<* 
 
 
 
 : S PE E C o. i " ^^= 
 
 r'/bd^ OP THE '^U W'*^'-''? 'i^''^ ''^'^^'^•^•■•"*^^ 
 
 HOHOEABIiS EDWAED BIiAKS, li! 
 
 t»^i Delivered in the Souse of Cofnmons of Canada, 
 
 ON THE MOTION FOR THE SECOND READING OP THE ''^"^ 
 
 
 'ifcyfe**'' 
 
 ORANGE INCORPORATION BILL, 
 
 ¥3 .D«^..f>TK.« t 
 
 ITtli March, 1884. 
 
 m. BLAKE 
 
 SPEAKING ONLY FOB HIMSELF. 
 
 "■i^''iy^ki' 
 
 REASONS FOR SPEAKING NOW. 
 
 Mr, SPEAKEK : Upon this quesfcion 
 parties are divided. It is well known 
 that the i*anks of hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site are divided; and it is known that the 
 Liberal party does not think, or speak or 
 rdbct, as a unit on this question. I am not 
 speaking, I do not propose to speak, 
 this evening, in any shape or tsense in 
 the capacity which I hold as leader for the 
 time -being of the Liberal party, but to 
 speak only in my individual capacity as a 
 member of Parliament. I am not speak- 
 inf^ for any one but myself. Although I 
 gAVG a silent vote on the last #ccasion 
 "when this question was before us, and al- 
 though but for what has occurred since 
 then I should have i-epeated that 
 silent vote, I feel bound, on this 
 occasion to express my views upon the 
 Bill before the House. The action of my- 
 iself, and the action of those membei's of the 
 ^Liberal party who voted against this 
 JBUl, have been misrepresented, seriously 
 misrepresented, during the recess, and, 
 mdeed, an alleged party action has been 
 stated, which did not in fact exist. A 
 political courst- has been taken by the 
 |iromotersof chis Bill, which I propose to 
 
 develop before I sit down, and which, I 
 think, furnishes, of itself, ample justifica- 
 tion lor my departing from the intention 
 I had to have repeated at this time, if 
 there was no reason against it, the silent 
 vote which I gave before. But I do not 
 conceal from myself, that, irrespective of 
 those circumstances, there are important 
 questions at stake upon this occasion; 
 and my own opinion is that a tempet*a4» 
 discuss'.on of those questions is no eril, 
 but rather a good. Hon. gentlemen 
 opposite who have supported the Bill, 
 and hon. gentlemen opposite who have 
 opposed the Bill, are, many of them, 
 apparently desirous that there 
 should not occur that diacua- 
 sion, but it is as well that we should un- 
 derstand our exact position. It is well 
 that the reasons why we act on one side 
 or the other should be made known. 
 It is well that the obieot- 
 ions and difficulties which some 
 ot us may feel should be stated, in 
 order that they may be answered and, if 
 possible, removed. Hence, it becomes 
 necessary for myself, and perhaps for 
 others who may have voted for the rwik- 
 sons which I am about to descriVw, 
 as influencing the vote I gave, and 
 which I am about to repeat. 
 
n 
 
 that we should state those reasons, 
 m view of the character of the attacks 
 that have been made upon those who 
 f ■ voted against the Bill last Session. The 
 first misrepresentation to which I wish 
 to refer is one which was made, I think, 
 ])y the h©n. member for South Leeds, 
 (Mr. Taylor) at an Omr.ge gathering at 
 Brockville, in which he said : ,( f > . 
 
 "The onus of defeat rests primarily upon 
 the Reformers who, while professing to be 
 Protestant Reformers, decided in caucus to 
 oppose the measure," 
 
 Now, the hon. member for South 
 Leeds could not know that to be true, 
 because he was not at the caucus ; and it 
 happens to be entirely untrue. There 
 was no caucus of the Liberal party at 
 which this question was touched upon ; 
 there was no meeting or gathering, 
 formal or informal, at which it was 
 touched upon, and there was no decision 
 or arrangement between the members of 
 the party as to the way they should vote. 
 There was no concerted action of any 
 kind or description. On the contrary, 
 to the few gentlemen who happened to 
 approach me on the subject, I said that I 
 thought ic was &, matter in which each 
 man must decide for himself, that I did 
 not conceive it would be a party question 
 on the other side of the House, and that 
 I did not conceive it was necessarily a 
 party question on our side ; and I depre- 
 cated all party action upon it. That was 
 the advice I gave, and which, so far as I 
 know, was acted on ; and, until the vote 
 was taken, I had not myself any idea — 
 with the exception of, perhaps, six or 
 eight gentlemen at the most, who may 
 have spoken to me — of the sentiments 
 of the gentlemen with whom I usually 
 act. Yet Sir, we find hon. gentlemen, 
 high in the confidence of the Orange 
 order and members «it' this Parlia- 
 ment, declaring that theie was a caucus of 
 the Protestant Liberals, who decided to 
 oppose the measure. I complain of that, 
 Sir, I think I have reason to complain 
 of such statements being made with a 
 view to influencing persons of the same 
 religious faith that I am, as^inst us. 
 
 Mr. WOOD (BrockviUe). I may 
 
 state for the information of the hon. 
 gentleman, that he is entirely mistaken. 
 The hon. member for South Leeds, who 
 sits beside me, never spoke at any Orange 
 gathering in the town of Brockville. 
 
 Mr. J3LAKE. I have taken my 
 quotation from the Sentinel which, I 
 believe is the organ of the Orange Society, 
 and which speaks of Mr. Taylor, M. P. for 
 South Leeds, as having made this speech 
 at, I think, Brockville. It may not 
 have been at Brockville, but it was in 
 that neighborhood. The question is, was 
 the speech made 1 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. 1 made no such 
 speech, either at Brockville or anywhere 
 else, and I am not responsible for news- 
 paper reports. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I have read from the 
 organ of the hon. gentleman; and the 
 other quotations I am about to make I 
 shall take from the same quarter; and I 
 hope they will be more trustworthy than 
 this appears to be. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON". Put them on a 
 par with the Globe. • 
 
 THE BILL UNCOXSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I am about to state 
 ray own views frankly on this question. 
 I dare say they will not please extreme 
 men on either side, but I hope that to 
 some moderate men those views may be 
 acceptable. In the first place, the hon. 
 Member for Card well (Mr. White) alleges 
 that this Bill is similar, upon the 
 constitutional grojind,to other Bills which 
 we have dealt with. I think there is a 
 very marked distinction, on the constitu- 
 tion il ground, between this Bill and the 
 other Bills, and I adverted to it this 
 verv af 'f!rnoon. I pointed out that I 
 (lid 11- )t myself concur in all the 
 re.isoiiiug, or in the result of all the 
 reasoning, in the case in the Privy 
 Council to which allusion was made\ this 
 afternoon ; but it seemed to follow from 
 that decision that a difficulty and doubt 
 existed as to the relative powers of the 
 Local and the Dominion Parliaments ii. 
 certain cases in which there had been, at 
 apy rate, a corporation created by the 
 
z 
 
 Le^Iature of thft old Provinoe of Can- 
 ada, which sought modification. I did 
 not believe that the true solution was that 
 al]eged,but there was a difficulty. Now, 
 Sir, how far have we gone 1 How far have 
 I, at any rate, assented to our going 1 
 Thus far, that — since that decision had 
 taken place — wherever there was a Local 
 Legislature attempting to carry out the 
 wishes of the corporators in each of two 
 or more Provinces, on a question affecting 
 property and civil rights, I said I thought 
 it was not unreasonable, considering that 
 doubt and difficulty, that we should use 
 what power we might have — which 
 is undecided, in my judgment — to 
 implement the wishes of the Local Legis- 
 latures, and to confirm, in effect, their 
 legislation. That is the rule that I have 
 laid down for myself in this class of crises. 
 I do not intend to give my assent to any 
 Bill which acts upon other principles. 
 Perceiving that the earlier of the two 
 Bills, which came on this afternoon, did 
 not fall entirely within that principle, I 
 pointed out that I objected to it. The 
 second Bill seamed to me to come quite 
 within that principle ; and, therefore, from 
 my point of view, though I sympathized, 
 as the hon. member from Quebec will 
 have observed, with his general vi.-w as 
 to our poweis, I thought it not an un- 
 reasonable thing that we should — not in- 
 terfere witliLocal Legislation but — actfor 
 the purpose of im,plementing or comple- 
 menting local legislation. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). There is no 
 legislation of a local nature for the 
 Methodist Bill. We have passed it. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I understand that in the 
 case of the Methodist Bill, it was stated 
 in the petition, or at any rate, stated in 
 the House, that legislation was going on 
 and was being granted in two Local 
 Legislatures. It was for the purpose of 
 makingsure, by the Bill, the Union which, 
 as far as property and civil rights were 
 concerned, was to be made complete by 
 the Local Legislatures. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes ; they are going to 
 apply for it. 
 
 Mr; BLAKE. They have applied, and 
 the Bills are goii^ through. Now, with 
 
 reference to the particular measure bo- 
 fore the House, there can be no 
 doubt whatever that the general 
 question of the incorporation of the 
 society for the purpose for wliich its pro- 
 moters ask its incorporation — which, as 
 they say, is merely in order that they 
 may have a corporate entity enabling 
 them to hold real property — is one of i^ 
 civil rights and property. It is 
 
 perfectly clear, therefore, that this is 
 within the control and the exclusive 
 control of the Local Legislatures. The 
 report of the Minister of Justice (Sir 
 John A. Macdonald) upon the Orange Bill 
 of 1873, passed by the Ontario Le-nsla- 
 ture, which was reserved, reads thus : — 
 
 "If the Acts should again be Viseed, the 
 Lieutenant-Governor should consider himself 
 bound to deal with them at once, and not 
 ask Your Excellency to interfere in matters 
 of Provincial concern and solely and entirely 
 within the jurisdiction and competence of 
 the Legislature of the Province." •• 
 
 That was a perfectly correct statement. i 
 It is true it applied to Provincial incorp- 
 oration; but it was a perfectly correct 
 statement that this proposed incorpora- 
 tion was not merely within, but solely 
 and exclusi^•l•ly within, the competence 
 (if the Provincf. There have l>een Acts 
 passed, as we know, in sevei'al of the 
 Legislatures, granting the Orange order | 
 incorporation. The order has been incor-f j 
 porated in Manitoba, in Nova Scotia, in 
 New Brunswick — in three at least of the 
 Provinces. And we know also that it is 
 not because these incorporations are 
 deficient for the purpose for which they 
 were made, that the applicants come 
 here. They do not come here because 
 they want more power in Nova Scotia, 
 Manitoba, or New Brunswick; not at all. 
 The present incorporation is adequate for 
 all the purposes they want, only they 
 cannot get incorporation in enough Pro- 
 vinces — that is the question. This case 
 is quite different from the class of cases 
 in which I am willjug that Domi- 
 nion legislation should intervene, to clear . 
 up any doubts arising from the decision to 
 which I have alluded; it is rot to implement 
 such legislation, but it is because legisla- 
 
/ 
 
 z 
 
 lion cannot be obtained in some Provinces 
 that the pai*ties copie here. It is not to 
 confirm, not to complete the legislation 
 of a ay Province in regard to which diffi- 
 culty had arisen under our complex 
 system; but it is to coerce Provinces into 
 Accepting legislation which the Provinces 
 would not otherwise pass. I wish to 
 make good the propositions I advance as 
 I proceed, and I shall do this by quoting 
 extracts. I find that the Grand Sec- 
 retary of the order (Mr. Keyes) said this : 
 
 **Billfl have been passed by five of the Ero- 
 Tincial Legislatures incoTporating our assuci- 
 ation; but through no fault of ours, in three 
 of these Provinces, Ontario, Manitoba and 
 Prince Edward Island the Bills have never 
 become law. Under these circumstances, and 
 in order to settle the question, we have ap- 
 pealed fo the Parliament of Canada for the 
 passage of a general Act of incorporation for 
 our society in the Dominion." 
 
 There you see it is not to supplement, to 
 make good and perfect local legislation, 
 but because local legislation cannot 
 be obtained, that they come here to obtain 
 that which they cannot get in the proper 
 quarter. 
 
 Mr. POWELL. Have you the date 
 of that repoit? 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. No; but I remember 
 the period; it was shortly before thf last 
 application to Parliament. Since that 
 time, the Manitoba Act has been passed. 
 Fears were entertained at that time 
 that tha former Manitoba Bill would be 
 disallowed; I believe it- was vetoed by the 
 then Government. Then, I have a report 
 from the Secretary of a county lodge, as 
 late as February 1884. He says: 
 
 **We must not permit any political feel- 
 ing in this matter, as it is very important to 
 our institution to have a Dominion Act of 
 incorporation. 
 
 ''Without such Act, our noble brethren in 
 the Province of Quebec will be without one, 
 as you all know it is no use for them to ask 
 for incorporation in their Provincial Legisla- 
 ture, where Protestants are in the minority." 
 
 There you see, Mr.* Speaker, once again, 
 that it is because incorporation cannot be 
 obtained in a particular Province or in 
 particular Provinces, that they come here, 
 and not because there is some difficulty or 
 
 in, 
 
 defect in the power of Provincial legislt^ 
 tion, w hich they want us here to heal. This- 
 vi«w is not a ^iew which is held by those 
 who oppose this measure alone; it 
 was held by leading Orangemen - 
 Leading members of the order, up to a 
 compai-atively recent period, held the view 
 that tho measure should not be brought 
 here; that it was a matter of Provincial 
 concern ar d should be discussed elsewhere^ 
 The .:ion. member for Effet Hastings (Mr, 
 White) who introduced the Bill las^- 
 Session, and who has occupied a very 
 high position in the order, and ^. 
 who still holds a high position, speakin^^ 
 in Winnipeg, after the defeat of the Bill ;. 
 of last Session, said : ^'>^'\,^Z ^^^'^^^'^*^' ^. 
 
 " He, along with Brother Marshall and 
 other members of the order, had asked that 
 the Incorporation BiU be not sent to the , ", 
 House of Commons, as he thought it should j, 
 be fought out in the Ontario Legislature ;. 
 and if defeated there, they should wait tilt 
 their fiiends gained power ; but in spite of 
 tdl argument on his part, he had been forced _ • 
 to take the Bill into the House." 
 
 Again, the bon. gentleman raid, 
 a speech at Brockville, after the Session. 
 of Parliament : 
 
 " At the Session of Parliament he found 
 himself needing more assistance than ever 
 before in bis life. 
 
 " Many of his friends were adverse to the- 
 Bill being giv^n a second reading: they were 
 divided as to its effect ; . and in this way h& 
 
 found himself assailed on all sides." 
 
 # * ♦ ♦ • 
 
 " Prominent Conservatives advised him to- 
 withdraw the Bill." 
 
 Once again, at Hamilton, he said : 
 
 " He was willing to admit that the Orange<r 
 men themselves were not as united in ask-r 
 ing for tbe Bill as they might have been. 
 They did not act as unanimously as they 
 should have done ; and there was no use in 
 denying the fact 4hat a certain portion of 
 their own organization did not want the Bill 
 to come to a second reading." 
 
 Mr. Marshall, a gentleman holding high 
 office in the order, speaking at Wiuniw 
 peg, said : 
 
 " He had been opposed to sending the In- 
 corporati(m Bill to the Dominion Haaae. 
 The battlt) had been commenced in Ontario* 
 and should be fought out thee." 
 
^Hieae are statements all made eince the 
 defeat of the Bill last Session, and they 
 seem to indicate that, on the part of 
 leading members of the order itbelf , there 
 ■was a strong feeling adverse to the pro- 
 priety of introducing this Bill here, and 
 favourable to the view which I have 
 ventured to take in this House, that 
 substantially and essentially this is 
 an attempt to make us^ of the power of 
 this Parliament under the pretence that 
 Dominion incorporation is really wanted 
 and is really needed, when the reality of 
 the case is, that Provincial incorporation 
 IB all that is really wanted and is really 
 needed. And it is because the Provinces 
 cannot be induced to grant that incorpor- 
 ation, or, at all events, because such is the 
 case in some of them, that it is proposed to 
 nae alleged Dominion power to force the 
 aaeasure on those localities that object 
 to it By the Bill itself and as much of 
 the constitution of the order as we are 
 aocjuainted with, it is a divided organ- 
 ization, with Provincial, county, district 
 and private lodges ; and the local branches 
 are to have the right to hold property. 
 I do not ii^tend to discuss the matters of 
 detail to which the hon. member for 
 Huron (Mr. Cameron) alluded, as I 
 leuned from the speech of the hon. 
 memlerfor Cdx'dwell (Mr. White), and 
 which might be remedied in the Private 
 Bills Committee. Although those observa- 
 tions were very fit and proper, because 
 they point to the essentially local charac- 
 ter of the measure, as dealing %ith prop- 
 erty and civil rights ; yet they are not 
 fktal to the Bill at this stage. The 
 question x:uh. respect to the Mortmain 
 Aot shows what soi-t of a Bill it is ; but 
 even this is not fatal to the second I'ead- 
 ing, because, as the hon. member for 
 Oardwell properly observed, that pro- 
 vimon might be St ruck out in the Private 
 Bills Committee. But I say that the 
 essence of this Bill is alleged by the pro- 
 moters to be the right to hold real prop- 
 erty. I say that the right to hold real 
 pn^rty is, if anything be such, a 
 ProTindiial right — a dealing with property 
 and civil ri^^hts. 1 say that we should not 
 strain our jurisdiction to grasp thatrightin 
 
 any case. I say, that we are to v»^ 
 our jurisdiction where we have it, for w» 
 may have it in some cases, as incidental' 
 to some classes of Dominion incorpor- 
 ations. For instance, I have supported » 
 in this House, as a necessary incident 
 of railway companies incorporated by us, 
 the power of expropriating lands. It is 
 a necessary incident of our power to 
 incorporate certain classes of railways* 
 that we should have that power of ex- 
 propriation, and we use that power 
 because it belongs to ua Bpt I say that 
 we should watch jealously, and when it is 
 proposed to go beyond the necessary inci- 
 dents of corporate rights, and when the 
 whole essence of the corpomtion is, as it 
 is claimed, the right to hold real pro- 
 pei'ty, it should be a very strong case 
 which should lead us to interfere with 
 it. And when we are told that the real 
 reason why the promoters come here is, 
 not because the Provincial incor- 
 poration would not be adequate^ 
 but because they cannot get en- 
 ough Provinces to agree to incorporate 
 them, that should end the question oi 
 the propriety of our inter ierenca I 
 maintain that the/ should go to the 
 Legislature of Quebec for incorporation 
 in Quebec, and to the Legislature ot 
 Ontario for incorporation in Ontarioy. 
 and as Mr. Marshall and the hon. 
 member for East Hastings (Mr* 
 White) have said, fight their bat- 
 tle there ; and if popular feeling is 
 ultimately with them, they will get their 
 incorporation, and if it should remain 
 against them, they must content themr 
 selves without it. , 
 
 MR. BLAKE OPPOSED TO STATU RECOONITIOKt 
 OF SECRET SOCIETIES. 
 
