IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ill IIIII2.5 113,2 u, IIIM 12.2 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" — ► ^•^ Showthrough/ L_J ■ D Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materic Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 film^es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 26X SOX 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grace d la g^ndrosit^ de: Bibliothdque nationale 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. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorr^ed frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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 ii):<;qes suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec le plus grand join, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — •► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fiimds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film^ d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iliustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^' ^"^ Wl . — <:.--"t!!,-^'''C-t-«-'jiA..-cV y ^'^- ^'. T Is Manitoba Right ? « A Question of Ethics, Politics Facts and Law. 3 m Ir I A Complete Historical and Contro- versial Review of the Manitoba School Question. \ % BY A. B. BETHUNE. •%- , -.-vKC Bros., printiiis, winnipeq. »■.•' ^ T . .^' m. I -p REFACE. Up till the time at which the first portion of this review was pub- lished (about a year ago), no comprehensive or connected presentation of this important question from the Manitoba standpoint, had been made. The only statements of the case professing to be exhaustive, which had then appeared, were ex parte assertions and arguments made on behalf of the so-called " minority," and which, to the mind of the writer, appeared and still appear, inaccurate and misleading. It was with a view of contro- verting the contentions of the writers of the publications referred to, and of correcting any misapprehensions which might have been created by the inaccurate or distorted statements of fact which they contained, that the first part of this work was written. Since the time of its publication, much controversy has been waged on the subject of Manitoba's schools. The parliamentary discussion called forth by the effort of the Dominion Government to procure the enactment of remedial legislation, has disclosed the grounds and the arguments on which the government endeavors to justify its course on this question. These grounds are examined, and the arguments analyzed, in the second portion of this review. An effort has been made by the writer to give a full, lucid and connected statement of the question in controversy, while at the same time avoiding the citation of needless statistical matter or the quotation of irrelevant portions of legal or other documents. If the writer shall succeed in conveying a more accurate knowledge of the facts of the question, and a clearer apprehension of the nature and importance of the issues involved, he will feel amply repaid. ALEX. B. BETHUNE. Winnipeg, May 18, 1896. . INDEX FIRST PART. Necessity for Public Education Origin of Separate Schools The Legal and Constitutional Questions, , 1 . 17 . 39 SECOND PART. Progress and Incidents of the Controversy The Controversy in Parliament The Question before the People Conclusion 52 (5 2 92 List of Rights No. 1 REFERENCES. No. 3. „ No. 4 British North America Act, Section iYA . Manitoba Act, Section 22 PAdK. . 20 , 25 . 25 ;u Is Manitoba Right? iO \ A Questior) in Ethics, Politics, Facts and Law. ►■<*»►•- Necessity for Educatior\ in Self-Goverr\ing Communities. In a state in which the form of government is autocratic, as in Russia at the present time, or aristocratic, as it was in England up till the beginning of the present century, the safety of • the form of government does not demand a high average intelligence on the part of the masses. Indeed in such cases the existing form of government is more easily preserved, and the hold on power is much better secured to the autocrat or the ruling class by the existence of a low average of intelligence in the masses. In such states government is maintained and the laws of the country are framed largely with a view to protecting or increasing the privileges and power of the persons and classes who control the govern- ment. The function of the masses in countries governed in this way is to supply by their toil the material resources from which all the power and splendors of the rulers must be drawn, and to furnish by their arms and their blood the military strength necessary to realize the schemes of conquest and aggrandizement which those rulers may conceive, or to defend these rulers in their privileges and possessions from the attacks of foreign and domestic assailants. In such conditions government exists primarily for the benefit of the rulers, and any advantages beyond the means of subsistence which may accrue to the governed are merely incidental. All history shows that religious creeds and dogmas have been a powerful instrument in the hands of rulers and privileged classes, in assisting them to maintain their domination. It has always been, and is at the present time, easy to persuade, by the manipulation of religious sanctions, men whose intellectual faculty" is in a low state of development, that they have duties to the powers that be which cannot be neglected. It has been civil and political power of the rulers buttressed by, e ecclesiastical organization, usually in the form of a 2 equally easy to induce them to overlook the fact that they have nights which are always correlative and commensurate with those duties. Hence, in communities where the intelligence of the common people is low, we have always autocratic or aristocratic government, and almost as invariably we see the civi or identified with some state church. There have been forces of various kinds at work, which have produc- ed a constant spread of intelligence amongst the masses, notwithstanding the hostility, more or less pronounced, of classes or individuals who have been accustomed to regard government, and its powers and privileges, as a hereditary right or perquisite. Simultaneously with the acquisition of knowledge by the masses, comes the demand on their part for a voice in the government. In these communities, where the people as a whole, are the most enlightened, the government is most democratic in form. Democracy is the inevitable outcome of enlightenment on the part of the people. It is a fact that no perfect democracy exists at present, or ever has existed. But this is simply because the highest degree of average intelligence which has ever been attained by any community has been very far short of what may be and will be attained. On the other hand there is hardly any nation in Christendom to-day, no matter how autocratic in form its government may be, in which the people have not some, and an increasing share in the control of public affairs. As demo- cratic government presupposes a certain degree of intelligence on the part of the whole people, it is obvious that, in order to maintain or increase its success, careful provision must be made for the education of the people. This necessity is so self-evident that it has been recognized in practice by all the more enlightened and progressive peoples. Experience has sliown that the safety of a democratic state demands that it shall take measures to insure to all its citizens at least the elements of a liberal education. This can be efficiently accomplished only by the establishment of a system of education under the direct supervision or control of the state. A little reflection will show the enormously increased efficiency in the education of a people which may be secured when the arrangements and I'egulations are made on a community-wide scale, and -ire embodied in the laws. The necessity for the education of the people in self-governing communities has been admitted even by those who, it is to be suspected, on grounds of interest and inclination, would refuse to make the admission but for the fact that the soundness of the proposition is self-evident. Those individuals, or corporations, or classes, who enjoy exclusive privileges, and who desire that these shall be continued, can have no sincere desire for the education of the people, or for the development of the power of original thought, or the exercise of independent judgment by the mass. The modern movement in the direction of public education under the supervision of the state, has been opposed and obstructed by various interests and for various ostensible reasons. But in all countries in which state superintended education has been introduced, the obstruct- ion and resistance which have been found to be the most strenuous and most formidable, have emanated from, and been inspired by, tiie ecclesias- vc rii^hts duties, le is low, Iniost as esscJ by, orrn of a 3 produc- istanding ivho have eges, as a sil/ion of I, voice in \rho\e, are in form. part of ; present, degree of uni^y has the other tter how have not As demo- 1 the part icrease its le people. 1 practice •ience has shall take if a liberal iblishment trol of the Rciency in angement* n bodied in ■governing suspected, admission If-evident. exclusive a have no lopment of judgment ; education tructed by I countries 3 obstruct- muous and 3 ecclcsias- I tics of certain religious denominations, and of these the Church of Rome has been, beyond all comparison, the mosc formidable, whether considered from the point of view of the uncompromising attitude it assumes, or from the solid homogoneousness of the body of citizens whose action it directs and controls. It is unnecessary here to rehearse the reasons why in a self- governing community, composed of heterogeneous elements, no relationship is possible between the state and any pjirticular religious, denomination. These reasons will suggest themselves. For the same reasons which render it impossible for a democratic state to recognize any particular church or denomination, it is impossible to permit of the teaching of any of the distinctive denominational dogmas or doctrines in the public schools. But the Roman Catholic Church declares that any system of education, in which its distinctive dogmas are not taught, and in which its cl .ims to recognition as the sole repository of revealed truth are not admitted, is an imperfect and a dangerous system. It will be seen later whether those contentions of the Church of Rome are sound, and whether they are supported by the facts of history or current experience. At present we shall confine ourselves to a statement of the position of the church. It will be seen that, on account of its attitude on this question a really national or common .system of .schools is an impossibility in a community in which there are any Catholic citizens, if their contentions are admitted. If Roman Catholics may claim exemption from the oper- ation of any law of any state of which they are subjects or citizens, on the ground that conformity on their part to the law would be incompatible with certain conscientious convictions of theirs, may not the Jew, the Quaker, or the Mormon claim with equal right a like exemption ? If the soundness of the claim of the Roman Catholics is admitted, that of the others cannot be reasonably denied. But if the general principle is admitted, and all the .sects should make the claim, it is clear that no general system could be instituted. It may be urged, as it has indeed already been urged by implication, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, that as a practical fact, the other sects do not make any such chiims, and even if they did, their claims would be based on mere "isolated or eccentric opinion." The flimsiness of such an argument, however, is palpable, because if conscience is admitted to be a reasonable basis of claim to exemption, the number of any sect which may entertain the conscientious objection to the law, obviously cannot be a factor in the case. National Schools Specially required in Manitoba. We have endeavored to make it clear why in a community in which the people govern themselves, a .system of state education is necessary. Great Britain is a con.stitutional monarchy in name but is in fact a demo- cracy and in some respects is the most advanced democracy that has ever existed. The great autonomous colonies of Britain are also democracies In the mother land itself, where the population is mostly native to the soil and speaking practically one language, state education has been found imperative, and is making vast headway in face of the enormous aggres- sive power and the great vis inertia ui vested interests and traditional custom. It' public education has been found necessary in a country like Britain, the necessity is <^reatly euiphasized in a new community like Manitoba, with its heterogeneous and polyglot population, and the great diversity of intelligence and ideas which characterize its yet unassimilated elements. Many of the foreign iiinnigrants, apart from their ignorance, have had so little opportunity in their previous experience, of acquiring any conception of the rights, the duties, or the responsibilities of the citizens of a free country, that their presence in large numbers would iorm a distinct nusnace and danger to the continued freedom and stability of the govern- ment, unless means were taken to ensure an education for their offspring. Confronted with these conditions the legislature of Manitoba in 181)0 enacted a law, or rather laws, which provided for the education of all the children of the province. The education provided for is entirely free from sectarian religious teaching. The curriculum in the schools is under the supervision of a department of education, which chooses the text books. The schools are placed, for purposes of local administration, under boards of trustees. It is optional with these trustees whether or not religious exercises shall be performed in the schools. When it is deemed advisable to introduce such exercises, their character is defined and their scope clearly limited by the law. No scholar is obliged to participate in these exercises, nor is he bound to make any declaration as to his reason for non-participation. The exercises occupy an almost infinitesimal portion of the entire working time, and are so arranged that the work, or the time of those not engaged in them, is not in any way encroached upon nor inter- fered with. it is our view that even these exercises, short and neutral as they undoubtedly are, should in the interest of absolute consistency, be eliminated. It is contended that they have a great ethical value, and that any doctrine involved is common to the religious creeds of the overwhelm- ing majoi'ity, including Roman Catholics. There is the soundest reason for doubting the ethical importance of the religious teaching given in the schools at present, or at any time, and, while it is true that no doctrine is taught nor involved, which is not assented to by all sects of orthodox Christians, yet there are still others who have rights in the use of the schools, who, while they may not have expressed any positive objections to the religious exercises as at present conducted, cannot certainly express any approval of them. If these latter, however, claimed the use of the schools for the instruction of their children in their own peculiar tenets, it would manifestly be very difficult to accommodate them, and perhaps even more difficult to furnish them with en adequate reason why they should, if not accommodated, thus be virtually discriminated against, on account of their religious views. I Roman Catholic claims the obstacle to State Education. As a practical fact, however, the only interest which has expressed positive dissatisfaction with, or objection to the present system, is the Catholic Church. It does not object to the teaching on the score of ineffiiciency in regard to secular training. As has already been stated, it takes the arbitrary ground that any system of education which is not under its control, in which its doctrines are not inculcated and in which I'litain, lanitoba, er.^ity of ilements. 'e had so nicoption ol' a free distinct ! govern- fspriiig. a in 1800 of all the free from inder the xt books. er boards religious advisable eir scope in these eason for Dortion of le time of nor inter- leutral as stency, be I, and that 'orwhelm- est reason ven in the loctrine is orthodox use of the objections ly express use of the ;ar tenets, d perhaps why they igainst, on lion. expressed em, is the J score of . stated, it lich is not i in which its various claims and pretensions arc not inqucstioningly received, is perilous to the eternal wellbeing of the scholar. Lot us so(! what the attitude of the Church of Rome involves and on what it is founded. This clmrcli as w(( have ahcady statcfl, contends that it is the sole authorized intcirpretor (^f revealed truth to mankind. All other forms of reli<,dous belief it asserts, are schisms or heresies, even those in which the essential spiritual doctrines are identical with its own. These other Christian bodies are branded as sects and heresies, because they claim to have a knowledge of revealed truth obtained outside and independently of the Church of Rome. The Pope, the head of the Church of Rome, is asserted to be the Vicar of Christ and to hold his office as the spiritual successor of St. Peter, by the direct authority of the Most-High, He is ex cathedra an infallible arbiter in questions of faith and morals. He claims to be, (indeed this claim is an inevitable corollary of the infalli- bility doctrine,) above all princes and states. Although in these later days the pretension to temporal supremacy has been only guardedly asserted, it has never been withdrawn, and inrleed it could not be with any con.sistency, .so long a.s the doctti of papal infallibility is held. In u.sing the expression "temporal supr.. t lacy," we do not refer to the mere political and civil government of the portion of Italy known as the Papal States, but are using the express i i in i;;"^ wides! ,tinsc. In a comparative- ly recent encyclical the present Pope Leo \i.II, declared that wlien the obedience of the Catholic to the state . in conflict with his obedience to the chirch, his first duty is to the -hiuch. How could it be otherwise ? An infallible arbiter in faith and morals cannot restrict the application of his decisions or injunctions to mere ab .tract philosophical or theological problems. Faith and morals are interwoven with all the various practical transactions, political, commercial and personal in which mankind are engaged. There is no different kind or standard of morals x'or application in the realms of theology from that which governs in the practical affairs of men's lives. If, then, the Pope is an infallible arbiter in faith and morals he ought to wield a supreme authority in all human aff'air.s. Free constitutional government is based on the theory that the state (that is the majority of the people) is the supreme authority within its own borders, and that the people composing that majority have sufficient intelligence to rule them- selves. This theory of government, however, is in dii'ect conflict with the pretensions and polity of the church of Rome, and is incompatible with the doctrine of papal infallibility. If the claims and doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are valid and sound, the principles of democratic government are unsound. A loyal citizen of a democratic state can acknowledge no other nor higher authority in civil or political aflfairs than that of the state. A Roman Catholic must admit the superior claims of the Pope or the church. He cannot therefore, in the last resort, be a loyal citizen of a democracy. This is the conclusion which must be arrived at by the application of the process of analytical reasoning to the claims and doctrines of the church. And the accuracy of the deduction is demon- strated by the history of the operation of the doctrines alluded to jn nearly every European State. ii 1 ! f I ? I 6 History has shown that, in a state which contends for absolute free- iloni, tlie attitude and policy of the Catholic church have always bcoii a source of danger and appreh(!nsion. The history of England for se\'cn)l centuries shows this in almost every page. The policy of the church of Rome in England, as in every other European country, his been to throw its influence into the scale in behalf of despots, or would-be despots, in return for a promised acknowledgment of the church's pretensions on the part of the would-be despot. The interests of the masses have never been understood by, nor have they had any consideration at the hands of the church of Rome. It is the traditional foe of democracy, of the enfanchise- ment of the nm.sses, and of overy movement calculated to improve the lot of the proletariat. It is true that, within very recent years, it has been the policy of the Pope and some of the leaders of the hierarchy to make abstract and general protestations of sympathy with democracy, especially in the United States. But in view of the claims and doctrines of the church, such declarations may be accepted merely as an indication that the hierarchy appreciates the growing power and the coming dominaney of democracy. The idea of a Roman Catholic democracy is paradoxical. In an autonomous republican community in which the large majority of the people are Roman Catholic, the government is not a democracy. It is a theocracy — a government by the church, which is perhaps the most harras- sing and unbearable sort of tyranny now known. Stagnation and unpro- gressiveness, material and intellectual, or turbulence and revolution, or all of them, are the distinctive characteristics of such communities. Quebec and the South and Central American republics, maj be cited as illustra- tions of the results of pseudo-democratic government with a church in actual control. Tlie Church ol Rome and Tolerance. It may be said that all these considerations mig/ c have weight in other countries, and under different conditions, but that in this country public intelligence is so high, the non-Cotholic majority so powerful, and democratic institutions so firmly grounded, that there is not the slightest danger of the church of Rome ever attempting to give practical enforce- ment to the doctrines and pretensions alluded to. It may also be said that any apprehension on this score evinces the spirit of the "Orange bigot" or of the "zealot of the P. P. A." Just in this connection let it be borne in mind that, while the leading spirits of the Catholic church (which has ever had at the head of its administration men of great diplomatic capacity) see the necessity for toning down and keeping in the back- ground, those arbitrary dogmas and claims which are antagonistic to the spirit of modern progress and popular government, not one of these claims has been renounced or receded from. On the contrary, we see an un- demonstrative, but incessant aiid uncompromising wai fare, being carried on by the church in the midst of the most enlightened and freest communi- ties of to-day, against the institution which is the most essential to the safety and continuance of government of the people by themselves. We see also professing non-Catholics, under the plea of maudlin " tolerance," ond even in the name of ' liberty," take up the advocacy and defenq eof %. lolute free- ays Ijeoii a for .sever;)! > church of n to throw espots, in ions on the never been nds of tlie nfanchise- ove the lot it has been ly to make , especially rines of the on that the minancy of oxical. In arity of the cy. It is a lost harras- and unpro- Lition, or all !s. Quebec as illustra- 1 church in e weight in his country werful, and he slightest cal enforce- also be said le "Orange ion let it be urch (which diplomatic the back- listic to the hese claims see an un- learned on communi- ntial to the ;elves. We ' tolerance," defenc eof the case of an organization whose doctrines and principles would render tolerance on its part an inconsistent farce, and whose claims at once fall to the ground if it can be shown that men have a natural right to liberty. We see expressions by the leading ecclesiastics of the Catholic church in the United States, which are couched in conciliatory lanfruairc, and are calculated to produce the impression that these dignitaries are imbued with the spirit of tolerance and of admiration for the principles of popular government. There is reason to fear, however, that these expressions are prompted more by the superior diplomatic acumen of the prelates, than by any intention on their part to abandon any of those pretensions, in the light of which the genuineness of their tolerance is at least open to sus- picion. Some of the minor clergy, however, are not so diplomatic, but are more consistent. In an article in the Western Watchman, a Roman Catholic paper published in St. Louis, and edited by Father Phelan, the following passage appeared recently : "We would draw and quarter Pro- testantism ; we would impale it and hang it up for crows' nests ; we would tear it with pinchers and bore it with hot irons ; we would fill it with molten lead and sink it into hell-fire a hundred fathoms deep." This chaste and peaceful passage is, as our readers may observe, redo- lent of tolei'ance and calculated to promote that sentiment of brotherly love which, we presume, it is one of Father Phelan's offices to inculcate. Another Catholic organ, the Boston Pilot, recently contained the following : " No good government can exist without religion ; and there can be no religion without an Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the pro- motion and protection of the true faith." * Now the reverend gentlemen who pen these raorceaux, are doubtle.ss quite sincere, and are much more consistent than their superiors, but their utterances could hardly be pronounced as exemplifying a high degree of "tolerance." No discrimination of any sort is attempted to be m.ade against Catho- lics iu Manitoba by the legislation of 1890, but if such discrimination had been attempted the province might have been able to give some color of precedent and sanction for the attempt. By the constitution of Great Britain a Roman Catholic cannot occupy the throne. Why this significant discrimination ? History will show. The monarch of England must be a Protestant, because he is the constitutional head of a state which asserts its absolute supremacy in the control of its affairs. In view of the nature of the pretensions of the church of Rome, it is recognized that no indivi- dual who admits these pretensions, is fitted to loyally discharge the duties of sovereign of such an empire as that of Great Britain. The history of the Stuart dynasty in Scotland and England demonstrates the necessity for such a provision in the iriritish constitution. .