THE SCHOOL BILL.
Hon PROV. SEC. moved the third reading of the bill "For the
better encouragement of education."
Hon. Mr. LOCKE opposed the principle of assessment as most obnoxious to the people, and moved a
resolution to this
effect: -
Whereas, the system of direct taxation for the
support of schools has been condemned by and
is obnoxious to the wishes of the people of this
Province, and instead of promoting had retarded the progress of education;
Therefore Resolved, That this bill be
referred
back to committee for the purpose of striking
out so much thereof as establishes that principle, and that there should be substituted
therefor clauses provinding for subscriptions or contributions by fees to supplement
the proposes grant for the support of schools.
Hon. PROV. SEC. said that the resolution asked
the house to stultify itself and to resort to an old system which had been
tried and found inadequate. He hoped a majority would not be found, for
party purposes, willing to adopt such a course.
Mr. LOCKE disavowed all party feeling in the matterm and
expressed the opinion that the present law had retarded education and
closed one half the schools. He thought the Legislature had
no right to meddle with the pockets of the people as the bill proposed.
Hon. ATTY. GEN. said he had yet to learn that the people
were willing to go back to the old system which had been abandoned last
year by a vote of nine-tenths of the Legislature. For years past
all parties had acknowledged its inadequacy to meet the
requirements of the country, and the necessity of an improved
system of education. Notwithstanding all the difficulties that naturally
arose in putting into operation a bill new to the people, the
results on the whole had been satisfactory and encouraging. Under all the
circumstances, it was absurd for the hon. gentleman to ask the house to
go back to a system which had been condemned by nine-tenths of the members
last year.
Mr. ARCHIBALD made a few remarks in support of
the principle of assessment, which had been advocated by leading minds in the
House
and country for many years. He would not support a resolution
which went to establish a principle which he felt was unsuited to the
public requirements, and was condemned by a large majority last winter. The
bill of last year was objectionable in many respects, but the object of
the present measure was to remove many of the injurious features
of the former, and place education on a more satisfactory basis. - Some details he
strongly objected to still, but
of its vital principle he approved.
Mr. STEWART CAMPELL said that the question as to
whether the rejection of the assessment principle would destroy
the bill, and embarrass the Government, was not the point to
be considered at all. What they were called upon to ascertain was whether
that principle was in accordance with the feelings and wishes
of the country. If it was, then let it be accepted; but if not,
irrespective of any party considerations whatever. He differed entirely
from the hon. Provincial Secretary, when he said that they would stultify
themselves by rejecting the assessment clause; on the contrary, he thoughthat it
would be the Government that stultified
themselves when they called upon the house to pass a measure which
for the last twelve months had received universal condemnation
throughout the country. The hon. Provincial Secretary stated that the
house had already acted upon this principle. That vote was taken in a
thin house, when fifteen gentlemen recorded their votes against it, and
eighteen for it: and he believed that if they were not influened by pressure
since brought to bear, the majority would be the other way. He denied
that the bill of last year had been a success in the country. Even admitting
that in some populous districts it had met with support, that was no
answer to the fact that the large majority of districts lying outside of
these were deprived of the meand of education altogether. He disclaimed
all idea in opposing this bill, of wishing to embarrass the government. If
it had that effect, they had brought it on their own heads. He opposed
it because he knew it to be obnoxious to his constituents. If it was a
good bill, he called upon the government to appeal to the peopl and allow
them to pass their judgment upon it; but he did not think that ever they
believed that it was in accordance with the wishes of the people.
He called upon gentlemen opposite to record their opinions
upon this question, according to their own convictions and what they knew was
the feeling of the country. He did not think that it was the duty of any
gentlemen, however much they might desire to sustain the government, to perpetuate
a system so obnoxious to the people.
The assertion of the hon. Atty. Gen., that
education was in a better position now than
under the old law, had been so often refuted
that he would not take up time by alluding to
it now. The petitions upon the table shewed
the contrary; and it would have been better
for the government to have paid some regard
to them, rather than pass them by unnoticed.
The hon'ble gentleman concluded by calling
upon gentlemen opposite to act independently
and fearlessly upon this question - their duty
to their constituents should be their consideration - that to the Government was only
secondary. He would rather always remain in opposition than be a slave to any Government.
218
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
Was this a time, he would ask, to force
an
obnoxious measure upon the people of this
country—a time, if we could
believe the opinions of gentlemen opposite—when danger is
threatened—and it was therefore
of more than
ordinary importance that the affection and confidence of the people should be reposed
in the
Government of the day. Let us then encourage these feelings—let us have
willing hearts
as well as hands to defend us, and although
our numbers may be few—and the danger
great—he believed that there was
sufficient
courage, energy and spirit in the people of this
country to sustain them in the hour of need.
