.^'V, %. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ // &?/ ^ y 1.0 I.I IIM IIIIIZ5 IIIIIM |||||Z2 iRifi III 2.0 II 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 1— ^ 6" — ► v^ ^ //, VI e. ^1 o ^i / /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER .Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historicrl Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ ie meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sent indiquds ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ n D D D D D Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 film^es. D D D G n n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Paqes restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordos, tachetdes ou piqu6es Psigas detached/ ^ages d^tachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suprildmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X J 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire i\\m6. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une ampreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n<^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ( \ N \ !» A B?:\!-!0: '.. .■ ,NA . :<>NAI,K -^rr y^j I SPEECH OF i DAVID MILLS, M. P., ON JESUITS' ESTATES ACT DXLIVBBSD IN THB HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, ON THURSDAY, MARCH 28th, 1889. Mr. MILLS (Both well). I have watched with attention the proceedings in this debate, not with more attention to what has been said by hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate than to the manner in which it has so far been conducted. Sinee I have had a seat in Parliament, I do not remem her any subject which has come before the House that has exhibited the tactical skill of the hon. the First Minister to greater advantage than this disoassion. The hon. gentleman finds himself face to face with what may become a dangerous agitation, involving the Adminis- tration of which he is the head. That agitation was begun by a joui-nal conducted with more than ordinary ability, and characterised by what may bo called a spirit of aggres- sive ProteatantiRm ; and it na« gradually drawn to its side a large portion of the press of this country, and a very great deal of discussion adverse to the conduct of the Government has taken place in public meetings at several pUces in the Province of Ontario, Well, the Hon. gentle- man, in order to meet the dangers of the position, seems to have divided his forces that he may be in a posi- FC 7 1 i 2. Ti- I tion t« control both Bidds. He hM appointed his lientenantB^the hon. the Minister of JuBtioe to lead one Bootion of the hon. gentleman's foroes, and the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to lead another section of those forces. So the hon. gentleman has made such arrangements as to bring back to the support of the Government any that might be inclined to go astray. K they are dissatisfied with the conduct of the First Minister, they are at all events not dlRHatisfied with the position taken by his ardent ard faithful supporter, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). Now, the business of each of these two distinguished lieutenants is to look carefully after his own division of the grand Conservative army, and I have no doubt that these two hon. gentlemen have, in the esti- mation of their friends, discharged the duties assigned to them by the'r chief with a great deal of ability and a great deal of skill ; and I am sure that the hon. gentleman must feel equally grateful to his colleague, the Minister of Justice, and to his supporter, the hon. member for North Simcoe. This is not the only feature of this discussion worthy of no- tice. There is the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), who moves this resolution, and makes a very aruent and somewhat unreasonable Protestant speech, and there is another hon. gentleman, who, so far as I know since I have been in Parliament, has never been found voting against the Administration, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. JRykert), who is put up to answer the other ardent supporter of the Government, the hon. member for Muskoka. Then, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), speaking after these hon. gentlemen, and after the hon. the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Colby), tells the House that he will not take the trouble to answer the arguments which were addressed to the House by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Bykert). He tells us that that hon. member does not fear his constituents, because he never expects to return to them, that he is soon to go to his reward, that he has in this House no abiding place, that his labors as a supporter of the Administration, in this House, are drawing to a close, and that every day he is pitching his tent a day's march nearer the place where he expects to be. The hon. gentleman expect-, according to the information afforded to the House by the hon member for North Simcoe, soon to be gathered, not to his fathers, but to the fathers, where scrap books will ' be no longer required, and where all anxiety, as to the future of an election, will be dispensed with. That is the position pre- sented to the Honse by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McOarthj) in regard to the hon. member for Lincoln. Then the hon. member for North Simcoe told as of the position of another supporter of the Goyernment, the Deputy Speaker of this House (Mr. Colby). He told us that the roseate speech of the Deputy Speaker, in regard to the perfect harmony existing between the two sections of the population in the Province of Quebec, was due to thankfulness either for favors received or for tho«e which were to come. The hon* member said the Deputy Speaker was expectant ol futare promotion, but the hon. gentleman did not wish to hear from a Minister in futuro, but from one who was actually in possession of the Treasury benches. Sir JOHN A MACDONALD. He did hear it. Mr. .ilLLS {^Bothwell). In fact, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) gives a representation of the Deputy Speaker which reminds me of a statement in Lord Beacon field's " Endymion." In describing one of the char- acters in that book, the ftuthor says he had a feeli g in his bobom which ho was not very sure whether it was gratitude or indigestion ; and so the hon. member for North Simcoe says thai the able speech made by the Deputy Speaker was the outcome of some motive, either of favor already received or of favor to be received frr m the Government, but he was not very sure whioh. Now, the hon. member for North Simcoe, while he described the motives which actuated those with whom he is ut:>sociate(f on that side, and the feeling which induced them to spe?k in support of the position of the Government, failed to givo us any information as to the motives by which he was actuated himself. I do not say that the hon. gentleman was looking forward to a seat upon the Treasury benches. I do not know that such a position would have any attractions for him. It is quite possible that it might not have; but 1 remember very well the sup* port which that hon. gentleman has given the Government in past Sessions. I remember that Eailway Commission Bill which was introduced and supported by one who stood 80 near the Prime Minister, year by year, by which the Grand Trunk was paralysed and the interests of the Canadian Pacific Kailway were promoted, and I cannot bring myself to believe that the hon. goutloman would have taken the position he has in hupport of the amendment of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) if he thought the Government had any seri- ous objection to the amendment. The hon. gentleman not only failed to give us any information with regard to his own motives of action, bat he failed to make any alluBion to the speeoh of an hon. gentleman who supported the amendment— the hon. member for West York (Bir. Wallace). Now, that hon. gentleman has been in this UouHe a very ardent supporter ot the AdmiDistration. How is it that the hon. gentleman on this question arrays him- self, along with the hon. member for Aiuskoka (Mr. O'Brieo) and the hon. member for North Simooe (Mr. McCarlhy), in opposition to the course that the Govern- ment has seen proper to pursue upon this Bill? Sir, rumor hu8 ^'oue abroad that the hon. gentleman is not without anpirations for a seat upon the Treasury benches ; rumor has gune abroad that a round robin has been sent along the buck benches, on that side of the House, in the hon. gentle- man's iuterohis, unking the (4overnmont to find a place lor bim upon the Treasury bunches. It is said that the scarlet robe of ibo MiniHter ot Cutstoms has beooine somewhat faded by his Ion 14 silting upon the Treasury benches, and that he is no longer a fitting icpresentative of a very large section of the Protestant populution of the Province of On- tario; and so it is proposed— at all events, such is the rumor — to recuperate that section of the Goveiument by adding the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). Well, 8ir, the hon. member for West York is opposiiig the Administration of which so many of his friends desire that he bhould become a member. The hon. member nhakes his head. I have no doubt that he is sincere in that shake. I do not think the hon. gentleman feels that he is opposing the Administration ; I do not think he feels that by giving the vote he intends to give in support of the motion of th3 hon. member for Maskoka, he is doing any detriment to the Government of which ha wishes to become an important member. The hon. gentle- man, po doubt, feels that, as it is said all roads lead to Home, so all lines of action upon this motion, on that side of the House, will load towards the Treasury benches, because they are alike intended to protect and strengthen the right hon. gentleman and ihose associated with him in the Government of this country. I think the hon. member foi- West York is quite rigbt, and perhaps quite consistent, in his support ot the Administration by supporting the motion of the hon. member for Muskoka rather than the motion of the Siiniuter of Finance. We have had the two sides of the Government presented on this question. The hon. member for North ISimooe talked of the two sides of the shield, and I never saw an instance in which there were two sides to a political shield more manifest, and, I may say, more admirably presented, than they have been on tbiB occasion. Although we may admire the hon. Miiiister of JoBtioe for the very able speech he made on one side, aod the hon. mtmber for North Simcoe, for the very ardent speech he made on the other, I think we must after all give credit to the skill and genernlship of the Von Moltko who leads the Government, and who leads this Hoube. This, Mr. Speaker, is a sort of introduction to the new plan ot campaign Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. of the Bill. The preamble is not part Mr. MILLS — which the Government have presented. The introduction is not without intoroKt. Of couisc when, in