^'-n-'W^if IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // #1" 1.0 I.I |50 ™^" Hi Ui — ^ y: 12.0 2.5 2.2 1.8 L25 mil 1.4 1.6 <% V] r 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SB0 (716) 872-4503 <- .v^, ito, and, if the consequences were to be such as the Globe newspaper predicted, one would suppose that the Government of the country were justified in allowing that Bill. But, Sir, on tho 16th of March, a day, 1 Hupposo, ever memorable in Room No. 6 in this E.ouse, we find that tho Globe newspaper made tho somersault, and I voniuro to at-sert that no public paper in pg ite io, it It ia thiB conn try over made naoh a nomerRanlt. We have alHO the on the retold""" it !• clear that the purpnae was not to aoknowledKe any authoru^ in the Pope in the leKislatire affilra of the Prurince, but to aeuure flaality in a ditpute lon« pending." The Hamilton limes of October 19, after waking up to the Budden coriversion of tho Globe, deals with the question from the constitutional point of view, and I commend its language to my hon. friend from Muskoka : " By some it ia claimed that the mention of tho Pope's name aa a party to the Bill rendera it unconstitutional. We cannot decide Bo intricate a qacstion an thut, thou^^h it appeara t) ua that the Pope standi in the aame relation that contractor Oa'derdonk or any other foreigner would occnpy wi)h respect to the payment of public funds. 80 far aa cor light goes we should oppose tlie disallowance of the Bill, though we reserve the right to hear and consider evidence on the point that the Bill ia unconstitutional. The idea that Ontario and tne reat of the Dominion will have to supply the money to pay the Jesuits should not have weight in tha discussion." I may quote from another organ of hon, gentlemen opposite, the Belleville Ontario, of the 19lh of March, which gives the Qlcbe a certificate of character : " The Tacillating policy of the Toronto Globe of late years on almost eTcry public question is without precedent in Canadian jonrnalism. Its latest somersault on the Jesuit Bill is enough to restore the founder of this ever-powerful paper to life agiin. The Olobe'$ flap o^er has caused a feeling among the Liberals at Ottawa little short of disgust for the men who at present are responsible for its policy, if such it can be called." Now, Sir, I propose briefly to show— and this is a point my hon. friend has avoided — the feeling in lh« Province of Quebec on this important qnoHtion ; because, while I appreciate tho effort of my hon. fi lend to defend the rights of the people of Ontario, I think al80 ho might have had somethirg to say with regard to tho opinion of the minority in the Province of Quebec. We heard nothing from the hon. gentleman concerning tho Bill of 1887. He steadily avoided that question, and confined his argument wholly to the Bill now un ier consideration. We are bore to-day for tho purpose of considering whether or not this Bill should be allowed or diHallowed ; but behind that question is another one. Should the Bill of 188/, incorporating this society, have been allowed or disallowed ? The hon. gentleman said noth- ing about that. No one has spoken about it in Parliament or 8 out of Parliament. It was allowed to pass, and thus wa recognised, in not disallowing that measare, the right of the Province of Quebec to incorporate the Jesuits. Having done BO. the question arises, is it just and right to go further, and supplement that measure by giving money to this order ? What is the opinion of the people of the Pro- vince of Quebec on that subject ? I can appeal to the leader uf the Third party for his views. I find throughout the whole of this controversy on this question, that the news- paper controlled by my hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell), sup- ported the Mercier Government. Although he pointed out that such an Act was inexpedient, he always took the ground that the Bill was a fair one in the interests of the oonntry. Mr. MITCHELL That is good authority. Mr. KYKEET. Very good, but I want to give u better one. Mr. MITCHELL. Question. Mr. BYKE RT. I will give the authori ty of the Montreal Gazette, which I look upon as a good authority, expressing the opinion of the English-speaking people of the Province of Quebec very fairly. The Gazette has had several edi- torials on the question, from one of which I propose to quote a few observations, in order to satisfy, at any rate, the people of the Province of Ontario, that while they are BO exercised about the rights of the minority in Quebec, the minority in that Province, which is well able to take care of itself, has taken no exception to the legislation passed : " Excepting the Huntingdon Gleaner, we are not aware that any news- paper in this oi tlp* other Province of the Dominion interested itself iO' the matter. The F.