THE LEGISLATION AND HISTORY
OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS
UPPER CANADA:
FROM 1841, UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE REVEREND DOCTOR RYERSON'S ADMINIS-
TRATION OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF ONTARIO IN 1876:
INCLUDING VARIOUS PRIVATE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS ON THE SUBJECT.
BY
J. GEORGE HODGINS, M.A., LL.D., F.R.G.S,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW,
LIBRARIAN OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOR ONTARIO, AND EDITOR OF THE " DOCUMENTARY
HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN UPPER CANADA, 1791-1876."
The School Law of Upper Canada recognizes Individual Rights ; deals with each Individua
for himself, and does not ignore, or proscribe, him from the Public Schools, and all the privi-
leges connected with them, except at his own request. — (Rev. Dr. Ryerson to the Hon. John
A . Macdonald, 2nd of April, 1855. Page 89.)
It must be acknowledged that a combined Secular, with Separate Religious Instruction, is
the only safe, just, and defensible system of National Education.— (Rev. Dr. Ryerson to tht
Governor-General, Sir Edmund Head, January, 1858. Page 121.)
TORONTO :
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BRIGGS, WESLEY BUILDINGS.
1897.
DEC 22 1956
Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand
eight hundred and ninety-seven, by JOHN GBOROK HODGINS, at the Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
PREFATORY REMARKS.
IN the outline of " THE STORY OF MY LIFE," prepared by the
Rev. Dr. Ryerson, during his later years, he briefly summed
up what he had been able to accomplish, as Head of the
Education Department for Upper Canada, during his incum-
bency from 1844? to 1876. He then added these words: —
"I leave to Dr. J. George Hodgins, my devoted Friend of over forty
years, and my able Colleague for over thirty of these years, the duty of
filling up the details of our united labours in. founding a System of
Education for my native Province, which is spoken of in terms of strong
commendation, not only within, but by people outside of, the Dominion. "
Feeling that an almost filial duty was thus devolved upon
me, I prepared a Prospectus, in 1884, of such a Volume as I
then projected, including a sketch of the " Legislation and
History of Separate Schools in Upper Canada," which I now
publish, intending, at some future time, to carry out further
the wishes of my revered Friend. In that Prospectus I said : —
Not only did Dr. Ryerson entrust me with the whole of his private
correspondence with Public Men and Ministers of State on educational
matters, but I have also had a voluminous correspondence, from time to
time, with him myself, when he was absent, on several important subjects
connected with our School System. These, with various private memo-
randa and other information, will be available for the Volume.
I then thought, (as I expressed it,) that such a personal
record would likely be of more interest to the next generation
than it would be to the then present one, — especially as so
many storms and personal conflicts had marked the era of Dr.
Ryerson's administration, — creating, at the time, much undue
prejudice, which might still linger in the memories of men, and
iv PREFATORY REMARKS.
exert an undue influence on the minds of many. Time, and a-
calm review of what has been accomplished, notwithstanding
the adverse circumstances, and the opposing influences, under
which our School System was founded, would, I then felt, alone
dissipate that prejudice, and do full justice to Dr. Ryerson, and
to those who stood by him, in his efforts to place our National
System of Schools upon a broad, safe, and comprehensive basis.
Having been intimately and confidentially connected with
Dr. Ryerson for thirty-two years, in the great work of his
later life, (i.e., from his appointment, in 1844, to 1876,) the
projected work would necessarily largely partake of a personal
character, — so far as he and I and others were concerned.
This, on the whole, will be found to greatly add tt) its interest
and value. Besides, I alone am in a position to verify some facts
which were mentioned in private conversation, or in his cor-
respondence with me, and which are known only to myself.
It was twelve years since the Prospectus, to which I have
referred, was written. Time warns me that if the work, pro-
jected in 1884, is to be published, it is now time to prepare it.
I have, therefore, determined to issue the first instalment of it,
in the shape of the " LEGISLATION AND HISTORY OF SEPARATE
SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA," from 1841 to the close of Dr.
Ryerson's administration, in 1876.
A second Volume, containing a more general review of our
Educational System, from 1844 until its later development,
will be prepared, (D.V.,) and will be issued in due time. Such
a publication will include a large number of private and confi-
dential Letters and Papers of my own, together with those
which were entrusted to me by Dr. Ryerson, — in fact, a Volume
containing what may be called the private, or " inner," history
of the Education Department for Ontario, including many facts
and incidents of my long personal connection of fifty-two years.
PREFATORY REMARKS. v
with it and with those " in authority " in the Department, and
in the Executive Government of the Province, during that tim«-.
I have been the more convinced as to the desirability of
publishing the present somewhat condensed, yet sufficiently
detailed, history of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in
Upper Canada, as a contribution to our Educational History and
Literature, from the fact that men, in whose practical wisdom
and judgment I have confidence, have encouraged me to do s<>.
I have received the following Letter on the subject from
my esteemed friend, Dr. W. T. Harris, the United States
Commissioner of Education, at Washington, which I may very
•appropriately insert in this place. He says : —
I am much interested in your proposed Work on the Separate Schools
•of Upper Canada. The problem, of which it will treat, is one of great
importance ; and Ontario has found a solution of it that can never fail to
interest Public men and Educators.
Certainly, no other Person has equal facilities with yourself for eluci-
dating every condition bearing upon the expediency of Separate Schools.
The references called forth by your valuable ' ' Documentary History < >f
Education in Upper Canada," are such as to awaken interest in the new
work ; and, it seems to me a wise measure to have them both distributed
in printed form.
Among the champions of Roman Catholic Separate Schools
in Upper Canada, whom Dr. Ryerson encountered, none was
more pronounced, or even bitter, in his language than the
Editor of the Canadian Freeman newspaper of Toronto.
On his retirement from the editorial chair, in 1873, he bade
Dr. Ryerson good-bye, in language which, on the whole, was
generous and kind. In his valedictory he gives so graphic a
sketch of Dr. Ryerson's somewhat stormy life, and yet
of him as a man of purpose, of nerve, and of unswerving
fidelity to the cause which he had espoused, that I cannot for-
bear quoting it. The Editor said : —
Before relinquishing the editorial pen, we should like to say a few words
vi PREFATORY REMARKS.
on a gentleman Avhom we have for years steadfastly opposed, and whose
opinions on many, but especially educational, matters, we have strenuously
combated, and, nevertheless, have in a certain sense admired, and would,
were he aught but the Chief Superintendent of Education, hold in the
highest esteem.
The Reverend Egerton Ryerson holds what the civilization of this age
terms "liberal" views: he advocates the advancement of the masses, or
educating every one, no matter what his position in society may be. The
best part of an eventful life has been devoted by him to carry out his
peculiar opinions on this subject. He is essentially a man of one idea, and
he is a very determined, resolute, and personally courageous person. It is
individuals of his stamp who have made their mark in the world. As to
politics, he has really none ; but in free thought, in educating the masses,
he does believe. From the various Educational Systems of constitutional
England, despotic Prussia, republican America, Holland, Ireland, and
Scotland, with the assistance of his own powerful intellect, he has
perfected a plan, according to non-Catholic ideas, an improvement on all of
them, maintaining their best, rejecting their worst, features. He has
been assailed by various Denominations and classes of our citizens, by
dissatisfied freeholders, by childless ratepayers, by Representatives of
Churches, by Grit and Conservative newspapers, by politicians, and by
administrations holding the most opposite views, and yet he has managed
to stand his ground, and not only this, but to enforce his educational
opinions on the great majority of the people of this Province. At one
time he is reported by a Tory Governor as "a dangerous man," and a
certain Toronto journal has pursued him with fierce malignity for years,
and all kinds of politicians have at different periods attacked him in the
bitterest way, and yet Egerton Ryerson has triumphed, and is at this day,
in spite of all opposition, the great and successful vindicator ' of free,
universal education. This is the man whom Governments do not care to
interfere with, and who cannot be crushed ; who, in spite of his seventy
years, is still as fresh and as vigorous as ever, and as ready, in defence of
his ideas, to smite his enemies "hip and thigh," either through a public
journal, or in a pamphlet of 365 pages. During our entire career we have
opposed the Doctor ; but we are fully aware how difficult it is to make
headway against a man of his ability, holding but one idea, and resolved to
win. We have often wished that a Ryerson would present himself as a
representative of our Catholic masses, to fight as determinedly for us as he
has for his Protestant fellow-countrymen,— a man who would endeavour,
under all circumstances, to procure what his Eminence Cardinal Cullen
and the Irish Hierarchy are now labouring to attain, — a Catholic, purely
.Catholic, education for Catholic people.
In retiring from the management, [of the Canadian Freeman,] we would
wish to offer the right hand of fellowship to all we have encountered, . . .
PREFATORY REMARKS. \ii
and to part on amicable terms with all from whom we have ditleivd. \
most, among these is the Chief Superintendent of Education, and we hav.-.
therefore, devoted this, our last article, to him. \\ V have irritton column
upon column against him, for the past fifteen years. \\ V have tried with
all our might to put him down, and yet he i-. a man i'..r wbOK 'alunt.-.
resolution, and dogged perseverance we have the highest respect, and for
whose courtesy and gentlemanly bearing toward* our oo-religionitf
otter our acknowledgments, and for whom the Protestant people of this
Province will, at some not very distant period, do, what a learned Ameri-
can historian stated the North-West would do for Marquette, — "build
his monument. "*
A word as to the attitude of the Church of England on this
question. It always held, (as a Church established in Upper
Canada by the Constitutional Act of 1791,) that, if the Church
of Rome were legally entitled to establish Separate Schools, in
which the dogmas of that Church were to be taught, and to
receive a portion of the public funds for their support, much
more should that branch of the Church of the Empire in
Canada receive a like share of the public .revenue, and for a
like purpose. Beyond that, the Church of England was not
disposed to go, nor to enter into any of the local controversies
on the subject.
Traditionally the Church of England in Canada always held
the doctrine, which was so clearly stated by Dr. Ryerson,
in his Confidential Report to the Governor-General, in 1858,
(page 121,) and in which he maintained : —
That a combined secular, with separate religious instruction, is the only
safe, just, and defensible system of National Education.
No one was more sensible of the efforts made by Dr. K \ •
to carry into effect this combined system of Education, than
was the venerable Dr. Strachan, the first Anglican Bish<
Toronto. In his Charge to the Clergy, in 1856, he said : —
So far as Dr. Ryerson is concerned, 1 am one of those who appreciate
* It would, no doubt, gratify the former Editor of the Cana
(James G. Moylan, Esq., now of Ottawa,) to know, that a few yeai
Ryerson's death, in 1882, a handsome Monument was erect. •, 1. in 1889. •
memory, in front of the Building in which he spent the last years of his ofl
life.
viii PREFATORY REMARKS.
very highly his exertions, his unwearied assiduity, and his administrative
capacity. I am also most willing to admit that he has carried out the
meagre provisions of the several School enactments, that have any leaning
to Religion, as far as seems consistent with a just interpretation of the law.
No less cordial were the words used by Bishop Bethune, in
his Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 3rd of July, 1872, in which
he said : —
I have to thank you for your Letter of the 1st instant, . . . and to
express my gratification that I had the opportunity, [in the Synod,]* to
bear my humble testimony to your zealous and righteous efforts to promote
the sound education of the youth of the Province.
I believe that, in the endeavour to give this a moral and religious
direction, you have done all that, in the circumstances of the country, it
was in your power to accomplish.
None have been more true and faithful in their maintenance
of the Public School System in Upper Canada, than have been
Members of the Church of England. This was promptly and
very heartily acknowledged by Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter of
the 31st of December, 1858, to the Hon. George Brown, when
he said : —
To the honour of the Church of England, and to the honour of Canada,
and especially to the honour of the Gentlemen themselves, the Episco-
palians stood forward as a phalanx against the seductions presented to
them by the Tache Bill, as introduced in 1855. ... I feel it no less
my duty, than my pleasure, to express my own gratitude, and, I believe,
that of Upper Canada generally, to Messrs. J. W. Gamble, W. B. Robin-
son, John Langton, George Crawford and D. B. Stevenson, for the earnest
and noble stand which they took on that occasion, as the champions of the
unmutilated Common School System of Upper Canada.
It was often a matter of surprise to me, during the long
years of conflict on the Roman Catholic Separate School Ques-
* In his Address to the Anglican Synod of 1872, Bishop Bethune said : —
" I have confidence in the good intentions and righteous efforts of that vener-
able gentleman, (Dr. Ryerson,) to do what he can for the amelioration of the
evils which the absence of systematic religious teaching of the young must
induce ; so that we may have a hope that, from his tried zeal and unquestion-
able ability, a way may be devised by which such essential instruction shall be
imparted, and the terrible evils we deplore to some extent corrected."
PREFATORY REMARKS. ix
tion, that so many of our public men shrank from si full, fair,
and patriotic discussion of it as a matter of public concern, —
apart from politics and denominational infhu-nn-s, — invo!
as that discussion would, the further question of appropri
public funds for the support of Denominational Schools.*
And, after all, such a general and united expression of public-
opinion would have practically narrowed the question down to
a simple determination, (1,) to maintain the integrity of our
Public School System against all who would seek to undermine
it; and, in case Separate Schools were allowed, (2,) to ivco^ni/..-
and uphold the individual right of parents, — without compul-
sion or interference, — to choose for themselves the School t<>
which they should send their children. f
Even after the passage of the Clergy Reserve Secularization
Act of 1854, in which it was declared that "all semblance of
the Union of Church and State" was abolished, very many
of the men who had aided to crystallize this declaration in an
Act of Parliament, seemed unable to resist the pressure put
upon them to give the opposite doctrine a practical application,
in their maintenance and partial endowment, by public grant s
and by Municipal assessments, of purely Denominational
*In his confidential Letter to Dr. Ryerson. in Man-h. ls.">7, ipai;.- 117
Hon. John Klm.sley urged Dr. Ryerson to press for an "enquiry" into " til--
whole of the Separate School question," by a Committee of tin- I
bly, where a "combat," as he expressed it, "of dispassioned arguin-
" battle of cool investigation," would take plan-. How he could ex|
of these results from a purely political body does not appear. All such dis
(Missions, or enquiries, to be effective or satisfactory, must be conducted by a
totally different class of men, far removed from either political or den-
tional influences.
t This right is expressly reserved to Roman Catholic Parents 1
Satolli, in his Letter to the Roman Catholic Archbishops assembled in
York, in November, lXil± He said : —
We strictly forbid anyone, whether Bishop, or Priest, ami t
express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff, through the ^
either by Act, or by Threat, to exclude from the S.irrament>. a>
Parents who choose to send their children to tin- Public Schools. As
the children
Pl
s ce o - .
he children themselves, this enactment applies with -nil i:ivat.
len: Bolt: Number 198, pagt l»',, <'<>n/. Tit. vi I'll.
x PREFATORY REMARKS.
Schools, the latter mode of aiding such Schools, Dr. Ryerson
characterized, in his Letter to the Provincial Secretary, in
l'S(56, as "one of the worst and most degrading features of
Church and State connection, so formally renounced by our
Legislature." And, in general, these men either misrepre-
sented Dr. Ryerson's attitude on the question, or, when they
did not, they left him to wage the war for unequivocal " equal
rights " and " no denominational preferences " alone.
It is Angular that the promoters of Separate Schools, in
their desire for Legislation in the interest of these Schools, often
unwittingly placed weapons in Dr. Ryerson's hands against
themselves. They frequently assumed that to be law which
was only so in their imagination ; and that to be fact, which
was, in reality, pure fiction. They generally, in framing " pro-
jects of law," provided, in their guileless zeal, for far more than
they desired, and embraced in their Bill a far wider range of
assumed " rights " than they had intended. This unpractical
mode of dealing with practical matters led, no doubt, to the
merciless dissection of the " project of Bill," drawn up by
the three Bishops of Upper Canada, in 1854-5, by Dr. Ryerson,
which is given on pages 87-92. His remarks, on page 91,
although severe, are, nevertheless, borne out by the fact that
a careless use of terms was employed, which were already too
comprehensive in their application, but which were, never-
theless, used by the framers of the Bill. Thus, the careless and
ignorant use of legal terms, in drawing up a will, has often led
to vexatious and protracted litigation.
I would ask attention to the two Chapters in this Book near
its close, — the XXX. and the concluding Chapter.
In Chapter XXX., the Question is asked, — " Was the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 1863 a Finality ? "
So far as the facts therein narrated go, the answer is in the
PREFATORY REMARKS. xi
affirmative. The Chapter is, however, specially interest ii.
a psychological study. In it are curious examples of un-ntal
reservation, — in which silent assent meant m.-^ativ. ac<jui«->-
cence, and personal concurrence a dumb show, — passive and
unreal. Such examples of mental unconsciousness of simplf
plain facts is somewhat akin to mental colour-blindness, and
furnish striking illustrations of the subtleties of this somewhat
new, yet interesting, science of psychology.
The concluding Chapter will, I trust, appeal to all thoughtful
men and lovers of their Country.
I have added, as Appendices to this Volume, two important
Documents. The first is a most carefully prepared " Analysis
and Comparison of the Roman Catholic Separate School Acts
of 1855 and 1863," by Dr. Ryerson. The second is the
" Decisions and Statements of Cardinal Satolli, — in regard to
the Canons of the Plenary Council of Baltimore," — addressed,
in the form of a Letter, to the eleven Roman Catholic Arch-
bishops of the United States, at their Meeting held in X<-\\
York, on the 13th-l7th of November, 1892."
J. GEORGE HODGINS.
TORONTO, March 17th, 1897.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. Preliminary Remarks . . . . • . . . .9
1 1. The Educational State of Upper and Lower Canada . . .11
III. Educational Proceedings of the Canadian Legislature of 1841 . 14
IV. Petitions, praying that the Bible be used as a Class Book in
the Schools 19>
V. Effect of these Petitions — Adoption of the Principle of Separate
Schools in Upper Canada ...... 22
VI. Separate School Legislation as affecting Upper Canada . . 2."V
Vll. Proceedings in regard to the Schools — Bishops Strachan, Po\vrr
and Charbonnel — Bishop Macdonell . . . . -7
Bishop de Charbonnel and his Changed Attitude in 1857 . '•'••>•
VI 11. The Controversy with Bishop de Charbonnel in 1852 . .37
IX. The Separate School Legislation of 1846-1850 . . 44
1. Episode of the DisaUowed Common School Bill of 1849 . 46-
2. Original Draft of the 19th Section of the Common
School Bill of 1850, and as passed . . 5(>
3. The First Toronto Separate School Case, in 1851 . . 5»
4. Unrest and Uncertainty — Mr. W. L. Mackenzie in 1851 55-
5. The Separate School Question, from 1841 to 1851 . . 5(>
X. Incidents of the Separate School Contest, from 1852 to 1855 . 59»
XI. Claim for Additional Grants to Separate Schools — Pressure <»n
the Government in 1852 '•!
1. The Belleville Separate School Case, 1852 .
XII. Second Appeal to the Government — Renewed Demands of
Bishop de Charbonnel . . . . . . .71
1. Second Toronto Case — Separate School Difficulties in
Two Wards. . . .71
2. Third Separate School Difficulty in the City of Toronto . 7-'>
3. Renewed Agitation by Bishop de Charbonnel — The
Tache Act Foreshadowed 7 •
4. Documents Submitted by the Roman Catholic Bishops
of Upper Canada to the Government, in 1854
(1) Comparative Table of Separate School Legislation in
Upper and Lower Canada .
(2) Preliminary Statement of the Three Roman Catholic
Bishops of Upper Canada .
(3) Draft of an Act Bttter to Define Certain Rights to Par-
ties therein-mentioned 85-
CONTEXTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
XIII. The Tache Roman Catholic Separate School Bill of 1855 . 92
1. The Tache Separate School Act, as Amended . . 95
2. Passage of the Tache Separate School Bill, 1855 . 99
3. Sir John Macdonald and the Tache Separate School
Act, (Pope's Memoirs) . . . . .100
XIV. Private and Confidential Correspondence relating to the Pas-
sage of the Tache' Act of 1855 102
1. Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson . . . 102
2. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 102
3. Bishop Phelan to Hon. John A. Macdonald . . 102
4. Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson . . . 104
5. Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson . . . 105
6. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) . 106
7. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) . 106
8. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) . 107
XV. Effect of the Charbonnel Separate School Controversy upon
Lower Canadians— Nova Scotia .... 107
XVI. Renewed Controversy— The Bowes' Separate School Bill, 1856 110
1. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . .110
2. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . . Ill
3. Dr. Ryerson on the Bowes' Separate School Bill . Ill
XVII. The Bruyere-Pinsoneault-Dallas Controversy . . . 113
1. Bishop de Charbonnel Selected Roman Catholic Li-
brary Books ........ 114
2. Cardinal Wiseman Consulted in London on Library
Books, in 1851 114
3. Pamphlet Summaries of the Separate School Discus-
sions, 1856-1858 115
XVIII. Renewed Efforts to Promote Separate School Legislation,
1857-1860 • . .117
XIX. Confidential Report to the Governor-General on the Separate
School Question, in 1848 ..... .118
1. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . . 121
2. Letter from Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 123
XX. Special Report on Roman Catholic Separate Schools, in 1858. 123
XXI. Abortive Separate School Legislation, in 1858-1861 . . 125
Analysis of the Scott Separate School Bills of 1860, '61 . 126
XXII. Failure of Separate School Legislation, in 1862 . . .127
Draft of Bill by Dr. Ryerson, in 1862, with Memorandum 128
The Bishop Lynch Appointment Episode, in 1862". . 130
Dr. Ryerson's Letter to The Leader, 29th April, 1862 . 130
R. W. Scott's Attack on Dr. Ryerson in the House . 132
Private Letter of Bishop Horan, of Kingston . . . 133
CONTENTS,
( ' 1 1 A 1'TER
XXVI. Dr. Ryerson on the 1'assiny of the Act of 1 .->
XXVII. Incidents of t lie Passing of the Art of lsi;:{ . . ),,}
XXVIII. Separate School Act of 1863— Mi. Scott's Statement . L66
Reply of Sir Oliver Mowat, re B. N. A. Act, 1867
XXIX. Hon. John A. Macdonald on the Separate Srho.,]
Hon. A. Mackenzie on the Separate SCJK.O! Act of 1863 . 170
Hon. George Brown on Separate Schools . . . .171
XXX. Was the Separate School Act of 1863 a Finality ' ,172
Compact with the Representatives of the Roman ('ath..li,
Church in 1862 and 1863 . . . . 171
Hon. G. Brown and Hon. T. D. McGee on the Sepai
School Settlement of 1863 . . . . .177
Disclaimer of the Vicars-General that they were Parties to
the Settlement of 1863 .1711
Dr. Ryerson reiterates his Statement that these Vicai
General were Parties to the Settlement . . . 180
Further Testimony as to the Finality of the Separate School
Settlement of 1863
Fruitless Appeal to Mr. R. W. Scott for Information on the
subject. 183
XXXI. British North America Act relating to Education . . 184
Legal Opinion' of Messrs. Richards, Crooks and Blake on
that Act 1-0
XXXII. Inspection of Roman Catholic Separate Schools . . .187
XXXIII. French and German Separate Schools . . . . 189
Why Perpetuate Nationalities in Elementary Schools ?
XXXIV. Dr. Ryerson's Final Utterances on Separate School Agitati.
The Separate School Bill of 1866 ... . I'.O
Letter to the Provincial Secretary on this Bill
XXXV. End of Dr. Ryerson's Difficulties in Separate School mattei
CONCLUDING CHAPTER. Expediences of Separate Education considered
by Dr. Ryerson and Archbishop Ireland
APPENDICES.
1. The Roman Catholic Separate School Acts of 1855 and 1863 An-
alyzed and Compared, by Dr. Ryerson . . 1.1 *!
2. Letter of Cardinal Satolli to the American Roman Catholic Bishops,
in November, 1892, on the Canons of the Plenary Council of
Baltimore ........
Consecutive Index of Subjects .
Principal Personal References .... .
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
XXIII. Private- an.l ( '.mtidi'i.tial Letters in 1862 . . 134
1. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to Hon. John A. Mac-
donAld 1^5
2. Letter from Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 135
.".. Ti'K'i^ram from Dr. Ryerson to Hon. John A. Mac-
d.maUl . .135
4. Note from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . . 135
5. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. William Ryerson 135
6. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. A. Morris . . 135
7. Letter from Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson 136
8. Letter from Mr. William Ryerson to Dr. Ryerson . 136
9. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 137
10. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 137
11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. A. Morris . . 138
12. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 139
13. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 139
14. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 140
15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins -. 140
Detailed Proceedings in regard to the Bill of 1862 . . 140
XXIV. Separate Schools in the Anglican Synod, 1862 . . .145
School Bill relating to Neglected Children . . .148
Dr. Ryerson's Explanation in regard to this Bill . . 150
XXV. Passage of the Separate School Bill of 1863. . . .152
1. Letter from Hon. J. S. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson . 153
2. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 153
3. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 153
4. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 154
5. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 154
6. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 154
7. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 155
8. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 155
9. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 155
10. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 156
11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 156
12. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 156
13. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 157
14. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 158
15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 158
16. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 159
17. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 159
18. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins . 159
19. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 159
20. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson . 159
21. Letter from Rev. M. Stafford to Dr. Ryerson . . 160
LEGISLATION AND HISTORY OF SEPARATE
SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA.
CHAPTEE I.
THE HISTORY OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
MOST of the prominent actors on the stage of provincial poli-
tics, or public affairs, of fifty-six years ago, when Separate
Schools were first established in Upper Canada, have passed
away. And yet the impress of their hands, in framing the
legislative measures of those days, is felt and recognized in the
outlines and main features of the school, municipal and fiscal
laws of to-day. Up to that time, most of the statutes which
were passed were, it is true, either temporary in their object,
or more or less crude in their character. They have long since
been repealed or have been greatly modified in their purpose
and scope, especially those relating to Education. A brief
reference, however, to the school laws and policy of these times
may prove interesting.
Up to 1841, only three enactments had passed the Legis-
lature of Upper Canada, providing for the establishment of
Primary Schools, viz., those of 1816, 1820 and 1824. Grants
were made by the Legislature from time to time, but no specific
enactments for the regulation, or management, of the Primary
Schools were made by it, except those mentioned.
What the state of education was, in Upper Canada previous
to the school legislation of 1841, may be stated in a few words.
2
10 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In a petition of the United Presbytery of Upper Canada, pre-
sented to the House of Assembly in 1830, the signers say : —
It i.s with deep regret that your Petitioners, (in their ministerial
capacity, connected with a very large portion of His Majesty's subjects in
this Province,) are compelled to say that the state of education is, in
general, in a deplorable condition.
In 1831, a Resolution was introduced into the House of
Assembly which further stated :—
That there is in this Province a very general want of education ; that
the insufficiency of the Common School Fund to support competent,
respectable and well-educated Teachers, has degraded Common School
teaching from a regular business to a mere matter of convenience to
transient persons, or common idlers, who often stay but for one season,
and leave the Schools vacant until they accommodate some other like per-
son, whereby the minds of the youth of this Province are left without due
cultivation, or, what is worse, frequently with vulgar, low-bred, vicious
and intemperate examples before them in the persons of their monitors,
(i.e., Teachers).
In 1837, the Legislative Council refused to concur in a Com-
mon School Bill, passed by the House of Assembly, and gave
as a reason for not doing so, that : —
It could not pass the Bill, because it proposes to levy an assessment
at the discretion of the Justices of the Peace, to the extent of l|d. [3 cents]
in the £ [$4], to support Common Schools ; and as Acts have lately passed
imposing rates on the inhabitants of several of the Districts, for the pur-
pose of defraying the expense of building Gaols and Court-houses, and for
the construction of macadamised roads, the Council fear that the proposed
assessment for Common School Education might be found burthensome.
Thus, because Gaols, Court-houses and Roads were considered
more necessary and important than Schools, the last Act for
the promotion of Education ever passed by the Upper Canada
House of Assembly was rejected by the Legislative .Council I
Such was the untoward state of affairs when the Legislative
Union of Upper and Lower Canada took place in 1840.
EDUCATIONAL STATE OF U. AND L. CANADA, 1841. 11
CHAPTER II.
EDUCATIONAL STATE OF UPPER AND LOWER CANADA, 1841.
DURING the first Session of the Parliament of United Canada,
in 1841, a vigorous effort was made to induce the Government
and Legislature of the day to provide, in the Common School
Act, for the use of the Bible as a class, or text, book in the
Schools of the Province.
The Governor-General, Lord Sydenham, who so strongly
recommended to the Legislature that " due provision be made
for the Education of the People," — which he declared to be " one
of the first duties of the State," had evidently misgivings as to
the unanimity of the Legislature on the subject. He, there-
fore, counselled the Members of both Houses, in his opening
speech, that : —
If it should be found impossible so to reconcile conflicting opinions so
as to obtain a measure which may meet with the approbation of all, . . .
steps may, at least, be taken by which an advance to a more perfect
system may be made.
Nor were the apprehensions of the Governor- General on this
subject of dealing with the subject of popular education ground-
less. It was well known that, in the newly-elected House of
Assembly, there were two active opposing educational forces.
The one was desirous of giving, as they expressed it, a decidedly
Christian and scriptural character to the proposed educational
legislation. With this object in view, they addressed vigor-
ously expressed petitions to both Houses of the Legislature —
to the number of forty — praying that the Bible, in its entirety,
should be definitely prescribed as a class, or text, book in the
Common Schools, about to be established, and liberally endowed,
in the United Provinces of Canada. One section of this object-
ing force, representing the Church of England, petitioned the
12 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Legislature that children of that Church should be educated by
it, with the aid of Public Grants and School Assessments. The
other section of this opposing force contented itself with object-
ing to the principle of the proposed Common School Bill, and
desiring that the Bill " should not become law until the opinion
of the Roman Catholic, and that of other Religious Denomina-
tions, be known."
This twofold question, thus raised in the first Legislature of
United Canada, was felt at the time to present an almost un-
surmountable difficulty in dealing with School legislation. Its
being raised there, when the establishment of a general and
comprehensive system of elementary education was determined
upon by the Government, need not have been a matter of
surprise. It was inevitable, considering the past educational
history of each of the Provinces, now united under one Gov-
ernment and Legislature. The Hon. Mr. Day, Solicitor-General,
in introducing his Common School Bill, stated that were it not
for—
A few institutions, supported by private benevolence, and maintained
by the exertions of a class of men to whom he, (Mr. Day,) could not pay
too high a tribute of praise— he alluded to the Roman Catholic clergy— no
means for public instruction existed (in Lower Canada).
In other words, the only education which existed in Lower
Canada was provided by the Roman Catholic clergy. It was
natural, therefore, that the petition of the Roman Catholic
Bishops to the Legislature should desire that no educational
measure should pass " until the opinion of the Roman Catholic
and other Religious Denominations be known."
In the case of Upper Canada, it was generally known at the
time, that the Bible was in use in the Schools of the Province,
generally, chiefly with a view to verses from it being learned
off, or memorized, by the pupils attending the Schools.
From the very first, public sentiment in Upper Canada was
strongly in favour of public education being " based on Chris-
tian principles," as it was expressed, more or less distinctly, in
the successive Charters of King's, Victoria and Queen's Colleges.
This was the special plea of those who, more than fifty years.
EDUCATIONAL STATE OF U. AND L. CANADA, 1841. i:;
ago, advocated the secularization of the Clergy Reserves to
purely educational purposes. Some even favoured the diver-
sion of this " Church Property " to educational purposes, on the
ground that the education, which it would promote, would be
so entirely " based upon Christian principles," that the so-called
"secularization" would be the means — by reason of the wid«-
diffusion of the Clergy Reserve moneys — "of promoting the
Christian education of the whole people."
The first Legislative enactment on behalf of Common Schools,
in Upper Canada was passed in 1816, nine years after Gram-
mar Schools were established. There was no direct provision
in that Act for giving religious instruction in the schools ; the
practice then being for pupils to learn verses from the Bible
as already intimated. But, the Trustees were directed to
" examine into the moral character and capacity of any person
willing to become a Teacher " ; but this had reference only to
moral conduct, and not to his religious opinion.
Experience, however, showed that something in the shape of
religious instruction was desirable, and that it should be " dis-
seminated among the people." In 1824, therefore, a Common
School Act was passed, the preamble of which stated that, —
It would greatly advance the happiness of society to disseminate moral
and religious instruction among the people.
The Act, therefore, declared that : —
For the benefit of all classes of His Majesty's subjects, and for the
encouragement of Sunday Schools, and for affording the means of moral
and religious instruction in the more indigent and remote settlements in
the several Districts of this Province, there shall be annually paid the sum
of One Hundred and Fifty pounds (£150), to be laid out and expended for
the purchasing of books and tracts, designed to afford moral and religious
instruction, to be distributed among the several Boards of Education
throughout the Province.
14 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEE III.
EDUCATIONAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN
LEGISLATURE OF 1841.
IN 1840, the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were, by
Act of the Imperial Parliament, (3rd and 4th Victoria, Chapter
35,) united under one Government and Legislature. On the
20th of July, 1841, the Hon. Solicitor- General Day introduced
a Bill into the House of Assembly, " to make provision for the
Establishment and Maintenance of Common Schools through-
out the Province." This School Bill of 1841 was introduced into
a mixed Legislative Body, composed of Members from both
sections of the Province, elected to act together for the first
time, in a matter on which the Representatives from each
section held very diverse views, and, in the main, very ill-
defined ones on " religious education." The result may easily
be imagined. A dead-lock ensued; and this dead-lock was
only ended by the Government entirely abrogating its func-
tions, as defined by itself at the beginning of the Session,
and submitting its own measure — carefully prepared, as Mr.
Day, its framer, had explained — to a mixed general Committee
of the House, not chosen geographically, or fairly, in proportion
to the Members representing each section of the Province, but
at haphazard, and by giving Lower Canada about two-thirds
of the Members of the Committee, and Upper Canada a little
over one-third. The number on the Committee, therefore, stood
as follows : Lower Canada, fifteen, and Upper Canada, eight :
or twenty-three in all.
The result of such a proceeding may have been easily antici-
pated by the more thoughtful men in the Legislature ; but, if
so, it could scarcely then have been provided for by them. No
Committee under strong pressure from without, as this one was,
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, U. C., 1841. l.">
could have given that judicious and careful consideration to
the subject, which was necessary in dealing with so difficult
and delicate a matter as this was. The time was too short;
and the immediate object to be gained was too general and
undefined to enable the Committee to lay down, at 01
safe and practical rule by which Separate Schools could In-
established. As it was, it recommended to tin- House that any
number of persons, of either faith, by merely dissenting " from
the regulations, arrangements and proceedings of the Com-
mon School Commissioners," could establish a Separate School !
The practical need of such a School, on conscientious grounds,
was not to be the motive, or grounds, of action on the part
of dissentients, but simply that if they objected to the official
School Regulations, they could express their dissent, and then
be free to establish a rival school, and claim funds to support
it, — not according to the number of children in attendance
at that school, but according to the number of the residents
who had expressed their dissent from the official School Regu-
lations, or from the " arrangements " and " proceedings " of the
Township School Commissioners.
.: <*'•* ">-It is a matter of fact, that up to 1841, no Religious Body, or
other persons, mooted, much less advocated, the question of the
necessity, or desirability, of Separate Schools, as part of a gene-
ral system of education. Their establishment was, as I have
shown, due to peculiar circumstances, and as the result of a
dead-lock in the Legislature, and of an effort, in consequence
thereof, at compromise and conciliation, under strong pres-
sure from various opposing influences. These influences, as
pointed out, were brought to bear on the Government, and
compelled it to abrogate its functions; and these influences
were also brought to bear, with ill effects, on tin- mi\«-.l
Legislature of the newly united Provinces of Upper and L«»\Y«T
Canada, and its Special School Committee.
It was this introduction, in 1841, of the principle of Separate
Schools which gave rise to that prolonged and bitter contro-
versy, and which produced that unhappy discord which prevailed
16 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
during the earlier period of Dr. Ryerson's administration, —
especially from 1850 to 1863.
A far more troublesome and difficult question to deal with
was the apathy on the part of some, and the persistent opposi-
tion, on the part of others, to a National System of Education,
projected, as it was, on the comprehensive lines laid down
by Dr. Ryerson, in his elaborate and illustrative preliminary
Report of 1845-46.
These two passive, and yet opposing, forces were sure to give
way in time, which they did ; but the purely denominational,
or sectarian, questions, as they were characterized, remained, to
be a source of irritation for many years. And this feeling
was greatly increased by the persistent efforts made by the
opponents of Separate Schools to hold Dr. Ryerson personally
responsible for the very introduction, and afterwards, for the
extension, of the principle of Separate Schools in Upper Can-
ada; whereas his desire was to deal with this difficult and
delicate question rather as an incident, or adjunct, to a provin-
cial system of education, (and that solely with reference to the
conscientious convictions of individuals,) and not as affecting a
religious community, as a unit, or as a Church. He thus sought
to settle the question on sound principles and, as he believed,
on a safe and prudential basis.
In reply to a Letter, which I addressed to the late Sir Francis
Hincks, (who was a Member of the first Parliament of United
Canada,) asking him why it was that the Government referred
the School Bill to a general Committee of the House of Assem-
bly, he wrote as follows, under date of Montreal, 15th August,
1884:—
The School Bill was, as you state, introduced into the Legislature by
the Hon. C. D. Day, Solicitor-General, (late Hon. Mr. Justice Day,)
without any clause in it relating to Separate Schools. Petitions were pre-
sented to the House, praying that the Bible should be made a class-book
in the Schools ; and I imagine that the Government, to get rid of the
responsibility of dealing with a very difficult question, proposed and carried
a reference of the Bill and the petitions to a Select Committee of all parties
in the House. That Committee was about twenty-one (23) in number. . .
I think that Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada, [and Separate Schools in
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, U. C., 1841. 17
I'pper Canada,] were provided for in the same way; although, of course,
the Separate Schools would have been m-nerally Roman ('ath..lii- in i
Canada and Protestant in Lower Canada. The Bill w.-i
from the Select Committee, on which all parties were represent.
F. HIN.
MONTREAL, 15th of August, 1884.
The appointment of this Select, or Mixed General, Cumin:-
to deal, at its pleasure, with a Government measure, was clearly
a violation of the principle advocated by the Government M« in-
bers of the House in the early part of the Session. For in-
stance, a motion was made by the Hon. George Moffatt on the
8th of June, 1841, to appoint a number of Standing Commit-
tees, among them one on " Education and Schools." This, tin-
Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, resisted, on the ground
that it was the duty of the Government —
To originate all important measures of public utility.
And these gentlemen asked, how the Government could —
Obtain the confidence of the House if those measures were to be taken
out of their hands, and brought before the House in the shape and detail
essentially different from that in which the Government desired to briim
them forward ?
Mr. William H. Merritt explained what had been the former
practice in the Upper Canada House of Assembly, and st
that in that House —
They had been in the habit of appointing Committees on all snl>;
But now they had a different system ; and they had reason to
expect that satisfaction would hereafter be given, because . . . the
Members of His Excellency's Administration assert that we have now
"Responsible Government."
* The only reference to this matter which Sir Francis Hincks gives in the
"Reminiscences of [his] Public Life" is the following :— " The Bill for establish-
ing Common Schools, and for granting a liberal sum annually for their main
tenance, was introduced by Mr. Solicitor Day, whose recent death, after i
honourable public career, has been very greatly deplored by his fellow-eit:
and was carried without opposition. It is worthy of notice that, after the
introduction of the School Bill, a number of Petitions were presented, pi
that the Bible should be adopted as a School Book. This led to the ret.
of the Bill to a large Select Committee, which recommended the introduct
the Separate School clause, which was not in the Bill as originally introd-..
(Pages 68 and 69.)
18 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Nevertheless, the Government Common School Bill of 1841
was referred, with the consent of the Government, to a mixed
General Committee of the House, and by it was reported to the
House essentially different, in "shape and detail," and in im-
portant particulars, from that in which the Government had
introduced it. It was in this way that the Separate School
principle was incorporated in the Bill, when it came out of the
hands of this mixed and irresponsible Committee of the House
of Assembly.
The Members of the Government in 1841 were : The Hon-
ourable Messieurs Robert Baldwin Sullivan, John Henry Dunn,
Dominick Daly, Samuel Bealey Harrison, Charles Richard
Ogden, William Henry Draper, Robert Baldwin and Charles
Dewey Day.
The select General Committee of the House, to which Mr.
Day's Common School Bill was referred, consisted of twenty-
three members — eight only from Upper Canada, and fifteen
from Lower Canada. The Upper Canada members were :
Messieurs Samuel B. Harrison, John S. Cartwright, Malcolm
Cameron, William H. Merritt, Thomas Parke, David Thorburn,
Francis Hincks and John Prince — 8.
The members from Lower Canada were : Messieurs Charles
D. Day, John Neilson, John Simpson, George Moffatt, Frederick
A, Quesnel, John W. Dunscombe, Thomas C. Aylwin, Robert
Christie, Augustus N. Morin-, Marcus Child, Etienne Parent,
Colin Robertson, Benjamin Holmes, Stephen S. Foster, Amable
Berthelot and Denis B. Viger — 15.
Having asked Sir Francis Hincks if there had been, in 1841,
any understanding among Lower Canada Members of the
House of Assembly that, by the treaty of Capitulation of Que-
bec, Lower Canada Roman Catholics could demand Schools of
their own faith, as a right, he replied as follows :—
I can assure you that no such question was raised as that of the right
to Separate Schools, on the ground of the stipulations of the old Treaty of
Capitulation.
I was entirely opposed myself to the Bible being made a class-book
in the Schools. F. H.
PETITIONS: BIBLE AS A CLASS- HO«»K. 19
CHAPTEK IV.
PETITIONS PRAYING THAT THE BIBLE ]>,!•; rsKh AS A
CLASS-BOOK IN THE SCHOOLS.
DR. RYERSON, as is well known, had thus nothing to do with
the introduction of the principle of Separate Schools into our
School System. That was done, as I have shown, in 1841, three
years before his appointment to office. It was owing princi-
pally, as pointed out, to the well-intentioned, but misdirected,
zeal of those who sought to influence the newly elected and
mixed Legislature of the time, to make the Bible a class-book,
in the Common Schools. The Hon. William Morris advocated
this view ; and, in his remarks in the Legislative Council, on
the Common School Bill of 1841, he said : —
With respect to the difficulty which is presented to our view by the
Petitions which daily come before the House, from Roman Catholic and
Protestant Bodies, I would just observe, that if the use, by Protestants, of
the Holy Scriptures in their Schools, is so objectionable to our fellow-
subjects of that other faith, the children of both religious persuasions must
be educated apart; for Protestants never can yield to that point, and,
therefore, if it is insisted upon that the Scriptures shall not be a class-
book in Schools, we must part in peace, and conduct the education of the
respective Bodies according to our sense of what is right.
The Hon Peter B. DeBlacquiere; on the other hand, con-
tended that —
To attempt the introduction of the Holy Scriptures, as received by
Protestants, as a class-book in the Common Schools, when Roman Catho-
lics were to be educated in the same School, was worse than useless ; it
was oppressive ; it was dangerous ; and it must arrest all progress in
education. . . .
The petitions presented to both Houses of the Legislat
praying that the Bible be prescribed as a class-book in the
Schools, were from different Religious Bodies, and were more
or less diverse in their character. They were all, howrvrr.
20 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
equally embarrassing to the Government of the day. As from
their effect upon the School legislation of the time, they may
be considered of historical interest.* Of those which were
printed by the Legislature, I give a specimen, as follows : —
1. A petition from the Clergymen and Members of the Church
of England at St. Armand West, Lower Canada, stated that :—
The Petitioners, while they are anxious to promote throughout the
Province the diffusion of general knowledge, are, in their own minds con-
vinced that knowledge, to be productive of any real benefit, or substantial
good, to the people, must be guided by the unerring wisdom of God, as
revealed in His Word. . . .
That humbly, also, but conscientiously believing that the Bible, as
given by God, must be received as a whole, and cannot, without rashness,
or detriment, either be added to or diminished from, . . . your Peti-
tioners consider that they would ill discharge their duties as Christians, and,
consequently, as believers in the whole Book of Revelation, if they did not
deprecate in any contemplated establishment of Schools, every attempt to
introduce into them extracts only from the Holy Scriptures, whereby the
Word of God would be abridged and mutilated, and the imperfect selec-
tions of uninspired men be substituted for the inspired Word of the
Almighty, expressly revealed for man's benefit and guidance ;t
* In one of Dr. Ryerson's Letters, he says : — " The principal opposition
which, in 1846, and for several years afterwards, I encountered was that I did
not make the Bible compulsory in the Schools, but simply recognized the right
of Protestants to use it in the School, (not as an ordinary reading book, as it was
not given to teach us how to read, but to teach us the way to Heaven,) as a
book of religious instruction, without the right, or the power, of compelling any
one to use it."— "Story of My Life" page, 429.
t This strong language is not borne out, or confirmed, by experience. The
Hon. P. B. DeBlacquiere, in his remarks on the Common School Bill of 1841,
in the Legislative Council, stated that "judicious selections, suited to the age
and capacities of those to be instructed " was a practical want in the Schools.
This practical want was supplied by the Education Department for Ontario
in 1888, and also in Chicago, "under the supervision of the Chicago Woman's
Educational Union, in 1896, The latter is a Book of 150 selections from the
Bible, entitled : " Readings from the Bible, selected for Schools, and to be read
in Unison." It is also suggested that the selections be "memorized." The
publication of this Book was the result of a largely signed petition to the
Chicago Board of Education, asking that a " Reading Book, consisting of selec-
tions from the Sacred Scriptures, such as in use in the Schools of Toronto,
Canada, or similar selections, (with the approval of both the Roman Catholic
and Protestant Churches,) be put into use in the Public Schools of Chicago."
The "Scripture Readings" issued by the Education Department of Ontario,
and to which reference is made above, embraces 292 Selections, or Lessons, and
extends to 434 8vo pages. The Chicago Selections number 150, and extend to
190 12mo pages. In addition to the Table of Contents, as in the Ontario
Selections, the Chicago Book contains a Topical Index, and an Index of Texts.
PETITIONS: BIBLE AS A CLASS-BOOK. 21
Wherefore Petitioners humbly pray that not only may the Bible . . .
be recognized as the class-book, to be universally taught in all Public
Schools and Seminaries throughout the Province, in win. h Protestants.
shall receive their education, but that it may be put into tin? hands of all
such scholars, in its full and unabridged state, and that no part of it mav
be withheld from them.
These strong sentiments, expressed by Members of the Church
of England in Lower Canada, were re-echoed by their breth-
ren in Upper Canada, through the medium of The Church
newspaper, which had been established in 1837 by the Rev. I)r
A. N. Bethune, afterwards, (in 1867,) second Bishop of Toronto.
The Church, of July 24th, 1841, said :—
In the Provincial Parliament, an attempt will be made to introduce a
new and comprehensive System of Education. In anticipation of this,
Members of various Christian Denominations have presented petition* to
the Legislature, praying that provision may be made for the use of the
Holy Scriptures in all Schools receiving any Public Grant. In such a
petition as this, we consider it the duty of every man to join, and thus
record, (to borrow the forcible language of the Quebec Mercury,) ''their
abhorrence of the principle that would recommend the putting of garbled
extracts from the Sacred Volume in the hands of the rising generation."
The whole subject will, we fear, be found environed with many diffi-
culties, and we have a shrewd suspicion that something like the Irish
System of Education will be thrust upon our acceptance. We confess that
we cannot, at present, see any likelihood of a speedy and satisfactory
settlement of this question ; for its discussion must necessarily bring to
the surface every element of political and religious discord. At all events,
however, there is one point of Protestant unanimity — and that is, to insist
on the free and unmutilated use of the Authorized Version of the Holy
Scriptures in every School supported by the State.
2. A petition was also presented to the Legislature on the
18th of August, 1841, from the Right Reverend Remegius
Gaulin, Roman Catholic Bishop of Kingston, and from the
Reverends A. Manseau and H. Hudon, Administrators of the
Diocese of Montreal, stating objections to the principle of the
School Bill of 1841, and desiring —
That it may not become law, until the opinion of the Catholic and other
Religious Denominations be known.
3. A petition was presented on the same day from the Right
22 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Reverend the Bishop and Clergy of the Church of England in
Toronto, praying —
That the education of the children of their own Church may be entrusted
to their own pastors ; and that an annual grant from the asssesments may
be awarded for their instruction.
4. In a petition presented to the Legislature from the Right
Reverend the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, and the
Bishop of Sidyme, his Coadjutor, on the 23rd of August, 1841,
it was stated that they entertained a hope that : —
When the House will adopt a law for the encouragement of Education
in this Province, they will watch carefully that it shall contain no enact-
ment which can prejudice the interests of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects ;
also, that it will be based on the principles of justice.
5. The petition presented to the House of Assembly by the
Reverend James George, " Moderator of the Presbyterian
Church of Canada, on behalf of said Church," prayed that an
enactment be made prescribing the use of the Bible in all the
Schools of the Province.
CHAPTEK Y.
EFFECT OF THESE PETITIONS— ADOPTION OF THE PRINCI-
PLE OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS IN UPPER CANADA.
OF the forty-two petitions presented to the House of Assembly
in regard to the Honourable Solicitor- General Day's Com-
mon School Bill, thirty-nine prayed for the use of the Bible
in the Schools. All of these, as well as the Government
Bill itself, were referred to the Special and Select Committee
-already named. The result was that, in the attempt to deal
with, and to provide for, the diverse circumstances of Upper
and Lower Canada alike, a far more ill-digested and unwise
scheme for Separate and Dissentient Schools was framed by the
Committee than was evidently intended, or desired, by the
Upper Canada Members of the House, or by the Petitioners
PRINCIPLE OF SKI-AKATK SCHOOLS, U. C., ADOPTI.I. L>:-;
from that part of the Province. This is appnn-nt from th«-
fact that, after a year's trial, the Act was wholly n-p.-al»-d : ami
that, in the special School Act for Upper Canada, t'rann-d 1,\-
the Hon. Francis Hincks, none of the Srparati- School provi-
sions of the Common School Act of 1841 were retained. Tin-
conditions on which Separate Schools could !><• established w.-n-
greatly restricted, and the principle, or basis, on which tln-v
were aided was narrowed down from the indefinite, yet collec-
lective, one of the total number of dissentient inhabitant-
interested, to that of the actual one of the attendam
individual pupils at the School concerned. Nevertheless, the
Government, having adopted the unusual course of submitting
one of its Cabinet measures to the revision of a mixed Select
Committee, had no option but to concur in what that Com-
mittee proposed as a solution of the difficulty. With this now
memorable addition to the Government Education Bill of 1841,
made solely by the Select Committee, it received the Royal
assent on the 18th of September of that year.
The principal pro visions, 'relating to Separate Schools, intro-
duced into Mr. Solicitor- General Day's Common SchoolBill of
1841 by the Select Committee, to which it was referred by the
Government, were as follows : —
XI. Be it enacted, That whenever any number of the Inhabitants of
any Township, or Parish, professing a Religious Faith different from
that of the majority of the Inhabitants of such Township, or Parish, shall
dissent from the Regulations, Arrangements, or Proceedings of the Com-
mon School Commissioners, [elected in each Township,] with reference
to any Common School in such Township, or Parish, it shall be lawful for
the Inhabitants, so dissenting, collectively to signify such dissent in writing
to the Clerk of the District Council, with the name, or names, of one or
more persons elected by them, as their Trustee, or Trustees, for the pur-
poses of this Act ; and the said District Clerk shall forthwith furnish a
certified copy thereof to the District Treasurer ; and it shall be lawful for
such Dissenting Inhabitants, by and through such Trustee, or Trustees,
who, for that purpose, shall hold and exercise all the rights, powers and
authorities, and be subject to the obligations and liabilities hereinbefore
assigned to, and imposed upon the Common School Commissioner
establish and maintain one or more Common Schools, in the manner and
subject to the Visitation, Conditions, Rules and Obligations in th:
24 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
provided, with reference to other Common Schools, and to receive from
the District Treasurer their due proportion, according to their number, of
the moneys appropriated by Law and raised by assessment for the support
of Common Schools, in the School District, or Districts, in which the said
Inhabitants reside, in the same manner as if the Common Schools, so to be
established and maintained under such Trustee, or Trustees, where estab-
lished and maintained under the said Common School Commissioners, such
moneys to be paid by the District Treasurer, upon the Warrant of the said
Trustee, or Trustees.
XVI. Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Governor of this
Province to appoint, from time to time, in each of the Cities and Towns
Corporate therein, not less than six, nor more than fourteen persons, (one-
half of whom shall, in all cases, be Roman Catholics, and the other ha7f
Protestants,) to be a Board of Examiners for each City, or Town, Corporate ;
of which said Board the Mayor shall be Chairman, but shall have no vote
other than a casting vote ; and the said Board shall be divided into two
Departments, one of which shall consist of Roman Catholics, and shall
exercise the duties hereinafter assigned to the Board of Examiners in and
over the Common Schools attended by Roman Catholic Children only, and
shall, in such case, appoint their Chairman ; and the other Department
shall consist of Protestants, who shall exercise their said duties in and over
the Common Schools attended by the Protestant Children only, and shall,
in such cases, appoint their Chairman ; — and, in all cases, in which the said
Common Schools are attended by Roman Catholic Children and Protestant
Children together, the said duties shall be exercised in and over the same
by the whole Board of Examiners ; and the duties of the said Board, and of
the said Departments hereof, in the several cases above mentioned, in and
for the said Cities and Towns Corporate, respectively, shall be to examine
the persons recommended as Teachers by the corporation, and reject them,
if unqualified, on the ground of character or ability ; and to regulate for
each School separately the course of study to be followed in such School,
and the books to be used therein, and to establish general rules for the
conduct of the Schools, and communicate them in writing to the respective
Teachers. . . .
The same Act provided that no person should be appointed a
Teacher, unless he were a British subject, and had been duly
examined. An exception to this provision was made in Sec-
tion four of the Act, in favour of " persons known as Us Freres
de la Doctrine Chretienne."
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION I'. <*.. 1 25
CHAPTEE VI.
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION AFFECTING U'l'Ki:
CANADA ALONE, 1843.
IT was soon found that the general Education L?iw, i'mim-d in
1(S41 for the whole Province, was not acceptable to Upper
Canada, or suitable to its needs, or condition. Nothing, how-
ever, was done in regard to education during the Legislative
Session of 1842. But, in the next Session, the Hon. Francis
Hincks, having, since 1841, become a Member of the Govern-
ment as Inspector General, introduced a Common School Bill
into the Legislature of 1843.* In that Bill, no. part of the
Separate School legislation of 1841 was included — it being
considered at the time objectionable in principle, and unjust
and unwise in its financial detail. The strongest objection
Avhich was felt at the time to the law of 1841, so far as it
related to Separate Schools, was to the element of discord in
neighbourhoods which it authorized and sanctioned, by the
general permission which it gave to those, who might express
dissent to the official Regulations prescribed for the government
of the Common Schools, to withdraw their children from the
School, and set up a rival one in the same place. The law also
provided that if even the Regulations were unobjectionable,
dissent might be expressed to the " arrangements " or even to
the " proceedings " of the School Commissioners, and then the
right would arise to the dissentients ; and they would, under
the law, be justified in setting up a rival School, with the
same right as the local School to share in the School moneys,
" according to their number," (i.e., of dissentients.)
* The School Law of 1841 was also found to be unsuited to Lower Canada ;
and, in the same Session of 1843, the Hon. A. N. Morin introduced a School
Bill for Lower Canada into the House of Assembly.
26 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Such an unstatesmanlike mode of dealing with a difficult
social question was seriously felt on all sides ; and the Law of
1841 was, in 1843, wholly repealed. The Hon. Francis Hincks,
a Member of the Government, undertook the task of providing^
in that year, (1843,) a School Law for Upper Canada alone, in
place of the General School Act of 1841. In his Bill, he
omitted the whole of the provisions for Separate Schools,
which were contained in the School Act of 1841, and intro-
duced the following provisions for such Schools in its place : —
LV. And be it enacted, That in all cases wherein the Teacher of any
Common School shall happen to be a Roman Catholic, the Protestant
inhabitants shall be entitled to have a School with a Teacher of their own
Religious Persuasion, upon the application of ten or more resident free-
holders, or householders, of any School District, or within the limits
assigned to any Town, or City, School ; and, in like manner, when the
Teacher of any such School shall happen to be a Protestant, the Roman
Catholic inhabitants shall have a Separate School, with a Teacher of their
own Religious Persuasion, upon a like application.
LVI. And be it enacted, That such applications shall be made in writ-
ing, signed with the names of each resident freeholder, or householder, and
addressed and delivered to the Township, Town, or City, Superintendent,
[with names of Trustees], and upon the compliance of such Trustee, and of
the Township, Town or City Superintendent, with the requirements of this
Act, such School shall be entitled to receive its share of the public appro-
priation, according to the number of children of the religious persuasion
who shall attend such Separate School, which share shall be settled and
adjudged by the Township, Town or City Superintendent, subject to an
appeal to the County Superintendent ; and such Separate School shall be
subject to the visitations, conditions, rules and obligations provided in this
Act, with reference to other Common Schools, or to other Town, or City,
Schools established under this Act.
It will be noted that these provisions of the Upper Canada
School Bill of 1843 are much less general than those in the Act
of 1841. They dealt with a practical case, and gave no room
for capricious action, founded on mere difference of opinion in
regard to the " regulations, arrangements, or proceedings, of the
School Commissioners." The Act of 1843 provided that the
coarse of study and text-books agreed upon b}^ the Trustees
were subject to the approval of the Local Superintendent.
Provision was first made in this Act for the protection of
BISHOPS STRACHAN, MACDONELL, AND POWER. 27
those children, whose parents or guardians objected to have
them " read or study in, or from, any religious book, or join in
any exercise of devotion or religion."
Hon. Francis Hincks, in a Speech which he delivered in
1843, thus explained the reason why the Common School Act
of 184-1 was superseded by an Act introduced by himself in
1843, and, in the case of this Province, confined to Upper
Canada alone. He said :—
No one is more sensible than I am of the defects of the late School Law,
(of 1841,) so great, indeed, were they, that it has been found impossible to
work it. That . . . School Law was not framed by any Ministry,
responsible, or otherwise ; it was hastily put together in a Select Committee
of the House of Assembly, consisting of [twenty-three] Members ; without
that deliberation and care which such a measure ought to have and received.
CHAPTEE VII.
PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO THE SCHOOLS— OF BISHOPS
STRACHAN, POWER AND CHARBONNEL—
BISHOP MACDONELL.
I. BISHOP STRACHAN.
BISHOP STRACHAN strongly opposed the Separate School pro-
visions in the Hincks' School Act of 1843, which applied to
Upper Canada alone. He wished to have Church of England
Schools, "pure and simple." In his Charge to his Clergy in
1844, the Bishop said : —
When the School Act was under discussion in the Legislature, in 1841,
I petitioned that the Church should be allowed her share of the public
money in proportion to her numbers.* With this reasonable request,
there was a disposition to comply, as appears from the eleventh section ;
but the Act was found contradictory and impracticable, and no benefit
* This was the provision in the discarded Act of 1841, which the Bishop
wished to be restored in the Act of 1843. The same request was invariably
preferred, and that very frequently afterwards by promoters of Separate
Schools, but was as invariably refused by Dr. Ryerson.
28 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
could be derived from it during its continuance. I petitioned again, while
the new Act [of 1843] was under consideration, praying that the sum
appropriated by the Legislature for the use of Common Schools might be
divided among the recognized Denominations of Christians, in proportion to
their respective numbers,* or in proportion to the funds raised by each, or
from the combination of both. ... No notice was taken of this
application. . . . The former law of 1841 was dropped, and a new
statute was enacted (in 1843), in which, throughout its seventy-one clauses,
there is no reference to Christianity. — (Bishop Strachan's Charge to Jiis
Clergy, January, 1844, P&ge 39.)
It is proper to remark here that this proposition of Bishop
Strachan to have Separate School moneys divided among the
Denominations " in proportion to their respective numbers "
was a principle which, during his administration, Dr. Hyerson
strenuously opposed. He held that to do so would be practi-
cally to endow churches, as such, — professedly for school pur-
poses,— but, nevertheless, a recognition of the right of these
Churches, in their corporate capacity, to a share of the public
funds, for the promotion of Sectarian Education. Reference to
this matter is made in a subsequent part of this Book.
For several years after the passage of the Acts of 1841 and
1843, no demand was made by the Representatives of the
Roman Catholic Church for any extension of the principle of
Separate Schools, as it had been agreed upon and settled by all
parties in the House of Assembly in these years. The Church
of England, however, persistently made a claim, year after
year, for a share of the School moneys for Parochial Schools ;
but the claim was never recognized, nor acted upon, by the
Government, or Legislature.
II. BISHOP POWER.f
During the life-time of the Right Reverend Dr. Michael
Power, first Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, he acted in a
* Dr. Ryerson was invariably opposed to this proposal, as it involved the
principle of Church Endowment. See Note on the preceding page.
t The Right Reverend Michael Power, D. D. , was a native of Nova Scotia-
He was elected Bishop of Toronto on the 17th of December, 1841 ; was conse-
crated on the 8th of May, 1842 ; died from fever, caught while ministering to
the fever- stricken Irish emigrants in Toronto, on the 1st of October, 1847.
BISHOPS STRACHAN, MACDONELL, AND POWER. 29
I'rirndly way with Dr. Ryerson on the Provincial Board of
Education, (afterwards the Councrl of Public Instruction,) of
which he was Chairman until his death. This I knew as a
matter of fact, for I was at every Meeting of that Board up to
the time of the greatly lamented death of Bishop Power, on the
1st of October, 1847.
Years afterwards, this friendliness of action on the part of
Bishop Power was questioned by the Hon. John Elmsley, of
Toronto, by Vicar-General Bruyere, of Toronto, and by Bishop
Pinsoneault, of London. In a Letter from the latter to the
Vicar-General, published in The Leader newspaper of the 20th
of February, 1857, the Bishop said :—
Need I say it is notorious that both these zealous Prelates, (Bishops
Macdonell and Power,) laboured most faithfully and strenuously — in their
own times — to establish thorough Catholic Schools, whenever and wherever
circumstances permitted them.
Dr. Ryerson dissented from this strong statement of Bishop
Pinsoneault, and, in The Leader of the 27th of February, 1857,
said : —
In reply to this statement (of the Bishop), I remark :
1st. There is not a vestige of proof to sustain it in any circular or
letter, or writing, put forth by either of the excellent Prelates mentioned.
