_RYERSON AND SEPARATE SCHOOLS._
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth as briefly as possible the
origin and development of Separate Schools in Upper Canada, showing
incidentally the part taken in that development by Doctor Ryerson.
If we seek to discover the primary cause of our Separate School system
we undoubtedly find it in the almost unanimous desire of the pioneer
settlers to have the Common Schools established upon a basis of
Christianity, and to secure for their children some positive instruction
in the Holy Scriptures. From their standpoint secular schools were of
necessity godless schools. We need also to remember that sectarian
prejudices were more bitter seventy years ago than they are to-day.
Dogma and religion were thought to be inseparable. To-day the various
bodies of Christians throughout the world make much of what they hold in
common; seventy years ago their grandfathers could not forget the petty
differences of doctrine that held them apart. If the schools were to
give religious instruction, and if the adoption of some form of
instruction acceptable to all was impossible, then separate schools
were the logical outcome. And as separate schools for each one of the
many sects into which the scattered population of Upper Canada was
divided were clearly impossible it naturally followed that such schools
were established for Roman Catholics who were comparatively few in
number, and who differed in doctrine from Protestants more radically
than the various Protestant bodies differed amongst themselves. No one
of the Protestant bodies could object to the reading of the Protestant
Bible in the schools, but the Roman Catholics naturally objected to
their children taking any part in such an exercise.
As pointed out in Chapter IV., the Common School Act of 1841 laid the
foundation of Separate Schools. The provisions of that Act applied to
the United Canadas. In any township or parish any number of dissentients
might elect a trustee board and establish a school, receiving for its
support public money in proportion to their numbers. It is clear that in
practice under this clause a dissentient school could be established
only where the dissentients were sufficiently numerous to furnish at
least fifteen children of school age, and contribute a considerable sum
for school purposes. Another clause in the Act of 1841 required the
Governor to appoint, in towns and cities, school boards made up of an
equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics, the Protestants to
manage schools attended by Protestant children and the Catholics to
manage schools attended by Catholic children. But this clause made no
provision for Roman Catholics from two or more city school sections
combining to form one school for their children, and as Catholics in a
single city section were seldom if ever numerous enough to form a school
the Act was practically inoperative in securing separate Roman Catholic
schools.
The Bill of 1841, as introduced into the Assembly, contained none of the
above provisions for Separate Schools, and the question naturally
arises, why were they inserted? Several petitions were presented from
Boards of Education, and some from Synods of the Presbyterian Church,
praying that the Bible be made a textbook in the schools. Bishop
Strachan and the clergy of his diocese petitioned "that the education of
the children of their own Church may be entrusted to their own pastors,
and that an annual grant from the assessments may be awarded for their
instruction."[84] The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kingston also petitioned
against the Bill as brought in, but did not expressly ask for Separate
Schools. It seems natural then to infer (and the Journals of the
Assembly for 1841 bear out this inference), that the amendments
granting Separate Schools were a compromise.
[84] See copy in D. H. E., Vol. IV., p. 20.
Another amendment authorized Christian Brothers to teach even if they
were not naturalized British subjects. In 1843 the Act of 1841 was
repealed in so far as it related to Upper Canada. The new Act made it
unlawful in any common school to compel the child to read from any
religious book or join in any religious exercise to which his parents or
guardians objected. It also provided that if the teacher of a school
were a Roman Catholic, then any ten householders or freeholders might
petition for a Separate School with a Protestant teacher or, in the same
way, Roman Catholics might form a Separate School if the teacher were a
Protestant.
The grants to these Separate Schools were to be that proportion of the
total school fund in any Municipal District that the children in actual
attendance at the Separate School bore to the total number of children
of school age in the district, and they were subject to the same rules
and regulations regarding courses of study and inspection as the Common
Schools.