a novel play, the actor is introduced to an audience, it is always interesting to those who understand it, and who are looking on, and who are anxious to see how it will end. Sir, the Minister of Justice last night made a very ex- haustive speech in defence of the action of the Government, a speech in almost every word of which I cordially concur. When the hon. gentleman had completed that speech the hon. Premier was ready for a division. He did not see any necessity for any further discussion upon the subject. It had been fully and exhaustively discussed. Both sides of the Government shield had been presented to the House. The Government had made their defence beiore the country, and they say to the electors, Yon can follow the Minister of Justice and support the Government, or you can take the other side, and follow the hon member for North Simcoe, and support the Government ; and so, whichever way the matter may be arranged, it comes to supporting the Government after all. It is like the trade between the hunter and the Indian. It is: jou take the owl and I will take the turkey ; or, I will take the turkey and yon take the owl. It goes to tho Government, no matter what the choice may be. Well, Uir, the Prime Minister was no doubt ready for a division, but we were not, and is it to be won- dered at ? I expect, at all events, and no doubt the vast majority on this side of the HoubO expect, to t-upport the Government. But when one is in questionable company he always feels obliged to make some defence or explana- tion of his conduct ; and i feel it necessary, in view of the Eolitical character of the gentlemen with whom I am to e associated in this vote, to give some account and some justification to the public for the course I intend to pursue. Now, we, on this side of the House, feel that this is a very important question. It is one which is calculated to arousQ religious feeling, and roligious prejudice ; it is one in respect of which men, if thoy once become pernneated with it, are likely to throw reason to the winds; and, therefore, in this incipient stage — if the incipient stage of the excitement and coDitovorsy is not passed — it is important that the Opposition, as well as the members and supporters of the Government, should have an opportunity of assigning to the public what is a sufficient reason for their own jut^titioa- tion, and which I think will be regarded &h a sufficient reason by the great mass of those who support them, for the course which they intend to adopt on this occasion. We have had most of the speaking so far done on one side. Our busiuoss in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up for the right, to al'ay, so far as wo can, the popular excitement, to correct the popular misapprehension as to the nature of the question put in issue by this Bill — not to become mere weathercocks which will indicate the strength of the gale which may be blowing from this or that particular direction. I have, and I have no doubt that every gentleman on this side of the House has, too much respect for the good sense and the good intentions of the people to undertake to convert this Jesuits' Estates Bill into a sort of " Ginx's Baby " for the purpose of creating religious excitement and for arousing religious animosities throughout the country. Sd, for these reasons, we propose fully to dis- cuss this question, and I think the time occupied in such a discussion is not wasted. There is one advantage, amongst the many disadvantages of popular excitement, that under it people are more likely to listen, with attention to what is said, and you have an opportunity of imparting to them in- formation upon u subject which they would not be likely to receive under other ciroumHlauces. That being the case, I think we are justitiod, notwiihstunding our anxiety to bring ihis Seosion to u clohe, m taking whatever time may be ne- cessary, to enter fully into the discussion of this subject, and to give to the people who sent as here all the information necessary to enable them to form an intelligent conclusion on the merits of the question in issue. Sir, this is a most im- portant question. The motion that has been placed in your hands by the hon. mombi^r for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) is, in some respects, one of the most important that has ever been brought before ParliameLt. We have in this motion, in the name of toleration, a demand for intolerance, and we have, under the pretext of resisting encroachments upon con- stituted authority and the maintaining of the supremacy of the Grown, a motion asking for a violation of the Consti- tution. This motion is, in my opinion, laden with mischief, because it mingles religioas prejudices and religious ani- mosities with the consideration ot the question. It mingles up stories of wrongs done and wrongs endured, as narrated in history, with fables and romances. I did not know when I heard the speech, especially the latter portion of the speech of the hon. member for North Simcoo (Mr. McCar- thy) and the speech of the hon member for MuHkoka (Mr. O'Brien), whether they had derived their information from history or romance. I thought that the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment had studied the " Wandering Jew" more carefully than anything else, and that in all probabil- ity the political po-i-ion of his speech was derived from " Henry Esmond." In a country where you have 2,000,000 of Boman Catholics, and something less than 3,000,000 of Pro- testants, it is in the last degree mischievous to invade the political arena with religious discussions, and to endeavor to convert Parliament itself into an ecclesiastical council for the purpose of deciding what religious opinions ought to be encouraged, and what religious opinions ought to be sup- pressed. We must continue to be one people, or at all events a people of one country, and it is not deeiirable to make the people of Oanada, like the Jews and Samaritans, the two sec- tions of which would have no dealing with each other. There may be questions involving principles so vital to human pro- gress, that the evils arising from undertaking to evade the question, the evils arising from acquiescence, would be greater than those which would flow from converting the country into two hostile camps ; but it seoms to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is not one of those occasions. In this case no such disagreeable choice is forced upon us. Wo have in this motion simply the question of tho right of local self-government on the one side, and the assertion of a meddlesome interference and oversight on the other. We have in this motion, a proposition to set aside tho Judg- ment of a Province upon a question within its own jurisdiction, and to replace that judgment with that of a majority of the people, or a section of the people, in another Province. I do not think we can permit any such course to be adopted. If wo were to do so, it would be practically an end to tho system of federal government. The hon. member for Muskoka and the hon. member for North Simcoe have quoted history upon this question. But the history or the controversial papers written by men of strong polemical tendencies, the more they are studied the more the readers are likely to be led astray, and especially is history misleading when it relates to a remote period and when the surrounding oiroamstanoes and the environing in- 8 flaences of oar own day are altogether differoDt from that of the ago about which they were writing. Tho past never repeats itself. The hon, gentleman anHumos that it does; hit) Bpeeoh was based on that assumption. I say the present is always being taken up into the past in the form of permanent results, and the future will differ from the presont by all the inflnenoes that are to bo found in the eveotH uf the age immediately preceding. Wore it not ho you mi^ht tuke a thousand years out of the history of a people, without any change in its subsequont history. Tho thousand years be* fore and a thousand years afterwards would fit together, for the intervening perioi would bo of no account. That is not the course of historical events, and when an hon. gen- tleman undertakes to tell us what this and that party believed or did 100 years or 500 years ago, without taking into consideration the circumstances under which those doctrines were laid down, or thoso principles enunciated or undertaken to be applied, he is giving information which is calculated to mislead rather than to enlighten the people of the present day. I have no doubt that this question also is dangerous to public tranquility, from the consideration that it is a religious question. Men always feel they can go a long way when they think they are supporting their religious dogmas, or the religious dogmas of somebody else, and they will employ in the defence and in the promotion of those views, and those religious opinions and preferences, means which they would altogether set aside in the affairs of civil life. In order to consider with profit some of the legal and constitutional features of this question, and some of the legislation to which the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. McCarthy) has referred, we have to take into account the limits of government in former periods. We must re- member wo have largely circumscribed the field of govern- ment. There was an age when the Government undertook to control the whole domain of human action, when private domestic relations, the religious and political affairs, were all brought under the control of Government, and when the affairs of life, whether private or public, were regulated by the united authority ot Church and State. Sir, in order to fully understand the legislutiou to which the hon . member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) referred, we must remember that in the rise of the Toutonic kingdoms on the ruins of the Boman Emp're, provincial ch niches were superseded by national churchs, oecolcsiastioal persons were included in the government, and while men came there with spears and shields, there came also bishop<9 and leading men of the ohnroh, and they sat in council together, and legislated toge- ther, and dealt with oooloHiastioal and roligioua, an well as withoivil matters; and ho the leg'iHlation in a lurgo dogroe covered everything relating to queHtions of religion and oon* i90ienoe,a8well as to political att'uirN. Under ihocircumntancos it was as much an act of wrong-doing and an much a viola- tion of the law of the lana to disnent from tho rite-« and the f>olity, the doctrine and tho discipline, eHtablinhod by tho aws relating to the church, as it was to ditsre.'ard mat* ters of civil authority. And so every case of (liusont was regarded as a case of sedition. Men and churches, whether they were Protestants or whether thoy wero Koman Oatholics, under those circumstances, were intolerant. It was a necessary condition of the state of society then ; they could not well be otherwise. If a man sought to sot up a separate church establishment, it