2nd. That, although the provisions of the law for Separate Schools
have existed since the commencement of the present system in 1841, and
although Bishop Macdonell chiefly resided in Kingston, and Bishop Power
in Toronto, but two Separate Roman Catholic Schools were established
under the law, in either Kingston, or Toronto, until after the death of
these Bishops.
3. That Bishop Power not only acted with the Board of Education, (a
mixed Board, ) and presided at its Meetings until the week before his death,
but his name stands first of the six Members who individually signed the
first Circular to the Municipalities of Upper Canada, on the establishment
of the Normal School,* (a mixed School,) as the great instrument of giving
effect to our system of Common Schools.
4. The late Bishop Macdonell died before I had any connection with
* The opening and closing paragraphs of this Circular are as follows :
" \Ye to whom the duty has been assigned, (to select and recommend proper
books and libraries, and to establish a Normal School for the better education
of School Teachers in Upper Canada,) have undertaken it with a deep conviction
of its importance and difficulty, and with an earnest desire to perform it in a
30 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
our School System ; but I knew the sentiments of Bishop Power from
frequent intercourse and consultation with him on School matters, and I
know that he and Bishop Charbonnel— on his first coming to Toronto —
professed n<>t to desire Separate Schools beyond what they, (Roman
Catholics,) termed 'protection from insult;' that is, in such cases only
where Roman Catholic children could not attend the Common Schools
without being insulted and being imposed upon on account of their religion.
The necessity of a Separate School they lamented as a misfortune, instead
of advocating it as a principle. In this feeling I entirely sympathized.
In reply to a Letter of mine, dated the 1st of October, 1847—
in which I informed Dr. Ryerson, then absent from Toronto, of
the death of Bishop Power,- — in a Letter, dated the 3rd of
October, he said : —
The death of Bishop Power astonished and deeply affected me. He
was a very valuable Member of the Provincial Board, and an exceedingly
agreeable man. I hope the Board has a suitable Resolution in reference
to him. (Such a Resolution was passed by the Board.)
In a Letter addressed, in 1855, to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald, Dr. Ryerson thus referred to Bishop Power : —
Bishop Power, virtually a Canadian, being born in Nova Scotia, had a
patriotic desire to elevate the Roman Catholic population of the Country,
and believed that it would be best effected by their children being educated
with the children of other creeds, wherever party feeling did not oppose
insurmountable obstacles to it.— (Correspondence betiveen the Chief Superin-
tendent and other persons on the subject of Separate Schools, 1853-1855y
page 50.)
manner that will promote, to the greatest possible extent, the best interests of
the Country.
The Board of Education earnestly hope that this subject (the Normal School):
will receive the favourable consideration of the several District Councils; and to
their early as well as patriotic and benevolent attention we earnestly recom-
mend it. It is the purpose of the Board to educate young men for Canada,
as well as in it, etc.
t MICHAEL, B*SHOP OF TORONTO,
J. GEORGE HODGINS, Chairman*
Recording Clerk. EGERTON RYERSON.
H. J. GRASETT.
S. B. HARRISON.
JOSEPH C. MORRISON.
HUGH SCOBIE.
J. S. HOWARD.
Education Office, Toronto, August 4th, 1846.
BISHOPS STRACHAN, MACDONELL, AND POWER. 31
In his address at the opening of the Normal School for
Upper Canada, in November, 1847, Dr. Ryerson thus referred
to the then recent decease of Bishop Power, and to the harmony
which had characterized the Meetings of the Provincial Board
of Education, up to that time : —
One event, indued, has occurred, over which the Members of the Board
have reason to mourn — the decease of the Right Reverend Prelate, who,
by his colleagues, had been unanimously chosen Chairman of the Board,
and whose conduct, as Chairman and Member of the Board, was marked by
a punctuality, a courtesy, a fairness, a xeal and intelligence which entitle
his memory to the affectionate remembrance of his colleagues and the
grateful esteem of every member of the community. ... I cannot
reflect upon the full and frequent conversations which 1 have had with him
on subjects of public instruction, and with the scrupulous regard which he
ever manifested for the views and rights and wishes of Protestants, without
feelings of the deepest respect for his character and memory.
Further, in referring to the preparation of the Regulations
in regard to Religious Instruction in the Schools, Dr. Ryerson
said, in his Annual Report :—
It affords me pleasure to record the fact . . . that before adopting
the section in the printed Forms and Regulations oil the "Constitution and
Government of the Schools in Respect to Religious instruction," I submitted
it to the late Roman Catholic Bishop Power, Chairman of our Board, who,
after examining it, said that he would not object to it, as Roman Catholics
were fully protected in their rights and views, and as he did not wish to
interfere with Protestants in the fullest exercise of their rights and views.
In addition, I may say that Dr. Ryerson, in a private Letter
to Hon, Attorney -General Draper, dated December 17th, 1846,
thus explained his proceedings in regard to the preparation of
the clause in the Regulations relating to Religious Instruction
in the Schools. He said : —
I submitted the clause first to Reverend Mr. Grasett, as a Member of
the Board. He quite approved of it, as he felt exceedingly anxious that
there should be such an explicit recognition of Christianity in our School
system. ... I showed it also to Bishop Strachan. After he had read
the Section, he said he believed I had done all that could be done on that
subject, and that . . . he would write a Circular to his Clergy, recom-
mending them to act as School Visitors, and to do all in their power to
promote the efficiency and usefulness of the Common Schools.
32 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The Hon. W. H. Draper, in a private note, to Dr. Ryerson,
in reply, dated the 1st January, 1847, said:—
I am more gratified than I can express that you have so successfully
met the* difficulty about the Religious Instruction of children in Common
Schools. You, (to whom I expressed myself about three years ago on the
subject of the importance of not dividing religion from secular instruction,)
will readily understand the pleasure I feel that, in Common Schools at least,
the principle and proposed application of it, for mixed Schools, has been
approved by the Bishop of my own Church, and by the Roman Catholic
Prelate.
W. H. DRAPER.
MONTREAL', 1st of January, 1847.
The first and last paragraphs of these Regulations on Reli-
gious Instruction in the Schools were as follows : —
As Christianity is the basis of our whole system of elementary educa-
tion, that principle should pervade it throughout. Where it cannot be
carried out in mixed Schools to the satisfaction of both Roman Catholics
and Protestants, the law provides for the establishment of Separate
Schools. And the Common School Act, securing individual liberty, as
well as recognizing Christianity, provides : —
"That in any Model or Common School, established under this Act,
no child shall be required to read or study in or from any religious book,
or to join in any exercises of devotion or religion which shall be objected
to by his parents or guardians."
With this limitation, the peculiar religious exercises of each School
must be a matter of understanding between the Teacher and his employers.
This must be the case in regard both to Separate and Mixed Schools.
(2. Q notation from the Regulations of the Irish National Board.)
3. The foregoing quotations (which might be greatly extended) from
the Irish Commissioners' Reports are made because their system may be
considered as the basis of the Upper Canadian system — their books having
been adopted and their methods of instruction being about to be introduced
in the Provincial Normal School. That system is Christian, but not
sectarian ; secures individual right and denominational privileges, and is
founded on revealed truth. The General Lesson,* hung up in every School
-of the Irish National Board, and carefully inculcated upon the pupils, is
recommended for universal adoption in Upper Canada. — (Special Report
•:on tlie Measures which have been adopted for the establishment of a Normal
School, and for carrying into effect generally the Common School Act, 9
Viet. ch. xx. By the Chief Superintendent of Schools ; Montreal, 1847, pages
60, 01.)
* This General Lemon is practically the substance of the .Golden Rule.
s STKACHAX, MA<-IM,.\I.;U,. A\i> POWER. 3:*
in. msiioi' .MACDO\I.;LL.*
As to Bishop Macdonell, his proceedings in regard to Schools
aiv detailed pretty fully in the examination of the Reverend
Dr. O'Grady, Parish Priest at York, by tin* \V. L Mark<-n/i<-'s
Ui'n'.cauce Committee, in 1835, and also in the evidence of other
Witnesses. This evidence goes to show that the British (Jovcm-
ment authorized a grant to be made to Bishop Macdonell for
Mission and Educational purposes, of One Thousand pounds
(£1,000) sterling a year. Four Teachers were brought out by
him from Scotland, viz. : Messrs. Hammond, Murdoch McDonald
and McPherson. Colonel Alexander Chisholm, M.P.P. for Glen-
garry, in his evidence before the Grievance Committee, stated
* The Right Reverend Bishop Macdonell was born in July, 1762, near Loch
Xt-ss, Inverness-shire, Scotland. He was educated at the Scottish Colleges, tirst
at Paris and afterwards at Valladolid, where he was ordained in 1787. In
1794, Mr. Macdonell conceived the idea of forming some Scotch Roman Catho-
lic operatives, out of work, into a Regiment. This was done with the King's
sanction, and he became Chaplain to the Glengarry Fencible Regiment, first in
Guernsey, and then in Ireland. In 1802, the Regiment was disbanded ; and in
March of that year, Mr. Macdonell obtained the Sign Manual for a grant of
land for every Officer and soldier of the Regiment whom he could introduce
into Upper Canada. On his own arrival, he was appointed to the Mission of
St. Raphael, Glengarry, On the 12th of January, 1819, he was nominated
Bishop of Rhaesina, and Vicar Apostolic of Upper Canada, and was consecrated
as such in Quebec on the 31st of December, 1820. On the 27th of January.
1826, he was appointed Bishop of Regiopolis, or Kingston. On his return
from England, he resided in York, at the corner of Nelson (Jarvis) and
Duchess Streets. In 1836, he removed to Kingston. In 1839, he went to
England. On a visit to Ireland, he took cold from exposure of rain, and
also in Scotland, where he died on the 14th of January, 1840. His remains
were, in 1861, removed to Kingston, and buried there. Mr. D. A. O'Sullivan,
Q.C., LL.D., in his "Essays on the (Roman Catholic) Church in Canada."
speaking of Bishop Macdonell, says: — "He was a martial figure in the history
of (that) Church in this country, and had many difficulties to encounter. He
had been Chaplain in Ireland during the trouble of '98 ; . . . he was
missionary in Canada during the War of 1812, and Bishop of Kingston during
the Rebellion of 1837. . . . He was named a Legislative Councillor in
1834 (see page 27 of thi* volume,}, shortly after the creation of his See, and
was in receipt of a considerable pension from the (British) Government of the
day (pages 131, 132}. Archbishop Cleary, in a letter to the Toronto Catholic
Register, of October 7th, 1894, says that Bishop Macdonell "raised two
regiments of Scotch Fencibles from amongst his own people, and led them for
ward and cheered them on by his presence and bravery in several battles with
the enemy in Eastern Ontario. This," the Archbishop says, "profoundly
touched the hearts of the statesmen in the Foreign Office in London, and in the
Governor-General's Citadel in Quebec ; so much so, that in token of high
appreciation, he received from the King a pension for life, which was after-
wards doubled, and then quadrupled, and made hereditary in perpetuity to his
successors in office after he had become Bishop of Kingston."
34 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
that three of these Teachers taught Roman Catholic Schools in
Glengarry, and one a Common School. The Bishop himself, in
a letter to the Reverend Dr. O'Grady, dated December 1st,
1830, stated that:
After receiving the Prince Regent's thanks for my own conduct in
defence of the Province during the late war, (1812,) the Colonial Minister,
Earl Bathurst, increased my own salary, and sent orders to the Executive
Government of Upper Canada to pay so much— in the aggregate One Thou-
sand pounds (£1,000) — annually to a certain number of Clergymen and
Teachers, that I was to recommend.
A Letter from Sir John Colborne, about the same time, in-
formed, the Bishop that one-fourth of this grant was to be
expended in paying the salaries of Teachers.
BISHOPS MACDONELL AND POWER,
As to Bishop Macdonell's proceedings in educational matters,
the late lamented Reverend M. Stafford, Parish Priest at Lind-
say, in a private Letter to me, written in May, 1885, said: —
There are Letters in manuscript by Bishop Macdonell — first Roman
Catholic Bishop in Upper Canada — which you will find very interesting.
. . . He imported Teachers from Scotland, . . . and wrote strongly
to the Government against allowing Teachers from the United States into
this country, and advocated the training of native Canadians for Teachers.
In this matter of training Teachers for Canada, and in Canada,
Bishops Macdonell and Power were quite agreed. See the
Circular on the subject to District Councils, in a note on page
22, ante. The exclusion of Teachers from the United States,
as suggested by Bishop Macdonell, was provided for in the
Common School Acts of 1841 and 1843.
I have referred to these matters relating to Bishops Mac-
donell and Power the more fully, from the fact that, in the
Separate School discussions of later years, it was frequently
asserted that these Representatives of the Roman Catholic
Church in Upper Canada had, during this period, and always,
demanded Separate Schools as a right. This was not so ; for,
as a matter of fact, the desire for " protection from insult," and
the claim for individual right of conscience in the Schools,
BISHOPS STRACHAX, MACDONELL, AND I'OWER. :r>
were the only pleas put forth by them from 1S41 to 1851, and
then, only in special cases requiring such protection, or inter-
vention. This will be apparent, not only from the proceedings
of Bishops Macdonell and Power, but also from the moderate
language of the only two petitions from Bishops sent in to the
House of Assembly in 1841, and quoted on pages 13 and 14.
The single petition sent from Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church, addressed to the House of Assembly, in 1850,
only asked that such a measure be granted as to enable Roman
Catholics to establish Separate Schools in Upper Canada, but
without specifying details.
BISHOP CHARBONNEL AND HIS CHANGED ATTITUDE IN 1852.*
Such, as a matter of history, was the attitude of the acknow-
ledged Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Upper
Canada towards the Public Schools down to 1851-52. Even
Bishop Charbonnel, who, in addition to his hierarchical rank,
was a French nobleman, (Count de Charbonnel,) gave abundant
evidence that, if left free to exercise his own judgment, he
would have continued to act in harmony with Dr. Ryerson, as
a Member of the Council of Public Instruction. Of this, as an
Officer of the Council, I felt assured, from my knowledge of the
Bishop, and from the nature of my intercourse with him. He
was an accomplished gentleman, and was always most agree-
* The following sketch of Bishop Charbonnel is taken from the Mail news-
paper of the 26th of March, 1891 : — "The Right Reverend Armand Francia
Marie Charbonnel was born in 1802, in Monistrol, Department of Haute-Loire,
France. His uncle was the celebrated Cardinal Charbonnel, of Puy. His
mother was a daughter of the Marquis d'Agrain, the first President of the
Parliament of Dijon during the Revolutionary period. In 1819 he entered the
Seminary of St. Sulpice, and was ordained as Priest in 1825. He commenced
active work in the Church at Lyons, and was such a faithful worker that he
had frequent offers of promotion, all of which, for a long time, he refused. He
was a born soldier, as well as a devout son of the Roman Catholic Church :
and, in 1834, he received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour from Louis
Philippe, for services rendered to the Orleans dynasty during an attempted
rising in Lyons. The Queen of France and the Church Dignitaries again urged
promotion, but he declined these proffered honours, and came to Canada in
1839. He had not been long in Canada ere honours were again pressed on him,
and, it is said, the Governor-General, Lord Sydenham, was anxious for his
promotion. He, however, declined the offers, and in 1847 he worked night and
day among the Irish emigrants, who were being decimated by the typhoid out-
36 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
able and courteous in his manners. His sudden change of
demeanour towards Dr. Ryerson was a matter of surprise and
regret to the Members of the Council, as it was wholly unex-
pected. He may have felt wounded at being, in some respects,
placed in a false position by his opponents in the press, and by
Dr. Ryerson's keen criticism on his unnecessarily misunder-
standing of what he attacked ; for Dr. Ryerson felt both sur-
prised and hurt at the changed attitude of his former courteous
friend, the Bishop. He, no doubt, felt it due to the Chief
Superintendent of Education to account for the change in their
official relations ; and this he did, in a Letter addressed to Dr.
Ryerson, dated the 1st of May, 1852, and in his Letter to the
Hon S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the Council of Public Instruc-
tion, dated the 26th of the same month. There was, never-
theless, in both of these Letters, a latent spirit of resentment,
which may have influenced him in expressing himself in the
almost dictatorial and dogmatic spirit, in which these Letters
were written — a spirit which, I am sure, was as alien to his
feelings, as they were to his nature. In his Letter to Dr.
Ryerson, of the 1st of May, 1852, he said : —
"All my previous intercourse with you and the Council of Public
Instruction has been polite and Christian, and sometimes tolerant to an
extent that I have been required to justify."
break. He was seized with the disease, and it was only by his removal to the
healthy area that his life was saved. On his partial recovery he proceeded to
France, and was present in Paris in 1848, during the terrible days of the
barricades. His brother was killed in the fight at the Faubourg St. Antoine
barricade. He was invited to enter the French Parliament, in succession to
his brother, as representative for Upper Loire, but he declined the honour. As
soon as his health was quite restored Pope Pius IX. urged him to take the
Bishopric of Toronto. He accepted the honour, and the Pope conducted the
consecration in person. In 1859 the late Archbishop Lynch was appointed
Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese, and in 1860 Bishop Charbonnel resigned his
charge, returned to France, and entered the Order of Capuchins, Province of
Lyons, in which he continued till the time of his death, 25th of March, 1891.
He was made titular Bishop of Sosopolis in 1869, Archbishop of the same place
in 1881. During the time he was in charge of the Toronto Diocese he introduced
the Christian Brothers, and the Sisters of St. Joseph to Ontario. He founded
the House of Providence and other charitable institutions, and completed St.
Michael's Cathedral."
CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP CHARBONNEL, 1852. 37
CHAPTEK VIII.
THE CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP CHARBONNEL, 1852.
IN his Letter of 1st May, 1852, Bishop Charbonnel quoted the
Canons of the Roman Catholic Council of Baltimore, " sanc-
tioned," as he stated, " by the Supreme Head of our Church,
one and universal." The Canons quoted by the Bishop wmj
as follows : —
Council Prov. Bait. I., Canon XXXIV. — Whereas very many youth of
Catholic parents, especially among the poor, have been and still are, in
many parts of this Province, exposed to great danger of losing their faith,
and having their morals corrupted, from the want of proper teachers, to
whom so important a trust can be safely confided ; we judge it indis-
pensably necessary to establish schools, in which youth may be nurtured
in the principles of faith and morals, while they are instructed in literature.
Canon XXXV. — Since not (infrequently many things are found in the
books which are generally used in the Schools, in which the principles of
our faith are impugned, our dogmas falsely expounded, and history itself
perverted : on account of which the minds of the young are imbued with
errors, to the terrible loss of their souls ; zeal for religion, as well as the
proper education of youth and the honour itself of the American Union,
demand that some remedy be provided for so great an evil. Therefore we
determine, that there shall be published for the use of Schools, as soon as
possible, books entirely expurgated from errors and approved by the
authority of the Bishops, and in which nothing may be contained which
might produce enmity or hatred to the Catholic faith.
Council Prov. Bait. IV., Canon VI. — As it appears that the system of
public instruction, in most of the Provinces, is so devised and administered
as to encourage heresies and gradually and imperceptibly to fill the minds
of Catholic youth with errors, we admonish pastors that, with the utmost
zeal, they watch over the Christian and Catholic education of Catholic
youth, and to take especial pains lest such youth use the Protestant version
of the Scriptures, or recite the hymns or prayers of Sectaries. It must be
carefully provided, that no books or exercises of this kind be introduced in
the Public Schools, to the danger of faith and piety.
38 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
No\v these Canons, the Bishop adds, "are the perfect expression of our
sentiments."*
After referring approvingly to the policy of Archbishop
Murray, whom he characterized as "the Dove of Dublin,"! in
successfully resisting the Regulation which—
Required thnt in all the Schools for the Education of the Poor in
Ireland, the Bible, without notes, should be read in the presence of all the
pupils of the Schools, and that the Catechism, and all books of that kind,
should be excluded.
The Bishop further urged that, as in the case of the Irish
Schools which, through the influence of Archbishop Murray,
had been made " more acceptable to the Catholics," so the
Government here should give the Roman Catholics of Upper
* In connection with the foregoing extracts from the Canons of the Baltimore
General Council, it is interesting to quote the later ones of that Council, of
a very different spirit, as interpreted by Cardinal Satolli, in his Letter to the
Archbishops assembled in New York, in November, 1892, viz. : —
"II. Where there is no Catholic School at all, or when the one that is
available is little fitted for giving the children an education in keeping with
their condition, then the Public Schools may be attended with a safe conscience,
the danger of perversion being rendered remote by opportune remedial and
precautionary measures, a matter which is to be left to the conscience and
judgment of the Ordinaries. — (No. 198, page 103.)
f In the year 1845 I went to Dublin to master the details of the Irish
Education Office system of Administration and Management. While there, I
frequently met Archbishop Murray, who was one of the Commissioners of
National Education, (as was Archbishop Whately). He was a most apostolic
looking man, gentle, kind and courteous. I also accompanied Dr. Ryerson on
his visit, while in Dublin, to Archbishop Whately — the very opposite, in
appearance and manner, to Archbishop Murray. He was, indeed, very
courteous ; and, as Dr. Ryerson wished to introduce as much of the Irish
National School System as was suitable into our Upper Canada School arrange-
ments, he received many useful hints, as well as several very excellent sugges-
tions, from the Archbishop. During my daily visits to the Education Depart-
ment in Dublin, I formed a most agreeable acquaintance with the Right Hon.
Alexander Macdonell— a relative of Bishop Macdonell, of Kingston. That this
feeling was reciprocated by Mr. Macdonell, is shown by the following extract
from Dr. Ryerson's Letter to me, dated, "Paris, August 23rd, 1855," in which
he said : "Chief Justice Robinson, (with whom and Captain Lefroy we break-
fasted in London,) told me that Mr. Macdonell, of the National Board in
Dublin, mentioned you to him in very high terms." I also formed a pleasant
friendship with Dr. Robert Sullivan, (Principal of the Dublin Normal School,)
with the Professors and Masters, viz. — Rev. Mr. McGauley, Mr. John Rintoul
and Mr. T. U. Young— the latter a son in-law of Wilderspin, and an active
promoter of the system of that noted man. I also met many other distinguished
men at the time, — Commissioners of Education, and others.
In a letter, addressed by Dr. Ryerson to the Provincial Secretary, on the
22nd of July, 1857, he thus referred to this personal matter : "On my recom-
CONTROVERSY WITH liisiinp CHARBONNEL, 1852. 39
Canada a system which would be equally " acceptable " to
them. He concluded his letter as follows: —
I have said that, if the Catechism were sutliciently taught in the family
or by the Pastor, so rare in this large Diocese ; and if the Mixed School*
were exclusively for secular instruction, and without danger to our
Catholics, in regard to Masters, ]>ooks and companions, the Catholic
Hierarchy might tolerate it, as T have done in certain localities, after having
made due enquiry.
Otherwise, in default of these conditions, it is forbidden to our faithful
to send their children to these Schools, on pain of the refusal of the
Sacraments :* because the soul and heaven are above everything ; because
the foot, the hand, the eye, occasions of sin, ought to be sacrificed to
salvation, because, finally, Jesus Christ has confided the mission of instruc-
tion, which has civilized the world, to no others than the Apostles and
their Successors to the end of time.
It is their right, so sacred and inalienable, that every wise and paternal
mendation, Mr. J. G. Hodgins relinquished his salary for a year, went home to
Dublin at his own expense, and devoted a year to the careful study of the
whole mode of conducting the System of Education in Ireland, in all the details
of each of the seven Branches of the great Education Office in Dublin, and
returned to Canada in 1846, with the highest testimonials of the Irish National
Board of Education."
In response to this Letter, the Provincial Secretary stated that His Excellency
the Governor-General-in-Council had fixed my salary at £500 per annum ; and
then added the gratifying information that "His Excellency has further been
pleased to direct that Mr. J. G. Hodgins, the present Deputy Superintendent
of Education, be allowed, from the 1st of July, 1857, an addition to his salary
of £500, the sum of £50 per annum during his tenure of that office — in con-
sideration of his long and laborious services in connection with the establishment
of a new Department " — that of Education.
NOTE. — I duly received this "good service allowance" of $200 a year until
1869, when it was stopped on the occasion of a motion in the House of Assem-
bly, by the Hon. Edward Blake. It was restored some years later, but ceased
entirely in 1889.
It is now forty years since I received this gratifying recognition of services
rendered from 1844 to 1857. It was the only favour which I ever received from
any of the many Governments under which I have continuously served in the
same Department for over fifty-two years. — J. G. H.
* Quite a modification must have been made in the Canons of the General
Council of Baltimore, as interpreted and explained by Cardinal Satolli in hia
letter to the Roman Catholic Archbishops, in November. 1892. The explana-
tory interpretation of the Canon, as quoted by Bishop Charbonnel, is as follows:
"V. We strictly forbid anyone, whether Bishop or Priest, and this is the
express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff, through the Sacred Congregation,
either by act, or threat, to exclude from the Sacrament, as unworthy, parents
who choose to send their children to the Public Schools. As regards the
children themselves, this enactment applies with still greater force."— (Xo.
198, page 104, Conf. Tit. VI., Cap. I., //., Tit. VII.}
NOTE.— The other paragraphs of this remarkable Letter of Cardinal Satolli
are considerate and conciliatory, and may be inserted hereafter. —J. G. H.
40 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Government has made laws respecting instruction only in harmony with
the teaching Church— the Bishops united to their supreme and universal
Head ; and this right is so inviolable, that of late, as well as in former
times, in France, in Belgium, in Prussia, in Austria, as in Ireland, the
Bishops, with the Pope, have done everything to overthrow, or modify,
every School, or University, System opposed to the mission given by Jesus
Christ to His sacred College, "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations," etc.
On this part of the Bishop's letter, Dr. Ryerson replied as
follows :
The avowal with which your Lordship's letter concludes, — containing
an expression of sentiment, and a statement of facts which I have often
seen ascribed to the Authorities of your Church, but which I have never
before seen so broadly and explicitly avowed by any of its dignitaries, — an
avowal which I could not have credited, did it not appear over your Lord-
ship's own signature.
It is here clearly claimed that the Pope and Bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church are the only persons authorized by God himself to direct
the education of youth, and, therefore, that all others undertaking that
work are invading the prerogative of God ; that all legislation on the
subject must have the sanction of 'the Bishops with the Pope ;' and that
they have done, and will do, all in their power to overthrow or modify
every system of Public Instruction, from the School to the University,
which is not under their control. Such being your Lordship's sentiments
and intentions, I am glad that you have frankly avowed them.
Your Lordship's last Letter shows that the claims set up by your
Lordship are not merely for " religious liberty and equal rights, " but for
the absolute supremacy and control on the part of your Bishops, with the
Pope, in our System of Public Instruction. . . . But I doubt whether
such efforts will meet with much sympathy from a large portion of the
Members of the Roman Catholic Church, as I am persuaded they will not
from the people of Upper Canada at large. I can appeal to the history of
the past in proof of my acting towards the Roman Catholic Church in the
same spirit as towards any other Church ; but I must be unfaithful to all
my past precedents, as well as to the trust reposed in me, and the almost
unanimous feeling of the Country, if I should not do all in my power to
resist — come from what quarter it may — every invasion of ' ' the blessed
principles of Religious Liberty and Equal Rights," among all classes of the
people of Upper Canada. — (Letter to Bishop CJiarbonnel, 12th of May, 1852.)
In his Letter to the Hon. S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the
Council of Public Instruction, dated the 26th of May, 1852,
the Bishop was even more explicit as to the official influence
CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP CHARBONNEL, 1852. 41
which had been brought to bear upon him, requiring him to
answer for his Christian and courteous liberality. He said : —
''All my precedents with you, the Reverend Doctor, and the Council of
Public Instruction, have been polite and Christian, and, sometimes of a
tolerance, for which my Church has made me responsible."
Bishop Charbonnel had abundant evidence of the fairness
and courtesy of Dr. Ryerson in his treatment of the supporters
of Separate Schools. This he admitted in his Letter of the
27th of June, 1851, quoted on page 54, post. He even compli-
mented Dr. Ryerson on his " sincere liberality." Nothing,
therefore, could have been easier, (had he not been acting
under adverse influences,) or more practical than to have con-
tinued his own courteous and friendly conduct, and, from time
to time, to have conferred with Dr. Ryerson, in that same
friendly spirit, on the whole subject, before entering into an
unpleasant correspondence with him ; and, as was supposed,
with the view of discharging an onerous duty, which the Balti-
more Council, or other authority, had evidently imposed upon
him as Bishop.
By conferring personally with Dr. Ryerson he could have
ascertained the exact conditions upon which the grants, and
what grants, were available for Separate Schools, — the relation
of these Schools to the Municipal Councils, and to the Public
School System. He could also have ascertained what were
the causes, if any, which operated against Separate Schools;
what Text-Books were authorized, and various other details in
regard to the practical working of our School System, which
were evidently unknown to him. Such an enquiry would have
shed a flood of light on the whole question for the Bishop, and
would have greatly simplified his treatment of it, should he,
after such enquiry, have felt it necessary to enter into official
and even unfriendly correspondence on the subject. All this
would have been very easy for him to have done, as, up to this
time, the relations between the Bishop and the Chief Superin-
tendent were most friendly, and most propitious for intercourse
of such a nature. But, as the Bishop had been called upon by
the authorities of his Church, as he stated, to "justify" his
4
42 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
hitherto " polite and Christian " intercourse with Dr. Ryerson,
he, therefore, felt himself called upon, without any prelimi-
nary enquiry, to enter upon a controversy, which was so much
regretted, rendered doubly unpleasant from the fact that he
frequently assumed that to be "law," and consequently "jus-
tice," which was neither the one or the other, but often the
reverse.
This fact, and their superior local knowledge of the princi-
ples of our School Law, added point to the criticisms of writers
in the press on the Bishop's course, and greatly prolonged and
intensified the discussion. It also brought into the hostile
field writers, on the Bishop's side, who lacked the literary skill,
courtesy, and gentlemanly bearing of the Bishop. Besides, for
want of the necessary practical information on the subject,
their efforts only tended unnecessarily to complicate the whole
question, and, by added bitterness to the discussion, to render
the satisfactory settlement of the question the more protracted
and difficult.
I make the foregoing remarks with sincere regret, for my
personal intercourse with Bishop Charbonnel was always most
pleasant. He even did me the unexpected favour of saying
and writing some very kind things in regard to certain of my
official proceedings, which he thought were both fair and cour-
teous. He was a man of generous impulses, and, in the best
and highest sense, an accomplished and enlightened man of the
world.
That Dr. Ryerson felt very keenly the changed attitude of
Bishop Charbonnel, may be gathered from the following
extract of his Letter, in reply to the Bishop, in May, 1852 : —
Your Lordship refers to the friendly and cordial character of the inter-
course which has taken place from time to time between your Lordship
and the other Members of the Council of Public Instruction, including
myself. I can assure your Lordship that the feelings of respect and
pleasure attending that intercourse could not have been greater on your
part than on mine, and I, therefore, felt greatly surprised, pained and dis-
appointed, when I read your Lordship's letter of the 24th of March last,
denouncing that whole System of Public Instruction which I had under-
stood your Lordship to be a Colleague in promoting ; attacking the princi-
CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP CHAKHOXXEL, 1852. 43
pies on which I have acted during the whole period of my official connection
with that System; impugning the motives of its founders, reflecting upon
the character of the people of Upper Canada, and advocating that which
would be subversive of their hitherto acknowledged rights of local self-
government.
TORONTO, 12th of May, 1852. E. RYI;I
The matter complained of by the Bishop chiefly arose, not
by operation of the School Law itself, but apart from, and
often outside of, that law altogether. Thus his complaint of
the smallness of an apportionment to a Separate School was
due to his want of knowledge, that it was caused, not so much
by a non-observance, or violation, of the law ; but, in almost
every case, from the smallness of the attendance of children
at the School. The use also of Goldsmith's History of England
was the voluntary act of the Separate School Trustees them-
selves, for the book was neither imposed upon, nor authorized
as a Text-Book in, the Schools by any official authority what-
ever.
In reply to a demand that Municipal Councils should be
required to provide Houses for Separate, as for Public Schools,
and that they should not provide Houses for Public Schools,
without also providing them for Separate Schools, Dr. Ryerson,
in his Letter to Bishop Charbonnel, of March, 1852, said: —
I have observed, with regret, that demands for exemptions and advan-
tages have recently been made on the part of some advocates of Separate
Schools which had not been previously heard of during the whole ten
years of the existence and operations of the provisions of the law for
Separate, as well as Mixed, schools. I cannot but regard such occurrences
as ominous of evil. It is possible that the Legislature may accede to the
demands of individuals praying, on grounds of conscience, for unrestricted
liberty of teaching — exempting them from all school taxes, with a corre-
sponding exclusion of their children from all Public Schools — leaving
them perfectly free to establish their own Schools at their own expense ;
but I am persuaded the People of Upper Canada will never suffer them-
selves to be taxed, or the machinery of their Government to be employed,
for the building and support of Denominational School-houses, any more
than for denominational places of worship and clergy.
TORONTO, 13th of March, 1852. E. RYERSON.
44 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In further reply, to Bishop Charbonnel's Letter of the 24th
of March, 1852, Dr. Ryerson said :—
But if, according to your Lordship's advocacy, a Municipality must
be compelled to tax themselves to provide Separate School -houses for
Religious Persuasions, in addition to Public School-houses, there may be
a high degree of "civil liberty" secured to certain Religious Persuasions,
but a melancholy slavery imposed upon the Municipalities. The liberty
of teaching, any more than the liberty of preaching, by any Religious
Persuasion, has never been understood in Upper Canada to mean the right
of compelling Municipalities to provide places of teaching, any more than
places of preaching, for such Religious Persuasion. Such liberty, or,
rather, such despotic authority, possessed by any Religious Persuasion, is
the grave of the public Municipal liberties of Upper Canada.
TORONTO, 24th of April, 1852. E. RYERSON.
Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter of reply to Bishop Charbonnel, of
the 12th of May, 1852, also said :—
The people and Legislature of Upper Canada have repeatedly repudiated
the claim, that the authority and Officers of the law ought to be employed
to impose and collect taxes for any Religious Denomination. E. R.
CHAPTER IX.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION OF 1846-1850.
IN the first draft of School Bill submitted to the Government
by Dr. Ryerson, in 1846, he simply copied the provisions of the
Act of 1843, relating to Separate Schools, as they stood in that
Act. — (See page 45, post.)
In 1847, he submitted a draft of Bill for the Establishment
and Maintenance of Common Schools in Cities and in Towns
corporate. In this Bill, he sought to modify the Separate
School provisions of the former Acts, and to give them a less
positive form. His explanation of this change is as follows :—
"There is one provision in this Act, on which I desire to offer a few
words of explanation, as its nature and objects have been misapprehended.
I refer to the power which it gives to the School authorities of each City
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. 4.">
and Town to establish Denominational or Mixed Schools, as they may
judge expedient. It has not, perhaps, occurred to those who have com-
mented on this clause, that a similar provision, under a much more
objectionable form, has been incorporated into each of the three Common
School Acts for Upper Canada, which have been passed since the Union of
the Provinces, in 1840.* It has been provided, in each of these Acts, that
any ten householders of any School Section can demand a Separate School,
and a portion of the School Fund to support it. I have never seen the
necessity for such a provision, in connection with another section of the
Common School Law (of 1843), which provides that "no child shall be
compelled to read any religious book, or attend any religious exercise
contrary to the wishes of his parents or guardians;" and, besides, the
apparent inexpediences of this provision of the law, it has been seriously
objected to as inequitable — permitting the Roman Catholic Persuasion
to have a Denominational School, but not granting a single Protestant
Persuasion the same privilege. It has been maintained, that all Religious
Persuasions should be placed upon equal footing "before the law;" that,
although several Protestant Persuasions may be agreed as to the translation
of the Scriptures, which should be used, they are not all agreed as to the
kind and extent of the religious instruction which should be given in a
School — the very object contemplated in the establishment of a Separate
School ; and, therefore, each Protestant Persuasion should be placed upon
the same footing as the Roman Catholic Persuasion. This is the case
under the provisions of this City and Town School Act (of 1847), and,
therefore, the authorities of no Religious Persuasion have opposed, or
petitioned, against it, as some of them did against the previous School Act.
But, the City and Town Common School Act does not give the power to
any one Religious Persuasion, much less to any ten householders of it [as
did the Acts of 1843 and 1846], to demand a Separate School : that power
is taken from all Religious Persuasions alike, and given to the Public
School authorities, appointed by the elected representatives of each Town
or City.— (Dr. Byerson's Annual School Report of 1847, page 23.)
The course of events, in regard to Separate School Legisla-
tion, up to the end of 1850, is thus briefly narrated by Dr.
Ryerson, in his Letter to the Hon. George Brown, dated the
28th of December, 1858, as follows:—
The provision for Separate Schools was made in the 55th and
56th sections of Mr. Hincks' School Act, 1843, and by re-enacting the
same clauses in the 32nd and 33rd sections of the School Act of 1846.
The draft of the last Act was prepared by myself, at the request of the
Government.
*i.e., in September, 1841 ; December, 1843, and May, 1846.
46 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In 1847, I submitted the draft of the Act for the better organization
of Schools in the Cities and Towns of Upper Canada. The provision for
Separate Schools was made in the 3rd clause of the 5th section of that
Act, as follows :
"It shall be the duty of the Board of Trustees of each City and Town,
Thirdly, to determine the number, sites and description of Schools which
shall be established in each City or Town, and whether such Schools shall
be Denominational or Mixed."
This last phrase of the clause was omitted in the Act of 1850, the former
part of the clause fully comprehending it.
EPISODE OF THE DISALLOWED SCHOOL BILL OF 1849.
During these years, from 1846 to 1849, a persistent, but not
very influential, agitation originated in the Bathurst District
against the School Law and the Chief Superintendent of
Education. It was taken up and championed by the Hon.
Malcolm Cameron, who was originally from that District,
although, at the time, a Member of the Government, represent-
ing the County of Kent. The result was, that a draft of
School Bill, prepared by Dr. Ryerson, and sent to the Provincial
Secretary on the 23rd of February, 1849, was entrusted by the
Government to Mr. Cameron, — the Hon. Francis Hincks being
absent in England. Referring to this matter, Dr. Ryerson, in
a Letter to me from Montreal, said : —
As to the immediate objects of my coming, it is well that I did come.
The Inspector-General, (Hon. F. Hincks,) expressed himself very glad that
I had come. ... I understand that the School Bill is wholly Mr.
Malcolm Cameron's.
MONTREAL, 27th of April, 1849. E. RYERSON.
In a Letter to the Hon. James Leslie, Provincial Secretary,
Dr. Ryerson said : —
I have been informed, upon authority which I cannot doubt, that the
[Cameron] School Bill has been chiefly drafted by a person, who has,
during the last three years, been writing in a District newspaper against
myself, — a person who, as Chairman of the Education Committee of the
Bathurst District Council, has put forth three Council documents reflecting
upon myself, — the only Municipal Council documents of the kind which
have appeared in Upper Canada.
TORONTO, 12th of May, 1849. E. RYERSON.
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. 47
Further, in a Letter addressed to the Hon. Robert Baldwin,
Attorney-General, in July, 1849, Dr. Ryerson said : —
I am credibly informed that Mr. Cameron stated to a leading Member
of the Opposition, that he had adopted my suggestions in reference to the
Bill, . . . [and yet] Mr. Cameron told the Rev. H. J. (i
(Rector of St. James', Toronto), that he (Mr. Cameron) had not read
my communication respecting it.
TORONTO, 14th of July, 1849. E. RYEBSON,
In his Letter to the Provincial Secretary, already quoted, the
12th of May, 1849, Dr. Ryerson adds:—
I now submit to the Governor-Gereral in Council, that nearly every
section of the Common School Bill, which is not contained in the present
Act, or in the draft of School Bill which I submitted to the Government
in February last, is obviously theoretical, cumbrous, intricate, expensive
and inefficient.
The whole of the proceedings, relating to the School Bill,
took place in Montreal, at the time of the burning there of
the Parliament House, on the occasion of the passage of the
"Rebellion Losses Bill," which had produced a popular out-
burst. After the excitement had subsided, it was found, on
examination, that, not only had many objectionable features
been introduced into the School Bills, as passed, but that also
omissions of sections, relating to Separate Schools, had, with-
out notice, been made. This naturally created a strong feeling
of resentment on the part of the Roman Catholics ; and they
naturally demanded that the injustice, thus done to them by
the Government, would be remedied. In consequence of this
state of feeling, Dr. Ryerson felt it to be desirable that the
confidence thus lost should be restored. In a Letter to me,
he thus stated what it was proposed to do in the matter : —
I am happy to say that the (Malcolm Cameron) School Bill of last
Session is upset. The Members of the Government — even the Governor-
General — have personally examined into what I stated in my Letter to
Mr. Baldwin, of July last, and have come entirely into my views. Mr.
Cameron is now out of office. . . . Mr. Hincks said, that he concurred
in every sentiment in my Letter to Mr. Baldwin, and in regard to the
whole matter. . . . The Government desire to bring in a new Bill, to
be given into his hands, . . . when prepared.
MONTREAL, 29th of December, 1849. E. RYERSON.
48 U-. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The result was, that Dr. Ryerson was requested to prepare
a new and comprehensive School Bill, which would embrace all
of the best features of the preceding School Acts, and any
improvements which time and experience had shown to be
desirable and necessary. Nevertheless, the leading newspapers
of the day unwisely justified this surreptitious proceeding, of
Mr. Cameron, on the ground that the proposed remedy would
be a new concession to the Roman Catholics ; and, on the
appearance of the proposed School Bill of 1850, the Nine-
teenth section of it was vigorously attacked. In reply to these
attacks, Dr. Ryerson, in a letter to The Globe newspaper of
Toronto, replied as follows : —
You say that when the present party, (Baldwin-Lafontaine Government,)
came into power, (1848,) "the Common School System was free from sec-
tarian elements, but they have introduced the wedge, which threatens to
destroy the whole fabric."
By these statements . . . you represent the provisions for Pro-
testant and Roman Catholic Separate Schools, in certain cases, as of recent
introduction, and peculiar to the present School Bill of 1850, when it is a
fact that the same provision was introduced into the School Bill of 1841,
and was also re-introduced by Mr. Hincks in his School Bill for Upper
Canada of 1843. . . . The provision [of the Act of 1843 was retained,]
and in the same words in the School Bill, which the Hon. W. H. Draper
introduced, and had passed, in 1846. The provision, therefore, which
you represent as "fatal," has existed, [even in a more extended form,]
from the beginning of the present School System, in 1841, — was formally
introduced by the Reform Government, [in a modified form,] into the School
Act of 1843, . . . was concurred in by the same gentlemen, when
they were in opposition ... at the time when it was brought forward
by the leading members of the Conservative party in 1846.
TORONTO, 27th of July, 1854. E. RYERSON.
In continuing his narrative of the School Legislation of
1841-1847, Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, of the 28th of December, 1858, said :—
Such was the state of the law in regard to Separate Schools, and my
course in respect to it, when, in 1849, an Act was passed, under the
auspices of the Hon. Malcolm Cameron, a Member of the Government,
just after the burning of the Parliament House in Montreal, and a
few hours before the close of the Session ; an Act which I considered so
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. 49
objectionable that I preferred resigning office to acting under it, and which
I was authorized to set aside; and, at the same time, to prepare the draft
of another Act to replace it — a draft which became the School Act of 1850,
containing the provisions of the School Acts of 1X40 and 1847, with such
modifications and additions as experience had suggested. . . . The
Act of 1849 contained no provision for Separate Schools; it also abolished
the provisions of the previous Act which authorized Clergymen to act as
Visitors of Schools. . . . Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Hincks stated that
they had never examined the Bill of 1849 before it passed ; and it never
came into operation.
In the original draft of the 19th Section of the School Act of 1850,
I proposed to place the authority for establishing Separate Schools upon
the same footing as that on which it had been placed in Cities and Towns
by the Act of 1847 — namely, to leave it in the hands of the Township
Council, as it had been left in the hands of the City or Town Board of
Trustees.
INCIDENTS OF THE PASSING OF THE NINETEENTH, OR SEPARATE
SCHOOL, SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1850.
In continuation of his Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of
December, 1858, Dr. Ryerson said —
The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, having had their sus-
picions and fears excited by the unexpected and unnoticed omission of
the Separate School clauses from the Act of 1849, had Representatives,
both clerical and lay, in attendance, to watch the nature and progress of
the School Bill of 1850, and they protested against the provisions of the
19th Section, as originally introduced. Several leaders of the high Episco-
palian party were also in attendance to get a clause, providing for Church
of England Separate Schools, introduced into the Bill. An Amendment
to the 19th Section was concerted and agreed upon by the clerical Roman
Catholic and high Episcopalian parties, by which any twelve Members
of either Church could demand a Separate School in any School Section
of Upper Canada. . . . The leaders on both sides of this new com-
bination were very active, and, in the course of a few days, boasted that
they would have a majority of fourteen or twenty votes against the
Government, on the 19th Section of the Bill. A copy of the Amendment
of the combinationists was procured for me, and I was informed of the
probable defeat of the Government on the question. I saw, at once, that
the proposed Amendnent, if carried, would destroy the School System ;
and, in order to break up the combination and save the School System, I
proposed to amend the 19th Section of the Bill, so as to secure the right of
establishing Separate Schools to the applicants, as provided in the School
50
U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Acts of 1843 and 1846, only substituting twelve heads of families for ten
freeholders or householders. This was acceptable to the authorities of the
Roman Catholic Church, who said, that they did not wish to oppose the
Government of Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin, unless compelled to do so ;
and they then advised all the Roman Catholic Members of the House to
vote for the Government section of the Bill, as amended. When the ques-
tion came up in Committee of the whole House, the leader of the high
Church combination, who was not aware of the counter movement, rose to
move the famous Amendment which was to defeat, if not oust, the Govern-
ment ; but he was surprised to find that not one of the Roman Catholic
Members rose to vote for it, and only six or eight Episcopalians standing
up, "few and far between," in its behalf, to the great amusement of the
other Members of the House. On Mr. Hincks moving the Section, as
amended, it was carried without a division, and it constitutes the 19th
Section of the Act of 1850.
The 19th Section of the Common School Act, as introduced,
and as passed, is as follows. The substituted words in the
Section, as finally passed, are in italics : —
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE 19TH
SECTION.
(The words struck out are in Italics.)
' ' It shall be lawful for the Muni-
cipality of any Township, if it shall
judge expedient, to authorize the
establishment of one or more Sepa-
rate Schools for Protestants, Roman
Catholics, or Coloured People, and in
any case it shall prescribe the limits
of the Divisions or ^Sections for such
Schools, and shall make the same
provision for the holding of the first
meeting for the election of Trustees
of each such Separate School, as is
provided in the fourth Section of
this Act, for holding the first School
meeting in a new Section : Provided
always, that each such Separate
School shall go into operation at the
same time with alterations in School
Sections, and shall be under the
same regulations in respect to the
persons for whom such School is
" It shall be the duty of the Muni-
cipal Council of any Township, and
of the Board of School Trustees of any
City, Town, or Incorporated Village,
on the application, in writing, of twelve
or more resident heads of families, to
authorize the establishment of one or
more Separate Schools for Protes-
tants, Roman Catholics, or Coloured
People ; and, in such case, it shall
prescribe the limits of the Divisions
or Sections for such Schools, and
shall make the same provision for
the holding of the first meeting for
the election of Trustees of each such
Separate School, or Schools, as is
provided in the fourth Section of
this Act, for holding the first School
meeting in a new School Section :
Provided always, that each such
Separate School shall go into opera-
tion at the same time with alterations
in School Sections, and shall be under
the same regulations in respect to
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850.
permitted to be established, as are
Common Schools, generally : Pro-
vided, secondly, that none but Col-
oured People shall be allowed to vote
for the election of the Trustees of
the Separate School for their chil-
dren, and none but the parties
petitioning for the establishment of,
or sending children to a Separate
Protestant or Roman Catholic School,
shall vote at the election of Trustees
of such School : Provided, thirdly,
that each such Separate, Protestant
or Roman Catholic School shall be
entitled to share in the School Fund,
according to the number of children
of the religious class or persuasion
attending such School, as compared
ivith the whole number of children of
School age in the Township; and the
Separate School for children of Col-
oured People shall share in the School
Fund, according to the number of such
children of School age resident in such
School Section for Coloured children,
as compared with the whole number of
children of School age resident in the
Township: Provided, fourthly, that
the Trustees of the Common School
Sections, within the limits of which
such Separate School Section, or Sec-
tions, have been formed, shall not
include the children attending such
Separate School, or Schools, in their
return of children of School age re-
siding in their School Sections.
the persons for whom such School is
permitted to be established, as are
Common Schools, generally : Pro-
vided, secondly, that none but Col-
oured People shall be allowed to vote
for the election of Trustees of the
Separate School for their children,
and none but the parties petitioning
for the establishment of, or sending
children to a Separate Protestant or
Roman Catholic School, shall vote
at the election of Trustees of such
School : Provided, thirdly, that each
such Separate Protestant, or Roman
Catholic, or Coloured, School si K ill /*••
entitled to share in the School F»m1
according to the average attendance of
pupils attending each such Separate
School (the mean attendance of pupils
for both summer and winter being
taken), as compared with the whole
average attendance of pupils attending
the Common Schools in such City,
Town, Village, or Township : Pro-
vided, fourthly, that no Protestant
Separate School shall be allowed in
any School Division, except when the
Teacher of the Common School is a
Roman Catholic, nor shall any Roman
Catholic Separate School be allowed,
except when the Teacher of the Com-
mon School is a Protestant : Provided,
fifthly, that the Trustees of the Com-
mon School Sections, within the limits
of which such Separate School Sec-
tion, or Sections, shall have been
formed, shall not include the children
attending such Separate School or
Schools in their return of children of
School age residing in their School
Sections."
The 19th Section of the School Act of 1850, as thus
amended, passed unanimously.
52 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In a Circular to School Trustees, dated the 12th of August,
1850, Dr. Ryerson thus explains the nature and object of this
19th Section of the School Act of that year : —
The provision of the 19th Section, as far as it relates to Separate Pro-
testant and Roman Catholic Schools, is substantially the same as that
contained in the 55th and 56th Sections of the School Act of 1843, and in
the 32nd and 33rd Sections of the School Act of 1846, with the exception,
that the present Act imposes more effective restrictions and conditions in
the establishment of such Schools than either of the former Acts referred
to. Under the City and Town School Act of 1847, the establishment of
Separate Schools in Cities and Towns was at the discretion of the Munici-
palities, and not at that of the applicant parties. No complaint having
been made against this provision of the law, even in Cities and Towns, it
was, at first, proposed to extend the application of the same principle and
provision to Township Municipalities ; but, objections having been made
to it by some (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) Members of the
Legislature, the provision of the former School Act was re-enacted, —
requiring, however, the petition of twelve heads of families, instead of ten
inhabitants, as a condition of establishing a Separate School ; and aiding
it upon the principle of average attendance, instead of at the discretion of
the Local Superintendent, as under the former Acts. But, notwithstand-
ing the existence of this provision of the law, since 1843, there were, last
year, but thirty-one Separate Schools in all Upper Canada, — nearly as
many of them being Protestant as Roman Catholic ; so that this provision
of the law is seldom acted upon, except in extreme cases, and is of little
consequence for good or for evil, — the law providing effectual protection
against interference with the religious opinions and wishes of parents and
guardians, of all classes, and there being no probability that Separate
Schools will be more injurious in time to come than they have been in
time past. It is also to be observed, that a Separate School is entitled to
no aid beyond a certain portion of the School Fund for the salary of the
Teacher. The School-house must be provided, furnished, warmed, books
procured, etc., by the persons petitioning for the Separate School. Nor
are the patrons and supporters of a Separate School exempted from any of
the Local Assessments or rates for Common School purposes. The law
provides equal protection for all classes and denominations ; if there be
any class, or classes, of either Protestant or Roman Catholics, who are not
satisfied with the equal protection secured to them by law in Mixed
Schools, but wish to have a School subservient to Sectional Religious
purposes, they should, of course, contribute in proportion, and not tax a
whole community for the support of sectarian interests. — (Chief Superin-
tendent's Circular to Township Councils, dated the 12th of August, 1850.)
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. 53
In a Circular to City and Town Board of School Trustees,
in regard to this 19th Section, dated the 8th of October, I860,
Dr. Ryerson said : —
This provision of the Act . . . is no new provision, but
one which has existed upwards of seven years, — since the commencement
of our present Common School System. It has clearly been intended, from
the beginning, as a protection of the minority against any oppressive or
invidious proceedings on the part of the majority, in any School Division,
in addition to the ordinary provision of the Act, prohibiting the compulsory
attendance of any child upon a religious exercise, or reading a religious
book, to which his parents or guardians shall object. The existence of so
few Separate Schools (only about thirty-one in all Upper Canada, and
nearly one-half of them Protestant) shows that the provision for their
establishment is rarely acted upon, — as the Local School Authorities
seldom find occasion for it. And as there can be no Separate School in a
School Division, unless the Teacher of the Mixed School is of a different
Religious Persuasion from the applicants for such Separate School, the
Local Board of Trustees can always, if they think proper to do so, make
such a selection of Teachers as will prevent the establishment or continu-
ance of Separate Schools. — (Chief Superintendent's Circular to Boards of
School Trustees, dated 8th October, 1850.)
THE FIRST TORONTO SEPARATE SCHOOL CASE IN 1851.
A difficulty occurred later on, in 1850, which necessitated
the interference of the Chief Superintendent of Education, in
favour of the Roman Catholic Separate School Trustees of
the City of Toronto. In his Letter to the Hon. George Brown,
written in December, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus states the nature
of that difficulty, and the remedy for it, as follows : —
In the latter part of 1850, certain Roman Catholics applied for a second
Separate School in the City of Toronto. The Board of School Trustees
rejected their application, upon the ground that the 19th Section of the
School Act of 1850 did not require them to permit the establishment of
more than one Separate School in the City. The applicants applied to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a Mandamus to compel the Board of School
Trustees to grant their request. The Court decided that —
According to the letter and grammatical construction of the Act, a City,
or Town, was only a School Section, and the Trustees could not, therefore,
be compelled by law to grant more than one Separate School, whatever
might have been the intention of the Legislature. . . .
54 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Dr. Ryerson then goes on to say that —
The [Roman Catholic] supporters of the Ministry of that day .
sought a Legislative remedy for a defect in the law, and applied in the
proper quarter for that purpose. Mr. Hincks declined taking their com-
plaint into consideration without consulting me, — I being then absent in
the United States and England, making the first selection of books for
the Public Libraries, and arrangements for procuring them. On my return
in June, 1851, Mr. Hincks gave me the papers, and referred the Roman
Catholic Bishop, [Charbonnel,] and Vicar-General, [Macdonell,] to me.
I could not for a moment admit the Draft of the Bill they had prepared ;
but stated frankly, that I had not intended to deprive them of any rights
as to Separate Schools which had been conferred on them by the Act of
1846 ; that I had never anticipated, or thought of, the construction of the
19th Section of the Act, which had been put upon it by the Court of
Queen's Bench ; that, by the Act of 1846, Cities and Towns were divided
into School Sections as well as Townships ; that the City of Toronto,
under that Act, was divided into fourteen School Sections, in each of
which there might be a Separate School, according to the conditions of that
law. But, I asked them, as there were now no School Sections in the
Cities and Towns, whether the right of having a Separate School in each
Ward would not be sufficient ? They answered in the affirmative ; where-
upon, I wrote a Draft of an Act for that purpose, and they expressed their
entire satisfaction with it.*
By request, I afterwards met the greater part of the Members of the
House, at an appointed time, and explained to them the position of the
Separate School question, and what I thought best to be done under the
circumstances. The Honourable John Ross brought into the Legislative
Council the Bill, of which I had prepared the Draft. It soon passed both
Houses, and became law.
[The Upper Canada Members voting for it were : Messrs. Baldwin, Bell,
W. H. Boulton, Hincks, J. A. Macdonald, Meyers, Prince, Sherwood, and
* In a Letter to Dr. Ryerson, from Bishop Charbonnel, written in June,
1851, he said: "Very Rev. and Dear Doctor, I regret very much not to
' be able to attend the meeting [of the Council of Public Instruction] this
' morning ; I leave to-day for London ; but I will be back for the solemn
' ceremony of Wednesday [2nd July — the day on which the corner-stone of
' the Normal School Building was laid, and at which the Bishop was present
' and took part in the ceremony].
" I see, with full hope, that the redress of the wording of the clause in
' behalf of the City Catholic Separate Schools [Toronto] is in your hands and
' heart ; and, if Canada East has for Superintendent a Doctor Meilleur, owing
' to the sincere liberality of our Government, and its Superintendent for the
' West, our condition for the Education of our dear children will become good
' and better.
" Respectfully and devotedly, yours in Christ,
" tA-RMANDTis, Fr. My. R. C. Bp. of Toronto.
" TORONTO, 27th of June, 1851."
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. ">
Stevenson — 9. Lower Canada Members, Hi; total, *J."i. Tho-,e opp,-«-.l
to the Bill were : Messrs. Hopkins, Mackenzie, McFarlane, J. C. Morrison.
James Smith, and J. Wilson 7, nil from Upper Canada. |
The operation of this Act was confined to Cities and Towns; its \«-i\
wording shows that it was no innovation, and no concession; but a restora-
tion of rights previously enjoyed. The title of the Act \\a> :
An Act to Define <md ll^fure Certain Rights to Parties therein mention' »/,
14 and 15. Vic., Cap. III., received the Royal Assent on the .'30th of
August, 1851.
Whereas it is expedient to remove doubts, which have arisen in
to certain provisions of the Nineteenth Section of the Upper Canada S
Act of 1850; and, Whereas, it is inexpedient to deprive any of the parti--
concerned of rights which they have enjoyed under preceding School Acts
for Upper Canada : Be it therefore enacted, etc., That each of the parties
applying, according to the provisions of the said Nineteenth Section of said
Act, shall be entitled to have a Separate School in each Ward, or in two or
more Wards united, as said party, or parties, shall judge expedient, in each
City, or Town, in Upper Canada : Provided always, that each such School
shall be subject to all the obligations and entitled to all the advantages
imposed and conferred upon Separate Schools by the said Nineteenth
Section of the said Act.
UNREST AND UNCERTAINTY — MR. W. L. MACKENZIE'S BILL, 1851.
These two untoward circumstances — the unauthorized omis-
sion of all provision for Separate Schools in Mr. Cameron's
School Bill, of 1849, and the inability of the Trustees to
establish more than one Separate School in the City of Toronto,
as decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, in 1851, acted
unfavourably upon the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church,
and created a feeling of distrust and uncertainty on their part.
What also kept this feeling of suspicion and unrest, on the
part of the Roman Catholics authorities, alive, was the constant
efforts of prominent members of the House of Assembly, from
1851 to 1856, to repeal the 19th Section of the School Act of
1850. Generally, these gentlemen contented themselves with
the introduction of a brief Bill, simply declaring that —
"The Nineteenth Section of the School Act of 1850 shall be, and is
hereby, repealed."
Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, however, in his Bill of August, 1851,*
* Mr. Mackenzie moved this Bill as an amendment to the Act given above.
It was rejected by a vote of 26 to 5.
56 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
gives his reasons for doing so, in the preamble. The extract
from the preamble is interesting, from the fact, that it embodies
the "popular" objection then urged against the existence of
Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper Canada, and gives
specific reasons for this objection. First, he declares —
1st. That the establishment of Sectarian, or Separate, Schools . . .
is a dangerous interference with the Common School System of Upper
Canada, and, if allowed . . . cannot reasonably be refused to ...
other Religious Denominations.
2nd. That if it is just that any number of Religious Sects should have
Separate Common Schools, it is no less reasonable that they should have
Separate Grammar Schools, Colleges and Professorships in the Universities.
3rd. That it is unjust in the State to tax Protestants, in order to pro-
vide for the instruction of children in Roman Catholic doctrines, or to tax
Roman Catholics for the religious education of youth ' ' in principles averse
to the Church of Rome."
4th. That the early separation of children at School, on account of the
creeds of their parents, or guardians, would rear nurseries of strife and
dissension, and cause thousands to grow up in comparative ignorance, who
might, under the Common School System, obtain the advantages of a
moral, intellectual, literary and scientific education.
5th. That the repeal of the Nineteenth Section of the Upper Canada
School Act, passed in 1850, would discourage Sectarian education, and be
productive of peace, harmony and good- will in Upper Canada.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION FROM 1841 TO 1851.
We thus see, that from 1849 there were two potent influences
at work to excite fears, and to disturb the harmony and com-
parative quiet which had prevailed in Upper Canada during
the preceding six or eight years, on the subject of public
education. Even on the part of Roman Catholics, there was
little or no desire to agitate for the promotion, or extension, of
Separate Schools during these years. This, Dr. Ryerson points
out with evident satisfaction, in his second letter to Bishop
Charbonnel, written in April, 1852, as follows : —
The Common School System ... of Upper Canada . . . has
been in operation for ten years ; which was cordially approved of and
supported by the late lamented Roman Catholic Bishop Power ; which was
never objected to, as far as I know, by a single Roman Catholic in Upper
SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION, 1846-1850. 57
Canada, during the life of Bishop IWn-, that excellent Prelate and patriot,
I ... still adhere to my frequent unqualified expressions of
admiration at the opposite course pursued by your honoured and devoted-
Predecessor, Bishop Power ; . . . I may note the facts that .
the only Roman Catholic Member of the Legislative Assembly elected in
Upper Canada, [Hon. J. Sandfield Macdonald,] has repeatedly declared
himself opposed to the very principle of Separate Schools; and that the
only County Municipal Council in Upper Canada, in which a majority of
the members are Roman Catholics, has adopted resolutions against the
Section of the School Act, which permits the establishment of Separate
Schools, under any circumstances. The facts that, out of ,'i,(MM) ('mumon
Schools, not so many as fifty Separate Roman Catholic Schools hav.-
existed or been applied for, in any one year, in all Upper Canada, and that
the number of such Separate Schools had gradually diminished t<> l«->s than
thirty, until within the last twelve months,* and that, during ten \
but one single complaint has been made to this Department of any int.-i
ference with the religious faith of Roman Catholic children ; and that not
a Roman Catholic child in Upper Canada is known to have been proselyted
to Protestantism by means of our Public Schools ; — these facts clearly
show the general disinclination of Roman Catholics in Upper Canada to
isolate themselves from their fellow-citizens in School matters, any more
than in other common interests of the Country, and the mutually just,
Christian and generous spirit in which the School, as well as other common
affairs of the Country, have been promoted by Government, by Municipal
Councils, and by the people at large, in their various School Sections. The
exceptions to this pervading spirit of the people of Upper Canada, have been
"few and far between;" and, in such cases, the provision of the School
Law, permitting the establishment of Separate Schools in certain circum-
stances, has been made use of, and just about as often by a Protestant, as
by a Roman Catholic, minority in a School Municipality. But the pro-
vision of the law for Separate Schools was never asked, or advocated, until
since 1850, as a theory, but merely as a protection, in circumstances arising
from the peculiar social state of neighbourhoods, or Municipalities. I
always thought the introduction of any provision for Separate Schools, in a
popular System of Common Education like that of Upper Canada, was to be
regretted and inexpedient ; but finding such a provision in existence, and
that parties concerned attaching great importance to it, I have advocated its
* The following Table shows the number of Protestant and Roman Catholic
Separate Schools reported, since 1847 : —
Year 1847 41 Separate Schools of all kinds.