>■ * It is but fair to state that since this work was first published the editor of the "Pilot" has denied that this originally appeared in that journal. The writer obtained the extract from an article by a writer in a high class American review, who attributed its origin to tfie "F'ilcit." It may bo added that, although the writer of this accepts the statement of the Pilot editor, no ad- mission of the inaccuracy ius since appeared in the .American review in cjucstion. Conscience not a Yalid Plea for Exemption from Taxation. It may l.e asked : what bearing has all this on the Manitoba school question ? It has the most coj^ent bearing. For it is only on the assump- tion of the soundness of these pretensions, that the hostility to the Manitoba school legislation is attempted to be, or can be justified. This legislation is admitted to be admirably adapted, in a social and econoraio sense, to the conditions existing in the province. But considerations of economy or of national progress or unity, count for nothing when the interests of the Church are involved. In effect the Church simply says : '"Neither our authority nor our claims are r-ecognized in this system of education ; therefore we oppose it. We enjoin our communicants against counten- ancing it, and as the church is the rule of conscience for Catholics their ( bjection is therefore a conscientious one. It is true that if you admit the principle that the plea of conscience is a valid one, in support of a claim for special privileges or exemptions, your system will become impracticable. But that is no concern of ours. The dictum of the church is the law of conscience for Roman Catholics and that is all there is about it." Now let us carefully avoid being misled by the specious argument of conscience. The mere fact that a man has a conscientious objection to any law which the people deem advisable to enact in the common interest, cannot, manifestly, be accepted as a valid reason for his exemption from the operation of that law. What is the authority which is to determine when a conscientious scruple becomes a mere fad or whim ? We are informed on credible authority, that the Plymouth Brethren, a religious sect who hold most of the essential tenets common to all Christian denominations, do not believe in the payment of taxes at all, and pay only because they must. These people, it is alleged, believe that the total abolition of government, the reign of anarchy, would hasten the advent of the millenium. They reason, we presume, that as it is very wrong to do anything to postpone the millenium, the payment of taxes by which governments are sustained, is sinful. The Plymouth Brethren are, in their personal lives and conduct, a very moral and right-living people. Their views on the question of taxation are, presumably, entirely consci- entious. But so Jong as the majority still cling to mundane notions as to the necessity of some sort of order, pending the arrival of the millenium, it is probable that the Brethren will continue to pay taxes. With special reference to the case of education in Manitoba, it may be said, in short, that if conscience be admitted as constituting a full and satisfactory ground for exemption from taxation for the support of the schools, a provincial system of education would be an impossibility. The necessary theory of monarchical government is that "the king can do no wrong." For the purposes of a democratic state, that might be translated "the will of the majority is always right. ' In the latter case the theory is much more in accord with the practical results than in the former. I 9 Taxation. Manitoba school on the assump- to the Manitoba lis lefrislation is sense, to the of economy or interests of the ''Neither our of education; igainst counten- :e for Catholics lat if you admit , in support of a m will become m of the church 11 there is about )us argument of objection to any ommon interest, exemption from is to determine mouth Brethren, common to all taxes at all, and believe that the uld hasten the .t as it is very lent of taxes by bh Brethren are, it-living people, entirely consci- dane notions as arrival of the ' pay taxes. itoba, it may be ting a full and i support of the ossibility. The king can do no ht be translated se the theory is former, I The Political Policy of the Cliurcli Costly to the People. The enormous cost to the toiling massf'S, of the civil policy of the church of Rome is only faintly realized. In Qiiebec we observe ejiormous loss to the people through corrupt and incapable government, which, there is too much reason to believe, is the indirect outcome of the church's influence and policy. The landscape in that province is characterized by the contrast of the frequent and stately ecclesiastical edifice, with the mean and humble cot of the simple habitan, out of whose toil and sweat the grand and costly piles have been reared. Lavaleye, the cele- brated Belgian economist, is quoted in a pamphlet recently published by Dalton McCarthy, as follows : "Steady progress is very difficult in Catholic countries, because the church aims at establishing her dominion throughout, and the living energies of the people are almost exclusively employed in repelling the pretensions of the clergy." While Lavaleye's remarks had more especial reference to France and Belgium, it must strike the reader with what aptness they tit the case of Canada. A mere catalogue of the political disputes and troubles directly due to the aggressive political action of the Catholic Church in Canada would till a newspaper column. Indirectly the policy of the church affects all Canad- ian legislation. Nothing can be done if Rome obstructs. And .she obstructs often anil effectively. What have been the .so-called "politics" of Quebec ? An unsavory mess of intrigue, corruption and extravagance. What is the result of this nauseating network of intrigue and corruption ? Whilst the avex'age condition of the patient, frugal, and industrious peasantry of Quebec is one not much removed from penury, the public treasury is in a condition verging upon bankruptcy, due to the almost incredible carnival of waste and dishonesty in which some of the political proteges of the church have revelled, and of which extravagance the church, in at least one instance, was a largo beneffciary. But it is a notorious fact that, whilst the province and citizens of Que,bec are in a condition of chronic poverty, the Roman Catliolic church in that province is, so to speak, rolling in wealth. What renders this state of matters pos.sible ? Simply a low degree of intelligence on the part of the mas.ses, whose toil must always and unfailingly pay for these extravagances, robberies and accumulations. Are the €hiii*eli''s Claiin.s Jiis^tified by its Works? It would be expected that a corporation which professes to l)e the only authorized medium for the transmission of the truth of revelation to mankind, and claims the right to control and direct education, would show an excellence in the result of its work which would render comparison with that of unauthorized bodies ludicrous. What is the function of a church ? Is the church an end in itself, or is it properly only the mtians to an end ? If the latter, what is the end or object which churches exist to attain ? Is it the inculcation of creed or dogma ? Manifestly not. Creeds and dogmas are themselves only tools for the attainment of the I li i I ii i 10 desired end, and are often so clumsy and faulty in conception and con- struction, that they hinder more than they help, distract more than they guide. What then is the end ? All religions, at least all Christian religions, agree that the highest attribute of God, in whose image man is made, is the perfection of his moral being. The chief aim of the churches then is, or ought to be, the training and direction of the moral nature of man, and the development of those powers of reason and intelligence of which he alone, amongst all terrestrial beings, is the possessor, and without which no conception of morality is possible. Now, a church which is as.sisted in the attainment of these ends by the direct and exclusive authority ot' the rulor of the universe, who.se earthly head is endowed with the attributes of divinity, to the extent of being infallible on questions of faith and morals, would naturally be expected to show results in its efforts for the moral and spiritual regenera- tion of mankind, beside which the performances of the heretical sects would seem ridiculou.s. But what is the fact ? In every civilized country in which the communicants of the Church of Rome form the mass of the people, morals, material prf;sperity and intelligence are comparatively low. In these countries the church has, or has had till within recent years, practically absolute control of education. What is the result ? That the percentage of illiteracy is very high, and (mark it well) the criminal statistics of these countries show that crime and illiteracy are almost invariably in an exact ratio. 8ome Instructive Facts and Figures. A very active advocate of the separate school system in Manitoba, Mr. Ewart, in an endeavor to show that the Catholic church is in no way opposed to education, quotes the following figures from the Encyclopedia Britannica, accompanying the extract with a somewhat sardonic remark to the eflfect that statistics are proverbially misleading : ^ ^..^.T..... Scholars to every COUNTRY. CATHOLICS. PROTESTANTS. 1,000 Inll.lljiUnts Switzerland 1,084,400 1,577,700 155 German Empire 14,867,500 25 600,700 152 Luxembourg 197,000 400 142 Norway 350 1,704,800 138 Sweden 600 4,203,800 138 Netherlands 1,313,000 2,198,000 136 Denmark 1.900 1,865,000 135 France 35,388,000 010,800 131 Belgium 4,980,000 15,000 123 Austria 27,904,300 3,571,000 100 Great Britain 5,800,000 25,900,000 83 Spain 16,500,000 82 Italy 26,750,000 35,000 70 This table shows a good average of school attendance in such Catholic countries as Spain and Italy, when compared with Great Britain. But the figures, which would have been more to the point, are those showing the elati jeafin ics, '^ 3 a c< )f at !t wi Spain 3 the ;aken vkd ir 75.52 low in ehanj their fcfon.' readil that feible, shnpl very ! of his 9 MM 11 the criminal cy are almost cepfcion and con- elativc efficiency and illiteracy in these countries. Here are some figures more than they »earinf^ on this point, taken from the same authority as Mr. Ewart's statis- nstian religions, ics, and which, we think, are a little more relevant to the subject. Spain man is made, is s a country in which the population is practically entirely Catholic. Out hurdles then is, >£ a total population of 16,000,000 there are only about 60,000 Protestants, ure of man, and !t will be seen fi-om the table quoted above that the school attendance in nee of which he Spain per 1,000 persons is about the same as that of Great Britain. What without which 8 the resuit ? In the same article from which Mr. Ewart's statistics are laken it is stated that in Spain 72 per cent, could neither read nor write, i these ends by uld in another portion of the same authority it is stated that, in 1877, universe, whose 7$.o2 per cent, of the population could neither read nor write. 'o the extent of In the article from which Mr. Ewart obtained his statistics, the fol- 1 naturally be Idwing passage occurs : " That the clergy do not readily acquiesce in the itual regenera- clianges that diminish their intiuence is excusable, but at the same time cal sects would their demands have occasioned the most lamentable obstruction to educa- ted country in tion." The reason why Mr. Ewart did not quote this sentence may be le mass of the readily inferred, and it may suggest a very good ground for his conclusion paratively low. that statistics are unreliable. He seems to have introduced the above n recent years, table, not because it has any bearing on the question under discussion, but ^It ? That the simply with a desire, perhaps not unnatural, to distract attention from the very suggestive fact that the separate school advocates have not a vestige of historical or statistical fact to justify their contentions. The same advocate, who is a professed Protestant, calls for the admis- sion of the Catholic claims for special privileges, in the name of tolerance and liberty. Now, we have endeavored to show that the friend of toler- ance and liberty must, if he fully understands the basis of the Catholic in Manitoba, claims, oppose them, because they are founded on doctrines which recog- h is in no way nize neither tolerance nor liberty. It may be objected that this is a mere philosophic argument, dependent entirely on theory or abstract deduction. Let us see whether practical experience justifies the deductions. Again, referring to the same authority, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and still on the subject of education and religion in Spain, we find the follow- ing : " By the constitution of 1876 non-Catholics are permitted to exercise their own forms of worship, but they must do so in private, and without making any public announcement of their services." This is a specimen of the tolerance and consideration which is extended to "conscience" in the countries in which the Church of Rome is in pov/er ! It may be added that before 1876, even the private exercise of any religious exercise other than that of the Church of Rome, was prohibited by law, was vigilantly ferreted out, and severely punished, at the instance of the clergy. It was only in the face of strenuous opposition on the part of the clergy, that even the above measure of "liberty" was attained. Spain was the tlieatre of the operations of the Inquisition, that admirable device for the propagation of liberty and tolerance, which some tolerant person would like to see estab- lished in America at the present time. Let us now turn briefly to Italy, that land of ancient splendors, the very footstool of the church, and pos.sessing the most homogeneous Catho- lic population of any state in the world. Mr. Ewart's authority regarding ttie state of education in Itlay, says : "As late as the census of 1861 it WdiS found that in a population of 21,777,331 there was no less than 3 Encyclopedia 3nic remark to Scholars to every '.ooo Iiili,i!)it,iiits. 155 152 142 138 138 136 135 131 123 100 ' 83 82 70 "ch Catholic tin. But the showing the ij 12 i 16,999,701 (nearly 80 per cent) 'analphabetes' or persons absolutely desiH Nl tute of instruction, absolutely unable to read. * * * While 59 j h^ avj cent, of the men married in 18G6 were obliged to make their mark, 78 [Uiters cent, of the women were in the same case. In the Basilicata (an Itali;eisonj pi'ovince with a population of over half a million) the illiterate class cdiit'fau] prised 912 out of every 1,000 inhabitants." It is true that since the coi^vek solidation of the Italian states, matters educational have improved greatEe^fAbl] in Italy, although the educational condition of the people is still deplorahlbl^out backward. Mr. Ewart refers to this improvement as an evidence of t}^ ncl friendliness and eagerness of the Catholic church for the intellectual iiic(qbcre| provement of the people. But, unhappily for the force of Mr. Ewarttnen, argument, he evidently does not know (otherwise he would presumabln|oral have mentioned the fact) that the great movement for popular educatioiilstru^ was begun and carried on in the teeth of the most bitter and uncompromi-lSbe te ing hostility of the church, by the anti-Clerical and United Italy partj^ich] A recent article by Monsignor Satolli, the representative of the Pope \i{ America, in the North American Review, shows that while the church i;i Italy has been whipped into competitive effort by the energetic action o' the civil power, it still regards the state education with an undisguisc" repulsion, which, in view of the results of its own centuries of fruitle.'- control, seems positively fatuous. Chichi Whilst we see the unsatisfactory educational or intellectual conditior «„(]er diurcl popiily •while is the sively intcU: Catlu Cath( on til Take exist belie for J ed a >Yer< interests in that regard have beoi of the mas.ses in these countries whose almost wholly under the control, or at the i ercy of the Church of Ronio what do v/e find when we look into the ethiCal results of its supremacy In Spain and Italy, crime is prevalent, particularly crimes of violenco According to a recent writer on this subject, there are, for every murder committed in England, forty in Spain and two hundred in Italy. Tlu habits of the lower orders are semi-barbarous. The bull fight and ven- detta are national institutions, and in Italy, up till the most recent years, the profession of brigand had attained a respectability which drew to its ranks not a few of the old nobility, who did honor to their ancient lineage alike by the daring and thorough going character of their rascality, and by their devout attention to their religious observances between atrocities. The material condition of these nations corresponds with their educational and moral condition. Each of the.se nations has been, in turn, the most opulent and formidable power of the earth. To-day, Spain has gone hope- lessly to the rear, and Italy owes its recent partial recovery of political status to the fact that it has thrown off both the civil and intellectual domination of the Church of Rome. Favored by nature with rich soils and good climates, the peasantry and the proletariart of these countries live in a condition of extreme, and, in some cases and localities, incredible poverty ; their taxation is grindingly onerous, while their national revenues are strained by the burden of heavy debts. Thus we see three classes of phenomena which are, as a rule, found in • combination. Where we have a low average standard of education and intelligence, we find a low degree of morality, and a low material con- dition. The simultaneous existence of these three conditions is not mere coincidence. The two la§t are the corollary and result of the fi^st. ' po ieiv 18 #*'^ tt; ?^ ^^^^ Now, WO have seen from the statistics that in these Catholic countries, While 59 ph« average of school attendance has been fairly high. The very high leir mark, 78 literacy cannot be due to want of opportunity for instruction. The Miicata (an Italii0|.sonable inference then is that it is the kind of instruction which is I Iterate class conf fault. Possibly, it might be said, so much effort is directed to moral f mt since the Cdilvelopment, that the intellectual is neglected. This however, is not a improved greatf^,sible explanation, because the moral nature can only be developed isstilJdeploraMtl^ough, and co-ordinately with the intellectual faculties. But again, we " .^V ,f "^® ^^ ^'^0^ net need to rely on a merely theoretical explanation. We have •^ ^ f Ar '^^'^^^ iiiCOihcrete facts. We know that the morality in these countries is low. If ce or Mr. Ewartthen, the school attendance has been good, whilst the intelligence and the ouict presumalilmoral status of the people are extremely low, we must conclude that the opular educatioinstruction is neither calculated to improve the mind nor the moral nature. " "?;^°™proini1lie teaching imparted, it is to be inferred, is principally of that kind , ^ p , V partiwhich is called, or rather miscalled, "religious." It is composed largely of *r fK ^P® i'dpgmas and fornu'.las and injunctions, calculated to imbue the learner with e the church i.tie importance of the church, as an entity apart from all other considera- ergetic action o i|ons or ends. The ethical objects, for which solely the church exists, or an undisguiso <»ight to exist, aie lost sight of. Mundane and political considerations nes or fruitle- ofcscure the true object. The interest of the church, as a wealthy and powerful corporation, becomes of more importance than the object for ectual condih' which it was originally organized. The means becomes the end. Feligion, 3gard have bp under such instruction, becomes an idolatry. It Decomes a worship of the 'hurch of Ron ^"^'C^^' instead of the worship of God. its supremap ' ^^ those European and American countries where the majority of the es of violen population is largely nou-Catliolic the education of the Catholic portion, every mnrrl > '^'"'ilG ^l\^'''^.ys i'^f^^'iof to the Protestant, is still incomparably higher than in Italy T] ^ ^^^^ education in those countries where the population is almost exclu- fio-ht and vp ' sively Catholic. The proximity and the example of Protestant vigor, and it recent ven intelligence, and independence, seems by its contagion to stimulate the 3h drew to 'f Catholic citizens and the clergy. Hut iu all countries where there is a mcient linen Catholic and a Protestant population, it will be found that the former is scality and h ^^ *'''*^ average much inferior to the latter, both intellectually and morally, een at'rocifi "■ ^^^'"^^ ^^^^ <^'^^^ ^^' Canaua. The writer has not been able to learn of the 'ir education 1 existence of any statistics showing the proportion of illiteracy, to religious urn the mo *• ^^^i^^i^- I^^t a reference to the ollicial criminal statistics of the Dominion as o-one hon ^^^ 1892 shows that all the principal religious denominations are represent- '■y of politir* I ***"' amongst the criminals as follows : (The figures in regard to population d intelleetu I '^^'^i'^ obtained from the Dominion census reports of 1891.) ith rich soil« jyjxiri ropulntion 1891. Perceiitn^'c of 3se countries cnnnn.ib is^j... es, incredible Roman Catholics ... 1,992,017 48.8 )nal revenues Methodists 847,705 9.8 Presbyterians 755,320 7.1 , „ :■ Church of England 046,059 18.8 L"e, tound in Baptist " 303,839 2.0 ucation and laterial con- An analysis of the figures in this table shows that the Roman Catholic IS not mere population of the Dominion furnishes 70 per cent more criminals than an '* ■ t equal number of all the Protestant population. But analysis will also i 14 .show the .striking fact, that the proportion of criminals acknowlodgii allegiance to the Church of England, i.s even greater than that of tl Roman Catholic Church. Several rea.son.s might be given in explanatic of this remarkable fact. In the first place there is very large immigratio from England, of a very poor cla.s.s, who are under special temptations t Clime in a new country, and most of whom claim the church of Englan as their church. Again, many of these immigrants belong to varioii .sections of the "submerged tenth" of England, and are sent out to Canad by philanthropic agencies with a view to reformation or reclamatioi which desirable endS; it is to be feared, in many cases are not achieve( But as we Are citing the statistics we must abide by their showing, regard less of how it may affect our line of argument. It will be seen that tli percentage of Roman Catholic criminals is more than twice as great a that of those of the next most numerous religious denomination in Canad; (the Methodists). It is fully two and one-half times as great as th^ Presbyterian, and nearly three times as large as the Baptist percentagi The only admissible reason for the existence of a church is that it teache men to live aright. Here we have a church which lays claim to the mos exclusive monopoly of the authority to convey the will of God to man. 1; also contends that its relationship with the Deity is so intimate that it visible head is actually endowed with one of the essential attributes o: divinity. How incompatible are the.se pretensions with the result^ achieved b}^ the supervision of the church over the moral and educationn welfare of its proteges ! Judgment by results is the only sure test. " Bv their fruits ye shall know them," is the dictum of an authority which ever the church will not refuse to recognize. Much statistical matter has been adduced, and much more might still be furnished, to show that the Roman Catholic church has failed to justify its pretensions by its performances. The position of this church has been especially dealt with not because of the existence of animus towards it as an exponent of revealed or speculative spiritual doctrines, but because its polity, which impels it to constantly interject itself as a factor in civil politics, and renders it a standing menace to the continuance of frei' institutions, is really the root of this "school question." It is far from being the intention of the writer to suggest that thu essential spiritual doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are wrong. It is merely intended to show that the claims to exclusive authority, and tlu; consequent claims to exclusive privileges, have no basis, in so far as the validity of these claims may be determined by the actual results of the work of the Church. Ediieation in Secular Subjects a Moral Agent. The denominations ■ hose members and adherents behave them.selves best, are those which place little or no stress on the necessity of teaching of religion in the schools. It is true that considerable sections of the clcroy in the Methodist and Presbyterian bodies believe in the necessity of religious sanctions along with secular teaching for the development of moral growth. But the difleroncc between their position and that of the ecclesiastics of the churches claiming exclusive "authority" is a great and esse| be Scoj is tl secv the I in t| woi ine^ km the^ facfl 15 Is acknowledgir. than that of tl ■en in explanatio large immigratio ial temptations t hurch of Englan lelong to varioi int out to Canad or