_THE RYERSON BILL OF 1850._
The Act of 1846 provided that the Municipal Councils of Toronto and
Kingston were to have the same powers in school matters as the District
Councils. Toronto had at this time twelve school sections, each with its
own Trustee Board, and each fixing its own textbooks and course of
study. Such a system was cumbersome, wasteful, and inefficient, and the
practical mind of Ryerson devised a remedy. In 1847, the Cities and
Towns Act was passed. This Act required the Municipal Councils of cities
and towns to appoint a School Board of six members. These six, together
with the Mayor of the Corporation, had full control of all schools and
school property. They could determine the number and kind of schools and
the texts to be used, but they had no power either to levy an assessment
upon property or to collect rate bills from parents. Any funds needed by
the School Board in addition to the Legislative and Municipal grants
were to be levied upon the taxable property of the city or town by the
Municipal Council. But the Act did not say that the Municipal Council
must grant the sums asked for by the Board of Trustees. In Toronto the
Council of 1848 refused to levy the necessary assessment, and the School
Trustees were compelled to close the schools from July to December.
The Toronto _Globe_[78] declared that Ryerson was introducing a Prussian
despotism into Canada. Ryerson said that he desired nothing Prussian in
the Canadian schools except the method of schoolroom instruction, and
claimed that his new School Bill was almost a literal transcript of that
in force in the State of New York. Ryerson then set forth the chief
advantage of the new Bill, viz.: that it gave to the poor man the
_right_ to have his children, however numerous, educated, whereas the
rate bill system compelled him in many cases to claim free schooling
only on the ground of his poverty. The new School Act was to enable a
poor man to educate his children and still maintain his self-respect.
The school tax was to be levied not upon the children of the section,
but upon the real property. Ryerson concluded as follows: "Wealthy
selfishness and hatred of the education of the poor and labouring
classes may exclaim against this provision of the law, but enlightened
Christian philanthropy and true patriotism will rejoice at its
application."
[78] See editorial, Toronto _Globe_ of May 8th, 1848.
Commenting on Ryerson's letter, the following issue of the _Globe_ said:
"The Doctor makes a great fuss about the cruel position of a man who
cannot 'brook to say he was a pauper' under the old system and the
delightful and 'enlightened Christian philanthropy' of his new system
which 'places the poor man and his children upon equal footing with the
rich man and his children.' All bunkum, Dr. Ryerson. If it is hard to
have ten or fifty or one hundred scholars as paupers at present, will it
improve the matter to make the children of the common schools all
paupers? If one class keep their children away now because the schools
are above their means, and pride won't let them submit to state the fact
to a trustee, will there not hereafter be a much larger class whose
pride will prevent them sending their children to what even Dr. Ryerson
admits will be pauper schools?... Is it not melancholy that so crooked,
so visionary a man as this should be at the head of the literary
institutions of the country?"
But Ryerson was fighting for free schools. He knew that thousands of
children were growing up ignorant, especially in the large towns. He was
able to show that in the city of Toronto, out of 4,450 children of
school age in 1846, only 1,221 were on the common school registers and
that the average attendance was scarcely one thousand. Even if it were
granted that another thousand were in attendance at private and church
schools, the fact remained that not more than half the children in
Toronto were being educated.
In October, 1848, Ryerson submitted to the Government a draft School
Bill, designed to remedy the defects in the legislation of 1846-1848. In
a report[79] which he submitted with his draft Bill he says: "No law
which contemplates the removal of grovelling or selfish ignorance and
the elevation of society by means of efficient regulations and general
taxation for schools ever has been, or ever will be, popular with the
purely selfish or the listlessly ignorant. All such laws must be
sustained for a time at least by the joint influence of the Government
and the intelligent and enterprising portion of the community."
[79] See copy in D. H. E., Vol. VIII., p. 85.
The outcry against free schools and taxation of property to educate the
children of the poor showed clearly that the time had not yet come for
the realization of his plans, and Ryerson in his draft Bill restored to
towns and cities the right to impose rate bills upon parents, at the
same time declaring his faith in the ultimate triumph of free schools.
