Part 9 (2/2)
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.
CHAPTER VIII.
_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 G.o.dless 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 towns.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sembly, contained none of the above provisions for Separate Schools, and the question naturally arises, why were they inserted? Several pet.i.tions 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 pet.i.tioned ”that the education of the children of their own Church may be entrusted to their own pastors, and that an annual grant from the a.s.sessments may be awarded for their instruction.”[84] The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kingston also pet.i.tioned 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 a.s.sembly 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 pet.i.tion 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 Munic.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sed 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 pet.i.tion 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 Munic.i.p.al Council of any towns.h.i.+p 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 Munic.i.p.al 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 ent.i.tled 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 pet.i.tioning for the Separate School. Nor are the patrons or supporters of a Separate School exempted from any of the local a.s.sessments 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 munic.i.p.ality for the support of Common Schools; they might be called upon to pay an a.s.sessment 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 munic.i.p.al 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 ent.i.tled to a share of the school fund reckoned on the basis of the pupils' attendance.
<script>