was as much against the law as if he had undertaken to set up a separate political tribunal, or a separate judicial institution ; and so, a^ ^ have said already, the domain of government wag extendod over almost the entire field of political and religious opiuion and aotion. This was the condition of things duri' \ the Tudor Jeriodin EDelpnd,anditwastheconditionofthings,ini lar^o egree, though not to so great an extent, in the period r the Staar' . Now, let me call the attention of hou. gentlemen on the opposite sid*^. who have dealt with this Jesuit ques- tion to some facts of history — and I am not going to say anything in defence of this order, I am not going to enter upon any such discussion, but I wish to call the attention of the hon. gentlemen to the past, and I would like to ask them, would they be willing that their rights should be gov- erned, and their action controlled and circumscribed, by tho intolerant acts of the church or of a religious society of that day, with which they are now connected. Take the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and in her reign there were upwards of 200 Boman Catholics executed for sedition or treason. The charges against them were political charges. I am speaking now of those who were put upon trial, and the records of whose trials exist, and wo tiijd that (Iftcen wore executed for denying the Queen's supremacy in ecclesias- tical matters, that one hundred and twenty-six of those were executed for undertaking to exercise priestly functions, and that eleven were put to death for the pretended plot of Bheims. Every one of those parties were tried, as Sydney Smith points out, for a political offeice ; but what was the political offence? There was the et-tablished church ; the Queen's advisors had stated what the doctrines and discipline of that church ought to be, and those men, by remaining members of another communion, set the law in regard to 10 that establishment at defiance. Bat they were not the only ones who acted in this way. We find that the Nonconform- ists, Joan of Kent, and Peterson, and Tu;- ?v^ort and others, were executed on precisely the same principle, for holding opinions different trom Elizabeth and her advisers. If hen. gentlemen will refer to some of the histories of that period ibey find these parties are spoken of as conspiring against the Government, and as parties guilty of treason ; both Non- cuuiormists and Koman Catholics. £ut what was that oUeuce ? It waH that they declined to accept the rites and diHCipline of the establishment that had been created by law. Cambden, in his Annals, mentions that, in his day, there were fifty gentlemen imprisoned in the Castle of York, the most of whom died of vermin, famine, hunger, thirst, dirt, damp, lever, whipping, and broken hearts, and that the only ofi'ence ot those victims was, that they dissented Irom the religion of the iSiatuto-book, and that of Her Majesty's spiritual adviseis. Now, hon. gentlemen would not like to have the intolerance of that age quoted as a reason why they should not now be granted the rights of ordinary citizens. They would not like to have the religion of that period, and its enforcement by those who were of the same religious persuasion as they are, quoted, as an evidence of their intolerance. It was the necessary outcome of the age in which those people lived, for when you undertake to ex- tend the authority of government over the religious and ecclesiastical, as well as over the civil affairs of life, when yuu insist upon conformity to the one, as well as the other, it was a necessary consequence, that those who dis- sented in their views from the establishment, should be in a very uncomfortable position. Now, one of those who was executed at that period for opposition, was the Jesuit Campion, and be, at bis trial, said, that his only offence against the Government was that he had been guilty of holding a faith different from that held by the State. We would, no doubt, be ignoring history altogether it we did not see that many members of the Jesuit Order took an active part in the restoration of the Stuarts, and why was that ? Because the Stuarts favored their religion, and the Stuarts would establish it. The universal opinion was that some religion or other must be established, and they did what was perfectly natural for anybody to do— they sought to establish their own religion. When James 11 became an avowed iioman Catholic, and when he was using his sovereign position for the purpose of the restoration of the Boman Catholic faith and for overturning that of the great majority of the nation, there were Frobestauts who were I w^ 11 then aa active as ever the Jesuits were in endeavoring to bring in King William and in effecting a change of govern- ment, giving to the country a parliamentary sovereignty instead of one based on the notion of Divine Eight. So you find the Jesuits were in treaty again on the death ot Qaeen Anne, or in the closing years of her life, to bring back the Pretender, because the dynasty was at an end, a new family was to be established on the throne, and the question was as to whether it was to be the Prolender or some member of the House of Hanover. If you lake the history of the Stuart period in Scotland, and if you con- sider the relations of Mary, Queen of Scots with Knox, or of James VI with Knox, you will see that that great Reformer's opinion of duty of the sovereign and of the con- nection between the Church and State are wholly different to anything what wo entertain to day. No Presbyterian to-day would care to have his political views measured by the political standard of John Knox. He knows that the world has been changed since that date. Ho knows that society has undergone great changes, and that what was re- garded as right and proper at that period would be a wholly improper thing to-day. Toleration is of later growth; toleration grew as the state authority was contracted. There is no place where we hear so little with regard to religious interference in the affairs of state as in the repub- lic beside us. Why is that ? It is because the Government is extremely limited, and because every subject of that sort is excluded from the domain of political authority. So, to-day, we have a far greater amount of religious toleration, we have a more tolerant spirit abroad amongst every religious community, than existed in the former period, simply because we more fully appreciate the importance of confining the sphere of Government operation within narrower limits than did our forefathers. Now lot us look at some of the political views of that question. I regard it as extremely dangerous to our constitutional system. The hon. gentleman has put forward, as the first branch of this amendment, a proposition which I do not see how any hon. gentleman who favors a Federal Government can uphold. He says that this House regards the power of disallowing ^ho Acts of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, vested in His Excellency in Council, as a prerogative essential to the national existence of the Dominion. Why, Sir, the United States has a national existence; it has lived for the past U3 years, and the President has no power of disallowing a State law, or in any way interfering with the authority of a State Legisla- it ture. Every measure is left to its operation. If it is ultra vires, the courtH, and the cootts only, can say bo. But the hon. gentleman askH this House to declare that the whole machine of govern mint in Canada would go to pieces unless the Government exercised this veto. But, Sir, there is no doubt whatever that it would be a gross abuse of the trust committed to them by our Constitution if they wore to exercise it on the pr eseut occasion. Our con- stitutional system is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. What is the meaning of that? The United Kingdom has no federal organisation Why, Sir, theee words refer to the relation between the Executive and the Legislature. Our Constitution is similar in prin- ciple to that of the United Kingdom, in giving us respon- sible government J it gives us a Cabinet controlled by a majority of the House ; and it gives us a House subject to an appeal to the country at any moment that the Crown thinks neces^sary. There is a certain sphere of exclusive action assigned to the Local Legislatures, and a certain sphere assigned to this Parliament. Let us suppose that a Local Legislature, within its own sphere, had certain important questions coming before it ; suppose this ques- tion wore one ; suppose Mr. Mercier had said the Jesuits have a moral claim upon the Jesuits' estates, and that he had be*m beaten in the Local Legislature ; that he had gone to the country on the question, and that a majority had been returned with him to the Legislature to carry out that particular measure; how long would your sys- tem of parliamentary government endure, if the Govern- ment here should, after that measure was carried, take sides with the minority and disallow it? Sir, the Jjocal Government have a right to go to the country upon a public question, if Lho country is the proper tribunal to decide whether they are rjght or wrong, it is per- fectly clear that it cannot be the constitutional rule that this House is the proper tribunal to decide. How long could parliamontaiy government endure if the Aii ministration here wore to exeicise that species of supervision over the Lci^islatures upon whom responsible Government has been conferred. If we should act the part of at cient Downing street, and undertake to decide what is wise or unwise, why, Sir, your Government would be at an end. If you have local self-government conferred upon the people of the different Provinces, it is clear that the electors of thoto Provinces, within their constitutional authority, are the ultimate court of appeal for the purpose of deciding whether the political course of their Govern- 13 ment is what it should be. Thoy are the proper parties, and they alone. It is not to the hon. gentlemeu on the Trea- sury benchee, but it is to the elector 4 that the Lical Legis- latures are responsible for their acts within constitutional limits ; and while they keep themselvoH within those con- stitutional limits, I hold that we have not, according to the spirit of our Constitution, a whit more right to interfere — to use this prerogative for the purpose of dis.sallowing their acts— thau we would have to interfere with the acts of the Legislature of the State of New York. They are a distinct political entity for all the purposes for wliich exclusive power is given to them ; they are constitutionally beyond the control of this (lovernment and this Parliament; if they have acted wisely, their own electors will sustain them ; if, in the judgment of the electors, they have acted unwisely, they will condemn them, and will send to Parliament representatives who will repeal the law. By the judgment of their own masters they must stand or fall. But, Sir, it was hinted by the hon. member for North Simcoe, that these people wore not fit to be trusted fully, and, therefore, this meddlesome oversight is necessary. If you take that position, your whole system of government is at an end. That system is based on the theory that the people of each Province are fit to be trusted, that they are competent, and that if the Gov- ernment do wrong, the people will set them right. 