In February, 1849, Ryerson submitted additions to his draft Bill of the
previous October. Among other changes he recommended additional
Superintendents for Districts of more than 150 schools; District Boards
of Examiners who would replace the District Superintendent and school
visitors[80] in issuing teachers' certificates; Teachers' Institutes for
lectures and professional training of teachers; provision for separate
schools for coloured children; school libraries for each section, and
also township libraries; township School Boards; a School of Art and
Design, connected with the Normal School; provincial certificates for
Normal School graduates; making trustees personally responsible for a
teacher's salary; the distribution of school funds on a basis of actual
attendance, rather than on the number of children in the section; better
provision for fixing school sites; more equitable division of the
$200,000 legislative grant between Upper and Lower Canada, and provision
for the admission into the common schools of pupils from sixteen to
twenty-one years of age.
[80] The report of the Bathurst District Superintendent for 1848 showed
82 teachers certificated by School Visitors and 42 by the District
Superintendent. See Report of Chief Superintendent for 1848.
The Baldwin Government entrusted the handling in the Legislature of the
School Bill of 1849 to the Honourable Malcolm Cameron. It should be
borne in mind that the Legislature met in Montreal and that the
Education Office for Upper Canada was in Toronto. Dr. Ryerson was,
therefore, not in direct communication with the Government, nor was he
officially informed from day to day as to the progress of the Bill. It
should further be borne in mind that during this session the Parliament
Buildings were burned, the Governor-General mobbed, and party feeling
strongly aroused, thus creating conditions favourable for hasty and
careless legislation. It seems to have been taken for granted by the
Legislature that the Bill as brought in was prepared by Ryerson. As a
matter of fact, Ryerson's Bill had, with Cameron's assent, been so
mutilated by an enemy of the Superintendent that its essential
provisions were destroyed. As soon as Ryerson learned its real nature,
he protested on several grounds, but especially because it aimed to
destroy the usefulness of the Chief Superintendent; excluded clergymen
from being school visitors; destroyed the provincial nature of the
school system; injured the prospects of a Normal School; would subject
teachers to serious loss in collecting their salaries; re-established
school sections in towns and cities; made no provision for uniform
textbooks, and because it was cumbersome and unworkable. After an
elaborate analysis of the Bill, Ryerson intimated that he would not
attempt to administer the law as passed and that sooner than do so he
would resign. The Government soon ascertained that the Bill was
unsatisfactory to everybody and intimated to Ryerson that it would not
be brought into operation. This course was followed, and in the
meantime Ryerson perfected his plans for a new Bill to go before the
Legislature in 1850.
As the Cameron Act of 1849 was never given effect, it has no interest
for us, except in so far as it shows the evolution of the Act of 1850.
During the Parliamentary recess, 1849-50, the Government issued circular
letters to School Superintendents, ministers and other official persons,
to secure suggestions as to school legislation. The replies were handed
to Dr. Ryerson by the Hon. Francis Hincks, who had charge of the School
legislation for 1850.
Ryerson's draft of the Bill of 1850 is a tribute to his practical common
sense and is sometimes called the Charter of the Ontario School System.
Ryerson knew the people of Upper Canada as few knew them, and he was
quick to see the dividing line between that which seemed highly
desirable and that which was possible. He moved steadily toward a
distant goal, but was ever educating public opinion to move with him and
seldom showed impatience over the slow pace of travel, so long as there
was actual progress. He wished to see free schools, but in this Act
contented himself with securing permissive legislation, which he
believed would soon lead to the adoption of a free system.
