of their faith, and that at least ten (increased in 1850 to twelve) freeholders or resident householders-members of the minority-should unite in asking for its establishment. These schools shared in the public grant for education, but received no part of the local taxes for public schools, although their supporters remained liable for public school rates. The Act also contained a conscience clause to the effect that no child attending a public school should be required to read or study from any religious book or to join in any exercise of devotion or religion against the objection of parent or guardian.

Under this legislation, amended at subsequent sessions of the legislature in some minor particulars, the Catholic minority seem to have experienced many practical difficulties in the establishment and management of separate schools. In 1850 there were, all told, only thirty-one minority schools in Upper Canada, of which nearly one-half were Protestant. At least twice Catholics unsuccessfully invoked the aid of the provincial superior courts. From 1852 to 1863 agitation for an improvement in their position was practically continuous. Their demand was to be accorded rights similar to those enjoyed by the Protestant minority in Lower Canada, where the principle of the legislation of 1841 had been continued.

In 1853 exemption from public school rates was secured for the supporter of a separate school whose children were in actual attendance thereat, and who subscribed to its support an amount equal to the public school rates which he would be obliged to pay if not exempt. But other inequalities remained. Some of these, as stated in a memorandum of the Catholic Bishops of Kingston, Toronto and Bytown (now Ottawa), prepared in 1854, were the following:

Ist. In Lower Canada dissenters, however few in number, might establish a dissentient school without petition to or authorization of persons opposed to them; in Upper Canada the dissenters must number twelve heads of families and must apply to and receive authorization from persons opposed to them.

2nd. In Lower Canada dissenters might have a separate school although the common school was under a teacher of their

own faith. In Upper Canada this right existed only where the common school teacher was not of the faith of the minority.

3rd. In Upper Canada dissenters were, in Lower Canada they were not, obliged to contribute to common school buildings and libraries.

4th. In Toronto, in Upper Canada, the supporters of a separate school must number twenty-one; in Montreal and Quebec, in Lower Canada, they need only number six.

5th. In Upper Canada separate school supporters could not circumscribe the limits of their schools as they pleased; in Lower Canada they could.

6th. In Lower Canada supporters of dissentient schools could, in Upper Canada they could not, have their rates collected by the municipal collectors.

7th. In Lower Canada trustees of dissentient schools had, in Upper Canada trustees of separate schools had not, powers coextensive with trustees of common schools.

8th. In Lower Canada trustees of dissentient schools might share in the public grant in proportion to population or in proportion to school attendance, as they should elect; in Upper Canada they were denied the right to share in proportion to population.

There were other minor advantages in Upper Canada, but this statement suffices to indicate that greater liberality prevailed in Quebec.

In 1855 a new statute was passed for Upper Canada, confined in its operation to Catholics, Protestant minorities remaining under the existing law. Under the new Act, the fact that the teacher of the common school was a Catholic did not prevent the establishment of a separate school. Five heads of families in a rural school section or in a ward of a town or city were empowered to convene a meeting of persons desiring to establish a separate school. A majority of those present at such meeting, being not less than ten freeholders or householders, might determine to establish a separate school and might elect trustees therefor, who became a body corporate and held office for one year. Provision was made for union boards in two or more wards of any city or town. The trustees had the right to impose rates on sep

arate school supporters and to levy and collect the same, to grant certificates of qualification to teachers, and to dispose of all school funds. Every separate school supporter was exempted from rates for public schools and public school libraries, if he gave to the clerk of the municipality, before the 1st of July in each year, written notice that he was a Roman Catholic and a supporter of separate schools. Each separate school was entitled to share in the provincial grant in proportion to attendance, provided the average number of pupils attending during the year should not be less than fifteen.

This measure, though a substantial improvement on preceding legislation, was imperfect in many particulars, largely due to amendments made at the instance of the opponents of separate schools during its progress through Parliament. It failed to accord to the Catholic minority the right to use the municipal machinery in the collection of separate school rates. The requirement that a written notice should be given annually by separate school supporters to entitle them to exemption from public school rates was unnecessarily burdensome and the cause. of much trouble. The Act, moreover, did not prevent municipal corporations from making grants for public school purposes out of their general funds, thus imposing a burden upon separate school supporters, as ratepayers, for the benefit of the public schools.