1 see stateme.'its in the press and elsewhere, that this Govern- ment ought to exercise this power of disallowance. Have we a beneficent power given to the Government here, by which they may act absolutely and upon the theory that they never err, that the Local Legislatures are not to be trusted, and that this power is to be frequently exercised, in order to keep them right ? What would we tiay iu this House, if the Imperial Government were to in- terfere on any question wholly within the purview of our authority ? Would we submit to that interference ? You would have the whole country aroused; you would have it declared, that we would not submit 10 the meddlesome inter- lerence of Dawning utreot ; you would have the old question abuui parliamentary govern mom revived again. 1 way, that what would be improper to be done by the Imperial Parlia- ment againet us would be improper to be done by usagainst the Local Legislatures. N uw, we uever can proceed upon the assumption tnat this Parliament is wiuer, in mutters within the purview of the Local Legislatures, than the Local Leginlature or the Local G jveinmeut are. The assumption in our Constitution is that authority is vested in those who r u are moat oompetent to ezeroise it. Certain general matters are entrusted to us, bf^cause it was believed — in the public interest — that we could do better for the whole community than each section of the community could do for itself. It is upon that ground that the Union is established ; but it is also assumed, in the reservation of certain powers to the Local Legislatures, that they are the most competent to discharge the duties connected with those powers. If they are the most corapotent, upon what ground can we inter- fere ? What right would we have to interfere ? Why, the very jjjround on which interference is asked in this case would, if it had been put for»^ard when the Constitu- tion was framed, have been sufficient to have kept the Province of Quebec out of the Union. Are you going to entrap thom into a union by a form of constitution which seemingly gives them exclusive control over certain subjects, and then, after they have become members of the union, exercise a meddlesome overpight over their domestic affairs ? That is what is proposed. I say that is an improper thing, and I repeat that you never can safely undertake, even where a Local Letrislalure goes wrong, to correct their orrorn, instead of leaving the correction of those mistakes to the electors where it constitutionally belongs. Now let me call your attention to a precedent or two on this subject. When this question was raised in connection with the New Brunswick School Bill, Lord Carnarvou said : '* That the Gonstitutioa of Oa^ada does not contemplate any inter- ference with provincial legislation, onasabject within the competence of the Local Legislature, by the Dominion Parliament, or, as a consequence, by the Dominion Government." There is the limit Lord Carnarvon sets for that authority to disallow. He asks : Is the question one competent for the Local Legislature to deal with? If it is, your jurisdiction is excluded, your right to interfere is excluded. The Act may be unwise, but that is for them to judge, and not for you. You are not made a sort of second body to represent the people of a particular Piovince in provincial matters. In that same case, the law officers of the Crown, Sir J. D, Coleridge, the present Lord Chief Justice, and Sir George Jessell, afterwards the Master of the Bolls, one of the most distinguished judges of this century, said : •»0f course it is quite possible that the new statute of the Province may work in practice unfavorably to this or that denomination, and, therefore, to the Roman Uatholica but we did not think that such a state of things is enough to bring into operation or restrict the powor of appeal to the Governor General." Now, here was an Act which, he said, might work un- fairly and injure a particular class of the people who were ff 1ft oomplaininfl^, bnt with which, as it was within the ezolusive jnrisdiotion of the Province, althoagh injustice might be worked, it was not the business oi tbo fedora! authority to interfere. That is the doctrine clearly laid down in this case. In 1875, when the then hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson) brought this matter before the House, we re> fused to comply with his wishes, we refused to seek to set aside the provincial legislation upon the subject; and when Bishop Maclntyre, of Prince Edward Island, asked the Gov- ernment of my hon. friend from Eaat York (Mr. Mackenzie) to disallow the School Bill of that Province, which, he complained, was unfair to his poople, we refuHod to in- terfere because we believed the matter to be wholly with- in the jurisdiction of the Legislature and Government of Prince Edward Island. What we then declined to do for the Roman Catholics we now decline to do against them. We are acting consistently ; we are seeking to uphold on this, as on that occasion, the principle of provincial rights. The First Minister, in discussing the report on the School Bill of New Brunswick, laid down this proposition, that there were only two casen, in hit* opinion, in which the Gov- ernment of the Dominion was justified in advising the disallowance of a local Act. The first was that the Act was unconstitutional and ultra vires^ and the second, that it was injurious to the interests of the whole Dominion. Now, there is no doubt whatever about the soundness of the hon. gentleman's first proposition, and there is no doubt about the soundness of the second proposition, if there is no pos- sibility of disputing the facts. The Government of the Dominion could not act, and they would have been guilty of a violent broach of the constitution if, because they hold a different opinion from the Local Legislature, they should set up their judgment against the solemn decision of the Province in a matter entirely within the control of that Province. That was the position of the hon. gentleman on that im- portant question, and with that position we never quarrelled; to the principle laid down on that occasion we unre- servedly subscribed, and to that wo have ever since adhered. Let us look for a moment at the federal principle. If the Gov- ernment were completely federal, there would be no power of disallowance, and I have always boon of opinion that the power to disallow was an unfortunate provinion of our Constitution. I have always beor of opinion that it would have been, on the whole, very much better to have left the question, as in the neighboring republic, entirely to the courts, rather than take the risk of the pressure whioh may be brought on an Administration, from time to 16 time, to interfere in a way detrimental to the rights of the Provinces. The first question to be asiced is : Is the Act in controversy within the exclusive jarisdiotion of the Province ? If it iu, upon what grounds can its disallowance be called for ? Where the Minister of Justice thinks an Act is ultra vires, und that serious wrong might be done by allowiDg it to come into operation, he may make it a sub< joct of correspondence with the law officer of the Province, and if, after full discusi-Mon with that law officer, he is still of oplDion that the Act is ultra vires, he may disallow the Act, instead of leaving it go into operation until pronounced void by the courts. Now, what the hon. gentleman who has made this motion proposes is to convert Parliament into a Court of Apptaj. He proposes to make this House a court lor the purposes of deciding the limits of local and federal jurisdiction. Weil, this Parliament may have a question of that Bort, when it undertakes itself to legislate, forced upon it, and it must, for its own purpose, decide whether the question is ultra vires or intra vires. The House, it seems to me, is a body ill 6-uited to exercise judicial functions, and to undertake to say, in any question or proposition of this sort, what is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion. Now, when we look at the Constitution, we find that everything relat- ing to property and civil rights is under the control of the Local Legislature, except in so far as the oontroljof pro- perty and civil rights is spec^ifically given to the Dominion in the provisions of section 91. I am inclined to think that we often forget how comprehensive those words are : " pro- perly and civil rights." Civil rights, barbarians' of course have none. The civil right is a right regulated by the State. It is the exercise of a right, that belongs to the individual, in a way consistent with the rights and liberties of another individual. It may embrace religious as well as political creeds. The relations between parent and child, between guardian and ward, between master and servant, are all civil rights. The relations between the Churches and the State are civil rights. It is possible for a Local Legislature to say this religious body may be endov^od by the State, and another shall not be endowed. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a Local Legislature endowing a church, if it sees proper to do so. In the exercise of those powers over property and civil rights, it may do so. It may regulate the observance of the Sabbath and the observance of holidays. It may make our school system secular or denominational, in so far as it is not prevented by s specific provision of the Constitution. 