« PředchozíPokračovat »
tising in Ontario; while at the end of 1894 the number of practising doctors had increased by 225, and of lawyers by 383. During this interval 840 students had passed the final examination of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and over 700 lawyers had been called to the Bar.
What happened to the surplus, who could not find room in Ontario? It is significant that during the year 1894, when the United States was swept by a financial cyclone, which prevented many from venturing upon an unknown and precarious sea, in spite of the general depression prevailing in Ontario, the numbers of the practising lawyers increased by 132, more than double the average of increase in the other years during this period.
That the general intelligence of the people has improved is beyond question. But our Mechanics' Institutes and Public Libraries tell a disappointing tale. The literature which is read is composed of the lighter magazines and novels. We are not thorough and we are not studious.
These are the fruits of our vaunted system. A close examination will reveal the weak spots. First our educational authorities appear to have overlooked one important feature in human nature which now, in the light of experience, must be fully recognized. be fully recognized. Education is, and always will be, used as a direct means of obtaining a living. If you educate a young man in this country beyond a certain point, he turns his back upon the farm and upon manual labour. It is true that, according to the official report last year, 934 High School pupils took up agriculture as a calling. But these figures are misleading, for the great majority of this number only return to their father's farm to await an opening in life. tical farmers report that the High School pupil who returns to the farm returns with a "bee in his bonnet," and he seizes the first opportunity to get off into some other occupation. As a matter of fact, the tendency to seek a living in the "nicer" occupations is too often fostered by the fond
parent, who finds that it is cheaper to make a lawyer or a doctor of his son than to set him up on a farm, and then it must be remembered that he has little knowledge, as a rule, of the world. When the boy comes home, able to conjugate a Latin verb, he primes his head with rail-splitting presidents and men who have risen to be prime ministers from printers' devils. We hail and admire great men of this type, but it is a pity that their histories are ever written.
Again, to render our system symmetrically perfect, the High Schools, of course, must be well supported. With this end it is necessary, as far as possible, to make them an essential part of popular education and, at the same time, to offer a bait to scholars in the prospect of remunerative occupation when they have finished the course. How has this been done? The course of the Public Schools, which were originally intended to provide all the necessary education for the people, has been cut short, with the express intention, apparently, that the education obtained there should be incomplete. And what is the bait held out as an inducement?
We may gather a hint of this from the report of the Minister of Education for 1894, in which he says, "The High Schools and the Institutes train annually about 1,200 teachers for the Public Schools. This gives an importance to their existence, perhaps, even greater than is attached to any other of their useful functions." In this connection we would refer our readers to an excellent paper written by Mr. McMillan of Toronto, entitled "Defects in our Public School System,” read before the Annual Convention of the Ontario Educational Association in 1894, in which he says, 66 What becomes of this large army of recruits? For the fifteen years already mentioned (1877 to 1892), the total increase of teachers in actual service was 1,868, or a yearly output of 125. To supply this increase of 125 we have the annual output of the Model Schools, numbering on the average 1,200." The natural
conclusion to be drawn from the fact that 125 positions are annually filled by 1,200 teachers, is that each teacher remains something less than two months at his vocation; and the pupils of the Public Schools are subjected to a perpetual succession of tyros, in order that the High Schools may be fed by young men who are attracted by an immediate prospect of making a living as a stepping-stone to the already overcrowded professions.
It is a difficult thing to retrace our steps; but there are two points upon which we could place the finger of reform. If the salaries of the Public School teachers were raised, if every teacher was subjected to a more severe training and compelled, as in Prussia, to pledge himself to serve as a teacher in the Dominion for at least three years, we should have fewer youths seeking a livelihood through higher education who ought to be working in the fields, and we should have better teachers for our children.
There is no reason why I should be compelled to be my brother's teacher, if I, as a citizen of the State, receive no benefit. The standard of the Public Schools should be raised and made as efficient as possible, so as to give a complete common school education. But I, as a taxpayer, should not be asked to contribute to the payment of indiscriminate higher education, beyond that point where it affects the course of the pupils' lives, because an excessive increase of those who receive education beyond that point has been shown to be a detriment and not a benefit to the community. Higher Education, therefore, above this limit should be made as nearly as possible self-maintaining. At the same time, the poor man who cannot afford to pay for his education, and is likely to prove a benefit and an ornament to the State, might well be provided for by a
system of scholarships which would give him free education, and maintain him until he is able to earn a living by his profession.
