The Ontario School System.

For some years past a strenuous attempt has been made to procure the substitution of the system of education practised in the province of Ontario for the system introduced into Victoria by the law of 1872. Mr. Andrew Harper started the discussion by a lecture, which is very full of detail, and so clearly put as to leave no doubt of what the author supposes the Ontario system to be. Mr. Robert Harper has since then brought the matter before Parliament. Unfortunately, his speech of 30th September, 1885, took up so much time in the delivery, that the Minister of Education, Mr. Gillies, could not reply to it; and this year, when Mr. Harper attempted to revive the subject, the House was counted out in about half-an-hour. The subject is too important to be disposed of in this way. Our system of education is not so perfect that we can afford to disregard the experience of other countries, and as the population of Ontario very much resembles our own in its component parts, the fact that it works a perfectly different school system, to its own satisfaction, is at least interesting, and may be in the highest degree instructive. My own study of that system has led me to dissent, in almost every particular, from the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Andrew and Mr. Robert Harper, and to believe that they have very often misunderstood its facts, from the circumstance that they seem to have worked from imperfect sources of information. Had they indeed applied the same searching criticism to official figures and statements in Canada which they very properly apply to official figures and facts in Victoria, they would, I am confident, have arrived at very different results. None the less does the community owe a debt page 2 of gratitude to them, not only for forcing this matter upon its attention, but for the great care they have evidently taken to make their case thoroughly complete from the advocate's point of view.

Mr. Robert Harper, in his speech of 1885, claimed me as a supporter in my heart of the principle of local rating. I am not afraid to say that I have always desired to see the principles of local responsibility and control more fully recognised than they used to be in our school system. In my Report of 1878, I made several suggestions for increasing the power of Boards of Advice, which have either been adopted since then, or seem likely to be so. For instance, they are now entrusted, wherever they will undertake it, with the whole working of our compulsory system; and it is proposed to give them, to some extent, the power of the purse. They have also received, at my suggestion, the power of suspending a teacher's increment under the Public Service Act, so that the Department cannot disregard any complaint that a Board of Advice may choose to make. Beyond this, I used to think, till I studied the Ontario System, that if it had been proposed, in 1872, to charge some of the expenditure for school purposes to local rating instead of to general revenue, it might have had the effect of quickening the interest of ratepayers in the attendance of their children. Again, I am not in any way a bigoted opponent of religious teaching in schools. Personally, I would never allow my own children to be taught an emasculated theology by a careless or unbelieving instructor. I do not believe in the magical efficacy of religious precepts painted up on the wall, of a single prayer gabbled over at school opening, or even of Bible lessons—though these the Ontario System does not permit—which have been so chosen as to exclude everything that is distinctive in faith. Still, if I found that the clergy of all denominations could really unite in some moderate proposal, and would reward the State for accepting it by using their whole influence in support of the National School System, I should certainly be prepared to make a small concession in exchange for a great good. Altogether, it will be seen that I have come to the study of the Ontario system with no such inveterate prejudices as might disqualify me from passing a dispassionate judgment upon it.

The results I have arrived at are, that the system has promoted religious separation in Ontario; that it only gives satisfaction to Catholics because they are unfairly favoured under it, and because they contrast it with the practice in the United States; that Protestants only accepted it as more tolerable than incessant agitation; that it does not satisfy the needs of the religious world; that it renders compulsion a mere name; that the scholars are worse taught than in Victoria; that the teachers are scandalously underpaid, and, to a great extent, less qualified than our own; that the work of inspection is worse done than in Victoria; that the Inspectors are not as independent as they should be; that the system of local rating is very unfair to poor districts; and that the Local Boards are not properly qualified for their work. No doubt, there is a great deal to be said on the other side. Ontario contrasts favourably with some of its neighbours in many respects: its Inspectors seem from their reports to be admirably trained, full of zeal, and hard workers; and the late Superintendent, Dr. Ryerson, who did his best to oppose the introduction of almost everything Mr. R. Harper admires, was a gentleman of very singular qualifications. These men have kept the Ontario school system at a fairly high level for North America. Where they have failed, it has been essentially through the operation of the law of local rating, which Mr. Robert Harper desires to introduce into this country, as a lever for lifting the clergy of every denomination into seats of honour and authority over the schoolmasters.

The history of the Ontario system is, that in 1841 the provinces which had just been united under Lord Durham's Act possed a law which empowered District Councils to levy rates for the establishment of public or mixed and of separate schools. "I think," says Dr. Ryerson, "the Legislature made a grave mistake when it inaugurated the principle of separate schools in common with that of mixed schools."¹ Elsewhere, however, he admits that the concession was partly justified by the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, which provided that Canada was to have the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, as far as the laws of Great Britain allow it. The law of 1841, which was affirmed

¹ 'Ryerson's reply to the attacks of Hon. George Brown, p. 23.

page 4 anew for Ontario in 1843, 1846, and 1847, vested the power of establishing separate schools in the Board of Trustees of each city and town. Such as it was, it failed to satisfy a large portion of the population, and, in 1849, an Act was passed abolishing separate schools altogether, and making the mixed schools purely secular. There seems to be no doubt that this legislation was in advance of the times. Dr. Ryerson refused to administer it, and it was suspended by Order in Council, and repealed in 1850. Meanwhile, the friends of religious teaching had been exasperated and alarmed. Episcopalians and Catholics combined, and it seemed likely that a system of pure sectarianism would be introduced, if Dr. Ryerson had not arranged with the Catholic Bishop Power to amend the old law by allowing twelve heads of Roman Catholic families to demand the establishment of a separate school as a right. These tactics were completely successful, because the Catholic hierarchy was favourable to the Government of the day; and when the Episcopalians moved their amendment, relying on the Catholic co-operation which had been bargained for, not one of the Catholic Members rose up to support it, to the great amusement of the other Members of the House.¹

