RE NES

gland, and indifterent or blind to the larger issue of civilisation and publie morality endangered and latterly actively hostile. (14)

The Bishops seem to have lost control of the lower clergy, for some at least, have seen the danger to their own people involved in their attitude.

There are some matters, both of fact and of inference, in which I disagree with you, and as the subject is of supreme importance to both of us, Ï shall take the liberty of pointing them out. à You say at p. 7. ‘ La haine de race... nous a fait ce mal ”.

I sincerely think you are wrong in supposing that here is any hatred on the part of the average English speaking Canadian towards the French Canadian. ‘There is much indifference, much prejudice, in some cases contempt — but is there any more of these very undesirable characteristics, than on the part of the average French Canadian, towards the English ? Perhaps instead of contempt, you should in the case of the French substitute envy. (15) The weaker and poorer are naturally envious of the stronger and more prosperous — that is only poor human nature.

With reference to the Ontario School Question may I point out to you two things which are usually overlooked — 1st — The quarrel is between Catholies, that is Irish and French. Pro-

-testants, as such have no interest in it, tho’ no doubt the Ontario government has taken the side of the Irish. (16) 2nd, The ordinary Ontario voter has been told for years that the French

(14) Il y a certainement eu, de la part de quelques membres du clergé, des paroles, même des actes de véritable hostilité ; mais ce sont des cas isolés. Les lettres que j'ai reçues des plus représentatifs parmi les prêtres, du ministère et surtout de l’enseignement, me permettent d'affirmer que la proposition de M. Stuart, trop générale et, il est vrai, conforme à l’opinion courante, ne rend pas justice au clergé.

(15) Dans une lettre subséquente, provoquée par mes protestations, M. Stuart précise sa pensée sur le choix de ces termes. Au fond, peu importe l’étiquette qu'il convient de mettre sur le sentimènt qui sépare les deux races : il est certain qu’elles ne s’aiment point l’une l’autre. Et l’une n’a pas plus de raison de mépriser l’autre que celle-ci n’a sujet d’envier celle-là. Il y a antipathie, cela se voit assez. La race la plus forte par le nombre a cédé à la ‘ pauvre nature humaine ‘’et a abusé de cette force ; de là nos griefs.

(16) Pourquoi? Sinon parce que la langue française est le grand obstacle à la fusion rêvée par le gouvernement d'Ontario et par ceux qui le soutiennent.

ESA Re

were invading Ontario and driving out the English and that is largely true in the border counties because of their larger birth rate and their willingness to endure harder conditions — the same condition has presented itself in our Townships. JÏs it then race hatred, or the desire to protect themselves, that has influenced the ordinary man in Ontario, in his attitude towards the question ? Incidentally [ am told that on two occasions satisfactory settlements have been made, which were refused by the Extremists headed by Senator Landry. However I have no first hand information on this point.

Persécutions anglaises. — At the bottom of your con:plaints on this head, some of which I do not think are founded in fact — does there not lie the assumption that the French Canadians should have been treated not as Canadians but as a separate nation ? And back of this does not the question of the whole future of Quebec lie ? It seems to me that Bourassa, and you with him, desire that French Canada should be treated as a separate nation. (17) If that were desirable, in the interest of Quebec, which I deny, it certainly was not possible under our present constitution and no blame attaches to the present government for what was done. If the above is not your view, then, it seems to me that exactly what Bourassa asked, in the quotation on p. 8, has occurred. Canada has intervened in the war as a nation and has been recognized as such by England.

And that brings up the question, what of the future? You say at p. 21, that ‘ nous devons chercher notre bien et travailler à notre bonheur à nous, nation canadienne-francaise. . 7

That you should preserve your language and your religion, cela va sans dire, — but what else ? You say that Quebec has gained nothing by the Confederation — I think you are absolutely wrong, but if you are right, what then ? The other Provinces would not agree to dissolve the union, and the English in

(17) Nonpas. Il y a un pacte signé entre la nation canadienne-anglaise et la canadienne-française. Nous nous plaignons qu'on ne l’observe pas et que, comme groupe distinct, on viole nos droits. Que demandons-nous qui ne soit de la plus stricte justice ? Est-ce notre faute vraiment sile British fair play n'est plus dans notre bouche qu’un sarcasme ? et si les esprits cultivés, comme M. Stuart, M. Wrong, etc., ne réussissent pas à se faire entendre de ceux qui, parmt leurs compatriotes, cèdent au fanatisme persécuteur ?