The evil is patent to every man who thinks. But how is it to be remedied? If indiscriminate higher education has proved a failure, it has been belauded to the skies. And Canada is not alone in this. We cannot look to our politicians though, unfortunately, in this country, education is under their control for the people's representatives ride on the wave of public opinion; they are not the pioneers of thought. Party politicians, too, will always stand by their leaders. We cannot expect our Minister of Education to admit that he has gone too far, and the leaders of the Opposition are waiting for the tide. Nor can we look to the Press, for it has joined heart and soul in the worship of this popular god. We have good reason to believe that the big guns of our leading newspapers are loaded, but they hesitate to fire them off until public opinion is ripe, and they feel themselves compelled. The teachers, again, whose attention must naturally be turned to this question, will never be so foolish as to quarrel with their own bread and butter, whatever in their hearts they may think; and every year we may expect a return of the enthusiasm which is characteristic of the conventions that they hold.
If, then, there is to be any change, based upon common sense and the lessons taught by results, we must look to a full and free discussion by the people themselves in our Farmers' Institutes and Boards of Trade; for here, free from the disturbing influence of politics, these questions can be debated, and it is only those who are supposed to be benefited that can start the ball rolling and criticise without fear the wisdom of their own impartial liberality.
THE FUNCTIONS OF A GOVERNOR-GENERAL.
A Reply to Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
HERE exists no doubt that men of great ability, in periodicals of much political influence, have put forward doctrines respecting the relations of the Executive to Parliament and the Crown which are altogether contrary to the doctrines which have been generally held on both sides of this House." Lord Hartington, Hansard Debates, vol. 246, page 318.
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper affords a notable illustration of Lord Hartington's remarks, by his assertions in the article, "The Functions of a GovernorGeneral," published in the November number of The National Review. The Ex-Solicitor-General of Canada would, apparently, limit the powers of a Governor-General to those of a stamping machine, and would deprive him of any official judgment apart from that of his ministers.
It may not be uninteresting to briefly define the position of a GovernorGeneral and reply to the special attack upon Lord Aberdeen, unfortunately made by an ex-minister, at a time when all responsibility for the action of the Governor-General had been assumed by a new administration.
The Governor-General of Canada, it is admitted, while an Imperial officer, still constitutionally occupies a position in Canada, with authority similar to that of Queen Victoria in Great Britain.
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper ostensibly sets himself the task of controverting the constitutional position assumed by Mr. Buxton, the UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies, in two statements made in the British House of Commons.
he was satisfied that the cause recom mended was not merely in his view erroneous, but such as he had solid ground for believing would not be endorsed by the legislature, or, in the last resort, by the constituencies."
In 1894 Mr. Buxton was asked: 'Has a Colonial Governor the power to refuse to nominate gentlemen to the Legislative Council when recommended by the Government?" He replied, "A Colonial Governor has the power to refuse the proposals of his ministry, but he is under the obligation if they resign in consequence to find another government to carry on the business of the country.".
The position assumed by Mr. Buxton may be analyzed as follows:
1. The Sovereign or Governor may refuse the advice of his ministers when, in his judgment, it is detrimental to the public interests.
2. He has the right to consider what would be the desire of Parliament or the people.
3. He is bound to find a ministry who will assume the responsibility for his refusal of the advice tendered.
Sir Charles' article itself gives ample evidence of the right and necessity for the exercise of independent judgment. by a constitutional Governor. He quotes Prof. Hearn's "Government in England," as follows:
"It is the duty of the Governor to administer the affairs of the colony by the aid of ministers, who act under the superintendence, and with the approval of the Colonial Parliament. His compliance with the advice of these ministers is limited to matters of discretion, and he is bound to decline any proposal that is contrary to law. Neither a governor, nor any other subject, can be freed from the personal responsibility for his acts, or can be allowed to excuse a violation of the law, on the plea
In 1893 Mr. Buxton intimated, in reply to a question, that "The governor of a colony enjoying responsible government would be justified in declining the advice of his advisers where
of having followed the counsel of evil advisers."
This is a rather singular quotation in an article, the intention of which is to prove that the Governor-General should have blindly followed the advice of his ministry, even after they were defeated at the polls. And Sir Charles follows up the quotation by recalling that it is not many years since a governor of the Colony of Victoria was deprived of his office for approving of illegal acts of his advisers. The logical deduction is that a governor must exercise judgment and discretion in sanctioning the recommendations of his ministers.
If further support of this proposition is necessary, it may be found in the fourth section of the Royal Letters Patent of 5th October, 1878, respecting the office of Governor-General.
"IV. And we do further authorize and empower our said Governor-General, as far as we lawfully may, upon sufficient cause to him appearing, to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office, within our said Dominion, under or by virtue of any commission or warrant granted, by us, in our name, or under our authority."