reclamatioi arc not achievoi showing, regard 1 be seen that tli twice as great a lation in Canad; as great as tli. iptist percentage is that it teach e jlaim to the mos God to man. I: intimate that it> tial attributes o! ''ith the result- and education,! sure tost. " Bv rity which evei: more might still failed to justify church has been us towards it a? but because its I factor in civil inuance of free uggest that thu are wrong. Jt 'hority, and the n so far as the il results of the eiit. ave themselves of teaching of f the clergy iji ty of religious eat of moral [ that of the ' is a great anel essential one. The former contend that common Christian truth should be taught, the latter that their distinctive doctrines are necessary. In Scotland and Protestant Canada the illiteracy is comparativel}'^ sn^^all ; so is the percentage of crime ; so is the proportion of religious teaching to secular. In Italy and Spain and Mexico illiteracy is deplorably prevalent; the percentage of crime is large, and dogma and formula have been taught in the clerical schools to the almost entire exclusion of instruction which would inform the mind and develop the judgment. What is the inevitable conclusion from these facts ? Simply that the acquisition of knowledge and the development of the intellectual faculties tend of themselves to awaken and develop the moral nature. As a matter of fact, true or high morality cannot co-exist with low intelligence. In the Canadian parliamentary records of the statistics of crime for 1802, to which reference has already been made, the following table appears : rprccntnije of Crtmiii.il.s. Unable to read and write 20.3 Elementary 74.3 Superior 2.2 Not given 3.2 Nov^ this table clearly shows that crime is largely the product of ignoj-ance. Persons unable to read and write form 20 per cent of the criminal class, whereas all persons unable to read and write, who are of an age to be convicted of crime, form a very small proportion of the entire population. Practically all the balance of the criminal class is drawn from the class of persons who have an "elementary" education. A person possesses in law an "elementary'/ education if he can read and write. It is to be inferred, from the nature of the other figures in the table, that the great bulk of the 74 per cent of persons having an elementary education, were able to read and write, and beyond that were practically uninstruct- ed. It is true that many wise and moderately minded men, who are favorable to a common school system, believe that moral teaching cannot be inculcated without religious sanctions. But what are "religious sanctions"? It is to be feared that in the minds of many very good men they are synonymous with doctrines and dogmas, and especially those peculiar to their own denominations. To say that a moral sentiment or principle cannot be instilled without reference to some doctrinal tenet, is to take a position the soundness of which has not yet been demonstrated. This is not said with any idea of detracting from the value of doctrines which enforce sound moral precepts, but in order to suggest that a system of education in which neither doctrines nor creeds are taught is not necessarily immoral and "godless." The most moral elements of the people of Canada are the most intelligent, and they have been trained in secular knowledge, in schools in which the "religious instruction" has been almost infinitesimal in quantity, and has been confined to those general subjects calculated to directly inculcate moral principles, rather than to instil an appreciation of distinctiveness of creed. Is it straining the credulity to ask one to believe that if these infinitesimal and perfunctory exercises were entirely omitted, the present generation of scholars would It) not in tlieir time be at least as moral as the present i^eneration of adults ? France and the Australasian colony of Victoria arc cited as "frightful examples" of the result of "godless" education. Cut, with all due respect to the sincerity of the worthy men who think they see their conclusions justified by tlie conditions in these communities, it must be asserted that al)S()hit»dy no evidence has yet been furnished which could be accepted as proving that the unsatisfactory moral conditions which are said to exist in these countries has any traceable connection with the secular educational systems. Enough has probably been said, to make a reasonably good case for contention that schools iti which articles of denominational creed are omit- ted, are not "godless schools," and that, conversely, there is no especially ''godly" or desirable result to be attained by such instruction in the schools. In the face of the comparative results of so called "religious instruc- tion" and of education which is practically secular, it seems almost incredi- ble that honest and intelligent men who are satisfied with the present system, can hold up their haniis in horror when they contemplate the dire results which they picture in their minds, would ensue from the abolition of the present meagre and prefunctory religious exercises. It is true that no .system of education which really aims at the development of the indivi- dual and the progress of the people is worthy of the name, if it fails to ensure the awakening and development of the moral nature. Indeed, not enough attention is given to this aspect of the educational problem in even the most efficient educational .systems of to-day. But in order to secure progress in this direction it would be paradoxical to revert to methods whose inefficacy has been amply demonstrated. The results produced by the separate schools in Manitoba, prior to the act of 1890, were simply de- jdorabie. When we consider that the adult native Roman Catholic popu- lation of this province to-day is in a condition of pitiable and almost prim- eval ignorance, when we are shown that the examination papers for a person attempting to obtain a first class teacher's certificate in the Roman Catholic schools, are largely com))osed of questions calculated to elicit his knowledge of the peculiar dogmas of the church, and his impressions as to its overshadowing importance, and of questions on trivial points of deportment in addressing the clergy ; when we find grown men who are so iimocent of the necessary facts of civilized life, that they are ignorant of the very names of the calendar months, and measure tune by the fete days of the saints (this is no hypothetical illustration) ; when we find such results of the prevalence of separate schools, controlled by the Roman Catholic clergy, and when we find these results correspond exactly with the experience in all other countries in which education is in the same hands, who will .say that the Manitoba legislature was not amply justified, if on no other ground than that of consideration for the Roman Catholic children themselves, in ending this futile and pernicious system. ■ — , ^, ►► • — 17 ation of adults ? (1 as "frightful all due respect heir conclusions je asserted that I bo accepted as said to exist in liar educational good case for creed are omit- 5 no especially ruction in the igious instruc- almost incredi- th the present nplate the dire n the abolition It is true that t of the indi vi- ne, if it fails to !. Indeed, not *oblem in even rder to secure rt to methods i produced by ere simply de- Catholic popu- I almost prim- i papers for a in the Roman ^d to elicit hi.s is impressions vial points of men who are ■ are ignorant ue by the fete \ we find such y the Roman exactly with s in the same nply justified, man Catholic !m. Origin of Separate Schools in Manitoba. In the preceding pages we have dealt with the general ethical and political ijuestions involved in, and suggested by, the ])o.sition of tlie Uoiii- an Catholic church in this controversy. Trusting that we luivo succeeded in furnishing the reader with a standpoint from which he will be able to take a broad and comprehensive view of tlie case, and of the issues involv- ed, we shall now proceed to deal with the historical tacts, and the s])ecial legal and political aspects of the question. In 1867 the Dominion of Canada was created by the federal union of the provinces, or colonics, of Nova Scotia, New Brunsvick, and the then province of Canada. The Imperial sanction ot Cont'eileration, and the recognition of the Dominion as u political entity, are embodied in the British North America Act, an enactment of the British parliament. This act, which is the Canadian constitution, is an epitome of the results of the negotiations carried on, of the arrangements and agreements arrived at by the representatives of the interested colonies, and of the Imperial govern- ment. It defines the relative; status and |')OW(^rs of the federal and i)rov- incial legislatures. Certain subjects of legislation are .specifically named as being within the exclusive power of the federal parliament, and certain others (of entirely provincial concern, of course), as belonging exclusively to the provincial legislatures. But all legislative power not specifically conferred upon local legislatures, is reserved to the Dominion. In this im- portant respect the constitution of Canada dilKcrs from that of tlie United States, which reserves to the states all legislative power not expressly con- ferred on the federal authority. It is, to some extent, because of the limi- tation of the local autlun-ity in the Canadian constitution, that the Mani- toba leo'islation of 1890 has become a "(luestion." One of the subjects, declared by the British North America Act to be exclusively within the power of the provincial authorities, is that of education. This power is, however, given subject to restrictions. The authority and its limitations are defined in section 0,3 of the British North America Act. As this section, and its sub-sections, are the only portion.s of that act having any immediate bearing on our subject, it will be quoted in full further on in this paper. Red River Just Before the I'liioii. When the federation of those older provinces was consummated, the vast territory, of which the present province of Manitoba formed a portion, was for the most part practically nicrra inco(jnita — a "great lone land." A large proportion of its sparse population were more or less nomadic in their habits. There were hunters, trappers and traders, and a few adventurers of various nationalities. These, with the Indian tribes, practically com- 18 posed the population. Civilization was represented by the Hudson Bay Company's officers, a few clergy of the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian ami Anglican denominations, and a handful of merchants and agricultural settlers. The territory was, of course, under the sovereignty of Great Britain, but the only government which the country knew or needed (under the then existing circumstances) was administered by the Hudson's Bay Com- fany's authorities, with the .sanction, of course, and at the instance of the mperial government. The great potential agricultural wealth of the territory had been understood in Canada, and because of the existence of this wealth, and for other reasons of a political nature, it was deemed desirable to embrace the great region in the Canadian confederation. An arrangement had been made by the Canadian government, with the Hudson's Bay Company by which the former was to pay the latter £300,000 as compensation for the surrender of part of its lands and its magisterial jurisdiction. The Settlers had Real Grievauces. It would seem that the Canadian government, having thus arranged with the Hudson's Bay Company had considered that the work of annex- ing the territory was virtually completed. It had forgotten about the inhabitants of the country and their rights ; or it had calculated that, these inhabitants being so few in number, and of such primitive habits and understanding, they probably did not themselves realize that they had any rights, and that, if the matter required any consideration at all, it could be postponed to a more convenient season. The government had forgotten that the actual inhabitants — the resident popu.ation of a country — have rights which are paramount to all other claims. The population in the settled portion of the territory consisted about the end of 1869, of 12,000 souls. Of these 5,000 were French half-breed.s, 5,000 English half-breeds, the remaining 2,000 being white person,s. Many of the latter were Canadians, and appear to have been markedly character- ized by the speculative, adventurous, fortune-hunting spirit which is the distinctive trait of the individuals comprising the advance guard of civil- ization in a new country. He who has dwelt in a frontier land, in the early phases of its development, knows that the pioneer speculator is not a person whose personal progress or prosperity is likely to be retarded to any appreciable degree, by his fastidious sense of honor, or by the search- ing scrutiny to which he submits his own commercial acts. He is gener- ally admitted, indeed, to acknowledge very little moral restraint in transactions involving considerations of meum and tuuni. His ideal may be summed up in the vulgar expression " get there," and if in " getting there," it should incidentally happen that .some other person had to be over-reached, the enterprise would probably be all the more attractive, and success all the more enjoyed on that account. It would appear that, in the case of this new territory, even the offi- cials of the Canadian government, had conducted themselves in such a manner as to inspire the simple-minded natives with a feeling of anythincr but confidence and .security. The land-grabbing .spirit was rampant. And it th fa hi< ou th bo i 10 he Hudson Bay 'rcsbyterian anrtain highhandedness on the part of the otKcials, thoir undisguiscdly contemptu- ous treatment of the natives, and their apparent inaliility ti> comprehend the possibility of these inhabitants having any rights which they were bound to respect, tilled the minds of the natives with resentment and apprehension. The 10,000 half-breeds who constituted five-sixths of the entire population were, as we have seen, about e(iually divided as to nationality. Of the French half-breed, Mr. Begg, the historian of Manitoba and the Northwest, says : "The French half breed, called also Metis, and formerly Bois Brule, is an athletic, rather good-looking, lively, excitable, easy-going being. Fond of a fast pony, fond of merry-making, free hearted, open- handed, yet indolent and improvident, he is a marked feature of border life." It is this wild and intractable, but still attractive, child of the plains who, we are asked to believe, was so calculatingly solicitous to secure the permanency of Roman Catholic separate schools. "As different ,. as is the patient roadster from the wild mustang, is the English-speaking half-breed from the Metis." This is a description of the other half of the native population by the same authority. The Canadian government, before it had acquired any territorial rights or jurisdiction, sent a party of surveyors into the country, with instructions to subdivide the very lands which these natives owned by the right of occupation, and of squatter sovereignty , if by no other. These simple and inoffensive people saw the lands which they had been always accustomed to regard as their property, on which most of them were born, and on which stood their homes (such as they were), dealt with by the strangers, as if their rights in them were so flimsy that the strangers need take no account of them. As the work of surveying went on, these natives saw the speculative adventurer, to whom allusion has already been ; made, acquire possession of the most desirable lands by the following simple process : "When a lot was chosen by an individual he proceeded to cut a furrow round it with a plow, and then drive stakes with his name marked upon them into the ground here and there. This was considered sufficient to give the claimant a right to the land, and in this way hundreds of acres were taken possession of for the purpose of speculation. It seemed, as soon as there appeared a certainty that Hon. Wm. McDougall was to be governor, that the men who professed to be his friends in the Red River made it a point to secure as much of the country to themselves as possible. It is notorious that the principle one in this movement, the leader of the so called Canadian party, staked off sufficient land (had he gained possession of it) to make him one of the largest landed proprietors in the Dominion. Can it be wondered at if the people looked with dismay at this wholesale usurpation of the soil ? Is it surprising if tiiey foresaw the predictions of the very men who acted as usurpers as likely to come true, namely, that the natives were to be swamped by the incoming strangers?" The above extract from Mr. Begg's valuable and interesting work, "The Creation of Manitoba", throws a powerful light on the sinister ■■m 20 methods find transactions, which have characterized all dealinc^s with lands in the new t(,'rritories, by ( -anadian governments. The distribution of the nation's natural resources amongst speculators and partisan heelers has been the cause of incalculable cost to the people of Canada. It led to the arnied resistance to theii encroachments by the poor Metis in 1870, and it was the main cause of the later uprising on the Saskatchewan in 1885. It has also been the cause of great direct loss to the country, quite apart from the vast indirect loss, moral and material, resulting from the fact that considerable portions of the proceeds of these misappropriated resources have been used to debauch and corrupt the electorate. It is to be feared that the evil is far from being extinct. . Tlic ISegiiiiiiiig of the Troubles. The chief of the surveying party, Colonel Dennis, communicated to the government at Ottawa the ]n-ob.'iblc results of perseverance in the sursey without an arrangement with the natives; but to no purpose. Under the peremptory instructions of the Canadian Government the survey w^as continued till the resistance of the Metis rendered the work unsafe, and indeed, impossible. Who shall say that the action or the attitr.de of the Metis, in resisting the usurpation of authority over them, and the confiscation of their pro^:)erties by a government which had no rights of either treaty or conquest, wa;. not justified ? When they found that the governnr.tnt was I'eing transv rred from the Hudson's Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada, without any consultation with them ; when they saw the •emissaries of the Canadian government, even before this tx'ansfer had been consummated, parcelling out their lands and disdainfully ignoring their existence, is it wonderful that, as Lord Wolseley (then Col. Wolseley) points out, the impression should have obtained amongst these people, that they "were being bought and sol'^ like so many cattle." Lord Wolseley adds : "With such a text the most common-place of democrats (he doubtless meant demagogues) could pjeach for hours ; and poor indeed must have been their clap-trap elo(iuence, if an ignorant and impressionable people such as those at Red River had not been aroused by it." They were aroused. They organized themselves for resistance to the assumption of authority by the Canadian government, till proper terms had been made with them. The French clement, organized under Louis Riel, elected twelve delegates, and invited the English natives to elect other twelve. The invitation wa:^ responded to. The twenty-four delegates met on November Kith, 18(]9, and a« 8. That for a term of four years all military, civil and municipal V expenses be paid out of the Dominion funds. i: 9. That the military be composed of the inhabitants now existing in the territory. 10. That the English and French 1 anguages be common in the ;ure. Jcal to the legislature and courts; and all public documents and acts of the legislature be published in both languages. } 11. That the judge of the Supreme court speak the English and •French languages. 12. That the treaties be concluded and ratified between the Dominion governrnent and the sevaral tribes of Indians in the territory, to ensure peace on the frontier. 13. That we have a fair and full representation in the Canadian parliament. 14. That all privileges, customes and usages existing at the time of transfer be respected. M This is the first of the three Bills or Lists of Rights which were jf admittedly adopted by the legislative or executive representatives of the ■' inhabitants. It will be seen that there is no reference in the above list to education or schools beyond the slight reference in clause 6. A fourth bill of somewhat mysterious origin, and of hazy identity, plays a most important part in this question, and it would be desirable that the reader, in order to obtain a clear understanding of the historico-legal phase of this dispute, should closely follow the facts relating to these Bills of V Rights. The Bill of Rights quoted above was adopted by the Council "without a dissenting voice." Meanwhile the Hon. Wm. McDougall, who had been appointed by the Ottawa Government Lieutenant-Governor of the Territorv, had been at Pembina, on the boundary, since October 30th, preparing to make his formal entry, as soon as the transfer should be consummated. The proceedings of the inhabitants. had rendered this impossible. History Of Bills Of Rights. Three commissioners wore then sent by the Canadian Government to endeavor to pacify the inhabitants, and effect a settlement. These were Very Rev. Grand Vicar Thibault, Colonel De Salabery and Sir (then Mr.) Donald A. Smith. These commissioners met the settlers in a mass meeting on January 19th, 1870. The meeting, a very large one, was held in th^ ^ 22 open air, and so intense was the interest that, although the thermometer registered 20 degrees below zero, it lasted over five hours. Mr. Smith's commission was read and explained. The election of a council of forty was decided upon "with the object of considering Mr. Smith's commission, and to decide what would be best for the welfare of the country." Pursu- ant to this decision the forty representatives were elected, twenty by the French, and twenty by the English settlers. They assembled on January 26th, and elected Judge Black chairman. Sir Donald Smith, who seems to have taken the most prominent part in all these transactions, delivered an address at the opening. He also assisted in the discussion of the second Bill of Rights, which this Council of forty drew up. This second list is much more lengthy than the first. It contains twenty clauses, and shows that the points to be discussed in dealing with Canada, had received much consideration in the meantime. Like the first list, it contemplated the entry of the Northwest into the Canadian confed- eration as a territory and not as a province. It made much more specific financial stipulations than the first bill did, and took great pains to guard the right of self government and the autonomy of the territorial legisla- ture. The only reference to education which it contained is in clause 9, which reads : " That, while the Northwest remains a territory, the sum of $25,000 a year be appropriated for schools, roads and bridges." Sir Donald requested the Council to send delegates ' confer with the Dominion government at Ottawa, with a view to a pro^ understanding by that government of the " wants and wishes of the Red River people '' and " to discuss and arrange for the representation of the country in par- liament." In response to this invitation, Rev. Father Ritchot, Judge Black and Mr. Alfred H. Scott, were appointed delegates. The provisional government, of which Riel was then head, and which had taken possession of Fort Garry, was endorsed and continued in oflSice by the council, and a general election for members (to the number of 24) of a new assembly, was ordered. Turbulent times ensued, however. Some complications arose, partly through misunderstanding, p/irtly on account of occasional unwise acts of the provisional government, and partly owing to the imperfect nature of the means of communication and travel then in existence. A number of the Canadians were taken as prisoners by Riel, whose conduct on the whole seems not to have been immoderate, when his origin and training are taken into account. He however lost control apparently both of himself and his followers, and without trial, or rather after a burlesque of a trial, at which the accused was not present, one of the prisoners, Thomas Scott, was sentenced to be shot This sentence was executed with cold blooded atrocity on March 4, 1870. This act was the beginning of the end of Riel; but as his history has no further connection with our subject, we shall leave him here. He seemed to have been a born agitator, not altogether destitute of good qualities. His intellectual endowment and his capacity for command have been extravagantly overestimated in some quarters. Want of balance and stability of character, as well as the heavy handicap which his lack of modern training and experience had placed upon him, unfitted him for the role which his ambition and his vanity im- pelled him to assume, and led ultimately to his tragic end. He was apparently devoid of executive capacity, does not seem to ha,ve been over- ©ouil ecstl of a| Helc the iiig itit\j 4ecll the thermometer rs. Mr. Smith's council of forty ith's commission, ountry." Pursu- d, twenty by the I bled on January th, who seems to ons, delivered an on of the second rst. It contains in dealing with Like the first lanadian confed- h more specific t pains to guard rritorial legisla- is in clause 9, tory, the sum of es." confer with the understanding Hiver people'' country in par- Ritchot, Judge The provisional iken possession council, and a assembly, was lications arose, :asional unwise the imperfect existence. A whose conduct his origin and pparently both er a burlesque the prisoners, executed with ginning of the ih our subject, agitator, not vment and his ated in some as the heavy ce had placed lis vanity im- id. He was ve been over- 23 courageous, and was in temperament of that peculiar combination, half- ecstatic, half-charlatan, which so readily obtains influence over the minds f the events in question. For, be it carefully noted, the agitation which preceded the introduction of C-anadian government to the Northwest was, 'as we have seen, of a purely agrarian character. It arose, as we have also soenj'and was maintained, solely on account of the manner in which the Canadian ofiicials am' tlio Canadian adventurers were dealing with tlie 24 lands. The doubts and f§ar,s of the settlers regarding the safety of theii properties, and as to the general treatment they should receive unde: Canadian government, after it should obtain control, were aroused, ven reasonably and very justifiably, by the high-handed and unscrupulou actions of Canadians, before Canada had acquired any actual lega authority. Now, Mr. Ewart has gone to much trouble to show the arbit rary character of the bearing and actions of the Canadians, and ha expressed much well-merited indignation at their conduct. But we are a a loss to understand why he has devoted so much time and space to thi- historical phase, unless it was his object to create an impression that al this agitation was in some way or other connected with, and had soiiii bearing upon, the claims of the Roman Catholics in the present disputi This is far from being the case. In all the agitations, dis'iutations aiic demands, the subject of education was hardly thought of, and separate schools are not so much as mentioned. In all the numerous testimonies cited almost ad nauseam by Mr. Ewart, there is not one word about schools nor do we find in the records of any of the three representative bodies whose proceedings we have referred to, any account of any discussion oi the subject. On the two occasions in which it is mentioned in the Bills ot Rights it is mingled with " roads and bridges," thus showing the impor tance attached to it. Even the last Assembly, which was in session wliei the delegates departed for Ottawa, seems not to have considered tin question at all. Iiet us be clear, therefore, as to the origin and charactet of the agitation, and the demands of the people. The Bills of Rights. Now, as to the Bills of Rights. There has been much dispute as tc the provisions which were contained in the Bill of Rights entrusted to tht delegates by the provisional government, or to put it perhaps more clearly and accurately, there has been much dispute as to the identity of the bil which was actually entrusted to the delegates by the provisional govern ment. There was a list of rights prepared by the provisional government as to the authenticity of which there is no doubt nor dispute. This list which is Bill of Rights No. 3, it is contended by the province of Manitoba is the only list which the provisional government ever drew up, and is tin one which was given to the delegates. The Roman Catholic party, how ever say that still another list (No. 4) was prepared by the provisiona government, and that it superseded No. 3. We shall present the evident for each side. Bills of Rights Nos. 3 and 4 contain each twenty clauses. We repro- duce the first seven clauses of these bills, in parallel form. It may W remembered that Bills of Rights Nos. 1 and 2 contemplated the entry of the Northwest into Confederation in the position of a territory. It will U observed that Bill of Rights No. 3 of the provisional government, and al-i Bill of Rights No. 4, whose origin is still a mystery, both stipulate for tlu provincial status. , • • >^ , ... 