Mr. BLANCHARD did not intend to have addressed the House, but the question having assumed such
proportions, he
felt it his duty to offer a few observations. This question of assessment for the
support of schools was by no means a new
one. Upon looking back to the Journals of 1856, he found that the subject
was debated in the House and the following resolutions were
then moved :-
" Whereas the principle of assessment is
the
only permanent foundation for the common
school education of the country, and as this
principle is the leading feature of
the measure
now under consideration and the details may
be modified and improved,-
" Resolved, therefore, that the bill
entitled
an act for the better encouragement of education be referred to a select committee
with instructions to consider the same, and report
thereon at a future day.
" For the motion thirty-seven against it
nine."
The men whose names he found recorded in
favor of that resolution he had
been accustomed from his boyhood to look up to with respect and esteem; and when that
resolution
was carried it met with his hearty approval.
From his earliest recollections, he had been
educated in the belief that the principle of assessment was the only correct one;
and in supporting it now he certainly could not be suspected of being a slave to the
Government.
He was sorry that he was
compelled to differ
from those for whose opinions he had always
entertained the highest respect; but he
felt
that he would be recreant to the duty he owed
to the country, and to the opinions he always
entertained, if he voted for the resolution of
the hon. member for Shelburne. He was not
disposed now to enter into an argument to
prove that assessment was the
true principle.
This had been proved so often that it was
unnecessary. When this principle was introduced into the bill of last year,
he told the hon.
Prov. Sec. that if it was founded upon the proper basis, he would give his assistance
in carrying it out. He thought that the time had
come when the principle should be fairly tried,
and he now felt that if he voted
for the resolution before the house, he would be
taking a
step in a backward direction. At the same
time, he must not be understood as giving his
entire approval to the whole bill,—there
were
many objectionable features in
it, which he
had done his best to remove. For instance,
the construction—of the Council of Public Instruction was particularly
obnoxious to him ;
but this feature he could not
object to. He did
not support it with a view of assisting the Government, but because he felt it was
the only
sound basis upon which the common school
system of the country should rest.
Mr. BLACKWOOD said that there were manyÂ
clauses of this
bill exceedingly objectionable to him, and none more so than the mode in
which the Council of Public Instruction was constituted. He
should have been very glad if that had been re-considered, or at all events
remodelled, so as to remove some of its objectionable features. But, as regards
the feature of the bill now under consideration, he
felt called upon to sustain it, for he was convinced that, when properly carried
out, it was the only proper basis upon which
the common school system of the country should rest. He was sorry that he
was obliged to differ with his friend the member for
Shelburne; but he could not consistently vote for his motion
without acting contrary to the opinions he had always entertained. He
did not support the measure with the view of assisting the Government—for he
would scorn to bolster up any Government by supporting them in
carrying out what he did not believe was for the interests of the whole
country. He wished, then, in giving his vote for the measure, to put
himself right before the house and his constituents—and to let them
understand that, in the course he was taking, he was not sustaining a Government—but
a principle, which he believed was calculated to
benetit the cause of education.
Mr. JOST had already stated that he was opposed to the principle of compulsory taxation.
He wished the matter to be
left in the hands of the people.
Mr. BILL said that the house was aware that he had
presented petitions signed by many hundreds of persons against assessment
for the support of schools. It was a system that looked very
well upon paper, but it was not so easy to carry it out. When he made up his
mind to vote for assessment, he was at the same time determined to
vote for separate schools, for he did not think it just to have the one
without the other. He regretted very much that he felt it his duty to
support the resolution.
Mr. KILLAM said that it was evident that the system of
county assessment proposed by the bill would not give the amount required
for the support of the schools—and they would have to raise the
balance by subscriptions from the people. He objected in committee to the
principle upon which the bill distributes the public
money, and he should vote for the resolution before the house.
A call of the house was had.
Mr. C. J. CAMPBELL said that it was clearly understood
when this bill was sent to committee that no one was committed to
the principle. He was glad it was not going to be made a party
question, as it left it open to the supporters of the Government
to take an independent course. He agreed with the member for Kings,
that, if they had direct taxation, they must have seperate schools. He
though, if they were going to have free Schools, the better plan would
be to appropriate the surplus revenne in the Provincial chest for their
support, and, if that was not enough, he did not think the people would object to
an increase of the advalorem duties.
Mr. Ross, in reference to a statement made
on a previous evening by the Provincial Secretary, that there were 62 schools
in operation in
Victoria county, said that he was not in a position to contradict him then,
but he had telegraphed down to the county, and had
received
an answer that there were only 27.