In 1847 an amendment to the Common School Act was passed known as the
Towns and Cities Act. This Act gave the Trustee Boards of towns and
cities full power to determine the number of, and regulate,
denominational schools. An extract from Ryerson's Annual Report for
1847 as presented to the Provincial Secretary will make clear the nature
of the Act and the Chief Superintendent's views of it. Speaking of the
provision for Separate Schools in the Act of 1843 he says:
"I have never seen the necessity for such a provision in connection
with any section of the Common School Law, 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 and
guardians; and besides the apparent inexpediency of this provision
of the law it has been seriously objected to as inequitable,
permitting the Roman Catholics to have a denominational school, but
not granting a similar right or privilege to any one Protestant
denomination ... nor does the Act of 1847 permit the election of any
sectarian school trustees nor the appointment of a teacher of any
religious persuasion as such even for a denominational school. Every
teacher of such school must be approved by the town or city school
authorities. There are, therefore, guards and restrictions connected
with the establishment of a denominational school in cities and
towns under the new Act which did not previously exist; it, in fact,
leaves the applications or pretensions of each religious persuasion
to the judgment of those who provide the greater part of the local
school fund and relieves the Government and Legislature from the
influence of any such sectarian pressure. The effect of this Act has
already been to lessen rather than to increase denominational
schools, while it places all religious persuasions on the same legal
footing, and leaves none of them any possible ground to attack the
school law or oppose the school system. My Report on a system of
Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada, as well as various
decisions and opinions which I have given, amply show that I am far
from advocating the establishment of denominational schools; but I
was not prepared to condemn what had been unanimously sanctioned by
two successive Parliaments."[85]
[85] See copy in D. H. E., Vol. VII., p. 178.
During the Legislative Session of 1850, and while the School Bill was
under discussion, a petition was presented by prominent Roman Catholic
authorities praying for some modifications of the provisions for
Separate Schools in the Bill then before the House. The result was that
the 19th clause of the Act of 1850 made it compulsory upon the Municipal
Council of any township or the School Board of any city or town or
incorporated village, upon the written request of twelve or more
resident heads of families, to establish one or more Separate Schools
for either Protestants or Roman Catholics. At this time only fifty-one
Separate Schools were in operation in the whole of Upper Canada,[86] of
which nearly one-half were Protestant.
[86] See circular, issued by Ryerson, of April 12th, 1850, to Municipal
Councils on Act of 1850.
According to a letter written by Ryerson to Hon. George Brown[87] there
was a movement among certain Anglicans to secure Separate Schools for
their children. Had Roman Catholics and Anglicans[88] both secured
Separate Schools, it would have wrecked the Common School system, and
these two denominations acting in concert were strong enough to defeat
the Baldwin-Lafontaine Government. Acting on Ryerson's suggestion, the
Government conceded in the main the Roman Catholic claim and secured
their support to the Bill. This Bill gave Separate Schools one distinct
advantage over the Act of 1843. It made their share of the Separate
School fund that part of the total fund which the Separate School
attendance bore to the total school attendance. But Separate School
supporters were still far from having their schools recognized as a
right and placed on an equality with Common Schools. Separate Schools
were granted as a privilege or concession, but not as a right. Let me
quote from Ryerson's circular to town reeves on the Act of 1850: "But,
notwithstanding the existence of this provision of the law since 1843,
there were last year but 51 Separate Schools in all Upper Canada, nearly
as many of them being Protestant as Roman Catholic; so that this
provision of the law is of little consequence for good or for evil....
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 schoolhouse must be provided, furnished, warmed, books
procured, etc., by the persons petitioning for the Separate School. Nor
are the patrons or supporters of a Separate School exempted from any of
the local assessments or rates for common school purposes."[89]
[87] See D. H. E., Vol. IX., p. 25.
[88] It is not meant to suggest that even a majority of the Anglicans
would have done anything to wreck the Common School System. As a matter
of fact, only a few of the Anglican laity sympathized with the extreme
views of Bishop Strachan, either in Common School or University affairs.
[89] See D. H. E., Vol. IX., p. 208.
