much more severely than I have remarked even in this letter upon the proceedings of Bishop Charbonnel. I remark, thirdly, that my discussing the provisions of the law respecting separate schools in but one annual report during ten years, sufficiently shows that there must have been some strong necessity for it at the time; and a reference to that report will furnish ample proof of that necessity, as well as amply justify the observations made. I remark, fourthly, that if Bishop Charbonnel found anything officially objectionable in that report, he should have complained of me at the time to the government, and not brought it forward privately at this late period to aid in accomplishing a particular object. I remark, lastly, that it argues an obliquity of judgment, not easily conceived, to suppose that I cannot be impartial (even if I had to decide them) on matters between separate and public schools, because I intimated that the latter could not be destroyed by the former (as some advocates for abolishing the separate school clauses of the law had contended) as I believed the latter would, after fair experiment, be preferred by all parties to the former. The very fact, that, with all the anxiety of the Bishop to seize upon every trifling shadow of complaint, he has not ventured to charge me in any instance with administrative partiality, shows the utter injustice of his imputations. I have expressed my belief, and that frequently and with great earnestness, that free schools are more economical and advantageous for all classes than rate-bill schools; yet the majority of the schools of the country are still of the latter class; but how perverted must be the mind that would on that account assail me as partial in administering the law in regard to rate-bill and free schools. I may also observe that the objection is equally absurd that I must, in the discharge of my official duties, be hostile to the Church of Rome because of my replies to the attacks, and my remarks upon the statements and proceedings of Bishop Charbonnel; I have found it necessary in justification of the school system and of myself, to reply to Protestant ecclesiastics as distinguished, and of much longer standing in the country than Bishop Charbonnel; but who would on that account think of charging me with hostility to the churches of which they are ministers? Nay, on more than one such occasion, I have expressed the sentiments as well as advocated the interests of the great majority of the members of the churches referred to. To no class of persons, more than to Roman Catholic statesmen, was the former correspondence of Bishop Charbonnel with me painful and mortifying; and none more than they will feel scandalized at the fabulousness of his recent statements, and the unconstitutional character and unheard-of provisions of his draft of bill. I think I have now shown that Bishop Charbonnel's complaints against the school law of Upper Canada, in comparison with that of Lower Canada in regard to separate schools, are without foundation; that the comparison of exemptions and powers is in favor of the separate schools of Upper Canada; that if separate schools in Upper Canada are not multiplied and if those established languish or are soon abandoned, it is not in the law that the cause is to be found, but in the acknowledged greater efficiency and more popular character of the public schools in Upper than of those in Lower Canada-in the greater freedom of our school and municipal systems, and the unwillingness of the great body of the Roman Catholic population to isolate themselves and their children from these free institutions and their fellow citizens, and to erect and sustain separate establishments for themselves and also in the greater mental culture and wealth of the Protestant minority as compared with the Roman Catholic majority in Lower Canada than that of the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada as compared with the Protestant majority.* I think I have also shown, that Bishop Charbonnel and his colleagues claim upon the ground of "conscientious convictions" a legislative enactment to deprive the Roman Catholics of the individual right of choice in school matters, severing them from the rest of the population by law, and not by individual option—that the three Bishops claim Protestant taxes as well as Protestant school property in support of Roman Catholic schools, and the discretionary subjection to them of the school fund and all the municipalities of Upper Canada. Under these circumstances there are obviously three courses before the legislature—to maintain the separate school provisions as they are, and leave separate schools to work out the experiment of their own destiny; to concede to the claims of Bishop Charbonnel and his colleagues, and thus bring on a war with the municipalities and people of Upper Canada such as has never been witnessed; or to abolish the separate school provisions of the law altogether, allowing exclusive privileges to none, but equal rights and protection to all. No. 7. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto to the Chief Superintendent. [L. R. No. 2608, 1852.] REVEREND DOCTOR, Complaint against the Toronto Board of School Trustees. + ST. CATHERINES, 21st Nov., 1852. On the 10th of April last you wrote to me: "Should there be any hesitation on the part of the Toronto board of school trustees (of which I have no apprehension) to give effect to the provisions of the law in regard to the separate schools established, I shall readily employ the means provided by law for the execution of its provisions."+ * But notwithstanding these facts, there are fewer separate schools in Lower than in Upper Canada, the number in the former (L. C.) being 43, in the latter (U. C.) 58: this shows that the school law must be more favorable to separate schools in Upper Canada than in Lower Canada. + See "Correspondence" in Return laid before the House of Assembly on the 17th September, 1852, following letter, No. V., pp. 18, 19. Now, Rev. Doctor, that board has refused to pay our separate schools, and I have paid the last quarter of all of them. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st ultimo, and to state in reply, that I have written to the chairman of the board of school trustees for this city on the subject of your complaint; and that as soon as I receive his answer I will reply to your letter. I have the honor, &c., (Signed) E. RYERSON. The Right Reverend A. F. M. DECHARBONNEL, D. D,, Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto. No. 9. The Chief Superintendent to the Toronto Board of School Trustees. On the complaint of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto against the Board. [No. 901. G.] EDUCATION OFFICE, Toronto, 2nd December, 1852. SIR, I have received a letter from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, complaining that the board of school trustees of this city had refused to pay to the teachers of the separate schools the portion of the school fund to which they are entitled by law Before replying to the Bishop's letter, I will thank you to favor me with a statement of your proceedings on the subject. No. 10. The Toronto Board of School Trustees to the Chief Superintendent I have been instructed by the board of school trustees for this city to communicate for your information a copy of a resolution adopted by the board at its meeting on the 29th ultimo, relative to the matter of complaint made by the Roman Catholic Bishop regarding the separate schools of this city, as referred to in your communica tion of December 2nd, and on the adjoining page you will find said copy accordingly. I am, &c., (Signed) G. A. BARBER, Secretary, B. S. T. To the Rev. Dr. RYERSON, Chief Superintendent of Schools, C. W. [Enclosure.] Resolved, That this Board has not, according to the allegation of the Bishop, as contained in the letter of the Chief Superintendent, refused to pay to the teachers of those separate schools the portion of the school fund to which they are entitled by law, but its members did resolve on the 7th July last,— That, regarding the arrangement with the separate schools now in existence, as extending to the end of the half-year then closed, the same be paid at the rate of the first quarter, applying half of the legal appropriation for such separate schools towards its liquidation: But that in future no sum be paid to any separate school beyond that which the law prescribes, the same to be determined at the end of the year. "So soon, therefore, as the returns of attendance of pupils at the several schools are made by the visitorial teacher and superintendent, the legal division of the school fund will be made, and the proportion accruing to the Roman Catholic separate schools will be paid. "And your committee recommend that a copy of this report be sent to Dr. Ryerson by the secretary." No. 11. The Chief Superintendent to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto. [No. 1039, G.] MY LORD, More specific statement of complaint required. EDUCATION OFFICE, Toronto, 7th January, 1853. In reference to your lordship's letter of the 21st November, the receipt of which I acknowledged on the 3nd ultimo, I herewith enclose you a copy of the correspond. ence which has taken place between this department and the board of school trustees for the City of Toronto.* As your lordship has not furnished me with any statement of the particular cases in which the board of school trustees have refused to pay the teachers of the separate schools, nor of the amounts claimed by such teachers; and as the trustees deny the general charge preferred by your lordship, it is not in my power to do anything more in the matter, or to form any opinion of the ground of the complaint, without a specific statement of the alleged facts on which the complaint is founded, and on which the claims in question are made. I have the honor, &c., (Signed) The Right Reverend Dr. DECHARBONNEL, * The two preceding letters, Nos. 9 and 10. E. RYERSON. |