(Sa

/ A WEEK

be Gram

LY JOURNAL OF POLITICS, LITERATURE AND NEWS,

>

—

WHELAN]

Chis is true Liberty, when Free-born ftlen, havi

LWer.

187

“st he ™m

to advise the Public, man speak fee. —urn

[EDITOR axv PUBLISHER.

EDWARD wadgyy ng to lic, man speak free——rurieres. Vou. VII. CHARLOTTETOWN, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, MONDAY, MAY 31, 1858.” eae

PROS!’ECTS OF WAR WITH FRANCE.

England is slowly but surely drifting into war—a great | war—grenter than the American, and to whieh the Indian! conflict. will appear but trifling in comparison. France is | as surely doing the same thing; and unless both nations begin | serionsly to covsider what it is they are differing about, and why it is they are calling each other ugly names and putring their arms a-kimbo, with an air of “ I'm as good as: you!” we shall proceed to blows, and the youngest of living men may pot live to see the last of the blows in the warfare thus com- menced, In order to avert such a calamity, we would. earnestly exhort well-intentioned men on both sides of the! channel to divest themselves of those passions and prejudices | which bad-intentioned men among them have invoked, and sit | down calmly to ask each other what it is they are quarrelling | about.

No greater calamity could occur on the face of the earth | than a war betweeu Kuglaud and France. This is a propo- sition that will be admitted. prevent i?

i ‘

. - . . . ; Chere are men among us snarling, like ill-con-!

ditioned dogs, at the Kmperor of the French, but who would) Would have been satisfied with promotion ; because it is the | be the first to cry out against war when they found themselves | eliberate expression of the representative of a large class of | : | persons in France by whom it should be at once disavowed.

in the thick of it. And there are similarly constitute] men | iu France, snarlftg at England, and who would be very abject | in their bumii ation, if the chapter of accidents should compel | them to leave their country and take refuge in Knyland, as | theirWesuit fathers did in times gone by. These are the| mischief-makers—the peace-destroyers—whom better men are | influenced by, and whose foilies and bad passions make the | work of statesmen dillicult, and compel transictions which, | under different cireumstances, would ot be thought of Jhere is Sardinia, for instance —vallant Sardinia—ea ling for help, which }’agiand, with ail her good-will, cannot afford Sardivia appeals to k igiitsh patriotism against the eraft and

oppression of “se

vu

\ustria ; but Englisn patriotism is silent, for we may require the friendship uf the d ‘spot, in the eveut of the folly and wickedness of the peace-destrvyers leading us jut» hostilities with France. Qount Cavour, the Sardinian Minister, bas appealed to the great and growing sympathy which the struggle of his government has eailed forth in all free states througout the world, bat he appeals to England jn vain. A combination, such as some Frenchmen, not without influence, are advising, would at once become possible, in Which France, Austria, and the chief German states wou'd be arrayed ayainst Muagland; in which ease it would not be dificult to draw Russia to the side of our antagonists. We have bad the world against us before, and our indomitable “pluck ” might carry us safely through the en@junter again ; but at what a fright{ul cost would the contest be carried on! Hundreds of thousands of lives would be sacrificed, and the war would lesve us bankrupt in means, and no other conso Jaton than such as might be derived from the cireumstance of OUP tes bving reduced 4e a sim larly Wretéteed condition. And what is it that we are to fight about? Is it the errors of the Emperor? What have we to do with the Emperor ? if the Emperor’s politics forbid the continuanee of certain persous in France, there is an asylum for them in England, s0 long as they pay re-peet to the laws which Kuglishmen cousider Becessary for their own governance; and there should beaneod of it. If the people of France dislike their m- peor, it is for them to demonstrate their dislike. {t is not our busivess to fizht their battle. Nor do they ask us to d. it, They are weli able to fight themselves. Toe principle

to Pekin wa

| ** finds it as wel

_hever to have been shaken.— News of the W

s adjourned and afterwards abandoned. There is no objection that France should aid England by striking blows, bat it is desirable that she should figure in a treaty, and, for that reason, a treaty will be dispensed with. When we are no longer at Canton, the Eng!ish will for tify themselves there, in