25 he safety of thci! Id receive unde: ere aroused, vein md unscrupulou any actual legn .0 show the arbit ladians, and ha^ ;. But we are a; and space to thi- npression that al ih. and had sonn > present dispute disputations aini of, and separati irous testimonios )rd about school- ssentative bodies iny discussion oi ed in the Bills ot )wing the inipor in session whoi considered tin [in and charactci ach dispute as to entrusted to tht aps more clearl} 2ntity of the bil! )visional govern- )nal government pute. This list ice of Manitoba w up, and is tin lolic party, how the provisional Bnt the evidenci ses. We reprd- 'rm. It may In ted the entry of tory. It will U nnicnt, and aN^ stipulate for the , LIST NO. 3. I, That the territories heretofore known as Rupert's Land and Northwest shull not enter into the Confederation, except as a province, to l)e styled and known as the Province of Assiniboia, and with all the rights and privi- leges common to different provinces of the Dominion. 2. That we have two representatives in the Senate, and four in the House of Commons of Canada, until such time as an increase of population entitles the province to a greater representation. 3. That the Province of Assiniboia shall not be held liable at any time, for any portion of the public debt of the Dominion contracted before the date the said province shall have entered the Confederation, unless the said province shall have first received from the Dominion the full amount for which the said province is to be held liable. 4. That the sum of $80,000 be paid annu- ally by the Dominion government to the legislature of the province. 5. That all properties, rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of this province up to the date of our entering into the Confederation be respected, and that the arrangement and confirmation of all customs, usages and privi- leges be left exclusively to the local legislature. 6. That during the term of five years, the Province of Assiniboia, shall not be subject to any direct taxation, except such as might be imposed by the local legislature for municipal or local purposes. 7. That a sum equal to eighty cents per head of the population of this province be paid annully by the Canadian government to the local legislature of the said province until such time as the said populatiion shall have increased to 600,000. LIST NO. 4. 1. That the territories of the Northwent enter into Confederation of the Dominion of Canada as a province, with all the privileges common with all the different provinces in the Dominion. That this province be governed : 1. By a Lieut. -Governor, appointed by th" Governor-fJeneral of Canada. 2. By a Senate. 3. By a legislature chosen by the people with a responsible ministry. 2. That until such time as the increase of population in this country entitles us to a greater number, we have two representatives in the senate, and four in the house of com- mons of Canada. 3. That in entering the Confederation, the Province of the Northwest be completely free from the public debt of Canada; and if called upon to assume a part of the said debt of Canada, ihat it be only after having received from Canada the same amount for which the said province of the Northwest should be held responsible. 4. That the annual sum of $80,000 be allotted by the Dominion of Canada to the legislature of the provinces of the Northwest. f). That all properties, rights and privileges enjoyed Ijy us up to this tlay be respected, and '.hat the recognition and settlement of cus- toms, usages and privileges be left exclusively to the decision of the local legislature. 6. That this country be submitted to no direct taxation except such as may be imposed iiy the local legislature for municipal and other local purposes. 7. That the schools be separate, and that the public money for schools jje distributetl among the different religious denominations in proportion to their respective population according to the system of the province of Quebec. It will be seen by glancing at the first six clauses of both lists, that .substantially the same demands are made in each bill, and in the same consecutive order, although there is a variation in the words in which the demands are stated. In the case of clauses 8 to 18 of both bills, inclusive, the same thing could be noticed — agreement in substance, but difference in phraseology. In clauses 19 and 20 the words are the same in each bill. It will also be seen that there is no reference in the seven clauses of No. 3 which are given above, nor in the first six clauses of No. 4, to education nor schools. Neither is there any reference in the thirteen clau.ses of both bills which we have not reproduced. The reasons for the omission of these clauses are, that they are rather lengthy, have no relevancy to our sub- ject, and are not in themselves of absorbing literary or historic interest. ' I ti 4^; ^ »; :•^■ '"^^!!lil 26 It will be noted that the essential difference between the two lists occurs in clause 7. In list No. 3, clause 7 provides for the payment of a subsidy to the province by the Dominion. In that list there is no refer- ence whatever to .schools or education. In list No. 4, clause "^ provides for separate schools ; and it contains no stipulations whatever for the pay- ment of a subsidy. This important provision does not appear tit all in list No. 4. Which is the Authentic List ? Before presenting the evidence which, we think, will enable our read- ers to form an intelligent opinion as to the origin of bill No. 4, we shall give the explanation of the striking difference in clause 7 of the two lists, supplied by Mr. Ewart, the legal representative of the Manitoba Roman Catholics. "Attention is called to paragraph 7 in list No. 4 : " That the .schools be separate." There is no reference to schools in list No. 3. Hence the dispute, Did, or did not, the provisional government demand that the schools should be separate ? On the one hand is produced what is said to be "the official copy, found in the papers of Thomas Bunn (now decea.sed) secretary of Tliel's government." This is identical with list No. 3. Mr. Begg, in his history, gives this li.st No. 3 as the true one, and accompanies it with a copy of the instructions given to the delegates. That such a list is among Mr. Bunn's papers is sufficient to show that it had actual existence. It is no evidence, [of course, that it was not superseded (as already two others had been superseded) ; and Mr. Begg. although careful and trustworthy, may have been misled through not having heard of a subsequent list. " The best and only direct evidence that has been adduced upon the subject, is the sworn testimony of the Hev. Mr. Ritchot (himself one of the delegates), who was called as a witness when Lepine was being tried for the murder of Scott (1874), and when no one could have had any object in misstating the facts. At that trial Mr. Ritchot produced list No. 4, and swore that it was the list given to him as a delegate. " Other evidence, and of very strong character, may be added : After much consultation with Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier, on the one hand, and the Rev. Mr. Ritchot and Judge Black on the other, a draft bill was submitted to the delegates as that which the government was prepared to concede. The Rev. Mr. Ritchot made observations in Vv^riting upon all the clauses in the draft and sent them to the ministers. Section 19 of the draft dealt with the schools, and the following are the observations made upon it by Mr. Ritchot : " ' Cette clause etant la ineme que celle de I'Acte de I'Amerique Britannique du Nord, confere, je I'interprette ainsi, conmie principe funda- mental, le privilege des ecoles separee.s dans toute la plentitude et, en cela, est conforme a I'article 7 de nos instructions." (This clause being the same as the British North America Act, confers, so I interpret it, as fundamental principle, the privilege of separate schools to the fullest extent, and in that is in eonforn)ity with article 7 of our instructions.) \ •27 veen the two lists • the payment of .1 t there is no refer- ause *' provides for atevex for the pay- appear lit all in list ill enable our read- ill No. 4, we shall 3 7 of the two lists, s Manitoba Roman 'That the schools 'io. 3. Hence the demand that the ed what is said to n (now deceased) bh list No. 3. Mr. and accompanies That such a list lat it had actual ot superseded (as although careful having heard of a .dduced upon the himself one of the s being tried for had any object in ed list No. 4, and be added : After leorge Cartier, on k on the other, a the government 3 observations in to the ministers, following are the e de I'Amerique 3 principe funda- ititude et, en cela, irica Act, confers, ■ separate schools 1 article 7 of our " Internal evidence, too, is not wanting in support of Mr. Ritchot's siiatement. Paragraph 1 of list No. 4 demands a senate for the new prov- ince, and a senate was granted, although the expense of it was much objected to. List No. 3 says nothing about a senate. Again, list No. 4 (paragraph 7) demands "that the schools be separate," and clauses were inserted to that end in the Manitoba Act. List No. 3 says nothing about schools. It would be strange if both these points could have got, by chance, into the Manitoba Act — an act which, as we shall soon see, was the result of elaborate negotiations with the delegates. It may be added that Ij^t No. 3 asks that the province .shall be " .styled and known as the prov- ince of 'Assiniboia.' " List No. 4 suggests no name. It is inconceivable that the Dominion should have deliberately refused to adopt the name Assiniboia had it been asked, for the Dominion has since then called a large part of the Territories by that very name. " Comparison of the lists will show that No. 3 was probably the draft and No. 4 the finally revised form of the list of rights. Observe that while No. 4 often adopts the language of No. 3, it varies from it, not only in the important respects already referred to, but frequently in mere verbal expression. Judge Fournier, of the Supreme Court, in his recent judg- ment, adopts No. 4 as the true list." Mr. Ewart goes on to argue that there can be no doubt that it was a list of the provisional government and not that of the Council of Forty, which was the basis of negotiations at Ottawa. No one, so far as we are aware, has ever contended that Bill of Rights No. 2 (that formulated by the Council of Forty) was the basis of negotia- tions, although the list No. 2 undoubtedly embodied the demands of the people. Mr. Ewart's only conceivable object in thus stating facts which nobody has thought of contradicting, would seem to be to impart to the somewhat flimsy and far-fetched argument, and rather dubious facts, which he has mixed up with the undisputed ones, an air of soundness and respectability, which he must feel tliey sadly lack, standing alone. Regarding " the official copy found in the papers of Thomas Bunn (now deceased), secretary of Riel's government," there is not the slightest doubt about its authenticity, as Mr. Ewart admits. Indeed, there is the best reason to believe that this document is the original Bill of Rights formulated by the provisional government, of which, be it observed, Mr. Bunn was the .secretary. There is very little wonder that " Mr. Begg (who published his book in 1875) should give this bill (No. 3) as the true one," because he never knew nor had cause to suspect that any later bill existed. Mr. Ewart is forced to admit that this Bill of Rights No. 3 had an ex- istence, but he says there '' is no evidence that it was not superseded (as already two others had been superseded), and Mi'. Begg, although careful and trustworthy, may have been misled through not having seen a subse- .quent list" This is an absurd and most disingenuous argument ; so much so indeed, as to suggest that Mr. Ewart felt this phase of his case to be a very unsatisfactory one. In the first place, there is no analogy between the abandonment of the first two Bills of Riiihts, and the assumed abandon- nient of the third. Mr. Ewart hiin.self supplies reasons for the abandon- ment of Bills No. 1 and 2, but he does not, and cannot, supply any reason 28 for the abandonment of Bi:i of Right3 No. 3. Under the circumstance p^dv the onus is not on believers in Bill No. 3, to show that it was w^\^q p "superseded," but on Mr. Ewarfs clients to show that it was. Mr. Ewajn the adroitly endeavors to shift the onus. Whilst not under obli«,'ation, by tl ment rules of argument, to do so, the opponents of .separate .schools may safel(jigag undertake to prove that No. 3 was not ".superseded." that c Now. the Bill of Rights No. 3, found amongst Mr. Bunn's papers, \\i\i hat dated March 23rd, 1870, or the very day the delegates left for Ottaw, jonal They had evidently been awaiting the completion of the list, and stark up an immediately thereafter. How could this list have been "super.seded" ar fof c^ the .substituted list still be presented at Ottawa by the delegates, who let diaap on the day the supposedly "superseded" one had been completed ? Wli ^now should it have been "superseded" by the Provisional Government, none of whose members did at any time express the slightest concern aboii facts separate schools i If an Powerful evidence (although not the most conclusive that will 1 for th produced) that the bill was not "superseded," is presented by the fact th;. obvio the Provisional Government on the day the delegates left, printed i; French, and circulated amongst the French speaking people a copy of tli in.structions given to the delegates, and of Bill of Rights No. 3, as the lis of the demands which were being made by the delegates on behalf of th Provisional Government and the people of the Northwest. Is it credibi that this body would have circulated as as official document, a list of right which had been "superseded," whilst saying not one word about tlv substitute ? Printed copies of the bill, published by the Riel governmeir are in existence, and are in possession of the Librarian of the Province o Manitoba, as is also the original document found amongst the papers u; Mr. Bunn. decep Q No wonder, indeed, that Mr. Begg (not ''aifhoiujh careful and trust worthy," but because "careful and trustworthy") gives list No. 3 as tli true one. But Mr. Ewart says he "may have been misled through not bavin: heard of a subsequent list." How could he have heard of a subsequent list, when no member of the public, or of any government or legi-slature it Manitoba, knew of the existence of such a list, till December 27th, 1889 when the late Archbishop Tache referred to it in a letter to the Free Prc:>- of Winnipeg. Mr. Ewart says : "the best and only direct evidence "•'■ * * is tin sworn testimony of Rev. Mr. Ritchot, etc.," Mr. Ritchot's part of this most mysterious episode, has 3'et to U explained. He must know a great deal more than he has ever told thi public, and he has some inexorable facts to confront, which, as we shall see, require a deal of explanation, and that from him. Mr. Ewart says that at the trial of Lepine, Rev. Mr. Ritchot produced list No. 4, and swoit it was the list given to him as a delegate. Now it is a very remarkable fact that the document which Mr Ritchot did produce at Lepine trial is not anywhere to be found. It is not on file with the papers in the case. It has been lost or stolen frcm tin records of the court. This is a most unfortunate, as well as mysterioii.< and suggestive circumstance. If the document which Father Ritchot and bUl Nortl Mr.E it to our r the n of th( or pi addui that prov( list I oomr covet exce Mr.: Bill "it if adop The A.ssi not if ai was for Imp lor Ko' my the circumstance that it was uf ; was. Mr. Ewa oblijration, by tl chools may saf'el unn's papers, wt s left for Ottawc list, and starU "superseded" an elegates, who Iw ompleted ? \\h ernment, none i st concern abou iive that will I by the fact th left, printed i pie a copy of tli No. 3, as the \\> on behalf of th t. Is it credib; it, a list of right word about tli R.iel governmeii! f the Province c [st the papers u i-eful and trust ist No. 3 as tli. iugh not havin. of a subsequoni or legislature ui uber 27th, 18SU o the Free Pros ■'• * * istlu has yet to U IS ever told tin ich, as we shall »lr. Ewart says ^o. 4, and swon ent which Mr 'und. It is not stolen frcm tin as mysterious ather Ritchot 29 produced at the trial could be produced now, it would afford a solution of the mystery. If it turned out to be Bill No. 4 ; if it were, like Bill No. 'A, in the handwi-iting of Mr. Bunn, Che secretary of the provisional govern- ment ; if it were signed by the president and Mr. Bunn ; then this very disagreeable and very disquieting mystery would bo unravelled. But if that document should have turned out to be Bill No 3; or, if Bill No. 4, if it had turned out not to be a document written or signed by the provis- ional government officers, but a mere copy which might have ueen made up anywhere, and at any time, it would have been very unplea.sant for certain parties. But that document is non est. Whitlier it has disappeared, and who or what was the cause of its disappearance, nobody knows, at least nobody who cares to tell. Mr. Ewart argues that no one could have any object in misstating the facts at the Lepine trial. This is an altogether too sweeping assumption. If any per.son had had any object in substituting a spurious Bill of Rights for that which the provisional government drew up, the same rea.son would obviously have existed at the time of Lepine's trial, for keeping up the deception. Mr. Ewart draws attention to the fact that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier submitted to Messrs. Ritchot and Black, a draft bill containing a clause regarding education, identical with the British North America Act clau.se, on which Mr. Ritchot made written comments. Mr. Ewart regards this as evidence "of very strong character." We consider it to be, on the contrary, extremely flimsy, and shall a little later furnish onr reasons for so thinking. When, and under what circumstances was the notation made by Rev. Mr. Ritchot? These particulars are obviously of the highest importance, yet Mr. Ewart throws no light upon the time or place. Equally flimsy is the "internal evidence" which Mr. Ewart adduces. The fact that paragraph 1 of list No. 4 demands a senate, and that a senate was granted, is quite frivolous, when used as an argument to {>rove that Bill of Rights no. 4 was that given to the delegates. Item 1 of ist No. 3 is more general in its terms, -'but all rights and i)rivileges common to the different provinces of the Dominion," might be presumed to cover this, as all the provinces in the Dominion then had, with the exception of Ontario, a senate or upper chamber. It is also argued by Mr. Ewart that the fact that the name of "Assiniboia," stated in item 1 of Bill 3. was not adopted is evidence that No. 4. was the true bill. He says "it is inconceivable that the Dominion should have deliberately refused to adopt the name 'Assiniboia' had it been asked." Why is it inconceivable ? The fact that another portion of the territories was subsequently called Assiniboia, instead of making it "inconceivable," why that name should not have been given to Manitoba, rather suggests a reason for the refusal, if any such refusal had been made. But there is no evidence that there Was any refusal at all, much less a "deliberate" refusal. The question was, lor reasons which we shall presently see, probably considered of no Importance by the delegates. If there was any general desire in Red River lor the name of "Assiniboia," the delegates certainly knew of its existence. Kow let us assume that Bill No. 4 was the basis of negotiations at Ottawa, ^hen the question of the name of the province came up, the delegates ■^Quld certainly state the feeling of the people on the point. In that case 30 the "inconceivable" must have happened, because, as we know, th province was not called Assiniboia but Manitoba. But Mr. Ewart's method of argument suggests that he had adopti the ethics of a certain much-abnseil order of his clients' church. He niib have known that there was a very easy explanation for any variations i regard to such triiling matters as the senate and the name of the proviiic He knew very well that the delegates had full authority to modify tli demands of the Bill of Rights in these respects, and that in such matter their discretion was absolute. In a letter of instructions, written by Mr. Bunn as secretary of statt of the provisional government, addressed to Judge Black, which was givci to the delegates with the Bill of Rights, on their departure for Ottawa, tli following passage occurs : "You will please observe that with regard to articles (in Bill o Rights) numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 7, 15, 19 and 20, you are left at liberty, i: concert with your fellow commissioners, to exercise your discretion, bu bear in mind that as you carry with you the full confidence of this peopk it is expected that in the exercise of this liberty, you will do your utmos to secure their rights and privileges, which have hitherto been ignoreii With reference to the remaining articles, I am directed to inform you tlia they are peremptory." Why Mr. Ewart left out this, whilst embodying in his book almos every other scrap of written matter, however unnecessary, we do no; understand. But these instructions make it quite clear that the arrange ments as to senate and change of name of the province were quite withir. the discretionary power of the delegates to modify, and they therefoi' destroy Mr. Ewart's argument on that line. In Bill No. 4, some of tlit articles which are left, in the letter of instructions, to the discretion of th. delegates, are made very specific, whilst in No. 3 they are more general ir. their terms. It is more in the line of probability, that matters which wert subject to modification would be stated in general terms, than that minute particularization would be given. In fact, instead of Mr Ewart's "internal evidence" provmg that Bill No. 4 was the basis of the Manitoba Act, it is calculated to suggest the .suspicion that Bill of Rights No. 4 was compiled after the Manitoba Act had been passed, and that the variations on Bill No. 3 had been made with the provisions of the Act in full view of the author of No. 4. Mr. Ewart says : "List No. 4 (paragraph 7) demands that the schools shall be separate, and clauses were inserted to that end in the Manitoba Act. List No, 3 says nothing about schools." Ul ci ill ci to P' ui *'No Provision for Separate Scliools in tlie nianitoba Act. If Mr. Ewart means by the somewhat equivocal expression, "clauses to that end," to say that separate schools are provided for in the Manitoba Act, all we can say is, that the most careful reader would fail to discover any such provision, as did the judges of the highest tribunal in the empire. The Manitoba Act, like the British North America Act, contains only one section relating to education. It will now be convenient to give these sections of both acts in parallel : , , . 