Hon. PROV. SECY. said that his information
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
219 was derived from the report of the Superintendent of Education. He did not say that
62 schools were in
operation, but that 62 school sections had organized under the law. He had
listened with some surprise to the style of argument used by
the member for Guysborough. He had listened to rather extraordinary appeals in that
house, and had seen great liberties
taken with hon. gentlemen, but he had never heard of such a
liberty as that which had just been taken by the member for Guysborough with the
gentlemen who supported the Governmentt.
He(Mr.C.)could not say that the principle of assessment was bad, for hehad
affirmed it over and over again, but he called upon hon.
gentlemen to vote against the bill from the small, paltry consideration of
losing a few votes among their constituents.
He did
not consider the present position of
the cause of education in this
country, nor
what was due to the people he represented;
but he called upon hon. gentlemen to consider
only what was due to themselves, and from
personal motives to defeat a measure designed
to improve the common school system of the
country.
He (the
Pro. Sec.) would ask whether this
was a dignified or honorable position to occupy
—to call upon gentlemen on that side of the
house to abandon a government that had had
the courage to grapple with a
great question,
which they knew was fraught with
great danger, but which they felt the
best interests of
the country demanded should be dealt with at
their hands? He did not envy that
hon. gentleman the position he occupied, and he should
look with interest at the
division, to see how
many would be guided by his advice.
Mr. STEWART CAMPBELL said that the hon. Provincial
Secretary had expressed surprise at his moving a call of the house. His
reason was plain; three or four gentlemen who had expressed
themselves opposed to the bill had been about the house all day; but where
were they now? His object was to bring every man here to record his
vote, as it was his duty to do. The hon. Pro. Sec. had taken exception to
the appeal he had made to the house. He thought that when the house
remembered the appeal that hon. gentleman once made to the house and
the country on the subject of retrenchment—an appeal which it is
true achieved its purpose and gave him power,—a power he did
not envy him, when gained by such unworthy means—they would agree
with him that he was the last man to criticise the motives
of any hon. gentleman in that house.
The question was then taken upon Mr. Chas.
Campbell's amendment, which was
lost by a
large majority.
Mr. Locke's motion was then put, and lost
by a vote of 30 to 16.
For—Messrs.
Heffernan, Ross, Hatfield, Killam, Ray, Bill,
Miller, C. J. Campbell, Robertson, Locke, Bourinot, Stewart
Campbell, Caldwell, Robichau, Coffin, Balcam—16.
Against—D. Fraser, Shannon, Tobin, Donkin,
Hill, Longley, McFarlane, McKay, King,
Lawrence, Allison, Pryor, Parker, Whitman,
Kaulback, Moore, Hamilton, Pro. Sec., J. Fraser, J.
Campbell, McLelan, Blackwood, Atty.
Gen.,
Blanchard, Annand, Cowie, Mckinnon, C. J.
Campbell, Fin. Sec., Archibald—30.
Mr. ARCHIBALD moved that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of striking out the
clause relating to the
Council of Public Instruction and substituting the following:
" The Governor may appoint not
more than
nine and not less than
seven persons, of whom
the Superintendent of Education shall be one,
to be a Council of Public
Instruction, and such
persons shall hold their office during pleasure,
and shall be subject to all lawful orders and
directions, in the exercise of their duties which
may from time to time be issued by the Governor in Council."
On the question being taken, there appeared
for it 16 against 29.
For:—Ross, Parker, Heffernan, Ray, Bill,
Blanchard, Locke, McLelan, Blackwood,
Robertson, S. Campbell, Annand, Archibald,
Coffin, Balcam, Robichau—16.
Against:—C. J. Campbell, Hill, Bourinot,
Longley, Tobin, Killam, McFarlane, McKay,
Hatfield, Lawrence, Hatfield, D.
Fraser, Whitman, Kaulback, Moore, Hamilton, Miller, J.
Campbell, Donkin, Prov. Secretary, Caldwell,
King, Cowie, Colin Campbell, McKinnon, Fin.
Secretary, Shannon, Atty. General—29.
" Resolved—That thss bill be re-committed
for the purpose of amending the
second section
thereof, so as to include the Lieut. Governor
for the time being, in the Council of Public
Instruction, and that he be the head thereof."
Hon. PROV. SEC. felt it his duty to say, that he had good
reason for believing that the Lieut. Governor entertained the strongest
objection to occupy the position contemplated by this
amendment.