This makes it clear that Separate School supporters were liable to be
taxed by the municipality for the support of Common Schools; they might
be called upon to pay an assessment to build, repair or furnish a Common
School, or to pay a part of the teacher's salary. On the other hand, the
only aid they received in support of their own school was a share of the
legislative and municipal grants which together made up the school
fund.[90] It will at once be seen that every step toward free Common
Schools placed the Separate School supporters at an increased
disadvantage because it made them contribute more and more toward the
Common School.
[90] It was long a favourite argument of those opposed to Separate
Schools that inasmuch as the bulk of the property was owned by
Protestants, the Roman Catholics were not entitled to a share of the
school fund reckoned on the basis of the pupils' attendance.
The Act of 1850 caused some friction in Toronto, where the Roman
Catholics asked for a second Separate School. The Trustee Board refused
on the ground that they were not legally compelled to establish more
than one Separate School in the city and the Court of Queen's Bench
upheld their decision. By the old Act, under which cities were divided
into school sections, there was no legal bar to the establishment of a
Separate School in every city school section. Ryerson thought the Roman
Catholics had a grievance and consented to recommend the Bill giving a
Separate School in each city ward or a Separate School for two or more
wards united for such purpose. This amendment was passed in 1851 and
caused considerable discussion. A large party in Upper Canada were
opposed to Separate Schools on principle and objected to any legislation
that would multiply them, make them more efficient and popular, or
grant them more favourable financial support.
The attitude of the out-and-out opponents to Separate Schools was very
well expressed by the following Bill,[91] introduced in 1851 by William
Lyon Mackenzie:--
"Whereas the establishment of sectarian or Separate Schools, upheld
by periodical grants of money from a provincial treasury and placed
under the control of the Executive Government through its
Superintendents of Education and other civil officers, is a
dangerous interference with the Common School system of Upper
Canada, and if allowed to Protestants and Roman Catholics cannot
reasonably be refused to Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers,
Tunkers, Baptists, Independents and other religious denominations;
and whereas if it is just that any number of religious sects should
have Separate Public Schools it is not less reasonable that they
should have separate Grammar Schools, Colleges and professorships in
the Universities; and whereas it is unjust for the State to tax
Protestants in order to provide for the instruction of children in
Roman Catholic doctrines or to tax Roman Catholics for religious
instruction of youth in principles adverse to those of the Church of
Rome; and as 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 our Common School system obtain the
advantages of a moral, intellectual and scientific education, be it
enacted therefore that the nineteenth section of the Act of 1850 be
repealed."
[91] See Journals of Canadian Assembly for 1851.
Mackenzie's Bill was defeated by 26 to 5. It lays down broad general
principles that are not easy to overthrow, and no doubt several who
voted against it would have been glad to see all young Canadians
educated together. But if the right to have Separate Schools be granted,
and it had been granted by successive School Acts for Upper Canada, then
it seems naturally to follow that the Legislature was bound to place no
obstacles in the way of their formation and to make them efficient.
Separate Schools were at first grudgingly granted as a privilege, but
not as a right. Naturally, every extension of the privilege was used by
the supporters of these schools as a vantage-ground from which to secure
further privileges and gradually convert these into rights. At first the
parties seceding from the Public Schools shared only in the school fund
made up of the legislative grant and an equal sum levied by the
district, town or city council--the whole being available only for the
payment of teachers' salaries. Supporters of Separate Schools were
liable to be taxed for the building and equipment of Public Schools in
addition to the support of their own. They claimed a _pro rata_ share of
all moneys levied by taxation, and in some cases the law was invoked in
an attempt to secure such share.
In 1853, a radical amendment was adopted by which Separate School
supporters received a _pro rata_ share of the legislative grant only,
and upon subscribing for school purposes a sum equivalent to the grant
secured were relieved of all taxation for Common School purposes. The
Act of 1853 also gave the Separate School trustees power to issue
certificates to the teachers employed by them, and the same power of
levying rates upon the supporters of their schools as that exercised by
trustees of Common Schools.