31 i we know, tli t he had adoptt hurch. He muv any variations i e of the proviuc, y to modify tli t in such matter iecretary of state which was givei e for Ottawa, tli tides (in Bill o left at liberty, ii ir discretion, bu: !e of this peopli 1 do your utnios 'to been ignoreii inform you tlia his book almov iary, we do no: hat the arranoe ere quite withii: they therefor >• 4, some of tlit discretion of the more general ir. iters which wen srms, than that instead of Mr the basis of the it Bill of Rights ed, and that the ns of the Act in ;hat the schools n the Manitoba litoba Act. ssion, "clauses ] the Manitoba tail to discover in the empire. 1 tains only one to give these BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT. 93. In ami for each province the legisla- ture may t'xrlu.>iivi;ly make laws in relation to education, subject and accordinj^ lo the follovv- inj^ provisions : (1). Nothing in any such law shall prejudi- cially affect an) rijjht or privile^jc with resi)ect to denominational schools which any classes 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 A'oman Catholic subjects shall be and the same are hereby extend- ed to the dissentient schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec. (j). Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient 'schools exists by Unu at the union, or «f therefore established by the leg- islature of the province an appeal shall lie to the Ciovernor-Gcneral-in-Council from any act or decision of any provincial authority affect- int; any right or privilege of the I'rotestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education. (4). In case any such provincial law as from lime to time seems to the Governor- General-in-Council requisite for the due execu- tion of the provisions of this section is not mode, 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 so far only a.s the cir- cumstances of each case require, the Parlia- ment of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any decision of the Governor- General-in-Council under this section. MANITOBA ACT. 22. In and for the province the said legis- lature n>ay exclusively make laws in relation to education, s'jl)ject and according to the following prnvisitms . (I). Nothing in any such aw shall prejudi- cially ilfecl any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the prov- ince at the union. (2). An appeal shall lie to the Governor- General-in-Council from any act or decision of the legislature of the province, ot of any prov- incial authority, atlecting any right or privi- lege of the i'rotestant or Roman C^aiholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education. (.S). In case any .such provincial law as from lime to lime seems to the Govcrnor- General-in-Council reipiisite for the due execu- tion of the provisions 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 circum- stances of each case re(|uire, the I'arlian.ient of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor-General-in- Council under this section. It will be seen that the general provisions of the B. N. A. Act in regard to education are incorporated in the Manitoba Act. There is noth- ing in this which might not have readily been embodied in the Manitoba Act (which as far as it possibly could be made to do so, followed the gen- eral lines and employed the language of the B. N. A. Act) without any special stipulation on the part of the delegates. If it had been intended to adopt the extraordinary ])olicy of providing for a permanent system of separate schools, what more easy than to do so in express terms, as is done by sub-section 2 of section 93 of the B. N. A. Act, quoted above, in the case of Ontario and Quebec ? But while, despite Mr. Ewart's assertion to the contrary, no provision is made in the Manitoba Act for separate schools, as demanded by article 7 of Bill of Rights No. 4, the remarkable fact remains that the provision for the annual payment of - 3ugli has been of the contro- (\gal represen- ;liat even the )t have been a because, as we •oad and deep, uthenticity or of No. 4 is of IS, not on the Tis themselves I if they have led, and con- demonstrate, !se privileges, 3in is consist- 1 proof their igs, which, by )arate schools t of the Act : tlio effect of this, so far as the settlers are concerned, is that the offer of the settlers (taking the offer as a whole) is rejected by Canada, and Canada, by her Manitoba Act, makes a counter proposition, which counter proposition is accepted by the settlers. * •■ " * Whether, therefore, the settlers asked for separate schools, or the idea came from Canada, makes no difference as to the result. In either case the Manitoba Act was a treaty. With a vaivete which is amusing and almost astounding, Mr. Ewart goes on : " Whether list No. 4 is authentic or not, it is clear that it was the one used by the Rev. Mr. Ritchot ; that it was that gentleman who took the leading part in the negotiations, and that the idea of .separate .schools came from clause 7 of list No. 4. Canada thought at all events that separate schools had been demanded, acceded to that demand, and the provisional assembly agreed to it, as shall presently appear." The standards of political ethics and the doctrines of government in- volved in this line of argument, are obviously of the most extraordinary character. Let us analyse the meaning and consider the nature of this argument. Before doing so it may be well just here to draw attention to the dramatic or rather theatrical accessories whicli are employed to eke out a case, which is certaiidy in much need of all the extraneous aid which may be obtained. Mr. Ewart in his capacity as lawyer has professionally " bowed his head " and "felt the shame" which has been brought upon him by the perfidy of his whilom fellow-partisans, and his heretical co- religionists. For, strange as it may appear, Mr. Ewart is a I-'rotestant. He pathcitically and with inferential regret, assures the judges, '' in that faith was I born and nurtured." Now, it is exasperating to think that Mr. Ewart's super-sensitive and hy])er-con.scientious soul should have been so wrung by shame and anguish, (juite unnecessarily. The perfidy of the Protestants of Manitoba which has caused Mr. Ewart so much affliction (and incidentally brought him a fat ca.se) is entirely a creature of his per- fervid imagniation, which, by the way, seems to be of the most inestimable service to that gentleman, at these critical and trying junctures, when commonplace fact fails to afford comfort or support. Mr. Ewart has a whole chapter on " Pi'otestant promises" which on examination is fountl to have absolutely no bearing on the subject on which he is professedly writ- ing. There is absolutely no promise made by any body of Protestants or of Manitobans, or by any body with any authority to make promises on their behalf, which have been broken. The writer is inclined to thiidc that Mr. Ewart will not .serve the cause of his clients by offering wanton, unmerited and gratuitous insult to a large body of people whose desire is simply to do what is ab.solutely fair and just. Mr. Ewart indulges in much fine moral indignation at the spectacle of the meek and unfortunate Roman Catliolic ecclesiastics being ruthlessly deprived of their "vested right.-." by a dishonest and unscrupulous majority. But here we have hir.i, when lie is forced into an argument on the ethical origin of these " vested rights " taking the ground that it does jiot matter by what meaus these rights were originally acfjuired, " whether list No. 4 is authentic pr not it is the pne Vised by F'lther Ritchot." If it I 30 !|'l ' '. 1 i ? i p was not authentic, Father Ritchot must have perpetrated or been a party to a fraud both on the Ottawa and Red River people, wliich his dients now wish to take advantage of. Yet that makes no dift'ercnee. Etliicnl tests must not be applied in an enquiry as to the orio'in of the " vested rights." No matter how g-laringly and "how dangerously inconsistent and unfair these "rights" may be in themselves, or how they may have been acquired, their entire reasonableness and justice is to be assumed and from this starting point only, ethical tests may be applied in the discussion. The question now arises : How did it happen that these separate state schools were asked for, who wanted them, and who were benefited by their being granted ? It must be apparent to every reader, who has has followed the course of the recital, that the Red River settlers did not want them, and had apparently never thought of them, possibly had never heard of them, and certainly did not ask for th»m. It is also reasonably certain that the Canadian government would not go wantonly out of its way to suggest them. In looking for the source of this demand, we are compelled to turn our attention to that eccle.siastical organization, of which Father Ritchot is a priest. How interesting, indeed, it would be to know just when and under what circumstances the idea of a Bill of Rights No, 4 was first conceived. se VI a? First Manitoba Legislature. The Manitoba Act went into effect and Manitoba became a province of the Dominion on July 15, 1870. A legislature was elected, and in May, 1871 it passed an "Act to establish a system of education in the province." The provincial education act of 1871 provided for a system of separate schools. There were two superintendents of education and two sets of schools. The legislative grant was to be divided equally, and handed over to the respective boards. In a summary of the subsequent school legisla- tion of the province. Judge Dubuc .says : " The most notable change in the system was that the denominational distinction between the Catholics and Protestants became more and more pronounced under the different statutes afterwards passed." The law of 1871 operated with some unessential modifications, till 1890, when the now celebrated acts aboli.shing .separate .schools, were intro- duced by Mr. Martin, and pas.sed in tlie legi,slature by an overwhelming majority. Before going on to describe the cour.'^e of the litigation and the discus- sion which has resulted from the passage of these acts, it would be well to consider the nature of the doctrines, political and otherwise, involved in the contention of the separate .schools pa^t5^ It has been said by the separate schools counsel that the settlers made a proposition to Canada which Canada did not accept, but that Canada made a counter-proposition which was embodied in the Manitoba act. The act was accepted by the .settlers, and thereby became a treaty. Now, we have seen just what .sort of " treaty " the Manitoba act is, but we shall assume it to have been a treaty in the legitimate meaning of the term. The argument referred to has not been carried to its inevitable conclusion, which is that the Manitoba act being a treaty, it provisions are binding on Manitoba for all tinie. This is the clearly intended inference, 1 liocn a party ;Ii his clients CO. Ethical the " vested •nsistont and have been ed and horn eussion. ese separate re benefited 31', who has tiers did not had never t> reasonably y out of its )and, we are nization, of wouid be to 11 of Rights > a province nd in May, i province." of separate two sets of anded over ool legisla- i"ge in the tholics and nt statutes ations, till A'ere intro- rwhelrning 'he di.scus- he well to ivolved in ■lers made it Canada act. The Now, we ' we shall the term. >nclusion, n absorbing question was en tapis. First Step ill the Litigation. '''. u first movement in the Roman Catholic attack on the Manitok public school act of 1890 was in the shape of an application made to thi Manitoba courts by J. K. Barrett, a Roman Catholic taxpayer, to havi quas. 1 a jyidw of the city of Winnipeg, fixing a rate of taxation for thi support of tile public schools. This by-law had been enacted by th, Winnipeg city council, in terms of the new education laws which had just been passed by the legislature. Mr. Barret's application was based on the first sub-section of sectioii 22 of the Manitoba Act, which section, with its sub-section has already been given in these pages. He contended that Roman Catholics, hy virtue of the sub-section in question, were entitled to exemption froii: taxation for the support of any other than Roman Catholic schools, aiii that, therefore, the act which imposed on them taxation for the support of public schools was ullra vires of the provincial legislature, and const- quently ineffective. Justice Killaui, who lieard the application, dismissal the summons. He held that no right or privilege, which the Roiiiiin Catholics possessed at the time of the union had been prejudiced ui affected by the legislation in question. This judgment was appeakii against, but the full court of the province sustained Judge Killaiu- decision by a majority of 2 to I, the dis.senting judge, Mr. Justice Dubiu holding that the legislation was ^dtlu vircn. An appeal was carried by the Roman Catholic party to Ottawa where the judgment of the Manitoba court was reversed by tin unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. There is neither space nor motive here to reproduce the deliveranci- of the various Supreme Court judges, who rendered judgments, but :■ perusal of the judgments of at least two of the.se distinguished jurist- would be interesting as showing the etlect on the mind of le^'al training; in the direction of rendering it prone to seek for ingeniously intricate aii' complex solutions, for problems whose actual solution is very simple. \ n Catholics. Th, now well knowi ] out the inipoi the attitude uii' ed to consider tlu c hierarchy (for ii 1 system,) took u[ a methodical way s of the provinoo- f these province ration, and in eac! Roman hierarchy e attempts wert ictory after mucl :)ugh the inability )rtance, while tlii- : on the Manitola ation made to tlii taxpayer, to havi. f taxation for tlu 1 enacted by tin vs which had just section of section tion has already an Catholics, liy exemption froii; lolic schools, aii'i n for the support lature, and const- ication, dismis.scii liich the Rouiiiii en prejudiced oi it was appealed Judge Killaiii- r. Justice Dubiu party to Ottann reversed by tin the deliverance- udgmonts, but ;. tinguished jurist- of legal trainiiii; usly intricate aii'i ory simple. P 41 The province of Manitoba, in turn appealed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the case went to England, where it was argued at great length before the Judicial Committee of the Privy <:Council. This tribunal of last resort allowed the appeal, reversed the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and restored the jutlgment ; Jof the Manitoba Court, thereby atiiruiing the constitutionality and validity pf the Manitoba legislation, and declaring that this legislation had not Fected any rights which any person, or class of persons, had at the union if Manitoba with the Dominion. When it had become apparent, from the judgment of the Manitoba jlfull court, which upheld that of Mr. Justice Killam, declaring the School ^ct of 1890 intra vires, that there was a possibility, and even a ^probability, of the validity of the act being ultimately sustained, the 'Separate School party at once began to work on their next line of attack. lit will be seen that sub- section 2 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, gives ;ii right of appeal "to the Governor-in-Council against any act or decision ■of the legislature of the province or of any provincial authority affecting any right of privilege of the Protestant or ilouian Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education." In terms of this provision, a petition was gotten up, signed by Archbishop Tache and over 4,000 Roman Catholics, in which the grievances of the petitioners were set out, and which asked for a declaration from His Excellency in Council that the rights of the Catholic minority- had been prejudicially affected and also that provision be made for their relief. Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, decided that no appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council could be heard, till the Imperial Privy Council had given judgment in the Barrett case. As soon as the decision of the Imperial tribunal (which as we have seen, was unfavorable to the separate school party) was rendered, a second petition was presented to the Governor-Ceneral-in-Council, praying for relief. This second petition was x'cferred to a sub-committee of the Dom- inion cabinet. This body decided that, in so far as the petition asked the- the ',overnor-General-in-Council to declare that the act of ISiJO prejudici- ally effected rights and privileges held by the Catholic before the union, it could not be entertained, as the judicial committee had settled that point. With regard to the question as to whether the Governor-General-in- Council could hear the appeal, and in the event of his doing so, whether he ^/should do anything in the way of affording relief under tlie provisions of sub-sections 2 and 3 of .section 22 of the Manitoba Act, they thought this .should be further argued, and advised that a date be fixed for that purpose. The suggestion.s of the sub- committee were adopted, and the case was : argued on January 21st, lfSl)3, before the Canadian Privy Council (nearly every member of the cabinet being present) by Mr. Ewart for the Roman :Catholic petitioners. Manitoba was not re[)resented. After this argument the council decided, in order to clear up the un- ■ settled points of law, that the case should be referred to the supreme court. ;This reference was made under the provisions of an act passed in 1891, by .the Canadian parliament, the immediate object of which was to provide for the very contingency which had thus arisen. -ar- 42 Tlie (|UOstions referred were as follows : 1. Is the appeal referred to in the said iiieinorials and petitions aii.l asserted thereby, sueh an appeal as is a(h)iissible hy suh-sretion :'> of sec- tion !>:] of the I'ritish North America Act, KS»)T. or hy sul)-section 2 nf section '2-2 of the Manitoba Act, :;.•) Victoria (lcS70), chapter .'}, Canada ^ 2. Are the grounds set forth in the petitions and nuMnoria,ls such as may be the subject of appeal under the authority of the sub-sections above referred to, or e\ther of them :' 3. Docs the decision of the judicial conunittee of the Privy Council in the cases of Barrett vs. The City of Winnipei,', and Logan vs. The City of Winnipeg, dispose of, or conclude, the application for redress based on the contention that the rights of the Roman Catholic minority wlucli accrued to them, after the union, under the statutes of the province liavi' been interfered with by the statutes of 1S!)(), contplained of in the saiil petitions and memorials ! 4. Does sub-section 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1SG7, apply to Manitoba ^ 5. Has His Excellency the Covernor-General-in-Council power tn make the declarations or remedial orders which are asked for in the said memorials and petitions, assuming the material facts to be as stated there- in, or has His Excellency tlie ' Covernor-Ceneral-in-Council any other jurisdiction in the premises ! <;. Did the acts of Manitoba relating to education, passed prior to the session of 1S90, colder on or C(jntinue to the minority, a "right ori)rivilege in relation U) education," within the meaning of sub-section o of section !):) of the British NortVi America Act, LS(i7, if said section 9:) lie found to lie a[)plical)le to Manitoba ; and, if so, diinent of this distinu'uished tribunal in the J>aiTett case furnishes curiously interesting rt'adiug. But, even more curious are the judgments in this reference. It is exceedingly interesting to observe tlie Vf.'ry diilerent and very devious routes iiy which these learned judicial minds arrive at the same place. The decision ol' the supreme court was, then, that an appeal of the Roman Catholic minority to the (jovernor-Ueneral-iu-Council would not lie. Tho IiiiiH'i'ial l*riv> Coiiiu'ir.s Jiiiui'iit. The reference was then carrietl before the judicial conunittee of the Imperial Brivy Council. A very elaborate and exhaustive argument of the case was made froni both sides. The judicial conuinttee again reversed the decision of the Caiuidian Su[)renu' Court, theriiby declaring that an appeal of the Roman Ctitholic nunority to the (lovernor-(Jeneral-in-Council would lie Much misunderstandiu'j and much eontrovei-sy has arisen as to the scope arul meaning of this decision, an ot sc'c- HU I (-section 2 of Miioriiils such as b-soctioMs above Privy Coujicil an vs. The City •udi'os.s bused on iiinority whicli (■ province Jiave 1 of in the said ;h America Act, unci] power to for in the said IS stated tliere- icil any otlier ;cd prior to the ht uv privih'oe ■"> of section [)'■] lie found to be couiphiined of, rity in such a or-Gencral-in- 'cred all these " tlieniajorit}-, i-ibunal in the t, even more y interesting- which these ai)[)eal of the would not lie. iiiittee of the arounient of ;Hin reversed ■iii.i;' tliiit an il-in-Council ■'■n as to the tho interests of the Ituman Catholic hierarchy, it has a profound, and, to the non- partisan spectator, an even anuisin<^, influence on Canadian party politics. ji It is argued by the Separatist party that the last judifuieiit of the !TOvy Council is not only a declaration that the (Jovernor-C said that it is impossible for Ivomnii Catholics, or for iiiendjers of tlir Clunch of KnyUind (if lh(.'ir views ai'«.' correctly I'epresented by the IJi.^lio]! of Rupert's I^and, who has given evidence in the Logan case), to .send their children to public .schools, where the education is not .superintended anil liirected by the authorities of t'neir church, and that, therefore, KoiMau Catholics and members of the Church of England, who are taxed for publir schools, anil at the same time feel them.selves compelled to support their own schools, are in a less favorable position than ''hose wdio can taki' advantage i)f the free education provided by the ac 1islature, wh.ose jurisdiction is detineil l»y a statute which iiiipi-essively connimnces by say- intj that the le;j;islatur(i shall "exclusively make laws," beinn; reduced ; before the section is completed, t the "useful liut somewhat hundtle" '■functions of a nnuiicipal council, seems to have struck their Lordships as ' an e.\ceedin<,dy humorotis conception. I'hey were doul)tl(!ss also struck with the doctrine wdiich is o;ravely involved in the contentions of the .sej)- aratists, that the few simplij-minded natives of Red River in !