17 It may make the school system wholly religious* The Pro- vince of Ontario to-morrow might make a provision doing away with public schoold and adopting a system of denomi- national schools in its stead. I do not know any ground upon which we could interfere on the subject of the relations between Church and State in a Province, except it would be in saying that a person belonging to one denomination may have the elective franchise and another not. The hon, gentleman told us yesterday that the connection between Church and State was entirely abolished by the Act of 1854. The hon. gentleman sought to leave the impression on the House that that Act was a finality, that the Provinces were restrained in some way by that Act. Why, the Province of old Canada, which passed thfit Act, might the next year have repealed it, and have established the old Church of Scotland as the Established Church of Canada, or the Church of England, or the Methodists, or some other body. * Of course, in my opinion, as an opponent of tho connection of Church and State, it would be unfortunate to do any one of these things, but tho power is not taken away simply be- cause it would be unwise, or inexpedient to use it. Now, the Local Legislature in any Province may very widely depart from the order of things which existed at Confedera- tion, Everyone who knows the history of this Union knows right well that, at tho period of Confederation, there was a disposition on the part of Ontario to take one view of public policy, and on the part of Quebeo to take another view. There were a number of questions upon which there was friction ; and what was one of tho objects of the dissolution of the old Legislative Union, and the establishment of the Federal Union in its place? It was to get rid of those difficulties, by allowing each Province to take its own course. Whether that was wise or unwise, whether it was tho best in the interests of civilisation, or whether it would lead to a different result, each Legislature was free to decide for itself, within the limits fixed by the Constitution, what course it would adopt. The hon. member for North Simcoe (M.v. McCarthy) yesterday concluded his speech by a quotation from a speech of Prof Caven. I have not tho pleasure of knowing Prof. Caven personally, but everything I have heard in re- gard to him has led me to the conclusion that he is one of the ablest thinkers in the Dominion, and that he is not a gentleman likely to form an erroneous conclusion when all facts are properly before him; but ho lays down in that speech three propositions. One was that the appropria- tion of these funds in the Province of Quebec was a maivor- 2 u ft her sovoroign control- eign— and it vvas no money than it would which wo have been 18 Ration of public funda. Now, that is not so. That is a total misapprehension of the state of the question. Qaebec may have acted very unwisely in dealing with the funds as she did, but the Legislature of Quebec was as free to deal with the funds under the control of that Province as this Legislature is, or as a private party is to deal with the moneys and property belonging to him. Whether Quebec has usod the moneys wisely or unwisely it is not necessary hero to discuss. The fact is that the money was her own to do as she pleased with. It was under -for, for this purpose, she is sover- more a misappropriation of her bo if wo were to take moneys in the habit of devoting to one purpose, and were lo withdraw them from that purpose, and to use them for some other and diflPdrent purpose. We have had discussed here those three questions: To whom, did this property belong? how was it acquired ? how was the ownership lost ? In part it is said to have been granted by the King of France, in part it consisted of private bene- factions, and in part it was property purchased by the society with its own money. Now, as to the first two classes of property, they wore given to the society to propagate the Roman Catholic religion. The society itself was not an end. It was not for the advantage of the society, as a society, that it was "ivon, but it was given to the socioty as a means to an end, and that end was the propagation of tho Eoman Catholic faith, the society form- ing a part of that church. If the views of that society wore in any respect at variance with the views of the church, then the property was not given for the promotion of those views. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) said that the church to which he belonged had been de- spoiled of its estates when the Clergy Reserves were secular- ised. Why, the Clergy Reterves never belonged to the church They were reservof, not grants. They belonged to the State. The State held thorn during its pleasure for a particular purpose, and, while that pleasure continued, the State applied the proceeds to that purpose. But there were 57 rectories, and those were grants, and, when the connection between Church and State by the Act of 1854 was declared to be abolished, those 57 rectories were not taken from the church. The church retained those rectories because they were its private property al the time this Act of 1854 was pasiied. Let me state some of the analogies which I think may be fairly used to illos- trate the position of this Jesuit Society. That society had I 1 I 19 very much thosarae relation to tho Roman Catholic Church in Now Frinco as the trustees of Queen's Collogo havo to tho Prorfby toi iun Church, or Victoria C >Hoge to the Ikletho- dists, or tho trnstoos of McMastor Hall to the Baptists. Now, if any nf those cor|)0!ution8 failed, and tho Crown took possossion of tho property which bclongod to tho extinct cor- poration, would any one of theno denominations be quite satisfied with tho result ? For iustanoo, if Queen's Col- lego Wi»s tukon possession of by theCro'^n and its property sold, aii'l the moneys put into tho Oonsoli Jatod Revenues of Ontariu, would not the Prohbyterian bo ly assert a moral claim, in spite of the leg'il ri;;,'ht which might belong to the Crown in respect of those properties? That is very much the position which the Jesuits and the Rom-in Catholic Church in Liwer Canada took towards the Crown when the Crown appropriated these estate?, [t is said by the hon, gentleman that these are vevy improper people, that they have been intriguers, political intriguers, in every country in Europe, and that they are not to be trusted. Well, speak- ing from the orhical point of view, that reminds mo very much of the pa-*iiion ot u man who ovves another and does not want to pay what he owes, and he says : I will not pay the man I owe because he is a drunken rascal and beats his wife, and, if I paid him tho money, he would get drank and would beat her again, and. as I am a moral man, I prefer to keep the money. The hon. member for Ncrth Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) yesterday went on to state the origin of the title of tho Crown t>> this property. I do not attach any im- portance to this.f or I his reason.ihat tho legal title of the Crowa is not disputed by tho Prime Minister of Quebec, although, historically, it is an interesting question as to how the Crown came into posso'jsion of these estates. The hon. gentleman yesterday stated four theories, three of which must be erron- eous, as to tho way in wh eh the Crown acquired j ossession. Ho cite 1 two oi' these frjm two separate reports of the Judge Advocate General, Marriott. The one was that the property had been confi-cated by the King of France before the Conquest, and was part of tho public domain belonging to the King of France at the time of ihe Co"^; quest. The law officers of the Crown, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, did not concur in that opinion, and did not act upon it. Then Mr. Marriott gave another opinion that tliese estates belonged to the General of the Order, and that as proprietor there was no provision made for his selling or disposing of them, that the only parties who had a right to hold estates in Canada were those who were British subjects, that the General of the Order was not a British subject, 2iM HIHI 20 that no provision was mado for selling oxcopt by those who wished to leave the country, and as the (jeneral of the Order had never been in the country, ho could not hcII, and 80 the property necessarily belonged to the Crown. This may bo ingenious but it is not sound. Then thoro was also the title set up based on the Conquest, and there is the title set up by the extinguishment ot the corporation by the Pope's bull. When wo look at the papers wo find a proclamation, dated in 1*774, in which the Crown declares its intention to take posfiossion of thcHO estates in consequence of the dissolution of the order, and the proclamation isoems to have been repeated again in the Eoyal Instructions given in 1791. It is said in the Eoyal Instructions : '* It is our will and pleasure that the Society of Jesus be supprepsed and dissolved, and no longer continued as a body corporate or politic, and all their possessions and property eliall be vested in us for such purposes as we may hereafter think St to appoint, and direct and appoint." That was in 1791, 30 years or more after the oonqncst, Now, I do not see myself on what legal principle the King could, at that time, or at any time after ho had established a government in the country, assort any such title as that to the estates. He did not at^sert it at the Conquest. There was no formal possesr-ion claimed or taken. I find at a still later period, the next year, another and different ground is put forward as the ground of tho King's title. It is in the fiat issued by tho Governor of that day, and he says : " Whereas all and every of the estates and property, movable or im- movable, situated in Canada, which did heretoiore belong to the late Order of Jesuits, have, since the year of our Lord 1760, been and are now by law vested in us." So we find in that fiat the title is dated back to 1760, although in the Eoyal Instructions it is dated in 1791. But there is no doubt that the Crown went into posscshion in some way or other, and if the title was not a legal title, it in the first instance became a title by prescription against the order. I don't see any ground for ass^erting a title in the Crown, except by prescription. Mr. Mercier does not admit any legal title in the Order of Jesuits, but thtir moral claim ho admits to exist. Now, let me call the attention of hon. gen- tlemen to certain articles in the capitulation of Montreal. I think it is clear, from these Articles of Capitulation, that the King was precluded from asserting any legal title as conqueror : "Art. XXXII. The communities of Nuns shall be preserved in their constitution and privileges. They shall be exempted from lodging any military, and it shall be forbidden to trouble them in their religious exer* 21 •cises, or to enter their monftBteries ; safeguard shall even be given them if they desire them. "Answer — Qranted. •' Art. XXXIII. The preoedinst article shall likewise be execntfld with rt-gard 10 the comruuaities of Jesuits aad ttecDllots, and to the house of the priests of St. Suloice at Montreal. This last, and the Jesuits, shall preserve their rights to nominate to certain cu acies and missions as heretofore. " Anbwer.— Refused till the King's pleasure be known. '• Art. XXXI7. All the communities, and all the priests shall pre- serve their movables, the properly and revenuts of tbe seignories and other estates which ihey possesj lu the coioiy of wh*! nniure soever thev be, and the same estates shall be preserved iu their privileges, rights, honors and exemptions. •' Answer.