Mr. BILL was rather surprised at this, for he was under
the impression that his Excellency, wished to identify himself with the
education of the country. In a speech which he delivered at
a banquet last summer to the Canadian Delegates, he expressed himself to
that effect, and said that he considered it not only his duty but his
privilege to take an interest in the educational system of the
country. The sentiments he then expressed met with the cordial
approval of thousands of the intelligent people of this country; and
with the permission of the house he would read an extract from it. The
hon. gentleman then read as follows:-
" It would afford me great satisfaction were
I to realize in the future course of my administration one-half of what the Provincial
Sec.
has ventured to anticipate. Whatever I might
wish to effect
or whatever an individual
might hope to accomplish is nothing in comparison to that which a free and intelligent
people
have it in their own power to accomplish for themselves. I have had some experience,
gentlemen, in public affairs, and have at
all events been able to learn
this during my
term of office,
that there is no greater mistake
in governing than governing too much. In a
country like this a Governor must rely on his
Ministry and on the people, whose
representatives they are, if he hopes to effect an real
public benefit; yet whilst he
looks to the Ministry and to the people for
assistance it is his
duty
to aid, by every means in his power, the
development of the intellect and
education of
the country."
He felt that this was rather a
delicate subject to treat upon, and he was under the impression that he had only
to mention it, when
it would be at once agreed to. He was at aÂ
loss to understand what objections his Excellency could have to be connected with
the
220
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
Council of Public Instruction, and he
regretted
it exceedingly as he thought his presence there,
and the benefit of his experience would be of
great value to the deliberations of that body.
He would not press the matter
any further, as
the Prov. Sec. had stated that it would be distasteful to the feelings of his Excellency,
and
he would therefore withdraw his motion.
Hon. PROV. SEC. trusted that the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion, and not put the Government
in the
unpleasant position of having to vote against it.
Mr. ARCHIBALD expressed his regret to hear the
statement made by the Prov. Sec., that his Excellency had expressed his
unwillingness to be connected with the Council of Public Instruction. He looked
upon his presence there as a matter of
greatimportanee, but after what the Prov. Sec. had stated, the member for
Kings had done right in withhrawing his mo tion.
Mr. BLANCHARD moved that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of striking out certain clauses
relating to the City of Halifax, a resolution had been placed in
his hands which had been passed by the City Council by a vote of 10 to
5, and altho he did not agree with it in all its points, he thought the
house ought to pay proper respect to the voice of the City as
heard through its representatives.
The hon. gentleman read the resolution
from
the City Council as follows:-
"Resolved, That that portion of the
school bill
which specially relates to the City of Halifax
is arbitrary in the principle of compulsory
assessment, and is inapplicable to the circumstances of the City of Halifax,—and
this
Council representing the various wards of the
City protest against its passage through the
Legislature."
When it was considered that the City
Council, elected by the citizens and representing their interests were refused power
by the house to tax the people for the purchase of what they considered valuable
property, it was no wonder that they complained that the power of taxation for
the erection of school houses, should be
taken away from them, and vested in irresponsible commissioners. He would
ask the
house whether they were prepared to place in
the hands of those men uncontrolled powers
to tax the people for the erection of school
houses in each ward of the city. Not only
was this objectionable feature in the bill, but
the necessary consequence of the passage of
these clauses would be the establishment of
separate schools in the City of Halifax. There
were two denominations prepared to come in
and take advantage of these clauses in the
bill, the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholics
—and there were no other
denominations in a
position to do so. He did not wish to make
any invidious remarks in reference to these
two denominations. It was greatly to their
credit that they had erected handsome school
houses, but that was no reason why they
should come in and monopolize
the public
moneys to the exclusion of all
other bodies.
He did not see why the city should be placed
upon a different footing from the rest of the
province, and why it should be allowed to
elect its own Trustees, with uncontrolled powers of taxation. As he before remarked
the
taxation of the city was
increasing to an
alarming extent, and he was surprise at the
silence of the representatives for the
city, who
were more immediately interested
in the subject.
Hon. Mr. SHANNON said that the hon. member
for Inverness seemed anxious that his own constituents and the people far
away should be taxed, and he himself escape. Now, as regards
the position of the city of Halifax, they had had a law on the statute book
for years which had never been carried out; and his object
was to get a law that could be carried out. This bill had been for sometime
before the house and the country, and where were the petitions from the city against
it? Not one. It was true that the City
Council were now moving in the matter, but they did not object to
any particular clause of the bill, their resolution is
against the whole bill. If they had said they objected to the mode of
appointment of trustees, he could have understood them, but they went
against the whole principle of assessment. He could not understand
the force of the remarks of the member for Inverness as to separate
schools. The congregation of St. Luke's had an admirable school house. If an
arrangement could be made with them—not to hand over the school monies
to the Dean and Chapter, but to get them to hand over the school house
to the Council of Public Instruction for a free school, he did not
see what objection there could be; and so with the Roman
Catholics, who were about erecting a handsome school house, and so with the
National school, and others in the different wards; if they could be
obtained no great necessity would exist for taxation for the erection of
school houses. He was not at all afraid of this bugbear of separate schools—raised
by the member for Inverness.
