:FERENCES to newspapers in this VOLUME;

Canadian Freeman, v., 178.

Catholic Citizen, 74, 86, 106. '

Church, The, 24,

Examiner, Toronto, 106.

Fornm, The, 192.

Globe, The, Toronto, 48, 132, 137, 140, 145, 150; 156, 159, 166, 169, 176,

178, 179, 180, 185.
Herald, Montreal, 108.

Leader, Toronto, 29, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 159, 194.
Mfirc'\mj, Quebec, 21, 159.
Minerve, Montreal, 108, 109.
Mirror, Toronto, 80, 110, 111.
Nova Scotian, 109.
Paj/s, Montreal, 108.
Telegraph, Prescott, 10<).
True Witness, Montreal, 153'
Witness, Montreal, 193, 194.

Erratum.— On page 80, for "Archbishop Hughes," read "ArchbishoH
Lynch."
16