— Granted." Now, I ask Iho attention of hon. gentlonan to this, that all the communities spoken of aro the Nuno, the JcBUitfl, the EecolletH, and the priests of St. Sulpice, Those are the four orders, and it is said in this artifle that all the com»- I munities and all the priostn shall preserve their movable properties and revenues, eoipnories, &c., on this ground. Then this construction of thi 4 article is further confirmed by article lib : " Art. XXXV. If the canons, priests, missionaries, the priests of th« Seminary of the Forfign Mission, and of St Sulpice, as well as the Jesuits and the RecoUets, choose to go to France, passage shall be f granted them in His Britannic Majesty's ships, an i they shall all have eave to sell, in whole or in part, the estates and the movables which they possess in the colonies." Now, there were two things allowed to these orders: To remain in the country and to remt> a in possession of the property under the 3Uh anicle, or to leave the country and Bell the property before they lef' under article 35. If the property had been confiscated to the Crown, or haJ been taken possession of by the Crown, by the virtue of the Conquest, no such article as this would have been granted. But in both these cases there is :i provision in the Articles of Capitulation preserving to these parties their rights, which made it impossible for th'> ed that Bill and carried it throu4?h the liegislature. There was a proposition :it that time that, in order to secure the immediate separation ot Church and State so far as that question was concerned, there should bo a commutation of the salaries or compensation due to the different parties, and this proposition was submitted; and the right hon. gentleman, so far as I can recollect, in the discussion said this in reply: If you pay those Ministers the amount to which they are entitled, computed upon iheir probability of life, they might take the money and go to Australia and South Africa, and might cease to perform those duties which entitle them to receive this money, and you pay over the money upon which the church has a moral claim by its claim to their services. You must take some means of securing the performance of those duties in behalf of which the money is voted. That was the position taken by the right hon. gentleman, and, I think, he entered into a correspondence— he will re- member the matter better than I do, as he was the active 23 party in the case — with tho bishop of the Church of Kng- land, and with the moderator, or Homebody olne, on behalt of thePrctibyterians, und arranged ihe commutation of those annPB due to the clergy, and paid the money over to tho church and not to the individuals. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Yes, that is ho. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I thinli tho sum was 8400,000 CJT more. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. More. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Very much more, I think. And that very Act, under which the money was pail and which was declared to be for the purpo.se ot putting an end to the connection bet^^een Church and Sui^e, upon the theory of the member for North Simcoe, ucuially obtab- lished connection between Church and State. Then there is another consideration. So far as I remember the provisions ef that Act, the right hon. gcnlloman made its provisions depend upon the succes-^ful carryingout of the arrangement by those parties who wore interested in the matter. If it was treason for Mr. Morcier, and contrary lo the Act of Supremacy, to enter into discussions with any outsiJe per- son as to .the settlement of the disputes in regard to the Jesuit matter, was it not equally improper to enter into a commutation arrangement with a party who was not a member of Parliament, who had not a seat in Parliament, and was not in any sense a representative ? The right hon. gentleman entered into correspondence with the biihop and with other parties, and it was for tho purpone of decid- ing — what? It was for the purpose of deciding whother commutation should bo had with the church or not. The Legislature confirmed in advance what was done. Now, so far as this case is concerned, my point is this : No one pre- tends that the bishop or any other church dignitary was made a party to tho enactment because he was a party to the terms ot settlement. No more is the Pope a put ty in this Bill, but a party lo a contract, which this Act nubse- qnently brought forward was intended to carry out. Let me take another case. Suppo^ng, in the case of the Canadian Pacific Eailway, the Government had entered into a con^ tract with Sir George Stephen, Sir Donald Smith, Mr. Mc Intyre, and Mr. Kennedy of New York, and certain parties in Paris. The right hon. gentleman might have set out the correspondence in the Bill, and then we would have a Bill in exactly similar terms to the provincial Act respect- ing the Jesuits' estates, and the right hon. gentleman 24 would have had in that contract and Act the names of par- ties who were non-residents of this country. He might have had in it the name of some party at Frankfort, Sir JO^IN A. MACDONALD. Mr. Keinhardt. Mr. MILLS (Both well). Yes, and the parties in Paris. The right hon gentleman might have had all those names in the Act, and according to the view of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), if it had not been a violation of the Act of Supremacy to ha^re dealt With foreign parties who mighi be regarded as capitalists, the right hon. gentle- man might have been open to the suspicion of legislating for Canada not simply by the Qcoen and the two Houses, but by the aid of German, French and New York bankers. It is said by a writer in the Law Journal that this Act is ultra vires. The writer says: " It ia ultra vires the f^onstitutional power of a Colouial Le^islatare to confer oa or delegate to auy foreign Sovereign, Potentate or Tribnnal lawful jurisdiction or authority to determine or ratify the diatribatioa of the moneys or properties of the Grown, or how money grants to the subjects of the Grown within its Colonial jurisdiction are to be dis- tributed. " This, I have no doubt, is intended as a legal proposition* embracing this particular case or Act before us. Let mo say that it is wholly beside it. There is hero no foreign potentate; there is a foreign party interested. The foreign party is claiming a properly, and that foreign party nego- tiated with Mr. Mercior prior to legislative action. Those negotiations were simply a contract with the Crown, prior to any legislation, and prior to the meeting of the Legisla- *ure. He did just what the bankers in Paris did in regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway, with this ditference, that the Pope, as the head of the church, acting not personally, claimed the right, the moral right at all events, to this property. Mr. Mercier said: You have no legal right ; I can only recognise a moral right. So there was no question of sovereign right, and there was in no way a violation of the Queen's supremacy by Mr. Mercier, who entered into negotiations and dealt 'vith the Pope in the name way as ho would deal with any other party having a claim against the (xivernmont, whether foreign or native, and Mr. Mercier, after an agreement was arrived at, went to the Legislature and sought to give effect to it. The Legislature, with its sovereign authority over the question, confirmed the agreement which thus had been entered into. Let me call the attention of the House to an opinion given by Lord Selborne on this point. In the case of Brown vs. 25 Cur6, &o., do Montroal, 6, Privy Cauncil Appeals, 173, couDBol said appeals to the Popo wore in contravention of 1 Eliziboth. Lord Selbjrno obborved : " That statute is not unierstnoil to make it an off-nc^ at law fir Roman Ci.th(ilic3, ia this country or iu Ireland, to carry nppeala to tba Pope. The Pope is a sort of aibitr«tor, tnlciog a legil view of thsir position, whom thej may consult upou the question." That is t»^'^ position, and tho Eoman Catholies in Canada do not violate the Supremacy Act in appealing to iho Popo for tho purpose of settling any cccleyiastioal or spiritual question in which they are interested. I will pUco the diotum of Lord Solbotne against tho authority of tho Toionto Law Journal, and I think those hon. gentlemen who were converted to that side by the powerful arL'ument of the Toronto Law Journal, may be convened back again by tho still higher authority of Lord Selboine. I be /.aw? Journal says : "But the sUtutea of Elizabeth, the expreaa word3, abolish the usurped jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, hereiofjre imlawfaUy ckimed and usurped within the realm and other the dominions to tho Queen belonging." I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment while I call its attention to the position of this question. It ia necessary to look to some extent to tho history of tlio ques- tion in order thoroughly to understand tho pretensions of tho Pope, and his relation to the church in questions of this sort. I will refer to tho views that are expressed by Lord Selborno in his book on the English Establishment. Ho says it was tho practice in various times, in order to maintain the ancient privileges of the church, n>)t to permit of appeals to Rome, that it is shown by tho constitution of Clarendon, and by earlier provisions of the law, that this was then the practice; but that when Stephen came to the Throne, and his brother, who was the Pope's Legate, was also tho iSishop of Winchester, he introduced another prac- tice and they permitted, and in fact authorised appeals to Rome, which wore attitful intervals continued down to the time of Henry VIIL The statutes that are found in the period of Henry VIII (and which were repealed under Mary), which put an end to the appeals to Rjme, were re-enacted by this statute of Elizabeth. Let me call your attention just for a moment to in- dicate in a brief summary the provisions of thoMO Acts. Henry the Eighth legislated in favor of ecclesiastical emancipation in this particular. Bafore his day, and up to the middle of his roign, appeals were taken to the Papa ia 26 testameiitary acts, flrd on the qucRtions of matrimony, divorce, tithee aid oblalione, and by the statute of the 24th year of Henry VIII, chap. 12, those appeals wore abol- ished, and it was declared that hereafter they were all to be adjudicated by the King's temporal and f.piritaal ooarts. It will be seen that in every ona of these cases there was involved some material interest. Tbey wero not purely spiritual cases, they grow up bocauso the ecclesiastical law was applied to parties who made their wills, and so on, at the period of their deaths ; and as the ecclesiastical law was not understood by the English lawyers, appeals were frequently taken on civii cases from Bngland to Eomo. By an Act of the 25th yjar of Henry VIII, cap. 19. it provided for the settlement of all those cases by the Kirg's Majesty. It forbade the clergy, under penjilty of fine and imprisonment, to make a constitution without the King's aenent, and it forbade a'jpeals to Rome other than those that were permitted by cap. 12 of an Act passed in the 2ith year of Henry V'.lf. By an Act jwssed in the 25lh year of his reign, cap. '20, ho prevented the pajmtnt of annates, and the first fruits that wore allowed etill to contiruo after the former statute; that is, that the persons entering into an ecclf sinstical oflSco, to "which a Eylaiy was attached, wcreooligcd to pay tbd first year's t-alarj lo the Pope as&pnrt of his revenue. After that it was declared that the archbishoMs and bishops were to be elected, presented, and cone>ecr.i,cd within the realm of EnglaLd. Jn the 25th of Heniy Vill, cap. 21, exonera- tion from exactions by the