The outstanding feature of the Act was the strengthening of Trustee
Boards by recognizing them as corporate bodies with full power to
manage schools under Government regulations and full power to levy taxes
or rates upon the District which they represented. In case the Municipal
Council collected school money, they did it only as a matter of
convenience. Provision was made for securing school sites, erecting and
furnishing new buildings, electing trustees, holding board meetings,
keeping schools accounts, appointing collectors for school moneys,
providing books and apparatus, educating indigent children and forming
school libraries. Teachers' duties and responsibilities were not
materially altered. They were, however, effectually secured against loss
of the full amount of salary promised them by trustee boards. Adequate
provision was made for school sections composed of adjoining parts of
two or more townships. Provision was made for Township Boards of
Trustees on the request of a majority of the school supporters, to
manage all the schools of a township. County Boards of Public
Instruction were formed, consisting of the County Superintendent and the
Trustees of the District Grammar School. These boards were to meet four
times a year, to hold examinations and license teachers. They were to
use their influence to establish school libraries and promote the cause
of education. District superintendents were limited to one hundred
schools each, and were to receive one pound per annum for each school,
besides necessary travelling expenses. The Superintendent was no longer
the custodian of school money, but gave orders to the Township Treasurer
to pay to teachers their proper allowances. The Superintendent was to
visit every school in his District once each quarter, and to deliver a
public lecture in every school section once each year. Thus the way was
open for the District Superintendent to become an expert, giving a
minimum of time to clerical work and a maximum to the encouragement of
pupils and teachers. He was to become a link between the Department of
Education on the one hand and the District Council and Trustee Boards on
the other. He was a local officer, but his duties were definitely
prescribed by a central authority. Through him the Chief Superintendent
and the Council of Public Instruction were able to keep in touch with
pupils, teachers, school visitors, trustee boards, county boards, and
district councils. School visitors were given the same privileges as by
the Act of 1846, except the right to grant licenses to teachers. The
General Board of Education was merged into the Council of Public
Instruction, with duties substantially the same as those assigned the
former body in 1846.
Incorporated towns and cities were no longer to have school sections,
but instead a Board of Trustees to manage school affairs. Town and City
School Boards were allowed three ways of securing the money necessary,
in addition to the school fund, for common school purposes. The Board
might ask the Municipal Council to levy an assessment for the required
sum, in which case the said Council were bound to comply with its
wishes; the Board might levy a rate bill upon the parents of pupils
attending school; or they might raise the required funds partly by a
rate bill and partly by an assessment levied by the Municipal Council.
The only real difference between the methods of raising money in towns
and cities on the one hand and rural sections on the other, lay in the
plan of deciding how the money was to be raised. In rural sections the
ratepayers assembled at the annual meeting, made the decision, and the
trustees carried out their wishes; in towns and cities the trustees had
full power to decide upon the method of taxation without consulting the
ratepayers. School trustees in incorporated villages were governed by
the same rules as trustees of towns and cities, except in the manner of
the annual election.
One very important feature of the new Act was the setting apart of
L3,000 a year for the establishment and support of school libraries, and
L25 a year for each District Teachers' Institute. A sum was also set
apart for procuring plans and publications for the improvement of school
architecture. The Chief Superintendent was authorized to issue
provincial certificates to Normal School graduates.
The Act of 1850 also made some important changes relating to Separate
Schools, which will be noted in another chapter.
Dr. Ryerson always felt that he owed much to the Governor-General, Lord
Elgin, for helping him to form a public opinion which made possible the
legislation of 1850. That distinguished nobleman was a graduate of
Oxford, and he never lost an opportunity of helping forward any movement
designed to raise the intellectual status of the people. But it was
largely Ryerson's unaided efforts that gave Upper Canada in 1850 such a
splendid educational machinery. It was no factory-made plan, but a
system developed step by step out of partial failures into something
better. It was, like all English law, the result of applying a
common-sense remedy to a clearly proved weakness.
During the passage through the Legislature of the Bill of 1850, a debate
arose about Ryerson's salary, and the value of his services to the
country. The following condensed account of a speech delivered in
Parliament in July, by Hon. Francis Hincks, makes clear the attitude
finally adopted by the Liberal Government toward Ryerson, and for that
reason has some historical interest:
"The member for Toronto, Mr. Boulton, had charged the Administration
with buying the support of the Superintendent of Education with an
increased salary. He had desired, in bringing forward this question, to
make it as little a political question as possible. He thought that the