 But it is not only upon this 
 ground that I personally am op- 
 posed to this Act of incorporation. I 
 entertain views on the point to which I 
 ^m about to address myself, which, I 
 dare say, are shared only by a small 
 minority in this House, but none the leas 
 do I entertain them. I Mm oj)posed ti> c^"' 
 State recognition of secret societies. 1 
 
^ 
 
 >■- 
 
 
 do not oare how good their purposes, 
 Or what their objects may be ; I believe it 
 is a mistake to lay down the principle 
 that any secret society should be recog- 
 nized by the State. I think secret, 
 oath-bound societies are, so far as that 
 point may be brought fairly into ques- 
 tion in this case — though I agree that 
 we are to decide it upon our own notions 
 of what is right — I say that such soci«- 
 ties are conti-ary to the spirit of English 
 law as to recognized societies. I know 
 they are contrary to the Quebec criminal 
 law. Now, the Quebec criminal law is 
 not to be modified by a private BiU in 
 this House. Wehavepowerto modify, or 
 repeal, or to amend it ; and an hon. gen- 
 tleman has before us a BDI for its 
 amendment, upon which I hope to have 
 the opportunity, if it comes to a 
 second reading, of pointing out 
 what I understand to be the true principles 
 of action in cases of that description; 
 but I say that the Province of Quebec 
 cannot complain if we propose to amend 
 or modify any portion of the criminal 
 law, simply because that portion of the 
 law is exclusively Quebec law at this 
 moment ; for we alone have the power — 
 they have not the power to deal with it. 
 But the way to deal with the criminal 
 law is to amend or repeal it by a general 
 Act; and having amended or repealed it 
 .to such an extent, if you think fit, as 
 will make this a legal society, as would 
 make it legal to have such a society in 
 the country, then to proceed to pass your 
 private Bill authorizing that corpomte 
 entity to be created which is no longer 
 contrary to the law of the land. It seems 
 to me to be unprecedented and certainly 
 very inconvenient that we should repeal 
 a general criminal law pro tanto by the 
 creation of a private corporation ; because 
 nobody can doubt that this private Bill, by 
 which we set up the Orange society, by 
 which we allow it to continue to extend 
 the number of its lodges, and so on; by 
 which we give it incorporation and State 
 recognition, by which we it give power to 
 hold property — nc.body can doubt, I say 
 that it comes within the criminal law of 
 Quebec. Now that is no way to escape 
 
 from the operation of the criminal law. 
 A measure might be brought down, as 
 one was brought dovm in the other 
 Chamber last Session, dealing with the 
 criminal law on the general principles on 
 which it is thought that it should be 
 dealt with. I still adhere to the view, 
 which I have expressed in thia 
 House on previous occasions, that 
 unless under the greatest pressure of 
 obvious necessity, we should pass com- 
 mon laws for all parts of the I^ominion, 
 in respect to those common interests with 
 which we are charged. I conceive it to be 
 an anomaly — perhaps justified in special 
 circumstances, and only to be justified 
 by special and obvious circumstances 
 — that there should be one criminal 
 law for one part of the Dominion, 
 and another criminal law ior another 
 part ; and therefore I think it is 
 fitting that a law should be brought 
 down on the subject of secret societies, 
 making such portions of the Quebec law 
 as it may be deemed fit to retain on the 
 Statute Book, general, and modifying, in 
 the sense which I shall take another 
 opportunity of pointing out, such parts 
 as are not deemed fit to be retained. But 
 it is putting the cart before the horse to 
 legalize, by a private Bill, and vote aut 
 of the operation of the subsisting criminal 
 law, one institution. Your law should 
 be amended first on general principles; 
 and then if you find that the institution is 
 one which you can legally incorporate, 
 you may proceed to give it incorporation. 
 Now, as I have said, I am not in favour of 
 State recognition of any secret societies. X 
 have never joined one, though many of 
 my best friends are members of secret 
 societies which are, as "this professes 
 to be, benevolent — secret societies which 
 do not meddle at all with political topics. — 
 secret societies whose real action, so far 
 as one of the public can know, is not 
 inconsistent -with, and does not go beyond 
 the avowed purposes of their association. 
 But I believe the tendency of secrecy 
 itself to be injurious. I believe that it 
 brings with it the possibility of evil; I 
 believe that it involves « certain timount 
 of sacrifice of individuality and indepeu- 
 
denoe and gives verygre»t facilities for the j iriven so much cause for trouble, and hu' 
 misleading of members by designing I miliation and difficulty, to the, Parliament 
 
 leaders — very great and mischievous 
 facilities for that puri)08e. That is my 
 general proposition with reference to 
 secret, oath -bound societies, a point on 
 which, I dare say, as I said before, I am 
 in a small minority; for 
 vast bulk of at least 
 
 of England and to the English people 
 throughout the world. When you remem- 
 ber the Ribbon Society, the Phoenix 
 Society, the Fenian Society, all the other 
 societies of this class to which I have 
 I suppose the i 'referred, you will seo very easily what 
 the Pi-ot^stant '< immense possibilities of evil there are in 
 
 members of this House belong to one or i the attribute of secrecy. Now, Sir, this ia 
 other of those societies; and 1 do not wish I a view which ia shared by many 
 to be understood as saying that these ; who have thought on this subject. I 
 mischievous tendencies are carried out ! met, the other day, in a book which Mr. 
 in many of those societies, the operations ! A. M. Sullivan has not \onfr, since written, 
 of which, so far as I know, are beneficial. ! an observation which dtruck me as 
 But these things are to be dealt with on i being so pregnant that I shall trouble the 
 general principles; and I maintain that | House with it. He says: 
 
 secrecy is in itself a bad thing; and if 
 societies are beneficial they are be- 
 neficial in spite of, and not because 
 of this element of secrecy. Now 
 there are, of course, three attitudes which 
 
 "I had not studied in vain the history of 
 secret oath- bound associations. I regarded 
 them with horror. I knew all that could be 
 said as to their advantagea in revolutionizing 
 a country, but even in the firmest and best of 
 
 the State can take towards these societies, I ha^<3f.they had a direct tendency to demor 
 . , , . . ... , * alization, and were often, on the whole, more 
 
 that 18, suppression, recognition, and neu- I p^j-ijous [o society, than open tyranny." 
 trality. And 1 maintain that, unless a ; 
 
 society l:»e one for an obviously bad pur I That is the statement of a very eminent 
 age and under our circum- | man who was actively engaged ii an 
 
 agitation for what he believes, and what 
 many of us believe, would be the ameliora- 
 tion of the condition of the Irish people. 
 He saw what an important agency these 
 societies would be ; but he saw also from a 
 sad personal experience, and from his own 
 observation, what evil and demoralizing 
 tendencies they have. The difficulty as 
 to State recognition is this — ^it is essen- 
 tial ; you camiot get rid of it , it is in the 
 circumstance that the society is secret 
 — you cannot determine how far, 
 being secret, it may depart from 
 its professed and avowed objects ; how far, 
 being secret, it may go, in what direction 
 it may travel ; how far, being ostensibly a 
 religious and benevolent, it may become a 
 political society and not benevolent or 
 religious ; how far, being loyal, it. may go 
 in the opposite direction, as we know 
 professedly loyal societies have gone in 
 days gone by — how far this may be the 
 case, you cannot determine ; and, therefore, 
 I BSLj that State recognition ought 
 not to be given to secret, oath- 
 bound societies. You camiot tell 
 
 pose, in tnis age ana under our circum- 
 stances, the only jourse to take is not to 
 suppress, not to recognize, but to occupy 
 a neutral position with reference to it; 
 not to interfere one way or the other, 
 not to give State recognition, not to 
 attempt — .vhat is in most cases a fruit- 
 less attempt — suppression. Those who 
 talk of the benefits of secret societies 
 have, I think, read the history of early 
 and of later periods, and of very late 
 periods especially, on the continent 
 of Europe, in the United Kingdom and 
 in the United States, after a fashion in 
 which I have not read it. I believe that 
 a great deal of the trouble, social and 
 political, that has occurred* in those 
 countries is due to secret societies ; 
 and I think that we who hail 
 from one or other of the quarters of the 
 United Kingdom, we who are doubly 
 interested in the peace, prosperity and con- 
 tentment of each one of the three United 
 Kingdoms, must have marked from early 
 days what a baneful influence secret socie- 
 ties have had upon that part of the Unit- 
 ed Kingdom which, unfortunately has 
 

 •vhat sort of tyranny may not be 
 'Exercised by them. lb is in the nature 
 of these societies to become tyrAnnical 
 and despotic. OpennesH aud public dis- 
 cussion are the great guarantees of 
 order, freedom, fairness and moderation. 
 It is in private gatherings of men all 
 0i one turn of thought, all of one 
 opinion, that bitterness and misrepresen- 
 tation and malignity revel and hold high 
 carnival It is just there that you are 
 sure to have «he very worst of that 
 description of difficulty which exists too 
 commonly even in all our public life, 
 and which is tempered only in so far 
 as our discussions are open, in the 
 prdsence of the world, and of men 
 of different opinions. It may be 
 that in oppressed countries, despot- 
 ically goveroed, secret societies are 
 a melancholy necessity. It is pos- 
 sible. T do not ad'riit it ; but it 
 may be so. They may be the only recourse 
 of those countries which are aspiring to 
 freedom. But that is not the condition 
 of the people of this country. ' There is 
 nothing here that we want, there is no 
 amelioration of our condition that we 
 desire, which we are not free to propose in 
 public gathering, upon which we are not 
 tree to engage in public discussion. If 
 we believe that those of a particular creed 
 amongst us entertain sentiments not 
 merely erroneous in point of dogmatic 
 religion (which has nothing to do with 
 the question) but sentiments hostile to 
 the Constitution or dangerous to social 
 order, we have a right to say so, a right 
 to resist them, a right to challenge their 
 opinions, and to challenge them to ex- 
 press their opinions. But we have no 
 right, because we have no necessity, to 
 engage for these purposes in secret socie- 
 ties, which, as I have indicated, have often 
 been the fruitful mothers of malig- 
 oity, misrepresentation and bigotry. 
 THe Bill, however, goes much further 
 than simply giving the right to hold 
 property. As I have said ; it gives 
 State recognition ; it gives a cor- 
 porate existence. For this purpose it in- 
 vokes the Interpretation Act; and the 
 iast clause gives this society power to 
 
 carry on its work. It is true, the preamble 
 of the Bill has bf^on altered. Last SessioM 
 it said that the society wanted power 
 to carry on its work; this year it does not 
 say so; but the clauses, so far as I oan 
 understand them, aie the same ; and 
 although the preamble does not propose vo 
 give the power, the clauses do. The 
 Interpretation Act gives power? whidi, 
 perfectly legitimate, in fact, absolutely 
 eseential to an ordinary business corpora- 
 tion, are powers which yet may be open 
 to some misconception and misuse in 
 the case of a secret society, such as 
 this, for whe propagation of opinion. 
 There is a power on the part of the ma- 
 jority over the minority. While that is 
 necessary in the case of an ordinary cor- 
 poration, in the case of a society like this, 
 tor the propagation of opinion, a clause of 
 that description is likely to enable the 
 majority to exercise tyranny over the 
 minority. There is also given freedom 
 from individual responsibility, which im 
 quite proper in the case of ordinary busi- 
 ness corporations; but, once again, peon- 
 liar force is given to this proviwon ; 
 in the case of this organization, 
 which we incorporate according to tiie 
 rules and constitution in the schedule, 
 and to which we give powOT t« 
 alter its constitution as it pleases here- 
 after. Of course, I know, that there IB 
 the criticism that this may be amended 
 in Gommittee, but it is necessary to refer 
 to it We are asked to incorporate an 
 institution, with power to alter its con- 
 stitution as it pleases, and to give what* 
 ever powers it pleases to its offioem , 
 afterwards ; but we do not know wliai 
 those alterations may be, as the veil of 
 secrecy conceals its acts ; and yet thero 
 is to be n» individual responsibility for 
 them. 
 
 THE ORANGE SOCIETY ALMOST WHOUtT 
 POLITICAL IN ONTARIO. 
 
 Now, my hon. friend from Huron allvded 
 to a point which met with ^ome cries of 
 denial at first ; but I did not observei,* 
 when he came to be answered, that hkt 
 proptMsition was seriously dbaU^iged. H» 
 
i 
 
 '. /♦ >4' »l»«.t,r 
 
 /..■l*''J; 
 
 allQclecl to tlie propointidn that the pur 
 poses of this society were almost wholly 
 political. I um not going to discuBs how 
 the Orange society works in the other 
 Provinceaof the Dominion ; I donotknow 
 how ti works in the other Provinces ; I 
 do no tknow how far it is true to the pro 
 fessed objects of the institution, or how fir 
 it goes beyond < hem ; I do not know 
 whether it attemjts objects peculiarly 
 political Of' not ; but I tliink I speak of 
 what I do know, when I say that my 
 hon. friend's observation as to Ontario 
 is perfectly correct ; and I think the cir- 
 eumstance that, after being met with 
 those cries of denial, when an answer was 
 attempted to be msuie to his argument, 
 this statement was not denied, is suifi- 
 «ient proof of that. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings). He said 
 that Orarigemen were expelled for voting 
 for the Reform party. I deny that. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I do not know how that 
 may be; but I shall furnish the hon. 
 gentleman some information on that 
 point before I am done, I maintain that 
 the order is political in Ontario, and I 
 »y that the objections to State recogni- 
 tion of secret societies are doubly strong 
 -in point of fact, they receive their chief 
 -ritality, when they are applied to secret 
 political organizations. In politics, if 
 anywhere, it is in open discussion 
 only that there is safety, in 
 opon attack and defense, in public 
 charges and public answers. Why, 
 many of us believe, and, I am sure, most 
 of us would gladly agree — if it were 
 Ipracticable ; I do not think it is — many 
 lof us believe that the greatest boon would 
 |be conferred upon the public if you could 
 i^bolish private canvassing, if you could 
 ige that the only mode of canvassing 
 rovld be to meet the electors of both 
 ides openly at public meetings and there 
 ivow your principles and define your 
 itiona Why ? Because we know 
 it a private canvass gives oppor- 
 ities for statements which suit the 
 itical complexion of the person ad- 
 beoaube we know that it gives 
 >portumties for private statemeata df the 
 'Mtioal faith of the candidates and for 
 
 private assaults upon thepolitical faithand 
 standing of an opponent, and that it is ia 
 every way objectionable. I believe my- 
 self that publicity is the very breath of ^ 
 freedom in politics ; and I have not hesi- \ 
 tated to declare that, though I voted for 
 the ballot as essential to freedom, I wa» 
 never able to reconcile myseli to the idea 
 that we should always be obliged to poll 
 our votes secretly ; because I believe it 
 would be a very great advance if the day- 
 should come, when we could believe that 
 to all our people an open vote would be a 
 free vote. It is only because there are 
 cases where an open vote is not a free 
 vote, that I yielded to the ballot as a 
 necessity, and in order that the vote 
 mij^ht be free. Apart from that, I believe 
 the effect of the ballot itself to be inju- 
 rious rather than advantageous. To 
 bear out what I have said, with reference 
 to secret political organizations, I shall 
 give you an instance in my own career. 
 The first time I entered public life, in 
 1867,' I was contesting two counties, one 
 for the Local and one foi this House, 
 They were from 200 to 260 miles apart, 
 and I had to run from one to the other in 
 the course of my canvass. At a certain 
 point, shortly before I left the South 
 Riding of Bruce, to go -down to 
 West Durham, I found that a. secret ' 
 canvass was being made against me, 
 promoted by this religious and benevo- 
 lent association. One form of this canvass 
 w»» a cry to the effect that my father was 
 the man who had shot Col. Moody, ia 
 1837 ; the other wasa personal cry that I 
 myself was a Roman Catholic. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. (Hastings). That 
 must have been a Grit Orangeman. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Having been informed 
 beyond a particle of doubt, that the09 
 statements were being circulated in the 
 South Riding on behalf of the Orange 
 organization, at the last meeting there^ 
 knowing there were men in the room who 
 were circulating these stories, I, without 
 repeating them, called upon those who had 
 made them, called upon anybody to come 
 forward and state anything derogatory 
 either to my ibther or myself, and I 
 would answer then and there. Brtt nooe 
 