™ "

order to secure the easy possession of southern China as far as_

Sachuen and Thibet, while they willadvance into the Burman Empire by the [rrawadi, and, ascending the Salween, arrive in the Yunnaa. ‘That is the reason why, when our expedition to Cochin-China was resolved on—at the same moment, and by

one of those aets which abound in the history of England and

in that of the buceaniers, Perim was seized and a fortress erected there. We shall have a position in Cochin-China, but England will hold the key, or we shall be six months making

the voyage, which England will peform in six weeks. That’! is the reason, in fine, why the trial of Bernard is a greater | triumph for English policy than even for the sect of assassins.”’ |

All this is extravagant and very unjust and honest Frenchmen might profitably occupy themselves in repudiating it. But they are silent. ‘* England,’’ continues the French journalist,

ismore offensive than the flourish of the silly colonels, who

Nothing at all approaching the malignity of these expressions has appeared in the most violent of the English journals which throw dirt at the emperor.

And where are the avowed ‘ friends of peace”? ata mo- ment when the relations of the two countries are becoming thus embittered? Where is the peace society? There was a time when gentlemen could go as far as St. Petersburg in the hope of calming strife Is that pacific spirit dead? Or has it become, on asudden, anxious for war? The true interests of England and France lie in the continuance of peace. and it would be well for both nations if they were to dedicate themselves, at once and earnestly, to the suppression of angry passions and the strengthening of the alliance which ought ‘orld, May 9.

Colonial Legislature.

IiOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. Fripsy, March 19, 1858. BIBLE QUESTION. PETITIONS RELATING TO EDUCATION. ( Continued.) Hon. D. MONTGOMERY.—Hon. members who have

oppose! the Resoluéion and supported the amendment, have all said that the liberty of reading the B.ble, in the District Schools, which is freely extended to al] scholars whose parents wish them to read it in school, works well, gives satisfaction to such parents, and in no way offends those who do not ap- prove it, or wish their children to participate in it. Well then, this being allowed te be the rea! state of the ease, as respects our District Schools, for it is not disputed by any one, I think it will puzzie those hon. members to prove that, if the saine liberty were extended to the Central Academy aud the Normal School, it would not, with respect to pareuts whose children attend, or may attend either of these iustitu- tious, be productive of the same happy results, [Hon Col. Secretary. It does so with respect to the Norinal School.] No; [ say it does not; for the privilege of reading the Bible, to the Master of that School, by such scholars as may choose to attend half an hour before svhool, or to stay half au hoar

.

a2 i % ° i . . which should actuate all Kuglishmen is that of non-inter- ference. it would be as unfortunate a thing for the Emperor | as fur E iand, if the two nut ous were to #u to War; perhaps | more so; but the Kum peror tay be unable to. control the dis- | position of his army and people. Lt a sense of in-u!t be deep!y impressed on either coutry, and hostilities are certain. | Keasouabie meu should @ideavour to show that no intentional

oifeuce has ever been thought of, aud tu remove miscouc ptions | on the su) ject.

For while the misanderstanding lasts, Engl ind, like Sar- dinia, must needs seek alliances,and with powers with which it las no sentiment inecommon. ** We have endeavor; red,”’ said Count Cavour, ‘* to form a system of alliances with the Wes- tern Po swho had no interests in ftaly contrary to ours. |

Power Unhappily, fortane is not always the friend of strict right and Yhen a nation has nut large squadrons to dis;