1848
1849
1850
1851
32
31
46=21 Roman Catholic and 25 Protestant.
20=16 Roman Catholic and 4 Protestant.
5
58 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
continuance — leaving Separate Schools to die out, not by force of legislative
enactment, but under the influence of increasingly enlightened and enlarged
views of Christian relations, rights and duties, between different classes of
the community. I have, at all times, endeavoured to secure to parties
desiring Separate Schools, all the facilities which the law provides — though,
I believe, the legal provision for Separate Schools has been, and is, seriously
injurious, rather than beneficial, to the Roman Catholic portion of the
community, as I know very many intelligent Members of that Church
believe, as well as myself. I have as heartily sought to respect the feelings
and promote the interests of my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, as those
of any other portion of the community ; and I shall continue to do so. .
TORONTO, 24th of April, 1852. E. RYERSON.
Such was the brief yet comprehensive survey of the state of
educational affairs in Upper Canada, when, as events proved,
the untoward influences and proceedings to which I have
referred (on pages 47 and 55), produced their effects, both on
the popular leaders of the day, and on the authorities of the
Roman Catholic Church in Upper Canada. From that time
forward, each party " set its camp in hostile array." The policy
of the leading newspapers of that time, and the aggressive, yet
practically futile, efforts of Members of the Legislature, from
1851 to 1856, to repeal the Separate School provisions of the
Law, naturally excited, and kept alive, on the part of the
Roman Catholic authorities, the suspicions and fears enter-
tained by them, as mentioned by Dr. Ryerson.
The result of all this unrest was the commencement of an
agitation and conflict, of more or less intensity, which lasted
until the passage of the Roman Catholic Separate School
" Finality Act," (as it was called,) in 1863. Then, a season of
comparative quiet and tranquility prevailed for a time; and
the " Finality Act," of 1863, became the basis of the Legisla-
tion in the British America Act of 1866, which secured to the
Roman Catholics of Upper Canada the right to have Separate
Schools under that New Constitution of the New Dominion.
SEPARATE SCHOOL CONTEST FROM 1852 TO 1855. 59
CHAPTEE X.
INCIDENTS OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL CONTEST FROM
1852 TO 1855.
I SHALL, in this Chapter, trace the progress of events which
finally led to the adoption, by the Legislature, of the first
complete Upper Canada Separate School Act of 1855, — the
" Tache Act."
Few, of the present day, can realize the extent and bitter-
ness of the contest which ended, for a time, in the final passage
of the Tache Separate School Act. The brunt of the battle
fell upon Dr. Ryerson. He was the bete noir of the pro-
moters of Separate School Legislation ; — and that, because, as
guardian of the integrity of the Public School System of
Upper Canada, he refused to assent to any measure which he
conscientiously believed would militate against the success and
prosperity of that System. He was, from his very position, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Education Department, and as
practically an arbiter between two opposing forces, the target
at which both parties aimed their arrows. What added to his
difficulty, in dealing with this somewhat intricate and delicate
question, was the fact, that the Government of the day, —
very wisely and properly, — referred all parties dealing with
this question to him. Sir John Macdonald refused, in his
pleasant, courteous way, all consideration of details of Separate
School Legislation, until the parties concerned had first con-
sulted the Chief Superintendent of Education in regard to
them. If approved and recommended by him, Sir John was
prepared to consider any question proposed to him on its
merits. In this way, parties, desiring modifications in the
legislation affecting Separate Schools, had to submit their
proposals to the Chief Superintendent, with whom they were
sure to have them discussed with fairness, but also with a
60 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
clearness of perception as to their effect and purpose, which
might not always be apparent to those who proposed them.*
Nevertheless, Dr. Ryerson, in thus discharging his duty, was
exposed to a double fire ; — on the one side, from the champions
of Separate Schools, who charged him as being personally
hostile to their rights and interests ; and, on the other side,
by open and covert attacks, as the betrayer of the cause which
he was bound to defend, and as a tool in the hands of the
Hierarchy, for the promotion of their alleged unpatriotic and
selfish ends.
Thus attacked, Dr. Ryerson was not slow in returning the
fire of his opponents. He had to defend himself from the
attacks of a powerful press, who reiterated the charge, over
and over again, that he was untrue to the cause of unsectarian
Education, and for making, (although he only carried out in
the least objectionable form,) the concessions in favour of
Separate Schools, which had their origin in the Hon. Mr. Day's
Common School Act of 1841, and which were embodied, in a
less objectionable form, in the Hon. Mr. Hincks' Act of 1843.f
There was another circumstance, already referred to, which
tended still further to excite the hostility of the combatants on
both sides against Dr. Ryerson, especially, when the studiously
passive attitude of the Government prevented a successful
attack being made upon it. And that was, as I have already
observed, the practical and prudential policy of the Leaders of
* The Hon. Senator R. W. Scott, the promoter of the Roman Catholic
Separate School Bills of 1860, 1861, 1862 and 1863, thus narrates his experience
of Dr. Ryerson, in conferences with him on the subject of Separate Schools : —
"It is due to his, (Dr. Ryerson's,) memory to say that, I found him always
ready to meet the wishes of the minority, — that he exhibited no prejudice, or
bigotry ; that, had larger concessions been sought for, Dr. Ryerson would not
have thrown any obstacle in the way." — (Hansard Report of Hon. R. W. Scott's.
Speech in the Senate, on the 4th of April, 1894. )
t On this point, the Hon. R. W. Scott, in his speech, (already referred to, )
said : — " There was a strong feeling prevailing with (Roman) Catholics that he,
(Dr. Ryerson,) was hostile to the (Separate School) Act. People believed that
he was always decidedly against Separate Schools." . . . Speaking of the
"appeal " Section in the Act of 1863, Mr. Scott said that, "it was simply based
on the idea that the Chief Superintendent was not friendly to the Separate
School System, whicli was a mistake, because he was sincerely anxious to do
what was really fair to make the law workable."— (Speec h in the Senate, on the.
4th of April, 1894. )
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS. 61
the Government for the time being — Robert Baldwin, Francis
Hincks, John A. Macdonald, or John Sandfield Macdonald —
to pass no School Bill, nor entertain any measure relating to
elementary Education in Upper Canada, which had not been
examined, modified and approved by the Chief Superintendent
of Education.
It can easily be understood that, under such circumstances,
a great deal of correspondence and conferences, between pro-
moters of Separate Schools — clerical and lay, chiefly the
former — took place with Dr. Ryerson, during these educa-
tionally stirring times. Having enjoyed the strong personal
friendship and unbounded confidence of Dr. Ryerson, I was
cognizant of all the proceedings, conferences, and correspond-
ence which took place in this noted controversy. I was often
present at his confidential conferences with various parties, —
for he felt it to be desirable, although not always necessary,
to have a third person present at these conferences.
CHAPTEK XI.
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS TO SEPARATE SCHOOLS.
—PRESSURE ON THE GOVERNMENT IN 1852.
IN 1852, a claim for an increased apportionment to Separate
Schools was pressed upon the Government — as the apportion-
ment on the basis of attendance at the Separate Schools did
not supply sufficient funds for their support. In dealing with
this demand, as raised by Bishop Charbonnel, Dr. Ryerson
wrote to him, as follows : —
In regard to the alleged injustice done to Roman Catholics, in the distri-
bution of School moneys, so frequently asserted by Your Lordship, there
is one circumstance which I may mention, in addition to the facts and
reasons I have given, (in this Letter,) in reply to Your Lordship's state-
ments and claims. The Board of School Trustees, in the City of Toronto,
have caused a very careful inquiry to be made into the census returns and
62 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
tax rolls of the City, in order to ascertain the comparative amount of taxes
paid by Roman Catholics and Protestants. The result of that inquiry is,
that while one-fourth of the entire population of the City is returned as
Roman Catholics, a fraction less than one-twelfth of the taxes is paid by
them.* ... It is, therefore, clear that no class of the population is
so much benefited by the General School Taxes, in proportion to what
they pay, as Roman Catholics ; and hence assuming — what the people and
Legislature of Upper Canada have repeatedly repudiated — that the author-
ity and Officers of Law ought to be employed to impose and collect taxes
for any Religious Denomination, the sums of School Money which would
be payable, when apportioned upon the basis of property, to Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, would be much less than what the School Act
now allows such Schools, upon the basis of the attendance of pupils. Of
all classes in the community, the Roman Catholics have the strongest
reason to desire the System of Mixed Schools ; and every effort to urge
them to apply for Separate Schools, so far as it succeeds, imposes upon
them additional pecuniary burdens, at the same time that it must inflict
upon them losses and disadvantages to which they are not now subject.
TORONTO, 12th of May, 1852. E. RYERSON.
Notwithstanding these facts, a strong pressure was brought
to bear upon the Government of the day, demanding that
additional aid should be provided for the Roman Catholic
Separate Schools. This demand was communicated to Dr.
Ryerson, at the time, by the Hon. Francis Hincks, (who had
then charge of the Educational Legislation of the Govern-
ment), in a Letter, written from Quebec, as follows : —
(Confidential.) — The Roman Catholics, (I understand,) are preparing a
Bill, which will be passed. It is clear that we must do something. Better
abolish the 19th Section [of the Common School Act of 1850] at once, than
render it a mockery, as in cases where there are Free Schools. Again, it
would not do to share the tax where Free Schools are established. We
must decide to do something, and I think we are disposed to do it where
Free Schools are established. A separate column should be placed in the
roll, and the parties to state whether they desire their share of tax to be
* The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Toronto claimed
£1,150 for their Schools ; and in reporting upon this demand, the Committee of
the Board of School Trustees state that — "From a recent return, Your Com-
mittee find that the total annual value of the taxable property in the City
amounts to £186,983 5s.: — of this, the proportion held by Roman Catholics is
£15,750 10s. The total net amount of school tax for last year, at 2Jd. in the
pound, was £1,800: the net proportion contributed by the Roman Catholic
inhabitants was £156 10s."— (Report of Free School Committee of Board of
School Trustees for the City of Toronto, dated 19th May, 1852.}
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS. 63
given for .such School. They mi-lit part iripate proportionately in tin
eminent grant. Where there are Free Schools, the Assessors will generally
In- Protestants. There is no danger of fraud. The [Roman Catholic]
people will he able to act independent ly and indirectly, and will, perhaps,
support the Free Schools, if fairly conducted. The plan is worth trying.
If we refuse this, we will probably get worse. Write to me on this point.
MI KIIF.C, Aii-iist <)th, 1852. F. HIXCK-.
THE BELLEVILLE SEPARATE SCHOOL CASE, 1852.
The immediate cause of all this trouble and difficulty was a
Separate School case, which occurred in Belleville in 1852, and,
incidentally, the case of Chatham, to which Bishop Charbonnel
had referred in his second Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 7th of
March, 1852.
In a Letter to the Hon. A. N. Morin, Provincial Secretary,
dated the 17th of April, 1852, Dr. Ryerson discussed these two
cases. The object of these cases of appeal, he said, was : —
To compel the Local School Municipalities to apply a portion of all the
School moneys they might raise towards the cost of the erection and repairs
of Separate School-houses, as well as to the salaries of Separate School
Teachers, — a provision that was never contemplated by the School Act,
and a demand that was never before made, since I have been connected
with the Department. — (Return of Correspondence to the House of Assembly,
1851-1852, page 34.)
Dr. Ryerson's reply to the foregoing Confidential Letter of
the Hon. Mr. Hincks, was written on the 26th of August, 1852.
In it he enclosed a draft of School Bill, — the fourth Section of
which was designed to meet the cases of the Belleville, Chat-
ham and other Separate Schools.
The Belleville case led to a law suit, with a view to deter-
mine the question raised. It appears that in establishing " Free
Schools " in that place, the property of Roman Catholics and
Protestants alike, as ratepayers, were assessed for the support
of these free Schools. Dr. Ryerson, in a published Letter on
the subject, states the case as follows : —
The Roman Catholic supporters of Separate Schools, claimed a share of
all the moneys raised by the Municipality, as well as of the Legislative
apportionment, in proportion to the average attendance of pupils at their
<64 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
School, as compared with the attendance at the Common Schools ; but the
Board of Common School Trustees in Belleville refused to pay them any
:more than a Legal share of the School Fund, — that is, a share (according to
•the average attendance of pupils) of the Legislative Grant, and a sum equal
to it, raised by the Town Corporation, but not a share in any additional
sum, or sums, raised by tax for School purposes. I was appealed to, and
interpreted the law, as above stated, — adding, that it was voluntary with
any local Corporation whether they would allow Separate Schools to share
in all the School Funds provided by local tax, or only in what the Act
defined as the School Fund. The Roman Catholic Trustees instituted legal
proceedings to recover a share in the School moneys to which they had con-
tributed as ratepayers, and they failed. A new element of agitation was
•thus furnished. . . . And, the case of the Roman Catholic supporters
of the Separate School in Belleville was viewed as one of hardship, (such as
was said could not be experienced by the Protestants of Lower Canada,)
and was certain to lead to one or two results, either of which would render
the establishment or continuance of Free Schools impossible.
The one result was the giving to the supporters of Separate Schools the
right to share in all School moneys raised by the Municipality, as well as
paid to it, — which would prevent Municipal Councils from doing anything
at all, as they would not be tax collectors for any Religious Denomination
whatever.
The other result was, the limiting of the power of local Councils to
collect a sum equal to the Legislative apportionment, and no more, — which
would, of course, render Free Schools impossible.
To avoid both of these evils, — to leave Roman Catholics no ground for
-complaint, — to afford full scope for the establishment of Free Schools,
where the people might wish to establish them, I recommended that, on
proper notice, given before February in each year, the supporters of Sepa-
rate Schools should be exempted from paying any Municipal School Rates
whatever, but be empowered to collect their own School Rates, and
examine their own Teachers, and that they should be also precluded from
sharing in any Municipal moneys, unless a Municipality chose to levy and
collect their School Rates for them. . . .
These suggestions, for the solution of the Separate School
^difficulty in Belleville, and others elsewhere, were embodied in
-the fourth Section of what was designated as the "Supplemen-
tary School Bill of 1853."
The suit of the Belleville Separate School Trustee against
;the Town Council, was not decided until early in 1853. The
decision in that case was given by Chief Justice Robinson, and
was concurred in by Mr Justice Burns. It was to the effect,
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS. 65
that no Mandamus against the Town Council would be granted.
as it was the opinion of the Chief Justice that —
As the School Act of 1850 nmv stands, what a Separate School.
established under the 19th Clause, is entitled to share in, is the sum
apportioned by the Chief Superintendent out of the Government Grant,
and a sum . . . raised by local assessment to meet that Grant, — rai>«-<i.
I mean, for the payment of Teachers generally, and not upon an estimate
for any specific purpose.
In his Letter to the Hon. Mr. Hincks, (to which I hu\ •»•
referred on page 63,) accompanying the Draft of the Supple-
nit -utary School Bill of 1852-3, Dr. Ryerson said, in regard to
the fourth Section : —
This Section proposes to relieve the parents and guardians sending
children to Separate Schools from paying any School tax whatever, and
then allowing them to share with the other Schools according to a\
attendance of the same Municipality in the Legislative School Grant alone.
In case such a provision were adopted. 1st, There would be no provision
in the School Law requiring a public Municipal tax for Denominational
Schools, and all opposition and clamour against it would cease. 2nd,
There could be no complaint from any quarter that the supporters of a
Separate School paid more or less than they received from the School
Fund. 3rd, All the inhabitants of a Municipality, except those who
might choose to send their children to a Separate School, could proceed
with their School interests, as if no other class of persons were in existence.
4th, The Teachers of Separate Schools would be relieved from appearing
before the County Board of Public Instruction for examination, and thus
the last vestige of possible agitation between the supporters of Separate
Schools and the Municipal authorities, in relation to the subject at all,
would be removed. Then the Section does not, any more than the 19th
Section of the existing law, give the persons who petition for, and send
children to, the Separate Schools, control over all the Roman Catholics, or
Protestants, of the Municipality ; but only over those of the religious per-
suasion of the Separate School, who choose to support it. — (Return <>r~
Correspondence on Separate Schools, printed by order of the Legislative
Assembly, 1852-1855, page 21.)
This draft of Bill, sent to Mr. Hincks, in August, 1852, wu-
transferred by him to the Hon. Attorney-General Richards,
who made some modifications in it, of which Dr. Ryerson did
not approve.
On the 6th of September, 1852, Mr. George Brown introduced
66 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
a Bill into the House of Assembly, " to repeal such clauses of
the Common Schools Acts of Upper Canada, as authorize the
establishment of Sectarian Schools endowed with the Public
Money." This Bill was never pressed to a vote, and was "dis-
charged" on the 4th of June, 1853.
In November, 1852, Dr. Ryerson went to Quebec to confer
with the Government in regard to the Supplementary School
Bill, then in the hands of the Hon. W. B. Richards, Attorney-
General, and other matters. In a private Letter to me, written
while there, on the llth of November, 1852, he said : —
The School Bill, (except the Separate School fourth Clause, and the
Clauses prepared by Mr. Joseph C. Morrison,) was introduced into the
House of Assembly on Saturday night, and the Attorney-General wishes
me to stay until it is disposed of. ... In redrafting the Separate
School fourth Clause, the Attorney-General thought that he was carrying
my views into effect. The Hon. John Ross, Solicitor-General, told him
that he, (Mr. Ross,) was sure that the Clause did not embrace my views.
They both now agree with me ; and I am to prepare the Bill, (as so agreed
upon,) immediately after my return to Toronto.
QUEBEC, llth of November, 1852. E. RYERSON.
In January, 1853, Archbishop Turgeon wrote to Bishop
Charbonnel, as follows : —
I am happy to tell Your Lordship, in answer to your Letter of the 1st
instant, that the Hon. A. N. Morin . . . assured me that himself and
his Colleagues were in the firm resolution to give the (Roman) Catholics
of Upper Canada the same advantages which the Protestants in our part of
the Province enjoys.*
+ P. F. TURGEON, Archbp. of Quebec.
QUEBEC, llth of January, 1853.
The Bill, when revised and recast by Dr. Ryerson, was sent to
Attorney-General Richards ; and Mr. Richards, in reply, said : —
(Private. ) — Herewith you have a copy of the School Bill, as I think we
can introduce it. I have consulted with our friends as to the fourth Sec-
tion. We have altered it, in some respects, from the draft you sent ; but
I believe I have retained those portions which embody the principle to
which we had all assented.
QUEBEC, 14th of February, 1853. W. B. RICHARDS.
* From the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown," 1886, pages
292, 293.
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS. 67
After the Bill had been introduced into the Legislature, the
friends of Separate Schools pressed the Government still
further to give coherence and stability to their System of
Separate Schools, by authorizing the establishment of Boards
of Separate School Trustees in Cities and Towns. The
Attorney-General then sent the following Telegram to the
Chief Superintendent of Education : —
Is there any objection to allow Trustees of Separate Schools in Cities
and Towns to form a General Board to manage their own Schools. If not,
telegraph at once ; if there are objections, write at length, immediately.
QUEBEC, 20th of April, 1853. W. B. RICHAKI-.
Dr. Ryerson telegraphed that there were objections ; that he
would write to-morrow. On the morrow, he replied at length,
as requested. I give the main points of his Letter, as follows : —
1. It is a new demand. It was never before mooted, much less
admitted. ... It involves the introduction of principles which have
never been admitted into [the Separate School portion of] our School
System. . . . Why this new demand ? if it is not to avoid conditions
which have been heretofore required in regard to the establishment and
existence of Separate Schools.
2. It has been a principle maintained in every successive School Law
of Upper Canada, that there should be no Roman Catholic, or Protestant,
Separate School in any School division, or ward, of a City, or Town, except
where the Teacher was of a different religious faith from the applicants.
But, if there be a City, or Town, Board of sectarian School Trustees, the
Common School Board may employ ever so many Teachers in the ward
Schools of the same faith of the advocates of the Sectarian Schools, yet it
will not prevent the establishment and support out of the public revenue
of Sectarian Schools in these very wards. This is placing Sectarian Schools
upon a totally different foundation from that on which they have always
stood ; it is the introduction of a system of Sectarian Schools without
restriction, and almost without conditions, as it is proposed to relieve the
Teacher employed in them from all examination.
3. Such a Board could establish as many Sectarian Schools as they please,
and without requiring any public certificates of qualification from the
Teachers employed. Such a Board can recognize the Teacher, or Teachers,
of every private School kept by persons of their Religious Persuasion.
. . . Thus such a Board in Toronto might recognize and claim public
aid for every child taught in the convents. . . .
4. A large portion of the public mind is chafed at the perpetuation of,
and provision for, Separate Schools in any form ; but I have endeavoured,
68 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
{during my late provincial tour,) to render this provision tolerable, by
stating that 110 new principle would be introduced, but only the modified
application of a principle already recognized and acted upon under succes-
sive Acts of Parliament.* I should deplore the revulsion which I fear will
take place in the public mind, should a new and unfair provision be made,
and fresh facilities be provided for the multiplication of Sectarian Common
Schools,— the symbols and instruments of growing mischief in the country,
from the proceedings adopted and the spirit inculcated during the last year.
5. I think the safest and most defensible ground to take, is a firm refusal
to sanction any measure to provide, by law, increased facilities for the
multiplication and perpetuation of Sectarian Schools, [but to intimate] a
readiness to remedy any injustice, or hardship, which the operations of the
existing law may be conceived to involve, but to do nothing more.
TORONTO, 21st of April, 1853. E. RYERSON.
The following Letter was written by Attorney-General
Richards to Bishop Charbonnel, — as given on page 293 of the
" Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown," 1886 :
I hope that the provisions of the [fourth Section of the Supplementary
School] Bill will be such as to prevent future disputes and differences. As
I said to you personally, I have endeavoured, [in that Bill,] to give the
Separate Schools in Upper Canada the same rights and powers that the
Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada have.
QUEBEC, 30th of May, 1853. W. B. RICHARDS.
As the Bill was being moved into Committee of the whole
House, on the 3rd of June, 1853, Mr. George Brown, seconded
by Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, moved —
That it be an instruction to the said Committee, that they have power
to make provision in the said Bill, for the repeal of such sections of the
* As to the nature of the conferences with various parties at the County
School Conventions of 1852-1853, to which Dr. Ryerson here refers, he thus
explains his proceedings at them, in his Special Report, laid before the Legisla-
ture in 1858:— "In the winter of 1852 and 1853, I made an official tour of
Upper Canada, and held, by appointment, a Public School meeting in each
County, — having previously prepared the first draft of the Supplementary
School Act of 1853. On the provisions of that draft of Bill, I consulted the
most intelligent and experienced men in School matters in the several Counties,
and especially on the clauses of the fourth section of the Act. I think I am
warranted in saying, that those intelligent men of all parties whom I consulted,
without reserve, unanimously agreed to those clauses of the Separate School
Section ; but were also strongly of the opinion, with myself, that no further
concession in that direction should be made under any circumstances, or could
be made without endangering the whole National School System, and violating
individual and municipal rights. "...
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL GRANTS. 69
School Acts of Upper Canada now in force, as ;uitli<>n/e the establishment
and continuance of Separate Schools, and for the removal from the said
Supplementary Bill of all recognition of any portion of the community in a
sectarian capacity.
This motion was lost by a vote of 11 yeas to 46 nays. Mr.
David Christie then moved, seconded by Mr. John Langton : —
That the words, "and also to make provision that, in the management
of any Common School, which derives any portion of its support from the
funds of the Province, there shall be no teaching, or other practice, per-
mitted, which can, in any way, do violence to the religious feelings and
opinions of any child, or of the parent, or guardian, of any child attending
such Common School," be added at the end thereof.
This motion was lost by a vote of 16 yeas to 42 nays. On
the final passage of the Bill, on the 7th of June, 1853, the
Upper Canada vote stood as follows : — Yeas : Messieurs Cam-
eron, Dixon, Hincks, McDonald, (Cornwall,) McLachlin, Patrick,
Richards, Ridout, Rolph, Sherwood, and Wright, (East York) :
11. Nays, (all Upper Canada Members,) viz. : Messieurs Brown,
Burnham, Christie, (Wentworth,) Crawford, Ferguson, Gamble,
Lyon, Mackenzie, Malloch, Seymour, Shaw, Smith, (Frontenac,)
Smith, (Durham,) Stevenson, Street, White, and Wilson: 17.
The following is an analysis of the fourth Section of the
Supplementary School Act, relating to Roman Catholic Separate
Schools, which received the Royal Assent on the 14th of June,.
1853 :*-
1. Subscribers to an amount equal to the School Rates for the support of
a Separate School, are relieved from the payment of such Rates for Public
Common Schools.
2. Each Separate School to share in the Legislative Grant, but not in
the Municipal Assessment.
3. Exemption from School Rates only to extend to the period of sending
children to the Separate School.
* The Home District Council, on the 1st of July, 1853, petitioned against
this Separate School provision in the Supplementary School Act. The Petition
expressed "deep regret" at having discovered in this Supplementary School
Act, that " the principle of Separate Schools is again recognized. . . . No
one denomination should be preferred before the other, . . . and no facili-
ties should be given for the establishment of Sectarian and Separate Schools,,
etc." The Petition is signed by Mr. Joseph Hartman, M.P.P., and by Mr.
J. Elliott, County Clerk. Other Councils sent in similar Petitions.
70 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
4. Return of names of supporters of Separate Schools, and the names of
the children sent, to be sent by the Separate School Trustees, to the Local
Superintendent of Schools, half-yearly ; also the amounts subscribed.
5. The Local Superintendent shall send the names of supporters of
Separate Schools reported to him to the Clerk of the Municipality ; and the
Clerk shall omit such names from the Assessment Roll, except in case a
rate for a School building had been imposed before the return to the Clerk
of such names.
6. The provisions of the 13th Section of the School Act of 1850, shall
apply to Trustees and Teachers of Separate Schools, (i.e., in regard to
penalties for false returns.)
7. Separate School Trustees shall be a Corporation, with power to assess
for Separate School Rates, or collect Subscriptions.
8. Subscribers to, or supporters by rates, of Separate Schools, shall not
vote for Public School Trustees.
CHAPTEE XII.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT- RENE WED
DEMANDS OF BISHOP CHARBONNEL.
SOME time after the passing of the Supplementary School Act
of 1853, fresh demands on behalf of Separate Schools were
made, chiefly in private Letters to the Hon. Francis Hincks,
by Bishop Charbonnel. The Editor of The Globe newspaper,
referring, in that paper, to this Supplementary School Act, thus
addressed Dr. Ryerson : —
And did this third concession to the claimants of Separate Schools
satisfy them? Was your oft-repeated assurance realized, that "the exist-
ence of the provision for Separate Schools" in the national system pre-
vented "oppositions and combinations which would otherwise be formed
against it ?" On the contrary, the separatists only advanced in the extent
of their demands, and became more resolute in enforcing them. The very
next year, the matter was again brought to a crisis — a general election
came on — Bishop Charbonnel pressed his demands — and Mr. Hincks con-
sented to bring in yet another Sectarian School Act.
In his fifth Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of December
31st, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus replied to these remarks of the
Editor :—
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 71
I have (already) shown that, while the Act of 1853 removed all
of Complaint of personal hardship by supporter^ "f Srparate Schools, and
thus granted what they professed to desire, it involved "no strengthening
of the sectarian element," but facilitated and secured the extension of Free
Schools. Bishop Charbonnel himself professed to be satisfied with the Act
of 1853. So much so, that in a "Paytoral Address on the Upper Canada
Supplementary School Act of 1853," dated Toronto, 9th July, 1853, he com-
menced with the following words :
Owing to the equity of our Legislature, dearly beloved brethren, the Catholic
minority of Upper Canada are to enjoy, for the education of their children, the
same advantages enjoyed by the Protestant minority of Lower Canada.
It is true that Bishop Charbonnel . . . receded from his previous
official acceptance of that Act, and put forth new complaints and demand-.
He did so through the public papers, and he did so in private Letters to
Hon. Mr. Hincks.
SECOND TORONTO CASE — SEPARATE SCHOOL DIFFICULTIES
IN TWO WARDS.
The cause of most of these new demands appear to have
originated chiefly in the City of Toronto. First, there was a
complaint of a Separate School difficulty in St. David's Ward,
then in St. James' Ward, — which were dealt with specifically
by the Chief Superintendent of Education, as they arose. That
of St. David's Ward was brought before the Chief Superin-
tendent of Education, by the Hon. John Elmsley, to whom he
replied, as follows : —
It appears from your statement that, in the Public School of St.
David's Ward, six Teachers are employed, and only one of them is a
Roman Catholic ; and, as I understand, he is not the Principal of the
School. The question then is, whether, under such circumstances, the
twelve heads of families are entitled to a Separate School ? I think they
are. . . . It is clear that, in each of the Common Schools referred to,
[in the Act of 1850, 19th Section,] the law assumed the existence of but
one Teacher. . . . I do not think, therefore, that the employment of
one Roman Catholic among several teachers of a Common School in St.
David's Ward, precludes the Roman Catholic heads of families, whom you
represent, from having a Separate School, if they desire it.
TORONTO, 30th of August, 1853. E. RYERSOX.
The character of the various complaints and demands, made
by Bishop Charbonnel, at this time, may be gathered from the
72 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
following Letter, which the Hon. F. Hincks wrote to Bishop
Charbonnel, as given in the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by
H. C. McKeown," 1886, pages 293, 294:—
I have learned with much regret from your Letter of yesterday, [2nd of
August, 1853,] that a fresh difficulty has arisen regarding your Schools in
Toronto. Believe me, my attention will be promptly given to the subject
of the grant, with a view to find a remedy, if there be any attempt to
obstruct a law honestly intended by the Government to heal up wounds
which were most injurious to the peace of society.
QUEBEC, 3rd of August, 1853. F. HINCKS.
Shortly afterwards, Mr. Hincks wrote the following Letter
to Dr. Ryerson, on the subject of these complaints : —
(Confidential.) — I spoke to you about the new difficulty with Bishop
Charbonnel before leaving Toronto, and am sorry to find that the Govern-
ment is likely to get into very serious embarrassment regarding a question
which I had hoped was happily settled. . . . This vexed question
nearly upset the Government last Session. Judge Richards can tell you
that I do not magnify its importance.
Note, that if by any means you refuse, practically, the Separate
Schools, we are just where we were ; and the fight has to come off with the
same parties, as it would have had to come before the Legislature of last
Session. Bishop Charbonnel will petition, and demand, legislation. His
Bill will have the support of all, or nearly all, of the Lower Canada Mem-
bers ; and, then, what is the Government to do ? I assume, of course, that
the Government refuses to bring in any Bill. Perhaps the Government
might be broken up on that point, but suppose it is not ? If we, Upper
Canadians, insist in opposing such a Bill, we will, at all events, be beaten
in Lower Canada, and then Messrs. Morin and Drummond, etc., will
certainly resign, and we shall get gentlemen of the Cauchon School and
of the Upper Canada Tories to govern the country for longer than you
imagine. If, again, our Lower Canadian Colleagues support the Bill as an
open question, which they would insist, probably, in doing, and carry it,
then, what would our position be ?
I cannot speculate on what I would do in such a case, but you will at
once see the embarrassment ; and I can assure you few things would grieve
me more than the danger of meddling with our Upper Canada School
System, which is so admirably worked out by you.
Your influence at present, I need not say, is all that you can well
desire. You have had proof of it ; and I may say to you, in the strictest
confidence, however, that, for several weeks, we have been in a position of
not a little embarrassment in arranging our University Senate, because I
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 7.'i
would not listen to your being proscribed. I must, in justice, say that the
objection to you is not within the Government. It is external, in part. . .
I have put all the points of embarrassment in the other case before
you, with a view of ascertaining whether you can aid in settling this affair
quietly. I cannot but look upon the action of the Toronto School Tn
in appointing Teachers, (as they have done,) as intended to thwart, indi-
rectly, the Separate School Trustees. Now, I feel it is a wise policy to let
them try our late (Supplementary) Bill fairly. I confess I do not see my
way clearly. The effect of not appointing Roman Catholic Teachers would
be to proscribe them. Pray, however, think over the matter and give me
your views, confidentially, as soon as possible. You will see, and feel, all
my embarrassment, and I am certain you will try and help me out of it, if
you can.
QUEBEC, 18th of August, 185.' ">. F. HINCKS.
In reply, an intimation was given by Dr. Ryerson to Mr.
Hincks, that the matter would be carefully considered, and,
that in submitting a draft of Bill " to make further provision
for the Grammar and Common Schools of Upper Canada," next
year, two or three Sections would be added to meet some local
difficulties which had been experienced in carrying out satis-
factorily the fourth Section of the Supplementary School Act
of 1853, relating to Separate Schools.
In the "Life of Archbishop Lynch, by H. C. McKeown,"
1886, the following Letter, written by Vicar-General Cazeau to
Bishop Charbonnel, is given on page 294 :—
I have seen Mr. Hincks. Your School question vexes him very much.
He will write strongly to Mr. [Ryerson], to make him interpret the Law in
such a way as to do justice to (Roman) Catholics. If the Law is not
interpreted as necessary, a new one shall be enacted, in order to require
imperiously that the (Roman) Catholics of Upper Canada shall be treated
with the same liberality as the Protestants of Lower Canada, and thus
justice shall be obtained.
QUEBEC, 18th of August, 1853. C. F. CAZEAU, V.G.
THIRD SEPARATE SCHOOL DIFFICULTY IN THE CITY OF
TORONTO, 1854.
Most of the Separate School difficulties which arose occurred
in the City of Toronto. This, Dr. Ryerson stated, in a Letter
to Hon. John Elmsley, in reply to some complaints, (in regard
to the making of certain School Returns,) which he brought
before Dr. Ryerson early in 1854. Dr. Ryerson said : —
6
74 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In this City alone, throughout all Upper Canada, has difficulty arisen,
such as your Letter indicates — showing clearly that it has arisen from the
disposition and objects of the parties concerned, rather than from anything
difficult in the provisions of the la-w. I know not how these provisions can
be plainer ; but no legal provisions are plain when efforts are made to
employ them for other than their obvious and legitimate objects.
TORONTO, 10th of May, 1854. E. RYERSON.
The difficulty, in this case, was the refusal of the Treasurer,
or other Officer, of the City Council to refund certain School
Rates collected by mistake, or in error, from Separate School
supporters, during the year 1853, owing to some objection to
certain returns made by the Separate School Trustees. The
matter having been referred to the Finance Committee of the
City Council, Dr. Ryerson addressed a Letter to Mr. Angus
Morrison, the Chairman, urging the Committee to accede to the
demand for a refund of the taxes. He said : —
Under the circumstances, [of defective, or incomplete, returns,] I think
you will agree with me, that it is hardly fair, and not doing ' ' as we would
be done by," to take advantage of any alleged technical omissions in the
first half-yearly returns of the Separate School Trustees, made within a
few days after the passing [of the fourth Section] of the [Supplementary
School] Act (of 1853), requiring them [to make these returns]. ... I
think it but equitable that the law should be administered in the same
spirit in regard to the Trustees and supporters of Separate Schools, — what-
ever may be our opinion of the expediency, or inexpediency, of establishing
such Schools.
TORONTO, 20th of May, 1854. E. RYERSON.
Notwithstanding the intimation to the Hon. Mr. Elmsley, on
the llth of May, that, in regard to the point of his complaint,
the law was " clearly in his favour, and that there could be
little doubt, or difficulty, in his obtaining a speedy remedy,"
yet, on the 25th of that month, Dr. Ryerson was made
responsible for this very difficulty, with the authorities of the
City of Toronto. In his Letter to Hon. Mr. Elmsley, he said : —
In to-day's issue of a newspaper organ of your Church, published in
this City, called the Catholic Citizen, I am assailed for having, from vile
motives, introduced this provision of the Act, [in regard to returns] ;
whereas, the fact is, that, although I prepared and recommended the
general provisions of the fourth Section of the Supplementary School Act,
it so happens that the restrictive words —
SECOND APPEAL TO THE ( J<>\ KKXMEXT. 75
"Nor shall said exemption extend to School rates, or taxes imposed, or to
be imposed, to pay for School-houses, the erection of which was undertaken, or
entered upon, before the establishment of Separate Schools."
Were not submitted, or suggested, by me, but were suggested by the
late Hon. Attorney-General, (now Judge,) Richards, than whom no man
in Canada could desire more anxiously what was most liberal, as well M
just, towards his Roman Catholic fellow-citi/ens. And the circumstance
that this clause of the Act, so vehemently exclaimed against by the news-
paper organ referred to, originated in a mind the least liable to be charged
with, or suspected of, intolerance against Roman Catholics, and was
approved of by the Roman Catholic, as well as other, Members of the
Government and Legislature, is an ample refutation of the insinuations
referred to, and a sufficient proof that the provisions of the fourth Section
of the Supplementary School Act were conceived in the spirit and interest
of the utmost fairness and liberality to all parties concerned.
TORONTO, 25th of May, 1854. E. RYERS. . \
RENEWED AGITATION BY BISHOP CHARBONNEL — THE TACH6
ACT FORESHOWED.
Notwithstanding these efforts of Dr. Ryerson to remove diffi-
culties and to answer objections, as they arose, a movement
was set on foot to obtain further legislation, more favourable
than ever, for Separate Schools. In a Letter from Dr. Ryerson
to Bishop Charbonnel, in August, 1854, he thus referred to this
movement : —
During some months past, your Lordship has been pleased several times
to attack me personally by name— attacks which have been often repeated
and variously enlarged upon by the newspaper organs of your Lordship. . .
I am quite aware that these attacks upon me, in connection with the
provisions of the law in regard to Separate Schools, were designed to
influence the recent elections ; and for that very reason I thought it proper
not to notice them until after the elections — that your Lordship might
have every possible benefit of them, and that I might not give the slightest
pretence for a charge that I interfered in the elections. ... I may
remark, that when puBlic men have said that they will advocate granting
the same privileges to the Roman Catholics in Tpper Canada as are enjoyed
by Protestants in Lower Canada, they are quite right, and say no more
than I have said from the beginning, — no more than I have sincerely
intended, — no more than each succeeding administration has intended, — no
more than the late Attorney-General (now Judge) Richards believed was
fully secured to them by the Supplementary School Act for 1853 ; for,
after he and I had gone over the several clauses of the fourth Section,
(relative to Separate Schools,) of the Supplementary School Bill, he asked
76 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
me if the supporters of the Separate Schools were now placed on the same
footing in Upper Canada as in Lower Canada ; I replied, I believed they
were in every respect, — that, in some particulars, there was a difference in
the mode of proceeding in the two sections of Canada, and the payment of
all School moneys by County and Town Treasurers, which did not exist in
Lower Canada, — that, in regard to these peculiarities, nothing was required
of the Trustees of Separate Schools, which was not required of Trustees of
Public Schools, with the single exception that, in the semi-annual returns
of the former, the names of children and their parents or guardians were
included, with the amounts of their School subscriptions, in order that it
might be known whom to exempt from the payment of Public School Taxes.
But I desired the Attorney -General to examine for himself the provisions
of the two laws in regard to Separate Schools. At his request, I took the
School Law of Upper Canada, as existing and as proposed, and he took the
School Law of Lower Canada, and went over the provisions, clause by
clause, relative to Dissentient Schools, while I referred him to the corre-
sponding clauses of the School Laws of Upper Canada ; and after he had
finished, he said the equality in the two cases was perfect, and he was
prepared to defend it. After this examination, and with this conviction,
the Attorney-General, with the concurrence of his Colleagues, brought the
Bill before the Legislative Assembly, and it was passed.
TORONTO, 26th of August, 1854. E. RYERSON.
In his fifth letter to Hon. George Brown, written in Decem-
ber, 1858, Dr. Ryerson thus specifies these complaints, made
about this time, (1854,) and which led to the further proposed
legislation in the Tache Act. The chief complaint was : —
That the money paid to Separate Schools was apportioned and paid
by the Local Superintendents in Townships, and by the Board of Common
School Trustees in each City or Town ; that the apportionment of it was
sometimes partial ; and the payment of it often delayed under various pre-
tences, to the great inconvenience and vexation of Trustees of Separate
Schools ; and it was urged that, as the Chief Superintendent of Education
in Lower Canada apportioned and paid the School money to the Trustees
of Dissentient Schools, so should the same officer in Upper Canada appor-
tion and pay the School moneys to Separate Schools.
In the same letter to Mr. Brown, Dr. Ryerson said : —
As to this complaint, I believed it frivolous, as in the cases adduced
to justify it, the Trustees of Separate Schools had not complied with the
conditions and requirements of the law, and the Secretary of their Board
in Toronto had refused to do so, and yet demanded the money otherwise
payable to the Separate Schools ; that I believed it was desired to place me
in a position in which continued complaints could be made against me to
the Government, and I be at length compelled to yield to their demands.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 77
Mr. Hincks thought otherwise, and pressed me to undertake the tusk .if
apportioning and paying the money to Separate Schools, as did the Sup.-i
intendent in Lower Canada, and did not leave it to the Local Superintend-
ents and Boards of Common School Trustees.
In a Letter to the Attorney-General, Dr. Ryerson refers to the
complaint which had been made, as to the former mode of pay-
ing School moneys to the Separate School Trustees. He sai<l : —
Some time last summer, the late Inspector General, (Hon. F. Him-k-.).
communicated with me on this subject, and suggested whether I could not
undertake to distribute and pay the School Grunt to Separate Schools. a->
this would be satisfactory to the complaining parties. I expressed my
conviction, that this would not satisfy Bishop Charbonnel — that I was
satisfied he had ulterior objects in view — that his object was to get a
measure by which the Catholic population, as a Body, would be separated
from the Public Schools, and the Municipalities made tax-gatherers for the
Separate Schools. But, in deference to Mr. Hincks' wishes, and as he had
done so much to aid me in my work, and to promote the Public School
System, and seemed to think it would be satisfactory, I consented to
undertake the task proposed, although I had expressed strong objection
to it in my printed Report for 1852. — (Letter to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald, dated, Toronto, 2nd April, 1855. Correspondence, etc., printed by
the House of Assembly, 1855, page 52.)
Dr. Ryerson took with him to Quebec the draft of Bill of
vSeptember, 1854, to which he referred. In a private letter to
me, dated at Montreal, the 10th of the same month, he said : —
I arrived at Quebec yesterday morning, and left last evening, having
done all that could be done in the circumstances, [change of Ministry].
I gave the Hon. Mr. Hincks the draft of Bill, after having shown it to
Mr. John [afterwards Mr. Justice] Wilson, of London, Mr. John Langton,
and Mr. John W. Gamble. Mr. Hincks will see to it, the same as if he
were in office. . . . Mr. Hincks has received a letter from Monsignor
Joseph Eugene, the Roman Catholic Bishop, of Bytown, very much in the
style of Bishop Charboniiel's first threatening Letter to me. Mr. Hincks'
reply is a masterpiece, and it brought the Bishop to his senses. . . .
The whole will be published. The Ministry having resigned, Sir Allan
Macnab was sent for, by Lord Elgin, to form a Ministry. . . . He
has agreed to carry the measures to which the Ministry were pledged ; and
Mr. Hincks has promised him (Sir Allan) his support, and that of his
friends. ... I afterwards conversed upon the whole affair witli Mr.
Hincks and Lord Elgin. There is a perfectly good understanding between
Sir Allan and Mr. Hincks. . . . Publish my Letter to Bishop Char-
bonnel, of the 26th of August, as was intended.
MONTREAL, 10th of September, 1854. E. RVKKSON.
78 IT. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
With a view to expedite the passage of the Bill sent to Mr.
Hincks, Dr. Ryerson went to Quebec the next month, so as to
confer with the Macnab Ministry on the subject. In a private
Letter to me from Quebec, he said : —
I think that the short School Bill will be introduced, and passed, before
the adjournment. This subject is committed to the present, and the late,
Attorney-General. I went over the Bill with them to-day. They entirely
approve of it. Mr. [now Sir John] Macdonald is to confer with Mr. Morin
011 the Separate School clauses of it, until after which, he does not wish
me to leave.
QUEBEC, 28th of October, 1854. E. RYERSON.
In October, Dr. Ryerson again wrote me a private Letter, as
follows : —
The Government approve of my draft of the School Bill. Even Mr.
Morin — (the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Government) — has
expressed himself satisfied with what I have recommended. I have got
them to bring it in immediately, and to have its provisions apply to this
year ; and, for which, I am much indebted to Mr. Hincks.
QUEBEC, 31st of October, 1854. E. RYERSON.
Dr. Ryerson thus continues the narrative of these events, in
his fifth letter to Hon. George Brown, dated December, 1858 : —
In 1854, I submitted a draft of a short Bill, which was passed and
became the Act 18 Vic., Chap. 142, intituled: "An Act to make Further
Provision for the Grammar and Common Schools of Upper Canada."
In connection with the draft of that Act, I submitted separately the
drafts of three clauses, to remove the ground, or pretext, of the three
complaints now made ; and these three sections contained the ultimatum
of what I was willing to do in regard to Legislation on the subject of
Separate Schools — since in the Letter enclosing them, dated 6th September,
1854, I remarked as follows to Mr. Hincks : —
I think our next step must be, if further Legislation be called for, to take
the sound American ground of not providing for, or recognizing, Separate
Schools at all. In this we should have the cordial support of nine-tenths of
the people of Upper Canada ; while, in the course now pursued, the more you
concede, the more you contravene the prevalent sentiment of the Country, and
the greater injury you are inflicting upon the great body of the parties for
whom Separate School are professedly demanded, but who have not, as far as
I am aware, any safe and adequate means of speaking for themselves, or even
of forming a judgment.
In his Letter to the Hon. F. Hincks, of the 6th of September,
1854, Dr. Ryerson said : —
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 79
The following Sections relate to Separate Schools, and, without under-
mining our General System, provide for all that, even the ultra, advocates
of Separate Schools profess to demand, and all I think the Country can
be induced to give. [Then follows the explanation of the three Sections
proposed in 1854.] These three Sections relieve the Trustees of Separate
Schools from making any return, or including any item in any return what-
ever, not required of other Trustees; leave the applicants fur Separate-
Schools to do anything, or nothing, as they please; hut do not permit
them to make the Municipal Council their School-tax Collector, nor give
them the Legislative School Grant, except in proportion to the average
number of children they teach.
These Sections of draft of Bill in 1854 were in the following
terms : —
VI. And be it enacted, That so much of the 4th Section of the Act,
16 Vic., Chap. 185, as requires each supporter of a Separate School to
subscribe, or pay, a certain sum, in order to be exempted from the pay-
ment of the Public School Rates, and so much of the said Section of said
Act as requires the Trustees of a Separate School to include, in their semi-
annual returns, a statement of the names of the children attending such
School, or of the names of parents, or guardians, sending children to such
School, or of the sum, or sums, subscribed or paid by each of the sup-
porters of such School, shall be, and is hereby repealed : Provided, always,
that the supporters of a Separate School, or Schools, in order to be entitled
to exemption from the payment of any Public School Rates for any one
year, as authorized by the said 4th Section of the Act, 16 Vic. , Chap. 185,
shall, on, or before, the first day of February, of such year, communicate
in writing, with their names and places of residence, to the Clerk of the
Municipality in which such Separate School, or Schools, are situated, a
declaration to the effect, that they are supporters of such Separate School,
or Schools.
VII. And be it enacted, That the Trustees of Separate Schools, elected
in each of the Wards of any City, or Town, in Upper Canada, shall have
authority to unite, during their pleasure, into one Joint Board of Trustees,
for the management of the several Separate Schools in such City, or Town.
VIII. And be it enacted, That the Chief Superintendent of Schools for
Upper Canada shall have authority to determine the proportions of the
Legislative School Grant, which may be payable, respectively, according to
law, to Public and Separate Schools ; and shall have authority to pay the
sums thus apportioned in such manner as he shall judge expedient, upon
the conditions, and at the time prescribed by law : Provided, always, that
such returns shall be made to him, and in such manner, by all parties
concerned, as he shall require, to enable him to decide upon the amount,
and payment of said sums. — (Correspondence on Separate Schools, page ££,
printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, 1855.}
80 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In the Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of the 31st of
December, 1858, already quoted, Dr. Ryerson said : —
It will be seen above that my Letter, enclosing a draft of a short
School Bill to Mr. Hincks, and three clauses relating to Separate Schools,
on the mode of paying School money to them, was dated the 6th of
September, 1854. A few days after, Mr. Hincks resigned office, and the
Sir Allan Macnab administration was formed. In the meantime, Bishop
Charbonnel was most active in writing to Members of the Government and
the Legislature, impugning me, complaining of the law, and enlisting other
Roman Catholic Bishops with him.
The following Letters will show the nature of the influence
which was thus being used, in 1854, to promote the passage of
a purely Roman Catholic Separate School Bill.
In September, 1854, Vicar-General Cazeau, of Quebec, thus
writes to Bishop Q*3£koPji£4> (as given on page 295 of the
" Life of Archbishopli'ugbQO, by C. H. McKeown ") :—
All the Lower Canadian Ministers will be maintained in the [Sir A. N.
Macnab] Cabinet. I do not deceive myself in telling your Lordship that
they agreed, as a condition of their alliance with Sir Allan, that justice
should be done to your (Roman) Catholics about Separate Schools.
QUEBEC, llth of September, 1854. C. F. CAZEAU, V.G.
Bishop Phelan of Kingston, in a Letter, (quoted on page 295
of the " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeown," 1886,)
addressed to Bishop Charbonnel, said : —
I have a Letter from our Attorney-General, (Hon. John A. Macdonald),
in which he promises that he will pass a Bill that will be satisfactory to us
all. Notwithstanding all his promises, I still feel anxious to see that some
action should be taken on our School Bill [of 1854].
QUEBEC, llth of September, 1854. C. F. CAZEAU, V.C.
Dr. Ryerson, in the foregoing Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, already quoted, further states that : —
Among the extracts of correspondence that Bishop Charbonnel after-
wards published, are the following, which I quote from the Toronto Mirror,
of July 18th, 1856 :—
From Vicar-General Cazeau to Bishop De Charbonnel :
It has been resolved, in the Council, that Justice should be done to the
Separate Schools. Sir Allan hastened to tell me that he had always been
favourable to them ; and I replied, that your Lordship had always relied on
him.
QUEBEC, 28th of December, 1854. C. F. CAZEAU, V.G.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 81
In a Letter written by Bishop Phelan, in January, 1855, as
given in Mr. C. H. McKeown's "Life of Archbishop Lynch,"
(1886,) the Bishop said:—
I have delayed writing to you until I had an interview with the Att<-r
ney-General, (Hon. John A. Macdonald,) who assures me that la: has had
prepared a Bill for us in Upper Canada. He says he gave it to the Hon.
A. N. Morin, a (Roman) Catholic in communication with the Right Rev.
Dr. De Charbonnel, The Chief Superintendent read it attentively, and
said nothing against its provisions.*
KINGSTON, 8th of January, 1855. + PATRICK PHELAN, Bp. of Carrhou.
Soon after writing the foregoing Letter, Bishop Phelan ex-
pressed his doubts in regard to Dr. Ryerson's silence, and
addressed the following one to Bishop Charbonnel :•(• —
I assure you I have my misgivings about the new School Bill as unobjec-
able to , (Dr. Ryerson,) and, therefore, I earnestly requested the
Attorney -General, (Macdonald,) to send us a copy of it, that we might
send it back to him, with our remarks on the margin of it.
KINGSTON, 16th of January, 1855. + PATRICK PHELAN, Bp. of Carrhoe.
From the Bishop of Bytown to Bishop De Charbonnel :
Your protestation reached me here in the midst of the bush. I signed and
sent it immediately to Bishop Phelan ; were it lost, send me a duplicate. We
ask merely, and only, for the law which rules Lower Canada. Go to Quebec,
if you can, for you are, amongst us, the most able to treat the School Question
with the Government.
BYTOWN, 2nd of March, 1855. + Jos. EUGENE, Bp. of Bytown.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF
UPPER CANADA, TO THE GOVERNMENT, IN 1854.
The following documents were submitted to the Government,
in 1854-55, by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Kingston,
Toronto, and Bytown (Ottawa) : —
1. Comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools in Upper and
Lower Canada.
2. Draft of a School Bill for Upper Canada, prepared by the three
Roman Catholic Bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and By town, (Ottawa,) in
1854-55.
* To whom this Letter was written is not stated— most likely to Bishop
Charbonnel. There must have been some misapprehension in regard to Dr.
Ryerson reading a Separate School Bill, apparently for the first time, and
making no objection to its provisions. This was entirely contrary to his usual
practice in such cases.
f " Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeown," 1886, page 296.
82
U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
1. Comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools in Upper and Lower
Canada, Prepared by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Kingston, Toronto,
and By to u-n (Ottawa).*
IN UPPER CANADA.
(For having Separate Schools, be twelve'
Dissenters must'! heads of families ; apply to and be
Separate
School j
Sup-
porters
I
Can-
not
authorized by persons opposed to them.
Have a Separate School where a Catholic
teaches a Common School, nor provide
by themselves for the Election of
Trustees
A.f 19th Section.
Nor elect for Trustee a Clergyman having) . ~., g ,.
no Property .... J
\fncf (Contribute to the Common School Build-) A. 27th Section,
) B.f4th Section.
\ ings and Libraries
less than 21 in Toronto
A. 22nd Section.
Separate
School
Trustees
Exercise the same powers as the Common \ A. 19th Section,
School Trustees - - - J B. 1st Section.
Circumscribe their Schools wherever they ). ,q,, Q, ,•
llKG .»--.- J
•< Receive their shares from the Chief Super- \ A T> TT i
intendent, and apply to him for any j- ' ,
case they like
Nor receive any share according to popu- JB 4th gection
lation ------ J
Avail themselves of the Municipal Assess- )
ment and Collecting - - . /
('Take a census during the greatest heat\
and cold /
And twice a year the names of Parents \
and Pupils, with daily attendance - /
Must
ditto.
ditto.
ditto.
The names of Subscribers to Separate) ,.,.
Schools, having no child thereat - )
Schools, having no child thereat
And the amount of their Taxes, even\
unknown J
.Collect Taxes from Parents and Subscribers
ditto.
ditto.
Separate Schools Are visited by Clergymen of different faith A. 32nd Section.
* I have the Original of this Comparative Table and Draft of School Bill, as
proposed, in 1854 and 1858, by the three Bishops named, in my possession. —
tN.B.— "A." means the Upper Canada School Act, of 1850; "B." the
Supplementary School Act, of 1852.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT.
83
Dissenters may
A.* 26th Section.
B.* 18th Section.
From those penalties general dissatisfaction of Dissenters, who cannot
have either Separate Schools, or the money due for them ; wit ueaa Toronto.
Hamilton, London, St. Catharines, etc., etc.
IN LOWER CANADA.
( In any number whatever, heads of families
or not, establish Separate School, with-
out petition to, or authorization from,
. persons opposed to them
Have Separate Schools even where a Di-
senter teaches the Common School -
Keep Common School Buildings for them-^
selves, far from being obliged to con-
tribute to Common School Buildings or | A" 26th Sectlon-
Libraries
Elect for Trustee a Clergyman having no) n
I property
Are only six in Quebec and Montreal, ) .
larger Cities than Toronto - J A' 43rd Section.
Have all the same powers as the Common) . ,
School Trustees
Circumscribe their Schools as they like B. 18th Section.
May apply to the Chief Superintendent
for any case, and receive from him their
shares in all School Funds
On easy Reports and Certificates
Separate School
Trustees.
Section,
5. 18th Section.
)A. 27th Section,
/ B. 18th Section.
According to their population in Quebec^
and Montreal, and wherever they are | A. 26th and 43rd
pleased with the Municipal Assessment, j Sections,
and Collecting
If not, they provide for both, and get) T>
shares according to attendance ' J B' 18th Sectl011'
I Cannot be visited by Clergymen of Rome A. 33rd Section.
From those liberal clauses working liberally, full satisfaction of Pro-
testants.
For further particulars, see the Pamphlet of Angus Dallas, just pub-
lished, entitled: " The Common School System; its Principles, 0-p?mt'n>n
and Residts." Toronto : Thompson & Co., Printers, Queen Street East.t
* N.B. — "A." means the Lower Canada School Act, 9 Viet., Chap. 27 ;
4iB." 12 Viet., Chap. 50.
t (NOTE. — I have referred to this and other Pamphlets in a subsequent
Chapter.— J. G. H.)
84 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In the Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of the 31st of
December, 1858, already quoted, Dr. Ryerson proceeds:—
Bishop Charbonnel proceeded to Quebec, a few days after which I was
officially telegraphed to proceed there also. I was there shown the "pro-
testation " against the Upper Canada School Law, signed by Bishop De
Charbonnel and two other Roman Catholic Bishops.* I went over the
"protestation," item by item, first with the Attorney-General for Upper
Canada (Hon. John A. Macdonald), and then with the Attorney-General
for Lower Canada (Hon. A. N. Morin), and showed that the statements as
to the inequality of the law in regard to Separate Schools in Upper and
Lower Canada were unfounded ; and I examined the (Bishop's) Draft Bill,
clause by clause, and maintained that it was inadmissible, and not at all in
harmony with the professed objects proposed, but an invasion of the rights
of the people and Municipalities of Upper Canada. It was then proposed
that I should meet Bishop De Charbonnel, with the two Attorneys-General.
I did so, and afterwards Bishop De Charbonnel and myself, (by request),
discussed the question alone ; but, after hours of discussion, we were where
we began. I refused to concede any more than I had proposed in the
three clauses addressed to Mr. Hincks, on the previous September, and he
refused to accept those clauses, or state his demands.
After several days, I returned from Quebec, supposing that I had, at
least, satisfied the Law Officers of the Crown of the justice of our Separate
School Law, as it was, and having the firm belief that no Separate School
legislation would take place that Session.
But, that I might leave no means in my power unemployed to maintain
the integrity of our School System, and that I might place on record the
substance of what I had stated verbally at Quebec, I addressed, on my
return to Toronto, a letter to the Hon. Attorney-General John A. Mac-
donald, dated Toronto, 2nd April, 1855, ' ' on the Roman Catholic Bishops'
comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools, and draft of a new
School Bill for Upper Canada." In that Letter, of over seventeen printed
pages, octavo, I discussed —
1. Bishop Charbonnel's statements respecting the School Laws of Upper
and Lower Canada, in regard to Separate Schools.
2. The nature of demands made in Bishop Charbonnel's Draft of Bill.
3. Course of proceeding which I have pursued, and which Bishop
Charbonnel has pursued, towards me, in respect to Separate Schools. —
(See Correspondence on Separate Schools, printed by order of the Legislative
Assembly in 1855, pp. 39-55.)
* It is published in the Official Correspondence on Separate Schools,
(pp. 34-37,) with a Draft of Bill annexed, printed by order of the Legislative
Assembly, 1855.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. *">
DR. RYERSON'S CRITICISM OF THIS TABLE, AND HIS REPLY TO
THE STATEMENT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOI's.
In his Letter to Attorney-General Macdonald, written on the
2nd of April, 1855, Dr. Ryerson made an elaborate reply to the
statements in this Table. His opening paragraph was as follows :
The statements contained in this " Comparative Table of the Legislation
on Separate Schools," are the same as those which were delivered by Bishop
Charbonnel at the "Catholic Institute" in Toronto, and published in the
Catholic Citizen, in July, before the last general elections, and afterwards
shown by me to be wholly incorrect, in a Letter addressed by me to the
Bishop, and published in the Toronto papers, dated the 26th of August,
1854.
The preliminary statement of the three Bishops, to which
Dr. Ryerson refers, and their Draft of Bill, are as follows : —
1. Preliminary Statement of the three Roman Catholic
Bishops.
The only efficient remedy to that inveterate wound in a country which
wants, above all, union and peace for its progress and prosperity, is to
repeal clauses 19 of the School Act, of 1850, and 4 of the Supplementary
Act, of 1853, of Upper Canada ; to place Separate Schools for every-
thing under only one Official, not opposed to Separate Schools, and give
them an equal share in all School Funds. On that principle, and on
the Legislation of Lower Canada, is framed the following project of a
School Bill [for Upper Canada] : —
2. "An Act to better define certain Rights to parties therein
mentioned, as drafted by the three Bishops.
Whereas, the Clauses of the School Acts on Separate Schools in Upper
Canada do not secure all that is granted to the dissenters in Lower Canada.
I. Be it enacted, That the Clause 19 of the 13 and 14 Viet., Chap. 48,
and Clause 4 of the 16 Viet., Chap. 185, be, and are, repealed.
II. That in any School Section, when the arrangements for the Common
School shall not be agreeable to any number whatever of dissidents, those
dissidents may signify, in writing, to the Chairman of the Board of Com-
mon School Trustees, their will of having one or more Separate Schools,
and give in the names of three Trustees, freeholders or not, elected by a
majority at a public meeting, convened by three heads of families of the
same School Section, and held according to the clauses 4 and 5 of the
School Act of 1850 : Provided, that no Member of those dissidents shall
be allowed to vote at any Common School election within the School Sec-
S6 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
tion in which their Separate School shall be established. (So it is in Lower
Canada, see 9th Viet., Chap. 27, Section ;^>.)
III. That the said Trustees, by the only fact of the said signification
and election, shall form de facto a Corporation under the name of ,
having all the same rights and powers, as defined and extended in Common
School Acts of Upper Canada and in this Act, subject to the same duties
and penalties as the Board of Common School Trustees, such as defined
in the clauses 12 and 13 of the School Act of 1850, with the exception
that they will be exclusively accountable to the only one Official appointed
ad hoc for copies, reports, etc. : That Board also shall be renewed partly
at each Annual School Meeting, as provided by the clause 3 of the School
Act of 1850. (So it is in Lower Canada; see Lower Canada Act.)