''K^r'ujA'' filii'iui 
 
 It 
 
 of them would come forward. I called 
 on them three times at a public meeting ; 
 but although the circulatoi's of these 
 calumnies were present, they would not 
 come forward. In the West Biding of 
 > Durham, the same private canvass was 
 going on, the same course was taken, the 
 Sfljne precise calumnies were being cir- 
 culated ; and when I came to thatKidiag 
 I was asked how about this and how about 
 that ; but I declined to deny things which 
 no man would venture publicly to state. 
 That is the evil of a private canvass, and 
 especially of a private canvass conducted 
 through the medium of a secret society. 
 Do I object to this society because it is a 
 political organization ? Not at all. I ap- 
 prove of political organizations. I believe 
 in political organizations which are public, 
 which are avowedly political organiza- 
 tions, and are not afraid to declare them- 
 selves as such ; but I do not beliave in 
 secret political organizations, or in 
 political organizations, secret or other- 
 ' wise, which act under the guise of 
 religion and philanthropy. I do not 
 ■ object to this society because the 
 ^ majority of its members are opposed to 
 V me in political opinion. That is no reason 
 ( for objecting to it. They have as good a 
 right to their opinions as I have to mine, 
 and their right to hold theirs is as dear to 
 me as is mine tohold mine. As I hold mine 
 by the same tenure as they huld theirs, and 
 as I would not part, for any consideration, 
 with the free right to hold mine, I hold 
 their right equally dear. But if that 
 political organization is opposed to me, I 
 want to meet its members as such, and 
 not as members ofa religious and charitable 
 society. Our religious opinions should be 
 held entirely separate from our political 
 leanings. No greater calamity can befall 
 a community than when the cleavage of 
 political parties is coincident with the 
 cleavage of religious bodies. That is a 
 great calamity and misfortune. I am 
 anxious that, whatever our creedd or re- 
 ligious opinions . may be, we should feel 
 that they have nothing whatevar to do 
 with our political opinions, and that we 
 Bh*uld agree or differ on political ques 
 tions entirely in'eBpective of the faith we 
 
 may happen to hold on religions ques-. 
 tions. The mere you set up, as a combi*t; 
 nation, a great Protestant society, which 
 is also a great political association, the/ 
 more you make coincident, or strive to" 
 make coincident, the lines of division 
 for the religious and the political con- 
 victions of the people, and act dh-ectly in, 
 the teeth of what I believe to be for the - 
 benefit of the State. Our political dif- - 
 ferences are bitter enough, without intro- 
 ducing into them religious diflferences, and 
 if the odium tJieologicum, which is^ known 
 to be so bitter, is to be accentuated by 
 political differences, it will become in- 
 tolerable. Let us endeavour then not to i 
 make co'mcident the lines of division for 
 political and religious opinions. Yet this 
 society, which under the gUise of religion, 
 and benevolence, is in Ontario largely and 
 chiefly political in its power and efficacy, is 
 doing this very thing, which I believe to 
 be for the public evil and not for the public 
 good. I do not propose to refer, iu sup- 
 port of my views, as to the political com- . 
 plexion of this society in Ontario, to 
 anything very ancient. I do not pro- 
 pose to refer even to things so ancient 
 as those to which the hon. member 
 for the West Riding of Huron (Mr. Cam- 
 eron) referred. It is enough for me to 
 refer to quite recent transactions. The 
 hon. member for Hastings (Mr. White), 
 made a speech in the town of Wood- 
 stock on the twelfth of July last ; 
 and in thab speech he made some very 
 amusing allusions to the secret history of 
 the conduct of this BOl. In the course 
 of these statements, he took a line which I 
 want to point out, and proved what I 
 have declared with reference to this 
 society being really and substantially a 
 political organization. He said : — 
 
 "The Bill and its requirements were put 
 before the people of the Domimon, but, be- 
 fore the second reading came on, unfortun- 
 ately mistakes were made. He wa3 not 
 going to find a great deal of fault with the 
 Roman Catholics, or with the Reformers ; 
 but, so far as our own people were concerned, 
 as Conservatives and Orangemen, they were 
 not as anxious as they should have been. Ho 
 would say to them, so far as the Reformen 
 of O&nada were couoemed, they Bhoold not 
 
% 
 
 forget the fact that nine-tenths of the mem- 
 bers of the Orange society in the Prorince of 
 Ontario belonged to the Conservative party." 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings). Suppose 
 they do. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Well, suppose they 
 do. I am sorry for it, but I do suppose 
 it. I am merely showing that this is a 
 political organization. 
 
 Mr. FARROW. That does not prove 
 it. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. If that does not prove it 
 to the hon. member for Huron, I despair 
 of proving it to him. I do not addi-ess 
 the remainder of these reiLdrks to the 
 hon. gentleman: 
 
 *'He thought, in iustice, according to Re- 
 form principles, they should have passed 
 over any little wrongs which they might have 
 suffered in the past, and have voted for the 
 Orange Incorporation Bill. He wished it 
 had been so, and, if they had done it, he 
 was satisfied that at the next election the 
 Orangemen would have divided, and have 
 gone m more for men and measures, and 
 not so strongly for party." 
 
 " And not so strongly for party." That 
 is the hon. gentleman's description of the 
 character of the Orange organiza- 
 tion in Ontario, that they had in the past 
 gone very strong for party, and that in 
 the future they might have mended their 
 ways and gone more for men and mea- 
 sures. And that is not a party organiza- 
 tion ! 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings) Those are 
 good words. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. They are very good 
 worda I wish they would be made good: 
 
 " Mr. Bunting went to Ottawa; he worked 
 day and night for the Bill; he told the 
 Frenchmen that if they did not pass the 
 measure they would be doing an act of great 
 injustice. He spoke to Sir Hector Langevin, 
 to Sir John A. Macdonald, and other mem- 
 bers of the Cabinet on the subject. He re^ 
 f erred them to the general Rupport which the 
 ConservRtive party had always received at 
 the hands of the Orangemen." 
 
 Sur JOHN A. MACDONALD. Hear, 
 
 hear. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Oh ! it is not a politi- 
 cal association ; but it gives a general 
 support to the Conservative party. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Haatings). Those are" 
 very good words; I am not ashamed of 
 them. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE : 
 
 « He (Ut. White; thanked Mr. Bunting 
 for the noble assistance he gave them during- 
 that time of trial, assistance which they 
 hoped would yet result in triumph. In con- 
 versation, along with twenty other gentle-f a 
 men, with Sir Hector Langevin, Mr. Bunting'' 
 said; 'Sir Hector, we must have incorpora- 
 tion.' What was the reply? Sir Hector saidf ' 
 *So far as incorporation is concerned, I per- 
 sonally wish you to have it, but J am opposed 
 to all secret societies, because my Church is 
 opposed to them. I like to see the Conser- 
 vative party prosperous, but I like the pros- 
 perity of my Church better than that of the 
 Conservative party. My bishops and priests 
 tell us, the members of the Church, not to 
 vote for and support any such societies.* Mr. 
 Bunting, in reply, said ; 'That is a great mis- 
 take, for there are no men on earth more 
 anxious to do justice to all parties, and to 
 give your Church any mcorporation it may 
 require for its benefit, than the Orangemen. *■ 
 In his (Mr. White's) opinion, Sir Hector Lan- 
 gevin would find out that he had committed 
 a great mistake; for, if ever he obtained the 
 leadership of any government in this coun- 
 try, it would be impossible for him to hold 
 it without the assistance and co-operation of 
 the Orange society. " 
 
 I 'Theirs," said the hon. gentleman .warm- 
 ing into enthuaiasm towards the perora- 
 tion, 
 
 " Theirs was a great organization ; let it be 
 good, prudent and cautious ; and he said as 
 a Conservative, remember the next general 
 election, if we 'do not succeed in getting jus- 
 tice before that time, judge each man by hia 
 deeds. They should take a leaf out of Arch- 
 bishop Lynch's book. The Orange Society 
 were in a position to rule the whole country 
 if they were only true to themselves." 
 
 Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman also 
 delivered an oration at Hamilton. Three 
 cheers were given tor "Sir John" at a parti- 
 cular period of the meeting, and the hon. 
 gentleman folloved up the cheers by 
 saying : 
 
 "He," (Sir John) "was as true and as 
 consistent a friend to the Orange Bill as any 
 meinbel- in the House. There was a propo- 
 sition made that the Bill should bo with- 
 drawn, or at least a Bill granted to all the 
 different Provinces, with ihe exception of 
 
m 
 
 trie Province of Quebec Sir John said to 
 Mm, * Mr. White, don't accept that, for if 
 you do it will only bring disgrace on your 
 society. Better have the Bill carried for the 
 whole Dominion, but don't disgrace your- 
 aelvea by deserting the worthy members of 
 your order in the Province of Quebec' 
 THbose were good words, and he was satisfied 
 that nothing in the world would have given 
 Sir John Macdonald. greater pleasure than 
 •handing the Incorporation Bill to the Gov- 
 ernor for his sanction, because Sir John was 
 satisfied in his own mind that nine-tenths of 
 the Orange members belonged to the Con- 
 ieervative party. " 
 
 "Wky, I see the hon. member is amused. 
 1 thought I would amuse him, 
 
 Mr, WHITE (Hastings). That speech 
 •jof mine, which he is reading, is the best 
 |)art of the hon. gentleman's speech. 
 
 Mr. BLAKK My proofs are always 
 ehe best part of my speeches, and this Is 
 any proof : 
 
 '-. " Supposing Sir Hector Langevin were the 
 leader of a great party, and in its ranks 
 there was a society which was as true to 
 Mm as the Orange society had been to Sir 
 John Macdonald, he would go to Sir John 
 and say: Mt is necessary, in the interests of 
 our party, that this society, which is loyal to 
 *he Queen, to the Constitution and to the 
 •country, should have an Act of Incorpora- 
 tion. ' Sir John would have answered : 
 ' Yes, with all my heart, you shall have it. ' 
 The Prime Minister was leading a party 
 that was fair and just, while Sir Hector 
 Langevin was leading a party that was bound 
 liana and foot to the Church of Rome, 
 ■which possessed a grasping disposition, taking 
 ■everything and givmg nothing." 
 
 Well, then, the hon. gentleman had 
 occasi< n to speak of the Mini8t.-r of Cus- 
 toms, and, after giving him a very great 
 laudation for the mode in which he exe- 
 •cuted his office, he said : 
 
 "Orangemen had looked forward and 
 expected him to speak on the second reading 
 of the Bill, and in not doing so he (Mr. 
 White) thought he had made a great mistake. 
 Tliey were proud of hi'ii when he stood up 
 in the Commons Chamber and got Kiel 
 expelled from it; when he took the step of 
 bringing the first Commoner, Mr. Speaker 
 Anglin, to the Bar of the House to answoi 
 for his violation of the law which he helped 
 to pass — the Independence of Parliament 
 Act. He (Mr White) did not know why the 
 iiudBtor of Custonu did not addrew the 
 
 House on the second reading of the bill, Wl 
 he was confident that Mr. Bowell would f«fc 
 retrieve the lost grotmd, and stand b«fo«» 
 them as he had in the post, a worthy and *^ 
 honoured member of the society. If he * 
 
 -made a mistake, they must not be toouneh*- 
 ritable with lum, they must bear patientfar 
 with him, and he was confident that, s 
 the time came again, and the privilege was 
 allowed to Mr. Bowell, ,he womd stand w» 
 and speak for the Orange Incorporation Bil^ 
 even if he lost his seat in the Cabinet" 
 
 if 
 Well, Sir, so far for the hon. gentlema%.<! 
 
 the member of Hastings. But there mp6 
 some other recent proofs of the politioal 
 character of this religious and benevolenii 
 organization, so far as it is managed m 
 Ontario. Brother Marshall, to whom I 
 already alfdded, who occupies a higk 
 position in the order, and who was witk 
 the hon. gentleman at Winnipeg, said: ^;,' 
 
 •The question was asked how they alwi^ 
 voted Tory; and the answer was beoaiMi 
 that party had befriended them." ^^ 
 
 You fee the statement is "they always 
 voted Tory;" but they are not a politioil 
 organization ! At the Grand Lodgtt 
 meeting at St. Catharines, the Grant 
 Master, Mr. Merrick, who is also iT 
 member of the Local Legislature, said: ; 
 
 "I hope it will teach us a lesson for owt 
 future conduct not to trust to a mere politiodl 
 party as such, but to support and work witk 
 our best energies for those who will support 
 and work for us; and then, no doubt, we wiE 
 be able to say, with the Grand Master of 
 New South Wales: 
 
 " ' In connection with the recent Parliament 
 ary elections, we find that in every locality, 
 throughout the various electorates, when a 
 lodge was in operation the chosen candidate 
 of the lodge received the greater number of 
 vo^ies. ' " 
 
 But it is not a political organization I 
 Then, Mr. Johnston, at the same meet- 
 ing said : 
 
 " The Brethren should endeavour to mak« 
 the association less of a politicai organization, 
 and more of a religious and Denevolemk 
 association." 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings.) How would 
 that suit you 1 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. That would suit dm 
 very well ; but I do not peroeire that th« 
 hon. gentleman u " a doing of it," Sir. 
 
wW 
 
 Then '^there was a grand meeting of the 
 Triennial C ai lil in England, at which 
 Canadian delegates were present, ia- 
 olading Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bennett. 
 Speeches were made by Mr. Bennett and 
 others ; and some of them indicated the 
 condition of the order in another colony, 
 and so far are not uninteresting. Mr. 
 Neale, who represented New Zealand, 
 Sonth Australia and Queensland, spoke, 
 and said: 
 
 " The last general election was the grand- 
 «eet triumph for Orangeism ever witnessed 
 m New South Wales. We gained no leas 
 ^an twenty-eight seats in the Colonial Par- 
 liament ; and a very large number of the 
 other members were returned through the 
 Orange vote, aud only eight Romaniata suc- 
 ceeded in gaining admissiun." 
 
 That was the statement which these Can- 
 adian delegates heard, and which shows 
 the condition of things, and the way the 
 order is worked in New South Wales. 
 At that meeting Mr. Bennett was pre- 
 sent representing Ontario, and he made 
 ithis statement : 
 
 " I may also tell you that we have in our 
 ■country an Orange paper, and we have found 
 it to have a beneficial an 1 magical effect, be- 
 <^ause divided as the Protestants are in the 
 country into two political parties, each of 
 Ihese parties bidding for the Romanist vote, 
 ■m that the organs of tbese political parties 
 dare not, for fear of offending the Roman 
 Oatholics, say anything in favor of Orange- 
 ism — having a paper of our own, we not 
 only get all the Orange news from all parta 
 of the world, bat have an organ, not only to 
 put forth our views to the country, but to 
 Tcpel all attacks that may be made on us by 
 the Roman Catholic and Jesuit press of the 
 country." 
 
 80 that you find, Sir, tht , the Order is 
 a political organization and that in Ontario, 
 at the present day, by the confession of its 
 leading men, though it comes here claim- 
 ing incorporation as a religious and be- 
 nevolent association, the guise in which 
 £t appeals to its friends, and tho voice with 
 which it speaks to those whom it asks to 
 anppert it, are politioal. They 8*y they 
 are a political organization. They vote 
 almost unitedly one way; they are a 
 party political organization. Nor, Sir, 
 is it to be wondered at, for ve all know 
 
 that in both the great branches from 
 which the order Bprinjfs, the Irish Grand 
 Lodge, and the English Grand Lodget, 
 the order was for a great many yeam^ 
 and I believe is still, political. I do not 
 intend myself to attempt any accovnfc 
 of the origin, and still less of the pro- 
 gress and work of the Irish lodges; but I 
 intend to read a brief extract from a letter 
 written by Sir Francis Uincks, a few 
 years ago, in which he says : 
 
 " I have read in many newspapers, as 
 
 as in the sermon of the Re v. Mr. Doudie^ a 
 similar expression of opinion; that the csiuw 
 of offence to Irish Roman Catholics is the 
 celebration of the anniversary of the Battle 
 of the Boyne. I believe that those who en- 
 tertain this opinion are under a complete 
 delusion, from which it is most desirable 
 that they should be freed. Irish Roman 
 Catholics would never have resented the 
 celebration of au ordinary victory, but the 
 Battle of the Boyne was the first of a aeries 
 of victories which led to the complete 8ubja-> 
 gation of Catholic Ireland to Protestant 
 Great Britain, and the effectof tbat subjusa- 
 tion waa that a Protestant minority, settled 
 chiefly in one of the four Provinces of Ir*- 
 land, was enabled to rule a Roman CathoUo 
 majority in the three other Provinces, with 
 a rod of iron, durinjr the eighteenth century, 
 
 " The motto of the Protestant minoritj 
 for years before the Orange lodges came into 
 existence, was 'Protestant Ascendency,' aod 
 this was maintained by penal laws, every 
 amelioration of which laws waa resisted by 
 Orangemen with all the vigor for which they 
 have ever been distinguished. When if ■ 
 borne in mind tha*.. for nearly a century 
 after the Battle of tne Boyne, no Roman 
 CathoUc could eitker be elected or vote for a 
 member of Parhament, that no Roman 
 CathoUc could be a lawyer or a soUcitor, 
 that no Roman Catholic could keep arms, 
 that his children could not be educated, a: l 
 that his clergy were proscribed, that no 
 Roman Catholic could own a borse worth 
 over £5; when it is further borne in mind 
 that every amelioration of those penal laws 
 was gradually extorted from the Protestant 
 minority, which waa alone reprasented la 
 the Irish Parliament, by the influence of 
 English statesmen, who, oiffering upon othor 
 questions, were nearly all favorable 
 to the gradual repeal of the penal 
 statutes: when, I say, all this 
 is considered, it is not difficult to nndeiv 
 atand thi} hatred that is felt by Irish Catbolioi 
 to an inatitation whose dintingni»hing pn»« 
 
at 
 
 U '^ 
 
 ciple Is ' Protestant ascendency,' and whose 
 members habitually proclaim their adher- 
 ence to this principle by tlieir flags and party 
 tunes—' Protestant Boys,' and * Croppies lie 
 dowH.'" 
 