great question of education might be treated without reference to party
differences. He thought it his duty, considering the position which the
Reverend Superintendent of Education occupied towards the party with
whom he acted, to state his whole course of conduct towards that
gentleman since he had taken office. It was well known to the House that
the reverend gentleman was engaged, before accepting the office which he
now held, in very keen controversy with the members of the present
ministry; he had taken a course decidedly hostile to them. As writer for
the public press at that time, he had himself engaged in that contest,
though without personal feeling, as he trusted he had engaged in every
contest of the kind. But there was undoubtedly on his own part, and on
that of his colleagues, a strong political feeling of dislike to the
reverend gentleman, on account of the formidable opposition with which
they were met by him. He was appointed to the office of Superintendent
by the late Government, and he did not blame that Government for so
appointing him; for, if anyone ever established strong claims upon a
party, it was the reverend gentleman by his defence of that
administration. The present ministry again assumed the duties of the
Government, and undoubtedly there was a general feeling among their
supporters that one of the first measures expected of them was to get
rid of the reverend gentleman in some way or other, and in that feeling
most certainly he sympathized. He had found, however, bye-the-bye, that
those who were most eager to recommend the Government to dismiss
officials, when they were put into similar situations, into the
municipal councils for instance, that they did not carry out those
views, that they did not turn out their opponents without a reason for
it. There were two or three ways of removing the Chief Superintendent;
one was to make the office a political one; but after the best
consideration being given to the question, it was not considered
advisable to do that, and the proposition to abolish the office
altogether, he was satisfied would have had the worst possible
consequences on the educational interests of the country, after
observing the benefits of active superintendents in New York, and our
own Province. The only other mode then, if these two were resisted, was
to remove the incumbent altogether, and then the question came, whether
he had acted in such a manner as to justify his dismissal. He had often
asked this question of the persons who urged his dismissal, and they
had never given one good reason to support the affirmative. He was not
one of those who thought that because a person supported one Government
that he was therefore incapable of serving faithfully those who
succeeded them, whom he had formerly opposed, always supposing, of
course, that his office was not a political one. He could not find that
the reverend gentleman had entered in the slightest degree into the
field of politics, and as he had discharged his duties with great zeal
and ability, they had no reason to interfere with him. Then the point
was, how they were to act towards him in his position, and his (Mr.
H.'s) determination was to give him the most cordial support; as a
member of the Government he considered it his duty to do so. He felt it
his duty to give the same support to officers who came oftener into
contact with him, the officials of the Custom House, and he defied
anyone to say that any political opponent of his had received less
cordial support in the discharge of the duties of his office than his
friends had; the efficiency of the service absolutely required that he
should do so. He put himself in communication with the reverend
gentleman in reference to this Bill, and as he (Mr. H.) believed that
Doctor Ryerson possessed a more complete knowledge of the school system
than any other person, he thought that any Government would have done
very wrong not to have availed themselves of that knowledge. He deeply
regretted the course which some gentlemen with whom he generally acted
had taken on this matter.
"He would only say now, that he considered he should be paid the highest
salary given to any officer, for the duties of none were more onerous or
more important. He might remark that he had not found lawyers in the
House very anxious to reduce the salaries of the judges, but when it
came to civilians, to superintendents of schools, then five hundred
pounds a year was far too much. Now he considered the duties of that
office as quite equal in importance, and requiring equal talents to
those of a Collector of Customs, and thought that he should not be
placed in an inferior position to them."[81]
[81] See issue of Toronto _Globe_, July 11th, 1850, p. 331.
* * * * *
The Toronto _Globe_, of July 16th, 1850, speaking on the debate in the
Assembly, said:
"The debate on Egerton Ryerson's salary was, we think, just another
instance of pandering to the cry of the moment. His salary was
sought to be made the same as the Lower Canada Superintendent's.
Well, the Lower Canada Superintendent's salary is five hundred
pounds, but it would not do to name that sum for Upper Canada until
the retrenchment committee had operated upon Lower Canada. Now, why
not say at once that five hundred pounds is the proper salary for
the Superintendent of Education of nearly a million people, and
stick to it? We are no admirers of Egerton Ryerson, and we have
always thought, and we think still, that the present ministry should
have turned him out neck and crop the moment they got into power;
but we are free to admit that he is a man of very great talent, who,
at any mercantile or professional business he might engage in, would
readily make five hundred pounds a year, and we do think that this
sum is as little as could be assigned to an office of such high
public importance."