IV. That in localities divided into Wards, each Ward this year, within
two months after the passing of this Act, and every year after, on the
second Wednesday of January, shall elect one fit person to be a Trustee
of one or more Separate Schools, and hold office until his successor be
elected at the ensuing year, or himself may be re-elected, if he consent
thereto ; that those Trustees shall form one Corporation, under the name
of , having the same rights, subject to the same duties and
penalties as mentioned in the preceding Clause III., with the same excep-
tion that they will be accountable, for such conditions as may be required,
exclusively to the only official appointed for the superintendence of
Separate Schools ; and that any majority of the Members present, at any
meeting regularly held, at which there shall be an absolute majority of the
Members of the Board, may validly exercise all the powers of the Corpora-
tion.— (So it is in Lower Canada, see 9th Viet., Chap. 29, Section 5.)
V. That the said Trustees may circumscribe their Separate Schools as
they like, (so it is in Lower Canada, 12th Viet., Chap. 50, Section 18,) receive
children of their faith from other School Sections, (so it is in Lower Canada,
9.th Viet., Ch,ap. 27, Section 29,) and qualify Teachers for their Separate
Schools, until they have a Separate Normal School.
VI. That the said Trustees shall be entitled to receive from their said
special Superintendent, on a report such as required by him, such sums
out of the Government Grant, out of all the taxes for School and Library
purposes, and out of any Provincial, or Municipal School Funds, as pro-
portionate to the population they represent, according to the last official
census, (so in Lower Canada, 9th Viet., Chap. 27, Section 26; 12th
Viet., Chap. 50, Section 18,) provided that those sums shall be expended for
School purposes : Provided, also, that should any Municipal Corporation
refuse to pay any portion of those sums, either the Chief Superintendent
shall deduct a sum, equal to the deficiency, from the apportionment of the
current and following years, until full payment, or the Secretary of the
Board shall refer the case to the Superior Court, who will judge of it, and
shall order the payment by all legal means.
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 87
VII. That such of the provisions of the Common School Acts of I'ppi-r
Canada, as are contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be, and HIV
hereby, repealed.
VIII. That generally all words and provisions of this Act, doubts and
difficulties arising about it, shall receive such large, beneficial and liberal
const .ruction as will best ensure the attainment of this Act, and tin- enforce-
ment of its enactments, according to their true intent, meaning, and spirit.
— (So in Lower Canada, 9th Viet., Chap. 27, Section .">.)
IX. That the present Act shall take effect from the first of January
of this year, 1855."
We, the undersigned, hereby declare that nothing short of the above
will satisfy the conscientious convictions of the Catholics of this Province.
•f PATRICK PHELAN, Bp. of Carrhoe, Adm't. Apostolic.
(No date, + ARMANDUS FR. MA., Bp. of Toronto.
<l!ren.) 4- Jos. EUGENE, Bp. of Bytown.
In his Letter to Hon. Attorney-General John A. Macdonald,
dated the 2nd of April, 1852, and published in the " Cwre-
spondence," laid before the House of Assembly, in 1855, Dr.
E/yerson thus analyses the provisions of this Bill, as proposed
by the three Bishops : —
This Draft of Bill is the first document that Bishop Charbonnel has
printed, stating explicitly what he and his Colleagues demand. This
document speaks for itself ; and no private professions, or disclaimers, as
to what is, or is not, desired, or intended, will be of any value, in the face
of what is here summarily and deliberately demanded as necessary to
" satisfy the conscientious convictions of the Catholics of this Province."
The professed object of Bishop Charbonnel's statements and Draft of
Bill, is to secure to the Roman Catholics in Upper Canada what is enjoyed
by Protestants in Lower Canada ; but the provisions of the Draft of Bill
itself would confer upon Roman Catholics in Upper Canada what is not
enjoyed by Protestants in Lower Canada, or in any other civilized country.
Under the pretence of assimilating the School Law of Upper Canada t<»
that of Lower Canada, in regard to Separate Schools, an attempt is made
to place the property of every Protestant in Upper Canada, the power of
every Municipality, and the School Fund itself, in subjection to the
promoters of Separate Schools, without their being subject to any of the
restrictions and obligations to which Separate Schools in Lower Canada
and Public Schools in Upper Canada are now subject. An analysis of the
provisions of this Draft of Bill will more than justify this assertion.
1. The first feature of this Draft of Bill that I shall notice, is, that
which relates to the accountability, or rather non-accountability of Separate
School Trustees, and the conditions of their claims upon the School Fund.
88 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The third and fourth Sections provide a special Superintendent for Separate
Schools, to whom alone they are to make returns, and such returns only as
he may require ; and, on ' a report, such as (the sixth Section prescribes)
required by him,' are Provincial and Municipal School Funds to be paid to
Separate School Trustees, and that, according to the last official census of
the population. Now, every one of those provisions is contrary to the
School Law of Lower Canada. Here is a special Superintendent for Sepa-
rate Schools, which does not exist in Lower Canada ; here is no provision as
to the kind of returns, or when the returns shall be made, or how attested,
all of which are prescribed by the School Law of both the Canadas, and
are not left to any one man, and especially a man chosen to promote a
special object. Nothing is prescribed as to the length of time Schools shall
be kept open, in order to share in the School Fund, or how conducted, or
any inspection. Under such provisions, there might be one Separate
School in a Township, or City, that School not kept open more than three
days in a year, nor contain more than three pupils, and yet, according to
the Separate School ratio, the Trustees of it receive several hundred pounds
of the School Fund ! It is also here provided that all the money thus to
be given to Separate Schools, shall be paid to the Trustees, and that with-
out any personal responsibility, on their part, as to the expenditure of this
money ; whereas, the School Law of Upper Canada does not permit any
part of the School Fund to be paid into the hands of School Trustees at all,
but to legally qualified Teachers alone, on the written orders of Trustees.
2. The second feature of this Draft of Bill, which I notice, is, that it
annihilates the individuality, and individual right, of choice on the part of
the members of the Religious Persuasion of the Separate Schools.* The
second Section provides that 'any number whatever of dissidents,' in a
Municipality, may establish a Separate School ; the third section makes
three persons signified by themselves de facto a Corporation ; and the sixth
Section makes them the representatives of the whole population, according
to the last census, of the persuasion to which they belong. Thus, any
* This idea of the right of individuals, and of independent action on the part
of the supporters of Separate Schools, assumed, as a matter of course, by Mr.
Hincks, in his Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 9th of August, 1852, also runs
through the whole of Dr. Ryerson's writings, in regard to the Separate School
question. He points out that a different and opposite principle is prominent in
the legislation of those who promote Separate Schools. Thus he says: "The
second proviso [in the Acts prepared under the auspices of Col. Tache, in 1855,
and of Mr. R. W. Scott, in 1860-1863] is, that the Roman Catholics, as a body,
shall be defined as supporters of Separate Schools, and thus, by law, be
excluded from the Common Schools." This was in the first project of the Tache
Bill referred to,— thus depriving every Roman Catholic of the right, or liberty,
of choice as to whether he would support a Common, or a Separate, School ;
and also depriving every Roman Catholic parent of the right, or liberty, of
choice, as to whether he would send his children to the Common, or Separate,
School. — (Dr. RyerzoiC/s " Remarks on the Separate School Agitation,'' February.
1865, page 18.}
SECOND APPEAL r<> THE GOVERNMENT. 8!)
three Priests, or any other three Members of such Persuasion, can
themselves into a Corporal ion, to represent and control the whole popula-
tion of that Persuasion in a Municipality, and claim and receive into then-
own hands School moneys of every kind, according to the numbers of such
Persuasion, as certified by the last ollieial census, though nine-tenths of
such Persuasion might wish to remain, and have their children educated
with other classes of their fellow-citi/ens. No such monstrous provision
exists in the School Law of Lower Canada. In the Section of the Act
there, authorizing the dissentients to receive- a portion of the assessment^
on their protesting against the assessment adopted by the Commissioners,
(Section 18, of the Act, 12th Viet., Chap. 50,) it is only the parties making
the representation that are included, and they only receive what they them-
selves pay to the Collector. The law there does not make the last official
census the basis of distribution ; much less does it ignore individual right
of choice. So the School Law of Upper Canada recognizes individual
rights ; deals with each individual for himself, and does not ignore, or
proscribe, him from the Public Schools, and all the privileges connected
with them, except at his own request.
3. The third feature of this Draft of Bill, (for which, see pages 85-87,
ante,) is, that it transfers all the Common School property of Upper
Canada from its present occupiers to the Trustees of Separate Schools.
The seventh Section repeals all the Provisions of the present "Common
School Acts of Upper Canada" that "are contrary to the pro-visions of this
Act '' ; and the third Section gives to the Trustees of Separate Schools
all the rights and powers, which the 12th and 13th Sections of the School
Act of 1850 give to the present Trustees of Common Schools ; and the 12th
Section of that Act includes the possession, and control, of all Common
School property in Upper Canada. Truly, this is a very ingenious and
modest provision to " satisfy conscientious convictions !" And this is far
from being all ; for,
4. A fourth feature of this Draft of Bill is, that it gives the Trustees
of Separate Schools unrestricted power to tax all property in Upper
Canada,— not only that which belongs to the supporters of Separate
Schools, but that which belongs to every Protestant and every Roman
Catholic in Upper Canada ! The present Upper Canada School Law makes
the Trustees of Separate School Corporations, and gives them the same
power in the management of their own Schools, and in respect to all persons
for whom such Schools are established, as is possessed by the Trustees of
Common Schools, but the "conscientious convictions" of Bishop de Char-
bonnel, and his Colleagues, require much more. They claim by the 3rd
Section of this Draft of Bill, "all the same rights and powers " which the
12th Section of the School Act of 1850 gives to the Common School
Trustees. These "rights and powers," thus claimed, are not restricted to
any class, or classes, of persons, but are absolute and universal. The only
7
90 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
restriction on them is that which is contained in the 13th Section of
the same Act, — a Section imposing a fine of Five pounds upon a Trustee
convicted of " knowingly signing a false report," — a Section of no effect in
connection with the other provisions, which relieve Separate Schools of all
inspection, create for them a special Superintendent of their own, and with
no obligation, to make any returns, except such as he may require from
them. The 9th, 10th, llth, 14th, 18th, 29th and 31st Sections of the
School Act of 1850, (13th and 14th Viet., Chap. 48,) and the 4th, 5th, 6th,
9th, 10th, llth, 12th, 13th and 17th Sections of the Supplementary School
Act of 1853, (16 Viet., Chap. 185,) impose various restrictions and obliga-
tions upon Trustees in regard to the exercise of the large powers which the
nineteen clauses of the 12th Section of the School Act of 1850 confer upon
them, — thus preventing them from levying any rate upon the supporters of
Separate Schools ; requiring semi-annual returns ; limiting their applications
to Councils, etc. , etc. ; but the 3rd Section of this Draft of Bill discards all
these restrictions and obligations, and demands for the Trustee Corpora-
tions to be created, absolutely, and without restrictions, all the ' ' rights and
powers," as well as all the property, which the 12th Section of the School
Act of 1850 confers upon Common School Trustees, the ninth clause
of which Act authorizes them ' ' to apply to the Municipality of the
Township, or employ their own lawful authority, as they may judge
expedient, for the raising and collecting of all sums authorized in the
manner hereinbefore provided, to be collected from the freeholders and
householders of such Section, by rate, according to the valuation of taxable
property, as expressed on the Assessor's, or Collector's, Roll." Here is no
restriction as to persons, or property ; all are subject to the taxing power
of the Separate School Trustees, — whom this Draft of Bill makes the sole
School Trustees ! And, in this connection, it is also to be observed that
the proviso in the 2nd Section of this Draft of Bill allows none but dis-
sentients to vote at the election of these Trustees. This is also the pro-
vision of the present law ; but the present law restrains the acts of the
Trustees thus elected, to the property and persons of the dissentients.
This Draft of Bill, however, while it restricts the elective franchise to a
particular class, gives the Trustees elected by that class, power over all the
taxable property of all classes of freeholders and householders in the
Section ! Nor is this all, for —
5. A fifth feature of Bishop de Charbomiel's Draft of Bill is, that it
gives the Trustee Corporations it creates, equal power over the Municipal
Councils as over individuals. The ninth clause of the 12th Section of the
School Act of 1850, above quoted, gives the Trustees power to apply, at
their pleasure, to the Municipality, to impose School rates ; and the 18th
Section of the same Act makes it the duty of such Council to levy and
collect the amount of rates thus applied for, from all the taxable property
of the Section concerned ; and the 6th Section of this Draft of Bill requires
SECOND APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. 91
the Special Superintendent to pay the amount of such taxes, or, from the
Chief Superintendent, if the Municipality fails to do so. Thus is every
Municipality in Upper Canada, as well as the School Fund, subjected to
the discretionary demands of Separate School Trustees. Nor is even this
all, for—
<>. A sixth feature of this Draft of Bill is, that it ties the hands of all
Public School Trustees, (were any to exist,) from doing anything for their
own School without doing also as much for the Separate Schools ; for the
6th Section of this Draft of Bill requires "all taxes for School and
Library purposes," as well as "any Provincial and Municipal Fund
be paid to the Trustees of Separate Schools, in proportion "to the popula-
tion they represent, according to the last official census." Thus, whatever
might be done by any parties for the erection of Public School-houses, or
the support of Public Schools, they could not raise a penny by taxes, even
from themselves, without dividing it with the Trustees of Separate Schools,
who are not subject to corresponding obligations, — who may do nothing
whatever, — and who are to receive, not in proportion to their taxable pro-
perty, but in proportion to population, though the ratio of that population
may be three times that of the taxes they pay, as is the case even in the
City of Toronto.*
I might remark upon other minor features of this Draft of Bill, and
show its operations in other aspects ; but the six features I have exhibited
sufficiently prove that it contemplates the complete destruction of our
Public School System, and the subjection of the School Funds, Munici-
palities and property, and the whole population of Upper Canada, to a
Religious domination, such as is without a parallel in any age, and is
incompatible with the free government or liberties of any Country. I
doubt whether the ingenuity of man could devise, under meeker preten-
sions, and in fewer words, the destruction of the Educational Institutions
and the constitutional liberties of a whole people, and their prostrate sub-
jection under the feet of a Religious Denomination. The authors of this
Draft of Bill must have presumed marvellously upon their own powers, and
upon the simplicity of the Members of the Legislature. I am persuaded
that no person will more promptly recoil from and repel such a measure
than the great body of the Roman Catholic Members of the Legislature,
and of the community, who will be grieved, and ashamed, to see the worst
imputations of their opponents exceeded by the monstrous propositions
* The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Toronto, in 1852,
claimed £1,150 for their Schools; and, in reporting upon this demand. tlu>
Committee of the Board of School Trustees state that — "From a recent return
your Committee find that the total annual value of the taxable property in the
City amounts to £186,983 5s. : — of this, the proportion held by Roman Catholics
is £15,750 10s. The total net amount of School tax for last year, at 2id. in the
pound, was £1,800; the net proportion contributed by the Roman Catholic
inhabitants was onlv £156 10s."
92 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
covertly involved in what is demanded by Bishop Charbonnel, and his Col-
leagues, under the pretext of "satisfying their conscientious convictions."
The Members of the Legislature now have the issues of the whole
question before them ; and they, as well as the people of Upper Canada
at large, will understand their rights, their interests, and their duty. —
(Letter to the Hon. Attorney. General John A. Macdoncdd, dated the 2nd of
April, 1855. Correspondence printed by order of the House of Assembly,
1855, pages 46-49. )
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TACHE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855.
THE just yet severe criticism which the Draft of the Separate
School Bill, — which was practically the ultimatum of the three
Bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and By town, — called forth from
Dr. Ryerson, and others, prevented its being submitted to the
Legislature at that time. It was, however, re-submitted to the
Government in 1858, apparently without any modification, not-
withstanding Dr. Ryerson's adverse criticism of it. (See Dr.
Ryerson's private Letter to me, of the 30th of January, 1858,
pages 121, 122, post) The duty of preparing a less crude and
sweeping measure was, apparently, entrusted to the Hon. L. T.
Drummond, M.R
This Drummond Bill was introduced into the Legislative
Council by the Hon. Sir E. P. Tache. In his fifth Letter to the
Hon. George Brown, dated the 31st of December, 1858, Dr.
Ryerson thus refers to the circumstances under which this
Tache Bill was submitted to the Legislature : —
This Letter, (i.e., the one addressed to the Hon. John A. Macdonald,
Attorney-General, on the 2nd of April, 1855, — with the exception of the
two telegrams, which I will give presently,) was the last Letter I wrote
to any Member of the Government, (at that time,) on the Separate School
Law. . . .
Then, as to the sequel. About the middle of May, six weeks after I had
returned from Quebec, a Separate School Bill was introduced by Sir E. P.
Tache into the Legislative Council, repealing all preceding Separate School
provisions of the law, and substituting one Act in place of them, including
THE TACH£ SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855. J>:{
the three clauses, which I had transmitted to Mr. Hincks in the previous
September. That Bill was professedly designed to assimilate the Separate
School Laws of Upper and Lower Canada, and was, upon the whole, drawn
up with great fairness, — imposing upon the supporters of Separate Schools
several forms and requirements which had never before been imposed upon
them, and simply because such forms and requirements had been imposed
upon the supporters of Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada. But the
Bill contained a provision, (which I had always resisted,) to compel the
Municipalities to be tax-collectors for Separate Schools, and for giving
Separate Schools' an undue share of School money ; and also another pro-
vision for establishing Separate Schools of every kind, without limit, such
as would have divided the Protestant population into endless parties, and
destroyed the School System. The Hon. L. T. Drummond, Attorney-
General for Lower Canada, is said to have prepared this Bill, while Col.
Tache' introduced it into the Legislative Council, — there being then, (as was
stated,) no Upper Canada Member of Government in the Council.
As to the manner and instruments of preventing that Bill from passing
in its original form, and striking out its objectionable clauses, the following
facts will show. My first intelligence of the Bill was by the Telegram, of
which the following is a copy, addressed to me by Mr. J. W. Gamble,
M.P. :—
" QUEBEC, May 18th, 1S55, — To DR. RYERSON, — Are you aware of provisions
of Government Bill, relation Separate Schools, introduced into the Legislative
Council ? Copy mailed your address to-day.
"J. W. GAMBLE."
To the above I replied forthwith : —
" To J. W. GAMBLE, Esq , — I have not seen the Bill, and know nothing of it."
On receiving a copy of the Bill from Mr. Gamble, I addressed the follow-
ing Telegram to the Hon. Attorney-General John A. Macdonald, Quebec : —
" Have seen Mr. Tache's Separate School Bill. High Church Episcopalians
alone are gainers. All others are losers. In the 14th Section, the person
should be of religious persuasion of Separate School. It should be so worded
as not to include Municipal Council Assessment. Why not restrict the 2nd
Section, and the whole Bill, to Roman Catholics alone ?
"TORONTO, May 19, 1855. " E. RYERSON."
After further considering the Bill, I addressed the following Telegram to
the Hon. Attorney-General Macdonald, Quebec : —
" Mr. Tache's Roman Catholic Separate School Bill, amended as suggested,
and confined to Catholics, is harmless. Otherwise destroys School System.
Any ten persons, using name of any Persuasion, can avoid paying all School
taxes by complying with forms of Bill, and adopting, as their's, any Lady's, or
other, School, to which they send, or subscribe, a few shillings, or pence.
" TORONTO, May 22nd, 1855. " E. RYERSON."
94 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
To the foregoing, I received the following reply : —
" To REV. DR. RYERSON, Toronto,— I agree with you, and will make altera-
tions as yon suggest.
"QUEBEC, May 22nd, 1855. " JOHN A. MACDONALD."
What influence the above Telegrams had in striking out the worst
features of the Bill, and especially when the Attorney-General afterwards
amended the Bill, as they suggested, the reader can easily judge.
The Tache Bill passed the Legislative Council on the 21st of
May, but not without the following Protest from the Hon.
James Crooks, of Flamboro', Father of the Hon. Adam Crooks,
Q.C., the first Minister of Education for Ontario : —
DISSENTIENT :
Because the settled policy of every Government is to provide that all of
the subjects live in amity and good-fellowship, one with another, and that
whatever differences may exist among them, as to forms of Religion, or any
other matter, it is deemed good policy that the youth, as far as possible, be
brought together at Public Schools for Education at an early period of life,
leaving to their Parents, or other Guardians, the duty of instructing them
in the forms of Religion they profess, and the principles of the Christian
Religion.
That following out these judicious principles, the Imperial Government
have erected and endowed a number of [Queen's] Colleges in Ireland, [one
each in the Provinces of Ulster, Munster, and Connaught.] Some Pro-
fessors of Religion, not Protestant, are there successfully employed, and
heretofore with perfect success : Whereas, by passing the present Bill, the
asperity of feeling, one towards another, engendered by different forms of
Religion, is perpetuated, and the policy of the Imperial Government set at
naught.
JAMES CROOKS.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, 21st of May, 1855.
The Tache Bill, as it passed the Legislative Council, was
sent down to the House of Assembly, and, on the 22nd of
May, it was moved by the Hon. John A. Macdonald, Attorney-
General, West, seconded by the Hon. William Cayley, that the
Bill be read a first time. In amendment to this motion, Mr.
George Brown, seconded by Mr. Joseph Hartman, moved that
it be read that day six months. The votes of the Upper Canada
Members on this motion were : Brown, Christie, Belong, Fraser,
Gamble, Hartman, Langton, Luinsden, Mackenzie, Mathewson,
Merritt, Patrick, Rankin, Rolph and Wright (15), and Darche
THE TAcnti SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855. 95
and J. B. E. Dorion, of Lower Canada; total, 17. The Upper
Canada nays were : Bowes, Larwill, Powell, Cay ley, Church,
Clarke, Crysler, J. A. Macdonald, R. McDonald, Sir A. Macnab,
John Ross, James Ross, Shaw, H. Smith, Southwick, Spence,
Stevenson (16). Lower Canada nays, 45; total, 61.
On a vote for a " call of the House " on the same day, to
consider the Bill, the Upper Canada yea votes were : Aikens,
Brown, Christie, Belong, Fraser, Gamble, Hartman, Langton,
Lumsden, Mackenzie, Merritt, Patrick, Rankin, Rolph and
Wright (15), and 6 Lower Canada yea votes, viz. : Bellingham,
Darche, DeWitt, J. B. E. Dorion, A. A. Dorion and Papin;
total, 21. The Upper Canada nay votes were : Bowes, Cay ley,
Church, Clarke, Larwill, J. A. Macdonald, R. McDonald, Sir A.
N. Macnab, Powell, John Ross, James Ross, Shaw, H. Smith,
Spence and Stevenson (14), and 41 Lower Canada nay votes;
total, 55. The following is a copy of the Tache Bill, as passed :
THE TACHE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855, (18 VICT., CHAP. 131.)
Whereas it is expedient to amend the laws relating to Separate Schools
in Upper Canada, so far as they affect the Roman CatJiolic inhabitants
thereof : (b) Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty,
by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, and of the
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, constituted and assembled
by virtue of, and under the authority of, an Act passed in the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and intituled, An Act tn
reunite the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the Government
of Canada, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, as
follows : —
I. The Nineteenth Section of "the Upper Canada School Act 0/1850,"
and the Fourth Section of " the Upper Canada Supplementary School Act of
1853," and all other provisions of- the said Acts, or of any other Act, incon-
sistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed, so far on'<i </^
they severally relate to the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada (b). [13 and
14 Viet., Chap. 48, $ xix. 14 and 15 Viet,, Chap. 111. 16 Viet.. Chap.
185, § iv., repealed.]
II. Any number of persons, not less than five heads of families, />< /m/
freeholders, or householders, resident ivithin any School >SV</".,(, <•/ <mij
Township, or within any Ward of any City, or Ton-n, («) and being R< .man
Catholics, (b} may convene a public meeting of persons desiring to establish
(a) Amended in the Legislative Council.
(b) Amended in the House of Assembly.
96 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
a Separate School for Roman Catholics (b) in such School Section, or
Ward, (b) for the election of Trustees for the management thereof.
III. A majority of the persons present, not less than ten in number, (b)
be in< i freeholders, or householder*, (a) and being Roman Catholics, (b) at any
such meeting may elect three persons, resident ivithin such Section, (a) to
act as Trustees for the management of such Separate School, and any
person, being a British subject, (b) may be elected as such Trustee, whether
he be a freeholder, or householder, or not.
IV. A notice addressed to the Reeve, or to the Chairman of the Board
of Common School Trustees, in the Township, City, or Town, in which such
Section is situate, may be given by all persons resident within such Section,
being freeholders, or householders, and being Roman Catholics, (b) favourable
to the establishment of such Separate School, whether they were present
at such meeting or not, declaring that they desire to establish a Separate
School in such School Section, and designating, by their names, professions,
and places of abode, the persons elected, in the manner aforesaid, as
Trustees for the management thereof.
V. Every such notice shall be delivered to the proper Officer by one of
the Trustees so elected, and it shall be the duty of the Officer receiving the
same to endorse thereon the date of the reception thereof, and to deliver a
copy of the same, so endorsed and duly certified by him, to such Trustee.
VI. From the day of the date of the reception of every such notice, the
Trustees therein named shall be a Body Corporate under the name of "The
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate School, for the Section Number
, in the Township, (City, or Town, as the case may be,) in the
County of ."* '
VII. If a Separate School, or Separate Schools, shall have been established
in more than one Ward of any City, or Town, the Trustees of such Separate
Schools may, if they think fit, form an union of such Separate Schools, (b)
and, from the day of the date of the notice in any public newspaper, pub-
lished in such City, or Town, announcing such union, the Trustees of the
* In the original 6bh and 8th Sections of the Bill, as introduced into the
Legislative Council, the words "Episcopalian," and "Jewish, Coloured," etc.,
"as the case may be," were inserted. In the "Rough Draft of a Bill,"
the corresponding words used were " Denominations," and "Denominational
Schools." The word "Episcopalian" was, in each case, altered in the Legis-
lative Council to " Protestant." In the House of Assembly, all of these words
were struck out. The 7th Section, as printed in the original Bill, was struck
out in the House of Assembly. It was as follows : ' ' VII. Persons favourable
to the establishment of Separate Schools, shall elect one person only to be a
Trustee for the management of one, or more, Separate Schools in each Ward of
every City, and Town, in Upper Canada, divided into Wards ; and every
Trustee so elected shall form a Body Corporate, under the name of the Trustees
of the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, [altered to " Protestant,"] Jeivish,
Coloured, School, etc., OH the case may be, [struck out in the Council,] Separate
School for Ward of the City, Town, Village, as the case may be, of
, in the County of . (See Mr. Elmsley's Letter, page 117, post.)
THE TACH£ SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 18">">. 97
several Ward* shall, toother, (b) form ;i Body Corporate, under the tltlr (h)
of "The Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholir r/,/7. -,1(1.) S.-parate
Schools for the City, (or Town,) of , in tin- ( 'ounty of
VIII. All Trustees elected, and forming a I'.oily Corporate under thU
Act, shall have the same power to impose, levy and collect, School !
OF Subscriptions; upon, and from, persons sending childivn to. or subscril.
ing towards, the Support of Separate Schools, and all other po\\vi> m
respect of Separate Schools, as the Trustees of Common Schools ha\v and
possess under the provisions of the Acts hereinbefore cited in respect ..t"
Common Schools; and they shall also lie bound to perform all duties
required of, and shall be subject to all penalties provided a^ain>t. tin;
Trustees of Common Schools ; and Ti-arln-rs »f N«7«//v//,- ,sV/»oo/.s xlmll be
liable, to all penalties provided against Teachers of Common Schools, (b)
IX. All Trustees elected under this Act shall remain in office until the
second Wednesday of the month of January next, following their election,
on which day in each year an Annual Meeting shall be held, commencing
at the hour of ten of the clock in the forenoon, for the election of Trustees
for Separate Schools theretofore established ; but no Trustee shall be
re-elected at any such Meeting without his consent, unless after the expira-
tion of four years from the time when he went out of office.
X. All Trustees elected under this Act shall allow children from other
School Sections to be received into any Separate School under their man-
agement, at the request of the parents, or lawful guardians, of such
children, provided such children, or their parents, or guardians, are Roman
Catholics; and no children attending such School shall be included in tli?
return hereafter provided to be made to the Chief Superintendent of Schools,
unless they shall be Roman Catholics.(b)
XI. A majority of the Trustees in any Township, or Village, or of the
Board of Trustees in any Town, or Arillage, elected under this Act, shall
have power to grant Certificates of Qualification to Teachers of Separate
Schools under their management, and to dispose of all School Funds of
every description coming into their hands for School purposes.
XII. Every person paying rates, whether as proprietor ^ or tenant. («.) who
011 or before the first day of February of any year, shall have given notice
to the Clerk of the Municipality in which any Separate School is situated,
that he is a Roman Catholic, and a (b) supporter of such Separate School,
shall be exempted from the payment of all rates imposed, icitliin siit-Ji Ward,
or School Section, (b) for the support of Common Schools, and of Common
School Libraries, for the year then next following, and every Clerk of a
Municipality, upon receiving any such notice, shall deliver a Certificate to tlie
person giving the same, to the effect that such notice has-been yicen, a)id
*h <» ring the date of such notice ; (a) but any person who shall fraudulently
give any such notice, or shall wilfully make any false statement therein,
shall not secure any exemption thereby, but shall, on the contrary, be
98 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
liable to a penalty of Ten Pounds currency, recoverable, with costs, before
any Justice of the Peace, at the suit of the Municipality interested :
Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall exempt any such person
from paying any rate for the support of Common Schools, or Common School
Libraries, or for the erection of a School-house, or School-houses, which shall
have been imposed before such Separate School was established, (b)
XIII. Every Separate School established under this Act shall be entitled
to a share in the Fund annually granted by the Legislature of this Province
for the support of Common (by Schools,* according to the average number
of pupils attending such School during the twelve next preceding months,
or during the number of months which may have elapsed from the establish-
ment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average
number of pupils attending! School in the same City, Town, Village, or
Towhship : Provided always, that no Separate School shall be entitled to a
share in any such fund unless the average number of pupils so attending
the same be fifteen or more, (periods of epidemic, or contagious, disease
excepted : Provided, also, that nothing herein contained shall entitle any
such Separate School within any City, Town, Village, or Township, to any
part or portion of School moneys arising or accruing from local assessment for
Common School purposes within any such City, Town, Village, or Town-
ship, (a) or the County, or Union of Counties, within which such Town,
Village, or Township, is situate : Provided, also, that if any Separate School
sJuill not have been in operation for a whole year at the time of the apportion-
ment, it shall not receive the sum to which it would have been entitled for a
whole year, but only an amount proportional to the time during ivhich it has
been kept open.(b)
XIV. The Trustees of each Separate School shall, on or before the
thirtieth day of June and the thirty-first day of December of each year,
transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Schools for Upper Canada a correct
statement of the names of the children attending such School, together
with the average attendance during the six next preceding months, or
during the number of months which may have elapsed since the establish-
ment thereof, and the number of months it shall have been so kept open, (b)
and the Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the proportion
which the Trustees of such Separate Schools will be entitled to receive out
of such Legislative Grant, J and shall pay over the amount thereof to such
Trustees, and every such statement shall be verified under oath, before any
* After the word " Schools," the following words were struck out in the
House of Assembly : ' ' and in any fund arising from any other source whatso-
ever, set apart for Common School purposes."
t After the word " attending," the words, " the Common," were also struck
out.
£ After the word "grant," the words, " or other fund, as aforesaid, accord-
ing to law," were struck out in the House of Assembly. The words, " any
Justice of the Peace," were substituted for the words " the Judge of."
THE TACH£ SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1855. 99
Justice of the Peace (b) for the County, or union of Counties, within whirl)
such Separate School is situate, by at least one of the Trustees making the
same.
XV. But the election of any Trustee, or Trustees, made under this Act,
shall become void, unk'ss a Separate School he established under his, or
their, management, within two months from the election of such Trustee,
or Trustees.
XVI. And no person subscribing towards the support of a Separate
School, or sending children thereto, shall be allowed to vote at the election
of any Trustee of a Common School in the City, Town, Village, or Town-
ship, in which such Separate School is situate.
PASSAGE OF THE TACHti SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL, 1850.
Several amendments were made to the Bill, as I have shown ,
during its passage through the House of Assembly, and these
amendments, [as noted in the Bill, on pages 95-100,] having
been concurred in by the Legislative Council, the Bill received
the Royal assent on the 30th of May, 1855.
Speaking of the passage of the Bill by the Legislature, at
this time, Dr. Ryerson, in his fifth Letter to the Hon. George
Brown, of the 31st of December, 1858, said : —
It is of little consequence whether Members of the Opposition,
or others, prevented the Bill from passing, as originally introduced. The
School System of Upper Canada is equally the property of all parties, not
of one party. . . . The Government, and the Catholic and French
Members of the House, could not do otherwise than listen to the remon-
strances of their own friends, and especially of Members of the Church of
England, which the Bill, as introduced, was adapted to conciliate and
favour. But, to the honour of the Church of England, and to the honour
of Canada, and especially to the honour of the Gentlemen themselves, the
Episcopalians stood forward as a phalanx against the seductions presented
to them by the provisions of the Bill as introduced. ... I feel it
no less my duty than pleasure, to express my own gratitude, and. 1
believe, that of Upper Canada generally, to Messrs. Gamble, Stevenson.
W. B. Robinson, Langton, and Crawford, for the earnest and noble stand
they took on that occasion as champions of the unmutilated Common
School System of Upper Canada. . . .
In a private Letter to me in June, 1855, Dr. Ryerson said :—
NOTE.— The 18th Section, providing for a " large, beneficial and liberal con-
struction " of the Act, was struck out as unnecessary in the House of Assembly.
The original 7th Section, relating to Ward Schools, was also struck out ; so
that the number of Sections in the Act was reduced from eighteen to sixteen.
100 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
I met Mr. George Brown, M.P., on the bout this afternoon. He says
that the Separate School Bill underwent various changes, — all to the
disadvantage of the Supporters of Separate Schools ; — that the Bill, as
finally passed, was quite a different Bill from the original one which we
have ; that the substantial debate on the subject took place at the second
reading of the Bill.
HAMILTON, 8th of June, 1855. E. RYERSON.
SIR JOHN MACDONALD AND THE TACHti SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT.
Mr. Joseph Pope, in his " Memoirs of the Right Honourable
Sir John Alexander Macdonald/' thus refers to Sir John's
proceedings in regard to the Tache Separate School Bill of
1855 :—
Parliament, which had adjourned on the 18th of December, 1854,
re-assembled in Quebec on the 23rd of February, 1855.
. . . A Measure was passed, (during the Session of 1855,) dealing
with the School System of Upper Canada. The latter was introduced into
the Assembly by Mr. Macdonald, who stated that the principle of the Bill
was not new, for already, under the law, Separate Schools existed in both
sections of the Province, so that the people would keep only, in a more
acceptable form, that which they already had. Petitions, numerously
signed in Upper Canada, had urged upon the Government and Legislature
the necessity for a change.* The old law provided, that, if twelve house-
holders petitioned for a Separate School, the Municipal Council was
compelled to grant it. The Bill introduced by Mr. Macdonald enacted
that five heads of families could establish a Separate School ; that Trustees
would be elected, precisely as before. The old law was retained to this
extent, that Roman Catholics might set up a School in a Protestant com-
munity, or Protestants in a Roman Catholic community, or Jews, or
Coloured people, in either ; t but Protestants could not dissent from Pro-
testants, nor Roman Catholics from Roman Catholics.
Mr. Macdonald said, that he was as desirous as any one of seeing all
children going together to the Common Schools, and, if he could have his
own way, there would be no Separate Schools. But we should respect the
opinions of others who differed from us, and they had a right to refuse to
accept such Schools as they could not conscientiously approve of. It was
better to allow children to be taught at School such religious principles as
their parents wished, so long as they learned, at the same time, to read
* The majority of the Petitions from Upper Canada was against, rather than
for, the Separate School Bill. — J. G. H.
t All reference to "Jews, or Coloured people," was struck out of the Bill
by the House of Assembly, (see page 96, ante). — J. G. H.
THE TACHE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 18r>:>. 101
newspapers and books, and to become intelligent and useful citi/.-
(Vol. I., pages 137, 138.)
In a subsequent part of the " Memoirs," Mr. Pope says :—
I have already shown what was Mr. Macdonald's position in n-^ard to
the question of Separate Schools. The following quotation, from one <,t
his speeches, delivered about this time, presents his views on tin- subject
very clearly : —
I have called the attention of the people to the fact that the 19th Clause
of the Common School Act of 1850, became law long, long before I was in
the Government at all ; so that the merit of it, or the blame of it, is n«>r
with me, but rests entirely with the Baldwin-La Fontaine Administration,
as it was brought in under the auspices of Mr. Baldwin, particularly, —
that pure, and honest, man, — of whom I always love to speak, though we
were opposed in politics. And, if it be asked : why we did not repeal it, I
answer, in the first place, that it is one thing to give a right, or a franchise,
and another thing to deprive people of it ; and, in the second place, we
have the indisputable evidence of a disinterested witness, — a man who
cannot be suspected of any leaning towards Popery, — I mean, the Rev. Dr.
Ryerson, a Protestant clergyman himself, at the head of the Common
School System of Upper Canada, — a person whose whole energies have
been expended in the cause of Education, — who states deliberately to the
people of Canada, that the Separate School Clause does not retard the
progress, or the increase, of Common Schools ; but that, on the contrary,
it " widens the basis of the Common School System." If I thought that it
injured that System, I must say that I would vote for its repeal to-morrow.
You must remember, also, that Lower Canada is decidedly a Roman
Catholic country : — that the Protestant population of Lower Canada i> a
small minority, and, if Protestant Schools were not allowed there, our
Protestant brethren in Lower Canada would be obliged to send their
children to be educated by Roman Catholic Teachers. Now, I don't know
ho\v many Protestants, or how many Roman Catholics, I may be at this
moment addressing, but I say that, as a Protestant, I should not be willing
to send my son to a Roman Catholic School, while I think a Roman
Catholic should not be compelled to send his to a Protestant one.
In Lower Canada, the Teachers are generally the Roman Catholic Clergy,
and, of course, it is their duty to teach what they consider truth, and to
guard their pupils against error. But, the system in vogue there is more
liberal than even ours, in that it not only permits the establishment of
Protestant Schools for Protestant children, but allows the whole Municipal
machinery to be employed to collect the rates to maintain them. In dis-
cussing this subject, I have always found that, when it is fairly laid before
the people, they always, by their applause, signify their approbation of the
consistent course of the Government in regard to it. — (Page* 170, 17L «/«/
172, Vol. I.)
102 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEE XIV.
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1855.
1. From the Hon. John A. Macdonald, Attorney -General, to
Dr. Ryerson, C kief Superintendent of Education.
I have this day given notice of the Bill to amend the law respecting
Grammar and Common Schools. The Clause relating to ... Separate
Schools has been omitted. It is not yet decided whether that subject shall
be touched during the present Session, or deferred until the meeting (of
the Legislature) at Toronto, in February, 1856.
The Clauses relating to Vagrant Children have likewise been omitted,
as I do not wish to insert any clause that might impede the passage of
the Bill. [NOTE. — This subject was again dealt with in 1862. See the
Church of England Separate School proceedings of that year, in a separate
Chapter.— J. G. H.]
I think it is likely that we will send the Bill to a Special Committee, as
you suggest. I shall have that settled in a day or two, when I will write
to you, or, perhaps, send a telegram. If a Special Committee is struck,
your testimony will undoubtedly be required.
QUEBEC, 2nd of March, 1855. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
2. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins.
Dr. Ryerson, having been summoned to Quebec, sent the
following Telegram to me while there : —
Yours received. . . . All right about Separate Schools.
Prepare copies of all Correspondence with Supporters of Separate Schools
since 1852.
QUEBEC, 2nd of April, 1855. E. RYERSON.
3. Letter from Bishop Phelan, (as given on pages 296 and
297 of the '• Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H. McKeown") to
the Hon. Attorney -General Macdonald, as follows :—
Although you informed me in your last Letter that it is, and always was,
your object to enable the (Roman) Catholics to educate their youth in their
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. 103
own way, it does not appear, however, at present, that you intend making,
at this Session, any of the amendments in the present School Act which
you required me to communicate in writing to you.* If this was the case,
what was the use of asking me for my views on the subject of Separate
Schools ? I am aware of your difficulties on this point ; the Chief Superin-
tendent of Schools for Canada West, especially being opposed to any
measure that would be favourable to our Separate Schools, and conse-
quently determined to prevent, if possible, the amendments we require.
But, I trust, that neither you nor the Ministry will be prevented from
doing us justice by your allowing us the same rights and privileges for our
Separate Schools as are granted to the Protestants of Lower Canada. If
this be done at the present Session, we will have no reason to complain ;
and the odium thrown upon you of being controlled by Dr. Ryerson will
be effectually removed. If, on the contrary, the voice of our opponent,
[Dr. Ryerson,] upon this subject of Separate Schools, is more attended to
and respected than the voice of the (Roman) Catholic Bishops, the Clergy,
and nearly 200,000 of Her Majesty's loyal (Roman) Catholic subjects,
claiming justice for the education of their youth, surely the Ministry that
refuses us such rights cannot blame us for being displeased with them,
and, consequently, for being determined to use every constitutional means
to prevent their future return to Parliament. This, of course, will be the
disagreeable alternative to which we shall be obliged to have recourse, if full
justice be not done us at this Session, with regard to our Separate Schools.
KINGSTON, 16th of April, 1855. + PATRICK PHELAN, Bp. of Carrhoe.
This Letter, the writer of the " Life of Archbishop Lynch "
states, " was sent to the Attorney- General, (Hon. John A. Mac-
donald,) with the concurrence of the other two Bishops of
Canada West," — i.e., of Toronto and By town.
It will be noticed that the tone of some of these Letters,
chiefly those from the Bishops, and which refer either to Mem-
bers of the Government, or to Dr. Ryerson, in 1853-1855, are
singularly peremptory and menacing in their tone.
In the foregoing Letter, Bishop Phelan reproaches Attorney-
General Macdonald with " being controlled by Dr. Ryerson,"
* The ''amendments" to which Bishop Phelan here refers may be those
contained in the "Draft of a School Bill for Upper Canada, prepared by tin-
three Bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and Ottawa, and intituled : 'An Act to
better define certain rights to parties therein mentioned,'" accompanied by
a "Comparative Table of Legislation on Separate Schools in Upper and Lower
Canada," (pages 85-87, ante.) No other measure of the kind appears to have
been submitted by the Bishop at this time. That Bill of 18-H seems to huvt>
been again submitted to the Attorney-General in 1858, as mentioned to me, in
a private Letter from Dr. Ryerson, dated the 30th of January, 1858, pages 121,
122, po*t.
104 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
and warns him that, " if the voice of " this, " our Opponent
. . . . is more attended to and respected than the voice of
the Catholic Bishops, Clergy, and " people, ..." every
constitutional means" will be used "to prevent" the return of
the Ministry "to Parliament." He also refers to the Chief
Superintendent as being especially " opposed to any measure
that would be favourable to Separate Schools, and, conse-
quently, determined to prevent, if possible, the amendments
we require."
Language of this kind seems strange, coming, as it did, from
one who, from his position, would naturally insist on those
" in authority under him " discharging their duty fearlessly
and conscientiously ; and yet, for doing so, as no one could
question, both Attorney-General Macdonald and Chief Super-
intendent Ryerson are spoken to, and of, in this Letter, in a
manner the very reverse of just, fair, or right, and with an
assumption of the power to control their free action, which
neither of them could either submit to, or acknowledge.*
4. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson :
The press of business . . . prevented me from writing to you
before. Your official Letter, dated the 2nd of April, arrived after the
other papers relative to Separate Schools had been laid before the House.
— [Page 87, cmte.~\
It is just as well, as the new (Separate School) Bill, while it pleased Dr.
de Charbonnel, could do no harm ; and it is just as well to avoid contro-
versy on the subject.
I was pleased to learn, by your Telegram, that this new Bill, as limited
to Roman Catholics, is better than the old Law. I stated so in the House,
on your authority, and said, that "no one could doubt your devotion to
the cause of Common Schools ; and no one could fear your over-attachment
to Sectarian Institutions." George Brown and John Langton were both
obliged to admit that, with the amendments I consented to, the Bill was
* The testimony of Senator Scott, as given on page 60, ante, is in striking
contrast with this language of Bishop I'helan. Mr. Scott, who had to do with
Dr. Ryerson in difficult and delicate negotiations, and conferences, on the
Separate School question, says that he " always found him ready to meet the
wishes of the minority ; that he exhibited no prejudice or bigotry. . . .
The idea that the Chief Superintendent was not friendly to the Separate School
System . . . was a mistake, because he was sincerely anxious to do what
was really fair to make the [Separate School] Law workable. — (Speech in the
Senate in 1894. )
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. 10'.">
quite innocent ; and they only voted against the passage of the Bill, as a
proof of thuir dislike to Separate Schools on any condition. So we ha\»-
got well out of that difficulty.
(There was quite a combination of parties in the House against the
junction of the Grammar and Common School Boards in Cities, Town-.
etc. ;* and so many remonstrances were made against it by Grammar
School Trustees, that I was threatened with a good deal of difficulty from
both sides of the House. As then; was no pressing necessity for the
change, and I did not want to risk my Bill, I struck out the clauses, and
we got the Bill through without difficulty. When we meet in Toronto,
next Winter, we can talk over the required improvements in the Schoc.]
Mills at our leisure.
(Your Tour in Europe will, doubtless, suggest to you many improvement >
in practice and theory, which you may want the Legislature to sanction.
To-day I recommended your application for leave of absence to the favour-
able consideration of His Excellency. . . .
(With every wish that your proposed journey may set you up again, ami
enable you to continue your public services in the cause of Education with
undiminished vigour. I am, etc.,)
QUEBEC, 5th of June, 1855. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
5. From the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson: —
Our Separate School Bill, which is as you know, quite harmless, passed
with the approbation of our Friend, Bishop de Charbonnel, who, before
leaving here, formally thanked the Administration for doing justice to his
Church.
He has, however, got a new light since his return to Toronto, and now
says that the Bill won't do. I need not point out to your suggestive mind,
that, in any article written by you on the subject, it is politic to press tw.>
points on the attention of the public.
first. That the Bill will not injuriously affect the Common School
System. (This for the people at large. )
Second. That the Separate School Bill of 1855 is a substantial boon to
the Roman Catholics. (This is to keep them in good humor.)
You see that, if the Bishop makes the Roman Catholics believe that
the Separate School Bill is of no use to them, there will be a renewal « >f
the unwholesome agitation, which I thought was allayed. I send you the
Bill as passed.
P.S. — I received your Telegram.
QUEBEC, 8th of June, 1855. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
* This paragraph of Sir John A. Macdonald's Letter is inserted on account
of the recent revival of the question in the City of Toronto. Dr. Ryerson was
so strongly opposed to the union of Grammar and Common School Boards, that
he provided in a later Act for the severance of such unions.
106 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In June, 1855, after the passage of the Tache Roman Catho-
lic Separate School Bill, Dr. Ryerson left for Europe, to
purchase articles for the Educational Museum, and to make
arrangements in regard to the purchase of Books for the
School Libraries.
6. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson,(in England):
I send you by mail six copies of the first part of the Correspondence on
Separate Schools. . . . The Catholic Citizen, of this City, has, to-day,
rather a weak article ridiculing Protestants for their opposition to the
Roman Catholic Separate Schools, and holding Mr. George Brown and his
friends responsible for the alterations made in the Bill. . . . The
Editor says that the object of Roman Catholics, in asking for the measure,
was "not so much to place (Roman) Catholics in an isolated position, in an
educational point of view, as to separate them from an unchristian system
of Education.
The Prescott Telegraph has a Letter in it from the Rev. E. P. Roche,
Roman Catholic Priest, to Mr. Wm. Patrick, M.P.P., in reply to his
statement in the House of Assembly, that he (Roche) had asked him to
vote for a Special Superintendent of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools.
He denies it, and attacks Mr. Patrick with bitterness, and "the bloated
bigot, Dr. Ryerson," — "playing," (as he says you do,) "with admirable
tact and dexterity, his borrowed literary apparatus to the metamorphosing
of bad Catholics and good Protestants into most accomplished Yankee
' know-nothings. ' " I quote these extracts only to show you that another
atorm is likely brewing.
The Toronto Examiner, of yesterday, says that it is likely you have gone
to Europe to ' ' try and induce the Roman Catholics there to relax their
opposition to public Education in Canada ! " This paper is now apparently
under Mr. W. L. Mackenzie's control.
TORONTO, 28th of June, 1855. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
7. Front J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) :—
I have sent to Attorney-General Macdonald your Circular to Roman
Uatholic School Trustees,* and the forms prescribed under the authority of
* The following are the only parts of this Circular which refers to the
general question of Roman Catholic Separate Schools :
You will herewith receive a copy of "An Act to amend the Laws relating
to Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper Canada." For the provisions of
this Act, I am not entitled to either praise or blame, as I never saw it until it
appeared in print, after its introduction into the Legislature.
1. I have ever believed and maintained that the provisions of the law, as
previously existing in respect to Separate Schools, were conceived in a kindly
feeling, and were equitable and liberal. I am so persuaded still. But these
provisions of the law having been complained of by Bishops of the Roman
EFFECT OF THE CHARHOXXEL CONTROVERSY. 107
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855. He ackn<.\\ -h-d^.-d tln-m
on the 2nd instant, as follows :
"QUEBEC, 30th of July, 1855.— DEAR SIR,— Ab- -m ••• bom nu.-lH-c has
prevented me from answering y«»nr favour before. I am obliged foi- tin-
forms for the Separate Schools, which seem well adapted for the purj.o-,.-
intended. The Circular to the Trustees of Separate Schools is very sati-
factory. lam, etc., — JOHN A. MACDONALD. "
The published correspondence in regard to Separate Schools, has elicited
HO remarks from the press, so far as I have seen, except in the case of tin:
Hamilton Gazette. I send the extract to you.
TORONTO, 4th of August, 1855. J. GEOR<.K HOI><.I\>.
8. From J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in England) : —
I have had the form of Annual Report of the Roman Catholic Separate
School Trustees to the Local Superintendent of Schools made out. I had
a good deal of doubt on the subject, particularly as you yourself seemed
undecided in the matter. At all events, it will test the point, as to
whether these Trustees are under the same obligations, as to reporting, as
are the Common School Trustees ; and I think it well to maintain the
right of the Local Superintendent to exercise a supervision over Separate,
as over Common, Schools. I have quoted the authority, — for making the
report, — to the Local Superintendent, from the Roman Catholic Separate
School Act of last Session. The Departmental Regulations on the subject
are absolutely necessary, — as our experience has proved to us this summer
and autumn. . . . The Roman Catholic Separate School Trustees at
Kingston and Belleville seem disposed not to give us the return of daily
attendance of pupils at their Schools, and it is on that attendance the
apportionment to these Schools is based. They make objections to do so.
In his Letter to me of the 30th of July last, [see above,] the Attorney -
General approved of the forms for Roman Catholic Separate Schools.
TORONTO, 31st December, 1855. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
Catholic Church, the new Separate School Act is the result, — an Act which
confers upon members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, powers and distinc-
tions which are not possessed by any class of Protestants in Upper Canada, and
which their own Representatives would never consent to confer upon them.
2. While in our Public Schools, the religious rights and faith of pupils of all
persuasions are equally protected, and while I am persuaded of the Superior
advantages of those Schools in respect to both economy and all the appliances
of instruction, I shall, on this very account, in addition to the obligations of
official duty, do all in my power to lessen the disadvantages of those who prefer
Separate Schools, and secure to them every right and advantage which the
Separate School Act confers. — (Circidar, dated 15th June, 1855.)
108 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEK XV.
EFFECT OF THE CHARBONNEL SEPARATE SCHOOL CONTRO-
VERSY UPON LOWER CANADIANS— NOVA SCOTIA.
AMONG the many private Letters left with me by Dr. Ryersbn,
is one from Mr. E. Goff Penny, of the Montreal Herald, (sub-
sequently a Senator,) dated the 13th of August, 1855, and
endorsed by Dr. Ryerson as : " On the effect of the Controversy
with Bishop) de Charbonnel v^pon the Minds of French Cana-
dians!' It is as follows : —
Having this day received from Quebec a copy of the first part of sonic
Correspondence between yourself and Bishop de Charbonnel, I was
reminded of a conversation which lately took place between myself and
a Canadian friend of mine, which I think it may gratify you to read an
account of.
As I know, to some extent, what are the discomforts of maintaining and
exercising an opinion for oneself, and what is the satisfaction at finding
that a promulgation of opinion has had its effect in a quarter, or quarters,
where we supposed it impossible to make any impression, I have taken the
liberty, though our acquaintance is slight, to write you a line on the subject.
My friend is a highly respectable bourgeois of Longueuil, — a man who
has been engaged in business . . . but is now living upon his means.
He has no children ; can speak no English ; can read and Avrite
and makes himself acquainted with the current events of the day,
as detailed in La Minerve, and lately in Le Pays. For the rest, a person
of extremely strong, unprejudiced mind, and, as far as I know, not at all
affected by Protestantism, except in so far as he has no ill-feeling towards,
and has considerable regard for, some of its professors. We were convers-
ing about the local School of the Village, when he suddenly dropped the
subject, by saying : "There is one man in Upper Canada whose talents I
esteem above those of any other man in the Country." I asked who he
spoke of. "Oh," said he, " M. Chef Surintendant Ryerson." I could
not at first understand how he had acquired this high opinion of you, inas-
much as I Miought it not very probable that he could have seen many of
your writings. But he soon told me that his opinion was founded upon.
EFFECT OF THE CHAIU'.ONNKI. CONTROVERSY, 109
your controversy with Bishop de < 'harlionnel. some t\\o or three \
II.' ^i\d that i lie Bishop was, in his opinion, completely confuted But.
he added, what perhaps was not <|iiite so complimentary to you M the other
portions of his discourse : " What surprises me most, is how a man, who
has the reputation which Count de < 'harbonnel gained here, could possibh
expose himself openly to be reproved for misrepresentation, and, through-
out the correspondence, could exhibit such poor powers of reasoning,
joined with so much ill-temper."
I s;,itl to him that the Miner re would never have translated the Con.
spondence if its effect had been anticipated,— at least if it had been
anticipated that the effect it had had upon him would be general. H>
laughed, and said: "Oh, it was very yauche on their part; but some of
them are so foolish that they cannot see the plainest folly, if it only come
from a Bishop. "
I do not think my friend very different from scores of quiet, intelligent
Canadians, a little above the class of fial>i.t<tntx throughout the country, so
that the translation of your Correspondence, meant, of course, to damage
you with the Lower Canadians, may have really had a very different effect
among minds of that class, which eventually influences public opinion.
u HERALD OFFICE," MONTREAL, E. GOFF PENNY.
13th of August, 1855.
The Hon. B. Wier, in introducing to Dr. Ryerson Mr. William
Annand, M.P.P., and Editor of The Nova Scotian, Halifax, by
Letter, added the following : —
The great question of popular Education is now exciting the minds of
the people of Nova Scotia. And it seems to many of us quite impossible
to overcome the difficulties and prejudices wrhich meet us from every quar-
ter,— more particularly with reference to the Roman Catholic portion of
our people. I do not know of anyone in the Provinces so well calculated as
yourself to advise a course calculated to meet the difficulty, as you have
had many years' experience, and have given your time and great talents
almost exclusively to the subject. We failed to carry an Assessment Bill
last summer, but still hope that, during the recess, some plan may be
devised to meet the obstructions which beset us.
Mr. Annand will confer with you on the general subject.
HALIFAX, 8th of May, 1856. B. WIER.
110 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEK XVI.
RENEWED CONTROVERSY— THE BOWES' SEPARATE
SCHOOL BILL, 1856.
As intimated by the Hon. John A. Macdonald, in his private
Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 8th of June, 1855, the "new
light," which, in that Letter, is spoken of, seems to have shed
its power of illumination on the mind of Mr. John G. Bowes,
Mayor of the City of Toronto, and also its M.P. In the
Session of 1856, he introduced a Bill into the Legislature to
modify the twelfth Section of the Tache' Separate School Act
of 1855. Dr. Ryerson was absent, in Europe, at the time,
The following Letters were, therefore, addressed to him there : —
1. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, (in Europe):
Mr. John G. Bowes, Mayor of Toronto, and a Member of the House of
Assembly, has given notice of a Bill to modify already the Roman Catholic
Separate School Act of last Session ! I do not know the nature of the Bill,
but I hear that one modification proposed is to give the power of dispensa-
tion from payment of a Separate School tax into the hands of the Separate
School Trustees, — that their certificate will be sufficient to exempt the
parties holding it from School taxation. ... I send you a copy of the
remarks made by Mr. Bowes, in introducing his Bill. You will see also,,
from the enclosed, that the Hon. G. E. Cartier has made the explanatory
remarks, which he promised me he would make. ... I send you a
copy of my last Letter to The Mirror, (Roman Catholic organ.) I trust
that it will lead to a stop being put to letter writing in that paper on the
part of dissatisfied Separate School parties.
TORONTO, 23rd of February, 1856. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
The Bill, which Mr. Bowes introduced into the Legislature,
was as follows : —
1. The Twelfth Section [of the Separate School Act of 1855] shall be,,
and is hereby, repealed.*
* This "twelfth Section" of the Separate School Act of 1855, will be found
on page 97, ante.
THE BOWES' SEPARATE SCHOOL HILL. Ill
2. Notwithstanding anything in the above named \,-t. «.r in .-my .
School Act, <>r Acts, to the contrary, every person paying rates, whether.
as proprietor, or tenant, who. when required to pay his Sehoo] Tav
Rates, shall present to the Collector a certificate, in duplicate, from th--
Secretary-Treasurer < »f tlie Trustees. .,r of any Hoard of Tru-tee-. ..f am
Roman Catholic Separate School, or Schools, that he has paid all >
Rates, or Taxes, required hy such Trustees, or I5o.-ird. for the then riim-i,*
year, shall he exempted from the payment of all Rates. ,,)• Ta\«.-, im:
for the building, or tlie support, of Common Schools, or Common School
Libraries, for the same year ; and it. shall be the duty of such Collector t«.
retain one of the above-named certificates, and si-jn his name t«. rh.- other.
to be returned by him to the ratepayer.
2. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryeraon, (in Europe).
Mr. Joseph Hartman, M.P. for (North) York, was here to-day. He told
me that the Bowes' Separate School Bill will come on in two or three days ; —
that Mr. Bowes will not move that it be read, but that some one else in
the House will do so, whom Mr. Bowes did not name, but that he (Mr.
Bowes) will support it, and that, with Lower Canada influence, it may
pass. He thinks that the editorial article in The Mirror, which I sent to
you, is indicative of a plot which is on the tapis ; — that the policy of the
Lower Canada Members of the Cabinet is to drive you from office ; thai
the School Bill which you sent to Attorney-General, (Hon. John A.
Macdonald,) would have been introduced long before this only for the
opposition of John A.'s Lower Canada Colleagues, and that they will not
consent to its introduction. Now, therefore, is the time to stand firm, and
not be driven, or cajoled, or checkmated, in this matter.
I suggested to Mr. Hartman, that it might be well for him to move for a
Return of all Petitions on the Separate School question which have been
presented to the Legislature, with a view to concentrate in one point all
the sentiments of the Country on that subject.
TORONTO, 7th of July, 1856. J. GEOR«;E H«»IM.IN»
DR. RYERSON'S HISTORY OF THE BOWES SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL.
In his fifth Letter to the Hon. George Brown, of December
31st, 1858, (already quoted,) Dr. Ryerson thus continues his
narrative of the efforts made to promote Separate School
Legislation in 1856 : —
After the close of that Session of 1855, I left for Europe, and did n« >t
return until an advanced period of the next Session of the Legislature, at
Toronto, when I learned that Mr. Bowes had introduced a short Bill,
prefessedly to amend the twelfth Section of the Tache' Roman Catholic
112 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Separate School Act of 1855, but which, in reality, would have involved the
subversion of our whole Common School System ; though I do not think
Mr. Bowes, (and perhaps few others,) had any idea of the scope and effect
of the ingenious Bill which had been put into his hands, as he withdrew it,
shortly after I pointed out to him its real character. A private Member,
bringing in such a Bill, shows that the Government would not do anything
on the subject ; and, on my first conversations with Upper Canada Mem
bers of the Government, after my return from Europe, I learned that thej
intended to vote against Mr. Bowes' Bill, which they afterwards did, (when
it was taken up by a Lower Canada Member,) and, for doing which, the
Roman Catholic Members of the Government, and others, were denounced
and excommunicated by Bishop de Charbonnel, — who thus employed the
highest power of the priesthood to control Upper Canada School Legisla-
tion and Government.
After the failure of Mr. Bowes' Bill in the Session of 1855, it was
officially announced in the public papers, by Roman Catholic Episcopal
authority, that that Bill would be brought up again, and presented at the
next Session of Parliament. In view of that announcement and threat, I
analyzed the Bill in my Report for 1855, and exposed its unjust and
dangerous provisions to the public, as also the course of aggression which
had been pursued against the people of Upper Canada by the extreme
advocates of Separate Schools. It was in that connection, and with a view
to such threatened agitation and aggression, that I said in my Annual
Report for 1855, (written in 1856) :—
But, if the parties, for whom Separate Schools are allowed and aided
out of the Legislative School Grants, according to the average attendance
of pupils, (which is the principle of distributing the School Grant among
the Common Schools in all the Townships of Upper Canada,) shall renew
the agitation upon the subject, and assail and seek to subvert the Public
School System, as they have done, and endeavour to force legislation upon
that subject, against the voice and rights of the people of Upper Canada,
by votes from Lower Canada, and the highest terrors of ecclesiastical
authority, then I submit that the true and only alternative will be to
abolish Separate Schools altogether, and substitute the provisions of the
National System in Ireland, in regard to united, secular, and separate reli-
gious, instruction, and extend it to Lower, as well as to Upper, Canada. —
(Annual Report for 1855, page 11.)
A difficulty having arisen with the Trustees of the Kingston
Roman Catholic Separate Schools, in regard to their returns of
the attendance of pupils at the Separate Schools there, Bishop
Phelan wrote to Bishop de Charbonnel on the subject, as stated
©n page 298 of the "Life of Archbishop Lynch, by C. H.