 Sir Francis Hincks goes on to point out 
 the continued political operations of the 
 Irish Orangemen, with reference to Catho- 
 lic emancipation, and with referrice to 
 Church disestablishment, as showing their 
 active operation as a political body, up to 
 a comparatively i-ecent period. He pro- 
 ceeds to point out that the Orange or- 
 ganization has existed in the Province of 
 Upper Canada, that there they were 
 opposed to certain reforms, the promo 
 ters of which they were pleased to call 
 disloyal ; and he shows that they 
 there also were a political organization. 
 So, Sir, with reference to the English 
 lodges ; you will find that, at a very early 
 day> in the enquiry that was made, as to 
 the Orange institution in Great Britain 
 and Ireland, not very long after^the order 
 had been instituted in England, the De- 
 puty CJratid Secretary was asked some 
 questions, and speaking of its true char- 
 acter, he answered as follows: 
 
 469. Question. It is statedhere, " as part of 
 a grand Conservative body, extending over 
 the whole kingdom, and having its head in the 
 Metropolis, the value of our provincial estab- 
 lishments is immenfe;"' will you state what is 
 meant by the advantage of having that gen- 
 eral, association all over the coimtry, the 
 head of the body beiijg in the Metropolis ; 
 did you mean by the Conservative body, the 
 Loyal Orange Institution ? — No, the institu- 
 tion that is known by the name of the Con- 
 B«rvative body or club. 
 
 470. This is issued under the sanction of 
 the Grand Master of the Empire. His Royal 
 Highness the Duke of Cumberland ? — Yes, 
 BO ic is ; but I should not hesitate to say it 
 had reference to Conservative Associations 
 more than Orange, but I consider the one as 
 interwoven with the other. 
 
 471 . Do you mean that commonly called 
 the Carlton Club?-- Yes. 
 
 472. WiU you state what is meant bv this: 
 " Lastly, it enables men possessing wealth 
 and patronage in their command to distin- 
 guish the true support of constitutional 
 principles, to reward merit and honestv 
 whenever it suffers oppression and distress;'' 
 by " it," do you mean the Loyal Orange In- 
 stitution ?— I should rather say, taken by sur- 
 
 prise as I am, that it must mean the Oonser- '^ 
 vative Institution; I have always considerecl 
 the two to be so interwoven, witli a differ- 
 ence of name, that it is of Uttle consequence. 
 
 473. You consider the Loyal Chrange 
 Association of the same nature and 
 identified with that called the Gari- 
 ton Club ? — Yes, I should con- 
 sider so, with this distinction, that the Orange 
 institution is a religious institution, and the 
 Carlton Club docs not profess to be so. Witb ; 
 respect to a person being a member of the. 
 Carlton Club, if, as a gentleman of some 
 rank and situation in life, he is eligible, they ' 
 never inquire I believe into his rehgion, 
 which is no exclusion; whilst I have no re- •■ 
 serve in saying rehgion i the first principle ■»>• 
 we look to in the Orange Institution; we fj, 
 exclude Papists, for instance, and we exclude 
 Jews. 
 
 476. Are you to be understood to say, '^'' 
 that you believe the Carlton Club and the ^ 
 Orange Institution are generally interwoven ^ 
 in their views, but you consider the Carlton . 
 Club more poUtical and the Orange Institu- 
 tion more religious ? — Yes. 
 
 Then, I think. Sir, that pretty effectually 
 proves that in the opinion of the De- ,^j 
 puty Grand Secretary, the Orange Insti- 
 tution and the Carlton Club were insti- 
 tutions of different names indeed but having §, 
 pretty much the same object. That is 
 also proved, practically, by the papers 
 which were produced at that time. 
 Amongst others, was the • report of the 
 Grand Secretary, in 1835, in which he ». 
 says : • - 
 
 4. Perhaps tlie way of all others, in which 
 Orangeism can be turned to the best account^ - 
 or can be rendered available to beneficial ob- 
 jects, is by a practical observance of its fun- 
 damental principles, when the executive 
 feels a necessity for making an appeal to the 
 sense of the nation. If, however, by an ab- 
 andonment, or by a compromise of those 
 tenets, for the maintenance of which they 
 profess to assemble, its members act so in- 
 consistently as to countenance those candi- 
 dates who avow their hostility to the Protes- 
 tant church and a free constitution, their 
 continuance with us must prove ruinous to 
 our cause. So obvious will this be to the 
 least ctdtivated mind, as to need no argu- 
 ment in support of the fact. 
 
 6. Since the mania of reform it may not 
 be foreign to the purpose to ol^erve, that no 
 small portion of the brethren have sunk into 
 the soft captivity of its delusion. Hence it 
 may not be superfluous to add, from repre- 
 
it 
 
 sentationB to the D.Q.S., t>oth orally and in 
 writing, that, in cUsregavd of the "obligation" 
 which ia so much their proud but empty 
 boast, a number of Orangemen have bestow- 
 ed their suffrages on persons well known to 
 be opposed to the establishments of the land, 
 and unfavorable to the existence of their 
 own body. So at variance is such conduct, 
 not merely with the spirit but with the let- 
 ters of the laws by wnich their movements 
 ought to be guided — so contrary was 
 it to the votes, no le«is from feeling 
 than from honor, which they are bound to 
 bave given — as to call for and demand their 
 dismiMal from a society, whose interest they 
 had betrayed and whose safety they had en- 
 dangered. As men, their indisputable right 
 to exercise the freedom of election would 
 never be questioned ; but as members 
 of an institution who associate for 
 the purpose of loyalty and for 
 the repudiation of sucn a liberalism of 
 sentiment, they ought to be restrained in so 
 anomalous a course, which is calculated to 
 cast a suspicion on the integrity of, to the 
 entailment of a degradation with a mixture 
 of contempt on, all belonging to it. 
 
 6. In illustration of the above, the D.GS. 
 has to offer an extract of a letter that he 
 received from the D.G.M. of Rochdale soon 
 after the election, than which nothing can 
 more strongly show the justness of the re- 
 marks he had previously put forth, in con- 
 demnation of so vile a departure from the 
 pure essence of sound Onngeism, as therein 
 18 reported to him thu.^ officially by that 
 functionary, viz ; 
 
 7. ** No doubt you have heard of the 
 triumph," says the writer, " we have gained 
 over tne Whig candidate, by the election of 
 John Entwistle, E9C[., of Foxholes, as the 
 representative of this borougK Yet after 
 obtaining the victory, I am not altogether 
 satisfied, as three of our members voted for 
 the Whig party, contrary to the principles 
 of our loyal institution. The names of the 
 persona who have gone gainst us are 
 Richard Simpson, of warrant 68 ; James 
 Whittles, 266; and John Crcssley, 302. The 
 brethren of my district call aloud for the ex- 
 pulsion of these offenders. For Crossley I 
 leel strongly, as he was compelled, by his 
 master, to vote contrary to his wishes. I 
 hope, therefore^ you will take his case into 
 your kind consideration, as I believe him to 
 be really a true Orangeman. I shall feel 
 obliged by your advice in vhat manner I 
 am to act under these circu.'^stances. At 
 l^e ensuing meetinc of the Qraud Lodge, I 
 "hope you will lay this case before its digni- 
 tanes. In the mean time I shall await your 
 answer with impatience." 
 
 8. Much credit ia due to the D. Q, M. oiT 
 Rochdale for his prompt report of these de- 
 linquents, as well as to the brethren of the 
 district for their just reprehension of char- 
 acters so unworthy of their fellowship. 
 Other accounts of a similar though of a less 
 specific colour, have been transmitted to 
 the D. Q. S., whose best attention to them 
 shall be especially given on his approaching 
 tour of general inspection. With the names 
 of the districts most disaffected he is well 
 acquainted, and those Masters who shall ap- 
 •pear to have connived at, nay, not to have 
 used strong efforts to prevent these offences, 
 may expect soon to be superceded in their 
 command. Such a desertion from principle 
 on the part of the brotherhood, and such a 
 dereliction of duty on the part of their 
 officers, at a conjuncture of peril too Ukethe 
 present, when the altar and the sceptre are 
 aUke in danger^ can no longer bo suffered to 
 pass with impunity. As an example, then, 
 to deter, rather than to punish, let the two 
 chief transgressors stand expelled, and the 
 one so unauly influenced be suspended. 
 
 11. The D. Q. S. has now to notice a 
 communication more in unison with the 
 feelings of Orangeism than the last, reflecting 
 no less honour on the D. G. M. of Barnsley 
 than upon the individuals to a man, over 
 whose proceedings that functionary has been 
 invested with a superintendence. Prior to 
 the late elections, tne officer, parading his 
 forces in a brief harangue analogized tue 
 rudiments in which they had been more than 
 traditionallv instructed since their enrolment 
 in our social bands. By the implied as well 
 as by the written laws, he reminded them 
 their actions ought to be governed on these 
 occasions, which was a theorem not to be 
 refuted. Hence while their cordial support 
 was due to candidates cherishing sentiments 
 congenial with conservative doctrines, they 
 were bound to withhold it from aspirants 
 entertaining ideas unfavorable to legitimate 
 designs. Indeed it was absolu'^ely imperative 
 on them as Orangemen to uphold persons 
 who were resolved on repairing, instead of 
 destroying our venerable monuments of an- 
 tiquity by unrighteous attempts to level them 
 with the dust. The consequences of this in- 
 genious step was, that the whole of the dis- 
 trict, with tnree hearty chcerSj declared their 
 readiness to vote in accordance with the pre- 
 cepts, in virtu»l sense, thus enjoined on them. 
 Such of the members as had no franchise to 
 exercise would most cheerfully, they said, 
 yield their assistance in any way best calcu- 
 lated to promote the good cause." 
 
 Such was the course of conduct pursued 
 in 1835 by the Loyal Orange Association 
 of Great Britain. 
 
aOMAH OATHOLIOB AT FIBST BLAMED FOB 
 DBFEATINO THE BILL. 
 
 With respect to this measure now before 
 the House: after its defeat last Session, 
 ftt first there was a disposition on the 
 part of the promoters to blame the 
 !Boman Catliolic Conserrative members 
 who opposed the Bill and to deal rather 
 lightly with Protestant Kelorraers. I 
 might refer to a speech which the hon. 
 member for East Hastings (Mr. White) 
 delivered in Ottawa, which the hon. 
 member for Montmagny (Mr. Landry) 
 read in this House, and whichis reported 
 in the Hansard of 1883. Irefer also to 
 a speech delivered by the hon. member 
 for East Hastings at "Winnipeg, when he 
 said: 
 
 •At the first reading, the Boman Catholic 
 Motion of the House had expressed consider- 
 able sympathy, but had been compelled to 
 oppose it, owing no doubt to instructions 
 received from the bishops and priests. No 
 conntrv could aflford to submit to the dic- 
 tates of bishops, priests or ministers of any 
 dfflaomination. The Reformers said very 
 little in the matter. The three Reform re- 
 presentatives from Manitoba acted nobly. 
 But the rest were undecided as to the action 
 they would take. He was advised to consult 
 Mr Blake, but refused, as that gentleman was 
 an Ultramontane Protestant. 
 
 "Many of the friends of the Order did not 
 act as they should have done. They forgot that 
 they owed their seats to Orangemen and were 
 afraid they would be killed if they supported 
 It, and he told them that they wotdd die any- 
 
 **The Oonservative party had not been as 
 true to the cause as they might, but his ad- 
 vice would be to test them again; and if the 
 Bill was defeated three times he would advo- 
 cate the ballot-box." 
 
 There you see, Mr. Speaker, the disposi- 
 tion to which I refer, to blame those 
 Boman Catholic members who .voted 
 against the Bill, and to deal rather 
 lightly, as the hon. gentleman did at 
 Ottawa, with Protestant Keformem. 
 Then Migor White said at Winnipeg: 
 
 " The association has not the influence it 
 fvg^t to have, becatise the members were not 
 feme to eadi other. The farethren should see 
 te it that in idl municipal and lagialative 
 kodiee they had man who wovld trdy repre- 
 
 sent them. In the past they had taken th» 
 broad view that a man's religion should not 
 be a bar to his political preferment; but the- 
 conduct of the Roman CathoUc members of 
 the House demonstrated that they could not 
 represent Protestants, much less Orange>^ 
 men," 
 
 There again, you see the same dispositiooi 
 — a disposition to blame the Komaa 
 Catholic Conservative members for not, 
 voting for the Bill, to declare that it wasi 
 a measure which they should have suppor- 
 ted, and to threaten them with general '"■' 
 ostracism in parliamentary and munics^ 
 pal matters. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. We will grant then* 
 absolution before next election. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I am glad the hon. 
 gentleman has the frankness and manli-> 
 ness to avow it. The of^cial organ of 
 the Orange body says: 
 
 " The bigotry displayed on Monday br 
 every French and Irish Roman Cathohc, 
 member of the House of Commons haa^ ? 
 however, opened o\ir eyes, and in future wer % 
 shall know how to act. As we said, although 
 the Reformers acted foolishly and UJiberaUyj 
 still we think, under the present state ol 
 Canadian politics, an excuse may be found 
 for their action, but none whatever can be . 
 oflfered for the course pursued by the Conser- > " 
 vative Roman Cathohcs, and upon thei*- ^ 
 shoulders, in the greatest measure, must rest 
 the onus of our defeat." 
 
 There again, you see the first line taken 
 by the promoters of the Bill — they were 
 prepared to charge the Roman Catholics, 
 whether Conservatives or Reformers, and 
 particularly Conservatives, with the onus 
 of the defeat of the Bill. The Sentind 
 says: 
 
 "For years past the Orangemen of tha 
 Dominion have under various political pre- 
 texts, and to meet the exigencies of political 
 parties^ been induced to support Roman 
 tiathohcs at the polls ; but the measure of 
 bigoted intolerance with which ourUberality 
 was met m the vote upon our Bill ^recludea 
 any possibility of this mistake agam occur* 
 ring." 
 
 The SerUinel goes on to say, withrespeol 
 to the leader of the Conservative party : 
 
 " The leader of the ConserTative party has 
 been charged with insincerity in his ^orti te 
 hare the Bill passed, and while we bdieT» 
 
d' 
 
 that personally he has acted with the greatest 
 oneerity towuxU us, and has used all his 
 influence to obtain foT us the ledress we 
 BOQ^ht, still we cannot close our eyes to the 
 fact that it is the first measure introduced 
 nnce 1878, with his approval and sympathy, 
 which has received such a weak support. " 
 
 Nowj Sir, that was the first start. That 
 was the way the promoters of this Bill 
 began to conduct the political campaign 
 towards procuring a second reading this 
 Session of the Orange Bill. After the de- 
 feat, they were honest enough to say that 
 they had not much to expect from the Re- 
 formers. They did say that ihey had a 
 righl- to expect from the Conservative Ro- 
 man Catholics their support of the Bill, 
 and they showed the true piinciples of their 
 leading men, in the observations I have 
 just now read, as to the ostracism they 
 proposed to pronounce on Roman Catho- 
 Mos generally, in consequence of the course 
 «f the Roman Catholic Conservatives 
 with reference to the Bill. I have said that 
 in Ontario the Orange Society is mainly a 
 political organization; and I say that it sub- 
 ordinates all other considerations — its 
 leaders causeit to subordinate all other con- 
 siderations — to the political and party 
 oonsideration. That is proved by the 
 oonrse which was pursued shortly after- 
 wards. Their tactics were changed, and 
 they seemed to think it would not do to 
 continue blaming the Roman Catholic 
 Tories for opposing the Bill; that 
 this might disturb their political 
 aUiances ; and, that they must 
 throw the odium on tho Pro- 
 teatant Liberals, and on me particularly, 
 as what they call an Ultramontane 
 Protestant. It would not do to 
 go on saying that the Roman Catholic 
 Conservatives had done wrong, and that 
 they must not return Roman Catholics 
 to Parliament, and the hon. gentleman 
 did not wait until the next election to 
 grant absolution. He granted absolution 
 at once, and he turned the condemna- 
 tion upon us, from whom, for a little 
 ■pace of time, he was just enough to say 
 Imb had no right to expect much. And 
 why was this done 1 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastingiik) Bead what 
 I kave 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I have read what 
 the hon. gentleman said — is he not satis- 
 fied 1 I cannot read all his speeches, but 
 I shall gratify him. There was a meeting 
 to which I have already referred held ia 
 Ottawa immediately after the defeat of 
 the Bill, at which an address was pre- 
 sented to him, and the address con- 
 tained the following paragraph : — 
 
 "From the proceedings in Parliament oil 
 the Oiaiige Incorporation Bill, we have 
 learned a bitter, but salutary lesson, and one 
 that will bear fruit in due season. While 
 we disclaim an intolerant spirit, we declare 
 that henceforth the Ejman Catholics must 
 be prepared to reap as they have sown, and 
 that if we are such disturbers of the peace as 
 they declare us to be, we will for the future 
 abstain from voting for them, and so deprive 
 them of the power to mortify us by refusing 
 to grant to us the same rights that we have 
 always cheerfully accorded to them." 
 