This article clearly shows that the _Globe_ recognized Ryerson's talents
and his professional ability, while objecting to him on political
grounds. Mr. George Brown, the _Globe_ Editor, was too shrewd a man, and
had too strong an interest in popular education, not to see that Ryerson
was working a reformation in school affairs. The following from a
_Globe_ editorial of September 14th, 1850, is really a tribute
grudgingly paid to Ryerson's efforts:--
"While other professions, the clergy, the lawyers, the physicians,
have long gained a certain position and influence in society, and
have assumed the management of their own affairs, teachers, as a
class, have, until lately, stood alone, disregarded by the
community, and in many instances treated as beneath the notice of
men infinitely their inferiors in mental acquirements, and engaged
in pursuits certainly not more important to the well-being of the
community. While others were improving their circumstances and
acquiring wealth and power, the schoolmaster alone appeared
stationary, doomed to drag on a life of poverty and contempt, and
looked upon by parents as a sort of nurse for their naughty
children, who received their wages for their services, and not to
meddle with the affairs of the world. We but repeat what we wrote
some years ago, prior to any of Egerton Ryerson's schemes, when we
say that it is a reproach to the Christian world, that those who
prepare the rising generation for entry into business life, should
have been left so long to poverty, and to have occupied so low a
place in society. Only conceive a schoolmaster--profoundly versed in
the vast variety of knowledge which the human mind can master, a man
who can solve the most difficult problem in mathematics, and take
the highest flights in astronomy--rarely reaching beyond the mark of
a person to be patronized. To such a man, the constant toil and
drudgery of a school, the annoyance of unruly children and
unreasonable parents, and above all the pinching poverty to which he
is too often subject, present a life of hardship which it is
difficult to conceive. The smith, or the carpenter of the village,
may by industry realize something for the wants of a surviving
family, and the shopkeeper, or the baker, may perhaps become
wealthy; but the idea of a schoolmaster having any other position
than poverty, would be thought the height of absurdity."
Ryerson believed that if school trustees were given the option of free
schools and power to enforce taxation for their support, they would soon
abolish rate-bills upon parents. Public sentiment was rapidly changing.
This was fairly shown by the city of Toronto, where there were many
wealthy men who objected to free schools, and where private and
denominational schools were more popular than in any other part of Upper
Canada. In March, 1851, a committee of the Toronto Board submitted to
the Chairman a special report showing that 3,403 children who should be
in the schools of that city were roaming the streets and growing up
without educational advantages of any kind. The report ascribed this
condition of affairs mainly to two causes, rate-bills and lack of school
accommodation, and concluded by making a strong stand for free schools.
The Toronto _Globe_ had scoffed at free schools in 1848. The rapid
change that took place in the views of this journal is a fair index of
the change that was taking place among the people of Upper Canada in
regard to free schools. I shall, therefore, quote from the _Globe_ to
show the trend of public opinion on free schools during the early
fifties. As early as January 30th, 1851, the _Globe_ said editorially:
"We are glad to observe that the plan of free common schools has
been adopted at the recent annual meetings in very many school
sections throughout Upper Canada. The best gift the people of Canada
can confer on their children is education, sound, practical
education available to all. Public money employed in educating the
masses is a most profitable investment, and we hope the day will
soon be when a good education is open to every child in the
country."
On January 5th, 1852, the _Globe_ expressed itself as follows:--
"The most important change proposed in our present system of common
schools, is the abolition of all direct charges against the parents
of the children attending, and the support of these institutes by
direct tax on the whole body of the people. We trust the day is not
far distant when the Reserve and Rectory lands will be devoted to
the support of the common schools of Upper Canada, the school tax
abolished, and the unspeakable advantages of a sound education
placed without any charge within the reach of every child in the
Province. Every effort should be put forth to effect this, but
meantime let us seek to obtain the best system which our position
admits of, and that, we believe, is an entirely free system
supported by a direct tax. There are many reasons urged against this
proposed change by sincere friends of education, which are not
without weight. It is said to be unjust and tyrannical to make
people who are childless pay for those who are blessed with a
numerous progeny; it is urged that parents will value the blessing
of education more, when they are compelled to pay for it; it is
alleged to be a weakening of the parental tie, to take the expense
of the education of the child from the shoulders of the parent.
These arguments will have more or less influence according to the
position and character of the individual who considers them, but we
assert without fear of contradiction that all the evils which our
warmest opponents anticipate from the introduction of free schools
sink into insignificance beside the frightful consequences of our
children growing up in the blindness of ignorance, the result which
a free system is designed to avert. No reasonable disinterested man
would place the one class of evils in comparison with the other....