>/"() had acipiired a rii,dit to Icf^dslate for the province of Manitoba for t. d time. And no wonder. The innate ])reposterousness and absurdity of the p .!iti- cal doctrines involved in the case of the separatists, taken in connection with the seriousness with which they are nr;;fed, is enoun'h to upset the gravity of even a more solemn body than their Jjordships, if any such exists. It may be and has been > liarn^ed, that the last judfiment of the Judicial Committee is inconsistent with tlieir first. Hut this chari^e is not borne out on comparision of the two judgments, and on a fair ami careful and common s(!nse reading of the latter one. While their Loi'ilshi|)s ilis- charge their functions of strictly construing the words of tlie statute, they do not leave any doubt as to the impression wdiich the statute itself created in their minds. They say : "It may bo said to be anomalous that such a restriction as that in question diould be imposdl on the free action of a legislature, but is it more anomalous than to grant to a minority who arc aggrieved by legislation, an a])peal from the legislative to the executive authority ? And yet this right is exi)ressly and beyond all doubt conferred." UntlouI)tedly their Lordships' astonishment hail good grounds, for there is probably no other case in all the records of parliamentary government, in which a legislative ))ody is prohibited from repealing its own acts, and in which valid and C(»istitutional legislation may beappi'alcd against to an executive authoi-ity. Moreover, we venture to assert that such a provision is contrary to the spirit and principle of government of the people by themselves. Whilst the whole text of the latter iudgment shows that their Lord- ships clearly defined their own function to be that of construing the words of the statute, and whilst they declare that the course to be pursued must be determined by the authorities to whom it has been connuitted by the statute, the last or rather the penultimate paragraph of their judgment is couched in language wdiich the Separatists contend give the judgment the effect of a mandate. This paragraph reails : "It is certainly not essential 48 that the statutes repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted, or that the precise provisions of these statutes should again be made law. The system of education embodied in the Acts of 1890, no doubt commends itself to, and adequately supplies the wants of the great majority of the inhabitants of the province. All legitimate grounds of complaint would be removed if that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, and were modified so far as might be necessary to give eftect to these provisions." Now, in the first place, it is as well to note that the "grievance" to which their Lordships refer is not a real or moral grievance, but merely a statutory one. Tlie only grievance that the Roman Catholics have consists in the fact that certain "rights and privileges" which were conferred upon them by a provincial statute, and which they alone enjoyed to the exclusion of all other sects and classes of the community, were withdrawn by the same authority which granted them, leaving them in a position of exact equality with all other classes. In the extract we have already given from their Lordship's first judgment, it is very conclusively sliovvn tliat in their Lordship's opinion the Roman Catholics have no real or mor£..i grievance on account of the operation of the laws of 1890. The expression " grievance," then, as used by their Lordships, is purely a le':;al-technical one. Now, it is rather difficult to conceive of provisions being made to remove a grievance resulting from legislation, unless that legislation should be repealed or something done which would have an equivalent effect. We confess that we are at a loss to reconcile the first with the last sentence of the paragraph just quoted. The possible explanation is that, as the grievance complained of is not a moral grievance, but merely a statutory one, it could be entirely removed by the repeal of the statutory provision on which it is based. The Judgiueiit not a ]IIaiidatc. The quoted paragraph of their Lordship's judgment could, we think, hardly be construed as a mandate. But even if it had mapped out some specific line of action, to be followed by the Governor-General-in-Council, it need not have been followed because the issuance of such directions was not involved in, or necessary to, a decision of the case before the Court. Mr. Dalton McCarthy deals with this point in his argument for the province before the Governor-Genoral-in-Council. He says : " Now, there is a well-known rule, that if a court of law goes beyond what is necessary for the decision of a case, tho decision is not binding ; it is what is called obiter. They have no more right to att'ect the interests or rights of parties by going beyond the question itself, than a mere stranger has. The court is limited in its decision, and this has a binding character only so Ion" as it is confined to the questions which were submitted." Judging by Mr. McCarthy's eminence as a lawyer, as also by the fact that his statement was not called in question, this seems to be sound law. Tiieir Lordships themselves defineil the scope of their inquiry to be as to whether an appeal to the Governor-General would lie. Anything in their judgment, t'.iere- fore, not bearing on the validity of the appeal would b^ an obiter dictum {^nd of non-effect, 49 The Fiiiictioiis of tlie €ioyernor-Oeneral-in-€«)iincil. The Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council have decided that the Roman Catholic minority oi' Manitoba have a right of appeal to the Governor-General-in-Couneil. tliat is all that tribunal has decided or could decide. The Govcrnor-General-in-Council is, in other words, the Dominion government, which holds its power by virtue of the support of a majority of the members of the Dominion or Federal parliament. It is, therefore, a political body, and in this matter is sitting in a political capa- city as explained by the judges of the privy council, and as admitted by the counsel for the Roman Catholics and by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the president of the council. Now, a judicial tribunal in hearing a case, is merely called upon to explain or construe the terms of a statute. Any decision of a judicial tribunal on the facts or merits must be in accordance with, and within the limitations imposed by the statute or statutes, which bear upon the question submitted to them. A political tribunal in a case like the present, is not bound by the terms of any statute. Considera- tions of public expediency and public well-being and sound policy must be taken into account by it, and all the broad and general ethical and politi- cal factors, must also be considered. Such a body may not, of course, take any step which would have the effect of contravening the provisions of any existing statute. But in discretionary matters such as the present, it is to be guided solely by the facts and circumstances, the right and wrong of the case, as these shall be ascertained, after careful and conscientious inves- tigation and discusssion. The statute which provides for the appeal, does not specify the course which the Governor-General-in-Council shall take after he has heard the appeal. It does not even indicate that he need do anything. His discre- tion is of the very widest. This was most clearly recognized not only by the judges of the Judicial Committee, but by the counsel of the Roman Catholics themselves. As we have already seen, the Lord Chancellor, addressing Mr. Blake, says ; * * * " then you say there is a case for the jurisdiction of the governor general and that is all we have to decide." To which Mr. Blake answers : "That is all your Lordships have to decide. What remedy he shall purpose to apply is quite a dirferent thing." Mr. Ewart, Mr. Blake's junior counsel in the case, says in the course of his argument : " Wo are not asking for any declaration as to the extent of the relief to be given by the governor general. We merely ask that it should be held that he has jurisdiction to hear our prayer, and to grant us some relief, if he thinks ^noper to do so." Yet, if we mistake not, Mr. Ewart is one of those who now publicly contend that the judgment of the Judicial Committee is of necessity a com- mand to the Canadian government and parliament to restore separate schools. Mr. Ewart again says in the same argument: "The power given of appeal to the government, and upon request of the governor, to the Legis- lature of Canada, seems to be wholly discretionary in both." We should think there could be very little doubt as to the discretion pf the Governor-Gener^-in-Council II sin-- aSm 50 The Remedial Order. The judgmenfc of the Iinpcvial Privy Council lias been iritfi-proted Kv the Govcrnor-General-in-C'ouncil a.s a iiiMiulate to him to (loiHaiid of tlu' Manitoba legislature the restoration of separate schools. If such were thi' correct intepretation it would seem to the ordinary observer that anytliin^; in the nature of a further trial would be somewhat of a farce. Yet tlu- Governor-General-in-Council evidently tliought that a further trial was necessary, and notified the parties that they would be hoard. A most elaborate argument was made, lasting four days On March 21, 1805, tlif Governor-General issued an order in council in which is reiterated, alm( st verbatim, the peculiar penultimate paragrapli of the judgment of the Imperial Privy Council, which we have quoted, and he declares " that it seems requisite that the system of education embodied in the two acts of 1890 aforesaid, shall be supplementiul by a pf^ "•^cial act or acts which will restore to the Roman Catholic minority the .d rights and privileges, of which such minority has been deprived as aforesaid." This is virtually an order by His Excellency in Council to the province, to reinstate separate schools, and go back to the conditions which existed prior to 1890. The Governor-in-Council has obviously not availed himself of his discretionary power. In the Remedial Order, the political or ethical factors which the Governor-in-Council was entitled, and bound in duty, to take into consideration, are not so nmch as alluded to. The very impor- tant question of the soundne.ss from an ethical, political or economic point of view, of the present system, is not considered by His Excellency in Council. Neither is the still more important consideration of the nature and bearing on the freedom of our political institutions, of sub-sections 2 and 3 of the Manitoba Act. The order is a mere recital of the statutory provisions, and an account of the proceedings in the litigation. The ju(l^- nient of the Imperial Privy Council, which is merely a declaration that tli ■ Roman Catholic minority have a right of appeal, has been interpreted by the Governor-in-Council, as a mandate to answer the appeal iu a certain way. It is to be hoped that the attention of parliament wlten the matter comes before it, may be specially directed to the following significant passage in the Remedial Order: "The Committee therefore recommcnl that the Provincial Legislature be requested to consider whether its action upon the decision of Your Excellency in Council should be permitted to Ik such, as while refusing to redress a grievance, which the highest court in the Empire has declared to exist, may compel parliament to give relief, ol which, under the constitution, the Provincial Legislature is the proper ami primary source, thereby, according to this view, permanently divestiie. itself in a very large measure of its authority, anl ;he proper auu ntly divestiii:. blishing in tli' nges may tak of the peopK ning, is a most nture with tli' jnipliance will' 1 Second Part -]o[- Progress and Incidents of the Controversy. ]o[ The answer of the government of Manitoba to the Remedial Order, wliich practically demanded the restoration of separate schools, was a sub- stantial refusal to comply with the demand. The answer was an able and well considered document. The language was clear, well chosen and moderate. The tone was expostulatory rather than defiant. It was in marked contrast, both in the matters of lucidity and of tone, to the prolix and peremptory communication of the Dominion authorities. The reply of the Maifitoba government pointed out that no change of a radical nature could, or need be made in the system of education established by the law of ]890, because, in the first place, that law was entirely within the consti- tutional powers of the legislature which had enacted it ; because it suited the economic conditions of the province ; because it replaced a system which was emphatically unsatisfactory in its results, and was based on an unsound principle. It also pointed out that the Dominion government was manifestly ignorant of certain essential, and of many minor, facts bearing on the case. It further suggested that, probably on account of the haste with which it had pushed the exercise of its remedial authority, the Dom- inion government had overlooked some very important considerations, duo cognisance of, and attention to which, were absolutely indispensable to a just and efficient discharge of its appellate duties. The Manitoba authorities therefore suggested that an enquiry into all the facts and merits of the case should be made by the Dominion govern- ment, and they offered their co-operation and assistance in such an enquiry. The reply of the Manitoba government was met by a rejoinder, in which the Ottawa government virtually ignored the .suggestion that an enquii*y be mad^. The rejoindei- was really an ultimatum, and it was accompanied by a declaration in parliament, that if Manitoba should not in the meantime remove the " grievances " of the " minority," or give .some tangible undertaking that such relief would be forthcoming at an early date, a session of parliament would be called for January '2nd, 1896, at which a bill would be introduced providing the relief. The reply of Mani- »;ba to the ultimatum did not alter the position of matters. Parliament met on January 2nd, 1896, but manj- weeks elapsed beforq the Remedial 53 irsy. ledial Order, 3, was a sub- vas an able 1 chosen and b. It was in to the prolix The reply of dical nature d by the law n the consti- luse it suited ed a system I based on an ernment was facts bearing ot" the haste ty, the Doni- erations, due pensable to u ^uiry into all nion govern- h an enquiry. rejoinder, in stion that an and it was a should noti or give some !^ at an early hu], 1896, at 3ply of Mani- Parliament the BQmedial Bill was introduced. The interval was consumed by probably the most discreditable exhibition of per,sonal squabbling and pettj' intrigue between the members of the Ottawa government, that has ever been seen in Canad- ian parliamentary history. In the meantime the government of Manitoba, in view of the menac- ing attitude of the Dominion authorities, and of the grave situation with which the province was confronted, had dissolved the legislature and gone to the people of the province, with this question as the issue of the election, which was held on January 15, 1890. The government expressed its determination, if returned, to make no compromise involving the restora- tion of tho separate school sj'stem, be the consequences what they might. The election resulted in an overwhelming victory for the government, and was an emphatic expression of the determination of the people of Manitoba to resist any and all encroachments on their rights. The Remedial Bill was a ponderous and awe-mspiring legisl j,i,\ve effort. It may be said, to some extent, to have been killed by its own weight. It containen of tins nature might have a good effect in reference to the judgment which the Privy Council will deliver within a few months." . This sui^'o-estion was made, lie it remembered, after the case hail been ari-ueii before their Luni.ships aiK 1 the evidence all submitted to them. 56 Now, those alleged facts, whicli the Bishop recited, if they had been true facts, would all have be.'ti brou<,'ht out in the evidence in the case, and the attention of their Lordships would have been drawn to them by the legal counsel for the Catholics in their argument. Why, under these circum- stances, was an intimation to the judges, through the Colonial Minister, coupled with the suggestion of the possible alienation of the hearts of the Catholics of Manitoba, thought to be necessary ? As a matter of fact, the recital of Bishop Gravel was a gross misrepresentation of the whole (juestion. His essential facts were wrong, and there was no such promise as he alludes to either on the part of Lord Carnarvon or Her Majesty the Queen. It is impossible to avoid the conviction that the real import of Bishop Gravel's suggestion is that the tlireatened estrangement of the Roman Catholic authorities, which would hardly be confined to the Province of Manitoba, and the political difficulties which would follow to the British Government from such estrangement, were to be used as a lever to influence the Judicial Committee to find some pretext to deprive the small and comparatively insignificant Province of Manitoba of those constitutional rights, which had been confirmed to it, by the previous judgment, as this course would, to use the language of the Bishop, be "more advantageous for the peace of the Empire." This incident, as may be imagined, created a profound sensation. It had somewhat the efiect of a vivid flash of lightning on a dark night. It exhibited things whose existence had not been dreamed of. It is impossi- ble to avoid the presumption that eftbrts wei ] made to influence the judgment of the privy council. It is equally impossible to believe that these efforts in any way determined the verdict of that tribunal. Principal Ijlrauf^K Letters. One of the most remarkable contributions to the literature of the con- trovers}', was a series of letters contributed to the Toronto Globe by Rev, G. M. Grant, I). D., principal ot Kingston University. These letters were worthy of serious attention, not so much on account of their intrinsic value, as of the prominence and recognized ability of the writer. The rev. principal did not do justice to his reputation in the contributions in ques- tion, which contained several grave errors as to fact, and some erroneous conclusions, evidently the result of haste, insufficient study, and not the best of good fortune in regard to the impartiality of the sources of his in- formation. It was quite apparent from the tone and argument of the later articles of his series, that if he had spent as many weeks in the prov- ince before commencing the series, as he bad spent days, the earlier parts would have been very difl'erent. Dr. Grant severely criticized the Dominion government for its Remedial Order and condemned its proposal to introduce remedial legisla- tion. But in his first letters he droi-ped into some very serious errors and misconceptions. His articles, are very largely occupied by a description of the schools, and of the qualit}' of the teaching. Much of this portion of his work is interesting, but it is nearly all ([iiite irrelevant to the question at issue. He admits that the teaching in the Catholic schools prior to 1890 was grossly inefficient. He thinks this was the difficulty which faced the .')( Manitoba legislature and to overcome which it enacted the law of 1890. He says : " The real problem then amounted to this : Seeing that one- tenth of the schools in the i)rovincc wore badly taught, liow shall we improve these ? " To persons who thoi-oughly understand the question, it is almost inconceivable that a man of Dr. Grant's experience and ability could be capable of making such a fundamental and colossal blunder as this. If the problem before the legislature hatl simply been the inefficiency of the Catholic schools. Dr. Grant's argument that legislation looking to the improvement of the teaching, and' not to the abolition of the syst'em, was what wa.s wanted, would be quite valid. As a matter of fact the inefficiency of the Catholic schools was merely an incident, and not the essential element in the situation which culminated in the now celebrated laws of 1890. Had these schools been efficient the necessity for that legislation would still have existed. Columns of dreary twaddle have been written from one side and the other on this merely incidental phase of the controversy, which, to our mind, can serve no purpose but to confuse and distract attention from the real issue, and to unneces.sarily engender or increase bitter feeling. It seemeil to us, indeed, that the only weak feature of the Manitoba government's reply to the remedial order, which was in other respects an exceptionally strong, concise and courteous document, was the prominence given to this matter of the inefficiency of the Catholic schools. The Real Problem. The " real problem " v»rhich confronted the Manitoba legislature in 1890, had two distinct but very important aspects. The province was then, and for that matter, is now, practically a new country. The settlement was sparse, and was scattered over a very large territory. The settlers who were coming into the country were of various nationalities, and spoke different languages. The intelligence and previous experience of some of these immigrants were not such as to fit them to exercise their rights as citizens of a self-governing community with advantage to them- selves or with safety to the state. For reasons which will be self-evident, it was urgently necessary in the interest of popular government, that facilities for the education of these heterogeneous elements, or their offspring, should be provided. The provision of this education was the real problem confronting the legislature, and it was seen that the only effective and economical, and indeed possible way to attain this end was the establishment of a uniform system of education under the pro- tection and supervision of the state. The other aspect of the "problem" was inseparably interwoven with that just described. Up till that time there had been in existence a double sy.stera of schools which had been instituted by the legislature of the province in 1871. The Roman Catholics had a system of schools supported by taxes and controlled by the clergy. All other sections of the community, under the comprehensive but very inappropriate and mis- leading designation of Protestant, used the other system, which was in reality a common school system. The legislature declared that this state 58 of matters involved discriminations and distinctions whicli were incompat- ible with, and ropuf^nant to, the principles underl.yini,' our i'orni of {Tovernment, and that it was entirely inconsistent with the doctrine of entire sejniration of church and state, which the lei,Mslature_ declared to be a sound doctrine. The le<,nslature also saw that the cost of educating the people under a double system would bo so great, under our conditions, as to render education simply impossible if the immigrants should be partly Catholic and partly non-Catholic. The " real problem" then, involved the most practical considerations as well as the most important principles. When Rev. Dr. Grant was in Winnipeg he preached a sermon, in which he emphasized the necessity, when erecting a structure, of laying the foundations broad and deep and sound. In facing its " problem " the Manitoba legislature proceeded on that principle. It was legi.slating for a community practically at the beginning of its existence. It determined to lay the foundations with such strength, solidity, and soundness of design, that future generations would not require to tear down the superstructure and do the work over again. It abolished all class privileges. It placed every sect and individual in the community in a position of absolute freedom and absolute equality, and that is the position in which they are to-day. It is to be steadily borne in mind that the " rights " which the separate school party claim, are privileges which never were, and never ccuid he, possessed by any other portion of the community. If the constitution of the province had been so framed as to debar the legislature from legislating as it did, that would only have shown that the constitution was defective and recjuired amendment. But the Imperial Privy Council declared that there was nothing in the constitution to prevent Manitoba legislating as she had done. Dr. Grant believes that the laying of a broad and sound foundation is a good theme for preaching. He has not, apparently, so much admiration for the process when it is applied in practice, for he has for some reason v/hich does not become apparent in his contributions, suggested that the dispute be settled by some sort of a compromi.se, the terms of which he does not indicate. It will be seen that the " }cal problem " was a much larger and wider question than that with which Principal Grant supposed the legislature had to deal. Not a Minor Question. In view of the trend of modern civilization, of the portentous ques- tions that are looming up on the social and political horizons, it is impera- tive that all self-governing communities, whose purpose it is to preserve their freedom and integrity, shall be composed of intelligent individuals. There is no duty to-day devolving upon a legislature or a government in a state such as ours, which demands more of its attention, or entails a weightier responsibility, than that of providing for the education — the development of the intellect, the judgment and the mf^al sense— of the future citizens. To do this effectively the best system and methods must be adopted, and all cumbrous appliances or faulty institutions, which oper- ate as obstructions to the attainment of the object, must be eliminated, 59 It has been the fashion atnonfjfst a fV^w pseudo-sagacious writers on this snliject. since the pul.lication ol" Dr. Grant's letters, to treat the wliolo matter in a spirit of conti;uiptuons disgust. The Manitoba school question has been referred to as a " wrutcht'd alt'air," a " petty squabble," over the proper way to educate a few hundri'd C'atliolic children, or, as one paper put it, the chihlren of a "handful of French half-breeds." It has been pointed out that the predominance of this "wretched question" as an i.ssue in the politics of the country is interferinrj with our material interests, which is undoubtedly the case. It is also argued that because the present Catholic population of ManitoVja is concentrated in one or two districts in which there is practi- cally no Protestant .settlement, the grantinsij of separate schools by <:ho province would not have any different result in future from that produced by the operation of the present sy.stem Now it will be found that nine-tenths of those persons and journals who treat the question as a " s(|uabble " and a " nuisance," are persons and journals who are parti.san supporters of the Dominion cfovernment. They feel that the position of Manitoba is sound and inprejinable, and that the course of the Dominion government is indefensible. They wish, therefore, to minimise the importance of the question as an i.ssue in the politics of the country. One Winnipeg journal has actually declared and reiterated, that the school question is dead and is not now an issue in the impemling elec- tion, and that whosoever .shall try to make it an issue is a bigot and a traitor to his country's interests. At the same time, the leaders of the party which it desires to assist, declare that, if returned to power, they will enact the coercive measure which they were unable to force through at the last session. As the author of the school laws of 1890 (Mr. Martin, M. P.) declared at a public reception recently given in his honour, in Win- nipeg, it would be very satisfactory indeed to know tliat the question was " dead." The people of Manitoba would wish for nothing more ardently. They are prepared to let it rest. But they know that the question will be an issue although they will not make it such. They are quite prepared to face the issue squarely, as they have done from the beginning. They are quite alive to the disturbing nature of the dispute on the material well- being of the community. But who is responsible for this ? Is it the people of Manitoba who have merely exerci.sed their declared constitutional rights, and who propose to resist any invasion of these rights ? Regarding the argument that, as the Roman Catholics of Manitoba are at })resent grouped gregariously in one or two districts, and that therefore the institution of slate aided separate schools would really make no difference, it may be said that it is characteristic of the class of opportunists which is' altogether too numerous, who.se highest and whose only governing principle is the expediency of the hour. Manitoba, it is to be remembered, is a very large, and at present a comparatively empty territory. Its population is little over 200,000. Its resources are capable of maintaining in a high degree of comfort at least two or three millions of people. In the more sparsely settled districts, population is wanted and it is to be hoped that every capable Roman Catholic who believes he can improve his condition by emigrating, will come to Manitoba. He will Certainly be welcome. He will tind that in no country in the world, doeg 60 a man's creed fi^mre less