\

justices, ’ pt

ib must endeavour to secure, in case of need, the support of | the large squairons of its friends and allies.’’ In this para- graph, the Sardinian Minister answers his complaint oi the | neglect of England. We have, unhappily, no such large squadrons to dispose of as would be required in the event of a! wer with Fran “ Let us renounce the English alliance,” | says the Fronch Jesuit organ—** the alliance with perfidivus, | Insulent England, which has never been cordial, and can never | be relied on.’ ++ As the eldest and first of Catholie nations, France,’’ accoriing to this firebrand, ‘‘ ought to form an in-) dissvluble bond whose furee in Hurope shouid counterbalance throughout the world that of England and Russia united.”’ “Sincerely allied to Austria,’’ adds the Univers, ‘* France would pacify [tuly, consolidate Belgium, purify Switzerland, and attach to herself all Germany, by generously inviting her, through Austria and the Hanseatic Towns, to assume her part ‘a the domain of the Seas. Holland and Prussia, though Pro. testant, would cnter into this confederation of European pub- lic safety against Russia and England, become Asiatic Powers. Who could prevent France from advancing to the Rhine, or Prussia from o}) taining military ports, a navy and colonial es- tablishments? There would be a German marine, the Italian navy would revive, the Adriatic reanimated would bless Austria for restoring its splendvur, and the flags of Sicily and Sardinia, with those of Rome, would fraternize in the free ve the canal of Saez, constructed, if necessary, with aie she tne’ the —— Perim.”” This rock of Perim ode took p tengo Mi oer which Lord Palmerston codon kn abot ea ba s en Tench mischief-makers were eee eee , and their progress through the Red Sea was virtually stopped thereby. England and Russia, it | may be observe 1, are not natural allies, and we could not de- | pend ~~ deriving much help from the latter in case of | danger. The isaportance of an Austrian alliance is indieated by the direction of the Freneh journal to its own Government, to cultivate a good understanding with Austria. It is believed | that England has been beforehand with the French advisers. | and, although we dislike and have no faith iu Austrian friend-. ship, we must not be fastidious in case of dang is truth in the saying that ‘necessity makes a m with strange bedfellows.”’ We would rathe with France, and: be regardless of all the rest of the world. | than have occasion to look for friendship elsewhere ; and shia | 18 the policy the soundness of which we would impress upon | the British people.

Condemning, as we do, the passionate excitement in this coentry about the internal affairs of France, (which concern *nly the French themselves) we think it is equally incum-

tton the directors of public opinion on the other side to Censure and disa\ ow the frantic declamation of mischief-makers ‘mong themselves. The Univers declares that ** everybody

Hows that the [nglish alliance is a snare,’’ and then goes on ‘ say that + Enyland will have no allianee except for her own ; Yantage, and in aecordance with her secular policy. Itis wt that reason that, after the capture of Canton, the expedition

mse ¢ f,

‘

er; and there

r go hand in hand

/it ought to be read by children and the laity in general.

after school, two or three days a week, for the purpose, or

| whese parents may direct or command them to du so, is not,

by any means, extending to avy the privilege of reading the Bible in school; but, on the contrary, it is the inflicting of a puuishment, by extra confinement, both upon such scholars and the master himself. And, sir, the tone and mode of argument in which some hon. members have indulged, in their opposition to the Resolution, are, L must say, ofa character the very reverse of that which ought to distinguish

| speeches, delivered during the discussion of s0 serious a

question, as that which now engages our attention. Such a question ought to be decided solely upon its own merits ; and

nothing extraneous, especially of an irritating or offeusive

character, ought to be counected with it, to prevent our be-

/stowing upon it the most impartial and equable consideration.

This sense of prtpriety has, I am sorry to say, been much

disregarded during the discussion ; and the hon. member from

Fiuty Glen, is not the only one who has done violence to it. Hon, members who opposed-the Resolution seem to be par- ticularly anxious to establish, or at least to create a suspicion of some previous connexion between members who support the resolution and the petitioners ; and earnestly wish it to be believed that we have no better motive or higher desiga in the support which we give to the prayer of the petitions, than the aim and expectation of, thereby, being able to prepare the way for the defeat, at the coming elections, of the party at present having the majority in this House. Now, for my owu part, 1 can truly say —and | imagine every other member on this side of the Liouse can as truly say very nearly the same—how much soever I may desire the overthrow of the party at present in power, and how willing soever I uf®y be to aid in the endeavour by honorable and coustitutional means to hasten their downfall, [ had no share in getting up the petitions for such purpose; and more, I knew nothing about auy of them until they were sent into this House, and sin- cerely believe that the idea of effecting a change in the Government of the Golony, by their means, was never, for

one moment, entertained by those who most earnestly desired ‘to see them pumerously and respectably signed.

That the people throughout the country are not, however, generally sati-fied with the limitation to which the use of the Bible is confined in our public schools, is sufficiently and most cou- vincingly proved by the signatures to the petitions now befure us. eyerence for the Bible, as the Word of God, and de- pendence upon the sacred traths which it reveals, is a test of religion, amongst all Christians ; but yet, we kuow, all Chris- tiaus do not agree as to the extent and freedom with which We who are Protestauts think that our children ought to be taught to read it, and to be daily instructed from it, even

nan acquainted | from their most tender youth; and hence our earuest desire | | both of these charges, to the end that the people may be fully and cor- |

that they should be frecly allowed to read it in our public schools. Catholics, on the contrary, however do pot wish their children to read it in that way ; and | am very sure no desire exists on our part to force them do so. We are un- willing to be coerced ourselves, and, therefore, do not seek to coerce others. When I went to school, children of Catho-