While the Separate School Bill of 1853 was before the Legislature, there
was an attempt to introduce a clause establishing a general Board of
Trustees for Separate or sectarian Schools in towns and cities. Ryerson
went to Quebec to confer with the Attorney-General and vigorously
opposed the Bill. His correspondence shows that he had no wish to place
Separate Schools on an equality with Public Schools. In fact he wished
to do nothing that would encourage or make easy their formation. The
law as it stood allowed Separate Schools only when the teacher was of a
different religious faith from those wishing the Separate School. A
general Board of Separate School Trustees for every town or city would
have greatly increased the number of Separate Schools. Ryerson says:
"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.... If there are city and town Boards of Sectarian School
Trustees they will claim the right of appointing their own local
superintendents, and thus their schools will be shut up against all
inspection except that they themselves may please to require or
permit.... Thus such a Board in Toronto might recognize and claim public
aid for every child taught in convents and by other private teachers of
the same religious persuasion.... If provision be made in each city and
town to incorporate into one Board one religious persuasion, exempting
it from the payment of school rates and authorizing it to tax and
collect from its own members to any amount for school purposes, the
application of any other religious persuasion in any such city or town
cannot be consistently or fairly resisted.... The effect of all this
would be to destroy the system of Public Schools in cities and towns
and ultimately perhaps in villages and townships, and to leave all the
poorer portion of the population and that portion of it connected with
minor religious persuasions without any adequate and certain means of
education. 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."[92]
[92] See D. H. E., Vol. X., pp. 172 and 173.
* * * * *
The attitude of the extreme opponents of Separate Schools may be made
clear from the editorials of George Brown in the Toronto _Globe_. On
April 2nd, 1853, he says:--
"But under the new Bill the taxation of the Roman Catholic parents
and the whole charge of the Separate Schools are to devolve on the
Popish authorities. The schools are to become henceforth distinct,
not only in their mode of tuition, but in the machinery by which
they are to be conducted. They are to retain no vestige of
connection with the general educational system, which is the pride
and glory of the Canadian people. Any Roman Catholic has only to
declare himself a supporter of a Separate School and straightway he
is relieved from taxation for the maintenance of the general system.
As at present constituted, there is a kind of guarantee that Roman
Catholics are educated, that they are not left entirely in
ignorance, but under Mr. Richards' Bill there would be none.... The
plain and obvious intention of the Bill is the still further
development of the sectarian element in our Common Schools. The
Roman Catholics were not satisfied with what they had already
gained. They wished to obtain their share of the annual
Parliamentary grant, paid out of the revenue, which is made up
almost exclusively from Protestant money. They wished to have their
schools altogether free from the supervision of the general
trustees. Their bishops went down to Quebec, the _Mirror_ announcing
their departure, and hinting at the object of their journey, and
straightway we have the Bill from Mr. W. B. Richards, granting to
them all they had demanded. If they had asked much more it would
have been granted to them by the present Government. If this Bill
passes into law, the sectarian system will be fully and thoroughly
introduced, and must be carried out to its utmost extent. The Roman
Catholics say that they are not satisfied to send their children to
the Common Schools, and they are free from taxation. The
Episcopalians are ready to say the same, and we ask whether in
fairness we can refuse to one what we grant to the other? And then
the Methodists will demand separate schools, and the Presbyterians,
and all hopes of the education of the people may be abandoned. Yet
this Bill has been introduced by a Government raised to power upon
the principle that our school system should be free from clerical
control. 'No sectarian schools' was the watchword at the last
election among Reformers, yet one of the first measures introduced
by the Reform Government is to establish sectarian schools more
thoroughly than before. We look to them to abolish, and behold! they
ratify and confirm the evils of their predecessors. Where is this to
stop? When is the measure of the iniquity of this Government to be
filled up?... Let our school system, the source of light and
intelligence, be destroyed, and what remains to us of hope for the
country? They, as it were, would go gradually back to the darkness
of ignorance and superstition. We shall consider no institution safe
from priestly encroachments if this Bill is carried. There is no
point upon which the people of Upper Canada can be more severely
wounded than their common schools. Every true patriot has fondly
looked to them as the safeguards against the despotism of
priestcraft, and against violence of an ignorant and, therefore,
vicious populace. If they are sacrificed, if their noble endowment
is scattered among the sects, frittered away on a dozen different
school systems, if the priests are to take possession of all the
avenues of knowledge, what will be the fate of this Province? Will
it rise in the scale of nations, ever to be distinguished for the
intelligence of its people, for its prosperity and advancement?"[93]
[93] See bound volumes of _Globe_ in Legislative Library, Toronto.