Mr. Alpheus Todd, in 1879, issued a pamphlet styled "A Constitutional Governor," which was probably the forerunner of " Parliamentary Government in British Colonies." In it, speaking of the Governor-General, he says:
"If, at any time, he should see fit to doubt the wisdom, or the legality, of advice tendered to him; or should question the motives which have actuated his advisers on any particular occasion -so as to lead him to the conviction that their advice had been prompted by corrupt, partisan, or other unworthy motives, and not by a regard to the honour of the Crown, or the welfare and advancement of the community at large—the Governor is entitled to have recourse to the power reserved to him in the Royal Instructions, and to withhold his assent from such advice. Under these circumstances he would
suitably endeavour in the first instance, by suggestion or remonstrance, to induce his ministers to modify or abandon a policy or proceeding which he was unable to approve."
Lord Aberdeen certainly seems to have fulfilled, last July, all the requirements set down by so high an authority as Mr. Todd.
Mr. Todd, in his work, "Parliamentary Government in the Colonies," has also (page 432) the following appropriate remarks:
"The Governor, like the Queen herself, is bound to be satisfied as to the wisdom and political expediency of every act and proceeding advised by his ministers, before he ratifies and sanctions the same with the authority which appertains to his office."
A noteworthy incident in the history of the Bowell administration in Canada occured in November, 1895, in reference to a petition for the commutation of the death sentence passed on Valentine Shortis. The Minister of Justice, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, presented a report to the Cabinet on the subject. The Council, however, could not agree to grant or reject the petition and the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. Under these circumstances, they placed the whole matter in the hands of Lord Aberdeen, and requested him to decide upon the proper action to be taken. This was a recognition, under very peculiar circumstances, of the royal prerogative of mercy, and placed the initiative of action in the hands of the Governor-General to an extent that is incompatible with the theories now laid down by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. (See Dominion Sessional Papers, 1896.)
The power and authority of the Governor-General being thus far elucidated, there remains to be shown how his conduct should be guided in relation to Parliament and the people.
On March 26th, 1862, the Colonial Secretary (The Duke of Newcastle) wrote as follows to the Governor of Queensland (Sir G. D. Bowen) :—
"The general principle by which the governor of a colony possessing re
sponsible government is to be guided is this; that, where imperial interests are concerned, he is to consider himself the guardian of these interests; but in matters of purely local politics, he is bound, except in extreme cases, to follow the advice of a ministry, which appears to possess the confidence of the legislature."
The possession of this confidence is a condition attached in every case to the acceptance of advice from the ministers. Sir John Macdonald stated this condition very clearly, during the Letellier Debate, in the House of Commons, in 1878:
"So long as the advisers of the Crown have the confidence of Parliament they have a right to claim the confidence of the Sovereign. This is the great principle. . long as the ministry of the day have the confidence of the people, they will have the confidence of the Crown, and the Crown will be advised by these men, who have the confidence of the representatives of the people. There is only one case in which it seems to be that this doctrine can be impugned, and that is when the Sovereign has a reason to believe that the representatives of the people who maintain, who support the advisers of the Crown, have "forfeited the confidence of the people themselves."
According to Sir John Macdonald, whose authority Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper is not likely to call in question, the representative of the Sovereign has a right to consider whether his advisers have the confidence of the Parliament, or the confidence of the people. Will Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper maintain that on the 4th of July last Lord Aberdeen was wrong in deciding that the Tupper administration did not possess either the confidence of the people or of their newly-elected parliamentary representatives?
No one will deny that Lord Dufferin was a Governor actuated by the strictest respect for parliamentary principles; and yet we find that he did not confine his functions to the narrow limits laid down by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
In his celebrated Halifax speech, delivered in 1873, and which he quotes in a communication to the Colonial Secretary, he reports himself as saying that it was the duty of the Governor-General "to remember every hour of the day that he has but one duty and but one subject to administer his government in the interests of the whole Canadian people, and of the Dominion at large." He assumes here, which is undoubted constitutional doctrine, that he was bound to consider the interests of the people, a position that might easily be quite incompatible with doing only what he was advised to do by the ministry of the hour. If the interests of the people demand it, he was bound to call in the reserved powers of the Crown and refuse to accept the advice of his ministers. It is true that in the same address he used the wellknown sentence, "My only guiding star in the conduct and maintenance of my official relations with your public men is the Parliament of Canada." But there is no contradiction in this to the principle under which Lord Aberdeen acted. The old Parliament had expired in April, and strictly applying Lord Dufferin's principle, the GovernorGeneral's "guiding star" was the new parliament just elected by the people, containing a majority of members adverse to the Tupper ministry; and consequently Lord Aberdeen's duty towards the incoming parliament and the people of Canada was clearly not to sanction any acts which would embarrass the government about to be formed in accordance with the recently expressed will of the people of Canada.
Baghot, in his well-known work on the English Constitution, states that "The ultimate authority in the English Constitution is a newly-elected House of Commons." Lord Aberdeen indubitably showed his respect for this ultimate and supreme authority by confining his ministers to the transaction of necessary public business. In his communication to the exPremier, dated the 4th of July last, Lord Aberdeen recalled the fact that the Tupper cabinet had never repre