The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

pePrnen on Aeineiin e danigy~5. isnn 45 4 80. 222 uE010 schools apart from the Common Schools of the country. One of the principal features of the Act of 1853 was to bring mseparate Schools more under the same provisions as zoverned the Commen Schools ana to malze them subject to such regulations as from time to time might be dealt with by the Council of Public Instrue-- tion. He was surprised that tho Hon. the At-- torncy--General had hbeld --that the -- power to deal with text--books and to regulate them _ was _ not conveyed in that Act. ie o nare c c o s e e e ie CC Petrerboro', in regurd to a controversy bet ween that prelate and the Sehool Trustees, poiating out that ihe Bishop contended that he had periceot authority to close the -chupl when he considered such a course necessary in spite of the opposition of the Board. From the pastoral of Archbishop Lynch on the eccasion of the election of Mon. Timothy Anglin to the Heparate School Board of 'Toronto the spesker quoted io show that the Church held the clec-- tion of Fchool Trustees to bo a religious affair, in which the Catholies were instructed not to disobey their superiors and pastors. _ Sum-- ming up all these views of various dignitaries of the Church of Rome, he held that they proved that in regard to the Separate Schools the Church claimed that it had been ap-- pointed to supervise and manage the in-- struction of the youth of the country, He desired to know if in the Province of On-- tario the Protestant majority would aliow that state of affairs to continue. The members of the house were bound to consider that ques-- tion in the light of the logislation now sub-- mitted. 'Fo the members of the Opposition, when they drew attention to this, it was said. * You arse bigots, you are intole:ant." 'They were ncither, nor was this either a Protestant or No--Popery agitation. He claimed that t e rights given the Roman Catholic citizens were civil rights, and the Legislature was bound to _ defend them _ in the _ exercise of their rights. Continuing, the speaker treat-- ed _ ~of _ the Separate School Act _ of 1863, and said there was not in that Act any-- thing to jusiify the assumption that the State absdlicated its functions in regard to those schools. Tracing the progress of educational legislation from 1541 on ward, he contended that not until 1855 was there any difforence made between the managzement of the Separate and Public Schools. 'The Act of 1856 made afsepar-- ale body of laws dealing with the Separate Schools anart frum tha Ainmiumice «1. CEA lie, the itwo being educated together, e held that in Canada, when the right of Sepa-- rate Schoo s was given it proceeded only upon the supposition that when a Ioman Catholie citizen had conscientious objection to the Pub-- liec school eancation, a concession was made to his serupics and nottoany Church which claim-- ed to represent him,. The counrtry should beware lest that foundation be sapped and the basis of the Separate Schools becopue ot herthan that, 'The position of Archbishop Duhamel. claiming the right of stating the eurriculum, of seiting the time for various studies sna of sclecting schools was then touched on, and Mr. Meredith puinted to the controversy between the Archoishop and Mr. Freschetie as to the posiiion of iseparate School Trustees. The Church, he said, held the ground that from it rather than from the state the Trustees had their authority, The people of Onrtario would never consent to the carrying out of that doe-- trine. llc_ quoted from Bisnop O'Connor, of church service about "the dinboli¢cal spirit of bhatred" and "Satan had raised his weak head," ote,, he claimed that they, as public men, had a right to deal with public questions without boing attacked as they had been. _ He stronuly protested against the language of the Arch-- vishop and he protested against this method of meeting a discussion of a great and large pub-- lie question, 'The Hon. Minister of Educaiion, he thought,. had not thoroughiy grasped the im-- portance of this question nmf did not realise how tar the people of this Province were inter-- ested in it. rl'u desired to eall the aittention of the House to what he belicved to be an imperative duty--to determino what are the rights conferred by tho B.N.A. Act and how far the jurisdiction of this legislation extem is, and he wished them further to decide how iar the position taken by thoe hierarcl y was tenabl>». lie had been found fauit wiith for sayingx that ho was of opinion that it was unfo:tunate that Separate School«+ existed in the Province of Ontario. e «id not think, when he made that statement, that he would be acecnusaed of being intolerant to the minority in this Province,. Surely one had a right to stato thai, and also to change his opinion con-- cerning this or any other question after more careful consideration,. Jic would ask if there was a meinber in the Mouse who would not say that it would be emincnily in the welfare of the Roman Catholic children of this country if they could be educated sige by _ side with Protestant children in the Common _ Schools of the country ? The socaker, continuing, qusted from Dr.liyors sor, who, he said, projesied ag:inst the sepai-- ating of Catholics aud of Protestants in the schouls of the couniry, From a Cath@lic writer the next extract was taken to show that in cortain cases in seminaries of learning there was harmony between Protestant and Catho-- Mr. loss concladet his speech amid the watmest app ause, and it being close upon six o'clock the Speaker le{t the chair. + Mr. Meredith, when he rose after tem to re-- sume the debate on the Separate School ques-- tion, was greeted with loud choers by his friends. He said that ho proposed to deal with some of the arguments raised by the Minister in his opening address on this subject. 