 The hon. gentleman's answer was aa 
 follows: 
 
 "Many Conservative members had asked 
 and begged of him not to ruin them, but he 
 told them that he would stand by the order 
 first. Another mistake was that of assisting 
 to elect a Frenchman in Russell aod and an 
 Irish Roman Catholic (Mr. Baskerville) in 
 Ottawa city, and he said he was now ashamed 
 of his actions; be hoped the Orangemen would 
 forgive him for asking them to vote for 
 Baskerville. There aie very few Hawkinses. 
 One Roman Catholic member of the House 
 whose name he did not wish to mention, said 
 to him 1 rivately : * How can we vote for this 
 Bill when the priest says he has power from 
 the Pope to damn those of his constituencies 
 who dare vote for a candidate for parliamen- 
 tary honours who would support such « 
 measure.' If the Conservatives would not 
 stand true to us, thtn let us be Reformers. 
 He likened them, at the present day, as being 
 between the devil and the deep sea— the 
 Roman CathoUcs aud the Reformers." 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Renfrew). One word; 
 I believe the hon.. gentleman is reading 
 from the Ottawa Free Press. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I am reading from 
 Hansard. I do not know where the report 
 was taken from, but it was read in the 
 House and the hon. gentleman did not 
 repudiate it. 
 
 " Be kindly praised the Reformen who 
 supported the BUI. He beUeved Mr. Elako 
 
18 
 
 had made ji mistake in voting against the 
 second reading. It was at that time, within 
 his grasp to have the united Orange vote of 
 Ontario." 
 
 THE LIBERALS BLAMED IN THE END. 
 
 Now, Sir, as I have said, the Tory poli- 
 ticians who lead and direct, and control 
 the bulk of the Orangemen of Ontario, 
 believed it would not do to continue the 
 battle with their own allies , and, as poli- 
 tics are the main ingredient, in their view 
 of the order ,a8 it is for the propagation of 
 their own party politics that they work the 
 order, they decided on taking another 
 course; and the fight which existed against 
 theBoman Catholic Oouservatives was put 
 to one side, and the guns were turned 
 against us. Sir, it reminds me of the 
 story of the Irish duel. The First 
 Minister with the hon. Minister of Cus- 
 toms on one side, and the hon. Minister 
 of Public Works with the hon. Minister 
 of Inland Revenue on the other, met in a 
 coflfee-room with hostile intent. • They 
 met to fight the battle to the bitter end ; 
 and the poor innocent fellow who was tak- 
 ing his breakfast upstairs, away by him- 
 self, was astonished by a bullet coming 
 through the floor and striking him in 
 the leg. He asks the waiter wlipt is go- 
 ing on, and he replies ;"Sure it is only Mr. 
 Moriarty and Captain O'Toole fighting 
 a duel, but thanks be to God they both 
 fired in the air." The gentleman upstaii-s 
 with the bullet in his leg did not thaik 
 Providence at all. This duel between the 
 iFirst Minister and the Minister of Cus- 
 toms on the one hand, and the Minister 
 of Public Works and the Minister of In- 
 land Revenue on the other ; this gi-eat 
 demonstration of hostility, of voting 
 squarely against one another ; all this fire 
 and fury and blood and thunder ; 
 all this threatening ■ of slaughter end- 
 ed by both combatants firing in 
 the^ air, and hitting the poor 
 fellow up stairs who had no- 
 thing to do with the row. Now, Sir, I 
 do not propose to be hit without protest. 
 As I have said, they have changed their 
 
 ground. Tl ey have determined that 
 liey will nCi ii^hi. Avith one another but 
 
 will attack us ; and what is the present 
 argument? The present argument is, thav 
 the contest over thi& Bill is a contest be- 
 teween the Roman CaLholics and the 
 Protestants, and that all tru6 Protes- 
 tants mu3t unite in supporting the Bill 
 against the Roman Catholics. That is 
 the argument ; that is the proposition. 
 You cannot gev out of it. And if we do 
 not agree to that proposition, we are to 
 be told — in our religious associations 
 amongst those with whom we confer, 
 and co-operate in religious work — that 
 we are not true Protestants, because we 
 have not gone against the Roman 
 Catholics by voting for carrying this 
 measure, I have made that statement ; 
 and with reference to that statement as 
 withreference|to the others, I shall produce 
 the proof. But, before doing so, let me 
 give you two short extracts from recent 
 utterances evidencing the same spirit. 
 In November, 1882, a lodge meet- 
 ing was held at Clover Hall, and an 
 address was delivered by a great man in 
 the order, the late local member for 
 South Simcoe, (Mr. Parkhill). He spoke 
 as follows: .'^ 
 
 '* If he observed the signs of the times cor- 
 rectly, there is as much (i^eed of Orangeism, 
 both in Ireland and Canada, at the present 
 moment, as there ^.ver was. True, we may 
 not have to fight, as our forefathers fought, 
 but we must all, whether Grits or Toriee, 
 bury our political feelings and go united to 
 the polls in defence of our Protestant prin- 
 ciples." 
 
 What is this proposition t I am to be 
 told, being a Reformoi*, that I must bury 
 my political feelings and join with my 
 friend, Mr. Parkhill, whom I have the 
 pleasure ©f knowing, and whom I should 
 not suspect, from his appearance, of 
 holding such bloodthirsty principles — 
 thiat we are to unite against the Roman 
 j Catholics. AtRosemont, the hon. member 
 for South Simcoe spoke at a lodge meet- 
 ing. We are told that : 
 
 "Col. Tyrwhitt, M. P., was warmly re- 
 ceived, and made a good, practical, Protest- 
 ant speech, in the course oi which he referred 
 to the utter want of political principle in'tln 
 Roman CfithoUc electorate. The only prin- 
 ciple that they held was allegiMBce to the|||p 
 
19 
 
 Church, and to ita interests. On such mat* 
 ters Roman Catholic representatives were a 
 \init in the Home of Commons. They even 
 had an Irish Catholic party in the House of 
 Commons last Session, who met daily to 
 consider their interests. While all this was 
 going on, he was sorry to admit that Orange 
 and Protestant representatives were divided. 
 He counselled organization and unity on the 
 part of all Protestants, irrespective of 
 politics, in order to stem the aggressive 
 march of the Papacy in this our beloved 
 Dominion." 
 
 Now this is not old. I am not reviving 
 the buried fires of old days. This is re- 
 ported on the 4th of January, 1833, and 
 the speech was delivered on the 29th of 
 December 1882. Then, in the Sentinel 
 of 12th July, 1883, these remarks are 
 made: I'.vi r?r// . i/. 
 
 ''Mr. Blake is the most prominent man 
 in the House who voted against the BiU, He 
 is, at least by profession, the Protestant of 
 Protestants, from whom such a vote was not 
 expected. * * ♦ # # 
 He is, above all, by virtue of his leadership 
 of the Opposition, tho member of the 
 Federal Parliament whose vote- against in- 
 corporation influenced the largest n umber of 
 lus colleagues to vote as they did in violation 
 of the just rights of large numbers of their 
 constituents # # # 
 
 But, Mr. Blake, by his vote, threw his 
 great influence in the House against the BiU, 
 and, undoubtedly, thereby secured its de- 
 feat. He stultified his advocacy of Ontario's 
 rights, and he made plain the hollow insin- 
 cerity of his Protestant principles. His 
 position in the House, his professions of 
 Protestantism, his advocacy of Ontario's 
 rights, made him a prominent target for the 
 censure of Orangemen, because of a vote, 
 which, if he were true to his principles and 
 professions he would certainly have never 
 giyen. " 
 
 Once again you see the assertion that this 
 is a question between Protestant and 
 Oatholis, and that a man who professes 
 Protestant principles is insincere, if he 
 votes against this Bill. There was also 
 a lodge resolution reported iu the Sentinel: 
 
 "We are not surprised atRoiuau Catholic 
 members who put religion before party ; but 
 we strongly condemn those Protestant 
 members who preferred party before 
 religion. " 
 
 There again this is made a religions 
 question. We are told that we voted 
 
 I for our political party and against 
 our religious principles. Then Ohrch- 
 ill lodge passed a resolution whioh 
 was particularly directed against the 
 humble individual who now addresses 
 you : — 
 
 " We particularly condemn the action of 
 the hon. Edward Blake, who, by voting for 
 the Bill at one reading and against it at the 
 next, showed that he was more anxious to em- 
 barrass his political opponents than to do justice 
 to a large body of his fellow Protestants ; and 
 that we consider such a trifling with the 
 question an insult to our order, and that in 
 being guilty of it, the said hon. Edward 
 Blake has proved himself unworthy of the 
 name he bears as an ultra-Protestant, and 
 also of the high position he occupies as leader 
 of one of the so-called great political parties 
 of his country.'* 
 
 Once again, you observe that my inno- 
 cent conduct, for which I did not think I 
 was to be blamed, in giving to this Bill 
 what I have given to every Bill brought 
 into this House since I have been in 
 Parliament, and what I propose to give 
 to almost every conceivable Bill, the 
 courtesy of a first reading, and the 
 opportunity for fair discussion on the 
 second reading, is called trifling. Hon, 
 gentlemen opposite, members of the 
 order, called upon us not to be so unjust 
 as to vote against the first reading. 
 They pointed out that the first reading 
 was not on the merits of the bill, but 
 that it gave an opportunity for discussion, 
 I thought they were right, and I accepted 
 their view ; but Churchill lodge blames 
 me, and various members of the order 
 say that I was wrong. Then, Sir, the 
 hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Wood) 
 is reported to have saijd : 
 
 " No doubt there is danger in the air, and 
 the Orangemen of Ontario should become the 
 Ultramontane Protestant party in Ontario, in 
 contradistinction to the Roman Catholic 
 Ultramontanes of Quebec." 
 
 Then the hon. member for East Hastings 
 (Mr. White), himself, at Woodstock, said : 
 
 " The day was not far distant, if we did not 
 show more pluck and courage in opposing the 
 growing influence of the Papacy in this Pro- 
 vince, when we should be obliged to fight, 
 not as Con8er\'atives or Reformers, but as 
 Protestants, to free oursleves from the tram- 
 
tnolft which Rom(>'s agents sought to place on 
 us and our institulions.' 
 
 Mr. Marshall, at Winnipeg, said : 
 
 •' The Bill of incorporation was not defeatpd 
 by the Roman Catholics, but by the Protes- 
 tants, wiio wore pandering to the Roman 
 Catholic vote. lie hopod Brdthor White 
 would never ask a Catholic member to support 
 the Bill, as he could expoct no support from 
 them ; and if he diu, he gave them crwlit for' 
 more honesty than politicians generally pos- 
 sessed." 
 
 And I perceive that, only the other day, 
 on the elb^enth of March, a special meet- 
 ing of the Middlesex County lodge was 
 held, at which it was resolved : 
 
 * " That the county lodge of the County of 
 Middlesex of the Loyal Orange Association 
 is of opinion that while those who last year 
 voted for our incorporation did but tneir 
 duty in having shown their willingness to 
 accord us those rights which we as Orange- 
 men, are ever ready to extend to all sec- 
 tions of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, we have 
 no words to sufficiently express our strong 
 condemnation of the course of those Protes- 
 tant representatives, especially from Protes- 
 tant Ontario,who from political spleen voted 
 to d'-ny us Ctheir Protestant fellow-citizens) 
 those rights which they are always willing 
 eycophantly to grant to Roman Catholics ; 
 Resolved, further, that we, the representa- 
 tives of the Orangemen of the County of 
 Middlesex, will not be satisfied until our 
 full rights in the matter of incorporation 
 are properly accorded to us our motto be- 
 ing * No surrender and no compromise,' and 
 that a copy of the resolutions be sent to the 
 public press." 
 
 Nov, Sir, I think I have shown to you 
 that, as I have said, the line of attack 
 was altered — that the line of attajk upon 
 their party friends, and their religious 
 opponents, who, they at first said, < ught to 
 support the measure, and who should be 
 ostracised for not supporting it, they were 
 obliged to abandon, in order to strike at 
 their political opponents by representing 
 fchis as a case in which all Protestants 
 ought to combine, and in which no man 
 of true Protestant principles could have 
 given, or could repeat a vote against the 
 aecond reading of this Bill. Well, that 
 may be true ; but if it be true, I ask this 
 House, without distinction of creed or 
 party, if it be not a serious state of things. 
 
 I ask if it be not a serious state of thin^i 
 that a religious war is to be raised in this 
 country; because that is what it is. If 
 it be the cabu that, as a matter of iaoi^' 
 this is an issue raised between us, in whiok 
 all Protestants are to be on one side, 
 and all Roman Catholics on the other, 
 and in which I, a firm Protestant, aot 
 to be told that I am untrue to mj 
 profession of religion, to my Proteeta*^ 
 principles, if I do not vote witli'^ 
 the Orangemen and against the Catholics 
 for that Bill, is not that a serious state tt 
 things ? If this be true, 1 say that every 
 true lover of thisoountry must deplore 
 such a circumstance and must forebode tbe 
 f^riatcst evil to his country from its 
 existence. '^ 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings). You aro 
 drawing it pretty strong; you are drawii^ 
 on your imagination. ^ 
 
 Mr. BLAKK. I have given the tex^l 
 and I will guarantee that the comments 
 are justified by the text. Now, Sir, I 
 deny entirely that there is any suok 
 necessity. I deny that there ought t»i 
 exist such an issue; and I tell the hoi^ "' 
 gentleman opposite that no matter what 
 his threats may be, no matter whether 
 he may say that my speech does me harm' 
 or good, he will neither seduce, nor 
 threaten, nor drive me on any such issns. 
 into any such line or any such professional 
 In furtherance of this same plan, thtt^ 
 attempt to produce a religious prejudice 
 against those who oppose this Bill, the 
 hon. gentleman and others are declaring 
 that I am controlled by the Archbiah<^ 
 of Toronto. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hasting. So you ar«u 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. I tell the hon. gentleman^ 
 that he states that which is not the fact. 
 Notwithstanding that I am relieved frout, 
 the necess ty of proving my case as to hi»^ 
 statement, by his own declaration in thiM 
 House, 1 proceed to give the evidence 
 of that ns I have given the evidence of 
 other things. He said: 
 
 "Mr. Mowat was contralled by Archbishop, 
 Lynch and t^ey must come to tne conclusios^ 
 that he, too, controlled Mr. Blake. No doubt 
 orders went from tbe Palace at Toronto eatJL 
 the great Reform stdtesttien had to obey.** 
 
SI 
 
 •'. n determined, as Hoon as I saw ibis state- 
 ::flQent of the kon. gentleman, that I would 
 aaeet him h re, lace to face, and have 
 '^ nihis out with him, and have it out with 
 '';^imlwill. This is not all. The Be v. 
 Brother Wright, at a meeting in Leeds, 
 «aid: 
 
 "They (the Orangemen) were not defeated 
 '"in Parhament solely by the Roman Catholics, 
 Ibnt through the instrumentality of Ontario 
 
 C -politicians, who considered the smiles of 
 Kome of greater value than the approbation 
 •of their fellow Protestants. The Bill was de- 
 'ieated because Archbishop Lynch said, no, 
 
 ' ■^Ohristopber Fraoer repeated, no ; and Edward 
 Blake bowed his head and whispered, no. " 
 
 He voted " no, " the last time; but I trust 
 that the hon. gentleman will admit that 
 Jhis negative this night is not given in a 
 "whiflper. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings). I drove you 
 •to it 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. You drove me toit I 
 Manage your own drove. At Winnipeg, 
 «gain, the hon. gentleman said : 
 
 "Unfortunately Archbishop Lynch had 
 Ht> Mowat bound band and foot, and it was 
 •«ven hinted he was getting a hard hold on 
 
 , sir. Blake, and let us hope our own leader 
 
 ; 'will keep nia skirts clear. " 
 
 An hon. G ENTLE MAN. He has no 
 confidence in the breed. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE, My hon friend says 
 &e has no confidence in the breed. Now, 
 I have had the honor of the acquaintance, 
 for a considerable time, of His Grace the 
 ;. Archbishop of Toronto, and I hope, being 
 1)oth of us Irishmen, I may even call 
 myself his friend ; but I harve never, 
 v-either directly or indirect^, through 
 others or myself, by speech or writing, 
 or in any way, had the slightest com 
 iQunication vsith Archbishop Lynch on 
 any one poli^^^'cal topic, of any description 
 whatever — not this one only, but any 
 poUtical topic of any description. For 
 -aught I know, imless he has given public 
 utterance to the contrary, that prelate 
 xnay entertain the same view with reior- 
 once to the Orange Bill as I observe the 
 hon. member for Hastings has said Arch- 
 bishop Tach6 does, namely that he is in 
 favor of its being passed. But I say 
 HhaA in thia, as in all other partiouUra, I 
 
 have acted entirely apon my own jtidjr* 
 ment, and wholly free from every — I wUl 
 not say dictation or control — bai 
 attempt at dictation or control, hint 
 or suggestion, knowledge or in* 
 formation, as to what the opinions 
 of that prelate or of any other prelate or 
 dignitary or persons of the Komaa 
 Oathclio faith might be on the subject. I 
 have acted on convictions which I havB 
 entertained ever since I came into publiq 
 life, on convictions which I was known 
 to have entert«ined in the Local hef(iB- 
 lature, and to have expressed, not on 
 the floor c f the Legislature, but to lead- 
 ing members, when the question waa 
 likely to come up in the Local Flouae^ 
 with reference to another secret organLea- 
 tion — convictions hostile to the incorpo- 
 ration of secret associations, hostile to 
 the incorporation of the Oi-ange society. 
 It is perfectly true that I am, as theiioo. 
 gentleman says, a Protestant, and it ia 
 also true — I suppose that is the meaning 
 of his phrase ultramontane — that I am 
 of that school of thought which is moai 
 opposed to what I believe to be the d- g- 
 matic errors of the Church of Rome. That 
 is perfectly true. I protest against what I 
 deem her errors; but I aaa also an eirneefe 
 advocate of religious freed< 'm and equality 
 and the full rights of conscience 
 
 THE LATE POLITIOO-RELIOIOUS DUm- 
 CULTIES IN QUEBEC. 
 