as a factor in his social and commercial relations, than in Manitoba. He will find that ho has every privilege which is enjoyed l>y any r)thor citizen, in ediicjition as in everything else. But Man- itoba docs not hold out, as an iiKhicemeiit to Catholics or to possible innnigrants of any otht/r sect, the pronnse or the po.sj^ibility of any special privileges or immunities based on sectarian distinctions. It will occur to the rejider that if, in the future; settlement of the province, tliere .should be a considerable proportion of Catholics who should distribute themselves over the whole provincial area, the existence of a .statutory provision for a dual system of schools, would, in .spite of the sagacious opportunism of those very " practical " persons who sneer at the idea of acting on principle instead of expediency, have a very practical effect on the educational interests of the province. We know the unchanging policy of the Roman Catholic church with regard to education, we know that as .soon as the settlement .should thicken, the country would be dotted by the little public school and the still littler .separate school, both conducted on a scale of impaired efficiency because of the scattering of the resources. All Manitobans who have studied this important question of education, know the difficulty, the cost, and the disheartenment involved in providing education in a new country, even in the more populous districts, and when the children of a district can all be educated together. The cost and the difficulty would obviously be hopelessly enhanced, if a dual system were made possible. In this controversy the opponents of Manitoba have frequently pointed to the Ontario School System, which it is frequently asserted, i.s the " best in the world," and under which a high degree of efficiency has been attained. Now the Ontario system is a dual one, and the object of the allusions to that system, is to show t'lat if Separate Schools are not actually conducive to a high standard of pablic education, they are at least not incompatible with it. This is analogo.is to arguing that because strong men frequently use tobacco, tobacco must be productive of strength or at least not destructive of it. Physiologic xl science, however, shows that tobacco not only does not produce strength, but diminishes or subtracts from th.e vital forces. The same result 'nay be found on an investigation of the operation of the Ontario sy.stem. Complaint may be heard in every direction of the heavy taxation which Is necessary to the .support of the scliools, and which is neces.sarily rendered more onerous because of the division of the energie"::. It is an undoubted fact, that in many districts in Ontario the cost of public education is increased and the efficiency d'min- ished, by the existence of the .separate school sy.stem. By into' ni-ent men in Ontario, regardless of partisan proclivities, the separ:'^ ' ,j system is not regarded as a good thing in itself, but simply as i and a drav back of which they cannot rid theuiselves. This is merely considering ti'e question in its ecuiiMinic a'-pect, and from the most .sordid and material point of view. \'iewed from he higher ground of .sound political doctrine, the separate school .system is still more objectionable. There is another very important reason why Manitoba should resist a Vimtrance the establishment of the separate school .system in the prov- ince. Manitoba, whilst it covers a large area, is very small when compared with the vast donmin known as the Nortli West 'l\'rrltories, wliicli linvc not yet been suh-divided into autonomous provinces, luid in wliit-h tlit; population is still sparse. Now this i,'rcat land came into the CJana.lian confederation at the same time, and, it will piobihly he aruued, under the same conditions, as the province of Manitoba. If, theret'i^tre, there is an obligation on iManitoba to tolerate .state-aided separate schools, that obliga- tion would be upon all the provinces which shall be in the futurt! carved out of the Territories. This consiileration greatly emphasizes the duty which confronts tlu; people of Manitoba, of uiaintaining the rights and the liberties of the province in this matter. Perversions of the Second Judgment. It has been the habit of all the supporters of the Dominion govern- ment in its "remedial" policy, to make constant reference to the la.st judgment of the privy council, which, according to them, declares that the "minority" has a "grievance" which the government was b()und to redress, and even Principal (Jivmt has been led into misconception on this point. In one of the letters of his .series he states that Manitoba "is morally bound to take action which shall meet the spirit of the last juilg- nient of the Privy council." This obviously implies that there is some- thing in the judgment of the Privy Council, which indicates that Manitoba has exceeded her powers, has dealt unjustly or harshly with the "minority," and is under an obligation of either a legal or moral nature, or of both a legal and moral nature, to do something which the principal does not specify, but which, if his inference as to the import of the Privy Council's judgment is correct, can be nothing le.ss than the restoration of separate schools. Now to understand the effect of that last judgment of the Privy Council it would be well to recall bric^Hy what was before the judges. The circumstances and conditions under which this reference was made, as well as a statement of the (juestions referretl, have already been fully given in the first portion of this review. The question before their Lordships was, as we see, not as to whether there was a grievance, but as to whether, in view of tlie facts stated in the petition, the ca.se was one which came within the [scope of sub-section 22, and in which an appeal to the Governor-(Jeneral-in-Council would lie. It is to be clearly ol)served that an appeal under this " anomalous " sub- •section might be allowable, whilst no grievance existed. In fact, having in our minds the description given by their Lordships of the limitations of their functions in the case, and their opinion of the provisions which they were called upon to interpret, we can see that tliey nnght (juite l(;gically have decided that the appeal would lie, whilst at the same time e::pre.s,sly stating that there was no grievance. This is actually what they have done, if their first and second judirments be considered together. It should be carefully observed that the" second judgment does not reverse, nor in any way modify, the first one. The question.s before the tribunal on the difi'er- enfc occasions had no relation nor connection with each other. But, as has been observed, the Judicial Conmiittee in using the word "grievance," simply employed it to descrilie, in an entirely technical way, the ground of appeal in much the same way as the term " complaint " is used in the same connection. 62 Enough has already been said to show that there is nothing, and frnt there could be notl.ing, in either the letter or the "spirit" of their Lordships' second judicnient, upon which " Manitoba is morally bound to take action." If so, wliat is it ? Their Lordships have clearly shown in their first judgment, that the Manitoba laws of 1890 are fair and just, and well adapted to the requirements of the country. They decide, moreover, that in enacting these laws the legislature of the province acted strict' \ within the Constitution. In their second judgment they declare that by the strict construction of a sub-section of the Manitoba Act, which ihey very app.opriately describe as "anomalous"' the Roman Catholics have a right of appeal to the Governor-Gcneral-in-Council, against ine legislation which their Lordships, be it observed, have declared to be just, wise and constitutional. There is tlie substance of both judgments in a few words. Where is the "grievance" and what is Manitoba called upon to do 1 The Controversy in Parliament. Mr. Fo8t<^r^s E\|M>.sltioii of the Keincdinl Policy. It is very interesing, and also amusing, to study the shifts and changes of base and attitude, to which the supporters of the coercion policy are forced in their efforts to give to their course an air of seriousness and consistency. The 2ii^<^ce de resistance in the parliamentary defence of the Remedial Bill, was the speech of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster. This oration was evidently considered to be a very telling contribution to the discussion ; for it was issued as a pamphlet, copies of which were sent by those Manitoba members who had voted against the interests and the wishes of Manitoba, to many of their constituents. Goethe, the great German jioet, (xprossed in poetic langjage, his desire for tlio gift of seeing things as they are. On reailing Mr. Foster's speech, one might be impiessed with tiie conviction that the deepest yearn- ing of the Canadian politician is for the gift of making things appear as he would like them to be There was nothing particularly original in Mr. Foster's deliverance. It was aptly described by a subsequent speaker as "a scrap book speech." Yet the collection of the matter evinces much industr}', and the arrangement is certainlj' deft. The speech is calculated to create in t!ie mind of the critical and deliberate observer, the impression that Mr. Foster is quite aware that he is not expounding the reasons and explaining the facts which determined the policy of coercion, but that he is making reasons and arguments to fit his conclusions. Mr. Foster thinks this vexed (piestion is not intrinsically a complex one, and tiiat " tiie importance wiiich attaches to it at the present time is due rather to the complication with it of side issues." With this the 63 writer heartily agrees, and lias already hinted at some of the " side issues." a reference to which, coming from Mr. Foster, seems rather surprising, and must surely have been inadvertent. Separate Hcliools a ** Friiiiiple of i Oiif'ederatioii/* Mr. Foster says this is not a question of Provincial rights, with which contention the writer emphatically ilLsagrees. Nor is the question one of separate schools. This proposition is absurd. The time foi' the discussion of the desirability or the undesirability of separate schools, says Mr. Foster, has long gone past. " The principle of separate schools was settled once for all ■=* * -^ by the fathers of Confederation, and embodie.i in the constitution itself." So says iMr. Foster. He did not, in the course of his speech, divulge the source of this exclusive and surprising intelligence, nor did he succeed in showing that it was accurate. Let us consider. If the separate school .systen) was a " principle of Confederation," it would apply to all the provinces except in cases where sfiecitic exemption was made. Now there is no record in the Confederation Act, or an} other act, of the exemption of any province from the operation of this suppo.sed " principle." Yet, as a matter of fact, separate .schools do not exist m any province to-da}', except in Ontario and Quebec, and we shall deal presently with the reasons for their existence in these provinces. Now if separate .schools is a "priii'iiple of Confederation" how is it that out of the seven provinces the .system is in operation in only two <* In the earlier part of this review, we referred to the cases of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, both of which provinces were compelled to undertake, a struggle, similar to that in wluch we are now engaged, before they obtained their educational enfranchisement. In this comiection, it is a remarkable fact, that the present leailer of the Ottawa government, Sir Charles Tupper, who now seeks to overi'ide the scho(;l law of Manitoba, was the author, or piiiiuli-al promoter, of a substantially identical law in the province of Nova Scotia, which was enacted under practically similar conditions. How about the "principle of C'onfederation," the "constitu- tion," the "solemn compacts" and the other stage "properties," in view of tl;e position of these provinces ! Mr. Foster says : "We ought to come down to the di.scussion and settlement of this question as it arises under the constitution, and as it affects the rights of minorities which were legislated lor under that constitution. It seems to me, Sir, that tliere aro but three points of view from which it would be possible t(i discuss a question of this kind. One is to take up the ipiesticu dc iioro, and I thinl: we are precluded from doi .g that, because it was discussed before, and as a result of that iliscussion it h.vs been endiodied in two compacts which now have force in this country, the Confederation compact and the Manitoba compact. Or we could taki^ it up as a (piestion which has come to us under a constitution whicli is binding, but in which ('onstitution this is an unwise provisio:i. If we look upon it in that light, it seems to me that we t)ught not to ileprive a minority of its lights under that constitu- tion, which is bindin-, because we think one of its provisions is unwise ; but we should go to the constitution itself, and discuss and settb; the question as to whether it is better, m the light of thirty years experience 64 that has been shed upon it, that the constitution should be revised. The third point of view, and which seems to me to be the only practical point of view, is to discuss it in the li<::fht of a clause in the constitution which is binding, and which, taking all the circumstances of this country into account, is not only binding, but is a wise provision of the constitution as well." Well, we shall take the " constitution," for which Mr. Foster professes such veneration, and shall endeavor to ascertain what the duty of Mr. Foster was, in view of its provisions. Mr. Foster says : "There is a compact in the 'Constitution of Confed- eration'; thero is a second compact in the 'Constitution of Manitoba." The tirst of these statements is true in a limited sense ; the second is not true in any sense. Mr. Foster goes on : " It is an idea which has gained currency in the country, that for these compact clauses in the constitution, and for the protection of minority schools in this country the Catholics were Role movers, and are responsible for their introduction into this constitution." He proceeds to explain that on the contrary these compacts and the separate schools were the I'csult of the fears and jealousies of the Protestants of Quebec. Now, it will be interesting to go back and ascertain how the separate school system originated. Origin of the Separate Scliool System in Canada. In the old colony of Lower Canada (Quebec), education was entirely in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy, who collected their educational dues as well as their tithes, under the authority of the law. No other state-supported or state-recognized system of schools existed in Quebec. Public education in that colony was as exclusively sectarian as in Spain. In lcS40 the colony of Lower Canada was united to that of Upper Canada (Ontario), by tlie Union Act of that year. For years after this union the non-Catholics of Quebec had agitated for educational freedom without success. They finally succeeded in establishing and obtaining recognition for a system of separate or dissentient schools. The restrictions and limitations under which this separate system was placed rendered the privilege one of very doubtful value. In KS(i3 the freedom extended to these schools was greatly enlarged. The reason for this was that, in that year the parliament of United Canada enacted the Separate School Act, for Upper Canada, which extended to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada the right to state-aided separate schools. It is a well known fact that this Act, which was the origin of the Ontario separate school .system, was forced upon Upper Canada by the preponderating votes and influence of the Catholic members from French or Lower Canada. Upper Canada would never have permitted the recognition of the dangerous and baneful separate school principle, but for the fact that she was powerless to prevent it. 65 No Parallel Between the IN»sitioii of the Quebec and the niauitoha Miuorities. It has beon -.aid thf.t if the Catholics of Upper Canada had been granted special reeoornidon, the "Protestants" of Lower Canada would never have been allowed to continue their so-called separate schools. But this is an entirely erroneous conception. There is no parallel or similarity, as we shall see, between the grounds on which dissentient schools maybe demanded by the Protestants of Quebec, and tho.se upon which separate schools are claimed on behalf of the Roman C^atholics ol Ontario. It may now begin to strike the reader, that the great radical fallacy, which has run through, and influenced all the controversies on this subject had its origin in this legislation of ]8G3. It originated through the con- fusion and misapplication of terms, and the acceptance of false postulates. We have heard a great deal about the Catholic and " Protestant " minori- ties. Now it is to be observed that the majority of the population of Quebec was and is Roman Catholic. That is to say the majority is in educational matters a sectarian body. For a long time this sectarian ma- jority compelled the "Protestant" minority, to contribute to .schools con- trolled by their clergy, and in which their catechism and dogmas formed a considerable portion of the curriculum. Even at the present day, the "Protestant" population of Quebec is taxed to some extent for the support of the so-called public schools, which yo in reality sectarian schools of the most pronounced type. What is the "Protestant" minority in Quebec ? Is it a sectarian body ? Is the teaching in the so-called "Protestant .separate schools" of Quebec, marked by anything of u sectarian character ? Assured- ly not. The "Protestant" population of Quebec comprises all the people of every religi us sect and denomination, as well as those who have no religi- ous beliefs a all, except Roman Catholics. No distinctive religious exercises are engaged in at the Quebec so-called separate schools, and these schools might be attended with us little otlence to his denominational sus- ceptibilities, by a Roman Catholic as by a Methodist, an Anglican or a Baptist. The assumption then, that there is any equal basis of comparison between the position of Ueuum Catholics and that of "Protestants" is a false one. The term "Protestant^ a misleading one. It is, in these con- troversies, used to convey the idea of tlistinctiveness of creed, whereas it is really a general term embracing the people of all .sects au Quebec enjoy the same privileges which the Roman Catholic "minority" enjoys in Manitoba under the present system. A Voice from Quebec. One of the ablest and most exhaustive contributions to this phase of the controversy, was an editorial article which appeared about the middle of March, 1896, in the Gleaner, a newspaper of Huntingdon, Quebec. The article was written by Mr. Robert Sellar, the editor. Mr. Sellar points out that the Quebec ininority schools are not " Separate " Schools in the sense in which that term is ordinarily applied, but that those of the major- ity are. He shows that the Quebec minority did not owe their limited educational liberty in the earlier times, to the generosity or magnanimity of the Catholic majority, but to Lord Dalliousie, a British administrator. He shows that, .so far from the Quebec minority having been dealt with in a spirit of generosit}'' by the majority, the reverse is the case, and he further shows that at the present time the minority is harassed, and the usefulness of their .school system much impaired, by the personal composi- tion of the Board of Instruction, and the rasping regulations which the majority impo.se3 on them. Mr. Sellar has very pronounced views as to the motives which actuate the " remedial " politicians in their apotheosis of the magnanimity of the Catholic majority of Quebec. It is a matter for regret that the full text of Mr. Sellar's article cannot be given. One or two extracts will however, be interesting. In one passage Mr. Sellar observes, " But from the talk at Ottawa, it seems it is a wonderful instance "of toleration to allow the Quebec minority to teach their children the "three R's, and slavish adulation is sounded in praise of the majority for "such a gracious condescension. We confess when we read the speech of "Sir MacKenzie Bowell in the. Senate last April, and the Hon. Mr. Baker's "in the Commons last July; when we noted the expressions in Mr. Foster's " Ontario election addres.ses, in J. L. Hughes manifesto to the Orangemen, 'in Sir Charles Tupper's speeches and this later utterance of Mr. Ives, we ' luive been staggered, and loroed to ask if Quebec is a British Province or "a South American Republic, that non-Catholics are required to be devout- "ly thankful that they are permitted by the majority to give their " children the elements of education >. Quebec is a British Province, and the " minority are not here by perndssion or toleiance of the majority. They "are here as equals among eijuals, jnd in exercising so .simple a right as "teaching their children in non->,<.cia;ian schools, they thank nobody, ask " no permission and are under no obligation to the majority." Again Mr. i C8 Sellar says : " The effrontory of the Quebec majority in claiming credit "for not compelling the minority to support Catholic schools, is onlj' sur- " passed by their impudence in demanding, as an equivalent for such an "exhibition of tolerance on their part, that Manitoba furnish funds to " establish Catholic Separate Schools. Matters have surely come to a sore " pass when, in a British Province, the fact that non-srctarian schools are " permitted to exist, is trumpeted forth as a proof of toleration, and low " indeed have sunk our public men, when they preach the cry in order to " curry favor with those upon whom they fawn." It will be observed that Mr. Sellar is not lost in wonder, love and praise, in contemplation of the performances of the politicians. Who shall say, however, that his strictures are not well merited, and even moderate ? Mr. Sellar is indignant at the colossal absurdity and dishonesty in- volved in the attempt of the remedialists to establish a parallel between the case of the Quel)ec minority and that of the Manitoba " minority." In this connection he remarks : " To talk about the majority in Quebec " having the power to force upon the minority obnoxious text books, or to "shut the school houses, and leave none but scparat schools eflBcient is " absurd. The right of toleration depends neither on th : act of Confedera- " tion nor the Federal Government ; it is the inhere b right of every " British subject. To endeavour to induce parliament to pass the remedial "bill, by representing that the Quebec minority is in the same boat with *' the Manitoba half-breeds, is as contrary to fact as the statement that the " privileges of the Quebec minority are those that bill professes to confer " upon the Manitoba minority." Various Coiitrovei'sial Styles. None of the advocates of the separate school system, so far as we are aware, have conducted this controversy in a spirit of perfect openness or of scientific enquiry, with a view to arriving at sound conclusions, regardless of what the eft'ect might be on their own preconceived theories, prejudices or beliefs. Some of tlicse advocates (a great many of them indeed) rushed into the question with an imperfect knowledge of the facts and some very crude notions as to what were the issues or principles involved. This stamp of controversialist is doubtless quite honest, but he has been an un- speakable weariness. Then there is the political party controversialist, of which Mr. Foster is a type, whose chief concern is manifestly to make the facts and merits of the question square with the exigencies of the party policy. Again, there is the forensic advocate, who cannot overcome his professional in?tincts in literary controversy. The ethics of the legal pro- fession do not make it obligatory on a member of that profession arguing before the courts, to draw attention to evidence he may know to exist, but which, if cited in the case, would make the success of his clients impossible. The forensic advocate should understaml that the ethics which may, for obvious reasons, be quite pc 'nissible in the courts, are most improper in the sphere of public controvtrsy. When lawyers go into literary discus- sion, tliey should endeavor to, as far as po-ssible, abandon the methods and style of the visi priua pleader. To the mind of the writer, the best and the most honest defence of the separate school party's claims that has yet been made, was presented by Mr. James Fisher, of Winnipeg. Mr. Fisher is a lawyer and has the distinction of being the only member of the present Manitoba legislature, representing an English constituency, who was not pledged to support the maintenance of the present school law. Mr. Fisher's contribution was in the form of a series of long letters to the press. Owing to a certain pro- lixity of style, to the length of his communications, and partly to the repu- tation for extreme exhaustiveuess and elaboration, which Mr. Fisher had already achieved, his articles did not receive the attention which their merit would have warranted, and which was accorded to many inferior utterances. There is the best evidence, however, in Mr. Foster's speech that Mr. Fisher's brochure had had at least one very close student. The Compact of Confederation. Mr. Fisher recited, with great minuteness of detail, the circumstances connected with the "compact in the constitution of confederation," to which Mr. Foster alludes. The "Protestants" of Quebec refused their assent to confederation, till the limited educational rights which they then enjoyed, as well as certain others which were promised them, were so firmly and unmistakably secured, that they would be beyond reach of interference by the provincial legislature which should, after confederation, be paramount in matters of provincial concern. Sir Alexander Gait, the leader of the Quebec Protestants, was