McKeown/' as follows : —
THK liRrVKllK-PlNSONEAULT-DALLAS CoNTKoVKKM. 1 1 -*i
I see that, Dr. Ilyei-si m gives his own iiitrrpivtat ion to OUT He* S.-h,,.,l
Bill, [the Tache Bill of 1855,] stating that the ana-ndim-nt of 1«:>1 ifl
repealed; hut it L8 OUT Afctorney-GteneraTi opinion that it is not repealed.
The Doctor reads in our daily reports, the "daily attendance." in>tea<l of
the ' ' average attendance/1 No\\ our Solicitor-! ieneral, Mr. H. Smith.
has hlotted out the word "daily," and aiithuri/es the Kuv. Mr. Dollanl
to hold to this.*
KINGSTON, llth of July, 1850. + PATRICK PHELAN, P>p. ofCarrii
CHAPTEK XVII.
THE BRUYERE-PINSONEAULT-DALLAS CONTROVERSY.
THE years 1856, 1857, and 1858 were among the most memor-
able in the history of Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper
Canada, — not, by any means, for what was done in regard to
them, but for what was said, by those who were the Represen-
tative champions of the cause, — pro and con.
I have already pointed out, (on page 42,) what was the
-character of the prolonged agitation, founded upon an unneces-
sary misconception of facts, in regard to the Roman Catholic
Separate Schools, which was commenced by the Rev. J. M.
Bruyere, (then Rector of St. Michael's Cathedral, Toronto,) in
December, 1856, and was closed by Bishop Pinsoneault, — who
entirely endorsed the Rev. Mr. Bruyere's proceedings, — in Feb-
ruary, 1857.f
* I personally had to deal with this matter during Dr. Ryerson's absence in
Europe. In my Letter to him in January, 1856, I said : " I have a reference
from the Government in regard to the Rev. P. Dollard, of Kingston, and my
refusal to accept the Returns of attendance at the Separate Schools there.
I think I have explained matters satisfactorily to the Government. " See also
the last paragraph of my Letter to Dr. Ryerson, of the 31st of December, 1855,
on page 107, ante.
t In a Letter to the Rev. J. M. Bruyere, dated the 10th of February, 1857,
Bishop Pinsoneault thus addressed him : — " Concerning what you have said
about Public Libraries, the question is not whether you were right or wrong,
with regard to the exact number of Catholic books said to be on their shelves,
but whether you had good ground for denouncing them as dangerous to faith
and morals. Now, most emphatically do I endorse your sound views on this
question, for we can hardly be less opposed to mixed Libraries than to mixed
Education, — the same principles of faith and morals being equally involved in
both systems."
114 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
One of Mr. Bruyere's objections to Dr. Ryerson's Public
School Library scheme, (which was the cause of this attack
upon him,) is thus stated, and replied to, by Dr. Ryerson : —
Mr. Bruyere's statement in regard to books in the Official Catalogue for
Public Libraries are unfounded and contrary to fact. While he exclaims
against the Histories of "infidel Hume and the sceptical Gibbon," he
ought to know that neither of these works is in the "Index Expurga-
torius," while Archbishop Whately's Logic and Macaulay's History are
thus distinguished. He says, "D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation"
is in the Catalogue, — which is not the fact. He says there is no such book
in the Catalogue as "Cardinal Wiseman's Lectures," — whereas "Cardinal
Wiseman's Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed
Religion " are on the Official Catalogue, and also Bossuet's Universal
History. Mr. Bruyere likewise says, "in vain will we look in these
Public Libraries for Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church ; Gahan's Church
History ; History of the Church by Reeve," when the titles of each of
these three Histories are printed in the Official Catalogue ; as is also that
of Lingard's History of England ; Mylius' History of England ; Fredet's.
Ancient History, and Fredet's Modern History !
BISHOP DE CHARBONNEL HIMSELF SELECTED ROMAN CATHOLIC
BOOKS, IN 1853.
These works were inserted in the Catalogue three years ago, on the
recommendation of Bishop de Charbonnel, to whom was communicated the
wish of the Council of Public Instruction that he would select the Roman
Catholic Histories he judged best, as the Council, on the disputed ground
of civil and ecclesiastical history, intended to select a certain number of
standard works on each — leaving it to what Mr. Bruyere himself calls the
"good sense, honesty, and liberality of the Municipalities in Upper
Canada," to procure which they might please ; and most of them have-
made a fair selection of Histories from both sides.
CARDINAL WISEMAN WAS ALSO CONSULTED ABOUT BOOKS IN 1851.
Nay, when in London in 1851, making selections of Library Books for
examination, and arrangements for procuring them, I had, (on the strength
of a letter of introduction from a high quarter,) an interview with Cardinal
Wiseman, to whom I briefly explained the principles on which I proposed
to promote the establishment of Public School Libraries in Upper Canada,
— the avoidance of doctrinal and controversial works of any religious per-
suasion, as between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and the selection of
the best popular works in all the departments of human knowledge, and I
wished His Eminence to favour me with a list of books and their pub-
lishers, such as were approved by his Church and in harmony with the
THE BRUYERE-PlNSONEAULT-DALLAS CONTROVERSY. 115
character and objects of the proposed Canadian Libraries. Cardinal Wise-
man frankly replied, that nearly all the books printed and sold by Catholic
publishers, were doctrinal expositions and vindications of the Roman
Catholic Church, or such as related to questions between Catholics and
Protestants, and, therefore, not adapted to the non-controversial and non-
denominational Libraries I proposed to establish. Yet, after this, I applied
to Bishop Charbonnel, . . . and inserted in the Catalogue every
historical library book recommended by him, and more than the histories
enumerated by Mr. Bruyere. Thus, throughout, have I pursued a fair,
a kind and generous course towards Roman Catholics, and have treated
them with a consideration which has not been shown to any Protestant
denomination.
During the Separate School controversies of these years, three
noted Pamphlets were issued, bearing on the question, including
one by Mr. Angus Dallas, — a Merchant in Toronto, — under the
signature of "A Protestant," in 1857, and others. The primary
cause of this new movement and agitation was the issue of a
Lenten Pastoral by Bishop de Charbonnel, in 1856.
SUMMARIES OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL DISCUSSIONS, 1856-1858.
After the passage of the Tactic7 Roman Catholic Separate
School Act of 1855, there was a lull in the Separate School
controversy for a time ; but the issue of Bishop de Charbonnel's
Lenten Pastoral, in 1856, had the effect of sounding again the
tocsin of war. The Letters of the belligerents, which had,
during the preceding years, been published, chiefly in the news-
papers, were, in 1857, — forty years ago, — collected together into
three separate pamphlets. The following titles of these pam-
phlets give a practical historical view of the whole controversy,
and are, in fact, a literary curiosity in a way. These titles are
as follows : —
1. Dr. Ryerson's Letters in reply to the attacks of Foreign Ecclesiastics
against the Schools and Municipalities of Upper Canada, — including the
Letters of Bishop de Charbonnel, Mr. Bruyere and Bishop Pinsoneault, —
104 pages.
(NoTE. — In a prefatory word " to the Reader," in this Pamphlet, it is stated
that "none of (the Authors) have been consulted; and none of them . . .
are aware of the present publication, — certainly, Dr. Ryerson is not.")
2. Controversy between Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent of Educa-
tion in Upper Canada, and Rev. J. M. Bruyere, Rector of St. Michael's
116 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Cathedral, Toronto, on the Clergy Reserves Funds ; Free Schools vs. State
Schools ; Public Libraries and Common Schools, Attacked and Defended.
Rev. J. M. Bruyere for the Prosecution ; Dr. Ryerson for the Defence.
To which is appended a Letter from the Right Reverend Dr. Pinsoneault,
of London, C.W., to the Rev. J. M. Bruyere, on the Subject of the late
Controversy with Dr. Ryerson, — 108 pages.
(NOTE. — In the Introduction to this Pamphlet, it is stated that "Dr.
Ryerson declined ... to accept the invitation to join in the publication
of this Correspondence ; and Rev. M. Bruyere was induced to assume the whole
charge of the publication."
3. Statistics of the Common Schools : Being a Digest and Comparison
of the Evidence furnished by the Local Superintendents and the Chief
Superintendent in their Reports for 1855, with suggestions applicable to
the approaching Crisis. In a series of Seven Letters to the Honourable
John A. Macdonald. By A Protestant, — 56 pages.
Appended to this Pamphlet was a second one, of 23 pages,
with this title : —
Suggestions on the organization of a System of Common Schools, adapted
to the Circumstances and State of Society in Canada : Being a series of
Three Letters addressed to the Honourable John A. Macdonald. By A
Protestant, — total, 79 pages.
This Pamphlet was written by Mr. Angus Dallas,* in 1857.
In 1858, he published a fourth Pamphlet, entitled : an " Appeal
on the Common School Law ; its Incongruity and Maladminis-
tration," etc., — 32 pages. Mr. Dallas was a man of a literary
turn, but a legislative theorist, in matters of education.
These various Pamphlets, and those relating to the Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, officially prepared by Dr. Ryerson,
and printed by order of the House of Assembly, in 1855 and
1858, show what a state of educational unrest existed in Upper
Canada at the time. It culminated in the determined, yet
abortive, efforts, for the time, which were put forth by the
Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1860, 1861,
and 1862, to get a Separate School Bill passed by the Legis-
lature.
* Appended to the Comparative Table, (prepared by the three Roman
Catholic Bishops,) on pages 82, 83, ante, is this Note: "For further particulars,
see the Pamphlet of Angus Dallas, just published, entitled, "The Common
School System ; its Principles, Operation and Results." This Pamphlet was
published by Mr. Dallas in 1855.
RENEWED EFFORTS FOR SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEK XVIII.
RENEWED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SEPARATE SCHOOL
LEGISLATION, 1857-1860.
IN 1857, one of the most active lay promoters of Separate
Schools in Toronto, and of the Legislation of 1860-62, 63,
(Hon. John Elmsley,) wrote a " confidential " Letter to Dr.
Ryerson, of nearly ten foolscap pages, urging him to refer —
The whole of the Separate School question, from beginning to end, to a
Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly, . . . and to pursue
that proposal until [he had] succeeded in calling the attention of the Legis-
lature to this most important subject.
Mr. Elmsley then makes the following appeal to Dr. Ryerson,
as Chief Superintendent, to comply with his request. He said :
Your position will enable you, if you press the proposition for enquiry
before a Select Committee of the House of Assembly with vigour and
earnest sincerity, to obtain that most desirable end. The present Admin-
istration [Macdonald-Cartier] are, I am well aware, most unwilling to face
the difficulties of this grave subject ; but when the demand for investi-
gation comes from the Chief Superintendent of Education, it cannot be
withheld. Forward ! then, my dear Sir, be not deterred by seeming
obstacles ; they must all vanish before your steady and sturdy purpose of
finally obtaining your wishes.
You have publicly thrown down the gauntlet ; the friends of Separate
Schools have caught it up, and now challenge you to the combat, — the
combat of dispassionate argument, — the battle of cool investigation.
Should the House of Assembly grant such a boon, you would, of course,
be prepared to sustain your position by all legitimate means at your
disposal.
On the other hand, the friends of Separate Schools would not be behind
in stating very forcibly all the grounds upon which they base their dissatis-
faction with the School Laws, as they now subsist, and . . . would
endeavour to counteract the effects of your Annual Reports to the Gover-
nor-General.
118 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Mr. Elmsley then goes on to say : —
I enclose for your consideration the Draft of a Bill, which may be pre-
sented to the Legislature this Session. I have submitted it to the proper
authorities placed in charge of our Separate Schools ; and now await
either their action, or their refusal to act, if it should be considered
inexpedient to move in the matter this year. . . .
This Draft of Bill comprises all Religious Denominations recognized by
Law in Upper Canada. . . . We can have no kind of objection to the
Law being limited to ourselves, and by the substitution of the words,
" Roman Catholic," for the words, "Religious Denominations," this limi-
tation can be very easily effected.
Among Dr, Ryerson's papers, (in my possession,) together
with this "confidential" Letter from Mr. Elmsley, were two
Drafts of a Separate School Bill. They have neither name nor
date on them. This one Draft is headed : —
Rough Draft of a Bill to be entitled : An Act to Repeal the Laws
relating to Separate Schools, and to authorize the establishment of Schools
by any of the Religious Denominations recognized by Law in Upper
Canada.
This Draft had evidently been subjected to a good deal of
revision by some party, or parties, for, after revision, it was
reprinted, under the title of a —
Draft of Bill, entitled : An Act to repeal the Laws respecting Separate
Schools, so far as they relate to Roman Catholics, and to authorize the
establishment of Schools by Roman Catholics in Upper Canada.
Twelve is the number of Sections in both Drafts of Bill, but
they are very much enlarged and altered in the revised copy.
CHAPTEK XIX.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTION IN 1858.
THE belligerent character of the discussion on Separate Schools,
during these last three years, (1856-1858,) no doubt induced
the Governor-General, (Sir Edmund Head,) to send a confiden-
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ON SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 119
tial Memorandum to Dr. Ryerson, in which lie eimim-rat
number of points in regard to the Separate School question, <>n
which he desired specific and detailed information from the
Chief Superintendent. In asking for this information, J)r.
Ryerson was informed that, —
His Excellency wishes it to be understood that he makes these enquiries
simply for his own information, and without implying that there is any
probability of change in the existing Separate School Law.
Dr. Ryerson's confidential Report to the Governor-General
on the Separate School question, extends to twenty-three fools-
-cap pages. I only give those portions of it which are not
already, in substance, contained in this History. In the \\r<t
part of his confidential Report he said : —
As to the actual state of the Law in Upper and Lower Canada, in
regard to Separate Schools, I append a Paper, which was prepared by Mr.
J. G. Hodgins, the Deputy Superintendent of Education, and printed in
1856, containing, in parallel columns, the provisions of the respective Laws
in Upper and Lower Canada on Separate Schools, with notes in the margin,
showing the points of agreement and difference in the provisions of the
Law in each section of the Province. *
On examining this comparative view of the provisions of the Law in
both sections of Canada, it will be seen that the advantage, upon the
whole, is on the side of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada. The
School Laws of Upper Canada secure a protection, in religious matters, in
the Public Schools that the School Law of Lower Canada does not secure
to the Protestants ; nor are the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada required
to express any dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Public School
Trustees, in order to be entitled to establish Separate Schools, as are the
Protestants of Lower Canada.
It is worthy of remark that, on the passing of each of the three Acts,
(1850, 1853, and 1855,) amending the Law in regard to Separate Schools, the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto and the Upper Canada Roman Catholic
newspaper organs expressed their entire satisfaction with them, (at the
time,) but afterwards complained of them, when it was found that they did
not accomplish the object predicted at the time of their enactment by
some of these newspapers, — namely, "that they would deal a death-blow
to the State School System." . . .
It may be asked, why is it that the provisions of the School Law, in
* This Comparative Table is too extensive to be inserted here. It is printed
as Appendix "A," (pages 56-68,) to the " Special Report on the Separate School
Provisions of the School Law of Upper Canada," etc. Printed by Order of the
Legislative Assembly, 1858.
120 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
regard to Dissentients, operate so much more successfully in Lower, than
in Upper, Canada ? I answer — .
1. It is not the wish of the Protestant inhabitants of Lower Canada to-
overthrow a National School System, as is avowed by the leading Roman
Catholic advocates of Separate Schools in Upper Canada.
2. The supporters of Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada are, as a
whole, more intelligent and more wealthy, and know better how to proceed
and manage their affairs than the supporters of Separate Schools in the
rural parts of Upper Canada.
3. The cordial co-operation of the first Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto, (the Right Reverend Michael Power, D.D.,) in support of the
Public Schools, — before the introduction of the new counsels and feelings
against them, — the greater resources, conveniences, cheapness and effi-
ciency of the Public, over the Separate, Schools, the equal protection of the
religious scruples and rights of all classes of pupils in the Public Schools,
instead of their being Denominational, as they are, for the most part, in
Lower Canada, — the serious disadvantage which Roman Catholics experi-
ence, and inflict upon their children, by isolating them from other classes
of youth in their intellectual training and social intercourse, are all circum-
stances and considerations unfavourable to Separate Schools, . . . and
weigh strongly with a large proportion of the most intelligent Roman
Catholics.
The existence of the provisions, (for Separate Schools,) at all, is clearly
against the feelings of the great majority of the people of Upper Canada ;
and it has been considered by numbers of most intelligent persons as
inconsistent with, and dangerous to, the stability of a National System of
Education. But I combated these apprehensions, ... so that there
was no agitation on the subject, when Bishop de Charbonnel, in 1852, and,
after him, other Roman Catholic Clergy and their newspapers, commenced
an attack upon our whole School System, . . . and demanded that
the Roman Catholics, as a body, should be incorporated into a Separate
organization, and receive Legislative School Grants and Municipal School
Funds, according to their numbers, with a [Provincial Roman Catholic]
Superintendent from among themselves, — thus claiming absolutely a large
portion of Public and Municipal Revenue and local corporate powers of
a vast extent, as an endowment for the exclusive teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church, — a thing never mooted in respect to the Protestants of
Lower Canada, — never heard of in any free country, and subversive of the
right of individual liberty and choice among the Roman Catholics, and
inconsistent with the rights of Municipalities, and of individual property
among the Protestants. . . .
It is this double aggression by Roman Catholic Bishops and their sup-
porters, in assailing, on the one hand, our Public Schools and School
System, and invading what has been acknowledged as sacred constitutional
rights of individuals and Municipalities ; and, on the other hand, in
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ON SEPARATE SCHOOLS 121
demanding the erection and support, at the public expense, of a Roman
Catholic Hierarchical School System, which has aroused, to so great an
extent, the people of Upper Canada against permitting the continuance
any longer of the provisions of the Law for Separate Schools.
And it must be acknowledged that a combined secular, with separate
religious instruction, is the only safe, just, and defensible system of Na-
tional Education. . . .
In conclusion, I beg to add a word as to the interference of parties in
Lower Canada with the School System of Upper Canada. . . . The
feelings, habits, municipal and other institutions, of the inhabitants in
each Province has been equally and exclusively consulted in their construc-
tion and development. . . .
There has been no interference in Upper Canada with the School Sys-
tem of Lower Canada, which has been framed and carried into effect in
accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants there, and of their Represen-
tatives in Parliament.
I deprecate the interference of Bishops and Priests in Lower Canada, or
of their Representatives, ... (as has been already experienced,) with
the School System of Upper Canada, — the wishes of whose inhabitants and
their Representatives are entitled to no less consideration than those of
Lower Canada, especially when the fundamental principle of our School
System is equal and impartial protection to all Religious Persuasions, and
equal educational advantages for all.
TORONTO, January, 1858. EGERTON RYERSON.
In connection with this Report, Dr. Ryerson was summoned
to Quebec by Sir Edmund Head. While there, I received from
him the following confidential Letter, in regard to his visit : —
1. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (Quebec,) to J. George Hodgins :—
(Confidential. ) — I was desired to come here by the Governor-General's
direction, on the Separate School business. The Roman Catholic Bishops,
(Dr. Charbonnel is here,) are "moving heaven and earth " to get a Separate
School Bill passed this Session ; and the Upper Canada Members of the
Government are determined, if possible, to prevent anything being done
on the subject until Parliament goes to Toronto.
The enclosed papers have been printed and distributed among the
greater part of the Members of the Legislature. They are signed by the
Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto, Kingston, and Bytown, declaring that
nothing short of the adoption of the "project" of the accompanying Bill
will satisfy the conscientious convictions of (the Roman) Catholics. *
* From this description of the " Papers printed and distributed among the
Members" of the Legislature, it would appear that they are identical with
those which were presented to the Government by the three Bishops named, in
1855, and which will be found on pages 81-83 of this volume.
9
122 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
I am glad that they have thus committed themselves to a simple dictation
as to what they really demand, — which, you will see, is an absolute control
of all the taxable property of all classes of the inhabitants of Upper Canada.
I, this morning, pointed out to Attorney-General John A. Macdonald,
the falsity of each particular of the accompanying comparison between the
School Laws of Upper and Lower Canada, when he said they were really
" frivolous, when not untrue." He was to propose to Messrs. Drummond,
Cauchon, and Cartier to meet me on the same subject. I have nob yet
learned whether they will do so, or no.
T have insisted that all the Correspondence which I have had with
parties on Separate Schools, since the 1st of January, 1853, should be
laid before the House ; and the Governor-General, (Sir Edmund Head,)
thought it very desirable. Mr. Joseph Hartman has given a notice of a
motion to that effect. I hope that you will have it prepared as soon
as possible, — including everything that has passed between complaining
parties and other parties and me, including my Letter [of 1854] to Bishop de
Charbonnel, published in the newspaper some months since. I intend also
to include in the Return the enclosed Statement, (and Draft of Bill,) with
refutations of it. You can make notes on it, as it will facilitate my doing
so when I get back. . . . There is a strong desire on the part of the
Representatives of the English part of Lower Canada to be annexed to
Upper Canada in their School System. Sir Edmund Head is very anxious
for it. He highly approved of my Report on the uNew Brunswick
College Question ;" and has sent it to the authorities of McGill College,
to see if they cannot adopt something of the same kind.*
Hon. William Cayley, (Inspector-General,) has admitted to-night that
I am "right about the division of the Common School Grant of £50,000,
between Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada now gets £29,000,
and Upper Canada £21,000. We had a laughable discussion in regard to
it, and referred the question of the interpretation of the forty-first Section
of the Upper Canada Common School Act of 1850 to Judge Badgely, who
had come in ; and he, on Mr. Cayley's own statement of the abstract
question, (putting his hand on my mouth, and not letting me state the
case,) decided in my favour, as to both the £50,000 Grant, and any suc-
oeeding Grant for Common School purposes. I also found in Dr. Meilleur's
School Report for Lower Canada, that he stated the same thing as I had
in regard to the division of the former Grants. I showed it to Sir Edmund
* In August, 1854, Sir Edmund Head, then Lieutenant- Governor of New
Brunswick, appointed Dr. Ryerson, with Hon. J. H. Gray, (Chairman,) 'Mr.
{now Sir William) Dawson, (then of Nova Scotia,) Hon. J. 8. Saunders, and
Hon. James Brown, (of New Brunswick,) Commissioners, "to enquire into the
present state of King's College, [there,] its management and utility, with a view
of improving the same, and rendering that Institution more generally useful,"
etc. The Report, to which Dr. Ryerson makes reference, was written by him
in December of that year.
SPECIAL REPORT ON R. C. SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 123
Head, who said that it was practical proof of my correctness. Judge
Badgely said that Dr. Meilleur's statement removes all possible doubt as
to what had been done on the subject. . . .
QUEBEC, 30th of January, 1858. E. RYERSON.
2. Letter from Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson : —
You had better get some independent Member to move for any Report
on Separate Schools which you may desire.*
TOKONTO, 28th of April, 1858. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
CHAPTEE XX.
SPECIAL REPORT ON ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE
SCHOOLS IN 1858.
AFTER conferring with Sir Edmund Head in regard to the
Confidential Report, which Dr. Ryerson had prepared, at his
request, it was considered desirable that the substance of that
Report, with such modifications as might be necessary, should
be prepared, with a view to its being laid before the Legislature.
On his return from Quebec, therefore, Dr. Ryerson prepared a
" Special Report " on the Separate Schools, Text-Books, and
other matters, and sent it to the Provincial Secretary on the
20th of April, 1868. The renewed agitation, in regard to
Separate Schools, rendered such a Report the more necessary, —
especially as an effort was then being made to obtain further
legislation in favour of these Schools. Mr. Thomas R. Ferguson,
M.P., had sought to counteract such efforts, by introducing, as
was the habit, an abortive Bill into the House of Assembly,
early in April, 1858 : —
To repeal the several Acts, and parts of Acts, authorizing the establish-
ment and maintenance of Separate, or Sectarian, Schools in Upper Canada.
* On the 4th of May, the House of Assembly, on motion to that effect,
adopted an Address to the Governor- General, asking for " Copies of any Report,
or Reports, that have been made to him by the Chief Superintendent of Educa-
tion for Upper Canada, during the present year, on the subject of Separate
Schools." This motion had reference to Dr. Rj-erson's "Special Report on the
Separate School provision of the School Law of Upper Canada," etc. This
Report was laid before the House of Assembly on the 7th of May, 1858.
124 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The measure, as was usual, was not pressed to a vote, and no
legislation on behalf of Separate Schools took place in that year.
Dr. Ryerson felt, however, that it was necessary to counteract
the movement which had been set on foot to obtain this legisla-
tion, and especially, to controvert the claims which had been
put forth in connection with it. In the " Special Report,"
which he had prepared on the subject, he thus explained, (on
page 15.) what he believed to be the issues involved in "this,
renewed controversy." He said : —
Certain Dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in Upper Canada, for
whose members the Separate School provisions of the School Law were
specially designed, have assumed, since 1852, a threefold position, essen-
tially different from what they had ever professed.
1. They have advocated Separate Schools, (not as a protection against
wrong in particular cases, but) as an institution and agency of their Church,
and as a dogma of faith, and a rule of duty binding upon all their adherents,
and in all places.
2. They have advocated the support of these Schools by Municipal
taxation, as well as by Legislative Grant, and that according to the number
of their Church population, and not according to the number of children
they might teach, or even according to the number of those whe might
desire Separate Schools for their children, — thus leaving their own Church
adherents without any right of individual choice, and the Municipalities, or
Common School Trustees, without any power to levy a School rate, to erect
a School-house, or furnish a School, or support a Teacher, or for any
School purpose whatever, unless a corresponding sum, according to popu-
lation, was given in support of the Roman Catholic Church Schools !
3. They have , . . avowed their great and ultimate object to be
the destruction of the National School System of Upper Canada, and have
invoked aid from Lower Canada to accomplish it.
To show that I am quite correct in my remarks in reference to the first
of the positions above stated, it is only necessary to recollect the means
which the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, (Dr. de Charbonnel,) em-
ployed to enforce his Church teachings, when, in an official Circular, (or
Lenten Pastoral of 185(5,) to the Clergy and Laity of his Diocese, he said : —
"Catholic electors in this country, who do not use their electoral power in
behalf of Separate Schools are guilty of mortal sin. Likewise parents who do
not make the sacrifices necessary to secure such Schools, or send their children
to Mixed Schools. Moreover, the Confessor who would give absolution to such
parents, electors, or legislators as support Mixed Schools to the prejudice of
Separate Schools, would be guilty of a mortal sin. "
I may also add, that each of the thre« Bills prepared and insisted upon
ABORTIVE SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION. \-2">
by the authority of several Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, in-
volved all, and a great deal more, than is implied in the second of the
above stated positions.*
Dr. Ryerson always felt an insuperable objection to tint
second of the foregoing demands, — that is, that the Municipal
assessment and the Legislative School Grant should be appor-
tioned " according to the number of the [Roman Catholic]
Church population, and not according to the number of children
they might teach." On page 13, of his Annual School Report
for 1855, (written in 1856,) he said : —
I have reason to believe that it is, by extreme exeitions of ecclesiastical
authority that many Roman Catholics can be made to endorse the teach-
ings, [enforced by this same authority,] against the character and cherished
institutions of a great majority of the people of Upper Canada.
Hence the efforts to deprive them [the Roman Catholics,] of the exercise
of choice, by not leaving them to express their individual wishes, from year
to year, but endeavouring to include them as a body [in their demands].
. . . Hence, also, the efforts to make Municipal Councils the imposers
and collectors of Rates for Separate Schools, on account of the reluctance
of many of the ratepayers concerned to pay Rates for the support of
Separate Schools, and, in order to avoid the contact of Church authority
with them. Hence, likewise, the efforts to get apportionments for the
support of Separate Schools, not according to average attendance, (which
is the principle adopted in regart to Public Schools,) but according to the
population in the locality of a whole Religious Persuasion. . . .
CHAPTER XXI.
ABORTIVE SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN 1858-1861.
EXCEPT for the correspondence in regard to Separate School
matters, which took place with the Education Department, no
legislation on the subject was attempted in 1859. Mr. Fer-
guson re-introduced his Separate School Act Repeal Bill of
* For one of these Bills, see The Correspondence on Separate School* in Upper
Canada, printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, in a Return to an
Address, dated the 2nd of April, 1855. A copy of it will be found on page 85,
a reference to this and the others on page 118.
126 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
1858, but only as a feint, for it was not pressed to a vote, but
was dropped, In 1860, the Hon. G. W. Allan introduced a Bill
into the Legislative Council, to modify the restrictions in the
sixteenth Clause of the twenty-seventh Section of the School
Act: 22nd Victoria, Chapter 64, but it failed to pass during
that Session.
In that same Session of the Legislature, Mr. R. W. Scott,
(of Ottawa,) introduced into the Legislative Assembly the
first of his series of Roman Catholic Separate School Bills,
which he brought in successively in the following years, 1861,
1862, and 1863. It was read a first time on the 16th of March,
1860. This Bill consisted of five Sections, and provided for
the repeal of Sections numbers eighteen, twenty, twenty-three,
twenty -nine and thirty-four of the Tache Separate School
Bill of 1855, and the substitution therefor of other sections in
their place.
In this year, (I860,) the prolonged parliamentary discussions
on the Toronto University Question, and the visit of the
Prince of Wales, engrossed public attention, that nothing fur-
ther took place in the Legislature in regard to Roman Catholic
Separate Schools.
In 1861, Mr. Scott again renewed his efforts to obtain legis-
lation in favour of Separate Schools, and again failed to do so.
On the copy of his Bill in my possession, the late Mr. Alexan-
der Marling, LL.B., for many years Chief Clerk in the Depart-
ment, and my successor in January, 1890, as Deputy Minister
of Education for Ontario, has made the following notes :—
This Bill is similar in most essentials to that of the Hon. John Elmsley,
(see page 117,) with the following exceptions : —
1. Mr. Scott requires a notice by the Roman Catholic Separate School
Trustees annually, of the names of their supporters, upon which list the
Municipal Collectors are compelled to collect their rates.
2. Mr. Elmsley permits the Municipality to allow the Collector to
ascertain who are Roman Catholics, and all such are to be exempted from
Common School rates, unless they object ; but he also provides that the
Municipality shall collect from the Roman Catholic ratepayers the same
proportionate amount as from other ratepayers, from which it is clear that
this amount is to go to the Separate Schools.
FAILURE OF SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION. 127
3. There is, indeed, a singular coincidence in the purport of the Scott
and Elmsley Bills, although the words in both are different.
Mr. Marling then gives the following analysis of each Sec-
tion of Mr. Scott's Bill of 1861 :—
I. The words, " Village, or Town," are added to this Section, authoriz-
ing five heads of families to call a meeting for the election of Trustees.
II. Notice to be given by one Trustee of the meeting for the election of
Trustees, instead of by the Roman Catholic inhabitants favourable to the
establishment of the Separate School.
III. Gives power to Roman Catholics in different School Sections to
unite, as in the case of Wards of a City. (This is the same as in Mr.
Elmsley's Bill.) The word "contiguous," used in this Section, is very
objectionable, as too indefinite.
IV In City and Town Separate School Boards, only one Trustee is to
be elected for each Ward. (The same in Mr. Elmsley's Bill.)
V. After giving a notice before March in any year, no annual notice is-
required to exempt ratepayers : a list of supporters of the Separate School,,
on the bare authority of the Trustees, is to be given to the Municipal
Clerk ; and there is no provision for verifying this list ; and this list will
also exempt those in "contiguous" Municipalities.
VI. This Section takes away the limitation to Separate Schools having
fifteen pupils, (which Mr. Elmsley's Bill leaves in,) and gives Separate
Schools a share in the Municipal Assessment, (which Mr. Elmsley also
does.)
VII. This is the same as in the present Law, except as to the oath of
Trustees, which is not required. (Same as in Mr. Elmsley's Bill.)
VIII. This Section obliges the Municipal Collector to collect Separate
School rates. (Mr. Elmsley proposed only to permit them to do so.)
Although this Bill was introduced and read a first time, on
the 23rd of March, 1861, yet it never reached a second reading,
but was discharged from the Orders of the Day in the House
of Assembly, on the 16th of the following May.
CHAPTER XXII.
FAILURE OF SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN !,*•
EARLY in the year 1862, Dr. Ryerson sought to meet the-
reasonable objections which had been urged against the Tache
Separate School Act of 1855, in that it contained no provision
128 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
authorizing the establishment of a Roman Catholic Separate
School in an Incorporated Village. They could be established
in a rural School Section, and in the Ward of a City, or Town,
but not in an Incorporated Village. Dr. Ryerson, therefore,
submitted the following Draft of Bill to the Government in the
early part of March, 1862, being —
Ax ACT TO RESTORE CERTAIN RIGHTS TO THE PARTIES THEREIN-
MENTIONED, IN RESPECT TO SEPARATE SCHOOLS.
Whereas it is expedient to restore to the parties therein-mentioned
certain rights of which they were deprived by the Act [of 1855] : 22nd
Victoria, Chapter 65, of the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada : Her
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council
and Assembly of Canada, enacts as follows :
1. The words, "any Incorporated Village, or Town," shall be inserted
between the words, "within" and "any," in the third line of the eighteenth
Section of said Act.
2. So much of the thirty-fourth Section of said Act as requires Trustees
bo make their Returns or Reports under oath is hereby repealed.
3. It shall be lawful for the majority of the ratepaying supporters of the
Separate School, in each School Section, (in two or more School Sections,)
whether in the same, or adjoining, Municipalities, at Public Meetings duly
called by the Separate School Trustees of each such Section, to form such
Section into a Separate School Union Section, of which union of Sections
the Trustees shall give notice within fifteen days to the Clerk, or Clerks,
of the Municipality, or Municipalities, and to the Chief Superintendent of
Education ; and each such Separate School Union Section, thus formed,
shall be deemed one School Section for all Roman Catholic Separate School
purposes.
4. The twenty-ninth Section of said Act : 22nd Victoria, Chapter 65,
shall be amended as follows :
After the first notice required to be given to the Clerk of the Munici-
pality by the supporters of a Separate School Section, each subsequent
annual notice required by Law to be given, of the names and residences of
the supporters of a Separate School in any rural School Section, City,
Town, or Incorporated Village, shall be given in writing by the Trustees
of such Separate School ; but subject, in case of incorrect returns, to the
penalties imposed by law on School Trustees in case of other false returns.
5. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their registers,) shall be
subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time, by the
Department of Public Instruction for Upper Canada.
Dr. Ryerson accompanied this Draft of Bill with the follow-
ing explanatory memorandum. He said : —
FAILURE OK SKI>AKATK S< IIOOL LKCIM.ATION. 129
No new principle is introduced into this l)r;ift of Hill, nor does it
contain any provision, (except those of the last Section,) which \s;ts not
embraced in the Common School Acts of 1850 and 1853.
The f miners of the Roman Catholic School Act of 1855 aimed to assimi
late the Separate School Law of Upper Canada, with the Dissentient
School Law of Lower Canada, but they were ignorant of the effect of some
of the provisions of their Act, arising from the Municipal System of Upper
Canada, in connection with School Sections, Assessments, etc.
The provisions of the accompanying Draft of Bill only restore to the
parties concerned rights of which they were deprived by the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 1855.
I will now advert to the specific provisions of the accompanying Draft.
1. The supporters of a Separate School cannot establish a Separate
School in an Incorporated Village, nor in a Town, as such, though they
may establish a Separate School in any School Section, or any Village not
incorporated, and in any Ward of a [City or] Town. Such anomalies
should, of course, be corrected, as the first Section of the Bill proposes.
2. Since 1856 the managers of Dissentient Schools in Lower Canada
have not been required to make their Returns and Reports on oath ; nor
is there any reason why the Trustees of Separate Schools in Upper Canada
should be required to do so, especially as the penalties are the same for
making a false Return, or Report, whether made on oath, or not, as the
ordinary Trustees are not required to make their Reports, or Returns, on
oath, and Separate School Trustees were not required to do so before
they were required to do so by the Tache' Bill of 1855. The second Section
of the Bill provides to abolish this invidious and needless anomaly.
3. Two or more Common School Sections can be united into one ; nor
is there any just reason why Separate School Sections should not be
allowed to do the same, as is provided by the third Section of the Bill.
4. The requiring each individual supporter of the Separate School to go
and notify the Clerk of the Municipality annually, imposes a needless
trouble and burden, after the first such notice ; and when the School is
once organized, the annual notice of the names and residences of the
supporters of the Separate School is quite sufficient, as the only object of
such notice is to give the Municipal Council such authentic information as
to the parties and properties to be exempted from Common School Taxes,
and as the Trustees are liable to a penalty if they insert any name in their
notice, without the authority of the bearer of it.
5. The fifth Section has been prepared with the consent of the Heads of
the parties concerned, upon the principle that Schools thus receiving
public aid upon definite and periodical Returns, should be subject to such
examination, from time to time, as may enable the Department which
pays the money, to ascertain whether the conditions of its payment have
been fulfilled.
TORONTO, March, 1862. E. RYERSON.
130 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
THE BISHOP LYNCH APPOINTMENT EPISODE IN 1862.
In order to emphasize his desire to secure the continued
co-operation of the Representative of the Roman Catholic
Church in Toronto on the Provincial Council of Public Instruc-
tion, Dr. Ryerson wrote the following Letter to the Provincial
Secretary on the subject, and Dr. Lynch was appointed : —
I have the honour to submit to the favourable consideration of the
Governor-General-in-Council, the appointment of the Right Reverend
Doctor Lynch, Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, as a Member of the
Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, in place of the Right
Reverend Doctor de Charbonnel, who has removed from the country.
I am happy to be able to add, that Bishop Lynch has authorized me to
present his name for this appointment ; and that between his Lordship
and myself an entire agreement has been come to on the Separate School
provisions of the Law.
TORONTO, 15th of March, 1862. E. RYERSON.
When it was known that this appointment of Bishop Lynch
had been suggested to the Government by Dr. Ryerson, he
was called to account, in the leading newspaper in Toronto, for
it, on the ground that he had called on the Bishop to secure
his influence in favour of the Government candidate in Toronto.
To this charge Dr. Ryerson replied, through The Leader news-
paper, on the 29th of April, 1862, as follows:—
I never called upon Bishop Lynch in behalf of the Government, much
less did it submit a School Bill to him. . . .
In respect to what occurred between Bishop Lynch and myself, it may
be proper for me to remark, that my first conversation with Bishop Lynch
was to ascertain how far we were agreed, or could agree, as to the correc-
tion of acknowledged anomalies and inequalities in certain provisions of
the Separate School Law, as it now exists. The Bishop had already
reduced his views to writing, and on comparing his notes with mine, there
was found to be little difference. It was then proposed that his Lordship
should, on an appointed day of the following week, call at the Education
Office, when I would have the proposed measure prepared in the form
of a Bill. On the appointed day, the Bishop, with the Very Rev. Angus
Macdonell, Vicar-General, of Kingston, called at the Education Office,
when we consi lered the whole question, and agreed in our views respecting
it— not involving the introduction of any new principle, but the restoration
of rights and privileges which were actually enjoyed by Roman Catholics
under the School Acts of 1850 and 1853, but which were taken away by
FAILURE OF SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION. 131
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855, prepared, though it was,
by the Hon. L. H. Drummond, and under the auspices of certain Roman
Catholic Bishops, but in ignorance of the working and effect of some of its
provisions, arising from the nature of our Municipal Institutions.
It is but just for me to remark, that I found the views of Bishop Lynch,
as also those of another Roman Catholic Bishop, [Horan, of Kingston, see
his Letter, page 133,] with whom I have had communication on the subject,
moderate and constitutional, appreciating the rights of citizens and the
institutions of our country, as well as the interests and institutions of their
own Church. In these high quarters, I must say that I heard no such
pretensions or assumptions as those involved in some of the provisions of
the Roman Catholic Separate School Bill, now before the Legislative
Assembly, and introduced by Mr. Scott, of the City of Ottawa, who seems
to have become the organ of an ultra party in the Church of Rome, that
has caused much trouble on the Separate School question in Upper Canada.
Mr. Scott's present Bill is very different from the moderate and reasonable
one which he introduced two years ago. Some of the provisions of Mr.
Scott's present Bill are unobjectionable ; others are impracticable, and must
cause endless disputes ; others are inconsistent with rights of Municipali-
ties and citizens, and such as, I think, no Member of the Legislature can
constitutionally consent to. If Mr. Scott's Bill be pressed, I hope, for the
honour and character of Upper Canada, it will be rejected by the united
vote of both parties of Upper Canadian Representatives.
(NOTE. — See Mr. Scott's personal attack on Dr. Ryerson, (in regard to
this Letter,) on the next page.)
Dr. Ryerson then proceeds to give a generous and a genuinely
patriotic reason why the wishes of moderate and reasonable
Roman Catholics should be met, in removing anomalies and
impracticable provisions in the Separate School Act. He said :
I feel that I arn not second to Mr. Scott himself in my desire to see
every needless impediment removed to the easiest possible working of the
Separate School Law.
Some months since I took the liberty to suggest to a Member of the
Government, that, as this was the first Session of a new Parliament, and,
as the Roman Catholics had shown as much loyal feeling and British
enthusiasm as any other class of citizens, in the late apprehended collision
between Great Britain and the United States, [in regard to the Mason and
Slidell "Trent affair,"] and as the French of Lower Canada had unani-
mously evinced that feeling in a manner beyond all praise, and some of
their Bishops had sent out the most patriotic Circulars on the subject,
the Government and Parliament could very appropriately and gracefully
respond to such a noble manifestation of national loyalty and patriotism,
132 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
by removing all that is justly objectionable in the Roman Catholic Separate
School Law ;* but the accomplishment of so just and legitimate an object
is very different from perpetrating so great an act of injustice to Upper
Canada, and inflicting so flagrant a wrong upon many of its citizens and
institutions, as the passing of Mr. Scott's present Separate School Bill.
TORONTO, 29th of April. 1862. E. RYERSON.
When this Letter reached Ottawa, on the 30th of April, Mr.
R. W. Scott too£ occasion, on the next day, to raise a " ques-
tion of privilege," in regard to it, and to assail Dr. Ryerson for
having written such a Letter, instead of replying to one from
him, which, he stated in the House, he had written to Dr.
Ryerson, enclosing a copy of his Bill, two weeks before. In
this statement, Mr. Scott was entirely astray. I have the copy
of that Letter, and it is dated on the " 26th of April, '62." Dr.
Ryerson did not receive it in Toronto until the 28th, and, on
the next day, (the 29th,) he, very properly, wrote the Letter in
The Leader, which caused Mr. Scott to raise his " question of
privilege." In doing so, he said : —
In his opinion, the conduct of the Chief Superintendent of Education,
— a paid Officer of the Government, — in the course he had taken, was
very censurable. Nearly a fortnight ago, he had sent him a copy of his
Bill, with a request that he would express his views thereon. But,
instead of replying to his communication, Dr. Ryerson came out in a
strong Letter to The Leader, in which he thought proper to indulge in
unwarrantable reflections on himself personally, and called on the Mem-
bers of both sides of the House to throw out the Bill. He asked, if the
House was. in that manner, to be dictated to by Dr. Ryerson ? ... It
really was monstrous that, in this way, the Commons of Canada should be
lectured and dictated to by their salaried servant.— (Globe Report.)
To this gratuitous attack on Dr. Ryerson by Mr. R. W. Scott,
the Hon. John A. Macdonald replied as follows : —
* The only response which this warm-hearted tribute to the kindness and
loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects called forth from Mr. R. W.
Scott, in the House of Assembly, on the 1st of May, 1862, was the following :—
" It was nothing more than a gratuitous impertinence for Dr. Ryerson to coun-
sel that a Separate School Bill should be granted because, forsooth, the Roman
Catholic Bishops wrote to the Cures to extend their hospitality to the troops
which were sent to defend the country. . . . He asserted that it was an
insult to the people of Canada that such language should be used by their paid
officer."— (The Globe Report of Mr. 7?. W. Scott's remarks on his "Question of
Privilege," in the House of Assembly, on the 1st of May, 1862.)
FAILURE OF SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION. 133
He thought it scarcely fair to a functionary holding the high and impor-
tant position of Dr. Ryeraon, for the Member for Ottawa to refer to him as
he had done. It was a very proper wish for him to desire to set himself
right, and he ought not to have taken the opportunity of attacking the
Chief Superintendent, as he had done. If he thought that Dr. Ryerson
had behaved as he ought not to have done, it was nothing but reasonable
that the attention of the House should be called to the act of wrong-doing.
But this course should not have been taken without due notice being
previously given, in order that a full opportunity might be allowed to
such functionaries to defend themselves.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, Mr. R. W. Scott n-
publicly made the amende honorable for this gratuitous an<l
unjust attack on Dr. Ryerson, — the result of his own absur-I
mistake. (Privately he acknowledged it, however ; see page 1 40. )
Mr. M. C. Cameron gave him an opportunity to do so; but he
remained silent, when, on the 3rd of June, 1862, (more than ;•
month after he had made his attack,) Mr. Cameron said :
The promoter of this Bill, on a former occasion, used very strong lan-
guage in disapproval of Dr. Ryerson's conduct. He was now disposed to
accept that gentleman's view, as more favourable to himself.
The "promoter" of the Bill, however, preferred to sit still,
and leave to others the duty which he should have been chiv-
alrous enough to have cheerfully performed.*
PRIVATE LETTER FROM BISHOP HORAN, OF KINGSTON.
Immediately after the conference at the Education Office
with Bishop Lynch and Vicar-General Macdonell, as men-
tioned in the Letter, (on page 130,) Dr. Ryerson sent a copy of
his Bill, " to Restore certain Rights," etc., to the Right Reverend
Doctor E. J. Horan, Bishop of Kingston, for his information.
In reply, Bishop Horan said : —
I have read with attention the proposed amendments to the Roman
Catholic Separate School Bill, which you were so kind as to send to the
* I wrote two notes to Mr. Scott early in this year, (1897,) in regard to the
"finality" of the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, — and inciden-
tally in reference to the apparent discrepancy,— which, in his Senate Spen-h of
April, 1894, he failed to notice, or explain, — respecting the presence of two of
the Roman Catholic Clergy, (instead of one,) at the conferences between him
and Dr. Ryerson, settling, in 1862 and 1863, the terms of the Separate School
Bills of those years. Mr. Scott had, therefore, thus another opportunity t<>-
make any statement, or explanation, he pleased, had he wished to do so ; but
he neither acknowledged, nor replied to, either of my Letters. — J. G. H.
134 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Vicar-General (Macdonell) for his perusal and mine. I thank you for this
mark of courtesy, and shall always endeavour to make myself deserving
of it.
I fear that your proposed amendments are not sufficient, and that they
would not do away with the principal difficulties we met with in establish-
ing and maintaining our Schools.
If there is to be any legislation on this matter, as I hope there will be,
it should be of a kind to set this long-vexed question at rest, by dealing
with the true grievances of which Roman Catholics complain, and granting
them those rights to which they have an unquestionable claim.
I have made out a draft of the points, which I consider should be
embraced in any amendments to the present Law. I am aware that all is
not contained in what I propose ; but still, I believe, an Act containing
these points would give very general satisfaction.
I should feel most happy, Rev. Sir, if your views on this subject could
coincide, as I then could hope, with the help of your powerful influences,
to obtain for my co-religionists a boon they have so long desired. . . .
Your much obliged Servant,
KINGSTON, 22nd of March, 1862. + E. J. HORAN, Bp. of Kingston.*
CHAPTEE XXIII.
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS IN REGARD TO THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1862.
THE Separate School Bill, to which Dr. Ryerson refers, in his
Letter to The Leader, of the 29th of April, (page 130,) was
introduced into the House of Assembly by Mr. Richard W.
Scott, of Ottawa, on the 7th of that month. On the 26th of
that month he enclosed a copy of it to Dr. Ryerson, then in
Toronto, expressing a hope, in his Letter of that date that the
Bill would meet with his approbation, and added, in his Letter,
that he wanted the Bill " to be a finality.
Three days after writing this Letter, Mr. Scott, (on the 29th,)
* I knew Bishop Horan when he was Principal of the Laval Normal School.
He was a most interesting man to meet and converse with. He was conse-
crated Bishop of Kingston, in succession to Bishop Phelan, on the 1st of May,
1858, and died on the 15th of February, 1875.
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL LKTTKKS.
moved the second reading of his Bill, and, on the 1st of May,
made an attack on Dr. Ryerson for not replying to that Letter.
The Bill, having passed the second reading, was referred to a
Special Committee of the House of Assembly. Jts history un-1
untimely fate is best detailed in the following private and
confidential correspondence which took place in iv^.ird to it: —
(1. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald : —
Will endeavour to see you on Monday. I write a few lines this evening.
TORONTO, llth of March, 1862. E. RYERSON. )
2. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson :
1 send you a copy of the Separate School Bill, and would like to have
your opinion on the subject as soon as you can conveniently send it.*
QUEBEC, 28th of April, 1862. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
3. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson to the Hon. John A. Mac-
donald : —
Scott's Separate School Bill most objectionable and injurious. It ought,
by all means, to be rejected. Have written. See my short remarks and
appeal, [of the 29th of April, 1862,] against the Bill in yesterday's Leader. t
TORONTO, 1st of May, 1862. E. RYERSON.
4. Note from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins : —
I see that I must adopt very prompt and decisive measures against
Scott's Separate School Bill. I wish you would have the enclosed Tele-
grams written out, . . . and send them immediately to the Hon. John
A. Macdonald, to my Brother William, and to Mr. Alexander Morris.
Those to my Brother and Mr. Morris must be paid. I am gaining ; but
am getting on slower than I had expected. J
TORONTO, May the 1st, 1862. E. RYERSON.
* The successive Roman Catholic Separate School Bills introduced by Mr.
Scott into the House of Assembly, are as follows : — Bill No. 69, Received and
Read, 16th of March, 1860; Bill No. 11, Received and Read, 23rd of March,
1861 ; Bill No. 2, Received and Read, 7th of April, 1862 ; Bill No. 3, Received
and Read, 27th of February, 1863— four Bills in all. The only one which
became Law was that of 1863.
t This Letter will be found on page 130.
J Dr. Ryerson was ill in bed when he wrote this Note to me. The Tele-
grams, (numbers 5 and 6,) sent to Mr. William Ryerson, M.P., and to Mr.
Alexander Morris, M.P., were the same as the one I sent to the Hon. John A.
Macdonald.
136 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
7. Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Dr. Ryerson:
Private. I am truly grieved to learn of your protracted illness. I
should think that change of air would do you good. The proposed visit to
Quebec will be of great service to you, and I am very anxious to see you.
Mr. R. W. Scott . . . introduced the present Bill without showing
it to me. Notwithstanding this, I thought it well to support the principle
of his Bill, on the understanding that it should be sent to a Special Com-
mittee and made to suit me. Scott has been looked up to as the exponent
of Roman Catholic views on the subject ; arid the Bill, when "amended to
suit," will be carried through the House by him, and must be accepted by
the Roman Catholics as their Bill.
You will see that Scott objected to your Letter of the 29th of April,
1862, [in The Leader of the 30th, page 130,] and Mr. H. M. Foley took
occasion to insinuate that I had got you to write it in order to help James
Patton,* — at the same time that I pretended to be a friend of the Roman
Catholics. My answer to Scott was that his veracity was not impeached in
any way ; and that, if he chose to make a motion specifically on the sub-
ject, he might do so, on due notice, and I was ready to meet him.
I will keep back the action of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the
expectation of your speedy arrival here.
QUEBEC, 3rd of May, 1862. JOHN A. MACDONALD.
8. Letter from Mr. William Ryerson to Dr. Ryerson:—
I have received your Letter this morning You object strongly to
Scott's Bill. I am afraid your objections come too late. When the Bill
was first introduced, I spoke to John A. Macdonald to forward to you,
without delay, a copy. He promised to attend to it ; but your objections,
even by telegraph, were not received until the debate on the Bill had
closed. Your Letter in The Leader, of the 29th of April, [page 130,] was
not received until next day.
I was prevented by sickness from attending the House on the day when
the subject was again brought up by Mr. Scott. The feelings excited
against you by him are very strong. The sneers, insinuations, and charges
against you, I am told, were received with laughter and cheers from both
sides of the House ; while but one single individual, John Hillyard
Cameron, opened his mouth, or uttered one word, in your favour, t
* James Patton, Esq., LL.D., Vice-Chancellor of the University of Toronto,
was then spoken of as a Candidate for the Legislative Council.
t The following is what Mr. John Hillyard Cameron said in the House of
Assembly, on the 1st of May, 1862, in reply to Mr. R. W. Scott's attack on
Dr. Ryerson : — " He regretted to see that a certain amount of feeling had been
manifested against the Rev. Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper
Canada ; but he could not see that his conduct could, in any respect, be called
blamable. He occupied the important office of Chief of the Education Depart-
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS.
The cause of such feelings are : that you have expressed, or stated, t<«
several persons, that you had no great objection to Scott's Bill, — that,
with some few amendments, it would be harmless, etc. You now say thai
the Bill now introduced is entirely different from the former one, or the
one to which you alluded [in your Letter to Ttie Leader, page ISO]. All
this may be true ; but your friends knew nothing of the difference ; and
you have neglected to inform them, until too late. And, even now, you
have not stated one point, or one clause, of the Bill to which you object,
nor have you given your reasons for objecting to the Bill itself. Y<
merely condemn the Bill in toto, and call upon the House to throw it out.
Your enemies, and you have many such, call you vain, insolent, pre-
tentious, and I know not how much more; while your friends, now
committed to the principle of the Bill, have nothing to say. I greatly
fear that the Bill, with some amendments, will be sustained by a large
majority.
I would say more, but am unable, as I have been sick for several days.
I should be glad to hear from you. I shall write again as soon as
I am able.
QUEBEC, May the 5th, 1862. WILLIAM RYERSON.
9. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (London,) to J. George Hodgins:
I am better than when I left home, (for change,) but I gain slowly,
I enclose you the first part of my reply to Mr. Scott, etc.
The effort to look over it has caused much pain in my head. ... I
had hoped to have been able to proceed with my remarks on the provisions
of Mr. Scott's Bill, but I shall not be able to do so .
I have thought it best to have my remarks on this Scott Bill printed,
but I leave it to your discretion at present.
LONDON, Ontario, 19bh of May, 1862. E. RYERSON.
10. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (London,) to J. George Hodgins :
The Doctor has cautioned me against mental exertion for some time to
come, but I thought I would finish the document, of which I sent you the
first part, . . . but before I had written a page ... I had to lie
merit of Upper Canada, and had, as such, the care of seeing that the educational
wants of that section of the Province were properly attended to. A Bill had
been introduced into the House by a private Member, which affected the Edu-
cation Department, and which would entail changes of a very serious nature.
The Rev. Superintendent had expressed his opinion on this Bill ; and was he to
be punished for having done so ? He felt assured, that if the Bill came up for
a third reading, in a similar form to that in which it came up for a second
reading, a very large number of the Upper Canada Members would oppose
it."— (Globe Report.)
10
138 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
down. . . . From the reported crisis at Quebec, it may not be
necessary for me to go there at all on the subject of the Separate School
Bill. . . .
LONDON, Ontario, 27th of May, 1862. E. RYERSON.
11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to Mr. Alexander Morris, M.P. :
As you referred to me, in your remarks on the second reading of Mr.
Scott's Separate School Bill, as approving of the general provisions of that
Bill, I beg to say that I never saw the Bill until the day before the second
reading of it was moved, [i.e., on the 28th of April, 1862,] Mr. Scott's
note, enclosing a copy of the Bill to me, [at Toronto,] being dated only
three days before he moved the second reading of it, and more than two
weeks after he had introduced it.
I felt that the only alternative of duty left to me was to apprize the
Members of the Legislature for Upper Canada of my views of the Bill, — it
being a private, and not a Government, measure, — as I had done, in
regard to a Bill introduced into the Legislature, in 1856, by Mr. John G.
Bowes. From that time until last week, I have been unable, (from
illness,) either to prepare a Memorandum, or to come to Quebec, on the
subject of the Bill.
Since I came to Quebec, I find that several of the most objectionable
Sections of the Bill have been rejected, or amended, by a Select Committee
of the House of Assembly ; and, after lengthened explanations and discus-
sions between Mr. Scott and myself, other clauses of the Bill, which I
thought objectionable and injurious, or impracticable, have been erased,
or amended, so as to render the Bill harmonious, with what I believe to
be the integrity and efficiency of our Common School System, while it
remedied the defects in the Law, of which the supporters of Separate
Schools have complained.
This day the Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church have
accepted the Bill, as thus amended, and have, in connection with Mr.
Scott and myself, apprized the Head of the Administration of our agree-
ment in the provisions of the Bill ; and as the present, as well as the late,
Government, have assented that Mr. Scott should proceed with his Bill,
(as thus amended, and agreed upon,) I can have no wish but that the
measure should be passed, if approved by a majority of the Representa-
tives of Upper Canada, as best for the interests of our Public School
System, and for the convenience of the supporters of Separate Schools.
I herewith enclose you a copy of the Bill, as agreed to, and amended, so
that you may use it, as well as this Letter, in such a way as you may think
proper, in your place in the House.
QUEBEC, 1st of June, 1862. E. RYERSON.
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS. 139
12. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, (Quebec,) to J. George Hodgina :
Yesterday morning the (Rev. Angus .Mac«lonell) Vicar-General of
Kingston, — acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto
and Kingston, — and the Rev. Mr. Cazeau, Secretary of the Archbishop of
Quebec, as Representatives of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church, accepted the Separate School Bill, as proposed to be amended by
me, and agreed to by Mr. R. W. Scott ; and afterwards us four \\
upon the Premier, (Hon. J. S. Macdonald,) and informed him of the result
of our consultation, and the desire of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church that the Government would affirm and facilitate Mr. Scott's pro-
ceeding with the Bill. The Attorney-General, J. S. Macdonald, was much
pleased, and afterwards complimented me, as having done wonders by
coming down from Toronto ; and he said that he would assent to whatever
I had agreed to. ... The Attorney-General is much pleased and
amused that the Separate School question thus falls to his Government to
settle with so little trouble, or action, on their part, and that it is left to
him to recommend the appointment of the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto as a Member of the Council of Public Instruction, (page 130). He
says he will inquire about it immediately, and have the appointment made
and Gazetted., It is by procrastination and neglect in such matters that the
late Administration have lost immensely even among their warmest sup-
porters. ... If anything important occurs, I will write to-morrow
night.
QUEBEC, 2nd of June, 1862. E. RYERSON.
13. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec :—
I received a copy of Mr. Scott's amended Separate School Bill to-day.
. I can scarcely believe it is the one which, by telegraph, Mr. Scott
says that you had agreed to.
The word "adjoining," in the eighteenth line of Section three, will
give rise to disputes. I fear that it conflicts with the like restriction in
the Common School Act. When those Separate Schools can be thus
united, the residence of the Trustees should be within such united Sepa-
rate School Section.
Section four does not provide for the notification to this Office of the
establishment of a Separate School.
I fear that the word "contiguous," in lines three and six, in Section
five, is too indefinite. . . .
I think that Sections eleven and fourteen cover too much ground, and
will have the affect of exempting too many persons as mere "supporters "
of the Separate School. The words: "other School Sections," in line
eight of Section eleven, are also quite too indefinite. The words : " Muni.
cipality and Municipalities," in Section fourteen, are also too wide in their
application to the case of Separate Schools. . . .
140 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The principle of Section twenty-three is a sound one ; but it is question-
able whether the Council of Public Instruction should have the power of
appointing Examiners.
Section eighteen unwisely reverses the present arrangement, and will
be too onerous on those who wish to support the Public Schools. . . „
Section nineteen conflicts with Section three, and will lead to disputes.
The second part of that Section is good in itself ; but it will also lead to
disputes in determining the "three miles."
Section twenty will have the effect of drying up the Clergy Reserve
Fund, which is now applied to the Common Schools. . . . The
Municipalities may object to the Fund being claimed under this Section by
Separate School Trustees.
Sections twenty-six, twenty-seven and twenty-eight are, to my mind,
very objectionable.
There is no provision in the Act for the inspection of Separate Schools.
TORONTO, 4th of June, 1862. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
14. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec :—
It is well that you got down to Quebec in time to modify Mr. Scott's
Separate School Bill. I see by the telegram from Quebec, that he has
withdrawn it, chiefly owing to Mr. T. R. Ferguson's opposition.
TORONTO, 6th of June, 1862. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson to J. George Hodgins: —
I left Quebec last night by steamer. . . . You have seen that
Scott's Bill is thrown out. A strong feeling was excited against him in
the House on account of his statement that I had approved of his Bill, and
then his attack upon me, and his statement that he had enclosed it to me
from Ottawa during the recess. I showed him from his own Letter to me
at Toronto, that it was dated at Quebec on the 26th, only three days before
he moved the second reading of his Bill, on the 29th. . . . He was
deeply mortified, and admitted that he was wrong. . . .
MONTREAL, 7th of June, 1862. E. RYERSON.
DR. RYERSON'S DETAILED PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO THE
SCOTT SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1862.
In addition to these Private and Confidential Letters, Dr.
Ryerson, in July, 1862, wrote several others to the Editor
of The Leader, in reply to the attacks which were made upon
him, for having,, (as asserted in The Globe newspaper at the
time,) become an —
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL IJ:TTI:KS. 141
Arch-traitor to destroy the work which he had employed nearly eigl
years to establish and mature, — namely, the Common Srh.,.,1 System of
the country.
After dealing with other matters in his Letters to The
ho thus referred to the third abortive Roman (1atholic Separate
School Act of Mr. Scott, of 18i;i> :
When Mr. R. W. Scott, of Ottawa, introduced, during the late Session
of our Legislature, his Separate School Bill, incorporating several extreme
provisions in it, at the suggestion of the Ultramontane party in Toronto,
that prompted Bishop de Charbonnel in his extravagant pretensions and
wicked crusade against our School System, I rose from a sick bed to
publicly entreat the Members from Upper Canada to reject so objectionable
a Bill, — the author having sent me a copy of it only three days before he
moved its second reading ; but as he had impressed the House with the
belief that I approved of the Bill, a majority voted for its second reading,
with a view to refer it to a Select Committee, which pruned the Bill of
some of its extreme provisions, and reported it, as amended, for the adop-
tion of the House.
Now, were there one particle of truth in the statement, that I was
conspiring with the Roman Catholic Bishops, and their agents, to subvert
our School System, I would, of course, not have objected to Mr. Scott's
Bill, as introduced by him ; much less would I have objected to it as
amended by a Committee of Upper Canada Members of the Legislative
Assembly. But proceeding to Quebec as soon as I was able to travel,
I saw a copy of Mr. Scott's Bill, as amended by a Select Com-
mittee, which, it seems, was induced to consider the Bill before I could
get to Quebec, and reported upon it the day previous to my arrival there.