In this proceeding, Bishop Power seems to have thrown over his allies rather cavalierly. The probability is that he had been no party to the first bargain He was a man of high character, an adherent of that wholesome Gallican school, which has always tempered churchmanship with statesmanship, and his life showed that he valued the intellectual and moral training of his people more than a sectarian triumph. So honestly did he co-operate with the State system, that the separatist schools, which at one time numbered nearly fifty, had dwindled down to 20 in 1850, and to 18 in 1852². This is the real period of religious peace in Ontario, and it belongs to a time when the recognition of separate schools was so trifling, that in an instance quoted by Bishop Charbonnel, the Catholic School of Chatham, with forty-six

¹ Ryerson's reply to the attacks of Hon. George Brown, pp. 24, 25.

² Ryerson's Letters in reply to Foreign Ecclesiastics, pp. 9, 10. Ryerson's reply to the attacks of the Hon. George Brown, p. 10. Kohl says, in his Travels in Canada, vol. ii. p. 207, that in 1851 there were only 16 Roman Catholic separate schools in Ontario; but I have preferred to abide by Ryerson's statements.

page 5 scholars, only received £4 10s. out of the Government grant and was offered as little out of about £300 taxes raised for the payment of teachers.¹ Unhappily, the peace-loving Bishop Power was succeeded about 1851 by Bishop Charbonnel, who was probably less tolerant himself, and who is supposed to have fallen under the influence of violent advisers. Bishop Charbonnel and his clergy found plenty to say against the public school system. There was the solid grievance, that the separate Catholic schools, though treated impartially like the separate Protestant, which were then rather more numerous, were not as liberally subsidised as the public schools, but only assisted by trifling grants. In addition to this, it was discovered that Goldsmith's "History of England," used as a text-book, was anti-Catholic; that White's "Universal History "was little better; that a text-book on botany spoke of superstitions in the Romish Church; and that a book of reference in a normal school contained a problem about nuns, who were supposed to violate their vows.² No one will defend the use of partisan school-books, but it will probably seem to most of us that the only necessary reform was to render the text-books in public schools colourless.

This, however, would not have contented the Catholic agitators In 1854 the three Roman Catholic Bishops of Ontario circulated a draft Bill. Clause II. of this enacted that any number of dissentients might establish a separate school, and elect trustees at a public meeting, convened by three heads of families. Clause VI. proposed that "the said trustees shall be entitled to receive from their special superintendent, on a report such as required by him, such sums out of the Government grant out of all the taxes for school and library purposes, and out of any provincial and municipal school funds as proportionate to the population they represent, according to the last official census, provided that those sums shall be expended for school purposes." The memorial enclosing the draft Bill ended with these words:—"We, the undersigned, hereby declare that

¹ Bishop Charbonnel's Letter of March 7, 1852, given in Ryerson's Letters in reply to Foreign Ecclesiastics, p. 2.

² Ryerson's Letters in reply to Foreign Ecclesiastics, pp. 2, 80, 81

page 6 nothing short of the above will satisfy the conscientious convictions of the Catholics of this province. Patrick Phelan,. Bishop of Carrhoe; Armandus, Fr. Ma., Bishop of Toronto; Jos. Eugene, Bishop of Bytown."¹ That is, nothing would satisfy the conscientious convictions of Catholics, but that the Protestants, who might be, and habitually were, the more numerous and wealthy part of the population, should pay whatever a Catholic superintendent demanded, on the basis of population alone, for the support of separatist schools, though they were already taxed for public schools, which Bishop Power had supported and approved. This is surely a much stronger claim than that of the Victorian Protestants, that Catholics shall contribute to the support, not of separatist and Protestant schools, but of national schools, which two-thirds of our Catholic children have no difficulty in using.

Bishop Charbonnel did not get all he fought for, but he got a great deal. In 1855 it was agreed that the municipalities must levy the taxes for separate schools on the demand of five freeholders or householders; and the power of Township-Councils to assign boundaries of their own, was replaced by a provision that separate school sections should be the same as common school sections. At first this was a concession to-Catholics exclusively. Protestants apprehended that the national school system would be ruined altogether if families sending their children to a private school might club together and call it a separate school, and demand exemption from rates.² However, it is always difficult to resist the claims of analogy, and, in 1859, an Act was passed, giving Protestants the right to be separately rated to denominational schools, though with limitations that were unequal, and that have had the fortunate effect of making the concession valueless.

The student of Church history will learn without surprise that the surrender of 1855 did not satisfy Catholics for more than a time. In 1857 their schools had increased from the 18 of 1852,

¹ Copies of correspondence on the subject of Separate Schools. Printed by order of the Legislative Assembly. P. 37.