The following from the Toronto _Examiner_, reprinted in the _Globe_ of
April 7th, 1853, shows that the _Globe_ was not alone in its opinions:--
"We are reluctantly forced to the conviction that the rupture,
complete and final, of the Common School system of Canada is only a
question of time. We were among those who looked anxiously to the
Government for a liberal and decided policy on this momentous
question. An examination of the supplementary School Bill which we
give in other columns will bear us out but too fully, we fear, in
pronouncing its liberality exceedingly questionable.... How
different in Canada. Reformers have been bidding for Roman Catholic
votes until they are likely to bid away every distinctive principle
which they hold, and when this is done will it satisfy the ends of
men whose mission is to establish in the place of free institutions
the domination of priestcraft?"
The following from the Roman Catholic _Mirror_, quoted in the _Globe_,
April 9th, 1853, shows that the Roman Catholics were well pleased with
the Bill:
"We freely admit that we had certain misgivings respecting the
amount of relief which might be expected from the measure proposed,
which from the haughty and dictatorial tone assumed by the Chief
Superintendent of Schools for Upper Canada, in his late
perambulations, we were prepared at least to regard with suspicion.
The terms on which justice has been hitherto meted out in stinted
and niggard instalments, under the existing law, and the many
instances in which it has been withheld or contemptuously refused,
may have rendered us over-sensitive; but we must acknowledge that
when we observe Dr. Ryerson publicly promulgate the conditions on
which he would concede to Catholics the privilege of directing the
education of their own children, we were prepared to expect a
reiterated legislative insult and a gross injustice, not a measure
restrictive, partial and oppressive. We have been most agreeably
disappointed; the Bill of the 'Honourable Attorney-General West,'
with some slight modifications which can be readily introduced in
committee, will form the basis of an educational system of sound
principle, particularly calculated to do justice to all classes of
the community."
The following resolutions of the Synod of the United Presbyterian
Church, printed in the _Globe_, June 30th, 1853, shows the opinion of
that body on the Common School question:--
"Resolved. I. That this Synod approve of a national system of
education, placing all the members of the community upon a level,
and encouraging, as that now in force in this Province does, the use
of the Scriptures under certain reasonable regulations, as are also
prescribed therein.
"II. Holding these views, we deeply regret to perceive the principle
of sectarian schools, so distinctly recognized in the latest
amendments of the Provincial School Act, and do strongly testify
against such a principle as impolitic and mischievous, recognizing
as it does the right of the Government to take the moneys of the
public and appropriate them for the purpose of sustaining and
extending religious distractions, and thereby continuing to
stimulate the elements of discord throughout the community and mar
greatly social interests.
"III. That this Synod recommend to those under their care the use of
every proper and constitutional means to secure the repeal of all
such statutes as recognize the principle of sectarian schools."
The movement for extended Separate School privileges was being
championed by Bishop de Charbonnel, of Toronto. During 1852 he had a
long controversy with Ryerson on the school question.[94] Ryerson's
letters during this controversy make it quite clear that he thought
Separate Schools a huge blunder, and that while he had honestly
attempted to give Roman Catholics all the law allowed them he hoped and
expected to see their schools die a natural death.
[94] See appendices to Journals of House of Assembly, 1852-1853.
In his Report for 1852, the Superintendent points with pride to the fact
that Separate Schools are not increasing. Indeed, he congratulates
himself that the provision in the law allowing them is really a good
thing, since it is not very effective in practice but yet acts as a
safety valve to prevent violent opposition to the school system. He
believed that the Roman Catholics themselves would ultimately see that a
policy of isolation of their children would have the effect of cutting
them off from many of their natural privileges as Canadian citizens. And
had the Separate School Act of 1853 remained unaltered, events would
likely have shown Ryerson to be correct in his views. He believed the
Act of 1853 was final, and that without any municipal machinery for
collecting their taxes Separate Schools would never become numerous.