I at once objected to any legislation at all on the subject, except under
the auspices of the Government, who, I maintained, were responsible for
the protection of the School System, as well as for the judicial and financial
system, and for any and all measures necessary to correct the evils or
remedy the defects of the one as well as of the other. Two Members of
the present Administration, to whom I stated my objections and views,
admitted their validity. I also objected to several provisions of the Bill as
amended by the Committee ; but it being understood that the Government
would assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill, provided it were
amended so as to meet my views, he consented to the erasure of the clauses
to which 1 objected, and to the insertion of the further amendments whi:h
I proposed. And what were those clauses and amendments ? . . .
The Select Committee had purged Mr. Scott's Bill of several of its Ultra
montane provisions, such as that of making the Priests ex-officio School
Trustees, with power of taxation, — a provision not admitted in Catholic
142 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
France, or Belgium, or even in Austria. But the Bill, as reported by the
Committee, permitted Trustees of Separate School Sections to form Union
Sections to any extent they might please. To this I objected, and insisted
that the ratepaying parents should be the judges as to forming Union
Sections for Separate Schools, as well as for Common Schools ; and, of
course, they would not agree to any Union Section so large as to prevent
their children from attending the School, and especially as the Bill pro-
vided, (as amended by the Committee,) that no one should be recognized as
a supporter of a Separate School who should reside more than three miles
from it. My amendment was admitted.
Again, the Bill, as originally introduced, exempted the supporters of
Separate Schools from paying Public School Rates, in whatever part of the
Province their property might be situated. The Committee limited the
exemption to the Municipality of the Separate School supporters. 1
insisted that the exemption should be limited to the School Section, as all
property in each School Section should be liable for the education of the
youth of the Section — as it was by the joint labours of such youths and
their parents that the value of property in such Section was created or
maintained. My amendment was admitted.
By the Bill, as reported by the Committee, it was also provided, that
the Council of Public Instruction should appoint a Board of Examiners in
each County for examining Separate School Teachers and giving them
Certificates of Qualifications. I was aware that under the present Separate
School law, — Trustees of each Separate School give the Certificates of
Qualifications to their Teachers ; such Teachers have no public standing in
comparison of the Teachers of the Common] Schools ; that many of the
Teachers of Separate Schools in the Townships and Villages are so poorly
qualified that the most intelligent Roman Catholics in such places send
their children to the Public Schools ; that it was, therefore, desired to have
some form of examination that would raise the position of Separate School
Teachers. But I wholly objected to the creation of two distinct County
Boards of Examiners of School Teachers ; to the Council of Public
Instruction, being made the instrument of selecting a Roman Catholic
Board of Examiners in each County, — thus actually giving Separate
Common School Teachers an apparent superiority over Public Common
School Teachers, and creating the natural precursor of a Separate
Provincial Normal School. I delared my intention, should such a
provision become law, to recommend to the Council of Public Instruction
to appoint the present County Boards of Public Instruction as Examiners
of Separate School Teachers, as they are of Public School Teachers, and
to prescribe the same programme of subjects and classification as are
prescribed for Public School Teachers. This was formerly the practice,
and no objection was ever made to it until the Charbonnel agitation. The
result was the proposed dangerous innovation was abandoned, and the law
PRIVATE AND COM IDKN-IMAL LETTERS. 14M
left as it is. Finally, the Committee consented to retain t'iu following
extraordinary clauses in the Bill, as reported by them :
"26. The Holidays and Vacations prescribed by the Council of Public
Instruction for the observance of Common Schools, shall not be binding on
Roman Catholic Separate Schools ; but the Trustees of every such School
may prescribe the observance of such other holidays and vacations as they
may see fit ; provided, always, that the number of school days in any
Roman Catholic Separate School shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-
nine days in the first half of every year, nor one hundred and sixteen days
in the second half of the year." [The minimum of time each half year
that the Public Schools are required to be kept open.]
"27. In all Roman Catholic Separate Schools, no rules shall be
enforced for the government and management of such Schools, and no
books shall be introduced or prohibited without the approbation of the
Trustees of such Roman Catholic Separate Schools."
To these Ultramontane clauses I objected in toto, as unsanctioned by the
example of Lower Canada in regard to the Dissentient Schools, and as
unparalleled in any country in respect to Schools to which legislative aid is
given. I wished that the Separate Schools in Upper Canada should be
subject to public authority and oversight, the same as are Dissentient
Schools in Lower Canada. The result was the erasure from the Bill of
these two clauses, and the substitution of the following in their place : —
"25. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their Registers,)
shall be subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time,
by the Chief Superintendent of Education ; and shall be subject also to
such regulations as may be imposed, from time to time, by the Council of
Public Instruction for Upper Canada."
Such are some of the essential modifications which I got made in Mr
Scott's Bill, even after it had been amended and recommended by a
Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly, — so much so that a Member,
well acquainted with the nature and administration of the School Law.
. said, on reading the Bill, as thus modified, " it is better than the
present Separate School law, I wish it would pass the Legislature." . . .
Nor did I stop with these essential changes in the provisions of this
Bill, though now rendered unobjectionable. I stated that I would resist
its further progress in the Legislature, except on two conditions : — First,
that the Bill thus modified should be accepted as a settlement of the
question by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. Secondly,
that the Government should assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding with it. To
secure the former of these objects, Mr. Scott got the Vicar-General
Macdonell, (who had gone from Upper Canada to Quebec in belnlf of the
authorities of the Church to watch legislation on school matters,) and the
Reverend Secretary of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Quebec, (the
Head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada,) to meet me in the
144 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Parliamentary Library, where we discussed the provisions of the Bill, and
where they accepted it on the part of the authorities of the Roman
Catholic Church as finally amended in its present form ; after which two
copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon and accepted, were made, — the one
for Mr. Scott, and the other lor myself ; and the parties concerned waited
upon the head of the Administration, and informed him that they accepted
the Bill as thus modified, and requested the assent of the Government to
Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill. . . .
Every one who examines this third and expurgated edition of the Bill,
will see that it brings back the School system in respect to Separate
Schools, as near as possible, to what it was before the passing of the
Roman Catholic Separate School Bill of 1855. . . .
This is an object I have been most anxious to accomplish. It was with
this view that, before the late Session of Parliament, I conferred with
Roman Catholic Bishops in Upper Canada, within whose dioceses most of
the Separate Schools are established, — resolved that if they, abandoning the
extreme pretensions of Bishop de Charbonnel, desired nothing more than
that the amendment of the Separate School Law of 1855, so as to restore
to the supporters of Separate Schools what that law deprived them, I
would recommend a measure to that effect. (Page 130.) 1 felt no disposi-
tion to renew the causeless, and, to Roman Catholics, injurious Separate
School agitation of Bishop de Charbonnel, but the simple removal of evils
caused by the Separate School Bill of 1855, which was one of the fruits
of the Charbonnel agitation. I accordingly prepared a draft of Bill of
former claims which was accepted, entitled, " An Act to restore to parties
therein named certain rights which they heretofore enjoyed, and of which
they have been deprived by the Separate School Act of 1855." . . .
(See page 128.)
It is a fact, known to the country, that from the commencement of the
Ultramontane Separate School agitation, under Bishop de Charbonnel,
down to the Ultramontane Separate School Bill introduced into the
Legislature at its late session, by Mr. Scott of Ottawa, I have both
publicly and privately resisted every measure or clause that would, in the
slightest degree, weaken our Common School System.
TORONTO, 10th of July, 1862. E. RYERSON.
i.\ THI<; ANGLICAN SV\«»D IN ISI;L>.
CHAPTEE XXIV.
SEPARATE SCllool, DISCI SSloN IN THK ANGLICAN SYNOD
IN J,S<;L>.
DURING several years preceding 1862, the Anglican Church,
through its Toronto Synod, invariably petitioned tin- Legisla-
ture annually on behalf of Church of England Separate Schools.
It took no part, however, in the current discussions of the day
on the subject of Roman Catholic Separate Schools, except t<>
base its argument for Church of England Separate Schools on
the existence of those for Roman Catholics, under the authority
of the Legislature. It claimed equal rights, — that was all.
Being a Lay Representative in the Synod of June, 1862,
from the Cathedral Church of St. James, Toronto, I naturally
took part in the discussion on Church of England Separate
Schools, when the yearly question on the subject came up. I
took occasion to refer to the proposal which Dr. Ryerson had
then made to the Government, in the preceding March, to pro-
vide a way by which " the most needy and neglected " children
in Cities and Towns might be reached and educated. In this
matter, I said, that he had consulted the Bishop and other ex-
perienced men on the subject. For this The Globe censured him.
When the Report of a Committee of the Synod, in favour of
Church of England Separate Schools, came up for adoption, I
objected to a statement in it to the effect, that, in Dr. Ryersmi'-
Dili, he had " conceded the just claims of the Church of
England." The following report of my remarks in the Synod
is taken from The Globe newspaper of the time.* I said : —
* Several Members of the Synod took part in the debate, but I only i
the remarks which I made, with a view to explain the nature of tin* >;
School Bill then proposed, in regard to "needy and neglected rliildivn," and
also to point out what had been done, up to that time, on the general subject
of School Legislation.
146 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
In that Bill, the words: "Church of England," did not occur at all.
Even the words: "Separate Schools," had no place in it. But it was
simply proposed, in that Bill, to meet a want, and to supply a deficiency
which was felt in all the Cities and Towns. He had no doubt his Lordship,
the Bishop, from his long experience in those matters, and his long acquaint-
ance with the Chief Superintendent of Education, must have arrived at
this conclusion, that all his amendments to the System of Public Instruc-
tion in this country had been of a directly practical character. The
measure which Dr. Ryerson prepared last winter, and submitted to his
Lordship, and, he believed, to the other Prelates of the Church in this coun-
try, and which, he believed, received their sanction, was of this nature :
We were aware that, in the Cities and Towns of Upper Canada, there js^as
a large proportion of the juvenile population which never attend any School
whatever, Separate, Common, or even Sunday Schools. We were also
aware that the agitation against the continuance of the Common School
System in the Cities and Towns, on account of its great expense, had been
repeatedly urged. A learned gentleman on the Bench (Mr. Justice
Hagarty) had frequently, in his Charges, called attention to this growing
evil in our midst. We all admitted the existence of the evil ; but parties
were divided as to how it should be remedied. He believed he might
separate those who entertained different views on the subject into three
classes. First, there were those who contended that the Common School
System was unjust, that it taxed the people heavily to support the Public
Schools, but that it failed in bringing within their influence those very
portions of the population for whose benefit they were intended. They said,
therefore, that the great expense to which the Cities and Towns were put
on account of the Common Schools, was comparatively lost.
There was another part of the community, whose views the Chief
Superintendent had endeavoured to meet, and which, after all their talk
on Separate Schools, had probably the deepest hold on the hearts of
every one present. The Chief Superintendent's object was to meet the
religious feelings and sentiments of the country, not exclusively of the
Church of England, but of every Protestant Denomination in Upper
Canada. His object was not to change, but to supplement the Common
School System, and to bring within the doors of some School-house the
children now wandering about our streets, and being educated in the
School of theft and vice.
Dr. Ryerson had for years revolved it over and over again in his mind,
how he could meet this difficulty, whether by adopting the views he had
just referred to, or the view of the very small minority, the third party,
those who were anxious to have a law passed, called .in other Countries a
Truancy law, to compel all children, if Schools were provided for them, to
attend those Schools, or else to give a good account of themselves.
One party, then, consisted of those who objected to the Common School
DISCUSSION IN THK AN<;UCA\ SYNOD IN ]s<';± 147
System, on account of its great expense, and sought, by in-
Schools, to meet the difficulty, and to lessen the expense.
Mr. J. G. Hodgins gave notice that lie would move, as an amend:
to the Resolution to be moved by Dr. Uovdl, and seconded by I
Darling, the following : —
That, as members of the United Chim-h ot Kii^hind and Jrdand in this
Diocese, we do not desire to seek any interference \\ith the Common School
System, as established by law, or to demand e\<-lu>i\ e pi •; .t at present
shared in equally by other Protestant I )eiiominat ion- in l'pp< : •
Dr. Bovell moved the following Resolution : —
That a respectful Memorial be again presented to the Le^islati
forth the continued desire of the Church of England and Ireland in Canada, to
have Separate Schools in Cities and Town- :
And, further, to respectfully remind the < io\ eminent that they seek no'
improper interference with the Common School System, as established by law,
but claim to be entitled to the same privileges, and to have a similar measure
of justice meted out to them as Members of the said Church, as have been
accorded to their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
Mr. J. G. Hodgins asked that he might be permitted to give a brief
historical retrospect of this question, since the first provision for Separate
Schools was introduced, twenty-one years ago, applying both to Upper and
Lower Canada, but chiefly designed to apply to the latter. The words
used were: "Dissentient Schools," and the foundation of the Separate
School provision of our law was designed primarily for the protection of
the Protestant minority of Lower Canada. The first law on this subject,
applicable to both sections of the Province, was not found to work satis-
factorily, and, in 1843, the Hon. F. Hincks introduced a law, in which was
continued the provision for Separate Schools in Upper Canada. In 1847,
Boards of Trustees in Cities and Towns were empowered to determine the
number and description of Schools, and to decide "whether they should
be Denominational, or Mixed." In 1850, the law was revised, and provision
was made for the establishment of Separate Roman Catholic and Coloured
Schools. In 1855, the Tache' Act was passed, applying exclusively to tin-
Roman Catholics, but not with the entire concurrence of the Chief Super-
intendent. He agreed that our System of Public Instruction should be
based on Christianity. Provision was made for the Schools being opened
with prayer and the reading of the Scriptures. In 2,500 of the 4,000
Common Schools, the daily work was opened and closed with prayer : in
2,800 the Scriptures were read daily. But the Church of England claimed
further, that religious instruction should be given according to her stand-
ards. Provision also had been made for this, by the regulations issued
two or three years ago, allowing Clergymen to come to the Schools and
give religious instruction to the children of their own persuasion for one
hour a week, after School hours.
148 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Dr. Bovell had referred to the disobedience of children in this country.
Was this the fault of the Common Schools ? He asked gentlemen to look
at that card over the door of this Room, emanating from the Department
of Public Instruction, the first thing which children saw when they entered
school was, as shown on this card : "Honour thy Father and thy Mother."
When they turned round, they saw that other precept : "Fear God and
Honour the King." Of the Common School Teachers, 800 were Members
of the Church of England ; 1,250 were Presbyterians ; 1,250 Methodists ;
230 Baptists ; and 85 Congregationalists. All Clergymen, too, were Visitors
of the Common Schools
Mr. Hodgins then referred to the argument that, because Roman
Catholics had Separate Schools, the Church of England should have them
also. Was the principle of Separate Schools in itself a sound one ? The
laity of this country did not think it was, and, if it was wrong for the Roman
Catholics, it was wrong for the Church of England, and two wrongs could
not make a right. The Roman Catholic standards, however, differed in toio
from the standards of every Protestant Denomination, and that distinction
was recognized by the School Law. But to demand Separate Schools simply
because the Church of Rome had them, was beneath the dignity of the
Church of England. He had looked over the Resolutions passed on this
subject from year to year. They appear to have passed with very little
dissent, but he was satisfied that they did not represent the religious con-
victions of the laity of the Church of England in Upper Canada. And he
would ask, if Separate Schools for the Church of England were established,
what guarantee had they for the religious instruction that would be com-
municated in them? (A VOICE — "The Catechism would be taught.")
What guarantee, he would ask, was there that the children, by the instruc-
tion given them, would not be influenced in a direction in which many
Protestant Churchmen could not concur ? . . .
The Bishop, before putting the question to the vote, wished to make a
few remarks. Last year, on this question, he said they had a right to
Separate Schools, and that they ought not to appear before the Legislature
as mere suppliants. If 50,000 persons were required to petition the Legis-
lature for the rights of the Church of England, they could be got, and
they ought to continue to demand them until they were granted. He
•could not, therefore, agree to the Amendment, although he admitted it had
been introduced by Mr. Hodgins with great moderation and great talent.
Mr. Hodgins' Amendment was then put, and negatived. Yeas — Clergy,
9 ; parishes, 12 ; total, 21. Nays — Clergy, 45 ; parishes, 29 ; total, 74.
SCHOOL BILL RELATING TO NEEDY AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN.
The Bill which Dr. Ryerson proposed to meet the special
case of " needy and neglected children," was as follows :
DISCUSSION ix TIIK AXGLICAN SY\<>I> i\ ISI;L>. 140
1. Whereas, there are large numbers of children of School au<
attending any School in the Cities and Towns of Upper < 'anada, notwith-
standing the Schools in several of said Cities and Towns are free ; ;m<l,
whereas, it is the duty of the Legislature to employ all practicable means
to prevent such children from growing up in i'_'n<>i.iiirt- ;ind vice, l>y in
ing to them the advantages of a sound Christian education ; and. wh-
it is desirable to exhaust all the agencies and influences of voluntary exer-
tion and religious benevolence, before resorting to measure n, in
order to promote the education of the most needy and neglected, as well a.->
of other classes of the population, of such Cities and Towns.
2. Be it enacted, etc., that it shall be lawful for any Benevolent Associa-
tion, Society, or Congregation, of any Religious Persuasion, or any two,
or more, such Congregations may write, in any City, or Town, to establish
one or more Schools in such City, or Town, in Upper Canada ; and any
premises and houses acquired by such Association, Society, Congregation,
or Congregations, for the purposes of this Act, shall be held in the same
manner as are premises and places for the ordinary purposes of such
Association, or Society, or as are premises and places for public worship
ac< juired and held by such Congregation, or Congregations.
3. Every such Association, Society, Congregation, or two or more Con-
gregations united, establishing a School, or Schools, shall notify the same
to the Chief Superintendent of Education, and to the Clerk of their
Municipality, on or before the first day of January, or the first day of
July, next after their establishment, and shall, according to their usual
mode of appointing their Association, Society, or Church officers, appoint,
annually, three persons for the management of each such School.
4. The Managers of each School established under the provisions of this
Act, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of June, and the thirty-first day
of December, of each year, transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Educa-
tion for Upper Canada, according to a form prepared by him, a correct
statement of the number of pupils attending such School, together with
their average attendance during the six next preceding months, or during
the number of months which may have elapsed since the establishment
thereof, and the number of months it shall have been so kept open ; and
the Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the proportion which
the Managers of such School shall be entitled to receive of the School
moneys aforesaid, and shall pay over the amount apportioned from the
Legislative School Grant to the Managers of such School, and shall notify
the Chamberlain, or Treasurer, of the City, or Town, in which such School
is situated of the proportion payable to it from School moneys provided by
local assessment ; whereupon such Chamberlain, or Treasurer, shall, upon
receiving such notification, pay said proportion to the Managers of such
School, or Schools, established under the provisions of this Act.
5. Every such School established under the provisions of this Act, shall
150 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
be entitled to assistance towards its support from the Common School
moneys of the City, or Town, in which it is established, (not including
School fees or moneys provided for the purchase of Public School sites, or
the erection of Public School buildings, and their appurtenances,) accord-
ing to the average attendance of pupils during each half year, as compared
with the half-yearly average attendance of pupils at the Common Schools
of such City, or Town.
6. The Managers and Teachers of every School established under the
provisions of this Act, shall be subject to all the regulations and obligations
which apply to Trustees and Teachers of Common Schools in Cities and
Towns, shall keep a School Register, and make half-yearly returns and
annual reports in the form and manner and at the times prescribed in
regard to Common Schools ; and shall be subject to the same penalties, to
be collected in the same way, in case of false returns, as are imposed by
law upon Trustees and Teachers of Common Schools.
7. Any moneys which may be paid out of the Legislative School Grant
under the provisions of this Act, shall be expended in the payment of the
salaries of Teachers, and for no other purpose, and the Schools, witli
their Registers, established by the authority of this Act, shall be subject
to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time, by the Depart-
ment of Public Instruction for Upper Canada.
DR. RYERSON'S EXPLANATION OF HIS BILL RELATING TO NEEDY
AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN IN CITIES AND TOWNS.
The reference to Dr. Ryerson's Bill, relating to " needy and
neglected " children in the Anglican Synod, led to an animated
discussion in The Globe of Toronto at the time. In reply to the
Editor's criticism on his proceedings in the matter, Dr. Ryerson
There is one class, and unfortunately an increasing class, of the popula-
tion of Cities and Towns, which is without the sphere of any influence,
secular or religious, which has yet been exercised for the education of their
children. These are the children, (and not the children of Common
Schools,) that swell the calendars of juvenile crime in Cities and Towns.
The problem is, What means can be employed to dry up this fountain of
idleness and crime, and make these now poor and neglected youth useful
members of Society ? The influence of even our excellent Common Free
Schools has not reached them. Nay, in the presence of these noble
Schools the number of unschooled vagrant children increase, — at least in
the City of Toronto. In 1860, during an official tour of Upper Canada, I
submitted the question in various counties for public consideration, as to
whether the municipalities should not be invested with power to make
DISCUSSION IN THE ANCJI.K'AN SYNOD IN 1SG2. lol
regulations for educational purposes in regard to vagrant children, between
the ages of 7 and 14 years, not attending any School, and not engaged in
any lawful employment.
It is admitted on all sides, that some ag.-iiry is necessary, in addit
that now employed, to meet the case of vagrant children in Cities and
Towns. I have proposed to supplement and combine with our Common
School agency the additional agency of voluntary religious and benevolent
effort, — an agency which has reached the cases of more degraded da-
parents in London and Edinburgh, than any which exist in the Cities and
Towns of Upper Canada. . . .
In the measure which I proposed and submitted to the consideration of
Government on this subject, I adopted the course which I had invariably
pursued in regard to every measure I ever submitted to Government for
the improvement of our School System. I prepared the first draft of it
without consultation with any one ; and then consulted all parties
acquainted and interested in the subject as far as I had opportunity. . . .
In the present case, the first person with whom I conferred was a
distinguished minister of the then United Presbyterian Church— a man of
large experience in our School System, and deeply interested in the
amelioration of the neglected classes of youth in Cities and Towns.
Afterwards, when I conferred with the venerable Bishop of Toronto, (as 1
had done in regard to every School Bill I ever proposed,) and such of the
Clergy of the Church of England, (as well as of other Churches,) who
happened to call upon me, I was gratified to find that they were willing to
accept of rny proposed measure for supplementing the Common Schools of
the Cities and Towns in order to reach, if possible, the cases of the
neglected and vicious poor, in place of what some of them had advocated
in regard to Separate Schools. This I regarded as so much gained to the
unity of our Common School System. Some of these gentlemen, after-
wards, (in Synod of the Church of England of Toronto,) made an
unauthorized and unwarrantable use of my name, and ascribed to me
objects and views with which I had no sympathy. Mr. Hodgins, (Deputy
Superintendent of Education, and acquainted with my views and proceed-
ings from the beginning,) who was a member of the Synod, corrected the
representations which were there made of my views. In the memorandum
which I had prepared on this Bill, I said : —
The giant evil of youthful demoralization is confessedly increasing in
our Cities and Towns ; and the importance of arresting it, as far as possible,
cannot be over-estimated in regard either to these centres of population
themselves, or in respect to the country at large. In comparatively new
Cities and Towns, and a young country, the foundation of society should
be deeply and broadly laid in religion, virtue and knowledge, and for that
purpose every possible, religious influence and benevolent effort should be
developed and associated with the instruction of the masses in rearing the
structure of society.
152 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
The chief and almost only remedy which has been proposed for the evils
of youthful ignorance and crime in our Cities and Towns, is coercion, —
compulsory attendance at School. Every member of society has
undoubtedly a right to such an education as will fit him for his duties as a
Christian citizen, as much as he has a right to food and clothes ; and
society has a right, and it is in duty bound to see that each of its members
is fitted for his duties, and not trained to be a public pest and burden. I
have frequently urged this view of the subject, and have suggested and
prepared measures to give it practical effect as an element of our Public
School System, especially in Cities and Towns. But I have found an utter
unwillingness on the part of public men of different parties, to do what
seemed to intrench upon individual and parental rights. ... To
compel any class of children to attend the Public Schools, has proved
impracticable ; and, as it has been truly urged, could that be done ?
Secular instruction alone would not reach the seat of the moral evils to be
corrected, of the moral and religious feelings, on the influence and culture
of which depend chiefly and essentially the results desired.
Under these circumstances, I propose to develop and encourage the
exercise of a voluntary, religious and moral agency which has hitherto
remained almost dormant in this country, which is practically discouraged
by our free Public School System ; but which has accomplished, and is
accomplishing, immense good in behalf of the neglected and vicious poor in
many Towns in England and Scotland. . . .
But I am far from proposing the establishment of ragged, or of any
description of Pauper Schools in Upper Canada. Our whole School System
is founded on the opposite principle, — that of the mutual rights and
obligations of the citizen and the State, — not of the pauper and the donor.
But I propose that our School System, which has not the vital power of
religious zeal and benevolence to bring into the Schools large numbers of
the most needy and dangerous classes in Cities and Towns, shall be
supplemented by developing and encouraging that religious spirit of
benevolence and zeal which, under great disadvantages, has wrought out
such beneficial results elsewhere.
CHAPTEE XXV.
PASSAGE OF THE SCOTT SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL, OF 1863.
AFTER the failure of the Scott Roman Catholic Separate School
Bill, of 1862, to receive the assent of the Legislature at its
Session of that year, renewed efforts were made to have it
PASSAGE OF THE SCOTT SEP. S. BILL, OF 1863. 153
again introduced into the Legislature at its next Session, in
1863. Of this the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, who was
Premier at the time, had cognizance. He, therefore, on the 2nd
of February of that year, wrote to Dr. Ryerson urging him to
be down in Quebec about the middle of the month, when the
opening of the Legislature would take place. The following
are copies of the private and confidential correspondence which
took place in connection with the final passage of the Scott
Separate School Bill, of 1863 :—
1. From the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, Attorney-
General, to Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent of Education :
I think you should be down here about the time of the opening, as I am
clear that explanations, in regard to the School Bill,* which yon alone can
satisfactorily give, will be required, and it may happen that, without your
presence, our explanations would not be acceptable to some.
QUEBEC, 3rd of February, 1863. J. S. MACDONALD.
2. From Dr. Ryerson, at Quebec, to J. George Hodgins :—
1 saw Mr. Sandfield Macdonald a few minutes yesterday morning. The
Draft of Grammar School Bill, and Memorandum, is being printed in slips
for the use of Members of the Government. I have not yet seen any
Members of the Government but the Attorney-General. He wants me to
stay and help them through the difficulties of the Separate School Bill,
which he is inclined to make a Government measure, — also the Grammar
School Bill. He is very friendly.
QUEBEC, February 24th, 1863. E. RYERSON.
3. From J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, at Quebec :—
I enclose a Letter in reference to the School Bills, which may be of use
to the Premier. ... I called on the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, Roman
Catholic Bishop of Toronto, and the Rev. Dr. Cahill, from Ireland, yester-
day, and had a friendly interview with them of about two hours. The
Bishop was cordial in his praises of our Public School System, and of the
tolerance to the claims of his Church. In conversation with the Rev. Dr.
Cahill, he spoke in the highest terms of the state of affairs in Canada, as
compared with other places, and of his utter dislike to the course of the
Montreal True Witness, and other kindred papers, in regard to you and
the School System. The Bishop promised to bring up Dr. Cahill to see
*i.e., The Grammar School Bill, — a draft of which Dr. Ryerson had trans-
mitted to the Government, — and the Separate School Bill introduced by Mr. R,
W. Scott.
11
154 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
our establishment. In the course of conversation, the Bishop stated that
he had forbidden any of his Clergy to write in the newspapers without his
knowledge, and the revision, either by himself, or by some other Dignitary,
of their articles. I think that if simple justice and fair-minded treatment
were accorded to the Roman Catholics, he (Bishop Lynch) and others
would be made fast friends.
TORONTO, March 26th, 1863. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
4. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins:—
I had an interview with two Ministers, — the Attorney-General, (J. S.
Macdonald,) and Mr. William McDougall, — yesterday, respecting the Gram-
mar and Separate School Bills. The Attorney-General seemed rather
alarmed about what some one had said to him about giving Grammar
School Trustees, etc., more power ; but Mr. McDougall said that he had
read the Bill, with the Memorandum on it, and thought it a good Bill ;
that he had given it to Mr. Reesor, an old County Warden, and well
acquainted with School matters, and that Mr. Reesor thought it was the
very thing that was wanted. This quite changed the aspect of the question
in the mind of the Attorney-General. I am to see the Upper Canada
Members of the Cabinet on the subject, as soon as they can meet me.
. . . Then came up the Separate School question. I read to them
your account of your interview with the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Toronto, (Dr. Lynch,) with which they were much pleased. Mr. "Mc-
Dougall thought it best to introduce my little amendment Bill, [to Restore
Certain Rights] of 1862, but the Attorney-General thought it best to intro-
duce the Bill that the Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church had
agreed to, which was less objectionable than the one agreed to by a Select
Committee of the House, in 1862, and which was, in substance, the same
as mine ; that, if my amendments were introduced, the clauses would have
to be given, to show how they would read.
Both agreed that the Government should take the matter in hand. I
intend to propose to-day their introduction of the Bill, (with one altera-
tion,) as agreed upon by me in 1862, (after conference with the Repre-
sentatives of the Roman Catholic Church,) and with the Title of my
amended Bill. . . .
QUEBEC, March the 3rd, 1863. E. RYERSON.
5. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins :—
The Ministry were to decide yesterday upon their course of proceeding
m regard to the Grammar School Amendment Bill and the Separate
School Bill. . . . It is a sort of Bedlam to me to stay here ; but the
Attorney-General says that I must remain until they get over these School
difficulties.
QUEBEC, 5th of March, 1863. E. RYEBSON.
PASSAGE OF THE Scan' SM-. 8, lin.i. Of I-
<5. letter from J. George Ho<l<i'> n.< to /'/•. l^mrwn, Qw.bec : —
I have just seen a copy of the St-..it I {'.man Cath./n: >••;.;• rate School
Kill. . . . I do not set; tli.-it it provide* for an annual report from tlu-
Separate School Trustees, — which it nu^lit to do. ... I i, . 0 that
you and the Local School Supurintendriits arc- Yiaiti.i !ioola ;
but why are you classed with these Officers? as your ftin« ti-.n-, u
these Schools, are so entirely different ; and it is only through th»;m th.it
you would care to rxrrrisc any of your power, or auth . rliem. . . .
TORONTO, 7th of March, 1st;:;. .1. •
7. From Dr. Rye <•«>,,. tjuebec, to J. George Hodgins:—
I met the Attorney-General, J. S. Maolonahl, at dinner, and had a good
deal of conversation with him. I expressed an earnest desire to return to
Toronto, . . . but he said I "must not leave," . . . that my
"hints and suggestions to him on the School Bill, and on several other
matters, had already been of great assistance to him ; — that he did not
think he could spare me before Easter," etc. (This is entirely confi-
dential.) ... I think that both School Bills, (Grammar and Separate
Schools,) before the House will pass.
QUEBEC, 9th of March, 1863. E. J;
8. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins: —
Mr. R. W. Scott's Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to a
third reading to-day. I will try and get the addition you suggest inserted
at the third reading of the Bill. . . .
QUEBEC, 12th of March, 1863. E. 1 ;
9. From J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : —
I see by the news telegram from Quebec to-day, that the Scott Separate
School Bill had a majority of ten Upper Canada Members against it. ...
I have jusc seen a copy of the Bill, as amended in Committee. I would
never have agreed to Section six, in its form, in that copy. The words
"Separate School Section," (though commonly used,) is unwarranted by
the Bill itself. That Bill does not provide for the establishment of a
" Separate School Section " as such, but for the establishment of a Separate
School in a " Common School Section," (quite a different thing.) . . .
Under the Bill, Separate Schools may be established in adjoining Munici-
palities,— that is, in adjoining Counties, as well as in adjoining Townships,
— and, in that case, be designated "Separate School Sections." . . .
From the result of last night's vote, I feel convinced that the Roman
Catholic promoters of the Bill should have been contented with
original Draft of Bill. That would have been comparatively harmless ; but,
as The Globe shows to-day, the animus of the Bill is shown in Sections six
156 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
and fourteen. The appeal, authorized in Section twenty-seven, is in the
nature of an unnecessary threat. It was not required to be inserted in
the Bill, as all of your decisions are, as a matter of course, subject to
appeal. . . . It is another evidence of the animus of the Bill.*
TORONTO, 13th of March, 1863. J. GEORGE HODGINS.
10. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins ;—
The Scott Separate School Bill, as amended, passed the House of
Assembly last night, though a majority of ten Members from Upper
Canada present voted against it. What course the Government will
pursue, in regard to it now, I know not, as I have not seen any Member of
the Government this morning.
In consequence of the whole of yesterday having been occupied with
the discussion of the Separate School Bill, the Grammar School Amend-
ment Bill has been laid over until next Government day. This, I am
afraid, will detain me here another week. . . . The Government is
weak. John Sandfield Macdonald has a poor opinion of many of his
supporters, and I am not surprised at it. ... John A. is conducting
himself with great propriety. His speech last night, showing how he and
his party had their revenge on those of their opponents who had hounded
them through all Upper Canada as "supporters of Separate Schools," and
as " slaves to the Priests," — but who had now to support this Bill, — was
very amusing, and very effective.
QUEBEC, 14th of March, 1863. E. RYERSON.
11. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins:—
There is a sort of crisis in the ministerial ranks here, on account of the
vote on the Separate School Bill. The Attorney General, (J. S. Mac-
donald,) told me this morning that, if his " Clear Grit " supporters did not
come to his terms, he would deal with them in a way that they little
anticipated. (This is entre nous.} The plan now is, I believe, for some
slight amendment to be made to the Bill in the Legislative Council, so as
to bring it back to the House of Assembly, so as to make the ministerial
supporters vote for it out and out. . . . The Attorney General is
unwilling for me to leave, until the School Bills are disposed of. ...
QUEBEC, 16th of March, 1863. E. RYERSON.
12. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec :—
To an outsider like myself, the ministerial proceedings at Quebec are
interesting. . . . As in war, so in politics, a clear-headed, prompt and
determined man, decisive in action, is the man to be relied on in a crisis
as he thus makes himself the hero of the public. It may not occur to
* The reason for the insertion of this "appeal" section was given by Mr.
Scott, in his speech in the Senate in 1894. (See page 166, post.)
PASSA<;K or TIIK SCOTT SKI-. S. lln.i., pF
politicians in action at Quebec, that their proceedings then- are daily
reviewed here with a calmness and a penetration, as to appan.-nt motive.^
and results, that those on the spot cannot do. It is in this light, and
from this standpoint, that the action of the Attorney 'ieneral is viewed,
and he is judged accordingly. He has clearly shown a degree of tin
on the Separate School question, (if he can maintain it), which ix-ralls tin-
days of Hincks. . . .
In regard to the Separate School Bill : I think that Suction six.
present shape, is decidedly objectionable ; but Section twenty is very much
more so. This latter Section provides that the Roman Catholic Separate
Schools shall share in all Municipal School Rates, and all Municipal (Jranr-,
for Common School purposes, whether the Separate School supporters
have contributed to these Rates and Grants, or not.
I, of course, do not refer to the Rates required to be raised by the
County Council, as an equivalent to the Legislative School Grant, but I
refer to Grants which may be made by Township, Town, or City, and
County Councils, under the authority of the Municipal, (not School,) Act.
The Section, if passed, will have the effect of drying up, (or diverting
entirely from Common School purposes,) the Grants from the Municipal
Clergy Reserves Fund ; and thus the Separate School Act will come rudely
into collision with the policy and traditionary instincts of Upper Canada,
in preventing this Fund from being applied, (as has been so long and so
often advocated,) to Common School education. . . .
The twenty-second Section should provide for the Separate School
Returns being made according to a form provided by the Education Depart-
ment for that purpose, as in the case of the Common Schools.
There is one omission in the Separate School Act, — if the design was to
restore the provisions of the former Acts of 1850-53 ; and that is, that the
supporters of Separate Schools are not required to pay to the Separate
School a rate, or subscription, equal to what they would have had to pay
to the Common School, had they not been separated from it. As it is, any
supporter in one County of a Separate School in an adjoining Count \
the extent of even a few cents), can escape all County, Township, or School
Section, rates altogether ! We well know what a premium this will be on
pure selfishness.
TORONTO, 18th of March, 1863. J. GEORGE HODUIXS
13. From Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —
Mr. McGee made a very good speech last night about paying faithful
and efficient public servants good salaries. I will try and turn it to your
account. . . . I am to take a family dinner with the Attorney-General,
(J. S. Macdonald), this evening, as I have not been able to accept the two
previous invitations. ... I think that the trouble in the Government,
on account of the Separate School Bill, is not yet over. I think I
158 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
mentioned to you before, that I believe that the patched-up difficulty is to
be settled by getting some friend of the Government to introduce some
unimportant amendment, or amendments, to the Separate School Bill in
the Legislative Council, so as to have it brought again before the House of
Assembly, when each supporter of the Government there, or a majority of
them from Upper Canada, was to support the Bill. But I understand
that the Opposition in the Council are on the alert, and Col. Tache,
Messieurs Ross, Shaw and others are going to support the Separate School
Bill there intact, and they will probably have a majority, while the
professed supporters of the Government will be in the odd position of
striving to amend a Government Bill, and the Opposition supporting it
without amendment ! If the Attorney-General does not, in some way,
have the vote of a majority of the House from Upper Canada in favour of
that Bill, I do not think he will have it to become law. He is determined
that his professed supporters of the Government will support it on its
declared policy in regard to settling the Separate School and the Represen-
tation question, or he will leave them to their fate.
QUEBEC, 17th of March, 1863. E. RYERSON.
14. Telegram from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins:
Get five thousand copies of the present arid proposed Separate School
Act, as compared, printed, folded and sent in parcels of one hundred each
to Mr. Spink, (Parliamentary Distribution Officer,) by express, without a
moment's delay. Send them daily, as printed.
QUEBEC, 13th of April, 1863. E. RYERSON.
15. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins :—
The Members of the Government, and of all parties, have thanked me
most heartily for the analysis and comparative view of the Separate School
Law (of 1855) and Bill (of 1863).* Nothing that I have done, or writtenr
since the de Charbonnel controversy seems to have been so popular. Mr.
Skead, of Ottawa, (successor of the Hon. Mr. Vankoughnet,) wished me to-
get a thousand copies for him, to send among his constituents, and other
Members expressed a desire to have large numbers for the same
purpose. . . .
The Attorney-General called upon me yesterday and said many agree-
able things. . . . It is very pleasant to be on such good terms with
the leading men of both parties, without being suspected of either, and it
being perfectly understood by both that I take no part in their party
intrigues, nor ever betray them.
QUEBEC, 13th of April, 1863. E. RYERSON.
* This ' ' Analysis and Comparison " is appended to Dr. Ryerson's annual
report for 1862, pages 160-170.
PASSAGE OF THI; SCOTT SEP, s. BILL, OF 1863. !."f<
16. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec :—
Your telegram was received, and 1 put the matter in hand at once. 1
sent a copy of the "Comparison" to Tin- Lt-ml, / smue days a-., with H
private note, requesting the Mditnr to give it prominence, so as to allay the
agitation on the subject. He did so, and inserted the whole do. ument,
with an Editorial Note. He again refers to the matter to-day,
gives no inkling of the contents of the same paper which I sent to it. ... I
see that The Quebec Mercury is quite jubilant over this 4t Comparison of
Separate School Acts of 1855 and 1K6.V . . .
TORONTO, 14th of April, 1863. J. QiOBOl H-.IM.INS.
17. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins: —
I telegraphed you a day or two ago, to get five thousand of my <
parison of the Separate School Bills of 1855 and 180.". printed and sent
down, for the use of the Members. The Attorney-General wishes the
expense to be charged to the Department, and has written me a note to
that effect, as it is the diffusion of information on this Separate School Law
and School System, without reference to party. Mr. G. Benjamin, M.P.,
told me that he was getting another edition printed here also.
QUEBEC, 15th of April, 1863. E. RYERSON.
18. Letter from Dr. Ryerson, Quebec, to J. George Hodgins : —
The Separate School Bill passed the Committee of the Whole in the
Legislative Council yesterday. The amendments are to be moved at the
third reading. There was a majority of two or three from Upper Canada
against the second reading ; but there is likely to be a majority from
Upper Canada in favour of the third reading to-day. I do not think that
any amendments will be admitted.
QUEBEC, 17th of April, 1863. E. RVKI;
19. Letter from. J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec :—
I see by the news telegram from Quebec that the Separate School Bill ha.-
passed the Legislative Council without any amendment ! This, I am sorry
for ; as it needed at the very least, the amendments which I suggested.
Of course, for the defects in the Bill, the Department will have to bear all
the blame. ... I hope that, as a set-off to the Separate School Bill,
you will be able to get the proposed financial additions made to the Gram
mar School Bill. They will aid the Department greatly by its Library
Scheme, to spread truth and knowledge in Upper Canada, as well as pro-
mote the public good.
TORONTO, 18th of April, 1863. J. GEOR<;F HOIHJIN-
20. Letter from J. George Hodgins to Dr. Ryerson, Quebec : -
The Rev. Mr. Ryan, Roman Catholic Priest at Oakville, called this
evening to express his personal gratitude to you for your exertions in
160 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
getting the Separate School Bill passed. He says that this feeling is
general among Roman Catholics, for the signal service which you have
rendered them, after all the battles of "lang syne." Mr. Ryan was
formerly, and for six years, Roman Catholic Priest at Brantford ; and he
says that he will make it his business to wait upon your Brother William
to thank him for his generous speech in the House, and for his manly vote.
. . . Mr. Ryan is a warm-hearted Irishman, and feels very grateful to
you. Thus, the lights and shades of the picture are presented to us. I
am sorry to say that the shades prevail ; but I trust that they will not
overshadow us.
TORONTO, 23rd of April, 1863. J. GEORGE HODQINS.
21. Letter of the Rev. M. Stafford to Dr. Ryerson : —
Before leaving Toronto, I wish to return you my most sincere thanks
for the kind courtesy with which you gave me so much of your time and
attention this morning. I will be happy, on my return to Kingston, to be
able to tell my Bishop, and the old Vicar-General, (Macdonell,) of your
great kindness to me.
TORONTO, 20th of January, 1863. M. STAFFORD, Pt.
CHAPTEE XXVI
DR. RYERSON'S NARRATIVE OF THE PASSING OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.
IN 1865, in consequence of a renewed agitation for further
legislation in regard to Roman Catholic Separate Schools, Dr.
Ryerson issued a pamphlet on the subject, entitled : " Remarks
on the New Separate School Agitation. By the Chief Superin-
tendent of Education for Upper Canada." In it, he mentions
the result of his Conference with Roman Catholic Representa-
tives of Upper and Lower Canada, and then the final passage
of the Scott Bill of 1863 :—
Mr Scott, a Roman Catholic lawyer, and, at the time, Member of the
Legislative Assembly for the City of Ottawa, introduced a Separate School
Bill during three successive sessions of 1860, 1861, and 1862, but failed to
get it passed. After further consultation with the Members and Authori-
ties of his Church, he introduced his Bill again, (with sundry alterations
and additions,) in the Session of 1863. I believe he claimed the tacit
assent of the Government for his introduction of this Bill.
NAKKATIVK OK TDK PASSIM; OK TIII. A< T 01 \^>'>>. l«il
In the discussion on its second reading and a Spec-id
Committee, Mr. Scott made a personal at t ark upon me.* I n nn-n,
as I still do, Lord MACAT LAN'S ad\ic«-. ^iven ;is early as .January, 1-
the Eilinlmnjlt 7iYnY/r, in respect to replying to attark 1 1. -ays : —
" No misrepresentations shoiil.l !.»• sull'i-ivd t,, pa— mm-tuted. \Vh.-n •
letter makes its appearance in tin- corner -.t a pn,\ inri.d ii.-uspap.-r. it will n>,'
do to say, ' What stuff !' We must n-memlie.r t liat -in-h constantly
reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly In- l.dit-s rd. "
I therefore answered Mr. Scott's attacks, in a Letter addressed to him,
through the public press. In that Letter, I also took occasion to point out
the anomalies in his School Bill, and to show that, under the pret>
affording relief to Roman Catholics, it contained provisions which invaded
the private rights of citizens, the legal rights of Common School Corpora
tions, and of County and Township Municipalities. I also objected, as I
had done in private Letters to Members of the Government, against any
unofficial Member of the Legislature being allowed to introduce a Bill
affecting our Public School System, which had been established by the
Government, and which should be protected by it, and only legislated
upon by bills introduced by, and on the responsibility of, the Government
itself.
At this juncture, a change of administration took place : the Hon. -L
Sandfield Macdonald formed a new administration, and an adjournment of
the Legislature, for several weeks, was agreed upon. On the re-assembling
of Parliament, Mr. Scott's Special Committee reported his Bill with certain
amendments, which were printed ; but very general and strong opposition
in Upper Canada was entertained, and was manifesting itself more and
more to the Bill.
At this time I had proceeded, officially, to Quebec ; and when asked my
opinion, I objected scarcely less strongly to the amended Bill, than I had
done to the Bill as first introduced. The opposition to it among Upper
Canada Members was very strong ; and the Government did not appear to
countenance it. At length Mr. Scott called upon me, to explain some
personal matters, and to know my specific objections to his Bill. 1
replied, that I objected to the very principle of a private Member of
Parliament doing what the Government alone should do, namely, brin^iim
in measures to amend, (when deemed necessary,) a System of Public
Instruction for the country ; but Mr. Scott wished to know what objections
I had to the Bill itself. I then showed, and, at his request, lent him a
copy of the amended Bill, with my erasure of objectionable clauses, and
notes on others requiring modifications to assimilate them to the Common
School law.
* In regard to a former gratuitous attack, in 1862, founded on Mr. R. W.
Scott's own mistake, see page 132, ante.
162 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Then follows in this narrative, an account of the stipulation
which Dr. Ryerson made with Mr. Scott that his assent to the
Bill in any form depended on its acceptance " by the Authori-
ties of his Church as a final settlement of the question." This
matter will be treated in a separate chapter, under the heading
of: "Was the Separate School Act of 1863 a Finality?"
In the same publication, Dr. Ryerson instituted a comparison
between the provisions of the Separate School Act of 1863 and
those in force in regard to the Public Schools. He says : —
I am prepared to show, before any Committee, or tribunal, that the
Separate School Act of 1863 contains all the provisions in behalf of
Trustees and supporters of Separate Schools, that the Common School Act
does in behalf of the Trustees and supporters of Common Schools, (and
several additional ones, as shown above,) with two exceptions : —
1. The supporters of Common Schools have to provide by assessment a
sum equal to the Legislative School Grant, in order to be entitled to it.
The law formerly required the same condition on the part of the supporters
of Separate Schools, in order to their sharing in the Legislative School
Grant ; but they complained of it as a grievance, and the Separate School
Acts of both 1855 and 1863 relieved them of that condition.
2. The Trustees of Common Schools, as also Trustees of Separate
Schools, can levy and collect rates of their supporters for all school
purposes ; but, in addition, the former can call upon the Municipal
Councils to levy rates on their supporters for them, while the latter cannot
require the Municipal Council to levy and collect rates of their supporters,
though they could at all times levy and collect such rates themselves.
Dr. Ryerson thus points out the reason why the law is
restrictive in this matter : —
The reason of this difference is, first, the School Law of Lower Canada
took away in 1857, from Municipal Councils there, the power of levying
and collecting rates in behalf of Dissentient, or Protestant, Schools ; and,
of course, the Upper Canada School Act of 1863 contained a corresponding
provision in respect to Separate Schools. This, however, is of trifling
importance on either side, as Trustees can quite as well, through their own
Collector, collect their School Rates, as to collect them by the agency of
the Municipal Council. But the primary reason is, that on the principle
of the declared "separation of Church and State," the Municipalities, any
more than the Legislature, cannot impose and collect taxes for Church
Schools, any more than they can impose and collect taxes for Church
Buildings, or Church Ministers, of any kind.
It is, then, impossible to extend the provisions of the Separate School
NARRATIVE OF THE PASSIXU OF 1111: A« i 01 L863,
law, without including one or both of two things ; ami both of these things
were included in the first drafts, or copies, of the Separate School 1',,
1855 and 1863. The first of these provisions prohibitrd u it her Munici-
palities, or Trustees of Common Schools, from levying and collecting any
rate for either the building of a School House, or paying a Teacher, with-
out levying and collecting rates for the supporters of a Separate School, in
proportion to their population, as compared with that of the rest of the
School Section, or Municipality, — thus actually proposing to make
Municipalities and Protestant School Trustees tax-gatherers for K
Catholic Schools, — a practical illustration of the doctrine, that '' th-
shall be subject to the Church," as well as that Protestants should not
only support the Public Schools, but collect rates to support the Roman
Catholic Schools, or have no schools themselves ! The second provision is,
that the Roman Catholics, as a body, shall be denned as supporters of
Separate Schools, and thus by law be excluded from the Common Schools.
This was in the first project of the Bills referred to, — thus depriving every
Roman Catholic of the right or liberty of choice, as to whether he would
support a Common, or Separate, School ; and every Roman Catholic
parent of the right or liberty of choice as to whether he would send his
children to the Common or Separate School.
A recent Encyclical Letter from Rome condemns this individual right of
judgment or choice ; . yet is it the very soul of our civil and
religious liberties, and as dear to the hearts of Roman Catholics as to the
hearts of Protestants, though the former may not be able, equally with the
latter, to maintain by speech, writing and action, this birthright of our
common humanity.
Now, I assume that our Parliament never will legislate away the rights
of citizens and of men, by adopting either of these provisions; without
doing which it cannot extend, as required, the provisions of the Separate
School Law.
Separate Schools cannot be claimed upon any ground of right, as I have
often shown in discussing the subject in former years. All that any citizen
can claim as a right on this subject is equal and impartial protection with
any other citizen. All that can be claimed, or granted, beyond this, must
be upon the ground of compact, or of expediency, or indulgence. . . .
This feature of the subject, — as it affects the future of tin-
youths educated in Schools isolated from those of the General
System of the Province, — will be discussed in the conclud ill--
Chapter of this Volume. In that Chapter, the views of the
Roman Catholic Archbishop Ireland, on the subject of " State
Schools," will be given.
164 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEE XXVII.
INCIDENTS OF THE PASSING OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL
ACT OF 1863.
MR. R. W. SCOTT introduced his Roman Catholic Separate
School Bill, for the fourth time, on the 27th of February, 1863.
On the 5th of March, a motion was made for the second read-
ing of the Bill.
It was then moved in amendment, by Mr. Leonidas Burwell,
seconded by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, that the Bill be read
that day six months. '
For this motion the Upper Canada vote was 21 yeas, and 34
nays. The total vote was, however, 22 yeas, and 80 nays.
The Bill was then referred to a Special Committee, consisting
of Messieurs R. W. Scott, John S. Macdonald, John A. Mac-
donald, William Clarke, and H. W. McCann.*
When the Bill, as amended, came back from this Committee,
it was moved by Mr. Donald A. Macdonald, (afterwards Lieu-
tenant-Governor of Ontario.) seconded by Mr. James Lyons
Biggar, that the following words be added to the Second
Section : —
Provided always, that no such Separate School shall be established in
any Township, unless the Roman Catholic residents therein constitute the
minority of the inhabitants of such School Section.
The vote on this motion by the Upper Canada Members, was
33 yeas, (and 3 Lower Canada votes,) 36 ; the nays, 24, (and 54
Lower Canada votes) ; total, 36 yeas, and 78 nays.
* On page 17, I have called attention to the fact that the first Government
Common School Bill of 1841, which provided for the establishment of Separate
Schools, was referred to a Special Committee, in violation of the principles
of "responsible Government." This Bill, however, of 1863, was a private one,
and in private hands, until it was assumed by the Government, after it had
received Dr. Ryerson's approval.
INCIDENTS OF THE PASSING OF THE ACT OF 1863. 165
It was then moved by the Hon. John Hillyanl Cameron
seconded by Mr. W. Anderson : —
That the word : "Authorities" be left out of the twentieth Clause, and
that the following be inserted : Provided always, that the amount «.f th.-
Legialative Grant to any Separate School, in any one year, shall not exceed
the aggregate amount contributed by rates, fees, or otherwise, by the
supporters of such Separate School in said year.
The vote of the Upper Canada Members on this motion was,
34 yeas, (and 2 Lower Canada yeas), 36 ; the nays wer» 1 •';
(and 52 Lower Canada nays). Total : 36 yeas ; and 65 nays.
On the motion for the third reading of the Bill, the Upper Canada yeas
were : Messieurs Anderson, Bell, (Russell,) Benjamin, Buchanan, Carlinj.
Clarke, Crawford, Foley, John A. Macrlonald, John S. Macdonald,
McCann, McDougall, McLachlan, Patrick, Ryerson, Rykert, Scott. -
wood, Simpson, Walsh, and Wilson : 21. Lower Canada yeas, 55. The
Upper Canada nays were : Messieurs Ault, Biggar, Brown, Burwell, J. H.
Cameron, Cockburn, Cowan, Daly, Dickson, Ferguson, Harcourt, Haultain,
Hooper, Jackson, Jones, Mackenzie, McKellar, Morris, Morrison, Mowat,
Munro, Notman, Powell, J. S. Ross, Rymal, Scatchard, Scoble, Smith,
Stirton, White and Wright : 31. There were no Lower Canada nays.
Thus, 21 Upper Canada Members voted for the Roman
Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, and 31 against it; ma-
jority of Upper Canada votes against the Act, 10. The Lower
Canada yeas made the vote to stand thus : Yeas, 76 ; Nays, 31.
In the Legislative Council, on the motion that the Bill do now pass, it
was moved by the Hon. David Christie, seconded by the Hon. J. C. Aikens,
That the Bill be amended as follows : —
In Section 30, leave out the words : And shall be entitled also to a share
in all other public grants, investments, and allotments, for Common School
purposes, now made, or hereafter to be made, by the Province, or the
Municipal authorities.
At the end of Section 30, add the words : Provided, that a School shall
have been kept by a qualified Teacher, for at least six months during the
year. Contents, 12 ; non-contents, 44.
It was moved by the Hon. G. W. Allan, seconded by the Hon. James
Gordon : —
Provided always, that no such Separate School shall be entitled to any
such grant, investments, or allotments, except under such circumstances,
and subject to the same restriction as such grants, investments, or allot-
ments, are made to Common Schools in Upper Canada. Contents, 13 ;
non-contents, 43.
166 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
On a motion that the Bill do now pass, the vote stood thus : Contents,
44 ; non-contents, 13.
The names of the Upper Canada Members who voted yea, were the
Hon. Messieurs A. J. Ferguson- Blair, Malcolm Cameron, George Crawford,
William H. Dickson, George J. Goodhue, James Gordon, John Hamilton,
E. Leonard, Donald Macdonald, W. McCrea, Roderick Matheson, Samuel
Mills, Ebenezer Perry, Robert Read, John Ross and James Shaw, 16, and
28 Lower Canada yeas) ; total, 44. Those who voted nay, were the Hon.
James C. Aikens, George Alexander, George W. Allan, Thomas Bennett,
Oliver Blake, George S. Boulton, Andrew Jeffrey, William McMaster,
John McMurrich, John Simpson, James Skead and Harmanus Smith, 13.
There were no Lower Canada nays.
The Upper Canada yeas were 16 ; the nays, 13.
CHAPTEE XXVIII.
SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863— MR. SCOTT'S STATEMENT.
IN the Senate, on the 4th of April, 1894, Mr. R W. Scott made
the following statement, in regard to the passing of his Upper
Canada Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863 : —
In the British North America Act there is an appeal to the [Dominion]
Privy Council from any Act affecting the rights of the Catholic and
Protestant minorities. ... In the Manitoba Act . . . the appeal
shall be to the Governor-General-in-Council from any Act, or decision of
the Legislature of the Province. . . . These words are peculiar to the
Manitoba Act alone,* proving most conclusively that there was a jealous
resolve on the part of the framers of the Act at the time, that there should
be a direct appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council from any hostile
decisions, — that- they were not to be forced into the Courts, — that the
remedy was to be short and quick, t
* This is not so. The words relating to ' ' appeal " is the same in both Acts.
t The subject of an appeal "from any Act, or decision, of the Legislature " of
this Province was brought up in the Ontario House of Assembly on the 16th of
March, 1895, by Dr. George Sterling Ryerson, M.P.P., nephew of the Reverend
Doctor Ryerson. The Globe, newspaper thus reports the circumstances : —
In the House of Assembly, the question was asked by Dr. G. S. Ryerson as
to the application of the recent decision of the Imnerial Privy Council to the
Separate School Laws of Ontario. The Premier replied that that decision did
apply to this Province.
MR. RYERSON asked whether, under the recent decision of the Judicial
-Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, the amendments to, and changes in,
the Separate Schools Act in Ontario passed since Confederation can be repealed
MR. R. W. SCOTT'S STATKMI I»i7
These words are very peculiar. I low did they occur? I think 1 i
something of the history of them, inasmuch as tin- original •
introduced in an Act that I drafted in the year 1862, «>r l.s»;:;. I hold in
my hand the original Act of ISO;;. . . . The conference! I had in
drawing up the Separate School' Act in Old Canada in I nil. ]SI;L' u.d 1863.
were chiefly with Dr. Kyerson. There was not ()ll ;iMy occasion any
clerical interference. . . . The conferences were ht-ld with Dr.
Ryerson in the Library, and it is due to his memory to say, that I al way-
found him ready to meet the wishes of the minority ;— that he exh
no prejudice or bigotry. . . . There was only one occi>i.,n when a
clerical gentleman was present, the Rev. Mr. Macdonell of Kingston,
Vicar-General,— and he was the only clerical gentleman who was \,\
on any occasion at the framing of these clauses.* I had circulars sent out
to the [Roman Catholic Separate School] Trustees all over Ontario, asking
for suggestions and advice, with a view to making the Law more workable.
Dr. Ryerson offered no impediment ; but there was a strong f«
prevailing with [Roman] Catholics that he was hostile to the Act. People
believed that he was always decidedly against Separate Schools. I am not
aware that, after this [Roman Catholic Separate School] Act [of 1803] was
passed, there was a single appeal under it. ... I drew up the clause
f which is now the Twenty-Seventh Section of the Roman Catholic School
Act of 1803+]. . . . There is where the idea was taken for an appeal,
as provided in the British North America Act. It was only to be found in
this particular Act ; and it was simply based upon that idea that the Chief
Superintendent, (Dr Ryerson,) was not friendly to the Separate School
System, which was a mistake, because he was sincerely anxious to do what
was really fair to make the Law workable. That is where the appeal comes
by this Legislature. And whether, in the event of the repeal of any such
amendments, an appeal will lie to the Governor-General-in-Council, under the
Ninety-Third, or other, Section of the British North America Act ':
Sm OLIVER MOWAT — Under the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the
Imperial Privy Council, the enactments of the Legislature of Ontario in regard
Imperial
to what appears from their Judgment as to whether, in the event of such repeal,
an appeal would lie to the Governor-General-in-Council, under the Ninety -
Third, or other, Section of the British North America Act.
* There is a singular discrepancy here. The two Vicars-General were
present at both of the conferences held with Dr. Ryerson in 1862 and 1863.
•See pages 139, 154 and 162.
t Dr. Ryerson's note appended to this .Section of the Separate School Act of
1863, in his "Roman Catholic Separate Schools Act of 18,10 and 1863 Com-
pared," is as follows: "This is ... a new legal provision. The latter
part of this Section is needless, and is not contained in the (I rain mar, or
€ommon Schools, Act, as all decisions of the Chief Superintendent max 1.,-
appealed from to the Governor-in-Council. His decisions have Keen api
from on several instances, but have, in every instance, been sustained."—
tCkief Superintendent?* Anntmi li<-p<>rtfar 1862, page 17<>.}
168 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
in. It does not exist anywhere else. I intended the appeal, [in the Act
of 1863,] to be prompt and direct. It was thought that the Governor-in-
Council would be the fairest tribunal, and they would dispose of it at
once. ... In our Public Schools in Ontario, as they were originally
established, Religion was intended to be taught. . . . D. Ryerson was
sent abroad to examine the [School] Systems in England, Germany and
the United States. . . . He was a man of very large observation, and
one whom I always found free from prejudices, and possessed of a fair and
just mind. He says : — " In France religion formed no part of the
elementary education for many years, and, in some parts of the United
States, the example of France has been followed." ... I should like
to point out some evidences that Dr. Ryerson's prophecies have been, to a
considerable extent, fulfilled in the Eastern States, where this system of
separating God from the Schools was first introduced. . . . (Hansard
Senate Debates, 4th of April, 1894.}
CHAPTEK XXIX.
SIR JOHN MACDONALD AND HON. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE
ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.
MR. JOSEPH POPE, in hisj " Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald,"
thus refers to the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863 :
Mr. Macdonald's brief respite from the cares of office had done wonders
for him ; and he took his seat at the opening of the Session of Parliament
on the 12th of February, 1863, ready for the fray. . . .
His experience told him that the (J. S.) Macdonald-Sicotte Government,
pledged to the impossible scheme of the " double majority," could not
hope to weather the Session, in the face of the opposition rising against
them, — not only among the Conservatives, but also in the ranks of the
Reform party. A new ground of dissatisfaction against them was speedily
afforded by the Separate School measure of Mr. R. W. Scott, which the
Ministry supported. This action of Messieurs Foley, McDougall and
Wilson was reprobated by The Globe newspaper, which unsparingly
denounced them for their political recreancy in thus yielding up another
principle of Liberalism.
' ' Representation by population and no Sectarian Schools " had long
been watchwords of the Reform party ; yet here was a so-called Liberal
Ministry "basely sacrificing their principles to the exigencies of party.
That Mr. John A. Macdonald should aid in riveting the fetters of Rome
SIR .Jmi\ MACDONALD AM. l!«>v A. MACKENZIE
upon a free people was to be exp^-rd : " -such a course was in C
with his whole record ; but that such men as Fdey, Howland, \\
. . . McDougall . . . should, for the take of office, -hem
selves with the foes of religious liberty, was enough t«.
of humanity. Mr. Macdonald warmly supported th«- Sootl Bill, whii-h had
been before the House during his term of utlice, when it was bitterly
opposed by those very Members now forming the I'pper Canadi
of Sandfield Macdonald's Cabinet. The spectacle presented by these men.
now speaking and voting in favour of the Bill, was, in the jii«l'_'ii
Macdonald, "a splendid vindication" of the policy of the lat
ment, and of the principle which he had long advocated with resp
the School System of Upper Canada.