² Ryerson s reply to the attacks of the Hon. George Brown, pp. 38, 39.

page 7 to 100; but the natural limits of expansion seem presently to have been reached, and then the agitation began again. In 1860, 1861, and 1862, the Catholics were moving ineffectually in Parliament for an alteration of the law, and in 1863, by an agreement between Dr. Ryerson and the Catholic prelates, a fresh Bill was drafted by a Catholic barrister, Mr. Scott. It was not very important, but it gave the trustees and electors of separate school sections a power to amalgamate if they liked, which seems harmless and equitable, and it allowed a Catholic residing within three miles of a separate school to claim exemption from common school rates, though he was not in a separate school section and did not pay rates to it, which seems inequitable and mischievous. It is obvious that by this clause, intended apparently to save Catholics from the offence to conscience of having to contribute to the National School system, many men would escape contributing to school purposes at all. Nevertheless, in 1864, the Toronto Freeman, a Catholic organ, declared that "a more cruel hoax, a more transparent deception, under the show of a measure of justice, of conferring benefits, never has been practised by a Government in any community" than Scott's Separate School Bill of 1863. James O'Reilly, a Catholic lawyer of Kingston, said at a public meeting, "This much-vaunted Separate School Act is nothing but a sham and a fraud." Dr. Ryerson answered this agitation by pointing out that only two important demands ever formulated by Catholics had not been admitted. The first of these was the proposal in the draft Bill of 1854 to levy a rate on Protestants for the support of Catholic schools. The second, which he says was also in the first draft of the Separatist Bill was that Catholics should be excluded by law from common schools, the State being thus set to discharge the functions of a Church police. There were, however, two rival demands. One, formulated by Mr. O'Reilly, was that the property of Irish absentees should never be rated to common school purposes. The other and only specious one was that as the State subsidised separate school teachers, it should also contribute to the expense of separate school buildings.¹

So far as I can discover, these last demands have not been generally taken up by the Catholic Church in Ontario, which has remained contented, as it well may, with its position of political privilege. Being the Church of the minority, it has several advantages over the majority. (I) It has far greater facilities for establishing separate schools, requiring only five heads of families to start one, while Protestants require twelve. Again, Protestants can only start one where the head of the public school is Catholic, not where he is a free-thinker, a Jew, or a Socinian;² neither, again, can any one Protestant body, however large, establish a separate school for itself. Further, as I read the law, Protestant separatists may find their school shut up in a year, because the obnoxious head-teacher has been replaced by a Protestant.³ This accounts for the fact that there are no Protestant separate schools. Catholics have no difficulty of this kind. (2) Catholics cannot be compelled to attend any school unless they reside in a separate school section.⁴ (3) Congregationist lady teachers are dispensed from passing an examination to show their capacity.⁵ The one advantage which the National Schools have appears to be that a school building and its land cannot be foreclosed on for debt.⁶

² Protestant and coloured Separate School Act, clauses 1 and 6.

³ By the Common School Act of 1880, it was "provided, fourthly, that no Protestant separate school should be allowed in any school division, except when the teacher of the common school is a Roman Catholic, nor shall any Roman Catholic separate school be allowed, except when the teacher of the common school is a Protestant." Dr. Ryerson says, in his Report for 1852, When once established, each school can be continued as long as the party establishing it shall comply with the requirements of the law." Since this was written, however, the law has been changed. The Roman Catholic Separate School Acts of 1855 and 1863, dispense with the condition of 1850. The Protestant and Coloured Separate School Act of 1859 re-enacts the provision for Protestants and coloured people. Evidently these are in a position of ineriority to Catholics, and I apprehend that not only are they now hampered in starting the school, but that they cannot continue it if the common school gets a Protestant head teacher.

⁴ School Act of 1871, section 3.

⁵ I quote M. Buisson's words, as there may be a difference of opinion about their meaning. In Canada, he says, and the context shows that he is referring to Ontario, 'on accorde seulement la dispense du brevet aux congreganistes femmes et quelque tolerance dans les details administratifs."—Buisson's Rapport sur l'lnstruction Primaire," p. 461.

⁶ "The School Law," by J. G. Hodgins, LL.D.; p. 131.

page 9 Mr. Andrew Harper has persuaded himself that Catholics in Ontario are satisfied to avail themselves moderately of the separate schools, and, as a rule, loyally acquiesce in the Public School system. "Between 1868 and 1876," says Mr. Andrew Harper, "the number of separate Catholic schools increased only from 162 to 167." We must set against this, that between 1852, when the population of Ontario was just under a million, and 1884, when it had about doubled, the Catholic separatist schools had increased from 18 to 205, or eleven-fold. In 1884 11 schools and twenty-seven teachers were added to the separate system.¹ This, however, only shows a part of the case. The Catholic population of school age in Ontario being about 85,000 in 1882, the Catholic school Inspector, White, estimated that it was thus distributed—24,767 in separate primary schools, 2000 in denominational schools and colleges of a higher order (together 31.4) 30,000 in common schools as distinctively Catholic as separate schools, 35.2, 1670 truant, and 26,563, or 31′2 per cent., in State-schools.² Let us contrast this with the results in Victoria. The Catholic children of school age were 49,979 by the census of 1881, and must have been about 50,980 in 1883,³ when it was reported officially to the Royal Commission that 21,554, or 42′2 per cent., were attending Catholic schools and colleges. It will be seen that the distinctly separate schools get a larger proportion of the population in Victoria than in Ontario, but in Ontario the Catholics under the local system have succeeded, as Mr. White, with natural pride, boasts, in gaining practical possession of a great many schools intended to be public. Neither is it quite certain that the Catholics even now regard the Ontario system as just. The Catholic Inspector, Donovan, says, in his report of 1884, that the separate system "was founded under difficulties that would have prevented the existence of many others; and it has been maintained among trials that would have caused others to perish." If this kind of language is held in an

¹ Report of James F. White, Esq., R. C. Inspector. Printed in the report of the Minister of Education for 1885, p. 158.