In this he was greatly mistaken, as events proved. In 1854, the Roman
Catholic Bishops of Toronto, Kingston and Bytown, drew up a Separate
School Bill which they wished should become law. This Bill would have
forced all Roman Catholics to support Catholic Separate Schools wherever
such were established. It also had other provisions which Ryerson
thought objectionable. In 1855 a Separate School Bill, known as the
"Tache Bill," was introduced into the Legislative Council, and after
some amendments adopted by both branches of Parliament. This Act
differed from all previous Acts in that its provisions were exclusively
for Roman Catholic Separate Schools. It repealed all previous
legislation for Separate Schools in so far as Roman Catholics were
concerned. It made possible the establishment of a Roman Catholic
Separate School in any school section or any ward of a town or city on
petition of ten Roman Catholic ratepayers and gave them a Separate
School Board with their own Superintendent in towns and cities. Such
Roman Catholic ratepayers were relieved from all municipal rates for
Common School purposes, and received for their own school a _pro rata_
share of the Legislative grant if they had an average attendance of 15
pupils. The Act also made possible general Boards of Separate School
Trustees in towns and cities and gave all Separate School Boards power
to license their own teachers and levy rates for Separate School
purposes upon the supporters of those schools. The Act was in principle
a distinct gain for the champions of Separate Schools, but it led to no
rapid increase in the number of such schools. In 1858, only 94 Separate
Schools were in existence with an enrolment of less than 10,000
children, as compared with an enrolment of 284,000 in the Public
Schools. The Act of 1855 was really forced upon Upper Canada by the
votes of members from Lower Canada, there being a majority of Upper
Canada members against the Bill.
It would seem that the Roman Catholics did not gain by the Tache Bill as
much as they expected. The following letter written to Dr. Ryerson from
Quebec, on June 8th, 1855, by John (afterwards Sir John) A. Macdonald,
Attorney-General for Upper Canada, who had charge of the Bill in the
Assembly, shows that political exigencies played no small part in school
legislation: "Our Separate School Bill, which, as you know, is now quite
harmless, passed with the approbation of our friend, Bishop Charbonnel,
who, before leaving here, formally thanked the administration for doing
justice to his Church. He has got a new light since his return to
Toronto, and he now says 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 two points on the public attention: 1st, That the Bill
will not, as you say, injuriously affect the Common School system. This
for the people at large. 2nd, That the Bill is a substantial boon to the
Roman Catholics. This to keep them in good humour. You see that if the
Bishop makes the Roman Catholics believe that the Bill is no use to them
there will be a renewal of an unwholesome agitation which I thought we
had allayed."[95]
[95] See copy of letter in D. H. E., Vol. XII., p. 40.
That Sir John A Macdonald was largely in agreement with Dr. Ryerson on
the Separate School question is the opinion of Sir Joseph Pope, his
biographer, who says on page 138 of his Memoirs: "Mr. Macdonald said
that he was as desirous as anyone of seeing all children going together
to the Common School, and if he could have his own way there would be no
Separate School. But we should respect the opinions of others who
differed from us, and they had a right to refuse such schools as they
could not conscientiously approve of."
From 1855 to 1863, no important changes took place in the law governing
Separate Schools. These schools were increasing very slowly, not so
fast as the natural growth of the Roman Catholic population. In 1860,
there were only 115 Separate Schools with an enrolment of 14,708 as
compared with some 325,000 in the Public Schools. In 1860, Mr.