The appeal of The Globe . . . was not made in vain, for, while M
Scott's Bill passed, it was carried by the votes of Lower Canada, and of
Mr. John A. Macdonald and his personal friends. A large number of the
Upper Canadian supporters of the Government, . greatly to the wrath «-t
Mr. J. S. Macdonald, voted against it, thereby placing the Ministry in a
minority of ten votes, as regarded Upper Canada.
Having formally announced their resolve to abide by the "double.
majority " principle, the Ministry, by this vote, were placed in an embar-
rassing position. The question was put direct to the Premier, whether he
proposed, in the face of a declared opposition of the majority of its repre-
sentatives, to force the Separate School Act upon Upper Canada. To this
pertinent question, Mr. Sandfield Macdonald made an evasive reply, but
the "double-majority " principle was then heard of for the last time. . . .
In an argumentative and temperate speech, Mr. John A. Macdonald
proceeded to explain the reasons upon which his motion of non-confidence
was based. . . . He asked : Did the Prime Minister, (J. S. Mac-
donald,) in his efforts to maintain himself in office, reflect that, in forcing
the Separate School measure upon Upper Canada, against the will of a
majority of its Representatives, he was doing violence to the convictions
of his whole political life ? (Vol. I., pages 244-246.)
. . . There remains but one question of practical politics in relation
to which I propose to outline Sir John Macdonald's attitude. I refer to
those issues of race and religion, which periodically threaten the peace of
Canada.
In 1855, he introduced, and carried, a Bill in the interest of the Separate
Schools of Upper Canada, against the bitter opposition of George Brown.
In 1863, he supported, by speech and vote, Mr. R. W. (now Senator)
Scott's Act, establishing a System of Separate Schooh.
In 1867, he perpetuated this right to the Roman Catholics of Ontario.
. . . (Vol. II., page 248.)
12
170 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
THE HON. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE AND THE SCOTT ROMAN
CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.
The following is taken from "The Life of the Hon. Alexander
Mackenzie, by Mr. William Buckingham and the Hon. George
W. Ross " :—
The great measure of 1863 was Mr. R. W. Scott's Bill respecting
Separate Schools in Upper Canada. Mr. Scott had introduced the Bill
several times, and had advanced it so far in the previous Session as to
reach a division on its second reading.
The principle of Separate Schools was first introduced into Canada
under an Act of 1841, and was further enlarged by the Act of 1855. Mr.
Scott proposed still further to extend the privileges of Roman Catholics
with regard to Separate Schools.
The main features of Mr. Scott's Bill were : — Extending the facilities
for establishing Separate Schools in rural districts ; permitting Roman
Catholics to give notice of their intention to become Separate School
supporters once for all, instead of annually, as under the former Act ;
relieving Trustees from certifying the average attendance of pupils under
oath ; providing for the inspection of Separate Schools, and for their
general administration [?] through the Council of Public Instruction.
In the session of 1862, the Bill passed its second reading ; but, owing
to the defeat of the Government, it stood over. The Bill passed very
quickly through all its stages, and was approved by the House on the 13th
€>f March ; the yeas being 74, and the nays 30. When the second reading
of the Bill was under consideration, Mr. Burwell moved, seconded by Mr.
Mackenzie, what is commonly known as " the six months' hoist."
On that motion Mr. Mackenzie gave his views on the question of
religious instruction. He opposed the Bill on three grounds : Firstly, he
feared it would be injurious to the Common School System of the Province.
Secondly, he feared it would lead to a demand for Separate Schools from
other denominations. Thirdly, the establishment of Separate Schools in
certain localities would divide the resources of the people, already very
limited, and thus lower the standard of education. " He had no desire,"
he said, "to make this a religious question, as he was not disposed to vote
against any Bill, which even Roman Catholics themselves deemed necessary
to secure perfect freedom in the exercise of their religious faith ; but, as
0ur School System was undenominational, the Bill under consideration
was therefore unnecessary. "
The vote on this Bill was the first substantial decision of the House to
which the principle of "double majority" would apply, as 31 members
from Upper Canada voted against it, while its supporters from Upper
Canada numbered only 21.
SIR JOHN MACDONALD AM. H<»\. A. MACKENZIE, 171
Mr. John A. Macdonald rallied the 1'ppur (.'.madian Members of
Government— MacDougall, Foley, Wilson and Sandtii-ld Macdonnld— on
their change of front on the question of Separate Sc-h. .•,!>, .,u.,tiji^ fn-m
the Journals of the House how, in previous yt-.u-.s. tln-y h.-ul voted B
against the principle of Separate Schools, or for the repeal of the existing
Separate School Act; while now, they were practically ri'sponsilik-
Bill extending the scope of Separate Schools. Tin- 1'ivmii-r wa-
if the measure was to be forced on Upper Canada in the face of the
opposition of a majority of its Representatives? To this Mr. Sandtield
Macdonald made no reply.
The agitation which arose in Upper Canada, on account of the Separate
School policy of the then Government, greatly weakened them in public
estimation.
THE HON. GEORGE BROWN AND SEPARATE SCHOOLS.
For one who devoted so large a portion of his time and
attention to the question of Denominational Education, it is
surprising how little is said on the subject by his Friend and
Biographer, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. Even what is
said is both meagre in detail, and somewhat apologetic in spirit
and tone. In referring to Mr. Brown's part in the Separate
School controversy, Mr. Mackenzie, (in Chapter V. of his " Life
and Speeches of the Hon. George Brown/') says : —
Like all religious, or semi-religious, controversies, this one developed
hard words, and harder feelings. . . . Apart from the special contm
versy, . . . (in England, on the "Papal aggression,") there was much
agitation in Canada West over the demands for Separate Schools for
Roman Catholics. . . . It is not to be denied that deep offeiu
taken at many articles in The Globe, and other papers, by a large majority
of the Roman Catholics who did not come into personal contact with Mr.
Brown personally, and appreciate his kindly and honest nature. Looking
back, it is impossible to deny that many harsh words were written, which
had better not have been written. . . .
When Mr. Brown formed his Cabinet in 1858, it was upon an agree-
ment that the Separate School question would be dealt with, after a full
inquiry should be made into the School Systems in other Countries, —
Catholic and Protestant ;— and there is no reason to doubt, that had his
Ministry been permitted to go on, means would have been found to har-
monize the various views held by himself and his political A
The Amended Separate School Act of 1805, and the immediately suc-
ceeding arrangement effected in the Confederation Act, removed this ques-
tion from the field of controversy ; but, even before then, nearly all
irritation had ceased in Ontario. . . . — (Pa'J1
172 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CHAPTEE XXX.
WAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF
1863 A FINALITY?*
ONE of the most unpleasant and harassing features of the
Roman Catholic, Separate School Question was the unsettled
opinions and uncertain moods of its chief supporters.
The supposed settlement of the question in 1850, by the
adoption of the then well-known " Nineteenth Section of the
General School Act " of that year, was hailed by those then
interested as embodying a very practical way of meeting the
individual conscientious convictions of Members of the Eoman
Catholic Church. It was so regarded by them until after the
Meeting of the Roman Catholic General Council at Baltimore
in 1851. By the promoters of that Council, or by his Church,
as he expressed it, Bishop de Charbonnel was, as he twice
intimated, practically called to account ; first, in his Letter to
Dr. Ryerson, of the 1st of May, 1852, he stated that : —
All my previous intercourse with you, and the Council of Public Instruc-
tion, has been polite and Christian, and sometimes tolerant to an extent
that I have been required to justify ; —
And then, afterwards, when he made his meaning on this
point more clear, in his Letter of the 26th of the same month,,
to the Hon. S. B. Harrison, Chairman of the Council of Public
Instruction, he said : —
All my precedents with you, the Reverend Doctor, and the Council of
Public Instruction, have been polite and Christian, and sometimes of a
tolerance for which my Church has made me responsible.
* i.e. Finality as to assumed " rights," and as to such farther demands for
Separate Schools, as would affect the integrity and stability of our Public
School System ; but not, of course, finality in regard to details of adminis-
tration, or as to which would be the better way to do things which the law
allowed, or authorized, or prescribed ; — no doubt, just such a finality as Mr.
Scott meant, in his Letter to Dr. Ryerson of the 26th of April, 1862, when he
said : "I want the Bill to be minalif."
WAS TNI-: SKI-. SUIOOL A< T OF ls»;:J A FINALITY
The result of the controversy which i'«>ll<>\\v«l •
nients of Bishop de Charbonnel, in IN~)_!. \\a- ih«- paarag
the much discussed Tacliu Roman ( 'atholir Separal -1 Act
in 1855. That the passa^v of that Act \\M
Hisliop de Charbonnel at the tiim-, is <-\ i.lrnt from th<- t'olloxvin-
extract of a Letter from Sir John Macdonald to I >r i
dated the 8th of June, 1855, in which he said : -
Our Separate School Bill, which is, as you know, quite harmless,
passed with the approbation of our Friend, Bishop de Churl>omu-l, who,
before leaving here, formally thanked the Administration for "doing justice
to his Church." He has, however, got a new light since his return to
Toronto, and now says that the Bill won't do.
It was such a "new light" as this, which so invariably l>n>k.
in upon the promoters of Roman Catholic Separate Schools,
after the passage of each successive Separate School Act, which
caused so much trouble ; and which kept the Province in such
a state of educational turmoil and unrest, that it made it all
the more difficult for Dr. Ryerson to deal with each particular
case, or with the many imaginary grievances which were, as
often as real ones, the cause of the continued agitation.
It was this state of vacillation and uncertainty, on the part
of the promoters of Separate Schools, which so continually
embarrassed Dr. Ryerson in his administration of the Separate
School Law, as it stood, — even giving it, as he did, the m-»>t
liberal interpretation possible, or, as Mr. R. W. Scott, in }\i^
Senate speech of 1894, put it, when he said that—
Dr. Ryerson "was sincerely anxious to do what was really fair to i:
the Law workable."
In accounting to the Governor-General, (in his Confidential
Report of 1868,) for the continual agitation of the Roman
Catholic Separate School Question, Dr. Ryerson said :—
It is worthy of remark that, on the passing of each of the three
(1850, 1853, and 1855,) amending the Law, in regard to Separate Schools,
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto and the Upper Canada Roman
Catholic newspaper organs expressed their entire satisfaction with them,
(at the time,) but afterwards complained of them, when it was found that
they did not accomplish the object [desired]. . . .
174 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
COMPACT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH IN 1862 AND 1863.
Before Dr. Ryerson went down to Quebec, late in May, 1862,
he received a private Letter from the Hon. John A. Macdonald,
dated the 3rd of that month, in regard to the Roman Catholic
Separate School Bill which Mr. R. W. Scott sought to get passed
by the Legislature. In that Letter, Mr. Macdonald said : —
. . . Scott . . . introduced the present Bill without showing
it to me. . . . He has been looked up to as the exponent of Roman
Catholic views on the subject ; and the Bill, when "amended to suit me,"
will be carried through the House by him, and must be accepted by the
Roman Catholics as their Bill.
After Dr. Ryerson reached Quebec late in May, he wrote me
a private Letter, dated the 2nd of June, 1862, in which he said :
Yesterday morning the (Rev. Angus Macdonell) Vicar-General of
Kingston, — acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto
and Kingston, — and the Rev. Mr. Cazeau, Secretary of the Archbishop of
Quebec, as Representatives of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church, accepted the Separate School Bill, as proposed to be amended by
me, and agreed to by Mr. R. W. Scott ; and afterwards us four waited
upon the new Premier, (Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald,)* and informed
him of the result of our consultation, and the desire of the Authorities of
the Roman Catholic Church that the Government would affirm and
facilitate Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill.
In his Letter to The Leader newspaper of the 10th of July>
1862, Dr. Ryerson again referred to the conditions of his con-
currence with the Roman Catholic Separate School Bill in the
hands of Mr. Scott, and said : —
When at Quebec, ... I stated that I would resist its further
progress in the Legislature, exc*ept on two conditions : —
First. That the Bill thus modified should be accepted as a settlement of
the question by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly. That the Government should assent to Mr. Scott's proceeding
with it. To secure the former of these objects, Mr. Scott got the Vicar-
General Macdonell, (who had gone from Upper Canada to Quebec in
behalf of the authorities of the Church to watch legislation on school
matters,) and the Rev. the Secretary of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
* The Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald succeeded the Hon. John A.
Macdonald as Attorney -General and Premier, on the 24th of May, 1862.
WAS THE SEP. SCHO..I. A<T OF IM;:J A l-'i\ \\.\\\ < 17:,
Quebec, (the Head of the Roman Catholic Church in < 'anada. ) i., m,
in the Parliamentary Library, wlu-iv we diseased the provision* of the
Bill, and where they accepted it on the part of the Ant hont i.-.s of the
Roman Catholic Church, as Hnally amended in it* pivsent form
which, two copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon and are, -pied, were
made, — the one for Mr. Scott, and the other tor myself ; ;md •
concerned waited upon the Head of the Administration, ami informed
him that they accepted the Bill as thus modified, and requested the assent
of the Government to Mr. Scott's proceeding with the Bill.
Practically, the same procedure was observed by Dr. Ry
in 1863, when the Bill was finally passed, a^ th«- l'«»ll«m -im:
extract from his narrative of the circumstances, which h«<
published in 1865, will show. In that narrative, he states that
he pointed out to Mr. R. W. Scott, the promoter of the Bill of
1863, what were his objections to it. ... He then procet-
In a day or two Mr. Scott called upo:i me again, stating that, h
consulted his friends, he acceded to my objections, and would propose to
amend the Bill accordingly. I replied that I still objected to any other
party than the Government conducting a measure of that kind through the
Legislature ; but as he removed from the Bill what I considered objection-
able, I would waive my objections on his proceeding with the Bill, and
would aid him to get it passed, — on two conditions : —
First, that it should be assented to on the part of the Government, and
therefore passed on their responsibility ; and secondly, that it should be
accepted by the Authorities of his Church as a final settlement of the
question. On this latter point, I addressed Mr. Scott as nearly as i
recollect to the following e.Tect : —
" You are only a private Member of Parliament ; you are not a
tive of the Roman Catholic Church ; you may assure the House, a- well a>
myself, that this Bill is accepted as a final settlement of the Separate ->
question; so did Sir Etienue Tach£, when he introduced tin- Separate >
Bill of 1855, and even on its final passage its advocates assured the Legislature
that it would put at rest the agitation of the Separate School i|Uestion. N->\\
it is said that they had no authority from the Heads of your Church t<> make
such statements; and so it may be said in regard to any assurance \ on max
give as to this measure being accepted as a final settlement of the question 1>\
the Authorities of your Church ; and unless 1 am satisfied of that. I will do
what I can to prevent the passage of your Bill, however modified, ami \» i!
the standing upon the settlement of the question, as a-r ..... 1 to in I s
Mr. Scott called upon me again, I think, the following day. and told me
that he had seen the Archbishop of Quebec, the Head of the Roman
Catholic Church in Canada, and that the Archbishop had ;._
176 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
the Bill as I proposed ; and that, as the Archbishop was not able to go out
himself, he proposed that his Secretary, the Very Rev. Vicar-General
Gazeau, and the Very Rev. Vicar-General Macdonell, — who had been sent
by the Bishops from Upper Canada to watch the legislation on educational
matters, — should meet me on the subject.
I agreed to the meeting proposed, to be held the following day, in the
Parliamentary Library. At that meeting, Mr. Scott pointed out the
erasures, and read over the clauses amended, to each of which in
succession, the Ecclesiastical Representatives of the Roman Catholic
Hierarchy in Canada, nodded assent as explicitly as did any couple ever
nod assent to the vows contained in the Marriage Service. *
Then Mr. Scott had two copies of the Bill, as thus agreed upon, made
out and compared, — the one for himself and the other for me, and
proposed that we should all wait upon the Premier, (Hon. J. Sandfield
Macdonald,) and state to him the result. We proceeded to the Speaker's
room, where, (not I, but,) Mr. Scott, informed him of the result of our
conference, and the two venerable Ecclesiastics earnestly requested the
Attorney-General to give the support of the Government to Mr. Scott's
Bill, as a satisfactory and final settlement of the Separate School question. f
* It is possible that on this silent nodding "assent" that the two Vicars
General base their denial of assent to the settlement of this Separate School
question of 1863, as stated in their joint Letter of the llth of March, 1865. Dr.
Kyerson was naturally unsuspicious, and he must, therefore, have been too
credulous in his belief that when the Vicars-General " nodded assent " to each
clause of the Bill, as read over to them, they "merely," (as stated in their
Letters,) "accepted it as an instalment of what they believed the (Roman)
Catholics in Upper Canada were justly entitled to," . . . and consented
reluctantly to have it introduced, with Dr. Ryerson's amendment to it. ...
Dr. Ryerson was clearly of opinion that no such qualified assent to the
" compact " or " settlement " was given by the Vicars-General.
t In the " revised edition of Mr. Scott's speech in the Senate," on the 4th of
April, 1894, he said: "The conferences I had in drawing up the Separate
School Act of 1861, 1862 and 1863, were chiefly with Dr. Ryerson. There was
not, on any occasion, any clerical interference. It has been recently stated
that the Archbishop of Quebec interfered. I deny that. The conferences
were held with Dr. Rye.rson in the Library. . . . There was only one
occasion when a clerical gentleman was present, — the Rev. Mr. Macdonald (*&>),
of Kingston, Vicar-General, — and he was the only clerical gentleman present on
any occasion at the framing of the clauses." In his speech Mr. Scott makes no
mention of the two conferences with Dr. Ryerson of the two clerical gentle-
men and himself in the Library. In their Letter to the Editor of The Globe, of
the llth of March, 1865, they state that they were present at a conference in
the Library— one of them was the Vicar-General of Quebec, and Secretary to its
Archbishop. Mr. Scott, when he said that the Archbishop of Quebec did not
"interfere" in the Separate School question of Upper Canada, was probably
not aware of the Letters which were written on the subject by the Archbishop,
and by his Vicar-General, which are given on pages 66, 73 and 80. These
Letters of the Archbishop's Secretary could scarcely have been written, nor his
conference twice with Dr. Ryerson in the Parliamentary Library, on the subject
of the Upper Canada Separate School Bill, without the Archbishop's direction,
or sanction.
WAS tHte SEP. SCHOOL ACT OF IM;:J A FINALITY? 177
It was with this understanding, .-unl un.h-r
Bill was supported by the < iovcninirnt , and passed throni'li th
But even then, though I had, at tin- re<|iieM <.f th
published notes on the Bill, showing its harmony with
of Upper Canada, and recommending its adoption, and, though it wan
supported by the leaders of the then Conservative Opposition, as well ah
by the Government; yet such was the opposition in I'pprr ('an t.l.i •
further legislation on the subject, that a majority of u-n I ppei <',.
Members of the Legislative Assembly voted against it, and an
only two or three Upper Canada Members of the Legislative Council
for it.
I atftrm, therefore, that the passage of the Separate School .\>
was an Honourable Compact between all parties concerned, for th>
settlement of that question ; and that the renewed agitation of it, in less
than two years, is not only a violation of that Compact, but a warning to
the people of Upper Canada, that if they are compelled again to legislati-
on the subject, their peace, and the safety of their institutions will require
them to sweep the last vestiges of the Separate School law from their statute
book, and place all Religious Persuasions in the same relation of equality
to their Schools as exists in the New England States, and in the neighbour-
ing State of New York. . . .
THE HON. GEORGE BROWN, T. D. McGEE AND BISHOP LYX< H
ON THE SEPARATE SCHOOL SETTLEMENT OF 1863.
That two of our leading politicians and public men of th<-
day held the same opinion of this question of the " finality ,"-
as I have defined it, — of the Roman Catholic Separate School
Act of 1863, there can be no doubt. The Hon. Thomas D'Aiw
McGee, — representing the Roman Catholics, — was one, and the
Hons George Brown, — representing the opponents of Separate
Schools, — was the other. The Hon. George Brown, in his
speech on the Resolutions relating to the Confederation of the
Provinces on the 8th of February, 1865, and in reference to tli«-
Roman Catholic Separate School settlement of 1863, said :—
Now, it is known to every honourable Member of this House th d
Act was passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian contr.
I was not in Quebec at that time ; but if I had been there I would h:ive
voted against that Bill, because it extended the facilities for establishing
Separate Schools.
It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the It.. man
Catholic Authorities, and carried through Parliament, as a tinal compro-
178 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
inise of the question in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed
that a provision should be inserted in the Confederation Scheme to bind
that compact of 1863, and declare it a final settlement, so th-it we should
not be compelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our
arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our Common School System, the
proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected.
But assuredly I, for one, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as
a necessary condition of the scheme of union ; and doubly acceptable must
it be in the eyes of honourable gentlemen opposite who were the authors
of the Bill of 1863. . . .
The Hon. Mr. McGee, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill
of 1863, referring to Mr. Brown's statement that the condition
in the Confederation Scheme, affecting the Separate Schools of
Upper Canada, would be " doubly acceptable " to the authors of
that Bill, replied on the next day, as follows : —
I will merely add, in relation to an observation of my friend, (Hon.
George Brown,) last night, on the subject of Catholic Separate Schools in
Upper Canada, that 1 had accepted, for my own part, as a finality, the
amended Act of 1863. I did so, for it granted all the petitioners asked,
and I think they ought to be satisfied. I will be no party to the reopening
of the question. . . . (Parliamentary Debates on the subject of the
Confederation of the British North American Provinces, pages 95 and 144-,
Quebec, 1865.)
The Globe newspaper, having assumed that the Canadian
Freeman, a Roman Catholic newspaper, was the organ of
Bishop Lynch, in saying that the Separate School Bill of 1863
was " an insult to the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada," the
Bishop caused his Secretary to write the following Letter to
The Globe :—
His Lordship wishes it to be understood that he has no official organ. He
wishes me also to state, that as far as he knows the sentiments of his Right
Reverend brethren, the Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada, and of the Catholics
generally, they are quite satisfied with Mr. Scott's Separate School Bill. *
TORONTO, 20th of March, 1863. GEORGE NORTHGRAVES,
*0n the 2nd of March, 1865, Bishop Lynch wrote as follows to The Globe :—
When earnestly pressed to accept [the Separate School] Bill of 1863 as a
finality, I studiously avoided the term. ... I said I was content
["quite satisfied " were the words used, see above], with the Bill, as were also
my Brethren in the Episcopacy, as far as I knew their sentiments. ... I,
therefore, rejoice that I did not use the word "finality," which even, had I
used it, could certainly not be interpreted "final" under any and all circum-
stances, but final so long as the position of the two Provinces remained un-
changed.
TORONTO, 2nd of March, 1865. + JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH, Bishop of Toronto.
WAS THE SEP. SCHOOL ACT OF 18<;:; \ FIN AI.I i v i i 7n
After the publication of Dr. Ryci-
reply to that of Vicars-Genera] <';i/.-nu ami M,i.-.londlj in \\in.-i, DI-. Ryereon
quoted the Bishop's words, Bishop Lynch umtc a MOOnd
(on the 22nd of that month,) in which he said : —
In the first part [of the sentence <|imt.-d l.\ Dr. ;
the 18th of March, 1865,] I deny that I usi-d th.- word •• final
part, I defined the meaning which should aitai-h it-dt to tin- tcnn. had it been
used by me.
What the Bishop did say in the "second part" was: "I .m
linal so long as the position of the Provinces ivniained un-
changed." These were the exact words quoted by Dr. Ry< i
The Bishop's explanation does not seem to iiiak<- his original
statement any different from what it was in his Letter of 2nd
of March, 1865, or any the clearer. Dr. Ryerson. in refer
to this Letter, closed his narrative of 1865 on this subject as
follows : —
I have become accustomed to respect the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, like
the late lamented Bishop Power, as a just and honourable man ; and I
have hoped to be able in future years, as I have the last two years, to act
cordially with him in all School matters. I have not yet heard that his
Lordship, or any Roman Catholic Prelate in Upper Canada, has authorized
this new agitation ; and I shall be much surprised and disappointed to
learn that such has been the case in any instance.
DISCLAIMER OF THE VICARS-GENERAL THAT THEY WERE CONSENT-
ING PARTIES TO THE SEPARATE SCHOOL SETTLEMENT OF
Soon after the publication of Dr. Ryerson's Statement, the
two Vicars-General concerned, (to whom he had referred as
being present at the conference of 1863, (and also at that of
1862,) with Mr. Scott, wrote a Letter to The Globe newspaper,
in which they said : —
As the names of the undersigned have been very improperly made
of in a pamphlet written, it appears, by Dr. Ryerson, Chief Superintendent
of Education for Upper Canada, in connection with a Memorial from the
Catholics of Upper Canada, requesting that some amendments should be
made to the present Separate School Bill, we deem it proper, in ord
elucidate the truth, to make the following declarations : —
First. — It is not true that one of us had been deputed by the Archbi-
and that the other represented the Catholic Bishops of Upper Canada, with
a view to come to an understanding with Dr. Ryerson in reference to the
amendments to be made to the Separate School Bill. . . .
Second.— It is quite true that both of us, seeing that the Bill, as it was
180 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
introduced by Mr. Scott, Member for Ottawa City, had no chance of being
accepted by a majority of the House, owing to Dr. Ryerson's violent
opposition to some of its measures, consented, reluctantly, to have it
introduced with Dr. Ryerson's amendment to it, but upon their own
responsibility, and without consulting either Bishop, or any other person ;
and because we considered it as some improvement on the former Separate
School Law.
Third. — It is also true that we both consented to call upon Hon. John S.
Macdonald, then Prime Minister, in company with Mr. Scott and Dr.
Ryerson, and requested him to get the Government to support the Bill in
its amended state ; but it is not true, that they have ever considered the
Bill as a final settlement of the Separate School question, or that we ever
even thought of anything of the kind. We merely accepted it as an
instalment of what they believed the Catholics of Upper Canada were
justly entitled to, and, had we thought that a day would arrive when
our conduct would receive a different construction, we would not have
failed to protest against it.
ANGUS MACDONELL, V.-G.
QUEBEC, llth of March, 1865. C. F. CAZEAU, V.-G.
DR. RYERSON REITERATES HIS STATEMENTS THAT THE SEPARATE
SCHOOL ACT OF 1863 WAS A FINALITY.
On seeing this Letter in The Globe newspaper, Dr. Ryerson
wrote in reply to it as follows : —
. . . The following facts are not disputed : —
1. That I was opposed to Mr. Scott's Bill, as introduced by him on the
ground, [formerly stated, viz., that I objected to any unofficial Member of
the Legislature being allowed to introduce a Bill affecting our Public
School System,. which had been established by the Government, and which
should be protected by it, and only legislated upon by Bills introduced by,
and on the responsibility of, the Government itself].
2. That Mr. Scott removed my opposition to the Bill itself by removing
what I objected to.
3. That he took steps to remove my two-fold objection to his proceeding
with his Bill, by getting the assurance of the Authorities of his Church
that the Bill would be accepted as an end of the Separate School agitation ;
and the assent of the Government to the passing of the Bill.
These facts are not disputed. The question then arises, What object
could have been proposed by Mr. Scott's asking me to meet Vicars-General
Cazeau and Macdonell in the Parliamentary Library ? It could not have
been for me to meet them as individuals ; for it was not a fig's importance
or interest to me whether they, as individuals, accepted the Bill or not.
Nor could I have consented for a moment to meet any Lower Canada
WAS THE SEP. SCHOOL ACT oi 1863 jl Ki.vw.n v ' \^\
Priest, (however reputable, and whatever his as an iudivid-..
the subject ; for I privately and openly denied the ri*_'ht ..f any in.hx
of Lower Canada to interfere with such a question in I 'p;,.-r Canada.
Besides, I knew nothing of Mr. Caxeau, or of his relatim,
of Quebec. I had never seen him ; I only met him in the capa« .
which he was named to me by Mr. Scott, as the ArehUish
Secretary, and Representative, as Vicar-General .M.t« <l,,in-ll was mentioned
as the Representative of the Roman Catholic Bishop^ «.f I'pper Canada.
The very proposal for me to meet them in any other capacity would
have been absurd. Whether Mr. Scott defined their position an
accurately, or not, in his request to me to meet them, I have \\» m.-ans of
knowing. But 1 have no doubt of it ; and in no other than in their
official capacity could I have met them on such a subject.
The next question is, What object could there have been in tin-
at all, except to satisfy me, and, through me, others, that the Hill
be accepted by the Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church as a final
settlement of the Separate School agitation (
My objection to legislating at all on the subject was, that it would only
be the starting point and pretext of another Separate School agitation, as
there was no more assurance of the Bill being accepted by the Auth<
of the Roman Catholic Church, as a final settlement of the question than
of the (Tache) Act of 1855.
It was to furnish that very assurance that Mr. Scott desired me to meet
Messrs. Cazeau and Macdonell. That was the sole object and reason f Li-
the interview, as it was not to discuss any clause of the Bill ; nor was there
any discussion of them. And whatever terms were employed, and what-
ever understanding was come to must have been employed, and understood,
in harmony with the sole object and reason of the interview.
As to the terms of the statements made by Messrs. Cazeau and
donell, you [the Editor] have so thoroughly analyzed them, that I nee
say anything more on the subject. I will only add two remarks : —
The first is, that if Messrs. Cazeau and Macdonell had caused it to be
understood (at the time) that the passing of the Bill was not to finally
settle the question of Separate School agitation, but was, — as they [now]
state in their Letter —
Merely accepted as an instalment of what they believed the [Roman] C
lies of Upper Canada were justly entitled to —
I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that not only would I
not have been a consenting party to it, but that neither the Govern
nor five Upper Canada Members of the Legislature, would have enter-
it for a moment.
My next remark is, that not only did the Hon. T. D. McGee acci
as a final measure, and the Members of the Legislature so consul*
but the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto (Dr. Lynch) has, in his Letter
182 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
in The Globe of the 6th instant, [dated the 2nd instant,] declared that it
was so accepted, — thus furnishing a complete refutation of all statements
to the contrary, and conclusive evidence of the accuracy of what I have
stated. His Lordship says that it was accepted as —
Final, so long as the position of the two Provinces remained unchanged.
TORONTO, 18th of March, 1865. E. RYE&SON.
FURTHER TESTIMONY AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE SEPARATE
SCHOOL SETTLEMENT OF 1863.
So far as I have been enabled to ascertain, no reply was
made to this conclusive Letter of Dr. Ryerson. In the follow-
ing year, (1866,) Dr. Ryerson, in his Letter to the Provincial
Secretary, of the 4th of August, 1866, again referred to the
binding character of these conferences with the two Vicars -
General and Mr. R. W. Scott, as follows : —
1. I refused even to consult with Mr. Scott in regard to his Separate
School Bill of 1863, much less to be a party to its passing into an Act,
except on two conditions : —
First. That what we agreed upon should be accepted by the Authorities
of his Church, as a final settlement of the Separate School question in
Upper Canada.
Secondly. That it should have the sanction and responsibility of the
Government for its passing.
The manner in which the authorized Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church met Mr. Scott and me in the Parliamentary Library, at
Quebec, and in which a duplicate copy of the Bill agreed upon was made
out, — one for each party, — and in which both parties waited upon the
Head of the Ministry, and represented the Bill, as thus agreed upon, to
settle the question in Upper Canada, is well known, and was shortly after-
wards published.
Nothing can be more dishonourable and truthless, than for either party
now to deny that settlement of the question, and seek to subvert it.
TORONTO, 4th of August, 1866. E. RYERSON.
In the "Appellant's Factum," submitted to the Supreme Court
of Canada, in 1891, by Mr. John S. Ewart, Counsel for the
Appellant, he says: —
4. Some years prior to 1867, when "The British North America Act"
was passed, the Parliament of the late Province of Canada had passed a
Separate School Law for Upper Canada, which was understood to be a
final settlement of a long-standing subject of contention.
WAS THK SKI>. SCHOOL ACT OK 1863 \ KINALITV
KKriTLESS APPEAL TO Mlt. K. \V. SCOTT roll I Nl-'i >i:.MATI' »\
ON THIS SUBJE*
As it was desirable that light should I,,- thrown i,
conflicting statements of Dr. Ryersnn ami th.- Yic;ir^ < '•< neral,
in regard to the compact entered into between Mr. S<-.,u
them in regard to the Separate School ACM of 1863 I \\rot-- t->
him the following Letter on the subject : —
About a month ago, I wrote to you a Letter, asking if you could furnish
me with any information, (not already published,) regarding the passing of
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1863, — of which you were the
principal promoter. I also enclosed to you a copy of the Publisher's
Prospectus of the work on the subject which I was about to issue, so that
you might be aware of the character of the Book, for which I had asked
you for information.
Up to this time, I have neither received any acknowledgment of the
receipt of that Letter, nor any reply to it. I wrote to you a few years ago
on the same subject, and with a like result.
In the Pamphlet on Roman Catholic Separate Schools, which Dr.
Ryerson published in 1865, he said, (speaking of that Act) : —
The passage of the Separate School Act of 1863 was an honourable COD
between all parties concerned for the final settlement of the question.
Shortly after the publication of that Pamphlet, the Very Rev. Vicars-
General Cazeau, of Quebec, and Macdonell, of Kingston, — whom you had
introduced to Dr. Ryerson as authorized Representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church in this matter, — wrote a Letter to the Editor of The '
dated the llth of March, 1865, in which they repudiated the statement of
Dr. Ryerson, in regard to their action in the matter.
Dr. Ryerson replied on the 18th of that month, (March, 1865,) and
reiterated his previous statements, and referred to you in connection with
the matter. No doubt, you saw both Letters at the time, or subsequently.
Please let me know if, at that time, or afterwards, you corroborated the
statements of the Vicars-General, or those of Dr. Ryerson, or dissented
from the statements of either party 1
I have seen nothing from you on the subject, and, therefore, I should
be obliged if you would now be kind enough to give me the desired infor-
mation on the subject.
TORONTO, 20th of February, 1897. J. GEORGE HODGI.N-.
Up to 20th of March, 1897, not even the simple courtes
an acknowledgment of this, (or any of my previous 1
Mr. R. W. Scott,) has been received by me.
184 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEG.SLATION.
CHAPTEE XXXL
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT RELATING TO EDUCATION.
AMONG the Resolutions adopted by the House of Assembly, on
the 13th of March, 1865, was the following:—
43. Resolved, That the Local Legislature of each Province shall have
power to make Laws respecting . . .
0. Education ; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant, or
Catholic, minority in both Canadas may possess, as to their Denomina-
tional Schools, at the time when the Union goes into effect.
It was upon this Resolution that the following provisions
of the Imperial British North America Act : 30th and 31st
Victoria, Chapter 3, Section 93, (1867,) were founded :—
In and for each Province, the Legislature miy exclusively make laws in
relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions: —
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or
privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any class of persons
have by law in the Province at the Union.
2. All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union, by law conferred
and imposed in Upper Canada, on the Separate Schools and School
Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects, shall be, and the same
are hereby, extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant,
and Roman Catholic, subjects in Quebec.
3. Where in any Province a system of Separate, or Dissentient, Schools
exists by law at the Union, or is thereafter established by the Legislature
of the Province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor-General-in-Council
from any Act or decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any right,
or privilege, of the Protestant, or Roman Catholic, minority of the Queen's
Subjects, in relation to education.
4. In case any such Provincial Law, as, from time to time, seems to the
Governor-General-in-Council requisite for the due execution of the
provision of this Section is not made, or, in case any decision of the
Governor-General-in-Council, on any appeal under this Section is not duly
executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that behalf, then, and, in
every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require,
B. N. A. ACT RELATING TO EDUCATION.
the Parliament of Canada may make Remedial Laws for the due exr
of the provisions of this Section, and of any decision of th«
General-in-Council, under this Section.
LEGAL OPINION ON THE FOREGOING Mui> si-:<Tlu\ QF 'Jill.
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT.
The following is the joint opinion of .M
Richards, Adam Crooks and Edward Blake, on tin- l«-<oil .-tf. < t
of Provincial Legislation under the authority of tin-
Section of the British North America Act of 1867, obtaim-d in
that year by The Globe Publishing Company of Toronto : _
The effect of the 93rd Section taken by itself is to confer up..]
Provincial Legislatures exclusively the power to make laws in relati
Education, subject to certain restrictions, or provisions ; but, at the same
time, to authorize the Parliament of Canada, in certain cases, and only so
far, in those cases, as the circumstance of each case require, to pass remedial
laws on the same subject. The restrictions, or provisions, to which the
Provincial Legislatures are subject are as follows : —
1st. The first sub-section provides that no law of the Provincial Legis-
lature shall prejudicially affect any right, or privilege, with respect to
Denominational Schools which any class of persons has established l>y
law in the Province at the time of the Union.
2nd. The second sub-section provides that all the powers, privileges and
duties, which, at the time of the Union, are by law conferred and imposed
in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of Roman
Catholic subjects, shall be, and they are, by this sub -section, extended to
the Dissentient Schools of Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in the
Province of Quebec. We think the Schools referred to are those established
under the School Law of Lower Canada.
3rd. The first sub-section, it will be seen, restrains the Local Legislature
from prejudically affecting any existing right, or privilege. The second sub-
section requires the extension of, and does extend to, Dissentient Schools
in Lower Canada certain powers, privileges and duties, but there is no
obligation to introduce a system of Separate, or Denominational, Schools
into any Province where no such system now exists. If, however, the
Legislature of such Province should hereafter establish a Separate, or
Denominational, School System, then the right to the continuance of the
system is so far secured by the third sub-section, that an appeal would lie.
under that sub-section, to the Governor-in-Council, from any Ai
decision, of any Provincial authority affecting any right, or privilege, of the
Protestant, or Roman Catholic, minority in relation to education. The
right of appeal given by this sub-section applies also to Lower Canada and
13
186 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
to any Province, where a system of Separate Schools prevails at the time of
the Union. The effect of an appeal, under sub-section three, is considered
below.
The above embraces all the restrictions, or obligations, by this Section
imposed on the Local Legislatures ; and subject thereto, any law which a
Provincial Legsilature may enact on the subject of Education will have
effect, but the Parliament of Canada may, in the causes, to which the fourth
sub-section applies, but only to the extent authorized thereby, modify, or
render inoperative, the local enactment.
4. Under the 4th sub-section there are two cases, or classes of cases, on
which the Parliament of Canada may pass certain remedial laws on the
subject of Education : —
First, — Where such law is not made by the Local Legislature as to the
Governor-General-in-Council seems requisite for the due execution of the
provisions of this 93rd Section, the Parliament of Canada may, so far only
as the circumstances of the case require, make remedial laws for the due
execution of the provisions of the Section. The Governor-in-Council, we
take it, should make known to Parliament, by Order in Council, Message
or other Official Act, what law he considers necessary.
Second, — Where an Appeal is made to the Governor-in-Council under
the 3rd sub-section, and his decision thereupon is not duly executed by the
proper Provincial authority, the Parliament of Canada may, so far only as
the circumstances of the case require, make Remedial Laws for the due
execution of such decision.
It is only in the above cases, and to the extent mentioned, that the
Parliament of Canada have authority to legislate under this Section, and,
in each case, the preliminary action of the Governor-in-Council, referred to
in the preceding paragraphs, is necessary to give jurisdiction.
Among the "provisions" to be executed, contemplated in the first case,
are those of the 2nd sub-section ; for, though that sub-section seems at once
to extend to the Province of Quebec all privileges, powers, and duties
therein mentioned, yet legislation may be required to arrange the
machinery and details for practically carrying out the provisions referred to,
Possibly cases may arise affecting the provisions of the 1st and 3rd
sub-sections, in which the Governor-in-Council might act without any
Appeal being had to him.
The Appeal provided by the 3rd sub-section is, from "any Act, or decision,
of any Provincial authority affecting any right, or privilege, of the Protestant,
or Roman Catholic, minority, in relation to education," in any Province in
which a system of Separate, or Dissentient, Schools exists by law at the
time of the Union, or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the
Province. This gives the right of appeal from any Act, or enactment, of the
Local Legislature affecting the right, or privilege, mentioned. Also, from
decisions affecting such right, or privilege, by the Department of Education,
INSPECTION OF ROMAN CATH<>U< SEP, 187
or any similar authority, having charge of the adminiM ration .,1" the law on
the subject of Education, on matters which a jurisdiction, or di
action, is, by law, given to such Department, or authority. i» CM6
the Legislature in a Province, where a system of Separate, «r I)iv*ei.-
Schools is established, enact a law affecting an existing privilege, of the Pro-
testant, or Roman Catholic, minority, in relation to Edm-.v
will lie to the Governor-in-Council ; and, if his decision upon si.
is not executed, or carried out, by the Local Legislature passii,
necessary law for the purpose, the Parliament of Canada may make a
Remedial Law necessary for the execution of such decision ; but, to warrant
the Appeal referred to, there must be an existing right, or privilege, to be
affected by the local enactment appealed from. So, also, in case of an
Appeal from the decision of the Department of Education, or other similar
authority, if the decision of the Governor-in-Council is not duly executed
by the Department, or other authority referred to, the Parliament of
Canada may pass the law requisite for enforcing the decision.
But the decision to be appealed from must be one affecting an existing
right, or privilege, of the minority. No new rights, or privileges, are to be
acquired by means of an Appeal under the 3rd and 4th sub-sections.
STEPHEN RICHAKI>-.
ADAM CROOKS.
TORONTO, March 9th, 1867. EDWARD BLAKK.
We also incline to the opinion that an Appeal would lie to the Governor-
in-Council from any decision of a Provincial Court affecting any existing
right, or privilege, of a minority, and that the Governor-in-Council may
declare it necessary to pass a law providing the requisite machinery for the
enforcement of his decisions, and that Parliament may, upon such declara-
tion, and, at the failure of the Local Legislature to act, pass such law.
ADAM CKO«»K>.
EDWARD BLAKE.
CHAPTER XXXII.
INSPECTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOLS.
ALTHOUGH the Roman Catholic Separate School Act specifically
provided for the inspection of Separate Schools, yet the right
to do, under that Act, was resisted in Kingston and Toronto, as
the following statement will show : —
The Separate School Law having authorized the Chief
188 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Superintendent of Education to provide for this inspection of
Separate Schools, and also the Registers of those Schools, the
Inspectors of Grammar Schools were authorized to inspect such
of these Schools as were within the limits of that part of
Upper Canada assigned to them for inspection purposes.
In October, 1865, the Inspector appointed to the eastern part
of Upper Canada was refused permission to inspect the Register
of pupils' names, arid the record of their attendance, at the
Roman Catholic Separate School in Kingston. This refusal
having been reported to the Chief Superintendent, he wrote to
the Chairman of the Roman Catholic Separate School Board in
Kingston on the subject. In his Letter he said : —
As the Law requires me to make and pay the apportionment of the
Legislative Grant to Separate Schools, it is my duty and right to see
whether the data on which I make and pay such apportionment are
properly prepared and are reliable. This can only be done by having the
Registers of Separate Schools examined by a duly appointed Officer.
The 26th Section of the Separate School Act of 1863 expressly provides
that "The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, with their Registers shall be
subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time, by the Chief
Superintendent of Education. "...
The same objection was made by Archbishop Lynch in
Toronto late in 1871, and he addressed the following Letter on
the subject to the Chief Superintendent of Education : —
To our great amazement we find that our Separate Schools are visited by
the Inspectors of the Common Schools. We take this occasion to protest
against this intrusion, as it is contrary to the spirit of the Law establishing
Separate Schools ; and we will be obliged to give notice to the Trustees
not to receive those visits ; not that we are afraid of them, but we do not
want their interference.
In his reply to the Archbishop, Dr. Ryerson said :—
I beg to observe that the protest you make, and the intention you avow,
are in direct opposition to 'the Separate School Act, the twenty-sixth
Section of which expressly provides [for such inspection.] (See this
Section quoted above.)
I have construed the Separate School Act, to authorize Trustees of
Separate Schools in Cities, Towns and Incorporated Villages, to appoint
. . . the Local Superintendent of their Schools ; but that does not
preclude this Department from directing an inspection of the Register and
condition of any Separate School.
FRENCH AND GERMAN SCHOOLS, 1851-1^ 189
Dr. Ryerson then referred to tin- <;.-m -nil Regulation- under
which the Grammar School Inspectors \V.T.- directed '» inspect
Separate Schools in the neighbourhood <>!' Crui.inni
He then said :—
I believe these visits weiv very aco-ptabh- to tin- M.-niagera and Teacherft
of the Separate Schools, and the Inspri-tnr's ivpi.ri .- tin-in was
most favourable. . . . But in one (Kingston) !„• \\,t> ivfus.-d admr
. by the head Teacher of the principftl Separate School . . .
A few days after I liad written [to Kingston on tin- subject], I root
a Letter from the Roman Catholic Bishop ,,f Kingston. (Dr. Hor.-m. j apolo
gi/ing for the conduct of the head Teacher of tin- Separate Srln.ol, who had
mistaken his duty, and assuring me that tin- Inspector would br court-
received at any time he might think proper to visit tin- School. . . .
T can adduce indubitable proof that I have sought to administer the Law,
,as much for the benefit of Separate Schools, as of Public Schools, ami
given the Separate Schools the advantage of every doubt, and <»f any
discretionary power I might have, to assist them.
But while I have thus sought to aid Separate Schools to the ut:
•extent of my power, and to give the most liberal construction of the S
Law in their behalf, I must say that I think your Grace's protest and inti-
mated course of proceedings, are directly contrary to the express provision-
of the Separate School Act — the inspection of which class of Schools, under
the authority of this Department, is not, as a matter of suffrage, at the
discretion of the Trustees of Separate Schools, but a matter of right,
provided for by law, and which every Government ou^ht to possess, and
exercise to inspect, at its discretion, the doings of every School, or !
tution, aided out of the public revenues of the Country.
TORONTO, 5th of December, 1871. E. RN DLSOU
No further difficulty was experienced in this matter.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
SCHOOLS IN FRENCH AND GERMAN SETTLEMENTS, 1851-1875.
THERE was one class of Separate Schools which gave the ('
Superintendent very little trouble. These were the French and
German Schools, — chiefly Roman Catholic, — which were scat-
tered here and there throughout Upper Canada. All that had
to be done in their case was to give them such teaching
facilities, as enabled them to go into operation under Tear
190 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
who could speak the language of the ratepayers concerned, and
that language only.
Happily that facility could be given under the general, — not
the Separate, — School Law, and that with the sanction of the
Chief Superintendent.
There were two principles which Dr. Ryerson laid down
at an early period in his administration of the Education
Department.
The first was, — that whenever he could meet special cases by
a liberal, and often, (with the sanction of the Government,) a
generous interpretation of his powers under the School Acts,
and in terms of his Commission as Chief Superintendent of
Education, it was his duty to give that interpretation, in cases
not specifically provided for, — except by analogy, — in the
School Law.
The second principle which Dr. Ryerson laid down, and.
which he generally adhered to, was not to propose too frequent
legislation, with a view to meet special cases ; but only to seek
such legislation at intervals of from five to ten years.
Fortunately I was familiar with Dr. Ryerson's views, as
expressed in the first of the foregoing principles, which he
had laid down for his guidance, when the first application was
made in 1851 to grant a Certificate of Qualification to a French
Teacher in the County of Essex, — which had been largely
settled by French- Canadians. At the time that this application
reached me from, the Board of Public Instruction for the
County of Essex, Dr. Ryerson was absent in England, and I
had charge of the Department, as Acting Chief Superintendent.
I, therefore, submitted the application, which had been received,
to the Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, with
the recommendation that it be granted. This was concurred in
by the Council of Public Instruction ; and I was, therefore,
enabled to inform the Essex County Board that :—
The Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada has sanctioned a
liberal construction of the programme to which you refer, making the term
"English" convertible into the term "French," where it occurs, and
when applied to French candidates for examination before the County
FRENCH AND GERMAN SCHOOLS, 1851-1 v 191
Board of Public Instruction. The en t itir.n.- slum]
limited to teaching in the French langu.i
A copy of this intimation was also sen! t«» tli»- tln-n I.
Superintendent of Education at Samlwidi. with th»- 1<»I1«
addition : —
The School Act expressly aiithori/.rs Trustees to employ ,tn\ qo§]
Teacher they please ; should, therefore, the OIK- to whom you r, •
a certificate from the County Board, the Trustees < an . •n^.r.M- his service*,
and no Board, or School Officer, can prevent them. ;is ha-, 1 icd in
a Memorial transmitted to me by the Secretary of the Count
Public Instruction, from certain inhabitants of S« -him] Section \
Sandwich.
In 1858, a partial extension of the principle hen- laid d«>wn.
was applied to German Teachers; and, to meet the case, a
knowledge of the German Grammar was, by the Council of
Public Instruction, substituted in the programme of exap
tion, for a knowledge of the English Grammar.
In 1871, a further difficulty arose, owing to a delay of tip-
Council of Public Instruction to provide fully for tin- ••xamina-
tion and licensing of German Teachers in the German
settlements of Upper Canada. To meet a special case, which
occurred in the County of Waterloo, I told the Local Superin-
tendent, who had called upon me, in Dr. Ryerson's abs'-n<-
To grant six months' certificates to such German candidate us would
present themselves for examination in July ; and I said that, by giving tin-
Department early notice of the real requirements in the case, attention
would be given to the matter by the Council of Public Instruction, ami
every provision made for the examination of such candidate*, at all future
examinations.
This was confirmed by Dr. Ryerson ; and he informed tin-
Local Superintendent of the County, that examination pawn's
in German Reading, Spelling, Etymology and Grammar might
be prepared by Members of the County Board, and that th<-
other ordinary examination papers could he us.-d in the c-ase of
the Teachers who could read English.
Similar applications, made in 1872 and 1875, were d.-alt
in the same spirit; and, in this way, every facility *
by the Education Department for the successful operation of
192 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
French and German Public and Separate Schools in the French
.and German settlements of Upper Canada.
WHY PERPETUATE NATIONALITIES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ?
While a movement has been inaugurated in this Dominion
to discourage the use of a dual language, in certain parts of it,
a corresponding movement to discourage its use in the ele-
mentary Schools, in parts of the United States, received the
strong commendation of Cardinal Satolli, during his visit to
that country. Thus, in an article in The Forum, New York,
for February, 1897, the Rev. Dr. McGlynn says: —
AVith regard to the question that has caused some disturbance, — of the
desire of (Roman) Catholic immigrants of other speech than the English,
to maintain in their Churches, and Church Schools, for an indefinite time,
a foreign speech, and, in some measure, a foreign nationality, Archbishop
' Satolli saw clearly, at an early day, how detrimental this must be to the
general interests of the Church ; . . . therefore, he not only compelled
a German pastor to restore a Church, (of which his Bishop had permitted
him to take possession,) to the use of the English-speaking people, who
had built it ; but he also advised him to preach, even in his own Church, in
the " normal " language of the country. ... In the same spirit he
wrote, in April, 1895, to certain French Canadians in Connecticut, as
follows : —
Your attachment to your religion is most consoling, and that to your native
language most natural and praiseworthy. But, at the same time, you must
remember that you have left the country in which the use of that language is
common, and have voluntarily come to another in which a different tongue is
spoken.
You must not, then, expect that here the same provision can be made with
the same perfection for the propagation and continued use of your own
.language.
Cardinal Satolli can now, Dr. McGlynn says, make : —
Clear to the Pope, and his eminent advisers in Rome, that any
/attempt to perpetuate here quasi colonies of nationalities of foreign speech,
<jan, in the long run, but be ruinous to the religious interests of the next,
and succeeding, generations, who, by an inevitable attraction, will perforce
be Americans, and will glory in the name. . . .
I have quoted these passages from the article in The Forum,
t>y the Rev. Dr. McGlynn, and also the remarks of Archbishop
Ireland, in the concluding chapter, with a view to show what
DR. RYERSON'S FINAL SKI-. SCHOOL UTTBRAM i
the opinion of distinguished and <jnli«jht»'ii«-d Unman
in the United States are, on questions which liave a practical
Ix-arino- upon our own future, and on the " evolution," — so to
speak, — of the_ various nationalities aniun- MV int., a homo-
geneous Canadian nationality, — loyal, l»-;i\<'. and tni«-, — of
which we, as a people, might well be proud.
CHAPTER XXXI V
DR. RYERSON'S FINAL UTTERANCES ON SEPARATE
SCHOOL AGITATIONS.
EARLV in the year 1865, a renewed agitation was comm«
in Upper Canada by the promoters of Roman Catholic Separate
Schools. In consequence of this new movement, Dr. Ryerson
issued a pamphlet to counteract its effects, under the title of
"Remarks on the New Separate School Agitation." In his
" Prefatory Notice," he said : —
Each successive Separate School Law agitation, during the fifteen j
from 1850 to 1865, has been commenced by attacks upon the Education
Department, and the Separate School Law for the time being.
I have felt it due to the supporters of our Public School System, t..
furnish them with materials for refuting the statements put forth for show-
ing the unreasonableness of the demands made. . . . This I deem t<>
be the more necessary now, as a formal agitation for the extension of the
Roman Catholic Separate School System has been inaugurated in variou-
parts of Upper Canada. Already influential meetings of Roman Catholics,
to promote this oject, have been held in Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Perth,
and other important towns, and resolutions of a more sweeping character
than usual passed unanimously.
The cause of this renewed agitation, Dr. Ryerson very pro-
perly ascribed to the movements then in progress, of a —
"Certain number of Protestants in Montreal, . . . prompted 1>\
the Montreal Witiwss," . . . who make pretentious, and claims to a
separate every-thing, — from the Chief Superintendent of Education down
to the humble Teacher, . . . involving the principle of subjection .>f
the State to the Church, . . . incompatible with the universal educa-
tion of any people — embodying views subversive of the School s\ -
194 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
and of Municipal rights in Upper Canada, and which have been, again and
again, all but unanimously condemned by its Representatives and Electors.
Such pretentious, on the part of The Witness and others in Montreal, could
never have really prompted, any more than it can justify, this new Separate
School agitation in Upper Canada, though it may be the pretext for it.
There are, indeed, certain anomalies in the School Law of Lower Canada,
which by no means afford to Protestants these facilities for Protestant
Schools, equal to those possessed by Roman Catholics for Separate Schools
in Upper Canada ; but, I believe no one has been more ready to correct
those anomalies than the Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau, Chief Superintendent
of Education there, who has more than once officially recommended the
amendment of the Law for that purpose.
Mr. Hodgins, Deputy Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada,
when in Montreal in October last, having been applied to on the subject,
endeavoured to impress some of the parties concerned with the error of
their course — so at variance with the views of the people of Upper Canada,
and so impracticable and unpatriotic.
I have ever objected to Lower Canada interference in Upper Canada
School matters ; and I do not think Upper Canada will interfere with
Lower Canada School matters.* . . .
Dr. Ryerson then takes a rapid survey of the successive
Roman Catholic Separate School agitations, — those of 1851,
'52, 1857, '58, 1860-63. In regard to the latter year, he says :—
The present Separate School Law was passed, and accepted on the part
of the Authorities of the Roman Catholic Church " as a final settlement of
the question." But, in less than two years, in 1864, '5, the old agitation is
recommenced, and the old terms of denunciation against the Separate
School Law, and against the Chief Superintendent, are again
[indulged in] and put to work in the service of a fresh agitation, as pointed
out.
Dr. Ryerson then very properly puts this question : —
Now, can it be that acute Ecclesiastics and learned Lawyers, and able
Statesmen of the Roman Catholic Church, have been deceived thus, time
* While in Montreal, in October, 1864, I wrote the following Letter to Dr.
Ryerson in regard to the matter to which he here refers. I said : —
I have seen Mr. William Lunn several times, and have sought to modify and
soften the ill-feeling which exists between the Protestant School Committee
and the Hon. P. J. 0. Chauveau, Chief Superintendent of Education for Lower
Canada. They feel very strongly against him ; and although I do not think
his policy and mode of dealing with the difficulty is either wise, or judicious, in
all respects, I have told both him and them that I could do, or say, nothing
which would either compromise our position in Upper Canada, or our friendly
relations with Mr. Chauveau.
MONTREAL, 8th of October, 1864. J. GEORUE HOIHMNS.
DR. RYERSON'S FINAL SEP, SCHOOL [JTTERAKC1
after time, as t<> the import and chai-a.-t.-i- .,f L.ius uhidi •
have framed and advocated [or have agreed to] 1 . . . I
beyond the power «»f successful r..iitra<li.-ti..n. that I ha\.
utmost, to give the most liberal applirat i,,n, an. I tin- full.- •
successive Separate School Acts. . . .
Speaking of the drafts of Bills, proposal !.\ t!..- Mipporters
of Separate Schools in 1855 and 1863, Dr. Ryerson said : —
The first draft of Separate School Bill, that of 1885, prohibited either
Municipalites, or Trustees of Common Schools, fr..],, h-vvin^ ami ooH
any rate for either the building of a School House. ,,r [.aym- i
without also levying and collecting rates for the suppm-:.
Schools, in proportion to their population ! . . . thus actually pi.. i
to make Municipalities and Protestant Trustees tax-gatherer* f«.r I:
( 'atholic Schools ! . . .
The second provision was, that the Roman Catholics, as a Body, should
be defined as supporters of Separate Schools, and thus by law, be ex.
from the Common Schools. This was in the first "project" of the I'ilU
referred to, thus depriving every Roman Catholic of the right, or liberty
of choice, as to whether he would support a Common, or ;i Separate,
School. . . .
THE SEPARATE SCHOOL BILL OF 1866 THE RESULT OF Till**
LAST AGITATION.
The result of this combined and simultaneous movement in
Upper Canada, to re-open the " final settlement " of the Sepa-
rate School question of 1863, was the introduction, without
notice, or warning, of a specious, and, as it happily proved, an
abortive measure affecting the integrity of the Public School
System of Upper Canada. The title of this Bill was as
follows : —
A Bill to extend to the Roman Catholic minority in rpper Canada
similar and equal privileges with those granted by the Legislature to the
Protestant minority in Lower Canada.*
* A Letter from Mr. Lunn to Dr. Ryerson, written in November, 1866*
throws some light on this subject. He said : —
We have recently had a meeting of leading gentlemen in Montn-al, <>n tin-
Education question, at which a number of Resolutions were passed, apiH>intin_:
a Committee of six, with plenary powers. Dr. J. W.— [aft Sir William ;
— Dawson and I are on that Committee. \Vemet Mr. — [afu-rwanls Sir
anderj— Gait in town last week by appointment , w •
recent communications with Lord Monck ami the Ministry. The result wag, a
Minute of Council, approved by the Governor-General, guaranteeing t-
Protestants of Lower Canada the same rights possessed by the Koinnn Catholics
196 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
As soon as Dr. Ryerson heard of this new effort to tamper
with the Separate School Law Settlement of 1863, then he
wrote a strong and effective Letter to the Provincial Secretary
on the subject, pointing out to him the disingenuous character
of the Bill itself, and remonstrating with the Government for
permitting private Members of the House thus continually to
deal with a question . involving Provincial and vital interests,
which the Government itself was especially bound to protect
and promote.
This Letter is the more interesting and important, from the
fact that it was the last of the kind which Dr. Ryerson ever
wrote on these ever recurring and pernicious agitations, —
which no compact, or understanding, seemed to be sacred
enough to which to bind the parties, or to prevent them from
making these periodical attacks upon the integrity of that Public
School System, which he had been at such labour and pains to
place upon, what he regarded as, a firm, sound and practical
foundation. Dr. Ryerson said : —
I observe that a discussion took place last night in the House of
Assembly on Mr. R. Bell's introduction of a new Separate School Bill for
Upper Canada ; and I have, this morning, read the provisions of that Bill,
the most disingenuous, partial and insidious that can be conceived.
When I went lately to Ottawa on Departmental business, I had no idea
that the Separate School Question of Upper Canada would be even mooted
in the House of Assembly ; but during the two days that I was there, I
heard that several Ecclesiastics were there from Upper Canada, though I
did not meet with any of them ; and I was told that, in settling the Lower
Canada School question, it was intended by the advocates of Roman
Catholic Separate Schools to get further provisions on the subject in Upper
Canada. I need not repeat what I said to you and to Mr. Alexander
Mackenzie, and other Members of the Legislature on the subject ; but I
beg to offer the following remarks: —
1. I refused even to consult with Mr. R. W. Scott, in regard to his
of Upper Canada by the Separate School Act ; and giving them, also, the right
of appeal to the General Legislature for amendments to the School Law, and to
the Legislature the right to legislate on that question.
This information is given to us with the understanding that it is not to be
published in the newspapers, but may be communicated to any of our confi-
dential friends. I, therefore, give it to you.
MONTREAL, 7th of November, 1866. WILLIAM LUKN.
DR. RYERSON'S FINAL UTTER A \« ea lf*7
Separate Scliool Bill of 18(53, niucli less t.. b«- a |.
Act, except on two conditions :
First. — That what we agreed upon should IM- an-.-pt.-d l,y tin- I:., man
Catholic Authorities of his Church as a final settlement of tl, J
School question in Upper Canada.
Second. — That it should have the sanction and responsibility ..t' th.-
(Jovernment for its passing.
The manner in which the authori/ed Uepivsmtaiivrs of tin- I:. .man
Catholic Church met Mr. Scott and me, in the Parliamentary Lil.i.
Onebec, and in which a duplicate copy of the Hill a^ived up..n. was mad.-
(nit, one for each party, and in which both parties waited upon th.- II. !
of the Ministry, and represented the Bill as thus agreed up.ui t.,
the question in Upper Canada, is well known, and was shortly
published. And nothing can be more dishonourable and truthless than
for either party now to deny that settlement of the <piesti..n and a
subvert it.
2. The question of the Separate School Law was tim-. settled f..r I ppt-r
Canada, without any reference to what had been done, or might be dour.
in Lower Canada.
3. The School question between Roman Catholics and Protestants in
Lower Canada, is peculiar to Lower Canada, — having nothing analog, ,us in
Tpper Canada, except that there are Roman Catholics and Protestant «,
here, as well as there. The Roman Catholics in Lower Canada, beini; in
the majority, have resolved that the Schools of the majority there should
be Roman Catholic Schools, as much so as are the Convents themselves, —
except that they are Day, and not Boarding, Schools. The Protestants in
Upper Canada, being in the majority, have resolved that by Law, and in
fact, the Schools of the majority here should not be denominational.