During the years 1860, 1861 and 1862, attempts were made by Mr. (now Sir Richard) Scott of Ottawa, lately Secretary of State for Canada, to secure the passage of a bill more in accord with the wishes of Upper Canadian Catholics. Until 1863 he was not successful. He then secured the adoption of an Act, 1 which embodies the rights and privileges of the Catholics of Ontario in regard to separate schools, of which their enjoyment is guaranteed by the provisions of section 93 of the Imperial B. N. A. Act. Amendments to this statute have since been made in matters of detail, and in order to facilitate its operation.

The following are some of the changes effected by the Act of 1863:

Ist. Any number of ratepayers, however few, present at a lawfully convened meeting, might establish a separate school and

elect trustees, etc.; formerly the presence of ten householders or resident freeholders was required.

2d. Residents of an adjoining section might be elected as

trustees.

3d. Unions of separate school sections were provided for as in the case of common school sections.

4th. Trustees of separate schools were given the right to procure copies of the municipal assessment rolls.

5th. Separate school teachers were made subject to the same examinations and were required to hold the same certificates of qualification as public school teachers, saving the rights of persons qualified by law as teachers in either Upper or Lower Canada. There are no longer any teachers entitled to exemption under this saving proviso. The requirement of common school qualifications is now absolute.

6th. The annual repetition of the written notice from each separate school supporter to the clerk of the municipality was dispensed with; the trustees instead send in a list of supporters.

7th. Separate schools became entitled to share in all public grants, investments and allotments for common school purposes made by municipal as well as by provincial authorities.

8th. Separate schools became subject to inspection under the direction of the Superintendent of Education and to the public school regulations.

9th. An appeal to the Governor in Council from any decision of the Chief Superintendent of Education was provided for.

Such in its essential features was the system of Catholic separate schools in existence in Upper Canada at Confederation, the perpetuity of which is guaranteed to the Catholic minority by the Imperial B. N. A. Act, and of which, therefore, no power in Canada can constitutionally deprive them. The separate school system has been frequently attacked in the legislature and in the course of political contests. Efforts have been made by persons actuated either by mere ur.friendliness, or by motives less worthy, to hamper the usefulness of the schools and to prevent the adoption of changes in detail found to be requisite in the working out of the system. But since 1867 the various governments which have held office in Ontario have shown themselves friendly to

separate schools, and ready to promote their efficiency and to remove obstacles to the fair working of the Separate Schools Act.

To complete this summary of the story of Catholic education in Ontario. By an amendment to the law, made since Confederation, separate school trustees are enabled to require that the municipal authorities shall collect their school rates for them. The rate itself is determined by the separate school board, which endeavors to prevent its exceeding that imposed for public schools. Unfortunately, owing principally to the comparative poverty of the separate school supporters in many districts, the greater cost per head of the education of a smaller number of children in each school section, the greater number of Catholic children in proportion to the number of ratepayers, and the failure of the law to provide adequately for the allotment to separate schools of a fair proportion of the school taxes of large corporations, it has not always been found possible to accomplish this. Indeed, but for the devotion of the Christian Brothers and the Sisters, who in many places fulfill the onerous duties of teachers for much smaller remuneration than is paid to public school teachers of corresponding grades, the separate school rate must generally exceed the public school rate. Still more unfortunately a separate school rate higher than the public school rate in the same municipality has caused some Catholics who attach an undue value to the goods of this world, to withdraw their support from the separate schools and to divert their taxes to the public schools, the burden of those who remain faithful being still further increased as a result of this selfish action of a few backsliders, not always, by any means, the poorest members of the community.

Provision has also been made whereby non-residents may direct that their school taxes shall be appropriated to the support of separate schools. Assessors may accept the statement of a ratepayer that he is a Roman Catholic as sufficient prima facie evidence that he is a separate school supporter. If the assessor knows a ratepayer to be a Roman Catholic he may, without further inquiry, assess him as a separate school supporter. In either case, if so assessed, the ratepayer is exempt from public school rates.