policy announced by Mr. Blake and echoed by The Globe at the time in regard to the Council of Public Instruction, the Education Department and myself! I am sure

you do not share Mr. Blake's feelings in regard to myself, or perhaps on educational matters at all. But when you feel yourself pledged to his policy, and when I see in yesterday's Globe that one part of that policy is to make the Members of the Council of Public Instruction elective, I know the result.

You know how opposed I am to the principle of Popular Election in the constitution of the Council of Public Instruction. Now, I view it as evil in itself, and inconsistent with the principles of "Responsible Government," and with the design and duties of the Council. You know that in the Letter I wrote to give effect in the most limited degree to what you desired in regard to the representation of certain parties in the Council, I expressed myself in respect to it as "a tub to the whale," and as to be deprecated. The more I have thought on the subject, and with the strongest desire to meet your wishes, the more evil I see in it.

It is well known that the whole movement for an Elective Council of Public Instruction has been conceived and advocated in a spirit of hostility to the existing Council of Public Instruction, to the Education Department and to myself, and with the avowed intention of counteracting and controlling me; I submit it to your own good judgment and right feelings, whether you think it would be wise, or just, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands or of Public Works that while he is held responsible for the efficiency of his Department and all the Regulations and Recommendations that might emanate from it, he should be surrounded by an Executive Council, Members of which would be elected to control, perhaps to embarrass and oppose, him in all his plans and recommendations, you would not wish to be in an Executive Council to frame Laws and adopt measures for the welfare of the Country, in the Members of which Council you have not confidence. So in an Executive Education Council to frame Regulations and assist in Measures prepared and submitted by me as the Law requires, ought I not to have a Council to help me rather than to checkmate and thwart me. A Council in the friendship and intelligence of whose Members I can confide,-a Council of independent but friendly judgment and advice, and not a debating club of party, and perhaps of personal hostility.*

After the Act creating the Council was passed in 1846 I waited some months expecting the Government would appoint Members of Council, and. at length, wrote to the Honourable W. H. Draper, then Premier, stating my disappointment and embarrassment at the delay in appointing a Council; he replied that he had been waiting for me to submit names, that I was responsible for the work, and the Government looked to me for its development, etcetera, and it was for me to submit the names of Gentlemen whose counsel and assistance I desired. And such has been the mode of appointment by every Government from that time to this. And, while I have desired each Member of the Council to exercise his judgment on each matter irrespective of me, 1 have had such confidence in the good will of each, and in his unbiassed judgment, irrespective of the feelings which may have influenced my judgment, that I have made it a rule to withdraw any proposition which did not meet the approval, or acquiescence, of every Member of the Council. A mode of procedure which was suggested to me by the late Archbishop Whately, who told me in 1845, that during his then fifteen years' connection with the Irish National Board of Education, no motion had ever been put to vote, and no measure passed without the approval, or acquiescence, of every Member present.

If I am to manage a complicated and difficult Department and Public School System, for which I am held responsible, I have a right to claim all the assistance that can be given me, and not be hedged around by those who may be my sworn personal enemies, and seek to weaken and paralyze my efforts in every possible way. But, if

My experience of the after history of the "Elective Council of Public Instruction" quite justified all of Doctor Ryerson's fears and prognostications as to its being an arena of "unfriendly" debate and of being continually the scene of personal hostility to him.

the question be viewed in regard to the public, apart from its personal aspect in respect to the Head of the Department, the views I entertain appear to me to acquire great additional force. But I will not pursue the subject further than simply to say that I do not think the Members of the Council of Public Instruction should be elective, (unless by the Legislative Assembly), any more than the Chief Superintendent, or any other agent of a Government responsible to the Country for the character and management of every branch of the public service.

I respectfully suggest whether you have a higher duty than the Policy of party on this great non-party subject, no matter what may have been said, or promised, by party men.

I have felt so strongly on the whole matter, as relating both to the past and the future that I thought it right to consult my colleagues in the Council of Public Instruction and to learn their impressions and views on the subject. After free and full exchange of views and consultation as to what should be done at this juncture, it was our unanimous judgment to petition the Legislature on the subject, for if we didn't speak now, we must be silent forever, and suffer the consequences, to state our labours and aims in times past, what had been demanded of us in pursuance of Mr. Edward Blake's Bill of last Session, and how we had answered the enquiries and obeyed the orders given to us, and praying the House to request the production, and order the printing, of the whole Correspondence between the Government, the Council of Public Instruction and myself during the year, and to institute an enquiry as to the "efficiency" with which the Council had hitherto performed its duties and fulfilled its functions.

It was felt that, if all that had been assumed by the passing of Mr. Edward Blake's Bill yet existed, and that the Council had not given satisfactory explanations and reasons of its proceedings, and if the Council should silently and passively accept the implied charge of inefficiency, and a change in its very constitution on that ground, a shade would be cast over its character and labours in regard to all the past, and whatever might be accomplished in its future would be ascribed to a change in the constitution of the Council, while those who had borne the "burden and heat of the day," and all that had been done during the twenty-five years and more would be regarded as having been "inefficient."