² Report of James F. White, Esq., R. C. Inspector. Printed in the report of the Minister of Education for 1883.

³ These figures have been kindly supplied to me by Mr. Hay ter.

page 10 official report, what are we to suppose is the secret feeling of religious circles throughout the country?

It may be said that we are not now concerned with the question whether the Ontario system began in sectarian animosities, and implies unequal concessions to one denomination, as the Protestant agitation against it, which was tolerably strong down to 1872, has now died out. The broad issue is, whether it works well, for if it achieves better results than our own, it may deserve to be imitated on that ground alone, and we may, perhaps, devise a means of making it airer to Protestants than it is in Ontario. Mr. Robert Harper is very emphatic on the fact that compulsion is better worked in Ontario than in Victoria. He takes the official Canadian statement, that the total absentees of school age in Ontario were only 6230 in 1883, and he denies the official Victorian statement that 17,976 children of school age, who do not attend school, are mainly accounted for by the 27,648 children who have passed the standard examination in the last three years. My own information, derived from Mr. Hayter, is that our habitual absentees are 5387 to 202,379 children of school age; and the Ontario returns for 1884 show 7266 children between 7 and 13 out of a total population of that age of 261,162. The compiler of the Ontario returns has inadvertently compared the absentees of the age during which attendance is supposed to be compulsory, 7—13 with the population of school age, so called, that is, the age during which attendance is allowed and encouraged—5-16. When this mistake is corrected, it will be seen that Ontario and Victoria stand pretty much on the same level for truancy.

Habitual truants, however, are not really so important to an Educational Administrator as lax attenders. The legal minimum of attendance in Ontario is only no days, 10 days less than in Victoria. In 1884, 88,432 children, or 33.8 per cent., out of 261,162 between the ages of 7 and 13 did not comply with this miserable requirement. To put it in another shape, 9 per cent, of the pupils attended less than 20 days, 17 from 20 to 50, 25 from 51 to 100, and 22 from 101 to 150. It will soften the damnatory character of these last statistics if we page 11 assume, as perhaps we may, that they include the children of all ages; but under any circumstances the number of those who fail to comply with requirements more moderate than our own, cannot be put at less than 33.8 per cent. It may seem as if we were not much better off in Victoria, even when allowance has been made for the ten days' extra attendance, which the law here enjoins. In the worst quarter of 1884, 32 46 of the children did not attend the proper 30 days. If, however, we deduct from these those who were not within the school age, as is professedly done in Ontario for the 88,432, we shall reduce the number of defaulters to 26.9; and if we add those who lived beyond the prescribed distance, or who had completed their school course, we find the missing proportion reduced to 21.4. On the whole, I think we may put 21.4 per cent, for deficient attendances against 33.8 per cent, in Ontario; and it must be borne in mind that many of our children undoubtedly make up for their absences in one quarter by fuller attendance in the remaining months of the year.

Perhaps, however, a few reports of the Ontario Inspectors will be more convincing on this subject than mere figures. Inspector Fotheringham reported in 1879: "Those who enter schools do not average one day there out of two; and only one in 17 attends nearly full time. . . Compulsory clauses are a dead letter at least in North York." Inspector Mackintosh says that in his district "the average attendance was 40 per cent, of the number enrolled." These reports may be excepted to as antiquated. In 1882 Inspector Curry said, for Haliburton County, that a great many children between 7 and 12 either did not attend school at all, or attended for less than four months in the year. In the same year, Inspector Fotheringham said that more than a million was lost through defective attendances in Ontario alone. Inspector Kyrle said, for Carleton County: "Compulsory education does not seem to have accomplished anything as yet in the County of Carleton." In 1884, Inspector Kelly says, for County Brant: "The compulsory clause of the School Act has not been put in force, so far as I have learned, anywhere in the county." Inspector Fotheringham says, for County York: "The percentage of attendance, though page 12 advanced by nearly 25, is still below one-half of those enrolled." Inspector Mitchell says, for Lanark County: "The compulsory clause is inoperative." Is it possible to resist evidence of this kind? No doubt, districts differ from one another, and a bad season affects attendances. Thus, in County York the attendance in the first half of 1879 decreased by 30,000, while it gained 14,000 over the last year in the second six months, after a good harvest. This, however, tends to show that the Local Boards do not dare to enforce the compulsory clauses. It must be added, that under the Canadian system the Local Boards have an interest in stuffing the rolls, and the Inspectors, who are set to guard against this, and who seem to do their duty faithfully, like high-minded gentlemen, are liable to dismissal in a moment, without cause assigned.

Of course, no teaching can be thoroughly satisfactory where the attendances are so deplorably bad as in Ontario. It is contended, however, that the excellence of the teachers and the superior organisation of the inspectoral staff place Ontario, in two important respects, above Victoria. Let us see how the Ontario teachers stand. In 1884 there were 6911.

