Some people are apt to look upon this matter in a very strange way. We are told that we are not to claim any rights for the French Language in Ontario, because there is no text of law. I ask you, gentlemen, if you have ever seen anywhere a text of law which says that the English language is the official language of the British Empire? No, there is no such law, none anywhere, not at Westminster, at Ottawa or at Toronto. Why? Simply because language is a natural right—there are rights that we all enjoy which do not need the sanction of law, the right to live, to breathe, the right of property—these are rights which do not need the sanction of law, that is, of any special text of law, but belong inherently to all individuals and everyone is entitled to their enjoyment without any text of law. These rights are the necessary attributes of individual freedom.

The rights of the minority in the Province of Quebec with reference to their religious tenets and their language have no other and no better foundation than the same rights of the French or Catholics in the Province of Ontario. If we are deprived of the right to use the French language in our schools in the Province of Ontario, and if that is constitutionally sound, there is nothing to prevent the government of the Province of Quebec from saying that in the English schools of the Province of Quebec there shall be no word of English spoken. I should think the contemplation of such a thing would make you shudder. It is really inconceivable with anyone in Quebec.

I have tried to show you the conditions at Confederation. I said I would give you authority for my statements, and I am going to give you the authority of different and most competent people. First of all, I will give you the authority of Sir Oliver Mowat. He had no doubt on this matter, nor had Sir George Ross, and both of them said so in very clear and unmistakeable language. As long as their authority lasted the use of the French language in the Province of Ontario was not interfered with, but was treated in a broad and sympathetic way. I will quote also from Doctor Ryerson, who was the father of the Ontario school system, and who for thirty-five years exercised undisputed sway over the schools of that province. I will likewise cite Sir James Whitney.

Sir Oliver Mowat, in a speech made at Woodstock, on December 3rd. 1889, said:

Gentlemen, I want to quote also a letter of Dr. Ryerson, whose name I have just mentioned, dating as far back as 1857, and this letter, although it contains but four lines, contains the whole thesis upon which this question rests. I invite your special attention to every word of this letter, not only because of the man who wrote it, but on account of the significance of the words he uses. It is as follows:

I also stated that I would quote Sir James Whitney, and that is very much more recent history. Within a few months of the promulgation of regulation No. 17, in fact on the 25th of July, 1911, Sir James Whitney caused this letter to be written:

This letter was written to Reverend Father Chaine, of Arnprior, a town not far from Ottawa.

I spoke to you a moment ago of the right to appoint trustees. I want you, gentlemen, many of whom I have the honour of calling my friends, and whom I see before me, my Protestant friends of Quebec, how would you like it if the Roman Catholic School Committee in this province were to arrogate to itself the right to appoint the teachers in your dissentient schools, and to define their duties? How would you like it? Would you think that was keeping faith with the British North America Act? Would you think that was keeping faith with the Confederation partnership? How would you like it if this same Committee, not only would assume to appoint your teachers and your inspectors, and would take good care also to appoint Catholic inspectors in your Protestant schools—how would you like it? Will you not take that suggestion home with you, gentlemen, and think it over? How would you like this regulation No. 17 to be applied to the Province of Quebec?

Let me read the two or three most important sections of the regulation and substitute the word “French” for the word “English” and vice versa wherever they occur, and I want you to take that home also and think it over. Let us read section 3 of the regulation No. 17:

3. Subject in the case of each school to the direction and approval of the superintendent of Education (I use that term advisably as corresponding to the term used in Ontario) the following modifications shall also be made in the course of study in separate schools.

The use of ENGLISH FOR INSTRUCTION AND COMMUNICATION.

(1) WHERE NECESSARY, in the case of English-speaking pupils, English may be used as the language of instruction and communication; but such use of English shall not be continued beyond Form 1 (that is the first two years the child goes to school) excepting that on the approval of the Superintendent of Education, it may also be used as the language of instruction and communication in the case of pupils beyond Form 1, who are unable to speak and understand the French language.

Now, gentlemen, will you seriously consider that? How would you like that kind of thing, you the English-speaking people of the Province of Quebec, if you could use your language in your schools, as a means of instruction and communication in the first