quite right in the stand which he then took. Doubtless, experience in Quebec had taught him that even the natural rights and liberties of a citizen of a self-governing community, are far from secure, if they are left at the mercy of a legislature in which the rep- resentation of one religious sect preponderates, and which is virtually con- trolled by the clergy of that sect. Referring to the additional educational freedom for the security of which Sir Alexander Gait was contending on behalf of the " Protestants," Mr. Foster says : "There were only two ways by which these additional powers could be got : either by legislation in the Parliament of United Canada before confederation came into operation, under which state of things they would have been secured by the general clause I have just read ; or else by placing another clause in the constitution, so that when they got those rights after confederation they would have them secured to them by the dominant power of confederation, acting through the Federal Parliament. This was a question brought up, as 1 have said, by the Hon. Mr. Gait. And how was it settled in the end ( It was attempted to be settled by legis- lation in the provincial parli.vment which was promised in 1865, but which was not brought down ; which was brought down in 1866, but which, owing to complications which arose, was not passed ; which it was then promised by Sir George Cartier and other French leaders would be enacted by the Quebec legislature after confederation had gone into force. On the strength of that promise, evincing again the good faith which existed between parties at that time as regards promises made one to the other, on the good faith of that promise for efficient and full legislation for the Protestant minority confederation was accepted, and a clause was 70 placed in the constitution which should make this post-union legislation secure for all time to come. This clause which was proposed by Mr. Oalt and unanimously agreed to hy the other delef]ffites reads as follows ; — "And in any province where a system of separate or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the local legislature may hereafter adopt a system of separate schools, an appeal shall be made to the Governor-in-Council of the general government from the acts and decisions of the local authorities which maj'- affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education. And the general parliament shall have power by the last resort to legislate on the subject." It will be observed that the first sentence of Sir Alexander Gait's clause is substantially sub-section 3 of section 93, B. N. A. Act, and that the latter sentence is a suggestion of sub-section 4. It will also be remembered that sub-section 2 of that section provides for the maintenance of the separate .school privileges enjoyed by the Catholics in Ontario and by the Protestants in Quebec prior to confederation. Section 3, therefore, embodies the "compact." It is quite clear, as Mr. Foster shows, that the sub-sections referring to separate schools were inserted because of the desire of the Quebec Protestants to have the security of certain rights guaranteed. A recital of the circumstances shows that the "compact" had reference to certain especial circumstances and tran.sactions, which concerned only the province of Quebec. How, then, does Mr Foster arrive at his conclus- ion that the separate schools are a " principle of confederation ? " At one time he asserts that separate schools are a ' principle of confederation " ; then when desirous to display the magnanimity of the majority of the voters of Quebec, he shows that the separate school "compact" was not a " principle of confederation," but simply a provision expressly stipulated for by the Protestants of Quebec, not as a " principle," but for the specific purpose of meeting the peculiarities of their own case, by which they secured certain guaranties, M'ithout the assurance jf which they would not accept confederation. The concession of sectarian privileges and exemptions to the Roman Catholics of Ontario, in return for the recognition, in the case of the Prot- estants of Quebec, of the rights natural to, and inalienable from citizens of a free community, was a grievous error. Under the circumstances, how- ever, it was impossible for the people of Ontario to prevent it, as, in the legislature of united Canada, in which the vicious .system originated, the overwhelming votes and influence of the Quebec Catholics actually decided the matter. The earlier history of the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, the circumstances of confederation, and the fact that in none of the other provinces of confederation do separate schools exist to-day, show that sep- arate schools, so far from being a "principle of confederation," were simply the result of a bargain between Upper and Lower Canada. An Argument with a Missing Linlt. The entire and glaring absence of parallel between the demands of the {loman Catholic "minorities" in the other provinces, and the claims of the 71 "Protestant" minority in Quebec, has always been the cause of much un- easiness to the separate school advocates, and the defenders of "remedial" higislation. Mr. Foster deals vvitli tin; diHicuity in tlie manner character- istic of the opportunist politician. He takes it for f,M-aiited in the first place, that the terms "Catholic" and 'Protestant" represent two sectarian divisions of the people, and that the positions of each of the bodies is identical ; then he says that it is now too late to raise the question as to whether the assumption is wrong, as it was settled at confederation. His reasoning is worse than trivial. Mr. Fisher, his constitutional mentor however, seems to have felt under obligation to meet the difficulty in a more straightforward manner. Mr. Fisher says : " I repeat that the most prominent opponents of federal intervention in the present issue would be the first to demand intervention under exactly the like circumstances for the protection of the Protestants of Quebec. And for their justification in taking these two apparently irreconcilable positions they give reasons which ar'3 not only satisfactory to themselves but are exceedingly plausible. " I have already hinted at the distinction they draw between the case of the one minority and that of the other. The system of the majority in Manitoba, as stated by the law that creates it, is a purely non-denomina- tional one, and for the purpose of this discussion I will concede tliat it is so. The system of the majority in Quebec, on the contrary, is avowedly one of Roman Catholic schools. To compel the Roman Catholics of Manitoba to sulimit to a system that is in no sense denominational, is one thing. To force upon the Protestant minority of Quebec a purely Roman Catholic system — to compel them to educate their children in, and to pay their taxes to, schools, that are under the control of a Roman Catholic body is altogether another thing. So argue the opponents of intervention in Manitoba, who would justify remedial legislation in the province of Quebec. To them it seems plain that the abolition of separate schools in Manitoba whei-e the minority can send their children to an undenomina- tional school with the protection of a conscience clause cannot be regarded as a grievance comparable with the wrong inflicted on the Protestants of Quebec, if forced to submit to a system that would be practically under Catholic control. Looking at the question from a Protestant stand-point, it seems impossible to deny that there is real distinction between the two cases, in the extent at all events of the grievance. For myself I quite concede the distinction. " Does it follow, however, that the constitution which was created for the protection of Catholics, equally with Protestants, shall be made effec- tive for the protection of the latter, while it shall be a dead letter in safe- guarding the rights of the former ? To mo it seems that the conditions affecting the Protestants of Quebec, renderii , their dependence upon the French Catholic legislature of the province so peculiarly irksome and alarming as to demand protection by the federal powers, are in themselves the very circumstances that demand the most faithful extension to Roman Catholics of the same protection." Mr Fisher perceives the absence of analogy between the cases. But he evidently has failed to fully grasp the real source of the trouble, which prises i'vom the division, in the educational laws, of the population into two n sections, the division being based on Uic hypothesis that the circumstances iJi the case of each section are the same. The hypotliesis is as we have seen a false one. The "rights" of the Catholics, as of each other sect in the IVovince, are safe-guarded by the Manitoba laws of l.S'JO. But Catholics are not ac- corded special rt-cognition or privileges as a " minority," tiie Province of Manitoba not seeing the wisdom of arbitrarily selecting any sect or class of the community as a " minority." Such a proceeding it believes to bo not only unfair but absurd. All are placed on an equal tooting. The Protest- ant minority of Quebec would otter no objection, but would be highly grat- ified, if the Quebec Legi.slature should pass an act such as the Manitoba Law of 18{)(), although no sect of the Protestant minority would obtain any sectarian advantage by the passage of such an act. There is absolute- ly no parallel between the cases, and the reasoning in support of this contention is not only "exceedingly plausible " as Mr. Fisher admits, but it is simply unanswerable,, as Mr. Fisher also tacitly admits when he says : "I quite concede the distinction." The last paragraph of the above extract, it will be observed, is quite incompatible with the preceding por- tion. The fact of the Constitution being " created for tlie protection of Catholics equally with Prote.stants " has no relevancy as, from Mr. Fisher's own showing, the 1890 laws of Manitoba, inflict no injustice again.st which the Catholics require " protection." But a most positive injustice would exist if the legislature of Quebec imposed a sectarian, clerically controlled system of schools, on the " Protestants " of that Province. Moreover the constitution, according to the best constitutional authority, (the Privy Council), has not been violated by the Manitoba laws. Mr. Fisher should read the first judgment again. It is not, as Mr. Fisher would seem to suggest, a question as to the relative degree of injustice in the two cases. In the one there is no injustice whatever. In the other the grievance would be very pronounced. Mr. Fisher, it will be observed, here falls into the same error as his partner, Mr. Ewart. He confuses the ethical with the legal. He practically admits that, ethically considered, there is nothing object- ionable in the Manitoba laws. Had there not existed legislation conferring special privileges on Catholics, Mr. Fisher would not have deemed the present law unjust. Now let this fact be clearly perceived, for there is much confusion on the point. The law is admitted, even by the advocates of separate schools to be intrinsically just, and it is only the fact that it fails to recognize, and in fact abolishes previou.sly existing privi- leges, which has elicited criticism and hostility. Now if these privileges should turn out to be discriminatory and unsound in principle, no griev- ance in a moral sense would be involved in their removal. We have already .shown, and Mr. Fisher clearly admits, that the privileges in ques- tion are at least discriminating. Mr. Fisher, however, virtually argues that whether the privileges in question be peculiar or discriminating privi- leges, is not the question. These privileges are conceded by law and they should be maintained. Mr. Fisher apparently forgets that the Manitoba legislature is not a judicial but a legislative body. Its business is not to interpret, but to make, repeal, and modify laws, within its juris- diction, as the one in (|Uo.stioi) was deelanMl to he. Hi> also Hiiir(rosts that as a inatter of policy these statutory hut unfair privilc^res, shoulTho coiitinuvitli Popular liSoveriiiiieiit. But assuming that this "compact" had been a fact instead of a myth, we would then be brought face to face with a very wide pi-oblem, and one involving the most funtlamental consideration ^. This compact is not only assumed to have actually been made, but it is further assumed and declared to be irrevocable. This is obviously a very serious consideration. The consideration here raised touches the very foundation stone of the whole system of popular government. If the people govern themselves they have manifestly the right to make and unmake the laws under which government shall be administered. Without such right popular govern- ment is a delu.sion. As a matter of fact the right exists, and its only limitations are the will, the con.science, and the intelligence of the people themselves, or the superior compulsor\' force of some external power. The enactments or stipulations of past generations have no binding force on the succeeding inhabitants of a political jurisdiction, beyond what ajjpeals to their con.science and intelligence. Let us review the facts in the present ca.se. A population of lii,000 persons passed laws relating to education twenty-tivo years ago. ThesQ \ 80 laws, wc shall assume, suited these people and their peculiar conditions. It was subsequently seen however, that, by distinguishing the persons of a certain religious sect from all other persons or classes in the communit}', and by ccmferring, on the assumption that this division was fair and equal, peculiar privileges on the persons belonging to that sect, these laws violat- ed the principles of equality on which our government is founded, and that this violation of principle would create great and increasing difficulty and expense in the administration of government, particularly with reference to education. The popuhition, in the meantime, had greatly increased both in numbers and intelligence, and its material conditions had entirely changed. The people replaced the archaic and unsuitable laws with legisla- tion more adapted to their needs and their intelligence, while having strict regard to the rights of every class in the community. But our statesmen tell us that this legislation must be revoked, that the legi.slation of the 12,000 original inhabitants must be perpetuated no matter how unsuited to present conditions, how wrong in principle, or how crude in conception. And this, not because the privileges of the privileged denomination can be defended on their merits, but simply because they were once given, and given under circumstances v/hich brought them within the scope of the mythical " constitutional compact," by virtue of which they are irrevocable. This is a very startling doctrine to propound in a government like ours. The proposition involved in the contentions of the remedialists, that a handful, or any number, of persons inhabiting a territory may make dis- criminative laws which shall bind all future generations inhabiting that territory, is absurd. The settlers had full right to demand security and protection in the enjoyment of their liberties and their properties. But they had no right, nor did they claim any right, to legislate for future generations in education or in any other matter. The failure to perceive the distinction between individual rights and liberties on the one hand, and class privileges on the other, has been another source of much confusion. To guarantee the setthis of Red River secure enjoyment of their rights and properties is one thing. To give them the right to say that people of any religious denomination whether Catholic or non-Catholic should enjoy special privileges cr exemptions in this territory in all future genera- tions, merely because they happened to belong to this denomination, is quite another, and quite an impossible thing. The Province of .11iiiiit<»bii ** the People " in this Case. As the Privy Council pointed out, in its first judgment, the govern- ment and legislature of the province cannot properly discharge their duties in regard to education in the aKsence of complete autonomy, limited only by the obligation to observe and respect the rights and customs which any persons ha(f at the union, and wl.ich it so happened, were the natural and inalienable rights of British subjects. These have been fully respected in the Manitoba legislation. Now it may be said that, while the proposition that the people of a democracy have always the right and power to make or abrogutc tlie laws under which tlie^^ are governed, is incontrovertible, it has no relevancy to the discussion. It may be said that Manitoba in this instance is not " the people " but only a section of it, and that the political 81 unit in the case is not the people of Manitolia, but the people of Canada. We have just referred to the oxjilanation in the first judi,'nient of the Privy Council of th(! considerations which ])roiiipted their coiicUision that,suhject to the protection of the natural liberties and riy^hts of all citizens, full autonomy in the matter of education was necessary to an efficient dis- charge of its educational responsiljilities by the government or legislature. That judgment affirmed the constitutionality of the legislation, that is, it declared it to be within the lawful power of the legislature to enact, and declared also that the law was in itself wise and just. It will also be remembered that in their second judgment their Lordships expressed their opinion that sub-section 2 of section 2:i, Manitoba Act, on which the appeal was ba.sed, and which they were asked to interpret, was an anomalous provision. The provision for an appeal from a legislative to an executive authority was what struck them as " anomalous." Now although by virtue of the "anomalous " sub-section in question, the parliament of Canada has the very "anomalous" constitutional right to interfere with legislation which is constitutional, it would obviously l)e an act of tyranny +'or that parliament to nullify the legislation merely because it has the technical power of interference, and without regard to the intrinsic soundness or justice of the legislation in question. The constitution, as wt; have shown, protects all classes in iManitol)a in tin ir natural and inalienable rights. Manitoba has acted within the constitution. It is therefore the duty of parliament to refuse to arbitrardy exercise its technical authority and to leave to Manitoba its recjuired and rightful autonomy. Manitoba is morally therefore " the people " in the case. The €fuistitiitioiial IMity of t\w ^^'''o«e int, Ihwi '. ""''' '^'"'^^^^ vviil the writer reflects on V r^ '''"' '^^'^'ewhat o ' ' " "^'" ^ ^^"•^^"^^^i"" oi the only parallel vhicnrr'?'-""^ '^e ace .s o ies"^^^'*^'' but when the paradoxes and fh! ^^'^''^' '^^^'^ to his ,„]»?,„ J^'"" controversy ^ vjiiuertian flavour Theeff ''*'^"*^"»e Motive? SSSSS -^- '^^ i^^l-?^ ^^^^ '"-^ «^-t'in^ the effort hCnot t'et i °*' ^^^"^ times 'ih Tu^r """'^ ^" ^">^ ^'^""'"'^ P'-epared. on the stieL h f ^""^ ''^^^''^^- He e •f/^^''^^^^ character of »'-e .so palpable as o .^f ''^. «''g»'"ents whose fiin« ^'''^"P ^^^ statesmen '"eet a\le.^erate exi. e .r'^' '"'''^^^« ^^at thoTha •' ho''' '"^'' insincorit^ assertion of tli^^ m?.? ''^' ^° ^°'""'Jt the Cm.fV ?• '" "manufactured to precedents^'d t"tS"''^""^, I^'-'Pl- t s^'l""",^ ^^''^-''^ to til: "most intelligent (Lision^oH?'"^'^ /'"'^ ""tagonixe ti ''^7 '?"■'' "^^'^"'^ goverrunent says th^t h' f P?PuIation. And wtaf k h °* """^ o*' "'e otism. But whn \T\ u "^ a'^tuating motives nl ^ ^'''^ '""tive ? The has console ed the a'i' ^"'^ ''"'^'^"' tlis quest on hr/'i'^'^' '^"'^' '^"^^ Pat - • its course a„ tl ^^"'"'^"ts advanced by t .' '""'"''^ ^he facts that -vpects to g i'bv „ "^"« -^-t the goven uk^ Cf""'"'' '" '^"PP- « "'otives ar^ o^heTC"?-^ '''"' ^'^^^^^^^ «-' "e in uctf?'",' ?^' "^^'«"-^b' ^ve see it asserted thai th" /""-^^ '"''^'^'^ ^^"'J "os "„-' "\'T ^^^^^ ^^i a^Joptcd at the c- II ? I '>"fl:«rous, costly a ml ." , "''T'^^^ • ^hen of its reputation for iotft "H ''^^ "'^^^'^t .f ' ' Zzt' P"''7-' '^^'^ ^een more revolting. Hyg" .L^*^'.*'^' * '^ perforn.ancc is n ?' ''",^ "^ ^'^'^«"^« Jt is witirn^ucffi 7 '' P'"^bably the mo 't re nuk K^ ''^T'^ ^ ^^ttle put the "mtterThu p,atv"% ""'^^ ^^er S i I "* ^ ^ the vices. wo alternatives, present H? ."* ^*^^' ^» anaiSs o ' ' *^. "-^^^^ ''^ Js incapable of o-rasnin. ^''^'".^e^^'es to our mind. F./h ^^'^V^'tuation only to nmnipulate ifre?arls'^ l^''^'?^ ^^"t^" ti'e qu ttion oh". ^ Sovern„,ent solely with the view nf " "'^''^ ""^ ^^'on- irofZ'n ^V^^termined Pacy which i knows orTr'^"^' '^^'^ «upport%t h, tnTrK' ^^^'^^^^fe'. The Question Before tf^e People. ]o[ The Church in (he €uiii|mij$n. ' - ,. Tlie quL'stiotj is now before the Canadian people, and as it affects the interests of tlie Roman Catholic clerjry, they will make sure that it shall he the leatlinfj; issue in the elections of June 28rd, which on account of tiie existence of conditions already described they are able to do. The cam- \)&\^n is now on and the spectacle is far from being attractive. Such occasions display in unpleasant relief the great necessity for a much higher stau'lard of public intelligence and public honesty, and of indi- vidual sense of public duty than at present exists o.ni\ consequently the urgent necessity for an effective public educational system. The tendency to allow the exigencies of party to overshadow the interests of the country is still deplorably prevalent, although there are those who believe they detect a growing distrust and independence of partisan machine influence, especially amongst the younger men. This they attribute to the superior intelligence of these younger men, which again is due to the better oppor- tunities which they have had, on account of the existence of more or less efficient sy.stems of public education. Thousands of men vote from all sorts of motives, such as personal interest or animosity, social relationships and above all partisan connections, without giving the slightest weight to the considerations which should really determine their votes. And these are not by any means the worst class of voters. Then there are the elec- tors who vote as members of a religious denomination, and not as citizens, and who, however worthy they may be in their personal capacity, are probably the most dangerous of all tlie undesirable clas.ses of electors. In this connection, and as suggesting and illustrating the nature of the danger, it might be well to consider the following paragraph from a mandement issued by the Catholic Bishops of Quebec, to the Catholic electors ; "Please remark, our dearly beloved brethren, that a Catholic is not permitted, let him be a journalist, elector, candidate, or member, to have two lines of con- duct in a religious point of view, one for private Ijfe and one for public life, and to trample under feet in the exercise of his duties not social, the obligations imposed on him by his title of a submissive son of the church. Therefore, all Catholics should only vote for the candidates who will form- ally and solemnly engage themselves to vote in parliament in favor of legislation giving the Catholics of Manitoba the school laws which were recognized to them by the Privy Council of England, imposes itself on all good Catholics, and you would This grave duty not be justifiable, neither before your spiritual guides, nor before God Himself, to set aside this obligation." If free government can exist in a community in which such a mani- festo as this, is i)ermitted by a large body of citizens to infiueacc them in 87 the discharge of their political duties, then the writer is compelled to admit that his notions of what free government is nre sadly aglee. The perenjptory attitude and the violence of the language of some of the prelates during this controversy, have been a significant feature of it. A Nova Scotia bishop characterized as " hell inspired hypocrites " those Catholics who opposed remedial legislation. An aged missionary priest wrote to the Hon. Wilfrid Laixrier, requesting his assistance and co-opera- tion in the passage of remedial legislation. The following paragraph from Father Lacombe's letter, describes the consequences of Mr. Laurier's refusal to comply with the request: " If — which may God not grant — you do not believe it be j'our duty to accede to our just demand, and that the Government which is anxious to give us the promised law be beaten and overthrown, while keeping firm to the end of the struggle, I inform yon with regret tha'' the episco- pacy, like one man, united to the clergy, will rise to support those who may have fallen to defend us. Please pardon my frankness which leads me to speak thus." The frankness is certainly charming. Those and many other such expressions may aftbrd a vivid insight into the nature of this dispute. The Feeling in lll»nilol>a. I, There is no doubt that there exists a feeling of soreness on the part of a consiilerable section of the Roman Catholics in Manitoba. In the tirst place, they have lost a privilege which they valued highly. Whether their preference for Separate Schools originates from the exercise of their own judgment, or is dictated by the influence and demands of the clergy, is a matter into which it is not nece.s^^ary to enter. There is no doubt about the existence of at lea-st an avowed preference on the part of a large majority of the Catholics for Separate Schools. It is scarcely reasonable to expect that they would acquiesce in a spirit (^' ^>^ (7 / V.'^ # -<^ Photographic Sciences Corporation d "^ V iV :\ \ '% >^. ^> M 'V ^ 6^ -n.^ ,♦' '1>^\^ ^^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 i/.x :\ \ 6^ ,!S V .<•' ^ 88 discussion, they will see the real moaning of the attitude of the Province. When thej- realize that this action has not been taken at the instigation of fanatical rage, or because of an ignorant dislike of their religious beliefs, they will, we believe, in increasing numbers, avail themselves of " the advantages which the law offers to all alike," an