Poe

this province would not agree either — but let us assume for the sake of argument that a dissolution were possible. Do you really think that Quebec would be better off ; that by isolation you would solve the problem which is so sore à question now? What would have occurred if Quebec had been an autonomous province under the British Crown, when war was declared ? The most that I think could have been hoped for, would have been enlistment of French Canadians in the other Provinces — there would have been no movement by this Province as such. My belief is that there can be no future for Quebec outside of Confederation (18) She must go with the other Provinces and she has the possibility of being the most wealthy and most powerful of the Provinces — on condition that she educates. her population. The French Canadian is unrivalled as a mechanie — and yet Ï am told that in the big shops in Montreal very few are foremen, because of their want of education. (19)

Do not imagine that the French Canadian alone suffers from

(18) Cette formidable question du sort de notre nationalité exige à elle seule une très longue étude. Ce n’est pas le temps de l’examiner dans le détail. TH] faut compter avec les secrets de l'avenir. Depuis 1760, au’avons-nous fait au Canada, sinon tâter le terrain, essayer un régime, l’abandonner pour un autre, revenir au premier modifié ; sinon changer de vêtements comme fait l'adolescent qui grandit et dont les goûts d’ailleurs ne sont pas encore bien fixés ou ne sont pas toujours consultés? La constitution de 1867 nous a fait assez longtemps un costume convenable ; déchiré par le Manitoba et l'Ontario il révèle que nous, .nous avons été dupés ; 1l semble évident que l’Ouest lui-même va le trouver trop étroit bientôt. Il va falloir changer encore une fois, et il n’y a pas lieu de s’en étonner, puisque nous sommes en pleine période de croissance. Alors ? Puisque nous évoluons, il est bon d'indiquer en quel sens chacun croit qu'il faut charcher le progrès. Je n'ai pas voulu dire autre chose, et je serais fort en peine de préciser des solutions futures qui dépendront de circonstances encore inconnues.

(19) Il est bien possible, en effet, aue l’ouvrier canadien-français, malgré son habileté “ sans rivale ” arrive difficilement au rang de contremaître, dans les grandes usines de Montréal. Que ce soit à cause de son peu d’instruction, il parait que non. Les grandes usines de Montréal appartiennent à de grosses compagnies anglaises ; les meilleures places sont réservées pour des Anglais. L'ouvrier anglais n’est pas plus instruit que son camarade canadien-français, mais il est plus puissimment protégé. La preuve, on la trouve dans toutes les usines dirigées par des compagnies canadiennes-francaises, et même dans toutes les manufactures de Québec et de la région ; les contremaîtres n’y sont pas anglais, et si l’on veut aller plus haut encore que les contremaîtres, on n’a qu'à visiter, par exemple, la plus grande pulperie du pays, celle de Chicoutimi — et l’on constatera que, au point de vue instruction chez l’ouvrier, l’un vaut au moins l’autre.

Du reste, que nous devions accroître encore nos moyens d'enseignement et rendre cette instruction encore plus complète, c’est de toute évidence.

NN re

the position in which the two races are placed — the position of the French in Canada is paralleled by the position of the English in Quebec — tho' Ï recognize that their greater wealth makes a difference. — Be sure that we have got to get a'ong together and knowledge of one another is all that is required to do away with most of the friction — 1f the teaching of both languages were made compulsory throughout the Dominion, a long step towards reconeudiation would be made. (20)

Do the clergy really wish the population generally to learn English ? My impression is not — but Ï may be mistaken. (21)

In my opinion the greatest loss which the French Canadians will suffer by reason of their abstention from the war is the loss of self respect. They will also lose the broadening of character which comes of association in a great enterprise, and finally they will miss the deepening and ennobling of character which follows SOTTY.

from a great sacrifice, Ï am sorry.

Forgive my long tale.

Yours faithfully, GUSTAVUS G. STUART.

DE M. STuaART.

Quebec, 1 August, 1917.

Dear Mr. Roy :

Ï am in receipt of your letter of the 31st ult. for which I thank you. I should not have bothered you with another letter were it not that I feel I! must explain and set matters right. One

(20) C’est moi qui souligne.

(21) M. Stuart est en effet sous une impression erronée. Notre clergé, depuis un quart de siècle surtout, et d'accord avec les parents aui le réclament, préche et encourage de toutes façons l’enseignement de l'anglais — aui est obligatoire dans nos écoles.