 As the Ontario leaders of the Orange so- 
 cietydeclare that that Province is ruled 
 politically, by the Koman Catholic clergy, 
 and that it must be fret d from the 
 domination of the Roman Catholic clergy 
 by subverting Mr. Mowat, I notice thoy 
 have sometimes said a word with refer- 
 ence to the conduct of the Province of 
 Quebec, and as bo its rule ; and I desire 
 here to ad vert to this question, speaking 
 with the same plainness of spe«^ch which 
 I have used this evening, though I may 
 perhaps o£fend some of those who may 
 have listened with approval to some 
 things I have hitherto said. I say 1 d« 
 not find this pretention to be the exclu- 
 sive standard bearers of Protestant prin- 
 
22 
 
 ciplea and to lay down a rule and mea- 
 Bure, with which unless all ProteHtants 
 comply, they are to be held untrue to their 
 principles, to be a, proper atcribute of this 
 association, judged by its leaders in 
 Ontario. I have spoken of Quebec. 
 Now, in that Province there have 
 been, for a long time, some 
 persons — some persona only, I am 
 glad to say — who have striven to create 
 that regime in favor of their own pArty, 
 ■who have insisted on extreme pretensions 
 as to the I'ights of the clergy to use their 
 influence in elections; who have sought to 
 drag the clergy into the political arena; 
 who have sought to pervert certain gen- 
 eral language, which was used by the au- 
 thorities of the Church, from its true 
 sense and to turn it to the condemnation 
 of one political party; who have sought 
 to maintHin the view that the clergy 
 should refuse the ntes of the Church to 
 persons on account of their vtftes; who 
 have sought fo repeal the law as to un- 
 due influence, as far it affected i' ^ 
 clergy ; and there can be no doubt that 
 these efforts on the part of some persons 
 in Quebec met, in the past, with a mea- 
 sure of success. Pressure was used in 
 several counties against the candidates of 
 one political party, as Liberal Catholics; 
 and the struggle was severe, and resulted 
 in a great weakening of that party, from 
 which it has not even? yet recovered. The 
 members of that party appealed, under 
 these circumstances, to three tribunals; 
 they appealed to public opinion, to the 
 courts of the land, and to the highest 
 authorities in their own church. They 
 fought a long and arduous fight, which 
 reached its climax, perhaps, in the period 
 from 1875 to 1881. Public opinion, one 
 of the tribunals to wluch they appealed, 
 was roused to a considerable degree in 
 the Province of Quebec; and many Pro- 
 testants there even changed their political 
 views and left the party with which they 
 had usually acted, because they felt that 
 this pressure was a pressure foreign 
 to the proper sphere of religion and 
 the proper sphere of the Church. The 
 memjoers of the party appealed also to 
 the law ; and the law was vindicated in 
 
 several cases. They appealed also to the 
 highest authonties in the Church, and 
 those authorities also interfered. We 
 know well, • for it is public to us, what 
 was done. "We know that, in 1876, an 
 instruction was sent out from the 
 Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office 
 in these words: 
 
 "The Bishops of Canada mus« be made to 
 understand that the Holy See fully acknow- 
 ledges the extreme gravity of the facts report*- 
 ed ny them ; and the injury caused by these 
 facts to the authority of the clergy and the 
 holy ministry is particularly to be deplored 
 '•Wherefore, in order to make up for these 
 great injuries, it is especially necessary to 
 root out the evil. Now the cause of such 
 great inconveniences lies in the fact that 
 these Bishops are divided among themselves 
 both as regards the political question and as 
 regards other questions which are now 
 agitated in Canada. Therefore with a view 
 to putting an end to these much to be re- 
 gretted dissensions, it will be necessary that 
 the Bishops, together with His Lordship the 
 Apostolic Delegate who has been sent to 
 Canada, concert with each other to determine 
 a uniform policy to be followed by all and 
 each of them with regard to political parties. 
 "Another cause of these same incocveni- 
 ences lies in their too great interference in 
 political affairs, without enough of heed for 
 pastoral prudence. The proper remedy for 
 this excess of zeal, is to remind these 
 Bishops of that which has already been re- 
 commended to them by this Supreme Congre- 
 gation, on Wednesday the 29th of July, 1874, 
 to the effect that on tbe occasion of political 
 elections, they should cjnform in their advice 
 I to electors, to what had been ena-Jted in the 
 1 Provincial Council of 1868. 
 I "It must be af^ded that the Church while 
 ; condemning^ Liberalism, does not intend to 
 I strike each and every pol'.tical party which 
 j might chance to be called Liberal, since the 
 I decisions of the Church only apply to errors- 
 j which are opposed to Catholic doctrine and 
 1 not to any specified political party whatever, 
 and that consequently, whoever, without any 
 I other foundaioin, declares that oi e of the 
 political parties of Canada, namely, the party 
 called the Reform party, a party hereto- 
 fore strongly supponed by some Bishops, is 
 condemned by the Church, whoever makes 
 such a statement acts wrongfully. 
 
 "Fhially, as to what concerns the main sub- 
 ject of tbe doubts propounded ; in order to 
 determine what measures should be taken as 
 regards Catholics, who, by reason of a 
 pretended undue interference of the 
 clergy in political elections, appeal to the 
 civil courts; it is impossible to lay down a 
 
28 
 
 i;enoral rule Tor the Bishops on this subject, 
 and thorofore it will bo tho duty of whoever 
 is in charge to ' provide in each case, with 
 respect to the conscrencos of i)orsons making 
 such appeals. Therefore lot the Bishops 
 take the necoisary measures to guard tho 
 honor of the clergy, taking special care to 
 prevent as much as possible clergymen 
 from being obliged to appear before lay 
 Judges. 
 
 "Lastly, Bishojjs must be exhorted to ob- 
 serve the greatest reserve witli regard to pol- 
 itical affairs, by reason, especially, of the 
 danger there would be of provoking a violent 
 war against the church on the part of Protes- 
 tants, who are already restless and irritated 
 against the clergy under pretence of undue 
 interference in political elections. Besides 
 the clergy must bo brought to always avoid 
 namiag persons from the pulpit, still much 
 more so if it is to discredit them on the occa- 
 sion of elections, pnd never to make the in- 
 fluence of the ecclesiastical ministry subser- 
 vient to private purposes, except when candi- 
 dates might fiocome antagonistic to the true 
 interests of the church." 
 
 ' Now, Sir, that was followed up by the 
 pastoral letter and circular which were 
 issued after the arrival of the Delegate 
 Apostolic, and after an understanding had 
 been reached with him in 1877. The 
 pastoral letter of 1877 contains the follow- 
 ing passages: — 
 
 " The gravity of the events which have 
 taken ph^e since the last general election; 
 and the numerous and various diffieulties 
 to which they have given occasion, make it 
 Our dut> to remind you briefly. Our Most 
 Dear Brethren, of the principles and the 
 rujes of policy which were expounded to you 
 before now, m Our Councils, Our Circulars, 
 and Our pastorals, and particularly in that 
 of the 22nd of September 1875." 
 
 " The Ninth Decree of the Fourth Council, 
 held in 1868, expounds your duties as elec- 
 tors in the following terms : — * Let the 
 pastors instruct with great care the faithful 
 on their duties in election times ; let them 
 strongly impress on their minds that the 
 same law which confers on citizens the right 
 of suffrage imposes on them at the same 
 time the very serious obligation to give 
 their votes whenever it is necessary, and al- 
 ways to vote according to their consciences, 
 / iinder the Eye of Qod, and for the best 
 interests' of religion and of their country ; 
 that consequently the electors are always 
 bound in conscience, before Qod, to give 
 their suffrages to whatever candidate they 
 believe to be truly honest and able to fulfitl 
 well fuid faithfiuly the important duties 
 
 which devolve upon him, to be ever atten- 
 tive to the welfare of the Church and State 
 and to work faithfully to promote and 
 guard the welfare of the Church and State.' " 
 
 Then, after pointing out what had 
 been done in 1873 and 1875, and giving 
 a warning against the doctrines CaUwlioo- 
 Liberalea, the pastoral goes on to say : 
 
 " Unfortunately, and against our intention, 
 some perscms were inclined to see in this 
 document an abandonment of principle, to 
 como down to persons and ])olilical parties 
 Our wish has been to expound to you toe 
 true doctrine on the constitution and tho 
 rights of the Church, on tho rights and the 
 duties of tlio clorgy in society, on the obliga- 
 tions of the Catholic press, and on the sanctity 
 of an oath ; such has been our only aim. and 
 such is still our intention. In this we hay* 
 followed the example of the Holy Seo 
 who, in condemning Liberal Catholicism has 
 refiained from naming persons and political 
 parlies. In fact there does not exist any 
 Pontilical Act condemning any political party 
 whatever; all the condemnations which have 
 up to the present time emanated from this 
 venerable source are only applicable to Libe- 
 ral Catholics and to their principles, and the 
 brief oddressed to one of us in September, 
 1876, must bo interpreted in »hat sense. Fol- 
 lowing the example of the Sovereign Pontiff 
 and in accordance with the wise prescription 
 of our Fourth Council, we leave to each one 
 of you to judge, under the eye of God, whick 
 are the men to whom these condemnations 
 apply, whatever may be the political party to 
 which they belong." 
 
 Now, Sir, at the same time, as I have 
 said, a circular letter was issued to the 
 clergy, from which I will read an ex- 
 tract or two : 
 
 "In analysing the ninth decree of the 
 Fourth Council, and the eighteenth of the 
 Fifth, we find tliat the clergy must confine 
 themselves to instructing the people as to 
 their duties in election time ; which duties are 
 the following:— I. To give their votes when 
 suflicient reasons call for it. 2. To vote ac- 
 cording to their consciences, and under the 
 Eye of God, and to give their support to the 
 candidates whom they may prudently judge 
 to be truly honest and able to discharge the 
 duties of a representative, which are to watch 
 over, and procure faithfully the welfare of 
 religion and of the state. 3. Not to sell their 
 votes. 4. To avoid intemperance, slander, 
 and perjury." 
 
 Another passage reads thus : 
 ** When you shall have so explained to your 
 
Sl^& 
 
 people the principles which ought to guide 
 them in their choice, leave to the conscience 
 •f each of them the option of applying them 
 to persons and to parties. And whenever a 
 penitent shall tell you that he has voted in 
 all conscience and under the eye of God, 
 never call in question his ^ood faith, and put 
 into practice the well-known axiom : the 
 same belief must be given to what the penitent 
 says on his own benalf as to what he says 
 against himself." 
 
 Then again, Sir, the letter aays : 
 
 "The decree of the Fourth Council forbids 
 you to teach from the pulpit, or otherwise, 
 that it is a sin to votfi for such and such a 
 candidate, or for such and such a political 
 party. With much more reason is it forbidden 
 to you to announce that you will refuse the 
 8acraments for that cause. 
 
 " Never give your individual political 
 •pinion from the pulpit. 
 
 " Never attend any political meeting, and 
 never make a public speech on such matters 
 ivithout the permibsioii of your ordinary. 
 
 " If you have a right to vote you may avail 
 yourself of it ; but let it be with prudence and 
 "Without ostentation. It is proper that you 
 Bhould choose the most favourable oppor- 
 tunity for voting, and not wait till the last 
 moment, when the excitement is always 
 greater, and that you should not remain near 
 the place where the election is taking place. 
 
 " To those who may come to consult you 
 privately, answer with prudence and calmly, 
 without entering into discussions, which 
 would be compromising to your character ; 
 for you know well that language the most 
 innocent and the most true is exposed to be 
 at such times misunderstood, misinterpreted 
 and misreported. And even if you see that 
 people are greatly excited, it will be prudent 
 on your part to state simply that what you 
 have said from the pulpit must 1)6 suiBcient 
 to guide them." 
 
 Well, Sir, these documents to which 1 
 have referred contain, I may say, some 
 ohBervations in which I think the pastors 
 of the Boman Catholic Church set an 
 admirable example to the pastors of the 
 other churches; I mean particularly those 
 injunctions against selling the suffrage, 
 against bribery, against corruption, 
 against intemperance, agunst calumny 
 and against peijury. Then we go fur- 
 ther. I do not confine myself wholly to 
 the statements made by these ecdesiaB- 
 tical dignitaries. About the same time, 
 a diiouaugn was raised in this Farlia- 
 meaA ; ancl I wish to show that the views 
 irhioii axe raprehended hr *tbmb docu- 
 
 mentc* are views which were not hold ^ ■ 
 all the Roman Catholics even oi the G<mr 
 servative party. On the 11th February >,. 
 I think, iu the year 1877, Senator Ma»~ 
 son, then a member of this House, used' 
 these exfi^essions: 
 
 " Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman says in hi» 
 letter that the party with which I act wa* ; 
 controlled by a power which declared tb«r 
 free thought was a cardinal sin. Well, Sir^ 
 I say that this is no more nor less than a slaa- ■ 
 der on the Gor servative party; and as a Con- 
 servative and an Ultramontane, as I am called' 
 by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the- , 
 House, from the Province of Quebec, as the^ 
 leader of the Ultramontanes, I say that the- 
 Conservatives of the Province of Quebec, and 
 I speak advisedly, are ready to give to the- 
 clergy of the Province, on religious questions,, 
 that submission and that confidence wbich^ 
 according to our creed, we are obliged to give 
 them; and regarding questions relating to the- 
 material progress of the country, and the poli- 
 tical at'airs of the country, we are ready, and 
 shall always be ready, to give to the opinions- 
 of these gentlpmen that respect to which they 
 are entitled, owing to their high intelligence, 
 tbeir great virtue and their disinterestedness; 
 but we are not ready to give any more." 
 
 Well, the matter was not finally settled. 
 Notjwithstanding what had been said, the- 
 discussion went on. Still the question* 
 was raised, and raised in pretty inflaen^ 
 tial quarters, on the part of the Conaex^ 
 vative party in Quebec, with reference- 
 to the law as to undue influence; and X 
 felt it my duty — thinking the questicHk 
 might become a serious one, and desirin» 
 to place myself on i-ecord, and as I might;, 
 by my voice in some degree influence my 
 fellow-countrymen — to speak upon th» 
 subject myself; and I did so at the village 
 of Tees water, in the year 1877. Fronok 
 that speech I may be permitted to quote: 
 
 "Another demand of a very different 
 character has been made from very high 
 quarters, namely, that we should alter^e 
 law as to undue influence. Now, the hma' 
 of our representative institutions is that our 
 elections shall be free. Each of us is called 
 on to siurender his share of control over the 
 common affairs to the majority, upon the 
 gromiil thui, this surrender is neceseary, for so 
 only can we reach a decision ; but also on 
 the hvpotheds, wiUiout which tike demand 
 would oe quite unjostiialde, that, all har- 
 ing a commt>n intenit and each man speaks 
 ing freelT ilor himself the view of tl» 
 
2ff 
 
 taaajority is more likely to be sound — is more 
 ^ely accurately to represent what would be 
 •'i)eneficial to the community than the view 
 of the minority. This is the ground-work. 
 Now, that ground-work wholly fails if the 
 7otebe notthe expression of the voter's 
 own opinion, but the expression of some- 
 body else's opinion different from his. If, 
 instead of its being his opinion, it be the 
 opinion of his employer, bis landlord, his 
 creditor, or his minister, why, it is not his 
 «!r«t^ at all, it is somebody elsb's, and wt- have 
 not submitted ourselves to the free voice of 
 onr fellow-countrymen, but possibly to the 
 voice of a very small minority, who have 
 determined what the voice of the larger 
 number is to be. Thus the whole basis of 
 our representative institutions would be de- 
 stroyed, if we permitted the opinions of our 
 employers, creditors, landlords, or ministers 
 to be forcibly substituted for our own. For 
 this reason, besides the penalties which are 
 -enacted against the exercise of undue in- 
 iuence, we have declared that the vote of 
 any man so unduly influenced shall be null 
 and void, and that elections carried by such 
 andue influences shall be annulled. I can- 
 •jciot, if a landlord, say to my tenant, ' Now, 
 tenant, 1 shall turn you out at the end of 
 your term if you do not vote for my candi- 
 iate.' Though 1 may have a legal right to 
 turn him out at the end of the term, yet I 
 ^cannot give the intimation that I will, on 
 this ground, exercise this right. If I do, the 
 vote is annulled as not free. I cannot, if a 
 creditor, say to my debtor, *I will exact that 
 debt at once if you do not vote as I wish,' 
 atbough I may have a legal right to exact my 
 debt. I cannot, if an employer, say to my 
 employee, ' Vou shall leave my employment 
 at the end of the current term unless you 
 vote with roe,' though the • law may not 
 oblige me to retain him in my service. It 
 iias been found necessary in all these cases to 
 prevent the relations to which I have refer- 
 red from being made the means of unduly 
 -influencing the vote, in order that this great 
 cardinal principle of our Constitution— the 
 freedom of each man to vote according to 
 rjjis own opinion— may be preserved intact. 
 True, the landlord, and the creditor, and the 
 employer have each the right to speak and 
 persuade by arguments ; and the confidence 
 placed in them may be such that the voter's 
 ■opinion may be changed; but between the 
 argument, the persuasion, the confidence 
 which may conduce to a change in the mind 
 Wid opinion of the voter, and that 
 coercion which crmpels him to vote contrary 
 •!o his mind on the threat of some loss or 
 penalty, there is a broad and palpable dis- 
 :imtion, and that is the distinction which the 
 
 law lays down. Now, if there be a form of 
 religion under which the minister is supposed 
 to have the power, by granting or revising 
 certain rites, or by making ceriain declara- 
 tions, to affect the state of the voter after 
 death, is it not perfectly obvious that tho 
 threat of such results to the voter unless he 
 votes in accordance with the opinion of the 
 minister, might be infinitely more potent 
 than any of the other threats I have named — 
 of the exaction of a debt, the ejection of a 
 tenant, or the discharge of an employee f 
 And would not such a threat be obnoxioua 
 to just the same objection? 
 