The Members of the Council have expressed readiness to retire at any moment from the position and labours which they have so long sustained; but, before doing so, they ask that their past conduct and labours may be enquired into and judged by the Elected Representatives of the People in Parliament assembled. I am sure it is what you and every man having proper self respect would do in like circumstances.

I cannot see any necessity at all for having brought in the name of the Council in the manner it was, in the Speech from the Throne. But I have at different times assured you in the strongest terms of the keen sensitiveness of the Members of the Council, including myself, under the treatment they have received from the Government since the last Session of Parliament, (until the last two or three months), and that should anything be done that might be considered a reflection upon them, they would insist upon the publication of the Correspondence between them and the Government during the year.

Whatever might have been Mr. Edward Blake's Office and Power, and the other Power behind the Throne, the Members of the Council were not inferior to him in social position, and deserved the courteous treatment of Gentlemen, not to say the recognition of gratuitous benefactors of the Country.

I have made it a rule from the beginning, as an Officer of the Government, to aid each Government in every way in my power by every information, or suggestion, I could give, to mature and carry out any measures for the advancement of the School System, and never to hold any communications with the opponents of the Government on Governmental measures, without the knowledge and permission of the Government. To no leader of a Government have I felt more pleasure in so doing than in regard to

yourself. But I owe a duty which I must discharge at expense of feeling, to the past history and character of my Colleagues and myself during more than a quarter of a century in connection with our Public School System.

TORONTO, January 11th, 1873.

EGERTON RYERSON.

II. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION.

I have received your Letter of the 11th instant. I thought that I had hit upon an expression for the Speech of His Excellency which would avoid all offence to the Council. The expression "increased efficiency" was intended as an acknowledgment of the present existence of efficiency, in that Body, although not an efficiency beyond the possibility of increase; and to require one to assume that the admitted efficiency of the Council is incapable of "increase" is surely to claim something which does not belong to any human institution.*

Whether the introduction of the elective principle to the moderate extent in which you asquiesced, (although reluctantly), is a matter about which there may be a difference of opinion.

Until I got your Letter I had hoped, from the tone of the conversations which we had had, and indeed I had not doubted that my course this Session as regards School matters would have your active assistance and cordial co-operation.

I cannot help thinking that you are unnecessarily apprehensive about the Elective Members of the Council. The introduction of the Elective element to some extent is strongly pressed by the classes to be represented, and by the many who sympathize with them. With the exception of this change,-if you now make it an exception, I do not see that there need be any substantial difference of opinion between us.

TORONTO, January 15th, 1873.

OLIVER MOWAT.

III. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL MOWAT, M.P.P.

On returning from the Education Office a little while since, I found your kind Letter of this date, for the consideration and feeling shown in which in regard to myself, I sincerely thank you.

I concur with you that the general question can be better discussed by personal interview than by Letter. I shall, therefore, do nothing more in this Note than explain certain circumstances, and reply to certain things contained in your Letter.

I agree with you that the phrase of the Speech in itself does not convey any reflection upon the Council of Public Instruction; nor do I believe for a moment that you intended any other construction than you put upon it. But when you consider the phrase not in the abstract, but in connection with the circumstances known to the public, and the cause of such a phrase in the Speech, I think you will admit that the Council must have been very dull, if they could have understood and interpreted it otherwise than they did, when it is considered that The Globe has made this demand of an Elective Council of Public Instruction for years, and has heaped every sort of abuso upon the Council, in order to effect a change in its constitution; that Mr. Edward Blake took up and employed the same weapons against the Council, apart from myself; that he introduced a Bill last year to establish practically these changes against the Council,-a Bill which only spoke of existing Regulations and Instructions, but which Mr. Blake used with a view to search out, as he did, every imaginable thing that the Council has done during six years past; when, at the sequel of all these proceedings and attacks, (the whole sum of which was the inefficiency of the Council), is a proposition to increase the efficiency of the Council, what can such a proposition imply but that the Council has been inefficient, and how can the phrase be otherwise

No one could possibly object to the phrase had it been used in an ordinary and usual way, but when it was the very term in which the Council has been referred to as a reason for the necessity of elective Members, it acquired a specific and pointed obnoxious significance.

interpreted, or the proposition otherwise understood by the public than an endorsement of all that has been said against the Council? According to the acknowledged rule of interpretation, that words are to be understood not merly according to their abstract meaning, but according to the circumstances in connection with which they are used, I do not see how it is possible that the Council or the Public can place any other interpretation upon the words in question than that which was expressed by the Council of Public Instruction. And in such circumstances, I think the Council would have been wanting in self-respect not to have asked for enquiry and the Correspondence, which seems to have been quite ignored, as far as defence of the Council of Public Instruction is concerned, in a proposition which is the conclusion of what The Globe and Mr. Edward Blake asserted and proposed previous to the successive explanations given by the Council of Public Instruction.