'The question was one of as grave import as any that had ever eugaged the attention of the House. He was pleased that his hon. friend (Mr. Ios») bhad storted the discussion on this subject, be-- cause the Opposition had been charged with being demazgogues, and with having raised this question with a view to exciting the prejudices o'the people. 'They were charged with an offeace against the public weal, and with hay-- ing started the No--Popery ery. Mo was glad the hou. member hadl rot reiterated that charge to--night, because ho ropudiated entirely any senience in his speeches at London or elsewhere that was caleuiated to have that effect upon the public mind,. Mo also desired to repudiate the statemenis recenily made by a Roman Catholic Archbishop, and after quoting the reinarks made by Archbishop Cleary at a would reject the bflo of hon. gentlemen oppo-- site and addressthemselres with catmness and deliberation to simplify the machinery of the Act in the manner suggested in his own bill. concerned. Forth eparale School Act _ of e was not in that Act any-- + assumption that the Staie 'tions in regard to those The sy« { There imust be some reason for this desire to chanwe the law. _ A liberal practical example was better than a great deal of statement, -- Ho desired to point out that in Torouto, Hamilton, London and the chief cities of the Province no notice had been given by the Separate School supporters of their desire to become so. From the City Clerk of St. Thomas he had received aleiter stating that since 1378 ihe Htoman Catholics of that city were entered as sup-- porters of the Separate Schools. -- These lettors showed that all over the Province the practico of regiatering Eoman Catholics wus indulged in. 1)id the hon, gentleman know that by the working of the Act not one dollar of the moneys contributed by these ratepayers could beapplied for the purpoges intended ? The hon. gentic-- man objected to his bill. but he desired 10 point out that it was only a re--aflirmation of tho principle of the Act of 1863, requiring all per-- sons desirous of supporting Separate Schools to give notice thereof. 'The hon. genticman also objected to the-- bill as giving the baliot to mepmrate school supportors. It was said that in 1882 he had objected to that course. The hon. gentleman usualiy did not pay much at-- tention to his ebjections, but e«lled in his ma-- jority and votel him down. -- He desired to see the proposition discuassed on its merits.and not rejected because on a previous occasion he (the speaker) had opposed it, It wassaid there were no petitions in forthe introducticn of the ballot, -- ll| suould be remembered that no petitions had . M i e e o m e EC PSE 280IL0TCS Wlwtmvm-lug the educration of the youny, on condition, however, that nothing shall boe enacted prejudicialiy affcC'ing the rights conferred by that Act. The question to be submitted is, Does this prejudicially aifeet any righis en{'uyod by theso people ? The Hon, Minister had argued under the supposition that these rights could not be interferod with, and yet he had already made changes in the | Seprrate School laws. He (Mr. Meredith) | wishod to know who was to judge whether these conditions prejudicially atfected any per-- sons in this Province. Was it not this House ? Where clso? \Was it by means of the Church } Certauinly thero was no warrant for that, and he for one would deny it., The Minis-- ter himself had repudiated this, and had said that the laws in this respect were not dictated by the Roman Catholic Church, No other posi-- tion would be possible or tolerable, 'The points to he dscided were :--(1) Was therearight given by the Act of 1867? (2) Was what they weregoing -- to do a proposition likely to aifeet prejudicialiy . that rignt. As the Minister had pointed out | in his speech at Woodstocr, there was a right ' of appeal, It seemed to him that when any amendment was vuroposed the question | was | raised, Does it prejudicially affect any rights | secured by law? He wished to say a word or ! two on a question, with regard to which it j he kept silent it might be said ho was nfraid to speak--that was, the question of dealing effectively with the Separate School Act and wiping it out altogether. He did not recede one iota from the position of constitu-- tional rights, He conceded that there was no power to wipe out, exeept by i change in the Constitution, but he desired to say Lhat if the time should ever come when it was decided that it was against the interests of the people of this country--that that right was prejudicial --it was the right o' this House to make its views known on this question. _ If it was to be taken by the remarks in this chamber that . the position of tho hierarchy was one on the } Separate Schools question, ther he would say that the agitation should bo kept up until the * Act was wiped off the statute book of thu' Dominion, _ HMe thon ecalled attention to A&: other statement by Are Abishop Cleaty, llmt' any Catholic who would withdraw frowm thu} support of thoe Separate Schopis was a traitor, ' und forfeited his right to tho' Jlast Sacramont of thes Chureh, Such action as this he thought enlled for remedial legislation, as it was the duty of the State to proiect any citiz n in the | enjoyment of his rights. I Fhere must be some reason for this desire to | «ts 1 s ! Ns _T --v7 0 dcbode dnb rlindadi@ hisichs Pn B dn e intidiicch css 4 'em of inspection should be the same as y it. The Minis-- this, and had said were not dictated 'ch, No other posi-- thought was the n in the 0 said tures