 "lam far, indeed, from implying that 
 politics should not be handled on Christian 
 principles Whatever diificulties and differ- 
 ences there may be as to Christian dogma, 
 there is, fortunately, very little difference 
 concerning Christian morals. We are, fortun- 
 ately, all united in this country in tha 
 theoretical recognition— however far we may- 
 fail in the practical observance — of the great 
 doctrines of, Christian morality which are 
 handed down to us in the Gospels ; and I 
 believe it is on the basis of those doctrinoa 
 that the politics of the country should bo 
 carried on. Dim indeed would be our hopes, 
 and dark our expectations for the future, if 
 they did not embrace the coming of that 
 glorious day when those principles shall be 
 truly, fully and practically recognized — if we 
 did not look forward to the fulfilment of 
 promises that the'kingdoras of this world shall 
 become the kingdoms of the Lord ;' and that 
 'nation shall not make war against nation, 
 neither shall they learn war any more ;' if 
 we did not watch for the time when tho 
 human law of self-interest and hate shall bo 
 superseded by the Divine law of self-sacrifioo 
 and love. But while we hope and strive for 
 the accomplishment of these things, we must 
 not forget the lessons of the Great Teacher 
 and Exemplar. When interrogated upoa 
 secular things— when asked as to rendering 
 tribute to Cajsar, He said, 'Render unto 
 Caesar the things that are Cje-tar's, and to 
 God the things which are God's.' He lidd 
 down the principle, and he left the people — 
 the querists — to make the application. So 
 again when he wgs called upon to 
 settle a dispute between two brothers 
 about an inheritance. He said : * Mao, 
 who made Me a judge or divider over 
 you ? ' Such was the view He took as 
 to the duty of a minister, as to tho 
 work of the pulpit ; and while I do not hesi- 
 tate to say that to all ministers I would freelj 
 accord the right as citizens of voting, of 
 expressing their opinions, of arguing and 
 persuading, and influencing if they please^ 
 my own opinion is that the pastot o I* flock 
 
divided on politics will be much more likely 
 to retain the fullest confidence of all the 
 members of that flock, and so to discharge 
 eflfectually his great task, if he abstains from 
 active interference in those political affairs 
 on which there is and will be great division 
 of opinion aniong them. But, Sir, it has 
 been argued in some quarters that the free 
 exercise of one form ot religion amongst us is 
 impaired by this law. That would, indeed, 
 if true, be a serious thing. But, if it were 
 ' true, we would still be bound, in my 
 opinion, to preserve the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of the freedom of the elector. No 
 man, any article of whose creed should 
 make him a slave, would be fit to control 
 either his own destiny or that of free men. 
 A slave himself, he would be but a proper 
 instiviment to make slaves of others. Such 
 an article of religion would, in a word, be 
 inconsistent with free institutions, because it 
 would not permit that liberty of opinion in 
 the individual, which is their very base and 
 comer stone. But we are not confronted 
 with that difficulty. The public and deliber- 
 ate utterances of high dignitaries in more 
 than one Province of Canada have shown 
 that the assertion is unfounded, and have 
 recognized the ri-^ht of every elector to vote 
 according to his conscience ; and the recent 
 statement — communicated to the public 
 through Lord Denbigh — of the head of that 
 Church, shows that the United Kingdom, 
 where the law as to undue influence is pre- 
 cisely the same as ours, is perhaps the only 
 country in Europe where the professors of 
 that religion are free to practise it. If this 
 "be the case in the United Kingdom, it is so 
 here ; and it is not true that there is any 
 form of religion, the free and full exercise of 
 which is impaired bv the preservation of the 
 great principle to which I hav6 referred. I 
 trust then, that the ill-advised pretentions 
 which have been set up will be abandoned ; 
 but should they be pressed, I take the op- 
 portunity of declaring that for myself, 
 whatever be the consequence?, I shall stand 
 by the principle which I have laid down and 
 shall struggle to preserve — so far as my 
 feeble powers permit — to each one of 
 my fellow-countrymen, whatever his creed, 
 the same full and i&nple measure of civil 
 freedom which he now enjoys under those 
 laws which enable him and me, though we 
 may be of diverse faiths, to meet here on 
 the same platform, and here to difl'er or 
 agree according to our o^vn political convic- 
 tions, and not according to our religious 
 &ith or the dictation of any other men, lay 
 or clericaL" 
 
 Now, Sir, finally, in September, 1881 » 
 
 there was a further communication deal- 
 ing with these two subjects to which I 
 have referred, and from it I shall trouble 
 the House with a very brief extract. It 
 is a communication from the Prefect of 
 the Sacred Congregation, Cardinal 
 Simeoni : 
 
 "It has come to the knowledge of the Sacred 
 Congregation of the Propaganda that in your 
 Province certain members ofthe clergy and of 
 the, secular body continue to interfere too 
 much in political elections, by using either 
 the pulpit or newspapers and other publica- 
 tions. 
 
 '• It is equally known to ehn aforesaid Sac- 
 red Congregation that a cerlain suffra»-;:in of 
 Your Lordship now endeavors to appeal to 
 Parliament to cause the electoral law^concern- 
 ing the so-called undue influence to be am- 
 ended. 
 
 "Now, as.regards the first point, I hasten 
 
 to remind Your Lordship that as far back as 
 
 the vear 187fi the Supreme Congregation of 
 
 tbe Holy Office issued the following instruc- 
 
 : tion :" 
 
 And then follows the instruction which I 
 : have already quoted. The communication 
 i proceeds as follows : — 
 ! "In conformity with this instruction, Your 
 Lordship must without delay make known to 
 I all your suflragans, to the clergy, and to all 
 i those whom it may concern, that it is the 
 I intention of the Holv Father that all the 
 j aforesaid prescriptions of the Holy Office be 
 j strictly observed. 
 
 j "As regards the second point. Your Lord- 
 ship mustnotify all the suffragans that eaeh 
 ' of the prelates individually must refra.n from 
 ! agitating or causing to bo agitated the ques- 
 I tion of the amendment ofthe law concerning 
 ' the said undue intluence. If there should 
 i come a time when the Bishops assembled 
 ' should judge unanimously that the proper 
 ' period had come to make the aforesaid demand 
 they must first apply to the Sacred Congre- 
 i gation to receive from it their proper instruc- 
 
 tions. 
 
 And that, as far as I know, was the final 
 settlement of thac controversy, so far as 
 concerned the views of the highest 
 authorities of the Church, repeated after 
 an interval of yeaiu During that 
 controversy, on the twentieth of 
 January, in the year 1876, the 
 Archbishop of Toronto addressed a 
 public letter to my hon. friend the 
 member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie), 
 which dealing aa it does with this subject, 
 
27 
 
 may appropriately be read at this time. 
 It is as follows : — 
 
 "ToHoirro, 20th January, 1876. 
 
 "Hon. A. Mackenzie, 
 * "Premier of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 "Hon. and Dear Sie,~I think this an 
 opportune time to inform you and your 
 Gtcyemment that priests in our Archdiocese 
 are strictly forbidden to make the altar or 
 pulpit of their churchef, the tribune of politi- 
 cal narangues* for or against any party or 
 candidate for election; ur to threaten any 
 spiritual disabiUty for voting with either 
 
 "Priests may, of course, instruct their 
 people on 4iie conscientious obligation of 
 votmgfor the candidate whom they judge 
 will best promote the interests of the country ; 
 of taking no bribes; and of conducting 
 themselves at the elections in a loyal and 
 peaceful manner; but they are not to say to 
 the people, f'- im the altar, that they are to 
 vote for tms candidate and reject the other. 
 
 "It would be very impruient in a priest, 
 whose congregation is composed of Liberals 
 and Conservatives, to become a warm parti- 
 zan of either political party. 
 
 "It would neutralize his influence for good 
 in too many instances, and a priest requires, 
 all he possesses to forward the interests of his 
 whole congregation. 
 
 "It is true that a priest, in his ordination, 
 does not renounce nis rights of citizenship ; 
 nor does he receive authority to impose on 
 his congregation his own particular views of 
 politics. 
 
 "The Catholic Church asks no special favor 
 from any party. Her existence is indepen- 
 dent of both. She asks only that her people 
 be put under no uniust restraint or ban. It 
 is true that the old legislation of England 
 made the Catholic religion a bar to political 
 and almost social existence; and though 
 wiser councils now prevail in Courts and Par- 
 liaments, yet some of the Protestant populace, 
 and an occasional statesman in his individual 
 capacity, so long educated in the traditions of 
 the jMWt, retain a deep-rooted prejudice and 
 suspicion not easily conquered, that the 
 Catholic rehgion should be a bar to preferment 
 and that th6 Catholic Church is inimical 
 to free institutions and unfavourable to 
 State rights. This is still a reproduction of 
 the old Pagan cry; * The Christians to the 
 beasts,' or the old Jewish accusation : ' We 
 have found this man perverting our nation 
 and forbidding to give tribute to CsBsar.' 
 
 " The Catholic Church asks only liberty to 
 do good, and to be untrammelled by unjust 
 laws in the exercise of her divine rights. I 
 might here remark, that when in a free coun- 
 
 try, religious and sacred rights are brought 
 into the arena of politics, then the Cathotics 
 have to follow them to the polls and contend 
 there for their right, as in the case of educa* 
 tion. _ We believe that parents have a per- 
 fect right to educate their children as tney 
 please. * Train up a child in the way he 
 should go and when he is old he will not de- 
 part from it.' Hence, when the Catholics of 
 Lower Canada conceded the right of separate 
 education to the Protestant minonty of 
 Lower Canada, the CathoUc minority of 
 Upper Canada claimed the same right, but 
 had to contend for this right at the elections; 
 and thus religious questions are dragged out 
 of their sphere. The Catholic does not 
 permit his religion to hinder the progress of 
 the country, or the peaceful exercise of a dif- 
 ferent religion to his neighbors. When Ma 
 religious principles are safe, the CathoUc, 
 under the impression that party government 
 is a lesser evil, gives his support to that 
 which he thinks will perform its duties for 
 the greater good of the country and the hap- 
 piness of the people. 
 
 " I am. Honourable Sir, 
 " Your very obedient servant, 
 
 "JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH, '„ 
 " Archbishop of Toronto." **"' 
 
 As I have said, there was a long and bit- 
 ter controversy in the Province of Que- 
 bec with soaae who strove to abuse the 
 power of the church in the way to which 
 I have referred. That long and bitter 
 controversy was a controversy in which 
 my friends, the Liberals of Lower Can- 
 ada, were the oppressed party, the party 
 which ^as being overborne in it, which 
 was suffering from it, in the constituen- 
 cies; and though they have received jus- 
 tice at last in the particular to which I 
 have referred, it is useless to disguise 
 the fact that so long a conflict, waged ia 
 that manner, and with those weaponti, 
 has had a permanent weakening effect. 
 
 attitude of ONTARIO ORANGEMEN AS TO 
 QUEBEC DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 But I want to know where in all that 
 time, were the Orange Tory leaders of 
 Ontario. I want to know whether they 
 were helping in the cause which has thus 
 been vindicated in the end. I want to 
 know whether they were expressing and 
 actively manifesting their sympathy 
 with those who were struggling for tho 
 
28 
 
 tights which have at length been 
 aooorded them. It is not so : it is 
 known not to be so. It is true that 
 jnanj of the Protestants of Quebec 
 came to the assistance of the Liberals of 
 Quebec in that struggle, but the Orange 
 Tory leaders of Ontario were unflinching 
 in their support of, and in their consort 
 "with the very members who were waging 
 that controversy against the Quebec 
 liiberals. Why] Because they were 
 tmited in political bonds with those mefn- 
 bers ; because they rejoiced in their suc- 
 •eas at the polls, although that success 
 was achieved against those with whom 
 they professed to be in sympathy. They 
 were kept in place and power by means 
 of that partnership ; and therefore they 
 "were untrue to the principles which they 
 professed, and in order to promote which 
 they are now saying they wish to be in- 
 corporated. I have declared my views 
 on this subject, and I have nothing to re- 
 call in regard to them. I have shown 
 •where I am to be found in case any con- 
 flict may arise in which any church, 
 whether Roman Catholic, or Episcopalian, 
 or Presbyterian, or what you will, shall 
 Btiive to encroach on what I believe to 
 be the just domain of the State. I be- 
 lieve that, if you commit to any church 
 absolute power and control over faith and 
 morals, and if, at the same tinie, you 
 commit to that church absolute and 'un- 
 limited power to determine what is com- 
 prised within faith and morals, you con- 
 cede necessarily to that church absolute 
 power altogether ; and I believe, there- 
 fore, that it is quite necessary to con- 
 sider that there may be a point at which 
 we may be called on to consider what 
 the tenets of the church in that particu- 
 lar point of view are. I have shown that 
 the struggle was fought out within the 
 Koman Catholic Church ; that those rights 
 on which the liberals of Lower Canada 
 insisted have been vindicated, and that the 
 electors have a right to vote as free men. 
 But should such a struggle recur, which 
 Ck)d forbid ; could I, judging from the 
 past, hope for any assistance, could the 
 liiberal party look with hope lor any 
 Mudstanoe from the Orange Tory leaders 
 
 of Ontaro 1 No ; because we haym 
 nrt received it in the past; ; and» 
 whatever the views of these leaders, thejr 
 subordinated them altogether to party 
 pol tics, which led them to rejoice in tho 
 triumphs of those who were perpetua^ 
 ting principles directly opposed to their - 
 own, • 
 
 ORANGE CXAIM TO SUPERIOk LOYAI/TT,. 
 
 There are some other reasons which leadl^s 
 me to think that this society in Ontario-' 
 is not a beneficial one. Its leaders claim, 
 a monopoly not merely of true Proteswuxt- - 
 ism, but also of loyalty. The hon. mem- 
 ber for East Hastings (Mr. White), a^ 
 Winnipeg said : 
 
 " One of his reasons was, that with three ' 
 othere he had opposed the Coatigan resolu- 
 tion, which was a direct insult to the Mother- 
 Country, and to every loyal eitixen in thee 
 country, except party leaders on both sidea • 
 and members who were pandering to the 
 Catholic vote, and not one member of the 
 Orange society said, 'well done. " 
 
 Grand Master Bennett said : — 
 
 "You are no doubt aware that a most 
 singular combination was formed at the last. 
 Session to defeat the Bill We had the- 
 astounding spectacle of Protestant Liberal- 
 ism and Ultramontanism in alliance to de- 
 feat it : Liberalism, because of the loyalty 
 of Orangemen', and Ultramontanism, because 
 of the advanced Protestantism of the Orange 
 order." 
 
 There you have it, Sir, laid down ^ a. 
 lule, that Orangemen are so loyal, and 
 their loyalty ia so offensive to otherSy 
 that the Orangemen must be put d<'wn. 
 by foice. I maintain that that is ac. 
 offensive statement, and that a secret 
 society which devotes itself to the pro- 
 pagation of such opinions as these, as tO' 
 the loyalty of others, is one which doe»- 
 not deserve favor or State recognition. 
 
 ORANGE ATTACKS ON THE LOYALTY OF 
 ROMAN CATHOLICS. 
 