"Many opponents of free schools, however, are willing that the
children of the poor should be educated without charge, as they are
at present. Most parents, however, would be, and are, prevented by
their pride from taking advantage of this favour, and we think it
highly desirable that the idea of begging education, or anything
else, should be set as far as possible from the mind of every
Canadian. The children of the poor should look to the common schools
as a place to which they have a right to go, having paid a quota of
the expense in proportion to their means, in the same way that they
claim the right to walk the pavement, and on the same grounds. It is
indeed a noble thought to place the education of the people in the
same position as the protection of the people and the government of
the people, to make it one of the necessaries of the existence of a
state in peace and security, and to provide it at the expense of
all, for the benefit of all. With a Government formed as ours is by
the people, and entirely under its control, our only safeguard
against anarchy and confusion is the intelligence and right of the
people. A thorough system of common school education is the only
means which can ensure these high advantages. Education ought to be
universal, and to be so, it must be entirely free from all expense;
there must be inducements held out to the short-sighted, unwilling
parent."
As I have already shown, free schools had stronger opposition in Toronto
than at any other point, yet at a large public meeting held in January,
1852, in St. Lawrence Hall,[82] there were only twelve people who
opposed a motion for free schools. Later in the same month Doctor
Ryerson himself attended a public meeting in Toronto and discussed the
free school issue. I shall quote from his speech[83] to show how
skilfully he could use a concrete illustration to influence public
opinion. "Speaking of free schools he said he well remembered how he
went to visit one of the public schools of Boston, the High School,
where boys were prepared for College, yet as free of expense to all
classes as the lowest, and the Mayor of the city, who accompanied him,
wishing to give a lesson in aristocracy, probably, pointed out two lads
who occupied the same seat. He told him that one of these was the son of
Abbot Lawrence, the great manufacturer, and now American minister in
England, and the other was the son of the doorkeeper of the City Hall,
which they had just left. They were enjoying the same advantages, the
son of the millionaire and the son of the doorkeeper; that was what he
wished to see in Canada, the sons of our poor have the same opportunity
of educational advancement as those of the rich. Did it appear from
this that the rich did not attend the common schools of Massachusetts?
The Governor of that State, in a speech which he made lately at Newbury
Port, said that if he had as many sons as old Priam, and was as rich as
Astor, that he would send them to the free school. There were rich and
proud men in Massachusetts, undoubtedly, who would not send their
children among the poor, and rich stingy men who objected to be taxed
for other people's children, but they were the exceptions to the rule.
There was one fact that he wished to mention in connection with the free
schools of Massachusetts. A body of European clergy belonging to the
Catholic Church had gone to their Bishop in Boston to request him to use
his influence against the free school system. He returned for answer
that he knew the character of the schools, having been educated in them,
and having owed to them his position in the Church and the world, and
would do nothing to impair their usefulness."
[82] See report in _Globe_ of January 10th, 1852.
[83] See report in _Globe_ of January 13th, 1852.
* * * * *
It would be a mistake to suppose that there were not valiant champions
against the free school principle, and it would be a worse mistake to
suppose that all the sound arguments were on the side of free schools.
The following letters from the Reverend John Roaf, a Toronto clergyman
(Congregationalist), will give a fair idea of the stand taken by those
who favoured rate bills upon parents. The first letter, published in the
_Globe_, January 31st, 1852, is as follows:
"I am happy to inform you that school section No. 1, Township of
York, including the village of Yorkville, have this day negatived a
proposal to have a free school, preferring to give the teacher L60
from the Public funds, and a right to charge 1s. 3d. per month for
every child attending the school. The mechanics and labourers here
have thus discharged the power, for there cannot be any such right,
so wrongfully given them by the School Act, to educate their own
children at the expense of their more wealthy neighbours. All praise
to their honesty. Thus they will escape from the pauperizing
tendencies of the free school system. They encourage their
schoolmaster with the hope of being rewarded for making a good
school. They suffer the proprietors of private schools to maintain a
useful competition with the common school teacher; they keep up
valuable select schools, and yet in return for the public fund, they
will get free education for the children whose parents need
exemption from the school fees.
"May we not hope that the city of Toronto will next year follow this
honourable example, and spurn the unrighteous counsel which is
introducing communism in education to the undermining of property
and society? The French people and the Normans ought to serve as
warnings of the abyss to which this plausible socialism is enticing
us."