See of E^mo wa^ secured, and they were declared to be independent of all foreign inter- fereLce. The bame statute foibadc tho payment ot Peter's perce, and declared that neither the Kii g, nor his subjects, shall sue to Rome for any dispensation or license. The Archbishop of Canterbuiy was to grant such in future, but he was n( vcr to do so unlets ho obtained the apjiroval of the Kirg in Council. The 5th and Gth of Edward VI, cap. 1, enacted tho principle of uniformity, the use of tho Book of Common Prayer, and enforced attendance at church on Sun- days. All these statutes were repealed in tho reign of Mary, and they wero ail re-enacted by this Act. Tho Int of Elizabeth, cap. 1, declared that "All foreign jurisdiction is abolit-hed, and all spiritual jurisdiction united to the Crown." All tnese measures amount simp'y to this, that as the Church wasconnected with tho State, tho administration of the affairs of tho State, executive and judicial, were de- clared to belong to the Sovereign. They were vested in the Sovereign, and not one of them was to bo invested in any 2t other tribunal. As long as tho power of the Sovorei,f?n ex- tonded over tho religious community, and aa long as strict observance of the laws of the estabiiehment were enforced, those Acts of Supremacy, and all those other Acts, wore rigidly enforced against the Roman Catholics. Bat, when it was once admitted, that dissent might he recognised as possible, without treason, sedition, revolution or disloyal intent, variation in divine services, in church polity, and in church rites, were overlooked, and weie ultimately toler- ated, and they were admitted not to fall within tho penal provision of this statute of Elizabeth. It was so held by Lord Selborno, in the case I have mentioned. It is trao, that the judgment of the Pope has not, in England, nor in Ireland lo-day, so far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, tho force of a judgment of an ordinary rivil tribunal. There are no means, c-xcept those which belong to him, as the moral head, to enforce his conclusion ; there are no moans of enforcing obedience to his judgments, except excommuni- cation or exclusion from the church's privileges, but that he may (as Lord Selborno said) be appealed to, and tnat he is a moral arbitrator, acting according to certain judicial principles, and that he has the right ^o to act, and that tho itoman Catholics of tho United Kingdom have a right so to appeal to him, is beyond all question. Wo have here submitted to us in this amendment, and in the epeeehos which have been delivered in its defence, a proposition as to whether the law is in that respect tho same in this country, or whether the R:>Tian Catholics of the Province of Quebec are more restrict* d in their rights than tho Roman Catholics in the United Kif.g- dom. Lot me nay, Mr. Speaker, that the rule which I have quoted from Lord Selborno came into being after tho statute of Elizabeth was relaxed, when tho dissent from the Establishment Wiis permitted, and when a largo portion of the population of the United Kingdom were privileged to wortship in some other form or way than according to tho Establishment without having th^iir civil rights impiiredor their liberties interfered with. Now, Q^ebaj received its law from the King, subjoct to the terms granted in tho capitulation. There was no statute of Elizabeth in force and that statute was not carried to any one of tho colonies. I might quote tho view of Lord Mansfield, whoso authority is unquestioned both in judicial decisions and in a letter addressed to Mr. Grenville, tho Prime Minister, in 1764, in which ho says that tho penal laws of tho United Kingdom are never carried to a colony as part of the common law they take with them. If that is so in a colony settled by 28 tho people of England, it is much more so in the case of a colony that is secured by conquest. Srch a law cannot operate, as tho hon. the Minister of Justice pointed out last evening, unlees it would be by the abrogation of all those rights that were ceded by capitulation and contained in tho Treaty of 176^}. Now, we have in the Act 14 George III, chapter 83, this provision : " For the more perfect security and ease of the miads of the in- bftbitants of the said Province, it is heieby declared, that His Majesty's subjects prof.'3sing the religion of the Ohurch of Rome, of and in the sai'l Province of Quebec, mny have, hold, and ecjoy tho free exercise of the religion of ihe Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy, declared and established by an Act made in the first year of the reiga of Queen Elizabeih, over all the dominions and countries which tbea did, or thereafter should belong to the Imperial Crown of this realm; and that the clergy of the said church may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights with respect to such persons only aa shall profess the said religion." Tho whole Act of Elizabeth is not introduced by this, bat only those provisions, I think sections 7 and 8, which relate solely to the question of the Sovereign's f^upreraacy, and that supremacy id not affected, as Lord Selborno points out, by an appeal to tho Pope as the spiritual head of the Komau Catholic Church, who, in deciding questions relating to the church over which ho has jurisdiction not incom- patible with the civil law, acts as a moral arbitrator. Of couri?e, the position of tho Eooaan Catholic Church in the Province of Quebec is not altogether that of a voluntary association ; it has cortain connections with the State. It is not true that we have an entire separation between Church and State in all the Proviijces of this Dominion. The Eoman Catholic Church in the Province of Quebec occupies a somewhat anomalous position. Under the Quebec Act and over since, that church has been allowed to collect tithes from its members, but not from members of other religious persuasions. The collection of those tithes, for the purposes mentioned, im- poses on the church certain obligations. For instance, a case has been decided in the Quebec courts in which a resi- dent of a parish who had paid his church rates, insisted on the cure, with whom ho had some difference, baptising his child, and the cut e refused; and a judgment was given enforcing the rights of the parishioner as against his ecclesiastical superior. And so with regard to other matters, in so far as the church enjoys certain special advantages, the civil authorities have a right to see that the corresponding obli- gations are properly enforced whenever the question is raised. It was on this ground that judgment was given for the burying of Guibord within tho ground usually 29 regarded as consecrated. In discussiog this question the court said : "Nor do their Lordships think it necessary to pronounce any opinion upon the difficult questions which were raised in the arpument betore them touching; lUe precise »tatus at tlie present time of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. It has, on the one hand, undoubtedly, since the ce.-sion, wanted some of the characteristic;^ of an established church ; whilst, on the other hand, it differs materially in several im- portant particulars from such voluntary religious societies as thi) Angli- can Church in the Colonies or the Roman Catholic Chirch in England. The payment of dimes to the clergy of the ilomau Cath.ilic Church by its lay member?, and the ratability of the latter to the maintenance of parochial cemeteries, are secured by law ani statutes. These rights of the church must beget corresponding obligaiioua, and it is oDvious that this state ot thinga njay give rise to questions between the laity and the clergy which can only be determined by the municipal courts. It seem-t, however, to their Lordships to be unnecessary to pursue this question, because, even if this church were to be regarded merely a^ a private and voluntiry religious society, resting only upon a concensical basts, Courts of Justice are siill bound, when aue complaint is made that a member of the society has been injured as to his rights, in any mattet of a mixed spiritual and temporal character, to en(iuire into the laws or rules cf the tribunal or au'hority which has inflicted the alleged injury. — 207-208, Their Lordships conceive that if the Act be questioned in a Court of Justice, that Court has a right ta enquire, aad is bound to enquire, whether that Act was in accordance with the law and rules of discipline of the Roman Catholic '^'^ irch which obtain in Lower Canada, and whether the sentence, if any, by which it is sought to be justified was regularly pronounced by any authority competent to pro- nounce it." And so far, on account of its s^poc'al rights, making it to a limited extent a State Church, it has imposed upon it certain obligations, acd so fai- these may be brought before the ordinary civil tribunals for tho purpose of their enforce- ment. But, beyond this, thoro is no connection ; beyond thin, it is purely a voluntary association, and .it has the same right of appeal to the Pope as tho .spiritual head ot the church that any other church would bivo to appeal to tho constituted authority jL that church. It is not a national, it is a Catholic Church, that is, its authority extends, regardless of politicul boundaries, over all those who profess its faith. Novr, to deny that right, so far as Lord Sel borne lays it down — and that is as far as it in asserted in this particular case — would bo to say to those of the Roman Catholic persuasion : Although you may have your notions of church politj-, which are not iho same as ours, yet you are not at liberty to assert tliom; bo- cauee you believe that a church may have boundaries wider than those of other churches, you are to be Jimitod by political considerations to the limits of a particular state. 