_lics as well as of Protestants, were my school-fellows ; and the | st

Bible being regularly read in school, we all, both Catholics aud Protestanis, with the most kindly feeings, one to

another, and utterly ignorant of any cause for distrust or. it Jealousy amongst us, read the Bible together in one class. |

I am sorry that the same harmony of feeling does not still

our schools; and perhaps, [ may be permitted to say also, that I am sorry that such feeling has net been as prevalent as it ought to have been during the present discussion. I support the Resolution of my hon. colleague,

Hon, J. WIGHTMAN.—On a question concerning so grave a subject

‘stituents were I to give a silent vote. I shall, therefore, endeavour briefly to state my reasons for the vote which I mean to give on this oceasion. The Petitions which are now before us, have reference to the

Normal School and the Central Academy only; shewing by their silence |

with respect to the District Schools in the country, thatthe people are | perfectly satisfied with what was done, by this House, in its last session, touching the use or the reading of the Bible in these schools. if the fact were otherwise, the people would have got up petitions, setting forth their dissatisfaction with it. The question then concerning the use.of the Bible, we may eonsider as wholly and finally settled, sce far as it concerns our public schools in the country; and what we are now, in an especial manner, called upon to do is to settle the same question, as it respects the Central Academy and the Normal School. In approaching | this immediate question, I feel constrained to say that I have been much surprised to hear it questioned whether the people in the country have

. F * 1 to be a den of assassins in London, as she! a right—nay indeed to hear it almost denied that they have a right—to | but what are we doing to! finds it well to be a manufacturer of poison in Bengal.’’ This | interfere, even by petitions to the Legislature, with the public educa-

| tional jnstitutions in Charlottetown,—the Central Academy and the Normal School. Are not these mstilutions supported by appropriations '}made by us from a revenue derived from the people? Do not our agriculturists contribute to their maintenance, as largely as do the | citizens of Charlottetown? and, although but very few of their children | are educated in these seminaries, are they aot directly concerned, not only as to the kind and extent of secular knowledge imparted to scholars | and pupils therein; but are they not also most especially, interested in | the moral training bestowed upon them; in as much as their District | schoolmasters must be selected from amongst those who have been | educated, or who, at least, have graduated therein. These questions cannot be truly answered except affirmative'y; and surely then it follows that the people may freely petiticn the Legislature concerning the kind of edueation and moral training imparted in those schools; and good right have they to expect thatany of their petitions relative thereto, sent up to the Legislature shall, if expressed in respectful language be respect- fully considered; and more especially so in that branch ef it which is composed of their own direct representatives. In my opinion that system of education which, whilst it adiits the necessity of religious teaching in our schools, does not make it compulsory, either in appearance, or in reality, is the best adapted to schools which are attended by Roman Catholic children and Protestant children together; and, in conformity with this opinion, I would propose that, in the Centra] Academy and the Norma! School, which are attended by young persons of both Communions, the Board of Education should authorize the reading of the Holy Serip- tures, in the version of each Communion; by Protestant youth, in the Protestant version; and by Catholic youth, in the Catholic version; but yet without making it compulsory upon either; leaving it entirely to the parents of the children of each Communion, to avail themselves of sach liberty for their children, or not, asthey might think proper; and such a permissive regulation would, I think, be the bestevidence we can give of our being actucted by the truespirit of Christian liberality. To compulsion on this subject, [am most decidedly opposed; for it would, if admitted, greatly impair the eflicieucy of our. present impartial system, and positively imperil its existence. My wish is that, in our schools, religious instruction shall be secured to all, without shocking the principles, or opinions of any. As far as my owa feelings are concerned, I would be well pleased that the authorized version of the Holy Seriptures should be read in all our schools; but, as our present system of education bas been established on non-sectarian grounds, and for the purpose of extending the advantages of education to all, [ shall never give my vote for the establishment of any rule which might operate as an exclusion to children of the Roman Catholie persuasion. According to my views, the authorized versiun of the Holy Seriptures might be appropriated for the reading of such by the children of euch parents as should desire it; and the Douay version for the reading of such by the children of such parents as believe that version to be the more correct. The entire exclusion of the Bible from our public schools, is what I cannot approve of; for I am fully convinced that, if we would instruct children in the relative duties which as children, they now owe, and, by such instruction, prepare them for the proper diseharge of the relative duties which, on emerging from the contro] or restraint of parents and of school, they will have to perform in the fulSiment of their obligations as citizens, we cannot lay a sare foundation of such instruction on »ny code of morality or rule of life, save on that which is found in the Word of God. The system of Free Education which we have lateiy established in this Colony, is, in ny opinion, of vital interest to the welbeing and perpetuity of a free government; as upen the intelligence and moral culture of the people, depend their capacity for self-government; and it is therefore to the cducation and moral training imparted in our public schools, that we must chiefly look for the broad foundations of the civil and social structure iu the erection of which we ought all to be deeply concerned. No greater obstruction to its com- pletion could arise, I feel certain, than jealousies and discord created by placing the members different Christian Communions in antagonistic positions one towards another; and nothing, | am equally certain, will tend more to the future weli—being of a people, composed of different religious denominations, than their having their children educated in tue same schools, subject to the same authority and discipline, daily occupied together with the same mental exercises, and daily engaged, in the freest companionship, in the same physical sports. So reared, they could not fail to grow up in the exercise of the most kindly feelings towards one another, and their youthful friendships would be the foundation and guarantee of their univu as a peopl. L hold in my hand a Resolution which I have drawn up in couformity with my opinions on this subject; which I mean to submit if the Resolution of the hon. member for Princetown (the Hon. T. H. Haviland) be lost; and which T will now read. ‘The hon. geutiewan then read his Kesolution, which is as follows:

‘* Whereas, while the House repudiates the principle of en- croachment upon the religious opinions of any denomination, it considers that the most effectual evidence of the true spirit of Christian liberality will be afforded by allowing to each class of Christians the use of the copy of the Holy Seriptures in which it believes:

‘* And whereas the parties attending fur instruction at the Central Academy and Normal School belong to the Protes- tant and Catholic Communions, and it is not expedient that the Copies of the Holy Seriptures to which they respectively adhere shold be read without note or comment to the parties belonging to each denomination respectively :

‘* Be it therefore Resolved, as the opinion of this Com- mittee, that the Board of Education should authorize the reading, in the above institutions, of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment, during school hours, in such versions and to such of the pupils and students whose parents or gaardians may require it.’’

Hon. COLONIAL SECRETARY.—The Journals of the Session of 1845, shew that the hon. member for Princetown (Hon. D. Montgomery) and the hon. member for the Third District of King’s County (ilon. J. Wightman) both voted against a Resolution, the object of which was “‘ the repeal of that clause in the Academy Act which prohibits the use

Central Academy, by children whose parents or guardians shall not object to the same;”’ as also to that Resolution which “ deemed it inex- vedient to adopt any compulsory measures for the introduction of the Bibl-, as a Ciass Book, in the Central Academy, or the other Schools throughout the Island receiving grants of public money” It now however appears that their opinions on that question are the very reverse of what they were then.

Mr. H.. HAVILAND.—A referenee to that Journal will, I believe, shew that these two hon. members are not the only individuals in this House, who have changed their opinions upon that question since that time; and that such may be found on both sides.

Hon. COLONIAL SECKETARY.—As the hon. member, my colleague, (Mr. Laird) has, in his own way, endeavoured to prove against me, not only that [ have said the people in the country have no right to petition the Legislature concerning the discipline or course of instruction, or other internal regulations, observed‘or practised in the Central Academy

training which Mr. Stark said was to be practised therein; I will, sir, by your leave and that of the Comsitttee, take this opportunity to rebut

| rectly informed concerning both, particularly the last. First, as to my ‘having said the people in the country have no right to petition the Legislature concerning the Central Atademy and the Normal School, [ must take leave to tell the hon. member, my colleague, that in under-

| standing me to say any thing of the kind, he hascertainly very strangely |

| misunderstood the meaning of my words. What i did say, with refer- | ence to the petitious, aud which the hon. member seems to have so

rangely misunderstood, was, that the petitions are all from the countyy, ‘and that, if avy part of the publie felt themselves aggrieved by the rules and regulations now in operation, concerning the use of the Bible in the Central Academy and the Normal School, one would naturally conelude would be those whose children were scholars in these institutions; and as such children, with scarcely an exception, belonged to Charlottetown, ‘it was pretty clear that they who had the most direct interest in these | institutions did not believe that, in these rules and regulations, there