Two important facts may be noted: (1) That, in Victoria, teachers of the higher class are increasing in proportion to the total number, while in Ontario they are decreasing. (2) That in Ontario the less qualified teachers are more than four-sevenths page 13 of the whole number, while in Victoria they are barely over a half, 51.3. Mr. R. Harper quotes an opinion that a Canadian teacher, having a first-class certificate, is superior to the graduate of an English University, and to a Victorian teacher who has passed into the highest class in this Colony. If by the first statement is meant that the Canadian holder of a first certificate is superior to an average Oxford pass-man, I can easily believe it, though the fact of a pass-man failing to get the Canadian certificate would prove little, as the Englishman has been trained in Latin and Greek, and the Canadian mainly on mathematics and a little science. If, on the other hand, it is implied that a first-class teacher in Ontario is better than a first-class Oxford or Cambridge honour man, I will grant it when I see a Canadian stripping the English Universities of scholarships and fellowships. The comparison with Victoria is a little more easy. After carefully going into the matter with the Secretary and Assistant Inspector-General of the Education Department, I believe the first Canadian certificate corresponds pretty well to our certificate in first and second honours, and the second Canadian certificate to our ordinary certificate. The third Canadian certificate is as good as our license, but, apparently, not quite so good as the work now exacted from our first-class pupil teachers. The Canadian system takes in rather more subjects; but the Victorian system balances this by making the knowledge of a dead language compulsory. All depends, therefore, on the way in which the examinations are conducted; and since March, 1880, the Ontario Education Department has transferred the examination for certificates to a central Board of Examiners. The subjects being very much the same, the examinations in Ontario appear to be more easily conducted than in Victoria. On an average of three years (1882-1884) less than 36 per cent, of our candidates obtained a certificate of competency. During a similar period, the latest of which I can find record, in Ontario (1878-1880) 95 per cent, of the Ontario teachers passed. Altogether, we are at least justified in assuming that our certificated and licensed teachers are equal to the three certificated classes of their Canadian rivals, and we have scarcely any so wanting in page 14 qualification as the 853 who are classed in the Ontario Reports as "interim" and "various, such as permits."

Mr. A. Harper has stated that "the teachers are required to possess proper certificates of qualification from Government;"and the Minister of Education in Ontario has written to Mr. R. Harper that "every grade of teachers is required to take a special course of training. "Required can only mean "expected theoretically." Even the low standard which some of the local Boards of Examiners fix, and which, in the case of third.class certificates, went down to 40 per cent, for grammar and arithmetic, and 20 per cent, for all other subjects in Lanark County, in 1880, is very far from being always attained. "The supply of teachers holding regular certificates is still much less than the demand," writes Inspector Mackintosh, in 1879; "and the Inspector is driven to grant special certificates" (or permits) "to persons possessed of very meagre qualifications for the positions to which they aspire." Inspector R. G. Scott speaks of Renfrew County as being so poor "that the refusal to incur the increased expense of paying the salaries of qualified teachers could only be looked upon as perfectly justifiable." "Many of the trained teachers," says Inspector Knight, "show that they have made but little use of their time but he still thinks that they are better than the untrained. Let us pass to a later date. In 1884, Inspector Smith regrets to have to report that so many teachers are holders of permits and temporary certificates, but cannot see how there can be any change—(first) because of "the scarcity of qualified teachers and (secondly) because the school rates are already as high as can be borne. Inspector Mitchell follows suit, with the remark that "our schools are mere stepping-stones, and must continue to be such, until teachers are placed in charge of our schools—not mere school-girls and medical and other students, who intend to make a stepping-stone of the occupation to something better." Inspector Curry says—"The scarcity of professional trained teachers continues to be felt." There are several Inspectors who say, year by year, in the Ontario reports, that their districts are improving; but there is barely one who gives as good a report of the qualifications of his teachers as page 15 any Victorian Inspector could give. Very significant, too, is the fact noted by Mr. Fotheringham, in 1884, "nearly half of the schools change teachers every year" Evidently, either the school cannot get suited, or the teacher is inadequately paid.

Inspector Smith, from Carleton County, reports that trustees often sign a requisition for an unqualified teacher, in order to get him cheap, for instance, at £40 a year; and it has been ruled in the Ontario Courts that townships are not exempted from the obligation to provide a teacher by offering this sum, and then pleading that they cannot obtain one. It must be noted, also, that salaries are not only low, but precarious. In 1879, Inspector Bigg reports for Leeds County that "salaries, on an average, are about 15 per cent, less than were paid four years ago, in consequence of hard times, though they are still 20 per cent, higher than were paid prior to 1871." When has a Victorian teacher been subjected to fluctuations of 35 per cent, within ten years? What comparison is possible, as regards the comfort and well-being of the teachers, between our own system, in which the men rise from;£1oo to £480 a year, and the ladies from £80 to £300, and the Ontario tariff, in which a lady may get as low as £24, and a man only £40, while the general average for man and woman is below the minimum for either among ourselves?