Roman Catholic, or Protestant, but National, — equally common and a<
able to Protestants and Roman Catholics. In confirmation of this fact. I
refer, not merely to the provisions of the Law, and the General Regulations,
but to two facts in connection with the operations of our School System.
(1). Of the 544 Roman Catholic Teachers of Common Schools empi
in Upper Canada, according to my last printed report, 190 of them are
employed in the Separate Schools, and 354 in the Public, or National,
Schools.*
(2). Of the sixty odd thousand (60,000) Roman Catholic children taught
in the Common Schools in Upper Canada, all but seventeen thousand,
(17,000),— or about 43,000,- of them are taught in the Public, or Nat i
Schools. Thus a majority of nearly three-fourths of the Teachers, and
pupils of the Roman Catholic Church are connected with the Schools of the
* During the last full year (1875) that Dr. Ryerson was Chief Superintendent
of Education, the number of Roman Catholic Teachers employ t
in the Public Schools, and 210 in the Separate Schools.
198 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
majority, — they preferring those Schools to Separate Schools, notwith-
standing the ecclesiastical influence employed to sever them from the
Public, and connect them with the Separate, Schools, and, notwithstanding,
the facility afforded by Law for the establishment and support of Separate
Schools. I have conversed with a sufficient number of Roman Catholics,
or rather, a sufficient number of them have come and conversed with me,
to satisfy me that a majority of the Roman Catholic laity do really regard
the Separate School Law as an injury, rather than a benefit, to themselves
and families. I have given the most liberal interpretation and application
of the Separate School Law, as I am sure every Roman Catholic Priest and
Layman, who has had to do with my Department, will testify.
4. I will not discuss the provisions of Mr. Bell's outrageous Bill. I may
remark that the very first provision proposes to make Municipal Councils
tax-collectors for the Schools of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the
most degrading features of "Church and State" connection, so formally
renounced by our Legislature ; while, at the same time, by the Lower
Canada School Act of 1857. the supporters of Dissentient Schools alone are
authorized to levy and collect rates for the support of their Schools. The
55th Section of Chapter 15, of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada
declares that : —
The Trustees of Dissentient Schools shall alone have the right of fixing and
collecting assessments to be levied on the inhabitants so dissentient.
5. I will not advert to the provision relative to Colleges and higher
Seminaries, except to observe that the wedge is there apparent, which it
has been long sought to get inserted in our system of Public Instruction, to
separate the Roman Catholics "as a Body" from the rest of the population
in School matters, and thus to accomplish a favourable Ultramontane object.
6. Nor will I notice the provision for a separate Superintendent, Council
of Public Instruction, etc., except to remark that it is at variance with all
English, as well as American precedent. In Ireland, Separate Schools may
be established ; but there is one National Board of Education. In Eng-
land, though the system of Elementary Schools is denominational, [and was
wholly so until the Forster Act of 1870], there is but one Governmental
Department of Education.
7. If the two parties in Lower Canada agree upon a peculiar and double-
headed system, it is, of course, their own affair. 1 am persuaded that the
minority will "gain a loss" by it in many ways they now little anticipate.
But, I have not interfered with the Lower Canada System ; and I have
advised all Upper Canada Members of the Legislature to leave the Lower
Canada School questions to be settled by parties connected with that
Province ; and then, not suffer them to interfere in our School affairs, any
more than that they should attempt to impose upon Upper Canada two
Houses of the Legislature, because they wish for them in Lower Canada.
8. Although the Government cannot prevent a private Member from
END OF DiFFioiT/riKs IN SKI-. S« -IK MM. MA -111:1
insulting I'ppiT Canada l.y t In- int n.dnct ii.n of such a Kill M .Mi. I,
yet I think tlie people of I 'pprr ( \-mada, M \\.-ll M Lowei Can-d,.
right to look to (iovcriinicnt f<u- the pn.trrt i<,n, B0 w.-ll as tin- in,;
of their School System, and to ^\\c the d«-risi.,n and iiit!in-ii<-.- ,,f tin-
Government against any Bill, <>r mcasnr.-, \\hirh \\..nld >ul»\(-rt. or ir<
that Systi-m I'stahlisht-d under its anspi.-irs, and maintain. -d l,\ it»Wtt]
us well by the nil but unanimous voice <>{ tin- pci.ph- ,,f I'ppi-r Canada.
K I;-, i B8OH
TORONTO, 4th of August, 181 M.
CHAPTER XXXV.
END OF DR. RYERSON'S DIFFICULTIES IN SEPARAT1
SCHOOL MATTERS.
EXCEPT in the duty of settling purely local differences, in
regard to Separate Schools, — receiving their reports and appor-
tioning to them the Legislative grant, Dr. Ryerson's relations
with the managers, of these Schools after Confederation, in
1867, were pleasant and agreeable. Nothing particular occunv 1
during the years 1872-1876, in regard to Separate Schools. t<»
mar that harmony. His difficulties in the administration of
the Education Department, during these years, were of a very
different kind, and chiefly arose with parties who had IK>
connection whatever with Separate Schools.
Dr. Ryerson shared the fate of many a man before him.
He was a man of large and long experience, and one who hud
mastered principles, and was familiar with various schemes of
education. He had personally to deal with, and combat,
educational and administrative theories, which he knew t
thoroughly unsound, as they were impracticable: — tin-
which were the result of superficial observation of such work
as his, and of experience gained in very different Hi-Ids from
that in which he had laboured during the whole of his later
life. He often sought to get relief from what he felt to be
unnecessary burthens and new duties,— many of which
made distasteful to him.
200 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
At length, on the 21st of February, 1876, he finally retired
from the Headship of the Education Department, after having,
for thirty -two years, done noble service for his native country r
in founding its System of Public Schools, and in raising to a
high degree of efficiency its Grammar Schools, .and, in the form
of Collegiate Institutes, founding a number of local Colleges in
the various Counties of the Province.
I have already referred, — in a " Sketch " of his career as.
President of Victoria College, — to Dr. Ryerson's reticence in
regard to the Department, after he had left it, and to his dislike
to having the subject mentioned to him. In this connection, I
may say that, after he had retired from the Department, many
things done were spoken of, as though he had personal
knowledge of them, and approved of them, — but, of which, as a
matter of fact, he personally knew nothing. To me he confided
his inmost thoughts and feelings ; but, in regard to one thing,
he was very firm. He would not let me mention, or discuss,
any Departmental matter. He said that he had " done with all
of that now ; — that things were in the hands of others, for which,
they alone must enjoy the praise, or bear the blame." So I
ceased entirely to speak of our old work altogether ; and, in the
course of the year of his retirement, he went to England, where
he remained for over a year. Within five years after his
return, he peacefully passed away, and was laid to rest in the
Mount -Pleasant Cemetery in February, 1882, — just six years,
(and in the month,) in which he had ceased to be the Chief
Superintendent of Education for the Province of Ontario.
CONCLUDING CHAPTEE.
EXPEDIENCY OF SEPARATE EDUCATION CONSIDERED BY
DR RYERSON AND ARCHBISHOP IRELAND.
APART from the purely local aspect of Separate School Educa-
tion, the question often forces itself upon the more thoughtful
among us, — whether the system of separate and isolated educa-
EXPEDIENCY OF SEPARATE EDUCATION CONSIDERED. i>m
tion fora portion of the future merchants, professional IM,:1J.
and ordinary citizens of a Country, is one which a \\ is,
seeing statesman should endorse and promote.
Any one who will read the later utterances of Dr. Ry« i
on this subject, and the brave, practical, and outspok.-n \
of a distinguished Prelate of the American Roman < ',-itliulii-
Church, — Archbishop Ireland, — will be led to ask liims.-lt
whether, after all, there is not "a more excellent way ' t<> solve
this question than by persistently following an educational
'noli me tangere system, which is fraught with so manv di.-,-
advantages.
Archbishop Ireland practically puts the question in tlsi^
form: Whether an efficient system of State Schools, with a
satisfactory provision for religious instruction, would not In-
best for all parties. After discussing the general question of
" State Schools," the Archbishop proposes two plans by which
the subject of popular education might be successfully dealt
with. His views on this question will be given further on in
this Chapter.
Dr. Ryerson, in his remarks, deals chiefly with the question
from a national standpoint, and in its practical aspect, as to
how the separate and isolated system of education tits th<-
children of its adherents and promoters for the after " battl«-
of life."
The discussion of this vexed question of Roman Catholic
Separate Schools in Upper Canada has been marked !•;.
much bad feeling and bitter personal controversy, that it i^
refreshing to be able to contemplate it in the absence of both
of these exasperating adjuncts to its discussion heretofore.
In his general remarks Dr. Ryerson says :—
Separate Schools cannot be claimed as a right. . . . All tin
citizen can claim as a right ... is equal and impartial protection,
with every other citizen.
I think that no one will maintain that Separate Schools are expc< i
for the interests of the State. Nay, those interests are more or less in ;
by every act of class legislation ; and its strength is weakened by every
sectional division, which its citizens have created by law. ... It was-
14
202 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
a source of individual pride, and of strength to the State, in ancient days,
for a man to say "Romanus Sum." ... So would we be so now, under
a legislation of "Equal Rights" and privileges, — without distinction, in
regard to sect or party, for a man to say : " Canadensis Sum," . . .
standing in all respects upon the equal ground of right and privilege with
every other man (in Canada) in relation to the State and to the Law. . . .
The youth, who grows up to manhood in a School of separation, com-
mences "the battle of life," not only with inferior mental and social
preparation, but comes forth into the arena of competition and enterprise
estranged from, and a stranger to, the habits, views and associations of
those with whom his pursuits and fortunes are linked. . . . There
may, now and then, be an exception, . . . but such an example is a
rare exception to the general rule, which dooms the victim of isolation to
inferiority, failure and obscurity. . . .
The fact is, that the tendency of the public mind and of the institutions
of Upper Canada is to confederation, and not to isolation, — to united effort,
and not to divisions and hostile effort, — in what all have a common interest.
The efforts to establish and extend Separate Schools, . . . are a
struggle against the instincts of Canadian Society, against the necessities of
a sparsely populated country, against the social and political present and
future interest of the parents and youth thus separated [by these Schools]
from their fellow-citizens. . . .
These remarks of Dr. Ryerson present, in striking language,
the matured and thoughtful utterances of a Canadian states-
man. They also embody the views entertained on the system
of isolated and Separate School education, which are shared in
by thousands of practical men, and by such thoughtful Roman
Catholics as the late Hon. Donald A. Macdonald, formerly
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and his noted brother,
Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, a former Premier of the late
Province of Canada, and afterwards of Upper Canada.
Among other distinguished Roman Catholics who deprecated
isolated denominational education was the Right Hon. Thomas
Wyse, long an influential Member of the Imperial Parliament
and Educationist, and afterwards Her Majesty's Minister at the
Court of Greece, wrote largely on the universal education of the
Irish People, and in favour of mixed Schools, as essential to its
attainment. In his well-known work on " Education Reform,"
he thus speaks of a system of Separate, or Denominational,
Schools, and of the kind of instruction given in them : —
EXPEDIENCY OF SKI-AIIATI-: Ki>r<-.\Ti<>\ CONSIDERED,
We grow Protestants .-mil we •„' !••• w ('atlmlics. . . . ami -l.-^rade
Seminaries for the universal miml of tin- e..untry into n .
faction.
In a somewhat extended Id-port which I pivp;lp-d. in
autumn of 189G, at the request <>!' the Minister «,!' Kdu<.
Ontario, I (quoted at some length the eloquent and outspoken
words of the Most Rev. Archbishop Ireland. <>t St. Paul, in
answering the question, proposed by himself, at tl
the American National Education Association, held at
in 1890. The question which the Archbishop proposed to
discuss at that Meeting was : State School* and Pariah Scliools :
Is union between them im/m.^ihle ?
Coming from so high and enlightened a Dignitary of the
Roman Catholic Church, as the Archbishop of St. Paul. Mi
sota, his utterance on this important subject will be read with
much interest and attention. They are like a ray of sunshine
on a darkened subject, and have the sound of a pleasant voice
amid jarring strife.
In answer to this question, (in part) Archbishop Ireland
said : —
I am the friend and advocate of the State School. 1 uphold the 1'
School. I sincerely wish that the need of it did not exist. 1 \\»uM
all Schools for the children of the people State Schools.
The right of the State School to exist, I consider, is a matter beyond tin-
stage of discussion. I fully concede it. To the child must be imparted
instruction in no mean degree. The imparting of this is primarily tin-
function of the child's parent. The family is prior to the State. The 6
intervenes, whenever the family can not. or will not, do the woi>.
is needed. The place of the State, in the function of instruction u
parentis. As things are, tens of thousands of children will not be in>ti ,
if parents remain solely in charge of this duty. The State must com
ward as an agent of instruction ; else ignorance will prevail. Ind«-.
the absence of State action, there never was that universal instr
which we have so nearly attained, and which we deem necessary. In the
absence of State action, I believe universal instruction would never in any
country have been possible.
State action in favour of instruction implies free Schools. ... In
no other manner can we bring instruction within the reach of all ch:
Blest, indeed, is that nation, wh«- .ml hill sides the [free
204 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
School] adorns, and blest the generations upon whose souls are poured
their treasures.
It were idle for me to praise the work of the State School of America in
the imparting of secular instruction. . . . It is our pride and glory.
The Republic of the United States has solemnly affirmed its resolve that
within its borders no clouds of ignorance shall settle upon the minds of the
children of its people. To reach this result its generosity knows no limit.
The Free School of America ! Withered be the hand raised in sign of its-
destruction ! . . .
The American people are naturally reverent and religious. Their Laws
and Public Observances breathe forth the perfume of religion. The
American School, as it first reared its log walls amid the Villages of New
England, was religious through and through.
I would solve the difficulty by submitting it to the calm judgment of the
Country : —
I would permeate the regular State School with the religion of the
majority of the children of the land, be it Protestant as Protestantism can
be ; and I would, as they do in England, pay for the secular instruction
given in Denominational Schools according to results ; that is, each pupil
passing the examination before the State Officials, and in full accordance
with the State programme, would secure to his School the cost of the tuition
of a pupil in the State School.
There is also another plan :—
I would do as the Protestants and Catholics have done [for over twenty
years] in Poughkeepsie and other places in our Country have agreed to do,
to the greatest satisfaction of all citizens and the great advancement of
educational interests. *
Do not tell me of the difficulties of detail in working out either of
my schemes. . . . Other schemes more perfect in conception and easier of
application will, perhaps, be presented in time ; meanwhile, let us do the best
that we can and do know."
It is delightful to turn from a contemplation of the narrow-
ness of the Canadian isolation system, so strenuously advocated
by the promoters of our Separate Schools, to the enjoyment of
* Having written to Archbishop Ireland for some information in regard to
the Poughkeepsie plan, which is otherwise known as "the Faribault scheme"
of education, he referred me to the Rev> James Nilan, Parish Priest at Pough-
keepsie, for definite information on the subject. He said, however, that "The
' Faribault Plan' is nothing else than the 'Irish School Plan,' which has been
in working order throughout Ireland for the last fifty years. It was first
applied in this Country in Poughkeepsie, New York." . . .
In the Report, to which I have referred, the particulars of this Poughkeepsie
scheme are given in detail.
EXPEDIENCY OF SEPARATE EDUCATION- < IcNSlDEBlD,
the large-hearted schemes ami manly utterance .,i tin- Arch-
bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota.
There is, in these utteranc' ''-Mnanlik'- L;IM^JI of th«-
(question, as it touches our social c«,n«liti<>ii afl a p.-ople, and as
it reaches forward and embraces the vaM educational future yet
before us. For, after all, \v«- an- only in tin- early stage of
our intellectual growth, and have haivly 'lone moiv than la\
the foundation, of our three-fold educational system. Th«-
men who were most noted for their far-seeing prescience in
laying these foundations, have only just passed away. They
were men who encountered endless difficulties, and opposition
in accomplishing even what they did in this noble work
No doubt the time will come, in this young and vigorously
growing country, — " this Canada of ours," — when tin- compi.-
hensive views of Archbishop Ireland will prevail amongst i
who, at present, only see a prospect of the decay of their faith
in the hearts and minds of such of the Roman Catholic children
who would frequent the "State Schools" of this Province,—
where, it is well known, proselytism is never attempted, and
where there is no such thing as tampering with the religious
belief of any of the pupils.
When that eventful, and long-wished for, day conies, the
wonder will be that there did not, long ago, arise a
Separate School Counsellor in Canada, in the matter of public-
education in the " State Schools," such as the large-hearted and
far-seeing ecclesiastical statesman, — the Archbishop of St. Paul.
206 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
APPENDIX No. I.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL ACT OF 1863.
COMPARED WITH THE TACHE ACT OF 1855 ON PAGES 95-99.
THE following copy of the Roman Catholic Act of 1863, com-
pared by Dr. Ryerson, with that of 1855, contains also his
annotations in its most important Sections. (See his Letter on
the subject on pages 158, 159.)
26 VICTORIA, CHAPTER 5, — "An Act to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper
Canada certain Rights in respect to Separate Schools." Received the
Royal Assent on the 5th of May, 1863.
WHEREAS it is just and proper to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper
Canada certain rights which they formerly enjoyed in respect to Separate
Schools, and to bring the provisions of the Law respecting Separate
Schools more in harmony with the provisions of the Law respecting Com-
mon Schools : Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, enacts as follows : —
I. Sections eighteen to thirty-six, both inclusive, of Chapter sixty-five
of the Consolidated Statutes for Upper Canada, intituled, "An Act
respecting Separate Schools," are hereby repealed, and the following shall
be substituted in lifcu thereof, and be deemed to form part of the said Act.
II. Any number of persons, not less than five, being heads of families,
and freeholders or householders, resident within any School Section of any
Township, Incorporated Village, or Town, or within any Ward of any Cityr
or Town, and being Roman Catholics, may convene a public meeting of
persons desiring to establish a Separate School for Roman Catholics, in
such School Section, or Ward, for the election of Trustees for the manage-
ment of the same.
III. A majority of the persons present, being freeholders, or house-
holders, and being Roman Catholics, and not candidates for election as
Trustees, may, at any such meeting, elect three persons resident within
such Section, or an adjoining Section, to act as Trustees for the manage-
ment of such Separate School, and any person, being a British subject, not-
less than twenty-one years of age, may be elected as a Trustee, whether he.
be a freeholder, or householder, or not.
No 1. 207
(NOTE.— In Common School S.-.-t ions, any minihi-r pio.-nt. I..
lawful Meeting for the elect ion of Trustees, "ran --1.-.-1 th. -i;
f«.r ;t different provision in regard to t li«- nuinl..-i ;
Separate School Trustees. )
I\'. Notice in writing tliat such meeting has been held, and ,,1
election of Trustees, shall lie uivcii by the parti.
to the Reeve, or head, of the Municipality, or to the Chairman of the
Board of Common School Trustees, in the To\\nship. Incorporated Village,
Town, or City, in which such School js about to I,,- established, d
by their names, professionfl and residences, the pei n the
manner aforesaid, as Trustees for the management thereof ; and
notice shall be delivered to the pnnier •. Hirer by <.ne .,j th, I
elected, and it shall be the duty of the i. Hirer receiving tin- some
thereon the date of the receipt thereof, and to deliver a ropy of the
so endorsed, and duly eertitied by him, to such Trustee, and from th'
of the delivery and receipt of every such notice, or in the e\ent of the
neglect or refusal of such otlicer to deliver a copy BO endorsed Mb
then, from the day of the delivery of such notice, the Trustee* tl
named shall be a body corporate, under the name of "The Tru-tee-, of the
Roman Catholic Separate School for the Section number , in the
Township of , or for the Ward of , in the City, «.r T<>\\n. (a> the
case may be,) or for the Village of , in the County of ." (</)
(a) These Sections embrace the eighteenth to twenty-second Section-, inclu-
sive, of the existing Separate School Act of 1855, and are the same in sul>
as they ; as are the second and third Sections substantially the -aim- a- tin-
eighteenth and nineteenth Sections of the present Separate School Act.
V. The Trustees of Separate Schools heretofore elected, m • heivaf:
be elected, according to the provisions of this Act. in the .several \VanUof
any City, or Town, shall form one body Corporate, under the tit:
Hoard of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate- Schools for t1
Town) of ." (//)
(l>) This Section is the substitute for the twenty-third Section of the pi.
Separate School Act, (of 18")."),) and assimilates tin- provision of the la\\ in n
to Separate Schools and their supporters, to that of the Common School
VI. It shall be lawful for the majority of the ratepa\inu supporters oi
the Separate School, in each Separate School Section, whether th- S
be in the same or adjoining Municipalities, at a public meeting duly called
by the Separate School Trustees of each such Section, to form such Si-,
into a Separate School I'nion Section, of which union of Sections the
Trustees shall give notice within fifteen da\s t<> the Clerk. ..r Clei
the Municipality, or Municipalities, and to the Chief Superintendent of
Education; and each such Separate School I'nion Section thu^ f«.nm-d.
shall be deemed one School Section for all Roman Catholic -
School purposes, and shall every year thereafter be i.
Trustees, to be elected as in Common School Sections.
208 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
2. And the said Trustees shall form a body corporate, under the title of
' ' The Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholic United Separate Schools
for the United Sections, Nos. , (as the case may be,) in the , (as
the case may be.)'" (c.)
(c) This clause, or Section, is designed to provide that the supporters of
Separate Schools may form Union Sections, the same as they may now do in
the Cities, and Towns, and which supporters of Common Schools may also do,
as provided in the forty-first, forty-second, forty-third and forty-fourth Sec-
tions of the Consolidated Common School Act. Previous to 1855, the Township
Councils prescribed the boundaries of Separate, as well as of Common, School
Sections ; but as the names of all the petitioners for a Separate School had to
be included in the Separate School Section to be formed, they virtually formed
their own Section. By the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855, the
boundaries of a Separate School Section were made identical with those of the
Common School Section, but no provision was made for the union of Separate
Schools in adjoining Sections, as had been made for the union of Common School
Sections. This clause supplies the omission of the Roman Catholic Separate
.School Act of 1855.
VII. The Trustees of Separate Schools, forming a body corporate under
this Act, shall have the power to impose, levy, and collect, School rates, or
subscriptions, upon and from persons sending children to, or subscribing
towards the support of such Schools, and shall have all the powers in
respect of Separate Schools, that the Trustees of Common Schools have
and possess under the provisions of the Act relating to Common Schools, (d)
(d) This Section is the same as the twenty-fourth Section of the present
'Roman Catholic Separate School Act.
VIII. The clerk, or other officer, of a Municipality within, or adjoining,
which a Separate School is established, having, possession of the Assessor's,
•or Collector's, roll of the said Municipality, shall allow any one of the said
Trustees, or their authorized collector, to make a copy of such roll in so far
;as it relates to the persons supporting the Separate School under their
•charge, (e.)
(e) There is no provision in the present Roman Catholic Separate School
Act of 1855, by which the Trustees, or their Collector, can have access to the
Assessor, or Collector's, roll, as is provided by law, in regard to the Trustees
of a Common School and their Collector. This Section supplies the omission.
IX. The Trustees of Separate Schools shall take and subscribe the
following declaration before any Justice of the Peace, Reeve, or Chairman
of the Board of Common Schools : — " I, , will truly and faithfully,
to the best of my judgment and ability, discharge the duties of the office of
School Trustee, to which I have been elected :" — and they shall perform the
same duties, and be subject to the same penalties as Trustees of Common
Schools : and teachers of Separate Schools shall be liable to the same
obligations and penalties as teachers of Common Schools. (/. )
(/) This Declaration of Office is required of Common School Trustees by the
Common School Amendment Act of 1860 ; and the duties and penalties here
No. I. 209
imposed upon Separate School Trustees ;in<l Tea«-her- an- tin- >.iim- M
imposed l»v the t went \ fit) h Se.-t inn .•!' the Human Catlioli.
Act of 18f>f>
X. The Trustees of Se|iaraie Sehuiils sliall remain respeeti\el\ m
for the, same periods of time t hat t he Trustees for Common Selm. ,K «i
as is provided by the thirteenth Sertion and its Nib-flections, for the
Common Sehool Act of the Consolidated Statutes for I |.|..-r Canada; but
no Trustee shall lie re-elected \\ithoiit his consent, in i the
expiration of four years from the time he \\eiit out ..t' office: I'r. .\ide.l
always, that whenever in any City, or Toun, divided into \\'ani
Hoard no\v exists, or sliall In- hereafter estalilished. thei-e shall b<
Ward two Trustees, each of whom, after the tir-t election "t" Tn:
shall continue in ofHce two years and until his successor has Keen ell
and one of such Trustees shall retire on the seeond Wednesday in .lanuarx.
yearly in rotation; and provided, also, that at the first meeting of the
Trustees after the election on the second Wednesday in .January n-
sliall be determined by lot, which of the said Trustees, in each Ward, shall
retire from office at the time appointed for the then next annual eleetion.
and the other shall continue in office for one year longer. (//.)
%
((/) This Section is a substitute for the twenty-sixth Section of the K<
Catholic Separate School Act of 1855, and assimilates the Separate to tin-
Common School Law, in respect to the election of Trustees, and their continu-
ance in office, in both Sections, and Cities, and Towns.
XI. After the establishment of any Separate School, the Tin
thereof shall hold office for the same period and be elected at the same
time in each year that the Trustees of Common Schools are. and all the
provisions of the Common School Act relating to the mode and tii
election, appointments and duties of Chairman and Secretary at the annual
meetings, term of office and manner of filling up vacancies, shall be deemed
and held to apply to this Act. (h. )
(h) This Section contains a general provision for assimilating the provisions
of the Separate and Common School Acts.
XII. The Trustees of Separate Schools may allow children from other
jSchool Sections, whose parents, or lawful guardians, are Roman Catholic-*,
to be received into any Separate School under their management, at tin-
request of such parents, or guardians ; and no children attending such
School shall be included in the Return, hereafter required to be in.-.
the Chief Superintendent of Education, unless they are Roman Cath<>:
(i) This Section corresponds precisely with the twenty-seventh Section of
the Roman Catholic Separate School Act of 1855.
XIII. The Teachers of Separate Schools, under this Act. shall be
ject to the same examinations, and receive their Certificates of ijimliti-
in the same manner as Common School Teachers generally : provide-!
210 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
persons qualified by law as Teachers, either in Upper or Lower Canada,
shall be considered qualified Teachers for the purposes of this Act.(j)
(j) This Section is a substitute for the twenty-eighth Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855 ; and is, all must admit, a very great improvement upon it.
XIV. Every person paying rates, whether as proprietor or tenant, who,
by himself, or his agent, on, or before, the first day of March in any year,
gives, or who, on, or before, the first day of March, of the present year,
lias given to the Clerk of the Municipality, notice, in writing, that lie is a
Roman Catholic, and a supporter of a Separate School situated in the said
Municipality, or in a Municipality contiguous thereto, shall be exempted
from the payment of all rates imposed for the support of Common Schools,
and of Common School Libraries, or for the purchase of land, or erection
of buildings, for Common School purposes, within the City, Town, Incor-
porated Village, or Section, in which he resides, for the then current year,
and every subsequent year thereafter, while he continues a supporter of
ft Separate School. — And such notice shall not be required to be renewed
annually ; and it shall be the duty of the Trustees of every Separate School
to transmit to the Clerk of the Municipality, or Clerks of Municipalities,
(as the case may be,) on or before the first day of June in each year, »
correct list of the names and residences of all persons supporting the
Separate Schools under their management ; and every ratepayer whose
name shall not appear on such list shall be rated for the support of Com-
mon Schools, (k]
(k) This Section is a substitute for the twenty-ninth Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855. It substitutes the first day of March for the first day of
February, — which can cause inconvenience, or disadvantage, to nobody, as
municipal rates for School purposes are never levied till long after March. The
proprietor, or tenant, by himself, or his agent, gives notice ; and it has already
been legally decided that a notice by the agent of a proprietor, or tenant, is as
valid, according to the Separate School Act of 1855, as a notice by himself in
person, and is so accepted and acted upon. It is unjust, therefore, to omit
expressing what is already held to be the law, merely to afford an opportunity
and pretext for vexing and annoj'ing individuals in certain localities. Another
provision in this Section is, that the notice shall not be repeated by the indi-
vidual annually, but shall be repeated, with his address, by the Trustees, as his
agent. This is the practice which has already been pursued in some munici-
palities In Lower Canada, the supporter of the Dissentient, or Separate,
School never repeats, or renews, his first notice as a supporter of such School ;
and why should the Roman Catholic be required to do that in Upper Canada
which the Protestants are not required to do in Lower Canada, unless to incon-
venience and annoy him as much as possible ? This Section requires each
Roman Catholic, proprietor, or tenant, to give notice to the Clerk of the Muni-
cipality when he desires to become a supporter of a Separate School ; and the
eighteenth requires him to give notice to the same Clerk when he desires to cease
being a supporter of such School ; and, in the interval, the Trustees are required
annually to give to the same Clerk, (for the information of the Municipal Coun-
cil, in levying School rates,) the name and residence of each supporter of a
Separate School ; and they are subject to a severe penalty in case they make an
incorrect return.
AlM'KNDIX No. 1. 211
XV. Every Clerk of ;i Municipality, upon receiviu
shall deliver , -i certificate to tin- person -i\ ing such notice, t,, »),,- , t),-, t that
the same has been given, an<l showing the date of .such not in-.
XVI. Any person who fraudulently ^ives any such n..ti.-,-. ,,r wilfully
makes any false statement therein, shall not then
from rates, and shall he liable to ;i penalty ..t f,,m doll:, 'able,
with costs, before any .lust ire • if the Peace, at the suit of the M mucipalit \
interested.
XVII. Nothing in the last three preceding Section-, .•..niaim-d.
exempt any person from paying any rate for the support of ( '..11111101,
Schools, or Common School Libraries, or for the erection of a S.
house, or School-houses, imposed before t he establishment •
School.
XVIII. Any Roman Catholic who may desire to \\ithdraw his rap
from a Separate School, shall give notice in writing to the rh-rk <>f the
.Municipality before the second Wednesday in .January in an\ \«-ar, other-
wise he shall be deemed a supporter of such School : Provided always, that
any person who shall have withdrawn his support from any Roman
Catholic Separate School, shall not be exempted from paying any rate f«r
the support of Separate Schools, or Separate School Libraries, «,i for the
erection of a Separate School-house, imposed before the time of his with-
drawing such support from the Separate School.
XIX. No person shall be deemed a supporter of any Separate School
unless he resides within three miles (in a direct line) of the site of the
School-house. (I. )
(/) No explanatory remarks are required ; and no one will object resp.
the directions given, and the restrictions and penalties imposed by the Hit
sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth Sections of the Hill.
XX. Every Separate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund
annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the supp
Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public
grants, investments and allotments for Common School purpose-
made, or hereafter to be made, by the Province, or the Municipal autli- •:
according to the average number of pupils attending such School durin,
the twelve next preceding months, or during the number <>f months which
may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Sepa:
compared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the
same City, Town, Village, or Township. (//<.)
(m) This Section is a substitute for the tirst part ..f the thirty -tk
of the Separate School Act of 1855. Tin- point of ditlercn • tin-
Section gives Separate Schools the right of sharing in other " Public <; rants,
investments, and allotments, for Common School purposes than the 1'urli
tary School (Jrant. The only public grant, or investment, that
this provision, is the Clergy Reserve Kami, when applied by Municipal)-
Common School purposes. "This fund is distributed by law among the s-
212 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Municipalities, according to the number of ratepayers in each, — Roman Catholic
ratepayers, of course, as well as Protestant. This fund forms no part of the
Common School Fund, and is not subject to Common School Regulations.
When a Municipal Council chooses to apply the portion of the Clergy Reserves
Fund apportioned to its Municipality to Common School purposes, it ought to
do so in the equal interest of all the ratepayers, and not in a way to exclude
any portion. If the Common School Law allows portions of those ratepayers,
(both Protestant and Roman Catholic,) to have Common Separate Schools, they
are acting under law in availing themselves of this permission, as much as those
who avail themselves of the permission, to establish Common Schools. For a
Municipal Council to apply the share of the Clergy Reserves Fund placed under
its control, to aid one class of these Schools and not the other, is as clearly to
exclude one class of ratepayers from their rightful share of that fund as if
they were proscribed by name. Some Municipal Councils have acted very
justly and fairly in regard to both classes of Common Schools ; and. if any other
Councils have done, or should do, otherwise, the Legislature should surely
protect rights of the minority against any such proscription.
XXI. Nothing herein contained shall entitle any such Separate School,
within any City, Town, Incorporated Village, or Township, to any part, or
portion, of School moneys arising, or accruing, from local assessment for
Common School purposes within the City, Town, Village or Township, or
the County, or Union of Counties, within which the City, Town, Village, or
Township is situate, (n.)
(n) This Section corresponds with the second proviso of the thirty-third
Section of the Separate School Act of 1855, and effectually protects all School
moneys arising from local assessment against any claims in behalf of Separate
Schools.
XXII. The Trustees of each Separate School shall, on or before the
thirtieth day of June and the thirty-first day of December of every year, >
transmit to the Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada, a
correct return of the names of the children attending such School, together
with the average attendance during the six next preceding months, or
during the number of months which have elapsed since the establishment
thereof, and the number of months it has been so kept open ; and the
Chief Superintendent shall thereupon determine the proportion which the
Trustees of such Separate School are entitled to receive out of the
Legislative grant, and shall pay over the amount thereof to such
Trustees, (r. )
(r) This Section is identical with the thirty-fourth Section of the Separate
School Act of 1855, except that part which requires the returns to be made
on oath, — a requirement never exacted of Common School Trustees, never
required of Separate School Trustees before 1855, — not required of the Trustees
of Protestant Separate Schools in Lower Canada since 1856, — and for which
requirement no reason of justice, or necessity, exists, as the same penalties are
imposed for making incorrect retuns to obtain additional aid, as if they were
made on oath.
It may here be remarked, that the first proviso in the thirteenth Section of
the Separate School Actof 1855, (which says, "that no Separate Schools shall
be entitled to share in such fund, unless the average number of pupils attending
the same be fifteen or more,") has been omitted. It was contained in the Bill
APPENDIX No. 1. -2\:>,
as first introduced, but was struck out, ;tt the Mig-e-t ion of the ('1,
tendent, who stated it to be useless and inoperative, — not required ;
Common Schools, the average halt-yearly at tendan.-c in lOOM "I vhii
fifteen, — and although Separate Schools \\ ho<e half -\earl\ attendance di
amount to fifteen, were not legally entitled la share in tin- I.,
(irant, yet that any such School kept open 1>\ loe-il lil.enli;
[aw, by a legally qualified Teacher, was equitably entitled to aid avoiding t<>
its working, whether its pupils numbered more or less than tin
There is also another point on which a remark may here he made. 1
been erroneously alleged that this Bill relaxes the existing lau in re-aid to tie-
time of keeping open Schools each year. It will )>e seen, by i-
the first part of the thirty-third and the thirty-fourth Section of" t:
School Act of 1855, that a Separate School is entitled to iveive aid Jiom tin-
Legislative School (irant, in proportion to the time, (in connection with a
attendance,) it is kept open, whether more or less than six months; and the
twenty-second Section of the Bill makes not the least change in that rwp
XXIII. All Judges, Members of the Legislature, the heads ,,f th,
Municipal bodies, in their respective localities, the Chief Superintendent
and Local Superintendent of Common Schools, and Clergymen of the
Roman Catholic Church, shall be Visitors of Separate Schools, (.s.)
(•s) Hitherto none but Clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church have been
admitted as Visitors of Separate Schools. This Section contains important and
liberal provisions in the right direction.
XXIV. The election of Trustees for any Separate School shall be.
voidr unless a Separate School be established under their manage
within three months from the election of such Trustees.
XXV. No person subscribing towards the support of a Separate »SdnM,l
established as herein provided, or sending children thereto, shall be
allowed to vote at the election of any Trustee for a Common School in
the City, Town, Village, or Township, in which such Separate School i>
situate.
The provisions of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth Sections of the Hill
need no remark, and will be objected to by none.
XXVI. The Roman Catholic Separate Schools, (with their I;
shall be subject to such inspection as may be directed, from time to time,
by the Chief Superintendent of Education, and shall he subject, all
such regulations as may be imposed, from time to time, by the ('. .mieil «>f
Public Instruction for Upper Canada, (t . )
(t) The provisions of this Section have not existed in any previous Act in
respect to Separate Schools; they bring the Separate Schools as com]'
under the control of Public Regulations and inspection as the Common School-.
XXVII. In the event of any disagreement between Trustees of Roman
Catholic Separate Schools, and Local Superintendents of Common SchooN.
or other Municipal authorities, the case in dispute shall be referred to the
equitable arbitrament of the Chief Superintendent of Education in I
Canada ; subject, nevertheless, to appeal to the Governor-in-Council,
whose award shall be final in all cases. («.)
214 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
(u) This is also a new legal provision. The latter part of this Section is
needless, and is not contained in the Grammar, or Common, School Act, as all
decisions of the Chief Superintendent may be appealed from to the Governor-
in-Council. His decisions have been appealed from in several instances, but
have, in every instance, been sustained.
XXVIII. This Act shall come into force, and take effect, from and
after the thirty-first day of December next : But all contracts and engage-
ments made, and rates imposed, and all corporations formed under the
Separate School Law, hereby repealed, shall remain in force, as if made
under the authority of this Act.
APPENDIX No. 2.
CANONS OF THE BALTIMORE GENERAL COUNCILS.
DECISIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE SETTLING or THE SCHOOL QUESTION AND
THE GIVING or RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, BY CARDINAL SATOLLI.
THE following "Decisions and Directions for the Settling of
the School Question and the Giving of Religious Education,"
are practically an annotated edition of the Canons of the Balti-
more General Councils, (quoted on page 37 of this Volume, by
Bishop de Charbonnel,) by the Most Reverend Francis Satolli,
Archbishop of Lepanto, Delegate of the Apostolic See to the
United States of America, — in a Letter to the Archbishops of
the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, assembled in
New York in November, 1892 :—
I. What Roman Catholic Schools should be. — All care must be taken to
erect Catholic Schools, to enlarge and improve those already established,
and to make them equal to the Public Schools in teaching and discipline. —
Concilia Plen. Bait. III., No. 197, page 101.
II. Public Schools the Alternative. — When there is no Catholic School at
all, or when the one that is available is little fitted for giving the children
an education in keeping with their condition, then the Public Schools may
be attended with a safe conscience, the danger of perversion being rendered
remote by opportune remedial and precautionary measures ; a matter that
is to be left to the conscience and judgment of the Ordinaries. — Ibid., No.
198, page 103.
III. Teachers Must be Qualified. — We enact, and command, that no one
shall be allowed to teach in a Parochial School who has proven his fitness
Al'I'KMHX No. 2.
for the position by previous examination. No Priest shall have th.
to employ any teacher, male or female, in his School without g
of ability, or diploma from tin- Diocesan Hoard of Kxaminer-,. //,;./
WS, t>n>,: ms'.
IV. \<>rni«/. >V/«W.s (i jVViv.s.s// ij. -Normal Schools, as tl.
are to IK- established where they are want in- and are evident 1\
-Ibid., N<>. .'<>:,, ,.,„,, nn.
V. I'ti i-<-ntx free to Cfv.nn»- »sV/«*W.s — No Penalty to l»
\\ . strictly forbid anyone, whether Bishop or Priest, and this i.s tin-
express prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff, through the Sacred 0
gation, either by act, or by threat, to exclude from the San-am,
unworthy, Parents who choose to send their children to the Public
Schools. As regards the children themselves, this enact m,-nt applies with
still greater force.— Ibid, No. 198, page 104, C<mf. Tit. VI., Cap. /.. //..
Tit. VII.
VI. Right of the Church to Teach.— To the Catholic- Church belong
duty and the divine right of teaching all nations to believe the truth «.f
the Gospel, and to observe whatsoever Christ commanded, (Matt, xxviii.
19); in her, likewise, is vested the divine right of instructing the y«»ini'_r
in so far as theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, (Mark x. 14), (Co/./. '
Bait. PL, III., No. 194)-, that is to say, she holds for herself the right ..f
teaching the truths of faith, and the law of morals, in order to bring up
youth in the habits of a Christian life. Hence, absolutely and universally
speaking, there is no repugnance in their learning the first elements, and
the higher branches of the arts, and the natural sciences in Public Schools
controlled by the State, whose office it is to provide, maintain, and p:
everything by which its citizens are formed to moral goodness, while they
live peaceably together, with a sufficiency of temporal goods, under law>
promulgated by civil authority.
For the rest, the provisions of the Council of Baltimore are y.
force, and, in a general way, will remain so: to wit : "Not only out of
our paternal love do we exhort Catholic Parents, hut we command them
by all the authority we possess, to procure a truly Christian and Catholic-
education for the beloved offspring given them of (iod, born again in
baptism unto Christ, and destined for Heaven, to shield and secure them
throughout childhood and youth from the dangers of a merely worldly
education, and, therefore, to send them to Parochial, or other truly
Catholic, Schools." United with this duty are the rights of Pa:
which no civil law or authority can violate or weaken.
VIT. Co-operation unth the P»l>U<- &-ln»th. — The Catholic Church in
general, and especially the Holy See, far from condemning, or tp
with indifference the Public Schools, desires rather that, by t In-
action of civil and ecclesiastical authorities, there should he Public Schools
in every State, according as the circumstances of the people require, for
216 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
the cultivation of the useful arts and natural sciences ; but the Catholic
Church shrinks from those features of Public Schools which are opposed
to the truth of Christianity and to morality ; and since, in the interest of
society itself, these objectionable features are removable, therefore, not
only the Bishops, but the citizens at large, should labor to remove them,
in virtue of their own right, and in the cause of morality.
VIII. Pariah Schools less Necessary than Formerly. — It is long since the
Holy See, after consultation with the Bishops of the United States of
America, decreed that Parish Schools and other institutions under the
direction of the Bishops, each according to the conditions of its own
diocese, were opportune and necessary for Catholic youth, from the fact
that it was held for certain that the Public Schools bore within themselves
a proximate danger to faith and morals, for various reasons (Cone. PI. Bait.
///., No. 194, seq. ; App., page 279); viz. : because in the Public Schools a
purely secular education is given, — inasmuch as it excludes all teaching of
religion, — because Teachers are chosen indiscriminately from every sect,
and no law prevents them from working the ruin of youth, so that they
are at liberty to instil errors and germs of vice in tender minds. Likewise
certain corruption seemed to impend from the fact that in these Schools,
or at least in many of them, children of both sexes are brought together for
their lessons in the same room.
Wherefore, if it be clear that in a given locality, owing to the wiser
dispositions of public authorities or the watchful prudence of School Board,
Teachers and Parents, the above-named dangers to faith and morals
disappear, then it is lawful for Catholic Parents to send their children to
these Schools, to acquire the elements of letters and arts, provided the
Parents themselves do not neglect their most serious duty, and the pastors
of souls put forth every effort to instruct the children and train them in all
that pertains to Catholic worship and life.
IX. Bishops' Discretion as to Parochial Schools. — It is left to the
judgment and the wisdom of the Ordinaries to decide whether, in a certain
part of their respective dioceses, a Parochial School can be built and kept
up in a fitting condition, not inferior to the Public Schools, taking into
consideration the temporal condition of the parents, while graver needs for
procuring their spiritual welfare and the decent support of the Church are
pressing. It will be well, therefore, as was the wont of our forefathers,
and as was done in the early days of the Church to establish weekly classes
of Catechism, which all the children of the parish should attend ; for the
better success of this measure let the zeal of Pastors in fulfilling their duty
and the love of Catholic Parents leave no effort unspared. (Cf. Cone. PI.
Bolt. III., No. 198)
X. Right of Parents as to Choice of Schools. — No reproach, either in
public, or in private, shall be cast upon Catholic Parents who send their
children to Private Schools or Academies where a better education is given
Al'I'KNhlX No. 2. -2\:
under the direction ,,f religious, or of approved ami ( 'at In. lie j,.
they make sufficient provision for tin- ' th.-ii ch;
let tin-in he five to BeOOre in other \\a\s that education which tl
of their family requires.
XI. Ari-iiHiji'iiu'iit ii-iti, Public School Anthoritiet Deiu
to be desired, and will l>r a most happy arrangement, if tin- lii-ln.p agree
with tlu- civil authorities, ,,)• \\jth tin- Members of t lit- S«-h. ...! B
conduct the School with mutual attention and «lm- consid. ••
respective rights.
While there are Tearhers ,.f aii\ description for tin- secular l.rah
who are legally inhibited from offending Catholic religion and moialr
the right and duty of the Church obtain of teaching the children ( 'at«-rlii>m.
in order to remove danger to their faith and morals from aiiv «|
whatsoever.
It seems well to quote Jiere the words of our Holy Father Leo XIII
(See the Pope's Letter to the Archbishop of New York, and to the Bishop*
of the Province) : —
"We further desire you to strive earnestly, that the various
authorities, firmly convinced that nothing is more conducive to tin- welfare
of the commonwealth than religion, should, by wise legislation, pi
that the System of Education which is maintained at the pub!
and to which, therefore, Catholics also contribute their share, be in n
prejudicial to their conscience, or religion. For we are persuaded
even our fellow-citizens who differ from us in belief, with their character-
istic intelligence and prudence, will readily set aside all suspicions and all
views unfavourable to the Catholic Church, and willingly acknowledg-
ment, as the one that dispelled the darkness of paganism by the light of
the Gospel, and created a new society, distinguished by the lustre of ('hri^-
tian virtues, and by the cultivation of all that refines. \\ e do not think
that anyone there, after looking into these things dearly, will let Catholic
Parents be forced to erect and support Schools which they cannot use for
the instruction of their children."
XII. Kelnjioii.* .luxtriK-lioii .s/if *»i/*/ !>•• tiiishinutii'iillif Ilirtn. — As for those
Catholic children that, in great numbers, are educated in the Public
Schools, where now, not without danger, they receive M" i«!i_ri.>,i-> ini
tion at all, strenuous efforts should he made not to leave- them without suffi-
cient and seasonable instruction in Catholic faith and practice. We know.
by experience, that not all our Catholic children are found in our Cat hob,-
Schools. Statistics show that hundreds of thousands of Catholic children
in the United States of America attend Schools which are under the a
of State Boards, and, in which, for that reason. Teach.
nation are engaged. Beyond all doubt, the one thing necessary,
religious and moral education according to Catholic principles, is not to b«
If)
218 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
treated either lightly, or with delay ; but, on the contrary, with all earnest-
ness and energy.
The adoption of one of three plans is recommended, the choice to be
made according to local circumstances in the different States and various
personal relations.
(1) The first consists in an agreement between the Bishop and the
Members of the School Board, whereby they, in a spirit of fairness and
good-will, allow the Catholic children to be assembled during free time and
taught the Catechism ; it would also be of the greatest advantage if this
plan were not confined to the Primary Schools, but were extended likewise
to the High Schools and Colleges, in the form of a free lecture.
(2) The second to have a Catechism class outside the Public School
Building, and also classes of higher Christian doctrine, where, at fixed
times, the Catholic children would assemble with diligence and pleasure,
induced thereto by the authority of their Parents, the persuasion of their
Pastors, and the hope of praise and rewards.
(3) The third plan does not seem, at first sight, so suitable., but is bound
up more intimately with the duty of both Parents and Pastors. Pastors
should unceasingly urge upon Parents that most important duty, imposed
both by natural and divine laws, of bringing up their children in sound
morality and Catholic faith. Besides, the instruction of children apper-
tains to the very essence of the pastoral charge ; let the Pastor of souls
say to them, with the Apostle : ' ' My little children, of whom I am in
labour again until Christ be formed in you." (Gal. iv., 19.) Let him have
classes of children in the Parish, such as have been established in Rome,
and many other places, and even in Churches in this country, with very
happy results.
Nor let him with little prudence show less love for the children that
attend the Public Schools than for those that attend the Parochial ; on the
contrary, stronger marks of loving solicitude are to be shown them ; the
Sunday School and the hour for Catechism should be devoted to them in a
special manner. And to cultivate this field let the Pastor call to his aid
other Priests, Religious, and even suitable Members of the laity, in order
that what is supremely necessary be wanting to no child.
XIII. Certificated Teachers a Necessity. — For the standing and growth
of Catholic Schools, it seems that —
(1) Care should be taken that the Teachers prove themselves qualified,
not only by previous examination before the Diocesan Board, and by a
certificate, or diploma, from the School Board of the State, awarded after
successful examination. This is urged, first, so as not to appear regardless,
without reason, of what public authority requires for teaching.
(2) A better opinion of Catholic Schools will be created.
(3) Greater assurance will be given to Parents that in Catholic Schools
there is no deficiency to render them inferior to Public Schools ; that, on
APPENDIX No. 2.
the contrary, everything is done to make C.-itholi. 3 I'ublie
Schools, or even superior.
(4) And lastly, we think that this plan would prepare tin- I
State to see, along with the reco^ni/ed and tested titnesH of the Tea
that the laws are observed in all matters pertaining: '" the arta and
sciences, to method and pedagogics, and to whatever is ordinarily r« «|iiiie«l
to promote the stability and usefulness of the Si 1,
XIV. Reasons for Normal Schools Being Efficient. — It in necessary
what are called Normal Schools should iv.-u.-h such etliri.-ncy in preparing
Teachers of letters, arts and sciences, that their graduates shall u-
to obtain the Diploma of the State. For the sake of the Catholic cause,
let there be among laymen a growing rivalry to take the Diploma and
Doctorate, so that, possessed of the knowledge and qualifications requisite
for teaching, they may compete for, and honorably obtain, positions in the
public Gymnasia, Lyceums and Scientific Institutions.
The knowledge of truth of every kind, straightforward justice, united
with charity, the effulgence and appreciation of the liberal arts, — these are
the bulwarks of the Church.
NOTE. — All the above was read and considered at the Meeting of the Roman
Catholic Archbishops of the United States, — the difficulties answered, and the
requisite alterations made, on November the 17th, 1892.
In regard to this meeting of the American Archbishops,
" The Quarterly Register of Current History,'' Volume II., of
1892, says :—
Cardinal Gibbons, who presided over the Conference, joined Archbishop
Ireland in support of the views of Cardinal Satolli ; and the Archbishops,
who were pretty evenly divided on the question, finally passed Resolutions
in substantial agreement with them. The most important step ever taken
in this country towards liberalizing the Roman Catholic Church in its
adjustment to American Institutions, has thus been made. — (Page 4-
220 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
CONSECUTIVE INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
PAGE
Early School Acts of Upper Canada 9
Education in Upper and Lower Canada, 1841 . . . . .11
General Common School Act of 1841 ....... 14
The Bible as a Class-Book in the Schools 19
Upper Canada Common School Act of 1843 ...... 25
Irish National School System 32, 38, 112, 198
Controversy with Bishop de Charbonnel ... 37, 70, 75, 108
Separate School Legislation in 1850 49
Toronto Separate School Cases 53, 71, 73
Belleville Separate School Case 63
Dr. Ryerson's Letters to Hon. George Brown . . 45, 48, 49, 53,
70, 76, 78, 84, 111
Project of a Separate School Bill by three Bishops . . . .85
The Tache Separate School Bill of 1855 . . .92, 95, 100
Lower Canada and the de Charbonnel Controversy .... 108
The Bowes' Separate School Bill of 1856 110
The Bruyere-Piiisoneault-Dallas Controversy 113
Confidential Report to Sir Edmund Head, the Governor-General . 118
Special Report on Separate Schools in Upper Canada .... 128
The Scott Separate School Bills . 126, 127, 134, 140, 152, 160, 164, 166
Clergy Reserves Fund 140
The Anglican Synod and Separate Schools ...... 145
Appeal in the Case of Ontario 167
Sir John A. Macdonald and Separate Schools ..... 168
Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and Separate Schools .... 170
Hon. George Brown and Separate Schools 171, 177
Finality of the Separate School Act of 1863 .... 172, 182
Hon. Thomas D. McGee and Separate Schools .... 178, 181
Compact with the Roman Catholic Representatives . . . 174, 180
Repudiation of it by Vicars-General Macdonell and Cazeau . . . 179
Fruitless Appeal on the Subject to R. W. Scott 183
British North America Act and Separate Schools . . 167, 182, 184
Legal Opinion on its Application 185
Separate School Inspection ......... 187
French and German Schools ........ 189
Renewed Separate School Agitation in 1865 ..... 193
Separate School Bill of 1866 195
End of Separate School Difficulties ....... 199
Dr. Ryerson and Archbishop Ireland on the Expediency of Separate
Schools .200
Appendices 205
PRINCIPAL PKKSONAI. KI.I
PRINCIPAL PERSONAL REFERENCES IN THIS \<>U Ml.
Hon. J. C., 95, 165, 106.
Allan, Hon. G. \N ., 120, lo:>, 100.
Anderson, William, 165.
Annand, William, 109.
Badgley, Hon. Judge, 122, 12:;.
Baldwin, Hon. R., 18, 47, 48, 49, 50, 5:5. :,4. 01. loi.
Bell, R., 54, 165, 196, 198, 199.
Benjamin, George, 159, 165.
Bertelot, A., 18.
Bethune, Bishop, 21.
Biggar, J. L., 164, 165.
Blacquiere, Hon. P. B. de, — see De Blacquiere.
Blake, Hon. E., 38, 185, 187.
Bowes, J. G., 95, 110, 111, 112, 138.
Bovell, Dr. J., 147, 148.
Burns, Hon. Judge, 64.
Burwell, L., 164, 165.
Brown, Hon. G., 45, 48, 49, 65, 68, 69, 70, 76. «.»4, I'M), 104, 106, 111. 17".
171, 177, 178.
Brown, Hon. James, 122.
Bruyere, Rev. J. M., 29, 113, 114, 115, 116.
Cahill, Rev. Dr., 153.
Cameron, Hon. J. H., 136, 10.V
Cameron, Hon. Malcolm, 18, 46, 47, 48, 55.
Cameron, Hon. M. C., 133, 136.
Cartier, Hon. G. E., 110, 117.
Cartwright, Hon. J. S., 18.
Cayley, Hon. William, 94, 95, 122.
Cazeau, Vicar-General C. F., 73, 80, 139, 14:5. !•;:. 174. 17'-. 17''. ISM. IM.
182, 183.
Charboimel, Bishop de, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44. 54, oi. .;;;. 68, 71. 7
80,81,84,87,90,104,105,108,109, 112. 114. ll.\ ll'.». TJ". 121.
124, 130, 144, 172, 173, 214.
222 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Chauveau, Hon. P. J. O., 194.
Child, M., 18.
Chisholm, A., 33.
Christie, Hon. David, 69, 165.
Christie, Robert, 18.
Clarke, William, 164, 165.
Colborne, Sir John, 34.
Crooks, Hon. Adam, 94, 185, 187.
Crooks, Hon. James, 94.
Dallas, Angus, 83, 115, 116.
Daly, Hon. D., 18.
Darling, Rev. W. S., 147.
Dawson, Dr. J. W., 122, 195.
Day, Hon. C. D., 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 60.
De Blacquiere, Hon. P. B., 19, 20.
De Charbonnel, Bishop, — see Charbonnel, Bishop de.
Dollard, Rev. P., 113.
Drummond, Hon. L. H., 72, 92, 93, 131.
Dunn, Hon. J. H., 18.
Dunscombe, J. W., 18.
Elgin, Lord, 77.
Elmsley, Hon. John, 29, 71, 73, 74, 96, 117, 118, 126, 127.
Eugene, Bishop, 77, 81.
Ewart, J. S., 182.
Foley, Hon. H. M., 136, 165, 169, 171.
Forster, Right Hon. W. E., 198.
Foster, S. S., 18.
Gait, Hon. Sir A., 192.
Gamble, J. W., 69, 77, 93, 94, 95, 99.
Gaulin, Bishop, 21.
George, Rev. James, 22.
Gibbons, Cardinal, 219.
Goldsmith, O., 43.
Gordon, Hon. James, 165, 166.
Grasett, Rev. H. J., 30, 31, 47.
Gray, Hon. Judge J. H., 122.
Hagarty, Hon. Chief Justice, 146.
Harrison, Hon. S. B., 18, 30, 36, 40, 172.
Hartman, Joseph, 69, 94, 95, 111, 122.
Head, Sir Edmund, 118, 119, 121, 122.
PRINCIPAL PERSONAL Ri:i i i 223
Hincks, I Ton. Sir Francis, 1»5, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 87, 15, J'J. 47, 48, i
54, 60, (51, »;•_>, <;:>,, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, si, :.;;. 1 17. |
Holmes, Benjamin, 18.
Hopkins, Caleb, 55.
Horan, Bishop, 131, 133, 134, 189.
Hudon, Rev. H., 21.
Ireland, Archbishop, 163, 201, 203, 204, 205.
Lafontaine, Hon. L. H., 48, 50, 101.
Langton, John, 19, 77, 94, 95, 99, 104.
Leslie, Hon. James, 46.
Lunn, William, 194, 195, 196.
Lynch, Archbishop, 36, 66, 68, 72, 130, 131, 133, 139, 153, i:>4. 177, 178,
179, 181, 188.
Macaulay, Lord, 161.
Macnab, Sir A. N., 77, 78, 80, 95.
McCann, H. W., 1(54, 165.
McDougall, Hon. William, 154, 165, 169, 171, 196.
McGauley, Rev. J. W., 38.
McGee, Hon., T. D., 159, 177, 178, 181.
McGlynn, Rev. Dr., 192.
Macdonell, Vicar-General Angus, 29, 33, 34, 35, 38, 54, 130, 133, 134. 190,
160, 167, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183.
Macdonald, Sir John A., 30, 54, 59, 61, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 92, 93,
94, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 116, 117. 122,
123, 132, 135, 136, 156, 164, 165, 169, 171, 173, 174.
Macdonald, Hon. J. Sandfield, 57, 61, 69, 139, 153, 154, 155, 15(5. i:>7.
158, 161, 164, 165, 169, 171, 174, 176, 182, 202.
Macdonald, Hon. Donald A., 164, 202.
Mackenzie, Hon. A., 164, 165, 170, 171, 196.
Mackenzie, W. L., 33, 55, 68, 69, 94, 95, 106.
Manseau, Rev. A., 21.
Marling, Alexander, 126, 127.
Meilleur, Dr. J. B., 122, 123.
Merritt, Hon. W. H., 17, 18.
Moffat, Hon. George, 17, 18.
Monck, Lord, 192.
Morin, Hon. A. N., 18, 63, 72, 78, 81, 84.
Morris, Hon. A., 135, 138, 165.
Morris, Hon. W., 18, 23.
Morrison, Angus, 74.
Morrison, Hon. J. C., 30, 55.
Mowat, Sir Oliver, 165, 166, 167.
Murray, Archbishop, 38.
224 U. C. SEPARATE SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
Neilson, Hon. John, 18.
Nilan, Rev. James, 204.
Northgraves, Rev. G., 178.
Ogden, Hon. C. R., 18.
O'Grady, Rev. Dr., 33, 34.
O'Sullivan, Dr. D. A., 33.
Parent, E., 18.
Parke, Thomas, 18.
Patrick, William P., 106, 165.
Patton, Hon. James, 136.
Penny, Hon. E. G., 108, 109.
Phelan, Bishop, 80, 81, 102, 103, 104, 112, 113, 134.
Pinsoneault, Bishop, 113, 115, 116.
Pius IX., Pope, 36, 37, 40, 163.
Pope, Joseph, 100, 101, 168.
Power, Bishop, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 56, 57, 120, 179.
Prince, Col. John, 18, 54.
Quesnel, F. A., 18.
Reesor, Hon. David, 154.
Richards, Hon. Chief Justice, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75.
Richards, Hon. Stephen, 185, 187.
Rintoul, John, 38.
Robertson, C., 18.
Robinson, Hon. Sir J. B., 38, 64.
Robinson, Hon. W. B., 99.
Roche, Rev. E. P-, 106.
Ross, Hon. John, 54, 157.
Ryan, Rev. J., 159, 160.
Ryerson, Dr. G. S., 166.
Ryerson, William, 135, 137, 160, 165.
Satolli, Cardinal, 38, 39, 192, 214, 219.
Saunders, Hon. J. S., 122.
Scobie, Hugh, 30.
Scoble, John, 165.
Scott, R. W., 60, 88, 104, 126, 127, 131-139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 153, 155,
156, 160-162, 164-166, 169. 170, 172-176, 179-183, 196, 197.
Sherwood, Hon. H., 54, 69.
Sidyme, Bishop of, 22.
Simpson, Hon. John, 18.
Skead, Hon. James, 158, 166.
Smith, James, 55, 69.
I'lMV II'. \i. I'l KSMN \i. III. i ;
Smith, I Ifiiry, 1 l-'I.
Spciicc. llmi. I;
Spink, William, l.'i.s.
Stailonl, Rev, M.. ::t. l«i<>.
Stevenson, D. I'.., :•:>. • ;:». '.>;,, <»'.>.
Strachan, Kr\ . In-.. 27, :;i. I is.
Sullivan. Dr. II.. .'IS.
Sullivan, II. .n. R. I',.. IS.
Syilriiham, Lord. 1 !
, Sir E. P., 88, !>-J. '.»::, I
, . \ivhl. ish.,|,. •;»;. 17:,. i;r,. isi.
Viger, Hon. D. B., 18.
Whately, Ajchbiahop, :;s. 114.
Wier, H..M. i;., i(>!».
\\ilson, Hon. John, 55, (><>, 77. !«;:,. 171.
Wiseman, Cardinal, 114.
\\yse, Right Hon. Th-mias, 20^.
REFERENCES TO NEWSPAPERS IN THIS VOLU.MK.
v., 178.
ic Citizen, 74, 85, IOC..
C/M//V/J., r/«e, 24.
11. <•« miner, Toronto, 100.
Fono/j, J/if, 192.
6?Zo6e, T/ie, Toronto, 48, 1:52, 1:57. 140. 14.\ i:,o. l.V,. l.v.i. 1 •;.-,. 169
178, 179, 180, 185.
//r,v/W, Montreal, 108.
Leader, Toronto, 29. i:',n, I:;L'. i:u. i:;.\ i:;.;. L37, H«>. in. L60, I'.u.
Memery, (Quebec, 21, l.V.».
M iin-i'i;-, .Montreal. IDS, !<>'.>.
Mirntr, Toronto, 80, 110, 111.
Nova &otew, 109.
, Montreal, 108.
,, Prescott, lor,.
Montival. 1(.»:5. 194.
ERRATUM. — On page 80, for "
Lynch."
16
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11