To remove all doubt, or misapprehension, I beg to say that, although I think, as I said to you at first, that there is no special necessity for Legislation at all the present Session,-I think I said no necessity for it, yet I am at one with you on all you may think desirable in amending and improving and consolidating the School Laws. (and will soon be ready for it), except interfering with the constitution of Council of Public Instruction, except in the direction included in the Council's Petition. And I submit that after what took place last Session, it is unfair to the Council of Public Instruction to legislate, as has been proposed, before the Council's explanations and defence of its impugned proceedings are printed. However, by the Members, as far as they may wish to ascertain whether the Council has, by its unwise and inefficient proceedings, created the necessity for a change for which there is no example in the world. Even in the neighbouring States, where an analogous body is appointed, it is by the State Senate, or by the State Assembly, and Senate in joint ballot. I think you can defer Legislation on this subject, until another Session, or until the Council of Public Instruction has been heard.

The kind manner in which you treated me in our first interview affected me much, -it being in such gratifying contrast to the manner in which I had been officially treated by Messieurs Edward Blake and Adam Crooks,-who, in the Official Correspondence and decisions treated me more like a dog than a man entitled to be conferred with, or heard before his official acts should be condemned, or criticized, so different from the manner in which I had been treated by the late Honourable Robert Baldwin in 1850, and by every succeeding Government until that of Mr. Edward Blake.

I felt it in my heart, in return for your kindness, to go beyond my judgment and do all in my power to meet your wishes; and in reluctantly conceding to certain parties electing three Members of the Council of Public Instruction. I thought that other Members would coincide with me! but I found that each one to whom I mentioned it. revolted at the very idea, preferring immediate retirement from the Council, if Members were introduced who could stand up and say that they were not the nominees of any Government,-much less of a defunct Government, but the elected Representatives of large bodies, and had, therefore, a superior right to have their opinions respected, and the proceedings and debates open to the public and published for the information of their Constituents, and that if this was not granted by the nominee majority of the Government, they would publish their proposed Resolutions and reasons for themselves. I have not stated to you a tithe of the evils of making the Council of Public Instruction elective. I ought to have conversed with my Colleagues before I consented, under grateful feelings, to concede anything to you on the subject. I must cleave to, and go with, those friends, who have assisted me by their counsels and friendship for so many years; and, if, therefore, you determine to proceed to change the constitution of the Council of Public Instruction this Session, by introducing the Elective principle, you must propose to construct a new Council

The Council and myself bore a past history which, up to this date, is complete, and cannot be tarnished. It is better for us to retire now, than be consenting parties to

what under all the circumstances, must be regarded as our own degradation, if we be consenting parties to it.

I certainly do not wish to revive past discussions. I shrink from it; but I and my Colleagues must not then be made the victims of past attacks and hostility.

It seems to me most strange that a blow would be insisted upon, against the very head that devised and the heart that gave impulse to the system of Institutions and Education so eulogized by the London Times, as copied in yesterday's Globe, as also by Educationists in both Europe and America.

I believe there are many gentlemen of the "Liberal Party" who are not and never have been the echoes of Mr. George Brown and Mr. Edward Blake in sentiment, or feeling, against the Council of Public Instruction, or myself. I believe the great body of all parties in the House of Assembly will not condemn me without a hearing, and will, in any alternative, do me justice; and I ask no more. I ask no favours. At all events, I must do what I believe to be best for the Country, true to the past and just to old and faithful friends, and those friends, Gentlemen of the highest intelligence and position, and who have done no small service to the State. If, in such a course, I live poorer, I shall die happier.

TORONTO, January 15th, 1873.

EGERTON RYERSON.

IV. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL MOWAT, M.P.P.

In my Letter written last evening, I forgot to remind you that, immediately after the opening of the House, when I had not remarked anything in the Speech beyond a reference to the proposed Amendment and Consolidation of the School Laws, I seized the moment to state to you how repugnant to the feelings of Members of the Council of Public Instruction was, would be, the invidious distinction in the composi tion of the Council by the proposed election of some of its Members; and suggested to you the making of appointments to the Council annual, and increasing the number, if you should think proper, but by no means to introduce the elective principle. I, therefore, apprized you of the feelings of my Colleagues in Council on the very first opportunity I had of speaking to you, after conversing with any of them.

If Teachers and Inspectors are to elect Representatives in the Council, so should Municipal Councils and Trustees, the burden bearers of the School System, and, therefore, more strongly entitled to Representatives in the Council than Trustees and Inspectors, the one Officers of the Trustees, and the other Officers of the Municipal Councils; for, be it observed, the Council of Public Instruction has always as much represented Teachers as it has Municipal Councils and Trustees.

I know not what arguments may have been pressed upon you on this subject; but I can conceive of no reason, after twenty-five years' successful practice of the present System, for such Legislation at this time beyond the exigencies of Party, (caused by one Newspaper), the consideration of an element which never enterd into our School Lgislation until 1871; and I pray you with all the earnestness of my soul, that you will not suffer it to influence your Legislation this Session. TORONTO, January 16th, 1873.

EGERTON RYERSON.