 There is another reason. These Ontari<> 
 Orange leaders claim that their object is 
 to advance Protestantism ; and they 
 claim to advance it, by assertions witib 
 reference to the Roman Catholic Church, 
 which I believe to be baselfss. And here^ 
 ^ain I do not propose to deal with asser- 
 
il 
 
 te 
 
 tions as to dogma. I do not propose to 
 deal with assertions with respect to re- 
 fig;ion, as to whether certain views are 
 right or wi-ong, for we have nothing to do 
 with them. But we have to do with their 
 riews as to the tenets of that church, as 
 they affect the political condition and 
 social order of the country. Those things 
 are of material interest to us; and it is 
 well that we should know what is advanc- 
 ed in the name of Protestantism, or with 
 a view of promoting it, by the leaders of 
 the Orange society in Ontario. In the 
 Sentinel of December 2l8t,, 1882, there 
 is the following, which is headed "Alleg- 
 ianoe to Rome only" : 
 
 **We have always contended that the Rom- 
 ieh Church teaches its followers to be disloyal 
 to every State wherein it exists, to recognize 
 the authority of no temporal Government, 
 and to own allegiance only to the Papacy." 
 
 On April 26th., 1883, the same paper 
 8aid: 
 
 •*It is hardly tecessary to say that every 
 brae member of the church must yield to the 
 Pope, the infallible bead of the church, un- 
 questioning obedience in morals; dogmatic 
 faith or belief, aud also conduct and civil 
 affairs. 
 
 "No member of the church can dispute the 
 right of the head of it to decide infallibly and 
 dogmatically all questions affecting tempor- 
 al power in Governments, any more than he j 
 can that of the faith and belief put forth in i 
 her teachings. j 
 
 * * ♦ # * # « 
 
 *TTje people in America are governed by 
 •ODBtitutionB which leave to themselves the ' 
 power of determining the character and I 
 Btruoture of Government. 
 
 " These constitutions are, thenifore, inimical 
 to the Church ofliome, in her opinion, and 
 are only tolerated because they cannot be 
 destroyed. As she is al war with every form 
 of Government not prescribed by horscir, it 
 would be her duty to destroy these constitu- 
 tions, if she could ; nay, she would be guilty, 
 under her teachings, if she had the power,. 
 i«id did not destroy them. 
 
 • • . • • • » • 
 
 "Is it not a humil-alion that in a country 
 ike this a loyal association has been refustid 
 iie same privileges that are daily granted to 
 iose who pp^laim the prerogative of a 
 foreign Prince flisdiop to be superior to those 
 )f Her Majesty ajfel Her Government— privi- 
 «gem daily grant*! to those whose civil 
 illttgiance is flrstly to the Pope and secondly 
 ^hvever he mi^ht direct it, though that 
 
 • 
 
 should lead to the destniction of the dignities 
 and. prerogatives of the Imperial Crown now 
 largely directed by the responsible Ministers 
 of the Government, who hold oftice at the^*-!!] 
 of the people?" 
 
 Again in the Sentinel of the eighth of 
 November, 1883, the following language 
 is used : — 
 
 "It is necessary to keep constantly before 
 the mind of the Orange and Protestant public 
 of the Dominioii that Rome is still true to her 
 TaoltOj semper eadetn. 
 
 " She is the same to-day that she was a 
 hundred years ago, planning, scheming and 
 contriving to subvert the best liberties and 
 freeest institutions of every State in Christen- 
 dom." 
 
 These are the statements repeated over 
 and o er again as to the political attitude 
 of the Church of Rome; and all true Pro- 
 testants are called upon to occupy an 
 inimical position towards members of 
 that Church, on the ground, first of all, 
 that the adherents of that Church do not 
 owe civil allegiance to the Queen of this 
 Dominion and the Constitution of this 
 country; second, that they owe cjvil 
 allegiance to a foreign power; and 
 third, that that power is inimicil 
 to free institutions, and that its (-fforts 
 are uirecttd to subvert them as far as 
 possible. That is the attitude with res- 
 pec to the Church of Rome and its ad- 
 herents in Canada to-day. A gain, so late 
 as the nineteenth of February, 1884, at a 
 nieeting of the Grand Lodge of Ontario 
 West, the Grand Master — while this 
 Parliament was in Session, while this 
 Bill was on the Order Paper — referring 
 to the unfortunate affair in Newfounc^ 
 land, said : 
 
 "Brethren, it is the old story. It has been 
 told in Ireland a thousand times. It has 
 been told in Fort Garry, Montreal and New- 
 foundland, and shows to us as plainly as the 
 sun at noonday that when Romanism has 
 "the ascendency Protestants have no rights 
 and are only tolerated, and that the teachmes 
 of Rome are the same to-day as they were m 
 '98 — that to break faith with heretics is no 
 sin, aud thatkiUing is no murder." 
 
 Then, Sir, in the same speech, he 
 quotes approvingly frooi a wt'kly jour- 
 nal these words : 
 
 ''It (i.e., the Orange body in Ireland) is 
 acting strictly in self-defense fur everybody 
 
•0 
 
 who has read Irish history, or who liBtens to 
 Feiaan harangues, must know that bom^ the 
 moment when power passed into the hands 
 of Irish Cathohcs no man of British hlood or 
 Protestant religion would ever dwell in 
 safety on the soil of Ireland." 
 
 Commenting on that statement he 
 says ; — 
 
 "This statement, coming &om a gentleman 
 who on more than one occasion has spoken 
 in no friendly terms concerning our order, 
 shows that the thinking Protestants of this 
 country are becoming Sive to the necessity 
 of having a Protestant secret society to 
 counteract the influence of the gigantic secret 
 society of Romanism." 
 
 EFFECT OP THESE STATEMENTS, IF TRUE- 
 
 Now these are statements with which 
 we have to deal to-day. If these views 
 be correct,, if these be accurate statements 
 of the tenets of that chvirch, then it does 
 not merely hold erroneous views in mat- 
 ters ot dogma. The hon. member for 
 Hochelaga (Mr. Desjardins) and my- 
 self do not agree in our religious views, 
 and unfortuna;tely we do not agree 
 in politics ; but our difference in religion 
 does not mark the difference in our 
 political allegiance. Our differences in 
 religion are questions between us and our 
 consciences, between us and our God, to 
 be disposed of individually by each of us. 
 But these other views, which I have 
 just now read, are of an entirely 
 different character ; they go far beyond 
 divergencies of religious opinion. We 
 have here statements of views hostile 
 to the Throne, hastile to free institu- 
 tions, hostile to our Constitution, 
 hostile to social order and safety — 
 views which are destructive of every- 
 thing wliich we, in Canada — and I do not 
 place the Catholic below the Protestant 
 — which we, as a united people in Canada 
 hold most dear. I say that, if you tell 
 me truly that, in civil matters the ad- 
 herents of the Roman Catholic faith do 
 net owe allegiance to the Crown and the 
 Constitution, but owe it to a foreign 
 power, then they are not true subjects 
 to 4<he Queen, they are aliens in the 
 midst of our land. If this be so, I say 
 that you cannot trust them, [and I ofpeee 
 
 with those gentlemen who sometimM, 
 as was mentioned this evening, say 
 harsh things until "they grant absolution 
 before the elections " — I agree with them 
 that if these are the tenets of that 
 Church, I can well understand their 
 hostility, from a political point of view, 
 to the Roman Catholic religion. If they 
 believe that that Church is hostile to, and 
 desires the subversion of our free institu- 
 tions, of our Constitution, I can under- 
 stand their hostility going far beyond 
 differences as to dogmas of religion; I 
 can understand that the institution is 
 one with whose adherents no alliance is 
 to be maintained. Once again, if it 
 is their opinion, and if it be the 
 case, that Roman Catholics believe 
 that no faith need be kept with a 
 heretic, that the killing of a heretic is 
 no murder, then social order and safety 
 are at risk, and we cannot possibly re- 
 main at ease if such doctrines as these 
 are theirs. All those who honestly believe 
 these opinions to be true of the Roman 
 Catholic faith or of the adherents of that 
 faith, could not possibly, if they are 
 lovers of our Constitution and our insti- 
 tutions, honestly co-operate with them in 
 I politics. It is impossible. Sir, that an 
 j honest belief in these things, as the actual 
 tenets of that church, could consist with 
 political co-operation on the part of those 
 who so believe, with Roman Catholics. 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings.) Do you 
 
 believe what the Liberals in Lower Can- 
 ada believe t 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. Oi-der! On the other 
 hand, all lovers of free institutions 
 should combine against the evil which 
 would be wrought, the pressing evil and 
 danger to our institutions which would 
 exist, if such indeed were the tenets 
 held by such a large proportion of the 
 citizens of this country. The. question, 
 then, is a serious one. We have it here ; 
 we have had it within the last few 
 months; we have it stated as a doctrine 
 of to-day, and the hon. gentleman even 
 now nods assent to it, as the feeling an 
 Orangeman holds with reference to his 
 Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. 
 
81 
 
 THESE STATEMENTS UNTRUE., '^ *'*" 
 
 But are those statements tnie ? Sir, I 
 believe them to be untrue. I believe that 
 the Church of Borne holds many religi- 
 ons doctrines and dogmas most gravely- 
 erroneous : to these I am entirely opposed. 
 
 Mr. WHITE (Hastings). You be- 
 lieve too much; that is the trouble. 
 
 Mr. BLAKE. WeU, perhaps I be- 
 liere too much. I will not state that the 
 hon. gentleman believes all he says; I 
 hope he does. I have endeavored in my 
 own poor way, and to the best of my 
 humble ability, to promote the spread of 
 those Protestant principles of dogmatic 
 i-eligion, those views of the Gospel and 
 of the Bible, which I hold. I am 
 doing what I can in that direction, and 
 have been for years; it is not much, 
 but I have dcae what I could. I believe 
 that a most potent factor in that ditmo- 
 tion is a greater union among the "Pm- 
 testant denominations; and I have always 
 been desirous of seeing such a union ac- 
 complished for the better advancement of 
 the Gospel, according to our views of it 
 I rejoice to see the evidence of a ten- 
 dency towards that union, in the exist- 
 ence of those organizations in which 
 ministers and people of various denomin- 
 ations mingle, forget their differences, and 
 learn what is best in each other, and in 
 what points they agree. I rejoice to see 
 Evangelical Alliances, Young Men's Chris- 
 stiau Associations, and Ministerial Asso- 
 ciations, such as the one that exists in my 
 own city. I have worked with Orange- 
 men in the Synod of my Church and else- 
 where) they have sympathized with me, 
 and I have sympathized with them, I 
 cared not for our differences in politics : 
 tiiey have never made the shake ,of our 
 hands less warm, or our co-operation in 
 the work of our church less earnest ; and 
 It pains me that hon. gentlemen opposite 
 should seek an occasion of this kind to 
 raise a wall of division, even , among those 
 engaged together in church work, by 
 uttering and circulating these calumnies 
 against me, and by declaring that my 
 Protestant principles are abandoned, be- 
 cause I cannot, in my conscience, sup- 
 port a Bill for the incorporation of a 
 
 society which' propagates opinions likoy' 
 those which I have read. I know 
 that I shall be misrepresented and 
 misunderstood, and that men will be 
 misled, in my Province and else- 
 where, as to what I have said to-night. ' 
 I cannot help it : I felt it borne 
 in upon me as a duty to say it: I. 
 had to say it. I know that men will be ? 
 misled by designing politicians, who are 
 using tho cloak of religion and the cloak 
 of charity to promote party politics. If 
 we could forget our differences, and agree ' 
 to mingle in all charitable works, irre- ^ 
 spective of our faith— as, God be thanked, 
 although we differ in religion, we [ 
 may agree in -works of charity — it would . 
 be a blessed achievement. But to-day 
 what V e you doing 1 You are promoting 
 these calumnies ia reference to another 
 church ; you are coming forward and de- 
 claring, untruly as I believe, that the 
 tenets of that church, from which you 
 differ,are in these respects detestable, and 
 that every true Protestant must take the 
 same position. It is a course of which I 
 hope you will repent before you are many " 
 years older. Now, I am anxious for a 
 Protestant ascendency of one kind — for 
 the spread of those opinions which I 
 believe to be ti'ue ; but I am anxious 
 that there should be no Protestant 
 ascendency of the material kind to which' 
 the leaders of the Orange Tory party 
 refer, when they speak of that Protestant 
 ascendency which existed in the past 
 in Ireland, and to w^hich they look 
 backward with such longing eyes. I am 
 not anxious for that kind of Protestant 
 ascendency ; and in my desire to pro- 
 mote my dogmatic faith, I do not coun- 
 tenance such weapons as the hon. gen- 
 tleman and other Orange leaders use. 
 My belief is that my Catholic fellow- 
 subjects do acknowledge allegiance to, 
 and feel a loyalty to the Crown and the free 
 institutions of this country. My belief 
 is that they do not think that to break 
 faith with aheretic isno sin ,and that to kill 
 him is no murder. I have not forgotten 
 the declaration made against such calum- 
 nies as these by the Irish prelates, as long 
 ago as the twenty-fifthof Januar)', 1826,in 
 a document which contains many stable- 
 
8p 
 
 menbi of faith and dpotrine, as to which 
 Protestants and IploiAan Oatholics are as 
 wide as the pples asunder. But it con-, 
 tains two statemeAta which touch ova, 
 social and political system, and our rela* 
 tions to each other as citi;Eens of one 
 common country, as follows : 
 
 "The Irish CatboUcs swear, that the 
 Gathplics of Irelaitd do not helieve that the 
 Pope of Bpme, or any other foreign prince, 
 nrelate, state or jjotentate, hath, or ought to 
 have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, 
 power, ftup^riori^ or pre-eminence, directly 
 or indirectly, within this reahn: and this 
 without aay mental reservation or dispensa- 
 tion." 
 
 The prelates go on to say : 
 
 • ^* After thia full, explicit and sworn decla- 
 ration, we are utterly at a loss to conceive 
 on what possible ground we could be justly 
 charged with bearing tow(uxls our most 
 Gracious Sovereign only a divided alle- 
 giance." 
 
 And with reterence to the wther insult- 
 ing charge, they say this .• 
 
 "The Catholics of Ireland not only do not 
 believe, but they declare on oath, that they 
 detest as unchristian and impious the belief, 
 that it is lawful to murder or destroy anv 
 person or i)erRons whatever under the pre- 
 tense of their being heretics ; and also, the 
 principle*that no Siith is to be kept with 
 hereties." ; .' )jrf-;;f 
 
 There you find dii^tin'^t statements which 
 o(mtnKiict.ftU6gation8. which ought not to 
 harT^ been inade, and which there ought 
 not therefore to have been necessity for 
 oov^tradiflrtiing; and yet, Sir, we find, not 
 t«ii years Ago^ not five years ago, not one 
 jm^tkgo, but within thep^t few days, 
 «^<aQf(t offcHi^iveof these allegations re- 
 poftted, alk^tionst which I have shown 
 would, if true, indioate a condition 
 fwbveruTe of tibe free instiiutjdns. ol 
 our oounti^r. Now, I am not pre* 
 pared to mark as murferousi astreacheiv 
 om and dkloyal, nearly one-half ^ my 
 fellow-eitizena. I do not believe that 
 
 WfMMM ^'^iVfmmnv ^n Mi- m%M MSB WUIw«n*% -Cw -' vrUiff-' .■rfflfi'f 
 
 gion, 'th^ a4vaiM»ment of the (ijospel, th<» 
 
 good goyeiriii),Mient of tnis DcMninion, will 
 1^, IftpiRii^d by Jhe Bta^ j^^iguitisB 
 ^.tiliis sfioret socfe^^oiJganiJwid^wiiJieiip 
 ibp in O^lai^rfHicl^e^el^ pp©- 
 
 {Pgfttiopoi vi«ws0a<^iii»thope,|Hi|i0h4 
 
 have exposed. 
 
 MISREPRESEKTATION PBKSICTKD. 
 
 I do not myself attach, in the disoordaaft 
 dissolution of parties with respect to diis 
 Bill, any political significance to the ques- 
 tion. I have viewed it from another 
 aspect altogether ; I have been anxious 
 that we should understand what the real 
 merits of the controversy are; and in tof 
 slatement of my objections, I have endea^ 
 vored to sustain them, not by stale and 
 musty authorities, but by recent and au- 
 thentic utterances. But, perhaps, I 
 
 wrong; I dare say that I shall be more 
 bitterly misrepresented than ever before 
 by the Orange Tory leaders; and as to 
 the Tory Roman Catholic leaders, they, 
 too, the temporary struggle between 
 them and their Orange allies being 
 ended, and the alliance revived, will r»- 
 gard me all the more distastefully, be- 
 ca^^I have necessarily shown, either 
 h^Psham their battle is, or how falos 
 and unnatural is their conjunction. 
 
 THE TRUB POLICY DEFINED. 
 
 But I have this satisfaction, that I haw 
 told plainly the truth as I believe it; and ii 
 \nll be an ample reward to me, if I have 
 succeeded in explaining to moderate mm. 
 on both sides the views I hold, and in 
 pointing out the true path of d«^ 
 in a commumty of diverse races and<»«edB 
 like ours; whore we must combiiie firm- 
 ness in the assertion of our own rights, 
 with fuUness in the recognition of the 
 rights (Mothers; we must cultivate modier- 
 ation Mid forbearance; we must avoid 
 misrepresentation, calumny and abme; 
 we must hdd to the ample acknowledg- 
 ment of each man's individual fi^^its of 
 oonaoienoe in religious matters, and «f 
 the oommcm dttsenship of 4dl la o(hHI 
 affairs, if wz would make of ' Ouiads a 
 great and free country, iolkihited bjr a 
 huppy and united people^