(afterwards Honourable) R. W. Scott introduced a Bill planned to give
Separate Schools additional privileges. Substantially the same Bill was
introduced annually by Mr. Scott until 1863, when it passed with
amendments, some of which were suggested by Dr. Ryerson. As a matter of
fact, the Tache Act of 1855, which was suggested partly by the status of
Protestant dissentient schools in Lower Canada, had imposed some useless
but vexatious restrictions upon Separate School supporters. In 1862,
Ryerson proposed to satisfy what he called the reasonable demands of
Roman Catholics by making four changes, as follows:--[96]
1st. To allow the formation of Separate Schools in incorporated villages
and in towns (the Tache Act allowed a Separate School only in the ward
of a town and not a school for the town as a whole); 2nd. To allow a
union of two or more Separate Schools; 3rd. To make it unnecessary for a
Separate School supporter annually to declare himself such; and 4th. To
exempt Separate School trustees from making oath as to the correctness
of their school returns.
[96] See D. H. E., Vol. XVII., pp. 192 and 193.
The Scott Bill of 1863[97] as finally adopted by the Legislature,
embodied all these provisions and some others of importance. Separate
School teachers were to submit to the same examinations and receive the
same certificates of qualification as Public School teachers, but all
teachers qualified by law in Lower Canada were to be qualified teachers
for Separate Schools in Upper Canada. This provision was to allow the
teachers of religious orders[98] recognized by law as qualified in Lower
Canada to teach in Separate Schools in Upper Canada. The Act also made
taxpayers who withdrew their support from Separate Schools liable for
their share of debts incurred while Separate School supporters in
building or equipping Separate Schools. On the whole, the Scott Bill,
while in its unamended form it aroused great opposition in Upper Canada,
as finally adopted, tended to bring the Separate Schools into closer
harmony with the principles governing Public Schools. The feature of the
Bill that aroused most opposition was its being forced upon Upper Canada
by votes of Lower Canadian members--there being a majority[99] of ten
Upper Canada members against the third reading of the Bill in the
Assembly. Such well-known men as John A. Macdonald, John Sandfield
Macdonald and Wm. Macdougall supported the Bill, while George Brown,
Alexander Mackenzie and Oliver Mowat opposed it.
[97] The Scott Bill, as originally introduced, made any Roman Catholic
priest an ex-officio trustee of a Separate School in his parish; made
all the property of a Separate School supporter exempt from taxation for
Public School purposes, even though some of the property was outside a
Separate School district; gave Separate School trustees unlimited power
to form union sections; created a separate County Board of Examiners to
license Separate School teachers, and gave the Superintendent of
Education little or no power to control textbooks, holidays or
inspection of Separate Schools.
[98] The Report of the Chief Superintendent for 1871 shows 70 teachers
in Separate Schools belonging to religious orders out of a total of 249.
[99] See Journals of Canadian Assembly for 1863.
Ryerson claimed[100] that he agreed to the amended Scott Bill only on
the distinct understanding that it was to be a finality in Separate
School legislation. He also claimed that the Roman Catholic Bishops of
Quebec, Kingston and Toronto accepted the Bill as a final settlement.
But nothing is final in legislation, and Dr. Ryerson ought to have known
this. Legislation is as much the result of a process of evolution as any
other institution of human society, and no three or four men, whether
priests or laymen, could speak authoritatively and finally for the
thousands of Roman Catholics in Upper Canada.
[100] See D. H. E., Vol. XVII., p. 219.
Separate Schools increased slowly. In 1863 they numbered 115, with
15,000 pupils, the Public Schools having during the same year 45,000
Roman Catholic pupils. In 1864, Separate Schools had increased to 147
with 17,365 pupils. In 1871, the number was 160, with 21,000 pupils.
Almost immediately after the Scott legislation of 1863, an agitation
began for further amendments to the Separate School Act. Ryerson made
strong objections partly on the ground of the alleged compact of 1863,
and partly on the ground that no legislation could possibly make
Separate Schools really popular and efficient outside of large towns and
cities.
In 1865, the school administration was attacked by James O'Reilly, of
Kingston, and, in a memorandum prepared as a reply to these attacks,
Ryerson goes into some detail to justify his Separate School policy and
reiterates his firm belief that sectarian schools must ever be
relatively inefficient. He concludes as follows: "The fact is that the
tendency of the public mind and of the institutions of Upper Canada is
to confederation and not isolation, to united effort and not divisions.