Mr. Robert Harper has a comfortable theory that the teachers in Canada are, as a class, as well remunerated as any portion of the community doing similar work. As my own recollections of Canada, in two visits that I have paid it, are that prices were page 16 much what they are in Victoria, I have taken great pains to ascertain whether the Ontario Inspectors are all wrong in saying that the teachers suffer from insufficient stipends. There is no doubt, I think, that Canada is a rather poorer country than Victoria, and that high functionaries such as judges, ministers, and departmental heads get rather beggarly stipends, ranging from £6oo to £18oo a year. Schoolmasters, however, are very far below this position in Ontario, and I find it difficult to compare them with any class, for they are worse paid than the commonest labourers.¹ For instance, the Immigration Agent at Ottawa reports in 1883 that he lias placed out farm labourers (new chums, and, therefore, the least valuable of workmen,) at £2 16s. to £4 a month, with board. Common labourers were then getting 6s. a day; carpenters, 6s. and 7s.; masons and bricklayers, 10s. In Hamilton district, farm labourers were commanding £40 a year, with board and lodging. Looking at prices for the same year, the expense seems to be much the same as in Victoria. Bread, 6d. the 4lb. loaf; beef, 4d. to 6d. a pound; mutton, 3½d. to 6d.; and tea, Is. 8d. to 2s. Firewood is from 18s. to 24s. the cord, and the prices of dress seem not excessive; but it must be borne in mind that the rigours of a Canadian winter certainly demand a larger expenditure on these two items than is required in this country. On the whole, while I admit that the teachers in the towns of Ontario are reasonably well paid, and perhaps gain by the lower scale of expense usual in society, I should certainly recommend a young man, in whom I was interested, to try his fortunes as a farm labourer in Ontario if he could not hope for more than the average salary of a country teacher. I am convinced that, if our service were thrown open to certificated teachers of Ontario of the first and second class, to-morrow, there would be a general exodus of nearly the whole class from the Dominion. Now, the fault of these insufficient salaries is undoubtedly in the system. Inspector upon inspector says that his district pays all it can afford; but struggling farmers in the

¹ "Mr. Summerly, Inspector for Prescott and Russell, uses this exact comparison in 1881: "Labourers and domestic servants are paid higher wages than many of our teachers."

page 17 backwoods cannot support a burden4 of national dimensions. Gippsland and the Wimmera would be as badly off as Ontario if they had to pay for their schools by local rates.

With inferior attendance of the pupils, more pupils to each teacher, and in many cases less qualified teachers, it cannot be supposed that the Ontario system can equal our own in efficiency. We are not left to conjecture on this subject. We know what is taught in the six classes of the Ontario schools. The first four correspond almost exactly to our own, except that the arithmetic in Ontario is a little higher in the fourth class. In the fifth and sixth classes, though there is still of course some parallelism, the Ontario teaching takes a much wider range. So far, the balance seems to incline to Ontario. On further examination, however, we find (I,) that 20 per cent, of our own children are in the fifth and sixth classes (13.97 in class 5; 4.64 in class 6,) while in 1884 only 2 per cent, were in the fifth class in Ontario, and 19/100 in the sixth class; (2,) that the 16,677 children who are in the fifth and sixth classes in Ontario appear very nearly to correspond in number with the 17,912 pupils who range from 17 years of age to 21 and above. The Ontario Inspectors do not encourage the formation of classes above the fourth. "As a general rule," says Inspector Bigg, "a fifth class means neglected first, second and third classes, the chief labour being bestowed on the crack pupils of the fourth and nominal fifth classes in order to prepare them for the High School Entrance Examination." Accordingly, the percentage of fifth and sixth class pupils has declined steadily in Ontario, having been 343/100 in 1879, against 2 19/100 in 1884, while the percentage in Victoria has risen year by year.

Mr. Robert Harper instituted a comparison, in his speech of 1885, between the inspection of schools in Ontario and Victoria, to the great advantage of the former. His main argument was, that in Victoria there were 99 schools to 1 Inspector; in Ontario, where they do not examine for results, only 66. Mr. R. Harper a little overstated the case against this country. Our Inspectors, in 1884, were 21 to 1773 schools, or 1 to less than 85 schools, and it is proposed to increase their number and to give them page 18 rather fewer pupils to examine. Still, anyone looking at present facts, and computing that a Canadian Inspector has only to examine 6100 children, while a Victorian averages nearly 9000, may naturally infer that the Canadian system is stronger in an important point. This impression will, I think, be dissipated when he finds how many and what onerous duties are imposed upon the Ontario Inspector. He is, in fact, charged with a great deal of the finance of his district, and has, for instance, to assist in equalising the assessment of whole school sections, and to give out or refuse cheques to teachers, and act as referee in the audit of school section accounts, and determine, with the other inspectors, how the sums to be paid from the School Fund of each township shall be apportioned. He may be called upon to attend arbitrations, and he is referee if there is any dispute about the proceedings of an annual or special school meeting. He, therefore, does much of the work which in Victoria is done by clerks in the Education Department, and, as a consequence, has less time than a Victorian Inspector for the supervision of schools. In 1881 the Government of Ontario instructed Inspector McLellan to report, after a visit to America, on any improvements that could be introduced into the schools of Ontario. One of his recommendations was, that they should introduce "one thorough inspection a-year, as better than two hurried ones.' We, in Victoria, thanks to our much-abused system of results, have succeeded in getting the one thorough inspection a-year, in addition to another, which is not necessarily a hurried one. However, it may be well to let the Ontario Inspectors speak for themselves. Mr. Fotheringham says, in 1879: "An Inspector, with, say, 8000 children, 100 teachers, 80 Boards of Trustees, teachers' examinations, intermediate and entrance examinations, annual reports, half-yearly returns, apportionments, cheques, orders, 800 or 1000 communications, 150 or 200 calls on his hands, cannot possibly do the work as thoroughly as he would wish." Mr. Morgan says, in the same year: "The annual reports sent in by the Trustees are, in many cases, painfully inaccurate, sometimes culpably inaccurate. It is no uncommon thing for an Inspector to have to correct portions of fully half the reports, from data in his posses- page 19 sion, before copying them on the township report." Mr. Smith says, in 1884: "I endeavour, in all cases where the school demands it, to devote half a day to the examination of the classes. I am of opinion, however, that one whole-day visit in the year would be preferable to the half-day system." In Victoria, it is no uncommon thing for an Inspector to spend from two to six days over a single school; but then, the Victorian Inspector is not burdened with the duties of a cashier and an auditor.