}

, exist throughout the country, with respect to the Bible in| was any thing of which they could reasonably cowplaia. Sy much for

as that which now engages the attention of this Committee, I cannot . think that I could justify myself as baving done my duty to my con-|

of the Holy Seriptures, without note or comment, as a Class Book, in the |

or the Normal School; but that, with respect to the latter institution, [,' at its inauguration, gave my sanction to the m: de of moral teaching and |

that. Now for Mr. Stark, who, by certaiu parties, has been represented as one who had been victimized on account of his love of the Bible. I hold in my hand a pamphlet, copies of which are, by the same parties, eagerly circulated throughout the country, in which that individual is | represented as having been obliged to leave this Island in consequence of his resistance to Popish aggressions upon the public schools. This statement, I hesitate not to say, is a most wicked and groundless false- hood; and the object of its dissemination throughout the country is one ‘which no traly Christian man can entertain; being nothing less than the revival and the perpetuation of disagreement, bad feelings, and discord | of the most hateful character in our midst. The object of the ex-Visitor of Schools, in representing himself, in Scotland, as having been unjustly deprived of bis appointment in this Island, and driven from it, through Papal persecation, is plain enough in that country. It is evidently to engage in bis favour, as an ill used man, the sympathies of his fellow /countrymen and ¢o religionists; but, in this Island, we know, concerning ‘him, what they cannot so well knowin Scotland. We know that bis representations concerning ** Papal aggression upon the public schools in this Island,” are positively false; and we also know that he has been | most basely ungrateful to the Government of this Island, by which he was most leniently and kindly dealt with, not only before, but even after | they knew he had been both inefficient and unfaithfal in the performance of his duty; for so far did they carry their lenity and kindness to him, that they actually allowed hiia his full salary for three months, after he had ceased to discharge any of the duties of his appointment. To the history of Mr. Stark’s retirement from his office, I would not now abvert, did I not feel it necessary to do so, in order to countersway the iufluence which certain parties are covertly and basely seeking to establish over the public mind, by surreptitiously circulating such falsehoods concerning it as that which I have just noticed. When Mr. Stark undertook the duties of Visicer of Schools, at a salary of £200 a year, the Royal Agri- cultural Sveiety, being desirous of conferring upon our farmers the benefits of modern discoveries in agricultural science, agreed to set apart £100 of their legislative grant for lectures on Agricultural Chemistry ; and Mr. Stark having undertaken to deliver such lecteres, it was agreed that this sum should be paid to him annually for such service. Finding, however, after a short trial, that he had not knowledge enough of Agri- cultural Chemistry, to enable him to lecture thereon in an acceptable or edifying manner, he properly enough abandoned the lecturing part of bis business. He still, however, continued to draw the £300; but his un- faithfulaess in the discharge of his other duties as School Visiter gaye rise to much murmuring and complaint; and it was with some difficulty that, in the session of 1856, the Government induced their supporters to vote for his full salary of £300a year. The Gsvernment, having en gaged his services for a certain period, felt that they were, in honer, bound to give him the £300. They accordingly applied to the Legis- laturefor this amount; and it is worthy of remark that every one of the Conservative opposition, they whose friendship he thought was surely _ his, resisted the vote for £300, and declared their opinion that he should have only £200, as he had ceased to be a lecturer on Agricultural Chemistry; whilst it was sustained by most cf the Government sup- porters, including three of the libelled Catholics. The Government, however, carried the vote of £300. with the understanding that their supporters should not be called upon to sanction a similar vote in another session. ‘The Government then finding that the lectures on Chemistry had ceased, and that there was no I:keli- hood of the Legislature’s continuing the £100 formerly given for that service out of the Agricultural grant, gave notice to Mr, Stark, that afier the quarter which would end in the following April, the salary for the Chemistry part of the business should also Cease. Surely this was fair enough. Mr. Stark, however, in reply, wrote to the Government expressing his desire to be at once relieved from his duties as Superintendant of the Normal School, and announcing, at the same time, his intention to relinquish all bis duties in May next. The Government then perceiving that Mr. Stark was getting rid of his duties by piecemea!