1 say that would bo an ictolerublo rule. If the Presbyterian Church of Canada today chose to con- nect itself with that of the United States, I do not know 30 any law that would prevent it establishing its ecclesiastical courts to which both bodies would bo bubjoct; and, in so far us the civil tribunal might bo called on to adjudicate on quos-tions rehitiitg to thono courts, those questions might be di-'jio-.ed of in so far as they might bo connected with the mat( rial afl'airs of either country. Now, let me call the attention of the hon. mombor lor North Simcoo to this. The Govern niont of Enghiud has legislated upon this sub- ject. At the lime ot the American Eo volution there was no Kpiccopal bishop in the colonies now the United Staien. Alter the revolution, the EpiHCopal churches of the independent colonies required spiritual toads; they retjuired bishops in the Episcopal churches ot the United Stalca. Ilow were they to get them ? They were separated Irom England, and the E; g'ish Parliament had no longer any juriiJiiicUou over them. The result was that, after a good deal ot hesitation, ParliamcLt legit-lated, and passed the Act 2(» George III, chapter 84, authorising the Archbishop of Cariterbory to ordain bishops for the Episcopal churches within the Independent Kepublio of the United Slates. There was Parliament itself, on account of the connection between Church and State, undertaking to exoitiso what might be regarded as a legislative and spiritual jaii:-)dictiou in a foreign country; and they 1 ^sitated so long, if I recollect rightly, that the Scotch ("L'hops ordained the fit'»t bishopn before the Act of Parlif ^ent came into operation. The United States never took any cite nee, so far as I know, at that Act, and never claimed that it was a usurpation of supremacy or an inter- ference with ihcir sovereignty. The Archbishop of Canter- bury, in ^his respect, did everything that the Pope has done throughout Christendom iu the ordination of bishops in the Eoman Catholic Church. Now let me take another case. There was the appointment of a bishop at Jerusa- lem^ for Syria and the countries of the oast, by the English Church. Piiiliament authorised that appointment. It was the cxoiciso, according to the hon. gentleman's view, of sovcrigu authority within the dominion of tho Sultan of Turkey; and the only ground of embarrassment with them was whether the Greek Cnurch, as well as tho Church of England, being part of the general Catholic Church, would be offended anH t ^^ k that the English Church were inter- fering wit i S< irdlcLion ; and so the Archbishop of Canterbu; '..'-^t letter to the Bishop of Jerasalem, warning ii -.. > ; . < r^ *: to cultivate a spirit of Christian charity and i>i y, . • ersianding with the authorities of the Greek Church iu luat particular section of the country. ■ But to set up tho doctiino laid down by the hon. gentluman here, based on the Act of tho Queen's supromacy, would bo to deny to all churches having a particular form of church polity, the privilege of extending their viowd of Christianity over tho habitable world. I would like to know, accord- ing to his view, how it would be possible to obey the Divine command to go into all the world and preach tho gospel to every creature. Tho hon. gentleman would arrest every minister of tho Gospel under that theory, who would under- take to preach beyood tho limits of tho country to which he belonged. I dare say some hon. gentleman will roraembor when tho Methodist Episcopal body in th's country formed a part of tho Methodist body of the United States, when they had no bishop in Canada, when their conference was held in iho State of New York Sir JOKN" A. MACDONALD. I remember that well. Mr. MILLS (Botbwell) — when their ministers wore Bont to the Province of Ontario, and when, on account of the sympathies of tlioso ministers with liberal views and their opposition tb the connection between Church and State, they wore charged with being American emissaries ia this country. But 1 never knew any one who pretended to say it was an act of sedition on their part to come into this country for tho purpose of preaching: the Goispcl. If there had been a State Church in the United Stales, and had they been sont here by the President, tho hon. gonileraan might, perhaps, argue as he has on this question, but where are tho estates of the church ? Where are the possessions ol the Pope that give him anything like temporal dominion ? His authority rests solely upon the implicit acceptance of his teaching and his views by those who profess lo be members of the society of which he is the head, and to Miy that he shall not ordain a minister or send him to this country, to say that tho Roman Catholics in this country may not make him their arbitrator to decide ques- tions of difference, to decide how property, which the only party competent to decido says rightly belongs to them, shall be distributed, would be to place Eoman Catholics, not on a fooling of equality, but on a footing of inferi- ority to those who are members of other churches. The hon. gentleman argued, from opinions expressed by a writer in tho Quarterly^ that the views entertained by tho Jesuit Order were such as they aro represented to be. Now, I do not know what their views may be- I do not care. I am not a keeper of their coQSoionces, and so I do not interest myself in them , bat I deny ulLo^other 32 that this Parliament has a right to constitute itself an ecclosiastical tribunal or council for the purpose of seeing whether their views are right or wrong. We may decide for ourselves in our individual capacities, but we are not endowed with any power of that sort, and 1 do not think any Protestant would care to be judged by any such rule. I was interested in looking over the speeches made many years ago in the House of Common (England), when it was 8aid that certain members of the Church of England were adopting Armenian views, and one speaker, Mr. Koase, declared that these persons were emissaries of the Church of Eome. He said : "I desire it may be considered how the See of Rome do^h eat into our religion, and fret into the very banks and walls of it, the laws and statutes ot this realm. I desire we may con.^ider the increase of Arme- nianism, an error that makes the grace of God lackey after the will of man. 1 desire that we may look into the belly and bowels of this Trojan horse, to see if there be no men in it ready to open the gates to BomiBh tyranny, for an Armenian is the spawn of a papist, and if the warmth of favor come upon him, you shall see him turn into one of those frogs, that rose out of the bot'omless pit: these men having kindled h fire in our neighbor country are now endeavoring to set this kingdom in a flame." Now, we know that a large portion of the Protestant com- munity iu this country are Armenians; and if we are to judge ly the public meetings and the discussions which have taken place on this question, they are as far from Koman Catholicism as any other section of the community. Anyone who remembers something of the history of Holland, will remember how Grotius, because ho was an Armeninn, was carried out of the country in a cask ; and how John Barnaveldt was carried into another worla on a scaffold because he was an Armenian, and for the very reasons given by Mr. House that the doctrines they were teaching would necesFarily lead to the restoration of f^oman Catholicism. There is nothing, in my judgment, more mischievous than to undertake to pass judgment upon the religious opinions of any portion of the community in a popular assembly and make those opinions the pretext for withholding rights and for imposing disabilities. We have, irrespective of religious opinion in this House, occasionally given aid to Mission Schools. We have aided the Presby- terian Mission Schools, the Methodist Mission Schools, the English Church Mission Schools, the Eoman Catholic Mis- Bion Schools, and 1 have never heard any one say that be- cause we did so, as a matter of expediency for the present, and becauseit was better to establish these schools among the Indians, for the time being, than public schools, that \ 1/ 38 this Government was connected with a church or in favor of any particular church on that account. I am not the least afruid that, if wo have an open field and fair pla> , Protestantism is likely to suffer in this country, in conse- quence of the aggressions, or attributed aggressions of the Eaman Catholic Ohurch. I have no doubt whatever, that in a fair field Protestantism will bo able to hold its own, and it will succeed just in proportion as it is actoated by the spirit oftoleiation and fairness, which will serve rather to draw men towards it and secure a favorable considera- tion for those religious views that it seeks to enunciate, rather than the spirit of intolerance which will repel men from it. How can we secure a fair hearing for our dogmas from our Uoman Catholic friends if we do that which they think is unfair to them, and if we undertake to deny to them privileges that we maintain for ourselves ? I am not disposed to confer upon any Boman Catholic institution in this country privileges that I would with- hold from any Protestant institution of a similar character. I believe that the more clearly the line of separation is drawn between Church and State, the better it will be for all classes in this country, but I admit that I am unable to interfere or to assist in drawing that line in any Province except in the Province of which I am a member. I have the right to exercise my privileges as an elector, and if the policy that has been carried out is one that I think detri- mental to the public interest I may, in that capacity, oppose it ; but I have no right, from my place in this H.oase, to undertake to do for the people of another Province what I can only do legitimately in my own Province, as an elector of that Province. And so, the more clearly we have im- pressed upon our minds the fact that each Province must take care of itself, that it must entirely separate the Church from the State for itself, that with that we have nothing to do, that, except by usurpation, we eannot inter- fere, the sooner we can have clearly impressed upon our minds this line of action, and the more steadily we adhere to it the better it will be for all parties concerned. The early founders of our Christian religion were men in rather poor circumstances, and occupying very humble social positions. Their influence, at the beginning, was with the humbler classes, with Jewish hucksters and with slaves of the iioman Empire, They gradually, in the course of three centuries, worked their way up through every grade of society until the Emporer himself became a convert to the Christian sys- tem. At first they had the best organised Government the world has ever seen, hostile to them. If they were able, by 3 H I 34 their indastry, their zeal, their self-denial and their derotion, to what they believed to be the oauae of religious truth, to overoome 8uch obstaoles and conquor such difficulties, there is no danger that Protestantism in this country, if its ministers are true to the profession of their faith — and, remember, that they are to know nothing else except Christ, and Him crucified — if they are true to their faith and their high calling, and preach the Gospel instead of politics, I am perfectly satisfied that Protestantism will have nothing to fear. I am as ready as any member of this Honse to resist encroachment. Why should it be otherwise ? If 1, as many others here are doing at this moment, take a Eosition which many of our friends may not concur in, eoause they have been misinformed, if I would not be dis- posed to do wrong to serve the interests of my own friends, and those with whom I sympathise, why should I endanger my political position to promote the religion of a portion of the community which I believe to be, in many respects, erroneous ? Let those answer who accuse us of pandering to the Boman Catholics. I do not pretend to judge for them. I judge for myself. I accord to them the same freedom I claim for myself, and I would rather, a hundred-fold, be the victim of the wrongful judgment of others, than myself be- come the instrument of wrong to any portion of my fellow- oonntrymen. A. BmioaIi, Soperintendent of Printing. . ».1»«f:8«uw»--«PS ^