Mr. BLANCHARD denied that he made any such statement as
that his constituents might be taxed, while the citizens of Halifax should
go free. He said that taxation was heavy enough already, in Halifax,
and he was not willing to give uncontrolled powers to persons
responsible to nobody. He was not afraid to give his constituents power to
tax themselves, but the member for Halifax appeared to be so. The hon.
gentleman says this idea of separate schools is only a bug-bear; and he
talks about St. Luke's, and the Roman Catholics handing their school
houses over to the Council of Public Instruction. Does anybody believe
that the Dean and Chapter of St. Luke's would hand over their handsome
school houses, without retaining the power to control the school? or
that the Roman Catholics would hand over theirs without retaining the
appointment of the teachers? He thought not. If they were going to have
separate schools, let them say so at once; but don't let it be done in
such an underhand way.
Mr. MILLER should vote against Mr. Blanchard's motion for the very reasons he had given in
its favor.
Mr. TOBIN hoped that the hon. member would not press
his motion. This subject should be approached with delicacy and moderation; and
unless each one was prepared to give way, to a
certain extent, to the other, it would be impossible to carry out the
system.
Mr. PRYOR said he gave his cordial support to the
clauses in the bill relating to the city of Halifax, and he was prepared to
take the responsibility of the course he had pursued.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 221
He wished to give the system a fair trial, and
if it did not succeed, it could be altered.
Mr. LE VESCONTE moved the clause which he had read on a
previous day as to the rights of minorities—which was lost—31 to 8.
For.—Miller,
Bill, LeVesconte, McDonnell,
Tobin, McKinnon, Robichau, Caldwell—8.
Against.—John
Campbell, Pryor, Moore, D.
Fraser, McFarlane, C. J. Campbell, Blackwood, Hamilton, Allison,
Laurence, Ray, Parker, McKay, Chipman, Kaulback, Hill, Long-
ley, Donkin, Prov. Secy., Blanchard, S. Campbell, Annand, Balcom, Ross, Robertson,
Shannan, Locke, Finl. Secy., Cowie, Archibald.
Mr. LEVESCONTE, although opposed to the bill, should
vote against this motion, as it would be ten times worse to go back to the
bill now on the statute book.
Mr. MILLER wished to remove a misapprehension
upon that subject. It did not at all follow, that if they rejected this bill
they must fall back upon the old law. A measure might be framed in
consonance with the wishes and feelings of the people. The hon. gentleman
commented upon the bill of last session at some length, and argued
that by amendments it had been stripped of a great many of its obnoxious features,
and was not at all the bill as originally
introduced. Therefore it was not right for the hon. gentleman to say, that
the house had only the option of accepting this bill, or being driven
back to the obnoxious bill of last session. The hon. gentleman recapitulated the
reasons why he should be compelled to
vote against this bill upon its third reading.
Hon. ATTY. GENL. contended that the clauses relating to
the city of Halifax, were totally inapplicable to thinly settled districts.
The principle might be carried out in the more populous districts,
where the different denominations had school houses of their own.
The hon. gentleman referred to the fact that, in Nova Scotia, no
distinction was made between any sect or creed, and he hoped that
none would ever seek for any preference.
After some further
slight discussion, the
question was taken upon Mr. Stewart
Campbell's motion—to defer the Bill
for 3 months- which was lost, 20 to 8.
For.—Killam,
Heffernan, Parker, Ray, Hatfield, Miller, S. Campbell, Balcom—8.
Against.—D.
Fraser, Shannon, Atty. Genl.,
Donkin, Le Vesconte, Finl. Sec. Colin Campbell, Lawrence, J. Campbell, McKay,
Allison,
Moore, Whitman, Kaulback, Longley, Prov.
Secy., Hill, McKinnon, Tobin, Cowie—20.
Hon. Prov. SEC. expressed his astonishment that after
having had a call of the house, he should persist in a notice to rescind.
Hon. Prov. SECY. moved that the bill be read a third time
and finally pass.
Some discussion then ensued upon a
question of order, as to whether
that motion could
be put—pending the notice to rescind.
The Speaker took time to consider.
The house
adjourned until the next day at
o'clock.
This individual participated in:
