Chronologies
of Quebec History
Last
revised: 23 August 2000 |
Quebecers,
the Roman Catholic Church and the Manitoba School Question: A Chronology
1869-70 |
Red
River Rebellion led by Louis Riel; the Metis objected to being incorporated into
Canada without having been consulted on the matter, assented to it, and having
their various rights safeguarded. Various petitions of rights were drafted; these
were embodied in the Manitoba Act in articles 22 and 23. Verbal assurances are
also known to have been made to Mgr. Taché who feared that the annexation of the
territory by Canada would result in « the betrayal of the interests of the French
Canadian Catholics » who represented about 50% of the population of Manitoba. |
| | 1869,
December 1 | Article
10 of the List of Rights drafted by Riel's Council (Provisional Government), demanded
that « the French and the English languages be common in the legislature and courts,
and that all public documents and acts of the legislature be published in both
languages. » This was embodied into s. 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870. | | | 1870,
May 12 | Royal
assent was given to the Manitoba Act. By it, Manitoba was incorporated into Canada
as a province, rather than as a territory as first planned. By virtue of s. 22
of the Act, confessional (i.e. Roman Catholic and Protestant) schools are guaranteed
when such schools existed « by law or practice in the province at the Union ».
Such schools did exist prior to the Manitoba Act. Other subsections of the Act
parallel those of s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 in allowing for an appeal
to be lodged in the federal government should rights, existing by practice at
the Union or established by law after the Union, be prejudicially affected by
future provincial legislation. Section 23 safeguarded the English and the French
languages in Manitoba in the same manner as they are protected in Quebec by s.
133 of the Constitutional Act, 1867. At the time of the Union of Manitoba with
Canada, the total population of the province was estimated to be around 12,000,
about equally divided between the French and the English, and with a slight majority
for the Catholic population. There were 33 schools in operation. |
| | 1871 | One
of the first measures adopted by the new provincial legislature of Manitoba was
the passing of an « Act to establish a system of Education in this Province » which created a confessional school system. A board was set up, made up of two
sections, one Catholic and one Protestant, with an equal number of members. The
majority of the members of the first board was made-up of clerics, among them
the Roman Catholic bishops of St. Boniface and of Rupert's Land. Twenty four school
districts, 12 for each confession, were also created. Two superintendents, one
for each confession, were also appointed with joint secretaries. These superintendents
were members of the Board on which sat no less than ten, and no more than fourteen
members. Each section of the Board managed its own schools and exercised discipline
over them regarding examinations, grading, the licensing of teachers, selection
of textbooks for religious instruction. Each section was entitled to share equally
in the grant appropriated for education by the provincial government. The structure
of this system was to remain in place until 1890. | | | 1870-1890 | The
population of Manitoba grows much more slowly than had been hoped at the outset
of Confederation. Such population growth as there was tended to come from Ontario
so that, over time, the percentage of the Manitoba population that was French
and Roman Catholic dropped drastically to less than 10% (although the Catholic
population was somewhat larger, at about a seventh of the population of the province).
Manitoba's population was estimated at 152,506 in 1891 and grew to 255,211 in
1901. | | | 1871 |
The
Constitution Act, 1871 constitutionalized the content of the Manitoba Act. Henceforth,
the terms of the Manitoba Act were part of the Constitution of Canada. |
| | 1875 | Amendments
to the Education Acts were made by which the number of the members of the Board
was increased to 21, 12 Protestants and 9 Catholics, and the provincial grant
was now appropriated on the basis of the number of children of school age in each
district. Catholics did not oppose these changes as the Protestant population
was increasing at a much faster rate than that of the Roman Catholics. | | | 1875 | The
North-West Territories Act provided for guarantees to confessional schools in
the territory as well as for the use of the French and English languages in the
debates, proceedings, records, journals and in the Ordinances emanating from the
Territorial Council. | | | 1877 | A
further amendment to the Education Act guaranteed that in « no case a Protestant
ratepayer shall be obliged to pay for a Catholic school, and a Catholic ratepayer
for a Protestant school ». This was made possible by a new division of the school
districts of Manitoba by which the entire territory of the province was completely
covered by each denomination, instead of divided between denominations as had
been the case in the early years of Manitoba. | | | 1885 | Second
Riel Rebellion, in the North-West territory. This was the occasion of great division
in Canada and growth of animosity between francophones and anglophones, Catholics
and Protestants, Ontario and Quebec. Anti-French and anti-Catholic feelings ran
especially high in Ontario. | | | 1888,
January 13 | Thomas
Greenway became Premier of Manitoba. | | | 1888 |
Desirous
to secure French-Catholic support for his government that had just been formed following the provincial elections, Thomas Greenway, Liberal Premier of Manitoba, extended
guarantees to Mgr Taché that French-Catholic school and language rights would
be safe with him. James E. P. Prendergast, a French Catholic, entered the cabinet
with the blessing of the archbishop following these assurances. |
| | 1888,
July 12 | The
Jesuits' Estate Act was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec under the
government of Honoré Mercier. The Act aimed at compensating the Jesuits for their
properties that had been confiscated by the government after the Conquest. A sum
of $400,000 was to be paid. A separate decision appropriated $60,000 to the Protestant
Committee. The Act was voted unanimously in the Legislature after an extensive
arbitration process carried out by the Pope as there were competing claims and
considerable complications between Catholics on this matter. The correspondence
regarding the apportioning of the grants to Catholics was incorporated into the
law. Radical Protestants identified the bill as evidence of clerical control of
Quebec, and as proof of the subjection of the State to the Church when, otherwise,
they believed that there should be absolute separation between Church and State.
Protestants in Quebec, it was alleged, had only supported the measure because
they were afraid and had been browbeaten into submission. | | | 1889 | At
least five different radical Protestant groups, including the Ottawa branch of
the Orange Lodge, petition the Federal government to disallow the Jesuits' Estate
Act. In its petition, the Presbytery of Montreal of the Presbyterian Church of
Canada called the Jesuits « a society which has proved itself the enemy of civil
and religious liberty all over the world », while that of the Orange Lodge alluded
to « their evil influence on public and private morality ». When the Minister
of Justice, John S. Thompson, a convert to Roman Catholicism, reported to the
federal cabinet, on January 16, 1889, that the law should not be disallowed a
storm of protest arose throughout Protestant Canada. On March 26, 1889, William
Edward O'Brien, commander of the York-Simcoe Regiment sent to put down the 1885
Riel Rebellion, and federal conservative member for Muskoka, moved in the House
of Commons that the Act be disallowed by the government. In the course of the
debate, supporters of disallowance emphasized that this was « a British country
». The vote on the motion in the House did not represent well the extent of support
there was in Canada for disallowance of the Jesuits' Estate Bill although it did
reflect the intensity of feelings on the matter. Only twelve members, among them
D'Alton McCarthy who resigned his Ontario Conservative Party presidency, joined
O'Brien in supporting disallowance; 188 members rejected the motion including
John A. Macdonald, Edward Blake and Wilfrid Laurier. The supporters of the motion,
known by Catholics as the Devil's Dozen or by Protestants as the Noble Thirteen,
began an anti-French, anti-Catholic campaign and took their message to Ontario
and into Western Canada. Interestingly, in light of the fact that the McCarthy
supporters will oppose so strenuously demands by the Catholic minority for the
federal government to disallow the Manitoba school legislation of 1890 and 1894,
as well as Ordinance no. 22 of the North-West Territories, the O'Brien resolution
included this statement on the federal power of disallowance: « That this great
power, while it should never be wantonly exercised, should be fearlessly used
for the protection of the rights of a minority, for the preservation of the fundamental
principles of the constitution, and for safeguarding the general interest of the
people. » (See House of Commons, Debates, 1889, p. 811) | | | 1889,
May 16 | An
editorial in the Brandon Sun was the first open criticism made of the confessional
school system of Manitoba for quite some time. | | | 1889,
June | The
Equal Rights Association - « Equality to all. Privileges to none » - was established
in Toronto. Its prime targets were the bilingual schools of Ontario and the Catholic
Separate School « privileges » of the same province. It fueled a context in which
anti-Quebec, anti-French and anti-Catholic feelings ran high. The main people
associated with this group were derived from the supporters of the disallowance
of the Jesuits' Estate Act. | | | 1889,
July 12 | The
Government of Manitoba demanded that the Catholic section of the Board of Education
turn over to the consolidated funds of the province the surplus it had accumulated
over the years. The Catholic Committee was forced to give-up $13,879.47. There
was widespread opposition to this measure. | | | 1889,
August 5 | D'Alton
McCarthy delivered his famous speech at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. He railed
against French Canadian « nationalists » who were aggressively asserting their
right to remain « a distinct race » in Canada. He argued that the unity and the
progress of Canada was threatened by these nationalists. Manitobans were invited
to join a large movement to deal with French-Catholic rights. Attorney-General
Joseph Martin also spoke at the meeting and asserted that « he was an Englishman
and he believed this was an English country. French was a most beautiful language,
but to him it was beautiful at home, to him it was a foreign language; and (he)
maintained we should speak the language of the country ». The traditional interpretation
of the origins of the Manitoba School Question is that these speeches sparked
the issue. In a revisionist article, printed in 1973, historian J. R. Miller demonstrated
that this was not the case and that the cause of the Manitoba School Question
ought to be found, instead, in the erosion of the province's cultural duality,
between 1870 and 1890. In his opinion, « the sustained attack on Franco-Manitoban
institutions was the simple desire of English, Protestant immigrants for institutions
that reflected their own concepts of proper government and education », and «
the Jesuits' Estate Act agitation thus helped to bring into the open the hostility
to cultural diversity that had festered in Manitoba for a long time ». He also
asserted that there were political difficulties associated with the failed railway
policy of the Liberal government of Manitoba by Thomas Greenway. | | | 1889,
August 12 | In
a sermon given by Rev. George Bryce and delivered at Knox Presbyterian Church,
as reported by the Manitoba Free Press, the cleric stated: « When men deliberately
state as they have done that they aim at building up a French Canadian nationality,
what is that but a blow to our hopes as one Canadian people? Language and separate
schools are being used to build up what is really destructive to our hopes as
a people, and we should be unworthy of our name if we permitted such aggression
». | | | 1889,
September | The
Manitoba Gazette, published in both official languages to this point, was only
published in English from this date. | | | 1889,
December |
The
Anglican bishop of Rupert's Land, speaking at the national synod of the Anglicans,
expressed satisfaction with the religious subjects now taught in the Protestant
schools of Manitoba although he considered the amount of such teaching insufficient.
He also admitted that the Roman Catholic Separate schools were the only confessional schools in existence in Manitoba.
This is important in the light of the Logan case that was initiated later. |
| | 1890,
January 22 | D'Alton
McCarthy introduced a motion in the Canadian parliament to abolish the official
bilingual status of the legislature of the North-West territories. An amendment
to this measure was adopted which provided that, after the next general elections
for the territory, its assembly would have the right to decide the language of
debates, records and proceedings. On January 18, 1892, the territorial legislature
voted a motion that stipulated that « it is desirable that the proceedings of
the Legislative Assembly shall be recorded and published hereafter in the English
language only ». | | | 1890,
March 18 | The
Manitoba legislature introduced a measure to abolish the official status of the
French language in the legislature, the laws, records and journals, as well as
the Courts of Manitoba. This was in clear violation of s. 23 of the Manitoba Act
and was declared unconstitutional in 1979 in the Forest case. Interestingly, the
second, and last, clause of this bill stipulated « This Act shall only apply so
far as this Legislature has jurisdiction so to enact, and shall come into force
on the day it is assented to. » It was assented to on March 31, 1890. Upon petition
from the minority, the federal government refused to disallow this piece of legislation,
maintaining that the question was one for the Courts to decide. | | | 1890,
March 28 | Manitoba's
Lieutenant-Governor, John Schultz, on good friendly terms with Archbishop Taché,
and requested to do so by a petition of the French Members of the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba, entertained the idea of reserving the Bill. However, he
was directed by the Macdonald government to give royal assent to it. | | | 1890,
31 March | Assent
was given to « An Act Respecting the Department of Education ». This was the first
of the two bills to create a public non-sectarian system of education in Manitoba
and to abolish the confessional school system set up in 1871. Details of this
bill are discussed in the Notes on the 1890 Manitoba school legislation of 1890.
The Bill had been introduced into the Assembly on March 12. This bill was voted
26 to 10. | | | 1890,
31 March | Assent
was given to « An Act Respecting Public Schools ». This is the second of the two
bills to create a public non-sectarian system of education in Manitoba and to
abolish the school system set up in 1871. Details of this bill are discussed in
the Notes on the Manitoba school legislation of 1890. This Bill had been introduced
into the Assembly on March 12. The vote on the Bill was 25 to 11. | | | 1890,
April 7 | Archbishop
Alexandre Taché, as President of the Catholic section of the Board of Education,
requested that the federal government disallow the two educational acts. | | | 1890,
April 12 | Appeal
of Mgr. Taché to Lord Stanley, Governor-General of Canada. The document, after
a long discussion of promises made at the time of Union, and an assertion of the
rights of Catholics in Manitoba, concluded « I therefore most respectfully and
most earnestly pray that your Excellency, as representative of our most beloved
Queen, should take steps that, in your wisdom, would seem the best remedy against
the evils that the above mentioned and recently enacted laws are preparing in
this part of Her Majesty's domain. » | | | 1890.
April 14 | Eight
members of the provincial legislature of Manitoba requested that the federal government « grant such relief and remedy » as « may seem meet and just ». | | | 1890,
April 29 | The « Blake » resolution was adopted. The House of Commons assented to a motion by
Edward Blake, former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, which mandated that
all cases of disputes on education be sent to the judiciary for decision. This
was proposed to preempt attempts to have the constitutionality of controversial
education bills disposed of by means of disallowance. Since both national parties
were greatly embarrassed by appeals from the minority for disallowance, on grounds
that their rights were prejudicially affected, they were happy to be provided
an opportunity, with the Blake motion, to pass on this difficult issue to somebody
else and, in any case, to gain time without creating enemies of anyone. While
Macdonald, Blake and Laurier all supported this motion, they agreed that this
did not dispose of future responsibilities the federal government might have toward
the minority. | | | 1890,
May 12 | Letter
from Louis-François Laflèche, bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, to Joseph-Adolphe
Chapleau, Secretary of State of Canada, requesting that the federal government
disallow the unjust laws enacted by the Manitoban government. Laflèche is reported
to have sent similar letters to Hector Langevin and Adolphe Caron, both important
ministers in the Macdonald government. See the documentary section. | | | 1890,
May 23 | Negative
response by Chapleau to the letter of Laflèche. See the documentary section. | | | 1890,
June 4 | A
National Congress of French Catholics of Manitoba was convened in St. Boniface.
Delegates from each of the parishes of Manitoba were to be sent. It added its
weight to the wave of protest sweeping catholic Manitoba over the school laws. | | | 1890,
undated | (likely
during August of the year) Petition of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity of
Manitoba containing 4,267 names. It requested that the federal government « make
such provisions and give such directions for the hearing and consideration of
the said appeal as may be thought proper ». It further affirmed the belief that
the legislation « prejudicially affect the rights and privileges with regard to
denominational schools which Roman Catholics had by law or practice in the Province
at the Union. » | | | 1890,
November | Beginning
of the Barrett v. City of Winnipeg case. John Barrett was a Roman Catholic of
Winnipeg who refused to pay the school tax bill sent to him for the support of
the public schools. He claimed that this prejudicially affected his rights as
set out in the Manitoba Act. | | | 1890,
November 24 | Mr.
Justice Killam, of the Manitoba Court, dismissed the appeal of Barrett. The law
was constitutional as it did not affect the rights as they existed in practice
at the Union. | | | 1891-1897 | 1891-1897
Period of intense activity by the Protestant Protective Association (PPA). This
anti-Catholic secretive organization was of American origin and recruited as many
as 100,000 members in its various chapters throughout Canada. The PPA attacked
Catholics and French Canadians for failing to assimilate with the majority, and
thus frustrating the dream of a homogeneous country. According to historian James
T. Watt, they sought to create a nation « based on a common language and cultural
background and a general pride in the so-called Anglo-Saxon race ». | | | 1891,
February 2 | The
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, heard the appeal in the Barrett
case. By a majority decision (2-1) the decision of Justice Killam was upheld.
The two anglophone judges stood by the provincial government while the French
judge, Justice Joseph Dubuc, sided with the minority. | | | 1891,
February 14 | Adolphe
Chapleau, Secretary of State in the federal cabinet and the leading Quebec minister
in the government, made a strong commitment to Archbishop Taché: if the federal
government does not bring an efficient remedy to the school question, he would
personally leave the cabinet to fight for such a measure. This was a strong commitment
on the part of Chapleau who had refused in 1885 to abandon the Macdonald cabinet
over the Riel hanging. | | | 1891,
March 5 | The
Macdonald conservative government was returned to power in the general elections.
Both major parties were very successful in keeping the Manitoba issue out of the
elections. Laurier, running for the first time as national leader of the Liberal
Party, won 34 seats in Quebec, against the 29 retained by the Conservative Party. | | | 1891,
March (undated specifically) | The
archbishops and bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Quebec, Montreal and
Ottawa signed jointly a Pastoral Letter on the subject of the Manitoba schools.
The bishops wished to support Mgr. Taché in his struggle and wrote: « We cannot,
as guardians of the prerogatives of Our Holy Mother Church, remain as cold spectators
to the persecutions that are inflicted on them (Manitoba Catholics). In conscience,
we must remind all of the faithful of our provinces of the true doctrine concerning
the control that the Church must exercise on the education of the children in
the schools ». | | | 1891,
March 6 | A
petition signed by all but one of the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of
Canada requested that the Canadian government « afford a remedy to the pernicious
legislation above mentioned (the two educational bills), and that in the most
efficacious and just way ». The episcopacy had stopped short of asking for outright
disallowance. Only Bishop Rogers, of Chatham New Brunswick, refused to join the
other 28 bishops. He did not believe in politicizing the debate. The petition
was given to the Secretary of State on March 24. | | | 1891,
March 21 | Report
of John Thompson, Minister of Justice, on the petitions for disallowance, or federal
action. He rejected disallowance as « it became apparent at the outset that these
questions required the decision of the judicial tribunals ». If the courts found
against the minority, « the time will come for Your Excellency to consider the
petitions which have been presented by and on behalf of the Roman Catholics of
Manitoba for redress ». | | | 1891,
June 6 | John
A. Macdonald died. From his own point of view, Macdonald had managed the Manitoba
issue successfully, particularly through the general elections of 1891. Macdonald
had been adept at keeping together the French-Catholic and the radical Protestants
within his political party. His death began a period of great instability, indeed
of crisis of leadership, within the Conservative Party, and thus, until 1896,
within the Government of Canada. Over a six year period, while the Manitoba school
question unfolded, Canada had six different Prime Ministers: Macdonald until June
1891; John Abbott, the first Quebecer to have occupied the post of Prime Minister,
from 1891-1992; John S. Thompson, the first Roman Catholic to become Prime Minister
of Canada, from 1892 to 1894; Mackenzie Bowell, former Grand-Master of the Orange
Lodges of Canada, between 1894-1896; Charles Tupper, for a few months in 1896,
and Wilfrid Laurier who was elected in the general elections of 1896. | | | 1891,
September 30 | The « Blake motion » was incorporated into a law presented by John Thompson, Minister
of Justice. The Bill was passed unanimously. | | | 1891,
October 28 | By
a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (5-0) the Manitoba Court decisions
were reversed and the Manitoba school laws were declared unconstitutional. According
to Archbishop Taché, this « was a source of great satisfaction » to him and to
Roman Catholics in Manitoba. | | | 1891,
November 10 | In
a letter addressed to John Thompson, federal Minister of Justice, Archbishop Taché
strongly urged that the services of Edward Blake, former leader of the Liberal
Party of Canada and outstanding lawyer and debater, and John S. Ewart, a dedicated
lawyer from Winnipeg, be retained as Counsels for the minority in the upcoming
case before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Blake was not retained
by the government, a decision that raised controversy and, likely, hurt the chances
of the minority before the J.C.P.C. Taché had also urged that the best of English
Solicitor be retained; this, also, the government of Canada failed to do even
while Taché wrote: « Dear Sir John, I have trusted you in these painful occurrences
and refused emphatically to resort to means which would have embarrassed the Government;
now I am sure that the wish for economy will not be an obstacle to what we consider
necessary for success in England ». | | | 1891,
December | Mr.
Alex. Logan, Anglican resident of Winnipeg, also instituted proceedings to have
the school laws declared unconstitutional. It is believed that this suit was instituted
at the urging of the government of Manitoba so as to confuse the issue and make
it appear as if the public school system of Manitoba would unravel, each minority
wishing to have schools and demanding a share in the government grants, and thus
create a tower of Babel. | | | 1891,
December 19 | The
Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, following the jurisprudence set by the Supreme
Court of Canada, found in favor of Logan and declared the school laws of Manitoba
ultra vires. Both this case, and the Barrett one, were appealed to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. | | | 1892,
July 23 | The
Greenway liberal government of Manitoba was returned to power in the provincial
elections. In Manitoba, the parties now stood as follows: Liberals 28, Conservatives
11 and one Independent. | | | 1892,
July 30 | The
six judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council found in favor of the
City of Winnipeg against John Barrett. According to their Lordships, no right
that existed by practice had been prejudicially affected by the 1890 school laws.
The judgment was delivered, on behalf of the Court, by Lord Macnaghten. | | | 1892,
September 20 | Petition
by Archbishop Taché to the federal government for a Remedial Order to be issued. | | | 1892,
November 22 | Petition
by leading Roman Catholics of Manitoba for a Remedial Order to be issued. | | | 1892,
December | The
North-West Territories' legislature, under the leadership of Frederick Haultain
reduced substantially the rights and privileges that Roman Catholic schools enjoyed
in the territories. There was much discussion as to the effect that lack of action
on the part of the federal government over the Manitoba schools had on Haultain's
move. As in the case of Manitoba, the federal government refused to disallow Ordinance
No. 22. See on this issue: Mémoire de Monseigneur Taché sur la question des
écoles. En réponse au rapport de l'honorable Conseil Privé du Canada. Montréal,
Beauchemin et Fils, 1894, 64p. | | | 1892,
December | Sir
John Thompson became the Prime Minister of Canada. One man missing from his cabinet
was Adolphe Chapleau. According to Paul Crunican, Chapleau left the cabinet in
part because he wished the federal commitment on behalf of the Manitoba minority
to go much farther than his Ontario colleagues were prepared to go. | | | 1893,
January 21 | John
S. Ewart, counsel for the Roman Catholic minority of Manitoba, appeared at a public
hearing before the federal cabinet to argue that the government should hear the
appeal of the minority and issue remedial legislation. The Manitoba government
did not send a representative to the hearings. | | | 1893,
March | Joseph-Israel
Tarte, a former Conservative Party supporter but now a leading liberal, introduced
a motion of censure of the government's action, or lack thereof, in the Manitoba
school issue. The issue was debated in the House of Commons between March 6 and
9. The motion was defeated 120 to 71 with the radical Protestants joining hands
with the Liberals in seeking to have it adopted. | | | 1893,
April 20 | Archbishop
Alexandre Taché published a pamphlet titled: « Are the Public Schools of Manitoba
the Continuation of the Protestant Schools of the same Principle? ». He presented
extensive and disturbing evidence that pointed in that direction. | | | 1893,
May | The
federal government formulated the six questions that were to be submitted to the
Supreme Court. This became the Brophy case. Gerald Brophy was the Roman Catholic
law partner of John S. Ewart who was co-counsel for the minority. Essentially,
the questions at hand in the Brophy case centered around: 1. Whether or not rights
had been prejudicially affected, especially those established after the Union;
2. Did the possibility of an appeal to the federal authorities continue to exist
in light of the court decision in the Barrett case? 3. Did the federal government
or Parliament have the power to take remedial action? Interestingly, both Archbishop
Taché and the Manitoba government considered the judicial round pointless. | | | 1893,
November 22 | In
a by-election held, Joseph Martin, former Attorney-General of Manitoba in the
Greenway government and nemesis of the minority on the school issue, was elected
for the federal liberal party of Laurier. He was elected for Winnipeg. Martin
had quite a checkered career, losing several elections. However, he arguably holds
the Canadian record for being elected in the largest number of jurisdictions.
He sat in the Manitoba Legislature, in the Canadian House of Commons, became Premier
of British Columbia and finished his parliamentary career in the British House
of Commons. The presence of Martin in the Liberal caucus in Ottawa did nothing
to endear the Catholic Church to the Liberal cause. | | | 1894,
February 20 | The
Supreme Court of Canada handed its decision in the Brophy case. The Court was
divided on the issue. However, the majority considered that the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council had disposed of the issue in holding that no constitutional
right had been prejudicially affected by the school laws. As appeal to the federal
government in education could only be made if rights had been denied, the majority
felt that no appeal should be allowed in this case. The vote on the case in the
Supreme Court was 3-2. An appeal was lodged to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. For this case, the minority was successful in securing the services of
Edward Blake to represent it in the judicial proceedings. | | | 1894,
March 2 | A
new Manitoba educational bill (« An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act ») closed
loopholes in the bill governing education in Manitoba. Section 151 of the Public
Schools Act of 1890 (« any school not conducted according to all the provisions
of this or any act in force for the time being, or the regulations of the Department
of Education or the Advisory Board, shall not be deemed a public school within
the meaning of the law, and such schools shall not participate in the legislative
grant ».) was amended by adding to it: « nor the municipal grant, - nor shall
any school taxes be collected for the benefit of such schools ». This affected
primarily the French Catholic minority who lived in compact and homogeneous settlements
and had used the device of municipal taxes to support their theoretically public
but, in reality, Catholic schools. A further amendment to the law decreed the
confiscation of school property in districts that do not follow the law; as well,
in districts where schools have failed to be continued, the municipality would
have the duty to take over the school properties. | | | 1894,
May | A
petition signed by the entire Roman Catholic episcopacy requested the disallowance
of the amendments to the school acts enacted in March of 1894. The petition also
complained of Ordinance No 22 (1892) enacted in the North-West territories. | | | 1894,
June 22 | Archbishop
Taché died. | | | 1894,
July 26 | Response
of the federal government to the petition of the episcopacy. The government expressed
the view « that the statements which are contained in this memorial are matter
of deep concern and solicitude in the interests of the Dominion at large, and
that it is a matter of the utmost importance to the people of Canada that the
laws which prevail in any portion of the Dominion should not be such as to occasion
complaint of oppression or injustice to any class or portion of the people, but
should be recognized as establishing perfect freedom and equality, especially
in all matters relating to religion and religious belief and practice ». The document
expressed the « most earnest hope » that the governments of Manitoba and of the
North West would take into consideration the complaints of the minority. | | | 1894,
October 20 | Response
of the Government of Manitoba to the federal government Report of July 26. It
rejected the basis upon which the petition of the episcopacy had been written.
In their reply, the Manitoba government asserted that the public schools are not
Protestant but, rather, non sectarian. They rejected the contention that Catholics
are compelled to pay for the education of Protestants. Overall, « The Catholic
people have the same power to avail themselves of the advantages of the schools
as the Protestant people. The religious exercises are non-sectarian, and are not
used, except with the sanction and with the direction of the trustees, elected
by all ratepayers without distinction of creed. » According to the government
of Manitoba, the questions raised in the petition of the bishops, and in the federal
report, have had considerable discussion over the years in the Legislature of
Manitoba and « that body has advisedly enacted educational legislation which gives
to every citizen equal rights and equal privileges, and makes no distinction respecting
nationality and religion ». Further, it asserted that the legislation was constitutional
and that disallowance « would be a most unjustifiable attempt to prevent the legislature
from performing that duty which has been judicially declared to appertain to it,
and it may be assumed that such disallowance would call forth an emphatic protest
». In conclusion, it warned that « The Government and Legislative Assembly would
unitedly resist by every constitutional means any such attempt to interfere with
their provincial autonomy ». | | | 1894,
late part of the year | As
Paul Crunican shows in his book Priests and Politicians: Manitoba Schools and
the election of 1896, pp. 55-63 the Liberal Party, and Laurier, were just
as divided and perturbed as the Conservatives were on the issue of the Manitoba
schools. It is also apparent that Laurier, at this stage, accepted the argument
that the non-sectarian schools of Manitoba were really Protestant schools in disguise. | | | 1894,
December 11-13 | Arguments
were heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Brophy case, | | | 1894,
December 12 | Sir
John Thompson died of a heart attack, in London, at a reception held by Queen
Victoria. Thompson, a convert to Roman Catholicism at a time when tolerance was
not seen as a virtue, had not been as supportive of the Catholic cause as the
minority had hoped at the outset. He was fearful to be accused of favoritism towards
Catholics. His successor, Mackenzie Bowell, had been the Grand Master of the Orange
Lodge in Canada. The Orange Lodge, a militant Protestant organization, was imported
from Ireland originally. It was anti-Catholic and associated with a good deal
of prejudice and social violence in Canada. At first, in Canada, its targets had
been the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish immigrants that followed it. Eventually,
as inevitably it had to be, given the demographics of Catholicism in Canada, French
Canadians became its main focus of attention. Surprisingly, Bowell, although some
might not agree with this, probably did more for the Roman Catholic cause in Manitoba
than Thompson had. He too was afraid to be accused of favoritism... | | | 1895,
January 29 | The
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council pronounced, through Lord Watson, in favor
of the minority in the Brophy case. Rights established by law, after the Union
with Canada, had been prejudicially affected. Thus, the Federal government and
Parliament had the right to receive the appeal of the minority and to issue a
Remedial Order or Law to the extent that these may be required. Whether or not
the federal government and parliament would intervene was a matter for them to
decide. However, the main impact of the Brophy decision was that the federal authorities
would now have to confront their responsibilities. To this point, the federal
government had attempted to diffuse the issue, and safeguard its political fortune,
by relegating the matter to the courts. Now, after nearly five years, the end
of the road had come and the issue would take on a completely political complexion.
The question was simple: would the federal government and Parliament stand by
the minority and uphold their constitutional right? However, while the question
was simple, the answer was not. | | | 1895,
February | Long
cabinet discussions and indecision about what it should do under the circumstances.
Some were favorable for the government to make its bed and to go to the people
with their decision; others desired that a session of parliament be called and
the issue of remedial legislation be dealt with. | | | 1895,
March 4 | Beginning
of the hearings before the Privy Council to argue about the advisability of issuing
a Remedial Order. The star witnesses to debate the two sides of the issue were
John S. Ewart and D'Alton McCarthy. The hearings had originally been scheduled
to start on February 26 but were delayed at the request of McCarthy. | | | 1895,
March 14 | A
letter was sent to all Canadian bishops by Cardinal Ledochowski, secretary of
the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome. The Catholic
doctrine in connection to neutral schools was emphasized and the actions of the
Canadian bishops in the Manitoba schools were strongly approved. This document
was quoted frequently in the years following the Remedial Order. | | | 1895,
March 19 | Report
to the federal government by the Committee of the Privy Council, under the leadership
of Charles Hibbert Tupper, Minister of Justice, recommending that a Remedial Order
be issued. (Charles Hibbert was the son of Sir Charles Tupper, the Father of Confederation
and Prime Minister in 1896) The Report stated that: « In the opinion of the Committee
« The Manitoba Act » as construed with regard to the present case by the Judicial
Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, so clearly points to a duty devolving
upon Your Excellency in Council that no course is open consistent with both the
letter and the spirit of the constitution other than that recommended. To dismiss
this appeal would [...] deny to the Roman Catholic minority rights substantially
guaranteed to them under the constitution of Canada [...] » | | | 1895,
March 19 | Adélard
Langevin was consecrated archbishop of St. Boniface. Langevin was 39 years old
upon assuming his new post. | | | 1895,
March 21 | The
Remedial Order was issued; the government and legislature of Manitoba were to
amend the school laws of the Province taking into consideration the rights and
privileges mentioned in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of the Remedial Order. These
paragraphs touched on: (a) « The right to build, maintain, equip, manage, conduct
and support Roman Catholic schools, in the manner provided for by the said statutes
which were repealed by the two Acts of 1890 aforesaid. (b) The right to share
proportionately in any grant made out of the public funds for the purposes of
education. (c) The right of (exemption) of such Roman Catholics, as contribute
to Roman Catholic schools, from all payment or contribution to the support of
any other schools. » | | | 1895,
March 22 | First
cabinet crises. The Minister of Justice, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper resigned from
the cabinet to protest the calling of a session of Parliament. Tupper felt that
the government should have gone directly to the people. On March 28, at the prodding
of his father and of the Governor-General, Lord Aberdeen, Charles Hibbert returned
to the cabinet. The Parliamentary session opened on April 18. | | | 1895,
March 25 | A
telegram sent by Mackenzie Bowell, the Prime Minister of Canada, to John Schultz,
the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, who was to pass it on to the Greenway government
made it clear that the Remedial Order could be modified. Greenway was told: «
Any arrangement he can make will be acceptable ». This message was apparently
repeated in several private letters of Bowell in the next two months. | | | 1895,
April 17 | At
a by-election held in Verchères riding, in Quebec, the conservative candidate
was defeated by the liberal one, C. A. Geoffrion. The government had wished to
make of this election a test of popularity of their Manitoba policy; it had also
attempted to heavily involve the Roman Catholic bishops into the political fight.
This was to no avail. Verchères was a traditional liberal riding and it remained
faithful to its political leanings. | | | 1895,
April 19 | Schultz
sought the opinion of J. G. Bourinot, prominent constitutional expert in Canada,
on the constitutional position of the Manitoba Government in light of the Remedial
Order. In his report, Bourinot made it clear that Manitoba's choice was between
allowing education to pass from its hands into those of the federal government
or « in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the constitutional law, as
judicially determined, adopt such remedial measures as will remove the admitted
grievances of the Roman Catholic minority [...] ». The latter choice would « exhibit
their desire to do full justice to every class [...] at the same time give conclusive
evidence of their readiness to submit to the deliberate judgment of the courts
in every case ». See Crunican, Priests and Politicians ..., p. 65. | | | 1895,
June 24 | In
a private letter to Clarke Wallace, Grand Master of the Orange Lodge of Canada,
and which captured the spirit of the time, J. A. Donaldson wrote: « The French
are becoming too cheeky and so are the Catholics of Ontario as well as Manitoba.
The Orange Body is the only power to keep them where they ought to be ». | | | 1895,
June 25 | (the
document was leaked to the press on June 15) The government and legislature of
Manitoba responded to the Remedial Order. Essentially, they argued that one of
the reasons for abolishing the Catholic system had been the inefficiency of these
schools. To restore them would result in similar inefficiency with « the result
of leaving a large section of the population with no better means of education
than was thus supplied (and with the consequence that) many people grew up in
a state of illiteracy. » As well, taxes were heavy because « of the great extent
of the country » with such a small population resulting in problems. Further,
the example of the Roman Catholics would be followed by other groups (Anglicans,
Mennonites, Icelanders etc.) and « would so impair our present system that any
approach to even our present general standard of efficiency would be quite impossible
». They pointed out that the decision of the federal government to issue the Remedial
Order was not based on « full and accurate information ». They promised to assist
the government in a full investigation of the subject; they begged that no hasty
decision be taken. Lastly, they raised legal and constitutional points centering
on the levying of taxes. The cornerstone of the last point was their assertion
that the federal government did not have the constitutional right to force a provincial
legislature to spend money in ways the legislature did not agree with. The effect
of the last point was that any action of the federal government would have to
be supplemented « by voluntary action of the provincial legislature ». Clearly,
such action by Manitoba would not be forthcoming. In short, the government and
legislature of Manitoba refused to obey the Remedial Order while, in conclusion,
begging « to place on record our continued loyalty to Her Gracious Majesty and
to the laws which the Parliament of Great Britain has in its wisdom seem fit to
enact for the good government of Canada ». | | | 1895,
June-July | Pressure
was exerted in Quebec on the Roman Catholic bishops to come out strongly and openly
in favor of the government's Remedial Order. This generated considerable tension
within the Conservative Party. The government was confronted with the question
of whether or not it would move to introduce a remedial law during the current
session of Parliament. | | | 1895,
July 8-12 | Second
cabinet crises. The Bowell government decided that it would make further approaches
to the Manitoba government (see the Order in Council below) and that, only should
these fail, a Remedial Law would be presented to Parliament at a special session
to commence on January 3, 1896. Clerical discontent and pressure with this move
led the three French Canadian representatives in the Cabinet to resign: Joseph-Adolphe
Caron, Joseph-Aldéric Ouimet and Auguste-Réal Angers. The situation was so desperate
for the Bowell government that, on July 10, he informed the Governor-General that
he would likely have to resign, not having control of the majority in the House
any more. However, Caron and Ouimet were persuaded to return to the cabinet by
July 12, although this was not the case for Angers who was the ultramontane representative
in the cabinet. About this cabinet crisis, and the position of the three French
Canadian ministers, abbé Groulx wrote in his L'enseignement français au Canada.
Les écoles des minorités, p. 108: « One man held among his cabinet colleagues
unquestioned prestige, was preventing the worse of mistakes, contained the divisive
forces. In the period after the first judgment of the Privy Council, when the
leaders of both national parties inclined to follow the example of Pontius Pilate,
he did more than anybody else to prevent the burial of the school issue and to
reserve for the vanquished right some means of revenge. Unfortunately, on July
8 1895, the Honorable Auguste-Réal Angers, because it is he we are discussing
here, resigned from the cabinet. He quitted the government the day before the
decree that followed the Order in Council; his resignation was to protest the
humiliating course followed by the government. Two of his colleagues followed
him: the Honorable Aldéric Ouimet and Sir A.-P. Caron. We can say that, at that
moment, the Quebec conservative members of Parliament held within their hands
the fate of the government. Whoever would have proposed to them immediate action
in Parliament, even if this had been Mr. Laurier, would have unanimously rallied
them. For the three ministers that had resigned the moment afforded them a great
opportunity to spare their party from making a mistake beyond repair. Supported
by the solid block of their followers, they only had to persevere in their attitude
and, in all probability, the disastrous decree would have been shelved forever,
and a remedial law would have been presented, and voted by a significant majority,
during the session of 1895. Unfortunately, after only three days of mutiny, Messers
Caron and Ouimet returned to the fold, contrite and repentant. Mr. Laurier did
not make a gesture to rally them. More disoriented than ever, the Quebec conservative
party continued to be divided. » | | | 1895,
July 11-17 | Two
debates were held in the Canadian Parliament over the Manitoba issue. The second
was on a motion of non-confidence by Laurier who managed to remain non-committed
throughout the process. | | | 1895,
July 27 | A
new Order in Council was issued by the Federal Government. In it, the Government
stated that the Remedial Order, and Manitoba's response to it, « has vested the
Federal Legislature with complete jurisdiction in the premises ». However, instead
of forging ahead, the federal government proceeded to weaken its position by writing:
« it by no means follows that it is the duty of the Federal Government to insist
that provincial legislation, to be mutually satisfactory, should follow the exact
lines of this order. » And, in case the last sentence be interpreted to mean that
the contemplated Remedial Law might require of the provincial legislature to do
more than the Remedial order had required, the document added: « It is hoped,
however, that a middle course will commend itself to the local authorities, that
federal action may become unnecessary ». In consequence, the federal government
announced that it sought further the counsel of Manitoba with a view of coming
to an agreement without having to resort to a Remedial Law, would not institute
in the present session such a law and would not do so until January of 1896, and
wished to ascertain what amendments to the education acts Manitoba was prepared
to make. | | | 1895,
September | Rumors
circulated that the creation a third party was being discussed. | | | 1895,
Fall | Efforts
of the Bowell government to replace Angers in the cabinet were not successful.
Senator Alphonse Desjardins and Joseph A. Chapleau were considered. | | | 1895,
October 8 | Laurier
made his famous « sunny way » speech at Morrisburg, Ontario. For a full understanding
of this issue, see the documentary section at the site. | | | 1895,
Late Fall | Further
rumors of anti-Bowell cabinet intrigues circulated. These centered on Charles
Tupper becoming the new prime minister. | | | 1895,
November 26 | Mgr.
Bégin, administrator of the diocese of Quebec, reported having met Laurier on
two occasions recently. He reports that Laurier was putting forward the idea of
a commission of investigation to prepare, and change, Protestant opinion in view
of making them accept remedial legislation. Laurier would have said that even
if the Conservatives ever issue a remedial law that they would not be able to
make it work. He stated that the Liberals would be the ones to resolve the school
issue and that « they would solve it in a way that would give satisfaction to
the Catholics of Manitoba. » Laurier claimed that he could obtain that the Greenway
government abandon the unjust measures against the minority more easily than the
Conservatives. Bégin concluded in quoting Laurier as saying: « He recognized perfectly
that the minority has justified grievances and that the Federal Government must
intervene ». While these sentiments were sobering for Bégin, one is struck with
the ambiguous nature of the commitment by Laurier. Bégin was likely to read into
these statements more than Laurier was probably committing himself for. | | | 1895,
December 2 | Archbishop
Langevin appointed Father Albert Lacombe to represent him as a liaison with the
other Catholic bishops. He will also be the voice, and the ears, of Langevin with
the federal government. | | | 1895,
December 12 | The
Conservative party won a by-election in Ontario North. However the successful
candidate, J. A. McGillivray, was reported to have campaigned against remedial
legislation. In three other by-elections held over the next two weeks, the Liberals
won both Quebec contests, although these seats had been held previously by the
Conservative Party, and in the Ontario seat of Caldwell a supporter of D'Alton
McCarthy won against the official conservative candidate while the Liberal candidate
finished a distant last. The clergy had stayed out of the Quebec elections. | | | 1895,
December 20 | Nearly
five months after its July Order in Council, the federal government received its
response from Manitoba. Essentially, as the government of Canada had not explained
to Manitoba why, without having carried out an investigation, it had issued the
Order in Council and, thus, ordered the « re-establishment of separate schools
for the Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba », the government and legislature
of the province after « full and careful consideration » reached the conclusion
that there was not sufficient reason to change their policy. Manitoba again invited
the federal authorities to investigate the matter but, otherwise, refused to obey
the federal government. It concluded with the following: « It seems, therefore,
most reasonable to conclude that by leaving the question to be so dealt with,
the truest interests of the minority will be better served than by any attempt
to establish a system of separate schools by coercive legislation. Such a system,
discredited as it is, will be from the outset crippled by reason of insufficient
pecuniary support and ineffective educational equipment and will be an injury
rather than a benefit to those whom it is intended to serve ». The Manitoba document
was signed by Clifford Sifton. | | | 1896,
January 2 | The
Speech from the Throne announced that a remedial law would be submitted to the
Parliament of Canada. | | | 1896,
January 4 | Third
cabinet crises: the « Nest of Traitors ». Seven English-speaking Protestant ministers
resigned from the government (George Foster, Arthur Dickey, John G. Haggart, Walter
Humphries Montague, Charles Hibbert Tupper, William Bullock Ives and John Fisher
Wood) ostensibly because of the failure of the government to replace Angers in
the cabinet but in reality because they wanted Bowell out. Behind this palace
revolt loomed the figure of Charles Tupper, Sr.; Bowell had strong allies in the
Aberdeens who detested the elder Tupper. They twice refused to accept Bowell's
resignation. | | | 1896,
January 13 | Mackenzie
Bowell managed to survive politically. Senator Alphonse Desjardins was taken into
the government. Bowell agreed to take back the bolting ministers (except C. H.
Tupper), Sir Charles Tupper would come back to lead the party in the House of
Commons over the remedial bill. Finally, Tupper Senior committed himself to a
remedial bill and would lead the Conservatives into the next general elections.
Paul Crunican comments (p. 157): « For the reconstructed government, the final
impression left by the long debate was one of profound vulnerability. » Another
effect of the crisis had been to delay the Remedial bill further. Father Lacombe
was very active, at the request of Bowell, in trying to help the government through
these difficulties, especially in convincing Desjardins to join the government. | | | 1896,
January 15 | In
provincial elections held in Manitoba, the Greenway Liberal government was returned
to power with 30 seats, the opposition Conservatives won six (five according to
Lovell Clark), two independent Liberals and two Patrons of Industry were also
elected. | | | 1896,
January 20 | Father
Lacombe sent his famous letter to Laurier. The letter was interpreted by Laurier
as a declaration of war. See the documentary section about the content, and context,
of this letter. | | | 1896,
January 27 | The
Liberal Party won a by-election in Charlevoix, Quebec, a seat they held previously.
The Liberal majority was substantially reduced. This by-election was seen as crucial
by both national political parties. In the course of the election, the Bishop
of Chicoutimi, Mgr. Labrecque, in whose diocese Charlevoix was situated, issued
a Pastoral Letter to his clergy, on January 24, and which was to be read, without
comment, in church. In it, Bishop Labrecque stated: « We regard as a grave duty
of conscience for the electors to only give their vote to a candidate who will
formally and solemnly pledge to vote, in the current session, for a remedial law
that will have been approved by the ecclesiastical authorities ». In a move that
was to foretell what happened in the general elections held later in the year,
both candidates pledged themselves to vote for such legislation. The Liberals
charged that many of the lower clergy had been quite active on the part of the
Conservative Party. The result of the Charlevoix by-election were debated at length
by the press in Quebec for weeks afterward. | | | 1896,
February 11 | Sir
Charles Tupper entered the House of Commons, having just been elected at a by-election
in Cape Breton. | | | 1896,
February 11 | First
reading of the « Remedial Act » in the House of Commons. The Act was introduced
by A. R. Dickey, the Minister of Justice. Essentially, the Remedial Bill restored
the separate school system. A Separate School Board, containing up to nine Roman
Catholic members, was created to govern the Catholic schools. Appointment to this
Board was to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor (in fact the Government of Manitoba),
and if that was not done, the federal government would do it within three months.
Trustees would be elected in the school districts and would be empowered to raise
taxes among Catholic ratepayers; Catholics could support the public schools if
they wished to do so. Catholics who supported the separate schools would be exempted
from supporting the public schools. Catholic schools would be subjected to a system
of double inspection, one from Catholic inspectors and one from the government.
If held to be inefficient, the government grant could be denied to such schools.
The choice of textbooks to be used was left to the separate Board of Education.
However, the books had to be chosen from among the books used in the public schools
of Manitoba or the separate schools of Ontario. Teachers would have to meet the
same standards of qualification as the teachers in the public schools. Clause
74 provided that the separate schools would receive a proportionate grant from
the provincial government. | | | 1896,
February 17 | In
a communication to Mgr. Bégin, administrator of the diocese of Quebec, Mgr. Langevin
expressed dissatisfaction with the remedial bill, especially with the clauses
dealing with textbooks and taxes. | | | 1896,
February 18 | Louis
A. Paquet, eminent theologian, defended clerical intervention into politics in
connection to the Manitoba school question. See the documentary section for the
text of this intervention. The liberal newspaper, L'Électeur, edited by Laurier's
friend, Ernest Pacaud, argued that even if all of the bishops approved of the
Remedial Act, the politicians, the press and the electors would still have the
right to oppose it. In his opinion, the bishops did not have the « mission to
judge alone the means of solving a problem that was both political and religious
». These views were echoed again in L'Électeur on February 19, this time by Fernand
Rinfret, a Member of Parliament, who was the parliamentary correspondent of the
newspaper and in the Cultivateur, edited by Joseph-Israel Tarte, the right-hand
man of Laurier in Quebec. | | | 1896,
February 21 | It
was moved that debate on the second reading of the Remedial Bill begin on March
3. | | | 1896,
February 21 | L'Élecleur
published the letter of threat that Lacombe had sent to Laurier (see January 20).
Huge controversy followed. | | | 1896,
February 22 | Subjected
to considerable pressure to do so, Mgr. Langevin expressed satisfaction with the
remedial bill. However, he also pointed out that he expected amendments to it
when it would go into committee. Knowledge of the reticence of Langevin to the
bill fuelled Liberal objections to the law. | | | 1896,
March 3 | Debates
on the second reading of the Remedial Act began in the House of Commons. The debate
was extensive in scope lasting several days, all day, and in the last stretch,
all day and all night. Members relayed each other, in shifts, so that discussion
would continue and neither side be caught by a surprised move from the other side.
To Tupper, Father of Confederation and now effectively the leader of the government,
the issue was not one of separate schools, it was « a question of the constitution
of the country ». In amendment, Laurier moved « the Bill be not now read the second
time but that it be read the second time this day six months »; this is what is
called the « six months' hoist ». This is the ordinary parliamentary way to indicate
that one does not wish to see a measure discussed and dealt with. | | | 1896,
March 13 | A
letter received from cardinal Ledochowski defined the Roman view of what the obligations
and the responsibilities of Catholic Members of Parliament and voters. | | | 1896,
March 14 | Langevin
reiterated his approval of the Remedial Bill in a letter addressed to Father Lacombe.
Lacombe had urged Langevin to do so. | | | 1896,
March 20 | The
Remedial bill was carried in its second reading by a majority of 18 (112 to 94).
The government was supported by 105 of its own members and seven Liberals. Voting
against the Remedial bill were 73 Liberals, 18 Conservatives and three supporters
of McCarthy. According to Lovell Clark, counting pairs, 19 Conservatives voted
against the bill, all but one of these were from Ontario. The Laurier six months'
hoist motion was defeated 115 to 91. According to Paul Crunican, p.206, the debate
in second motion covered 1400 columns of Hansard. The nominal index to the debate
covers 14 separate pages. Following these votes, as per the normal procedure followed
by the House, the Bill was sent to Committee for closer examination. There, the
bill met with many suggestions of amendment and delay, known in parliamentary
language as "filibustering", from the Conservative opponents and the Liberal Party.
A further 1600 columns of debate were added at this stage (p. 232). | | | 1896,
March 17 | In
a final move to arrive at an agreement with the Government of Manitoba without
having to pass the Remedial Act, the federal government informed by telegram the
provincial government that it was sending a deputation (the members of the group
were: A. R. Dickey, the Minister of Justice, Alphonse. Desjardins, a senator who
was Minister of Militia, and Donald Smith, a Member of Parliament) to negotiate
a settlement with the government of Manitoba. Serious reports indicate that it
was Sir Donald Smith who insisted that one last attempt at conciliation be made.
Smith made the peace mission a condition to his continued support of the Remedial
Bill. In a brochure written in November of 1896, A. Bernard charged that it was
the Governor-General that forced Tupper, under threat of dissolution of the House,
to undertake such a mission. | | | 1896,
March 23 | The
deputation left for Manitoba. They arrived there on the evening of the 25. | | | 1896,
March 27 | By
Order in Council, the federal government declared that « the delegation are hereby
given full power to effect an arrangement with the Government of Manitoba on such
terms as shall be satisfactory to the said minority ». | | | 1896,
March 28 | The
Federal government, through its deputation, offered the following terms to resolve
the school issue (as given in the confidential memorandum): 1. In towns and villages
where there are 25 residents of school age, or in cities where there are 50 such
children, the board of trustees would arrange for a school house or room be put
at their disposal « where they may be taught by a Roman Catholic teacher ». 2.
10 Roman Catholics may appeal to the provincial government from decisions of the
Boards in respect to matters discussed under the clause above. 3. In schools where
the majority of children are Catholics, they would be exempted from the requirements
of the religious exercises under the regulations. 4. In Catholic schools, only
textbooks that do not offend the views of the minority would be used. 5. Catholics
would be provided representation on the Advisory Board. 6. Catholics would have
representation on the Board of Examiners. 7. Assistance would be provided to Catholics
for the maintenance of a normal school (teachers' training school). 8. The existing
system of permits to non-qualified teachers in Catholic schools would be continued
for a further two years, to enable them to qualify. 9. « In all other respects
the schools at which Catholics attend to be public schools and subject to every
provision of the Education Acts for the time being in force in Manitoba ». When
the necessary legislation would be passed by Manitoba, the Remedial Bill would
be withdrawn by the federal government. Commenting
in a letter to Mgr. Bégin about the present situation, Mgr. Langevin wrote: (translation)
« Evidently the government has served us very badly; its protracted and frequent
delays have hurt us as much as the opposition of the Liberals has - If, as one
might expect, the Conference does not give us satisfaction and if the Remedial
Bill is not passed in Ottawa I am of the opinion (I very much wish to know your
opinion on this point) that we should remain neutral during the next elections
- If we have not a law presently, it is the fault of the Liberals who have voted
against the remedial bill - but it is also that of the Government - How can we
defend it? » Langevin eventually changed his mind about this. While
not directly represented at the conference between the federal delegates and the
Manitoba government, Langevin was kept fully appraised of the situation. | | | 1896,
March 30 | In
a long memorandum, the government of Manitoba, represented by Clifford Sifton
and J. D. Cameron, declared that « we regret that we are unable to accede to the
terms of the proposition submitted to us. A study of its details reveals the fact
that it involves much more than would appear at first sight ». They argued that
the separate schools would be inferior, that they would be compulsory in districts
that met the assigned quota of children, that in many cases it would be impossible
to provide a separate building for them and that separation within the same building
would be even worse, that the financial objections were serious, that the plan
would be unworkable. Further, they objected to the legislature and the government
being deprived of the control of the schools as to religious exercises and wondered
what would happen to non-Catholic children in schools where the majority was Catholic.
They were amenable, if other points were satisfactorily resolved, to discuss textbooks,
representation on the Advisory Board, on the Board of Examiners and on the issue
of teachers' permits. However, they rejected supporting the separate normal school
and they demanded the withdrawing of the Remedial Bill as a precondition to their
changing the school legislation. In any case, they pointed out that the legislature
could not meet before April 16. In their judgment « it will be seen from the above
remarks that the plan proposed involves the establishment of a state aided denominational
system of separate schools, which in practical effect would carry with it the
evils of the system which prevailed prior to 1890, and would also involve grave
additional evils and difficulties of which we have not hitherto had experience
». Their objections
they summarized in the following manner: 1. « The statutory division of the people
into separate denominational classes. 2. The necessary inferiority of the separate
school. 3. Impairment of the efficiency of the public schools through division
of school revenues. 4. The burdening of non-Catholic ratepayers by compelling
them to maintain separate schools. 5. The according of special privileges to one
denomination which could not on principle be denied to all others, but which in
practice could not be granted to such others without entire destruction of the
school system ». What
did the government of Manitoba have to offer to settle the issue? 1. To completely
secularize the public schools by eliminating religious exercises and teaching
during school hours. 2. Relegating religious exercises and teaching to between
3h.30 and 4h.00 in the afternoon if authorized by a resolution voted by the majority
of the trustees of a district. 3. No child would be present at such religious
teaching if the parents objected. 4. Where room would permit, for these religious
exercises and teaching, the children could be physically divided into different
rooms. The report concluded:« We believe that the foregoing proposals will remove
any well-founded grievance. If the objection of the minority be that the schools
are Protestant, as alleged in some of their petitions, than the objection can
be fully and finally disposed of by complete secularization. If the real objection
be the desire to have along with efficiency, secular education, proper religious
training, than the second plan proposed offers an effective method of attaining
the object desired. In fact it is difficult to conceive what better plan could
be proposed even were we dealing with a system of schools entirely Catholic ». | | | 1896,
March 31 | In
a long answer, the federal negotiating team rejected the response by the government
of Manitoba and stated: « We deeply regret that you have felt obliged to reject
our proposition, and with all deference it does not appear to us that the objections,
general and special, which you urge are such as necessarily involve so serious
a step. » | | | 1896,
April 1 | Response
by the government of Manitoba to the March 31 document. Essentially, Manitoba
recognized that the two sides were at cross purposes: the federal proposals were
predicated on the view that the Roman Catholics of Manitoba had a right to separate
schools and that, consequently, the Manitoba laws had infringed on such rights
while the Government of Manitoba felt that no such right existed. In consequence,
its course of action had been to seek to remove practical objections « to the
present system without giving a legal right to separate » and « while joining
with you in the earnest desire to reach a settlement, we are unable to suggest
any way of reconciling these two propositions ». In other words, there was no
point in continuing the discussions. The federal negotiating team returned to
Ottawa. | | | 1896,
April 5 | Mgr. Émard issued a Pastoral Letter on the « Electoral duty » of his flock. See the
documentary section for details on this document and for reactions to it. | | | 1896,
April 13 | Acceptance
of the Remedial Bill by Mgr Langevin was signified for the third time. It was
read into the record of the House of Commons by Tupper on April 14. | | | 1896,
April 15 | So
far, only 14 of the 112 clauses of the Remedial bill have been voted on. | | | 1896,
April 21 | The
bill was withdrawn as the maximum life of the House (5 years) was about to run
out within about one week and budget appropriations had to be made. | | | 1896,
April 23 | Parliament
was dissolved and elections were called for June 23. | | | 1896,
April 23 | Mgr. Émard opposed a specific and binding collective pastoral letter for the upcoming
elections. Discussion of the views of Émard among the Quebec bishops showed that
they were very divided as to what means to use to achieve the result of justice
for the Catholics of Manitoba. | | | 1896,
April 27 | Mackenzie
Bowell resigned as Prime Minister. Lord Aberdeen, Governor-General of Canada,
was forced to call on Charles Tupper to form the new government. Aberdeen had
done his best to keep Tupper out of the PM job to this point in time. | | | 1896,
May 1 | The
Tupper cabinet was completed. The French Canadian members of the new government
were all of the ultramontane persuasion: A. R. Angers, back into the cabinet after
his resignation of the year before, Alphonse Desjardins, Louis-Olivier Taillon
and John Jones Ross. By these appointments, Tupper probably wished to solidify
the support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Quebec. He gambled on the ultramontane
horse at the time when Quebecers were steadily moving in the direction of Laurier,
of less clerical involvement in their political affairs. Five of the 17 members
of the Tupper government were drawn from the Senate. | | | 1896,
May 4 | Sir
Oliver Mowat, Premier of Ontario for nearly 24 years, accepted to join the Laurier
Liberal team (although he was not a candidate in the general elections). Mowat
was very popular among Roman Catholics, having protected the Separate Schools
of Ontario against the frequent attacks of the Protestant extremists. The Laurier
team also had Sir Richard William Scott who, as a member of the Legislature of
the United Province of Canada, in 1863, had sponsored the « Scott bill », essentially
creating the separate schools of Ontario. Thus, as the elections of 1896 were
under way, the Liberal Party had given itself a great deal of credibility with
Roman Catholics in Canada. | | | 1896,
May 6 | The
Roman Catholic bishops of Quebec met in Montreal to hammer out a consensus on
the proposed joint pastoral letter giving guidance to the faithful on their electoral
duty in the present elections. Mgr. Émard of Valleyfield, and Mgr Fabre of Montreal,
urged caution and opposed a letter that would not leave their flock free to vote
according to the dictates of their conscience. The other 10 archbishops and bishops
wished the document to be binding on the faithful, demanding that they only support
candidates that would pledge to issue a remedial bill. A compromise document,
written by Mgr. Bégin, was adopted. | | | 1896,
May 7 | Laurier
made his famous St. Roch speech. See the documentary section on this point. | | | 1896,
May 17 | The
joint Pastoral Letter of the bishops and archbishops of the ecclesiastical provinces
of Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa was issued. See the documentary section. | | | 1896,
May-June | All
but 2 or 3 of Roman Catholic candidates in the elections in Quebec, all from the
Liberal party - including Laurier - made in writing « solemn pledges » to bring
justice to the Manitoba minority. See the Fitzpatrick pledge in the documentary
section. | | | 1896,
May 17 | Bishop
Laflèche delivered his famous anti-Laurier sermon. There was strong adverse reaction
from the Liberal Party and L'Électeur expressed irreverent comments about
Laflèche. See the documentary section. | | | 1896,
June 6 | Under
a banner headline of « Shameful trafficking in religion », L'Électeur attacked
viciously Mgr. Laflèche. | | | 1896,
June 9 | The
June 6 article in l'Électeur brought a sharp rebuke from Mgr. Bégin. L'Électeur was threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions. The letter from Bégin to the newspaper
was published in the newspaper on June 11. | | | 1896,
June 12 | Laurier
made an important campaign speech at Massey Hall, Toronto. The statement was in
contrast to the one given at St. Roch. See the documentary section. | | | 1896,
June 21 | L'Électeur editorialized that « the electoral campaign has taken the character of a type
of holy war (...) Never before had our country witnessed such criminal and scandalous
exploitation of religion ». | | | 1896,
June 23 | The
federal elections brought Wilfrid Laurier to power. To many, the more surprising
elements were the size of the Liberal victory in Quebec and the fact that the
Conservatives won Manitoba. According to Father Charland, « the French-Canadian
episcopate was deeply humiliated by the results of the federal elections of June
23, 1896. (p. 234) » Le Courrier du Canada wrote: « The Catholics of the
Province turned a deaf ear to the voice of the episcopate ». As for La Patrie
it cheerfully concluded on the 24th: « Yesterday, the clergy suffered a more humiliating
defeat than the Conservative Party itself in the Province of Quebec ». Among the
Conservative casualties in Quebec were three cabinet ministers: Angers, Taillon
and Desjardins, aside from Hector Langevin, the Father of Confederation. Caron,
who had been ignored by Tupper in forming his cabinet, won in Trois-Rivières.
Another surprising result was the conservative victory of J.-G.-H. Bergeron against
Joseph-Israel Tarte, Laurier's right-hand man in Quebec. Bergeron was the incumbent
member but this riding was situated within Mgr. Émard's diocese. For statistical
details on the election results, see the documentary section. | | | 1896,
July | Judge
Adolphe-Basile Routhier was sent by the Laurier government to Manitoba to meet
with the principals and open preliminary discussion for the settlement of the
Manitoba school issue. | | | 1896,
July 8 | A
letter from Ledochowski was received by archbishop Bégin. It commented on the
joint pastoral letter issued by the bishops during the elections. While the cardinal
approved of the principle of issuing a letter of guidance for the faithful, and
of the general tone of it, he criticized the specific commitment that candidates
were required to make, and the « grave sin » attached to those that would not
conform. | | | 1896,
July 9 | Mgr.
Langevin wrote to Wilfrid Laurier to assure him he would cooperate with his government
as he had cooperated with the former government. | | | 1896,
August | Three
members of the Greenway cabinet, including Clifford Sifton, came to Ottawa to
negotiate with a federal cabinet group a settlement of the school question. A
component of these discussions was the desire of Laurier to bring Sifton into
his own government. | | | 1896,
August (?) | L.
O. David published a brochure entitled Le clergé canadien, sa mission, son
oeuvre. In it, David complained of the all too frequent, and inopportune,
intervention of the clergy into political affairs in Quebec, especially against
the Liberal Party in the last elections. David was a well-known liberal and a
friend of Laurier. A second part announced in the brochure, to contain « sensational
facts » about clerical interference in some elections, was never published. See
the documentary section. | | | 1896,
September 11 | Jean-Baptiste
Proulx, parish priest for St. Lin (this was the parish where Laurier was born),
departed for Rome. Officially, he was to represent the Franco-Americans of Danielson
in their quarrel with the bishop of Hartford, Connecticut. In reality, he was
sent to Rome by Laurier and the Liberals to complain about the Church's interference
in Canadian politics, especially as demonstrated in the last federal elections.
This mission became public knowledge from September 17. Abbé Proulx put together
a collection of documents, from a variety of sources, with his own footnotes as
comments (Documents pour servir à l'intelligence de la question des écoles
du Manitoba, Rome, Befani Printer, 1896). See the documentary section for
material on this mission. | | | 1896,
Sept. 23-30 and October 1 | The
newspaper L'Électeur, official newspaper of the Liberal Party in Quebec
City, basking in post election victory, reproduced the brochure by L. O. David,
Le clergé canadien, sa mission, son oeuvre. | | | 1896,
Fall | Gustave
Drolet, formerly a pontifical zouave, left for Rome to present the Liberal case
against the Church. On September 17, Laurier denied, in the House of Commons that
there was an « official mission » sent to Rome. | | | 1896,
Fall | Throughout
the fall, several bishops of Quebec went to Rome to present their side of the
Manitoba school question and of their role in the elections of June 23. These
were Mgrs. Langevin, Bégin, Gravel and Larocque. Further, Mgr. Fabre went as far
as Paris where he fell sick; his companion, Canon Archambault proceeded to Rome
to represent him. | | | 1896,
October | 45
Catholic liberal Members of Parliament signed a petition to be given to Pope Leo
XIII. Mason Wade claims the petition was drafted by Henri Bourassa. See the documentary
section. | | | 1896,
October | Louis-Adolphe
Paquet prepared a study of the dogmatic errors contained in the brochure Le clergé canadien by L. O. David. This analysis was sent to Rome. | | | 1896,
Oct-Nov | Joseph-Israel
Tarte, accompanied by Henri Bourassa as his assistant, was sent to Manitoba to
negotiate the details of a compromise with the Manitoban government. Tarte met
on four occasions with Mgr. Langevin although the latter was not involved in the
negotiations for the settlement of the school issue. | | | 1896,
November 7, 28 | Publication,
in two parts, of a brochure to respond to the accusations leveled by L. O. David
in his Le clergé canadien. Written under the pseudonym of P. Bernard, the
brochure was entitled Un manifeste libéral. M. L. O. David et le clergé canadien (première partie), and La question des écoles du Manitoba (deuxième partie).The two parts were then edited together into a small book bearing
the same title. The author hiding behind anonymity was Dominique-Ceslas Gonthier,
a Dominican priest who was already known for his talents as a polemicist. Were
also involved, in the revision of the text: Lionel Lindsay and Louis-Adolphe Paquet,
both priests, Thomas Chapais and senator Philippe Landry. See the documentary
section of the site. | | | 1896,
November 16 | (as
per the dating on the legal document printed in the Sessional Papers of
1897; however, the agreement would have been concluded on November 7 according
to Rumilly and officially announced on November 19) The Laurier-Greenway Compromise
was made. For the text of the agreement, arguments about it and reactions to it,
see the documentary section. Both Neatby (Laurier and a Liberal Quebec,
p. 83) and Crunican (Priests and Politicians, p. 318) credit the Laurier-Greenway
compromise as being, in some respects, more generous than the offer the Canadian
government had made to the government of Manitoba earlier in the year. Only on
one point would this appear to be the case. However, a careful examination shows
that the number of students required to gain access to certain rights was in fact
likely not as generous in the Laurier-Greenway compromise than in the earlier
document. The clause that provided for French was a new feature in the Laurier-Greenway
compromise. However, in the rural districts of Manitoba where francophones had
been the majority, there had not been problems to have French schools under the
legislation of 1890 as the majority francophone trustees provided for it. It is
misleading to present the Laurier-Greenway compromise as generous, or, in any
case, as "in some respects" more generous than the March 28 offer of the Canadian
government. | | | 1896,
November 17 | Clifford
Sifton was sworn in as Member of the Privy Council. Laurier gave him the post
of Minister of the Interior and of Indian Affairs. He became Laurier's right-hand
man in the cabinet and over prairie affairs. | | | 1896,
November 23 | In
a letter jointly addressed to the two envoys, abbé Proulx and Gustave Drolet,
Laurier communicated the text of a memoir written by himself and Richard W. Scott
to defend the Laurier-Greenway compromise. This memoir was leaked to Le Soleil
and printed on February 18, 1897. See the documentary section for Laurier's arguments
in defending the compromise. | | | 1896,
Nov.-Dec. | Of
all the bishops of Quebec, only Mgr. Émard thought that the Laurier-Greenway had
some merit, although, even Mgr. Émard believed that the compromise was insufficient.
Charles Fitzpatrick's comment that only six of the twenty-nine Canadian bishops
had protested against the compromise, and which historian Blair Neatby approvingly
quotes (see Laurier and a Liberal Quebec, p. 86), is not well taken. Several
more condemned the compromise in the weeks following. Furthermore, it would be
difficult to find any that truly supported it. At best, some believed it to be
politically expedient. When, in December of 1896, there was a question of signing
a joint Pastoral Letter of all the Roman Catholic bishops of Canada to condemn
the Laurier-Greenway compromise, all of the bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces
of Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and St. Boniface were prepared to sign it.
The bishops of Ontario, at least those outside of the archdiocese of Ottawa, brought
the project to a halt. They shared the views of the other bishops on the unacceptability
of the compromise; however, they feared the reaction of the Liberal Party in their
province as their own schools depended on the continued support of the Liberals.
They preferred to wait for the Papal encyclical before condemning the compromise.
None of this indicated any serious support for the compromise within the hierarchy. In
this period of time, Tarte attacked on several occasions Mgr. Langevin who adamantly
rejected the compromise; he accused him of inflexibility and prejudice. According
to Tarte, Mgr. Langevin was a young man, without experience, who did not represent
well the views of the Catholics of Manitoba. | | | 1896,
December 6 | Felix-Gabriel
Marchand, along with 26 liberal members of the Legislative Assembly and Council
of Quebec, drafted a petition for the Pope. In it, they complained of clerical
interference in the provincial elections of 1892 and the federal elections of
1896. They specifically requested the appointment of a permanent delegate of the
Rome to Canada so as to bring under control the Roman Catholic episcopacy of the
country. | | | 1896,
December 7 | L'Électeur
published a letter from Mgr. Aloysius Lazzareschi, a Roman prelate, who approved
of the brochure by L. O. David, Le clergé canadien. P. Bernard (read D.-C.
Gonthier) responded by December 15-16 in three newspapers. | | | 1896,
December 22 | In
a joint Pastoral Letter from the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Quebec
(this included the dioceses of Quebec, Chicoutimi, Rimouski, Trois-Rivières and
Nicolet) the liberal newspaper L'Électeur was condemned. Henceforth, the
newspaper was not to be read in these dioceses under pain of « mortal sin » and
refusal of the Holy Sacraments. The Pastoral Letter was read in all of the churches
of the dioceses on December 27. L'Électeur was condemned for its general
attitude to the clergy, especially toward Mgr. Laflèche, its publication of the
brochure by L. O. David, and for denying that the clergy had the right to intervene
in various questions, including in education. See the documentary section. | | | 1896,
December 24 | Mgr.
Labrecque, bishop of Chicoutimi, banned Le Cultivateur and La Patrie,
both liberal newspapers in his diocese. | | | 1896,
December 26 | Last
issue of L'Électeur. | | | 1896,
December 28 | Beginning
of publication of the newspaper Le Soleil to replace L'Électeur
as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Liberal Party and Laurier. Le Soleil
was printed in the same city, on the same presses, with the journalists, in the
same format and identical ads as L'Électeur had been. It was sent to the
same list of subscribers as the former paper had been. | | | 1896,
December 28 | Newspapers
printed the news that the Roman Sacred Congregation had condemned the brochure
Le clergé canadien by L. O. David and that it has been placed on the Index
[list of condemned books for dogmatic errors, dangerous ideas, immorality or blasphemy
and which are forbidden to Roman Catholics to read]. Mgr. Bégin, archbishop of
Quebec, had already informally heard of the condemnation of the brochure on December
22. | | | 1896,
December 29 | L.
O. David published an open letter of submission to the Church. The offensive brochure
was withdrawn from distribution and sale. | | | 1896,
December 30 | Mgr.
Fabre, archbishop of Montreal, died. Mgr. Fabre had protected abbé Proulx. Abbé Proulx was immediately ordered back to Canada; in fact, his mission had already
ended. | | | 1897,
January 4 | Charles
Fitzpatrick, a Roman Catholic and the Solicitor-General in the Laurier government,
left for Rome to put the Liberal party's case to the Pope. About this mission,
see the documentary section. | | | 1897,
January 9 - February 4 | Le
Courrier du Canada, a conservative and ultramontane newspaper, published anonymously
a series of articles. These were put together into a brochure entitled La question
scolaire des écoles du Manitoba - Quelques observations sur le discours de l'Hon.
M. Laurier au banquet de Montréal. | | | 1897,
January 14 | Gustave
Drolet had an audience with Pope Leo XIII. The petition of the 45 Members of Parliament
was submitted. | | | 1897,
January 18 | Official
Church notification in the newspapers of the condemnation of the brochure Le
clergé canadien by L. O. David. In it we learn that the Holy-Office had condemned
the brochure on December 9 and that it was placed on the Index on December
19. | | | 1897,
January 20 | At
a gathering of all the bishops of Quebec to celebrate Mgr. Moreau of St. Hyacinthe,
further discussions were held for a joint pastoral letter to condemn the Laurier-Greenway
compromise. Such a document was not issued because of the reticence of Mgr. Émard. | | | 1897,
January 20 | While
in London, Charles Fitzpatrick sought and obtained a legal opinion from Edward
Blake. Blake submitted that the rights recognized by the Privy Council in the
Brophy case were rather narrow; he also affirmed the superiority of the Laurier-Greenway
compromise over the Remedial Bill. This opinion was submitted to the authorities
of Rome in the hope that they would not accept the Quebec bishops' harsh interpretation
of the Laurier-Greenway compromise. This opinion was published in Le Soleil, February
15, 1897. | | | 1897,
Jan 20-Feb. 11 | All
of the bishops of Quebec, with the exception of Mgr. Émard, issued Circulars to
their clergy to condemn the Laurier-Greenway compromise. Large extracts of these
are printed in a brochure entitled Les droits de l'Église et la « question manitobaine
» published later in 1897 by an author, senator Philippe Landry, who signed «
Justitia », (printed by Léger Brousseau, 45p. The extracts are found in pp. 30-43). | | | 1897,
February | Joseph-Israel
Tarte's newspaper, Le Cultivateur, is now banned in the dioceses of Trois-Rivières,
Rimouski, Sherbrooke, Saint-Hyacinthe, Nicolet, Chicoutimi and Quebec (this left
only Montreal, Valleyfield and Pontiac). | | | 1897,
February 1 | Mgr.
Labrecque bans Le Soleil in the diocese of Chicoutimi. | | | 1897,
early February | Charles
Fitzpatrick had an audience with the Pope. He obtained a delay on the publication
of an encyclical already prepared on the Manitoba school issue as well as the
sending of a papal delegate in Canada to investigate. | | | 1897,
February 18 | The
liberal newspaper Le Soleil published a memorandum drafted by Laurier and Richard
W. Scott to justify the Laurier-Greenway Compromise. The document had been presented
in Rome by abbé Proulx. | | | 1897,
February 22 | Mgr.
Marois, assistant to Mgr. Bégin as administrator of the diocese of Quebec, commissioned
Auguste-Réal Angers, Philippe Landry and Tom-Chase Casgrain, all well-known conservative
members, to prepare a refutation of the legal opinion of Edward Blake. In the
document, they charged that Blake's « was not the opinion of a constitutional
lawyer but, rather, the product of a business agent whose client does not wish
to submit to the judgment of the tribunal and who, having met the opponent, recommends
that the little that is offered be accepted. » | | | 1897,
February 24 | A
letter from the Vatican was sent to cardinal Taschereau to inform the bishops
of Canada of the coming of a papal delegate. | | | 1897,
February 27 | Upon
his return from Rome, Gustave Drolet granted a long interview to La Presse on
the mission he was sent to accomplish. See the documentary section for more details. | | | 1897,
February 27 | Senator
Philippe Landry left for London and Rome to counter the work done by Charles Fitzpatrick. | | | 1897,
March 1 | Mgr.
Bégin left for Rome; he represented the other bishops in defending their common
cause; he also wished to make certain that an acceptable candidate was appointed
to the post of archbishop of Montreal. Strong rumours attributed the post to Mgr.
Émard of Valleyfield. As Émard was well-known for his liberal views, and in fact
was the candidate the Laurier government would most have liked to see obtain the
seat, the other bishops were concerned. They wanted to make certain that he did
not get the post. | | | 1897,
March 30 | While
Mgr. Merry del Val was on his way to Canada, the Manitoba legislature voted the
Laurier-Greenway compromise. This virtually ensured that no more concessions would
be made and that the papal delegate's mission would, to that extent, be a failure. | | | 1897,
March 31 | The
papal delegate, Mgr. Merry del Val, arrived in Quebec City. He was to have a difficult
mission in Canada. In general, the Quebec bishops interpreted his arrival as potentially
dangerous for them. They believed that his main task should be to investigate
the Manitoba school question and demonstrate that the bishops had acted properly
to defend Catholic interests, especially in condemning the Laurier-Greenway compromise.
They hoped that he would support their view that Remedial legislation ought to
be enacted. At the very least, they expected that the delegate would obtain further
concessions from the governments of Canada and Manitoba. On the other side, the
Laurier government thought that the main purpose of his presence in Canada was
to investigate the « inappropriate » clerical interference into political affairs,
and to bring an end to it. They hoped that he would see that the compromise was
substantial, adequate, the best that could be obtained under the circumstances
and preferable to a Remedial Act. Both sides besieged the delegate while he was
in Canada. Merry del Val himself defined the purposes of his presence as follows:
« My mission is a mission of peace, destined, if God permits it, to bring back
union among the Catholics in Canada, to assure the prestige of the bishops, to
firm up the obedience of the faithful and to obtain from the government an acceptable
solution for all. » It
was on the occasion of the arrival of the delegate that Israel Tarte made public
the letter signed by the 45 Quebec Members of Parliament. In the House, he declared: « This document speaks for itself. Not a word about the Manitoba school question
is found in it. We have appealed to Rome about the attitude taken by some members
of the Roman Catholic clergy, as we had a right to do. We have requested political
freedom. » See the documentary section. | | | 1897,
April 8 | Meeting
of the bishops of the province of Quebec (except Mgr. Moreau who was prevented
by health problems), the archbishops of Halifax, Toronto and Saint-Boniface with
Mgr. Merry del Val in Montreal. The delegate criticized Mgr. Labrecque for banning
newspapers in his diocese. Mgr. Labrecque refused to remove the ban, as this would
undermine his authority in his diocese. He later sent a letter of complaint to
Rome (July 6, 1897). | | | 1897,
April 24 | Le
Soleil editorialized: « the presence of the apostolic delegate among us has revived
those that had been intimidated ». | | | 1897,
May 11 | Provincial
elections were held in Quebec. Felix-Gabriel Marchand's Liberal Party crushed
the Conservative Party by winning 57 seats against 17. The Liberal sway over Quebec,
begun by the victory of Laurier the year before, was now complete. This liberal
domination of the province was to last a long time: provincially the Liberal Party
controlled the majority of the seats in Quebec until 1936. Federally, the majority
of the seats of Quebec will go to the Liberal Party until 1984 with the sole exception
of the elections of 1958. | | | 1897,
May 11 | Merry
del Val met the six bishops of the province of Ontario in Toronto. These bishops
concluded that a federal remedial law would be impossible to apply, if ever it
could be voted. They believed that the Laurier-Greenway compromise should not
be condemned so as not to give rise to Protestant fanaticism. It is following
this meeting that the bishops of Quebec decided to send to Rome a delegate to
defend their interests. | | | 1897,
May 19 | The
bishops of Quebec, except Mgr. Lorrain (Pontiac) and Mgr. Émard who were not consulted,
approved of the sending to Rome of Father Dominique-Ceslas Gonthier to represent
then « unofficially » in Rome. | | | 1897,
June | All
the French-Canadian bishops, except Mgr. Émard, prepared jointly an ultimatum
regarding the activities of Mgr. Merry del Val to be submitted to the Vatican
through Father Gonthier. They declared that they did not wish to cooperate in
arrangements that would sacrifice, even partially, the rights of the Catholic
minority of Manitoba. They complained of the activities of the papal delegate
and added : « For all these reasons, Holy Father, we consider that the delegation
of Mgr. M. del Val is like a true national and religious calamity: national, as
it imperils our most precious constitutional rights; religious, as it effects
the ruin of Episcopal authority which (the mission) was meant to sustain and consolidate.