The second letter was published in the Toronto _Globe_, February 5th,
1852:
"The idea of the outlay for education being profitable for the
holders of property, and thus justifying the impost, is much like a
joke; for surely no one thinks it necessary to force upon men of
property so great a gain, as they seldom need be convinced by their
poor neighbours where their true interests lie. Gain indeed; why,
probably three-fourths of the children now in the Toronto common
schools will carry their education away to the West, and here be
succeeded by others who will similarly want to use our property for
their own benefit. Besides we might give free education to those who
otherwise would be destitute of it, but make those purchase it who
have the means.
"While I thus dwell on the injustice of the arrangement, I do so
because what is unjust cannot be wise, and not because the futility
of the system is not otherwise apparent. The free system divests the
teacher of all proprietary and personal interest in his school, and
will speedily render him sycophantic and servile to his trustees,
but haughty and negligent towards his pupils and friends. It will
throw education into the hands of an electioneering party, and what
kind of party that will be in such places as Toronto, need not be
said. It will destroy all the confidence and love felt towards the
teacher as the employee and friend of the child's parents, and
substitute for them a cold respect due to the public official. It
will render school attendance desultory and variable, because unpaid
for, and always to be had for asking. Instead of the soft, familiar,
and refined circle in which wise parents like to place their
children, it will drive gentle youths and sensitive girls into the
large herds of children with all the regimental strictness and
coldness and coarseness by which such bodies must be marked, and
thus, while the child asks bread you will give him a stone."
The opposition to free schools did not all come from wealthy
property-owners who objected to educating the children of the poor.
Voluntary schools, wholly independent of Government control and closely
allied with some church, were already in operation in populous centres
in Upper Canada. The managers of these schools had to depend wholly upon
subscriptions and fees. So long as all schools were supported mainly
from rate bills upon parents the purely voluntary schools were not at a
serious disadvantage. But if free common schools were established, then
all patrons of voluntary schools must submit to be taxed twice for the
education of their children. The following from a _Globe_ editorial of
February 14th, 1852, shows that the effects of free schools upon
voluntary schools were fully appreciated:
"The _Patriot_ of Tuesday gives us the real reason for his
opposition to free schools. Formerly he talked of pauperizing the
whole people, of socializing them, of a number of other direful
evils to be dreaded as consequences of all free schools. In his last
article, however, he admits that his main objection is, that
denominational schools can never be supported beside those entirely
free. We commend this fact to our friends who are sincerely opposed
to sectarian education, and yet are not prepared to accept the
principles of entire freedom. It is undoubtedly true what the
_Patriot_ says, denominational schools cannot exist beside free
schools. So long as we continue to exact payment from parents, so
long will efforts be made by the sects to obtain aid from the public
funds and private support in order to weaken the common schools,
draw away scholars from them, and destroy their efficiency. When the
schools are supported entirely by taxation, no such attempts can be
met with success. No sectarian school only partially supported by
the State can compete with the free institution, and no one would
be foolish enough to propose to endow more than one entirely free
school. The people would not stand the taxation. The free principle
is a deathblow to the attempts of the priests to get the education
of the people into their own hands, to train up the children in
classes and denominations, to shut them out from free knowledge, and
to give them just what pleases their prejudiced views. The _Patriot_
thinks it would be tyrannical to prevent the establishment of
sectarian schools by means of a free system. We cannot see it in
that light. The denominational plan has been tried in England, but
it has failed. The schools were never established in sufficient
numbers to educate the people. It is not reasonable to expect that
sects managed by cliques of clergymen in the large towns should be
able to manage a complete system of education for the people. The
very idea is absurd. Are we then to give up our efforts for the
education of the people, because these efforts would interfere with
the small, ineffectual endeavours these denominations might make to
secure proselytes to their churches through secular schools?
Certainly not; the greatest friend to sectarian education could not
admit that; and we who oppose that system rejoice that free schools,
which are spreading so fast, will effectually put down the
endeavours of the sects after educational influence which has
produced both in Ireland and England such a scarcity of knowledge,
and which have not been without their ill-effects in Canada."
These quotations will for us serve two purposes. They give a fair
picture of the free school movement, and they sum up the arguments for
and against State education. No thoughtful person in this age can
observe the apathy of thousands of people in regard to the education of
their children without at times feeling that these people would
appreciate schools much more if they had to make some personal sacrifice
to secure their advantages. But further thought is almost certain to
convince us that free schools are the natural support of a democratic
government, and that without their socializing influence a
self-governing people would always be more or less at the mercy of
demagogues.