There is another important point to notice. Inspectors in Ontario are appointed by the very bodies they are supposed to check—county councils, or city or town Boards of Public School Trustees, and may be dismissed at pleasure. The only check upon the elective bodies is that they are bound to appoint someone who possesses a legal certificate of qualification for the office. Beyond this, the system of payment adopted wrould not generally be regarded as a pleasant one. The Inspector gets no more than five dollars from the State, and not less than five dollars from the County Council for every school he visits; the number in his charge being bound not to be less than 50, or more than 120. The Inspector's fixed salary, therefore, may be as low as;£1oo, and cannot easily be more than £300.¹ His fluctuating salary is derived from fees for examinations and arbitrations. The impression left upon the mind of an outsider is that an Inspector's position in Ontario is very precarious, and that the really admirable work these gentlemen do is not adequately remunerated. Looking at the intrepid frankness of their reports, I cannot suppose that this generation of men, trained by Dr. Ryerson, is influenced by fear or favour; but it is surely permissible to ask whether a system under which the men who watch and report upon School Boards may be dismissed by those very Boards at a moment's notice, without reason assigned, is altogether a wise one, or compatible with the self-respect of the profession. Under the title "Hampered Inspection," Mr. Fotheringham raises this important question in his Report for 1884, and defines the School Boards as "a popular body in no way specially qualified to judge of the

¹ In 1880 the average salary of an Inspector was £228 12s., the highest salary £362, and the lowest £81.

page 20 merit of the services rendered, and held more strictly to account for economy than efficiency in such services."

The fact is, the Ontario system, in its present shape, appears to be localism run mad. "The Boards," says Mr. Fotheringham, "change too rapidly; they are unremunerated, and cannot be held to the duties of their office as paid officers could be; neither can it be supposed that ten to twenty efficient Boards can as easily be provided for the schools of a township as one competent Board for the whole, though even larger." Mr. R. Harper will, perhaps, say that the natural remedy is to make school districts larger. The attempt has been made, and has miscarried. Mr. Bigg writes about it in 1879, "hen the Department did all in its power to substitute Township for Sectional Boards, and says that he is not sanguine of seeing the reform carried out, as the law required a two-thirds majority for the change, and all the rich sections were certain to vote against it. Mr. Bigg gives us an instance of the inequalities under the present system—that the school-tax may be two mills in the dollar, or even less, while it is over a cent (or more than five times as much) in the adjoining section. Of course, this unfairness tells in two ways. The poor district has the heavier burden to sustain in the first instance, and it gets a smaller share of the Government and municipal grants. Can we wonder if Mr. Smith reports, in 1884, that the statistics which the trustees furnish are unreliable, and that they often apply for unqualified teachers, in the desire to keep down rates in the poorer portions of the country? Can we wonder if correcting the trustees' reports was declared by Mr. Morgan, in 1879, be one of his most arduous duties? Does any educational expert really think it desirable that a board of men, who have never made school work their special study, should have the power, which the Ontario Boards possess, of "allowing options in the course of studies, and deciding what shall and what shall not be taught of the programme?"

It is surely allowable to believe that the Messrs. Harper would never have been fascinated by the Ontario System, if they had not conceived that it permitted the introduction of something page 21 like religious teaching. What does this amount to? "Of the 5252 schools reported," says the Report for 1884, "the Scriptures only were read in 334; prayers only, in 1864. Both Scriptures and prayers, in 2772; and Scriptures with prayers by both teachers and pupils, in 906." The prayers in question consist of two collects from the English Prayer Book, the Lord's Prayer, from St. Matthew, in King James's version, and the Benediction. In addition, the Ten Commandments are taught, under a Conscience Clause, to all the pupils, and are repeated at least once a week. Beyond this, the Ontario schools are in no way more favourable to religious teaching than the Victorian. The right of the clergyman to give religious instruction is limited to "at least once a week after the hour of four o'clock in the afternoon." Since 1868 the Irish National reading books have been discarded.¹ So far as I can perceive, the Ontario system is called "godless" and other bad names as freely as our own by members of the religious world. "One county Inspector writes," says Dr. Ryerson, in 1872, "that one R. C. priest, in a separate school which the Inspector visited, said, 'Your schools are atheistic. You don't acknowledge God.'"² Dr. Ryerson tells us that he had long cherished, and at last sought to realise, the grand idea of giving "all needful religious teaching to pupils at schools without infringing upon any denominational peculiarity. One discordant note has interrupted the harmony." The context shows that he refers not to the separation of Catholics, but to opposition among Protestants, the only Christians whom he supposed it possible to unite. At any rate, his words are conclusive evidence that he regarded the so-called religious element in the Ontario system as a delusion. In the same strain writes Mr. Marling, the chief clerk in the Education Department of Ontario.³ He tells us that only in two out of a hundred and fifty cities, towns, and villages, and in one of these in only one or two out of fifteen schools, have the clergy applied for leave to give religious instruction before four o'clock. He says that there is "an active propaganda of the new gospel of unbelief," and blames the clergy for not taking advantage

¹ Canadian Educational Directory for 1876, p. 223, note.