—first having declined the lecturing, and then having abandoned the Normal Schoot, besides instead of visitine°m pubiie schools twice in tre year, as he was bound to do, not having visited several of them even once,—very properly ans- | werea Mr. Stark's letter of resignation, by ittimating to him ithat he was at once relieved from all his duties. since a part of them had become so disagreeable to him. The truth, in few words, is that Mr. Siark was not dismissed; but that he rather disimtssed hims. If; for, so far from his having been driven out f office, on account of his firm Protestantism, and his unwilling- ness to sucenmb to Papal aggressions, as it seems he has con- trived to make his present sympathizers believe, he was merely relieved, at his own request, from the burtben of duties, which he had previously in part abandoned, and in the discharge of which he had been found neglectful. What is meant by Papal aggressions on the public schools in this Island, isa false repre- sentation of the ground which was taken by the majority in the Legisia‘ure, concerning the use of the Bible in these schools; which is, that the Education law does not prescribe the use of he Bible—that the Board of Education has made bo rule against i's being read in the public schools,— but, on the contrary, has expressly declared that the Bible may be introduced into the public schools wherever the people desire it, —that the school returns (Mr. Stark’s) shewed that the Bible was freely read in many of the schools,—and that, as the voluntary system hed viven great satisfaction to.al! classes and a}! denominations, it would not only be useless, but dangerous to interfere with it. Mr. Stark’s gross misrepresentations of these facts, and those of the chi-f agitators of the Bible question, together with bis cort- cealment of the fact that, on his arrival in this Colovy, he was told by Sir Alexander Bannerman, that as the siudents and scholars of the Normal School wou!d be of different retigious d+ nominations, Siow’s system of moral training, by the master’s hearing and explaining Scripture lessons, during the regular hours of tuition, could not possibly be adopted, —constitute the Papal aggressions spoken of in this pemphlet, and make up he whole of the persecution to which Mr. Stark was subjected in this Island. [have entered somewhat into deia:! on this subject, to the end that it may be seen by the people how easily, by ‘he simplest statement of facts, the foul bel upon the Catholic portion of our community may be refuted; and how anworthy aud base must be the purposes of those who industriously cir- culate it. Some hon, members say tiat the resolution is not ‘compulsory; but, even as these hon. members themselves ‘explain it, its operation might frequently be very and most un- |jusily compulsory. Suppose, for imstance, that there were, in ‘the school, only two or three scholars whose paren's wished | them to read the Bible, it would, in such case, under the opera- tion of the resolution, be necessary for the master to devote, perhaps half an hour daily, to the hearing of these two or three read a lesson from the Bible, whilst all the rest wou'd, in a manner, be compelled to be idle forthe wantofateacher. The ‘objection made by the hon. member for Princetown (Hon. Dy | Montgomery) to the voluntary or permissive principe, as it | respects the use of the Bible in the Normal School, is exactly lthat which has beep made by other hen, meaibers of the oppo- /sttion, and as Ihave already answered them, I need nat, b think, }oecupy any of the tune of the Comuanitee by answering ihe how, j; member on that score. ° Mr. YEO.—I can truly say that no ehurch or sectarian judices weigh with, or influence me, in my considératiwn of

pr’) ‘ods questioa now before this Committee 5 and that I would, at

any time, be as ready to serve a Catholie as a Protestant, and quite as unwilling to sanction an infringement of erher the religious or the political nights and privileges of the one, as of the other. M® children have grown up, and my grand-cluldren ‘are growing up, among Catholics im perfect good will and ‘harmony wih them ; nothing like bigotry on either side, having ever provoked the least feeling of religious animosity between them. That the reading of Protestant versions of the Bible, in the Ceatral Academy and the Normal School, or in any of our puvlic schools, in which Protestant chridren are required by their parents or their guardians to read it, agreeably to the resolution of the hon. member fer Princetown, (the Hon, T. i. Haviland.) would give offence to Catholic parents baving children in the same school-, ts what | cannot easily persuade inyselfjo believe. There is not, in my opinion, auyitiag om the resolution, or in its contemplated operatioa, which can justly give offence to any Cat‘ olic, how sirict end zealous soever he may be in huiding the tenets and observing the doctrines end practices of his church: and, therefore, as it otherwise is intended only to secure to Protestants that privilege which they account their bighest and therr best,—the privileye of having their children trained in the morality of the Bible; by being regularly taught to read it inéchool, I freely aud hoaruly