In the discussion of many problems we are liable, particularly in the West, to limit our vision to conditions as they present themselves to the observer. This is more noticeable in the educational field. This frame of mind may be traced to various causes. But there is one cause which, we believe, is more responsible than others.

Unconsciously our age is "evolutionist." "The intellectual movement of 'evolution,'" said Glenn Frank, "was not the private plaything of biologists in sequestered laboratories, but a force that altered men's conceptions in every field of affairs." ("Century," Sept., 1920.) The theory of evolution has such a grasp on the modern mind that its concepts of government, of economics, of education are looked upon as the last and improved effort of man in his eternal struggle to express an unknown and always receding ideal. This has accustomed the mind to look upon the past but as a rudiment, an outline, a preparation of the future.

Without entering into the discussion of the objective evidence of the theory of evolution we may say that as far as education is concerned its premises are false. The human soul remains substantially the same and the process of its education has not varied very much with centuries. Those therefore who look upon our modern Educational system as the apex, the summing up of all past phases, are greatly mistaken. "The lessons of past history," writes Dr. Walsh, "are extremely precious not only because they show us where others made mistakes but also because they show us the successes of the past. The better we know these, the deeper our admiration for them, the better the outlook for ourselves and our accomplishment."

The State-school is an institution comparatively of very recent date and has no right to be heralded as the final expression of an educational system in a democracy. The history of education shows a lineage of men who can be more than favorably compared with the sons of our common schools. The mass of the people have indeed more instruction but, at times, we doubt if they are better educated. Results are the best judges of educational values. History and experience prove that success in education depends more on the sense of responsibility in the parents and of duty in the children, than on palatial school-houses and elaborate programme of studies. This sense of duty and the feeling of responsibility are not a necessary consequence of state schools. On the contrary they are more liable to be found in independent institutions. For, as we have seen, when the State substitutes itself for the family, the first consequence is the unchallenged yield of parental rights.

Those who would make an excursion into history and compare our modern educational systems with those of the past will find illuminating points of comparison and instructive conclusions. We would advise them to take Dr. Walsh, M.D., Ph.D., Litt.D., as guide. His books: "Education, how Old the New"—"The Thirteenth Century"—will prove most interesting reading.

Already a reactionary policy is being enacted in several countries where for years the State-School was the only one to share in the public treasury. In Holland, the Parliament of June, 1920, by a vote of 72 against 3, passed a new school-law which recognizes and subsidizes all separate primary, high and normal schools. In Italy, the Minister of Education, Benedetto Croce, in a speech on the "reorganization of education," stated publicly that the neutral school was theoretically absurd and practically impossible. In Spain,[3] by a Bill of May, 1919, the State universities have passed out of the hands of the Government. France, Portugal, Argentine Republic are fighting for the same freedom. In Poland's new charter of liberties, granted by the Treaty of Versailles, the rights of the minority in school matters are guaranteed. Our Canadian representatives signed this document. We were granting then to the new Republic a sacred right which we still refuse to our own at home, in the Province of Manitoba!

VII.—A Religious Reason

The creation of the state-school, necessarily undenominational in character, has made the "separate school" an absolute necessity. If religion has any meaning in life this reason of our separation should be most convincing.

In education one cannot separate the utilitarian side,—the fitting of the child for the struggle of life,—from its main purpose,—the development of moral character. The moral aspect alone gives to human life its true character, its real value. As there is no morality without religion, the system of education that would debar this essential feature falls short of its full meaning. With this principle in view any fair-minded man will understand how true Christian parents demand a school where their children will receive religious education. They are in conscience bound to exact for their offspring such education, and, where the State refuses them their own money to support their "separate schools" they willingly penalize themselves to give them this benefit. The child's eternal welfare is not to be sacrificed to a school system that has not even accomplished the purpose for which it was established. For, as we shall see, a neutral school is a practical impossibility.

Those who fail to understand the pressing force of this viewpoint have in our opinion lost the sense and sacredness of religion. They are astonished at the bitterness that characterizes at times the conflict. Are not religious and racial issues so intimately united with the very conception of life that they hold to the most intimate fibres of the human heart? For a Catholic, Religion is life itself in its most sacred aspect.