» They requested that the encyclical force the Liberals to fulfill their promises
and to render justice to the minority. Their conclusion expressed loudly the depth
of their despair: « If, on the contrary, because men that hold power today, but
might loose it tomorrow, and are held in such consideration, and if, by an excess
of confidence in their fruitless promises, the essential rights of the Catholic
minority were sacrificed, even if only in part, religion would be greatly imperiled.
It would mean an end to our prestige as the shepherds of the souls, and we would
have nothing left to do but to sadly lock ourselves within our Episcopal palaces
to moan over the remaining shards of our ruined authority and renounce proclaiming
and defending the principles and the truths so often propounded in your magisterial
encyclicals, i.e. the supremacy of the Church over the State, the necessity of
religious schools under the direction of the bishops, the justice and the freedom
due to Catholics in all countries. » See Charland, p. 52-53. | | | 1897,
June 22 | A
telegram was sent to Mgr. Merry del Val telling him to be ready to return to Rome.
The many complaints of the Quebec bishops seemed to have had their effect. | | | 1897,
June 25 | Paul
Bruchési was appointed archbishop of Montreal. Liberals who had hoped for the
appointment of Mgr. Émard were disappointed. Nevertheless, Bruchési proved to
have good relations with the Liberals. | | | 1897,
July 3 | Upon
his departure from Canada, Mgr. Merry del Val wrote to Mgr. Langevin that agitation
around the school question, and discussion of the matter, was to cease awaiting
the papal pronouncement on the matter. This text was made public on July 6. | | | 1897,
July 15 | Le
Soleil published the December 6 petition by Marchand. | | | 1897,
July 17 | Mgr.
Merry del Val departed for Rome from New York. Upon his arrival in London, the
Delegate met with Wilfrid Laurier. | | | 1897
(specific date unknown) | Mgr.
Merry del Val wrote his Report on Canadian affairs. (Notes on this are derived
from Perin, pp. 132-138 and Charland, pp. 78-81. To my knowledge, the Report has
never been published and would constitute an important contribution to the subject)
Merry del Val's view was a practical one of identifying what was « desirable,
but also practicable, prudent and possible ». He did not believe in the possibility
of remedial legislation, as the problems associated with it were endless, first
political but with potential disastrous results for the Roman Catholic Church
as well. He dismissed arguments that inaction on Manitoba would encourage aggression
elsewhere in Canada; he thought the contrary more likely. He entertained little
hope in immediate improvements but counted more on the good faith of Laurier and
on the longer term to better the situation. Quiet, administrative improvements
were also possible. He thought there was good will at the federal level and in
the provincial level of Manitoba. Yet, he had had negotiations with the government
of Manitoba, promises had been made, and very little had come out of it (two Catholics
received appointments: one as a school inspector, the other to the Advisory Board).
As for the causes of the religious ills of Canada, he blamed extreme party solidarity
(« l'esprit de parti »), the interference of the bishops and the clergy into politics,
the lack of culture and education of the clergy, racial antagonism, the tendency
to assimilation among some French Canadians and the resistance of the others to
it. Mgr. Bégin's reaction to the Report was that it was « the faithful reproduction
of all the insane views of the Liberal Party » the result of one « who spoke,
acted and judged in a naive and stupid manner ». Perin concluded his analysis
of the Delegate's Report: « Bégin correctly pointed out how uneven was the delegate's
comparison of the two parties; he saw only perfidy in the Conservatives' championing
remedial action, and only sincerity in the Liberals' obstructionism ». (p. 154) | | | 1897,
August 5 | Merry
del Val arrived in Rome. | | | 1897,
August 12 | Laurier
had an audience with the Pope. Rumours in Canada was that the interview had lasted
an hour and half. According to Father Gonthier, it did not last more than 15-20
minutes. Laurier was successful in delaying the encyclical that was expected for
September-October; he hoped to be able to extract more concessions from the Greenway
government and thus gain papal support for the Laurier-Greenway compromise. The
improvements suggested were not acceptable to Mgr. Langevin or to the Manitoba
government. | | | 1897,
late summer-fall | A
new spate of Canadians embarked for Rome in an attempt to influence the course
of events to come, especially the Roman decision on the school question. Are known
to have gone to Rome: Mgr. Bruchési, the new archbishop of Montreal, Mgr. Émard,
Alphonse Desjardins and Philippe Landry. | | | 1897,
August 24 | La
Patrie published the letter written by Mgr. Bégin, and signed by the other three
francophone archbishops, that was sent to cardinal Ledochowski in Rome to protest
the two liberal petitions submitted to the Vatican (October and December 1896). | | | 1897,
September 9 | Father
Gonthier obtained a copy of the report of Mgr. Merry del Val (« sub secreto Sancti
Officii ») from Mgr. Celli, under-secretary for the Congregation of Extraordinary
Ecclesiastical Affairs. In theory, the report was communicated so that Gonthier
would present a summary of the multitude of documents that the authorities in
Canada had flooded Rome with. In reality, it afforded Gonthier an opportunity
to refute the Delegate's report. | | | 1897,
November 8 | Mgr.
Bruchési had an audience with the pope. At this audience with the pope, they discussed
the creation of a Ministry of Education in Quebec. See the collection of documents
on this issue elsewhere at the site. | | | 1897,
December 8 | Pope
Leo XIII issued the Encyclical Affari Vos on the Manitoba school question. See
the documentary section. | | | 1898,
January 6 | Mgr.
Bégin, administrator of the diocese of Quebec published the Papal encyclical.
A Pastoral Letter, under his name, also accompanied the papal encyclical; in it,
the main points of the encyclical were emphasized and interpreted. This document
was to be read, along with the encyclical, in the churches of the Archdiocese
of Quebec. While published under the name of Mgr. Bégin, the text had actually
been written by Mgr. Bruchési. Liberals would have denounced in Rome the Pastoral
Letter as misinterpreting the ideas of the pope. See the documentary section for
Mgr. Bégin's Pastoral Letter. | | | 1898,
January | Thomas
Charland reports (p. 101) that Jules-Paul Tardivel, the dominant ultramontane
of his time, interpreted the papal encyclical « as a formal condemnation of the
actions of the ultramontanes ». He was persuaded not to state it as such in his
newspaper La Vérité so as not to provide ammunitions to the liberals. Mgr. Langevin
found out later that the Pope did not approve of the Pastoral Letter of Mgr. Bégin.
Charland asserts (p. 125) that the papal encyclical did not demand that a remedial
law be issued because it was clear that none would be forthcoming and that, consequently,
it would only aggravate the situation in Canada. The Laurier-Greenway compromise
was not categorically condemned so as not to indispose the Manitoba government
and, thus, close the door to any future improvement of the situation. | | | 1898,
January 29 | Wilfrid
Laurier met with Mgr. Langevin and Mgr. Bruchési in Montreal to discuss the Laurier-Greenway
compromise. Langevin requested that a remedial bill be issued. Laurier answered:
« I understand that there will ultimately be a need for legislation, but it is
not possible to do so at the present time ». | | | 1898,
February 2 | Second
meeting between Laurier and Langevin. Clifford Sifton was present. There was a
third meeting (undated) between Laurier, Langevin and Bryce who was a member of
the Board of Education of Winnipeg. Laurier and Bryce offered that the textbooks
to be used in the 83 catholic schools be those used in the public schools. These
Readers would be purged of anything that could offend Catholics. Langevin rejected
the offer as « neutral books » were inacceptable to him. | | | 1898,
February 15 | The
Quebec Mercury, controlled by Charles Fitzpatrick, announced that Mgr. Labrecque,
bishop of Chicoutimi, had been reprimanded by the Rome for condemning and outlawing
liberal newspapers. According to the Mercury, Larocque had refused to submit and
was about to resign. The Mercury had to retract the next day. Larocque had indeed
been censured by the Roman authorities. Mgr. Cameron, bishop of Antigonish also
received a reprimand from Rome. These decisions would have been taken at a meeting
of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs on October 14, 1897. | | | 1898,
March | Father
Dominique-Ceslas Gonthier's mission in Rome ended. He returned to Canada. | | | 1898,
end of March | An
unofficial arrangement was arrived at between the government of Manitoba and Mgr
Langevin. This arrangement was to apply to districts where Roman Catholics were
the overwhelming majority, in the rural, mostly francophone, areas of Manitoba.
In return for accepting government inspectors for the public schools in Catholic
districts and government certification for the teachers, the schools could keep
their Catholic readers, especially in history and geography, have courses to train
Catholic teachers and receive government grants for the support of the schools.
There was no agreement for the mixed districts, those found in the cities, mostly
in anglophone areas (Winnipeg and Brandon). | | | 1898,
July-August | Mgr.
Langevin found out that the informal agreement reached in March was challenged
by the governement of Manitoba. Langevin discovered that if complaints were raised
against the textbooks used in the public « Catholic » schools, the government
would have to apply the law, i.e. use only textbooks approved by the Board of
Education. Thus, at this point, nothing had been done for the Catholic schools
in the mixed districts, while any arrangement for the Catholic districts was entirely
at the mercy of the provincial government. According to Robert Choquette (p. 332)
this situation could not possibly satisfy Mgr. Langevin. | | | 1899,
August 3 | Rome
appointed a permanent delegate to Canada. Mgr. Diomede Falconio became the first
Apostolic Delegate to Canada. This was generally interpreted as a victory for
the Liberals and a blow to the influence and interference of the Quebec clergy. | | | 1899,
December | The
Greenway government was defeated by the Conservative Party of Hugh John Macdonald
(he was the son of John A. Macdonald). This did not bring particular improvement
to the school situation in Manitoba. | | | 1900 | An
amendment to the Election Act of Manitoba provided that people required to take
the oath for voting would have to read the Manitoba Act in English, French, German,
Icelandic, or any other Scandinavian language. | | | 1901,
September | The
oath that teachers must take was modified to make it acceptable to Roman Catholics. | | | 1903,
January | There
existed 105 public schools in Manitoba controlled by Roman Catholic commissioners;
there were five « free » Catholic schools in Winnipeg and one in Brandon. | | | 1904 | The
federal government freed, with Mgr. Langevin's approval, the sum of $400,000 it
was holding back from Manitoba so that the province would construct a bilingual
teachers' college. | | | 1905 | Creation
of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Laurier who had promised to restore
the rights of Roman Catholics in these provinces (see the entry for December 1892)
was persuaded by Clifford Sifton not to do so. | | | 1906,
December | Laurier
refused to make the settlement of the school question a condition to his acceptance
of the extention of the frontiers of Manitoba into Keewatin. | | | 1912,
March | The
annexation of the northern region of Keewatin into Manitoba brought controversy
when Roman Catholics living in this area lost rights as their territory was incorporated
into the province of Manitoba. The rights they enjoyed under the Laurier-Greenway
compromise were not as great as those they had enjoyed previously under the North-West
territories' Act. See the text by Groulx on the schools of Keewatin. | | | 1916 | 1916
The Manitoba government unilaterally abolished the provision of the Laurier-Greenway
compromise that guaranteed French education in Manitoba. | | |
For
details on the sources quoted throughout the chronology,
as well as for further readings, please consult the set
of documents on the Manitoba School Question posted at
the site, especially the Notes
on Sources for the Study of Quebec, the Roman Catholic
Church and the Manitoba School Question. |
©
2000 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College |
|