² Ryerson's defence against the attacks of the Hon. George Brown, p. 76.

³ Canadian Educational Directory for 1876, p. 223.

page 22 of the school law to combat it. "Can we say," he asks, "that the children of this country, however much their wits may be sharpened, are highly educated, while this is undone?"

The one fact Mr. R. Harper has succeeded in bringing to light is, that the Ontario system is cheaper than the Victorian. Where, however, does the economy come in? Not in 'restricting the school age, for Ontario in that respect sins even worse than ourselves, and counts 17,912 children over 17 years of age in her schools, while we have less than 3000 over 16. Not in the expenses of administration, for our own only amount to about £ 17,000, and if two-thirds of that were economised under the local system, the saving would not be 2 per cent, on our total expenditure. The real difference undoubtedly lies in the salaries of the inspectors and teachers, and if Mr. R. Harper now attempts to evade this conclusion by saying that you must add 40 per cent to Ontario salaries, if you adapt them to Victorian needs, a great portion of his economies will disappear. He has alluded to me in one place as having once proposed reductions. If he will do me the honour to examine my scheme of 1878, again, he will find, I think, that it rested mainly on the suggestion that the number of teachers should be reduced, first, by forcing children to attend so that they might complete their school course by the age of 12 or 13, and next, by assigning 55 instead of 50 scholars to every teacher. Of this second proposal I will only say now, that as a teacher, I would sooner have 55 children attending regularly, than 50 attendances made up as they may be at present of 80 scholars dropping in at uncertain times. Beyond this I proposed what has since been carried out, that inspectorships should be reserved as prizes for energetic teachers, and what may perhaps be carried out some day, that high schools should be established for the head-masterships of which teachers might qualify. I do not think the profession would have lost¹ if my proposals had been carried out, though I believe

¹ Under my scheme, fifth-class head teachers would have averaged as much as under the Public Service Act, and their incomes would have been less precarious, the amount dependent on results being smaller. The fourth class in my plan was more broken up than it is now, and the lower members would have begun at nearly the same salaries as under the Public Service Act, while the higher members would have been better paid. Junior assistants, male and female, would have gained, as a class, very decidedly.

page 23 the country would have gained, and I tried to make provision against hardship in individual cases. Just now it is often necessary for me to oppose increases that are not unwarrantable in themselves, because even a rich country like our own can only carry out a great work gradually. Not unfrequently I am bound to be firm against giving relief in an exceptionally hard case, because the precedent would entail a yearly expense of many thousand pounds if it was carried out to its logical conclusion. Even so, I am thankful to think that the worst paid of our teachers, the ladies who are junior assistants or head teachers of fifth class schools, get more than governesses or teachers in fashionable schools, and begin by getting half as much again as the average lady teacher of every grade in Ontario.¹ I am convinced that if it were necessary to face extra taxation for the sake of saving our teachers from the privations and unrest of the Ontario system, from a position worse than that of day labourers and household servants, the country would willingly face a new burden rather than let the educators of our children be sacrificed.

I should be sorry to have it thought that I undervalue the great educational work which has been done in Ontario. I am filled with admiration for the men who, in a poorer country than our own, miserably paid, terribly overworked, and fighting a much more arduous fight against sectarian bigotry, have, nevertheless, succeeded in scattering schools broadcast over the country, and in giving every child the opportunity of acquiring the elements of knowledge. I am convinced that, sooner or later, Ontario will abandon the two worst blemishes in her system, will again make Inspectors departmental officers, and will subsidise the poorer districts with special grants from the State Treasury so as to secure a reasonable stipend to every teacher. She has already centralised the training for teachers with what appear to be good results, though for the time the supply of qualified instructors is falling off. Perhaps it is not too much to say that she may learn some lessons with advantage from ourselves, just as we may learn

¹ The lowest salary of a junior assistant lady teacher in our schools is £64 fixed and results, which are a possible £32, and which average £26 8s. 9d., altogether, £90 8s. 9d. The average salary of the Ontario lady teacher is, as we have seen., £54 4s.

page 24 from her, to supplement our primary school system, by high schools almost equally accessible to every one. Had the Messrs. Harper singled out this feature in the Canadian system for imitation among ourselves, I could only have acquiesced and welcomed them as allies. What they have done has been to praise the education of Ontario for characteristics which all its most thoughtful officers acknowledge to be blemishes, and to represent it as better than our own in the very matters where our own is demonstrably superior. Let any dispassionate man ask himself, after reading what separation is in Ontario, whether he wishes to give a position of privilege to one religious denomination, and whether the formal repetition of collects and moral precepts with which Protestant bodies have to content themselves in Ontario is of any appreciable value whatever as a religious influence. To myself it seems as if the real lessons taught us by the Ontario system are that only under a centralised system can teachers be properly appointed and adequately paid, and that there is no half-way house between secular and denominational education. Ontario pays for religious teaching to Catholics, and denies it to Episcopalians and Independents; Victoria, with more equity, opens her schools on even conditions to all, and refuses to let the Italian priest tithe and toll in her dominions.