Ryerson Memorial Volume / Prepared on the occasion of the unveiling of the Ryerson statute in the grounds of the Education department on the Queen's birthday, 1889

by J. George Hodgins

Objections to Dr. Ryerson's School Bill of 1846 Answered.

In a private letter to Hon. Attorney-General Draper, dated 20th April, 1846, Dr. Ryerson replies to several objections made in the House of Assembly and by the press to his first School Act of 1846. I quote the following:—

"The Montreal Pilot objects to appointing trustees for three years. This is one of the improvements adopted in the New York law of 1843. The superintendents, in their reports, speak largely of the evils of the annual system, and strongly on the advantages of the triennial one. The opposition to the Bill seems to be based on notions derived from what the State of New York system was several years ago. The opponents do not seem to be aware that it was amended in 1841, and amended again in 1843. Messrs. Price, Roblin, etc., seem to be where the Americans were ten years ago.

"I anticipate the objection to the rate-bill clause. I look upon that above all others to be the poor man's clause, and at the very foundation of a system of public education. It is objected to by precisely the class of persons or rather by the individuals that I expected. I have heard of one rich man objecting to it, who educates his own children at colleges and ladies' seminaries, but who looks not beyond his own family. He says, I am told, that 'he does not wish to be compelled to educate all the brats in the neighborhood.' Now, to educate 'all the brats in every neighborhood' is just the very object of this clause; and, in order to do so, it is proposed to compel selfish, rich men to do what they ought to do, but what they will not do voluntarily.[46]

"Mr. Gowan's statements as to the evils of not extending the period of keeping a school open in each district beyond three months of the year are substantially what have been communicated to me in many reports and letters. In several of the annual district reports which I have received, it is stated that giving public money to districts in which a school is not taught more than three months of the year is an actual injury rather than a benefit, and an abuse of the intentions of the Legislature."