The efforts to establish and extend Separate Schools, although often
energetic and made at great sacrifice, are a struggle against the
instincts of Canadian society, against the necessities of a sparsely
populated country, against the social and political interest of the
parents and youth separated from their fellow-citizens. It is not the
Separate School law that renders such efforts fitful, feeble and little
successful; their paralysis is caused by a higher than human law, the
law of circumstances--the law of nature, and the law of interest.
"If, therefore, the present Separate School law is not to be maintained
as a final settlement of the question and if the Legislature finds it
necessary to legislate on the Separate School question again, I pray
that it will abolish the Separate School law altogether; and to this
recommendation I am forced after having long used my best efforts to
maintain and give the fullest effect and most liberal application to
successive Separate School acts--and after twenty years' experience and
superintendence of our Common School system."[101]
[101] See copy of Memorandum, D. H. E., Vol. XVIII., pp. 304-316.
When the Confederation resolutions adopted at Quebec in 1864 were being
discussed in the Canadian Assembly in 1865, an extended debate arose
over the clause which secured for the minorities in Upper and Lower
Canada the privilege of Separate Schools. Men like George Brown and
Alexander Mackenzie, who had opposed the Scott Bill of 1863, defended
the minority clause on the ground that it would place Upper Canada in no
worse position than she already was in regard to sectarian schools, and
that privileges given ought not to be withdrawn. The Assembly were
almost unanimous in supporting the Separate School clause which was
incorporated into the British North America Act.
No changes in Separate School legislation were made after Confederation
until 1886, and the only events of passing importance in Separate School
affairs were the objections raised in Kingston in 1865 and in Toronto in
1871 to visits of inspection by the Grammar School Inspector, who had
been appointed to make these visits by the Council of Public
Instruction. When Dr. Ryerson pointed out that these visits were
authorized by the Scott Bill of 1863, the Bishops very gracefully waived
their objections and the principle of Separate School inspection by
Government officers was established. In 1874, the three High School
Inspectors made a general inspection of Separate Schools. In their
report to the Government they say: "The inspection of the Separate
Schools derives an additional interest and importance from the peculiar
position they occupy in our educational system. Among them we have found
both well-equipped and ill-equipped, both well-taught and ill-taught
schools. On the whole we regret that in the majority of cases the
buildings, the equipment, and the teaching are alike inferior. There are
but few Separate School teachers whose school surroundings are such as
to make their positions enviable, and accordingly a large measure of
approbation is due to those who have succeeded in doing good work. We
have pleasure in stating that in many places the Separate School Boards
are beginning to see that they must either make the schools under their
charge more efficient or close them altogether. There are many things
connected with the operation of the Separate School Act which invite
comment; but we think it best to postpone the expression of our views
until they are matured by the experience of another year."
Some years after this, in 1882, the Education Department adopted the
plan of appointing special Roman Catholic Inspectors of Separate
Schools. No doubt regular inspection of these schools has done much to
increase their efficiency, but it is to be regretted that the plan of
inspection adopted tends to widen still further the breach between them
and the schools of the mass of the people.
Four years after Ryerson's death, the Act relating to Separate Schools
was revised and amended. No new principles were introduced, but every
amendment made tended to place Separate School supporters on an equality
with supporters of Public Schools. The number of schools has gradually
increased owing to the rapid increase in our urban population. In 1884
there were 207 Separate Schools, with 27,463 pupils; in 1894, 328
schools with 39,762 pupils; and in 1906, 443 schools with 50,000 pupils.
Perhaps the most important event connected with the history of Separate
Schools since 1886 was the decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in November, 1906. This decision made it clear that the
clause declaring persons qualified as teachers in Quebec at the time of
Confederation to be qualified teachers of Separate Schools in Ontario
applied only to individuals and not to religious corporations as such.
The result will be that the Separate Schools ought soon to have a body
of teachers with the same academic standing and the same normal training
as the Public Schools.