> jtestant Committee of the Oouncil of Public Instrao- tion silently acqaieiced on securing its sixty thousand dollars. There was a Blight ruffle as to how to apply the money, but that was all. The Protestant members of the Legislature did not take the trouble to di- vide the House upon it ; the leading spirits of Mr. Herder's Protestant, following thought it a very reasonable measure, and not one word of dissent was heard from anybody, clerical or otherwise. The Bill in its various stages appeared in the telegraphic summaries of the news- papers of the Dominion, with no more emphuia than any bill to incor. porate a trading company." So that you see while this matter was being discussed in the Quebec Legislature, and while the people were made aware of what was going on from day to day, and the minority of v^n^bec had every opportunity of expressing their dissent and making known their opposition, if there was anything wrong in the Bill, no exception was taken by them either on constitutional grounds or on grounds of public policy. The Gazette goes on further to say that : 9 " Tbey felt that the true olaimant for thii property wu the Roman Oatholio Church in general, and that church waa reoresented br its eeoleBi«8tioal head, and not bj a recently incorporated 'bod? of eocleBi- astica governed by a foreiga general, no matter how estimable they might be." I oommend this to the attention of the hon. member for Masltoka (Sir. O'Brien) : " Now, in the f*oe of these threats of extra provincial interrention, Roman Oatholios, no matter what they think, must, in self-respect, close their ranks." That is the opinion of a Protestant paper in the Province of Qaebec. — " If there be one principle clear in a Parliamentary GoTernment, it is the right of the representatlTea of the people to dispose of the money of tlM paople. It is one of these self-evident prineiples which, if men's minds were not heated by religious and political passion, no one would fireamof disputing." Bat there is another authority which I will cite, because I find that persona belonging to the same church are trying to foment discord and religious dibtnrbance in Ontario on this question. I will cite the opinion of the Hev. Dr. Campbell, of the city of Montreal, Presbyterian clergyman^ who discussed the question in all its merits. In a letter published some time ago he says : " That in reason sufficient why we in Ganada, Protestants and Roman Vatholics alike, should be very slow to afford them any encouragement io our country. But we failed— wa who should have vigorously pro- tested against their establishment and endowment — to make our voices beard at the moment when our views might have influenced the aitna- Mon. The Protestant representatives in the House of Assembly did not •ppose the two measures as stoutly as they ought to have done, and the people failed to petition the Legislature against the Bills. Not having •vailed themselves of their constitutional rights while the measures were nnder discussion, they virtually put themselves out of court. It is not fair either to the local fiuthorities or to those at Ottawa for us now to make an outcry. Mr. Mercier was justified in concluding, while the Bills were before the Assembly, that there was no very strong sentiment Against them in the Province, or else the Legislature would have been flooded with petitions against them, as it always is when there are proposals before it directly affecting the people's pockets. Nor have we any right to feel greatly disappointed that tne Federal authorities did not put themselves in an embarrassing position to shield us from the consequences of our own neglect ol our interests, when tbey could nrge a constitutional plea to rid themselves of responsibility in the matter- ^ That is the opinion of a gentleman whose opinion is worth having, and who addressed a letter some time ago to the Montreal Witness in which he expresses those viewR. But let us look at what was done in the Legislature. We find that in the L^gitilaturo, when the matter was under discus- sion, different membeis ^poke upon the question. We find that Hon. Mr. Lynch, a Protestant member, spoke, and I ? I! i \\\ 10 have taken tb*'^ 3ztract from the paper to show that he who represented .^e interests of Protestants was fully alive to the importance of the question under discussion and ex- pressed his opinion at the time : " Notwithstanding what may be thought in some quarters, <'^ere is nothing in the Bill alaimiaor in its character. We are living in an age where wisdrm prevails, living in an age in which freedotn is supposed to exist the world over, and nowhere in the dominions of Ber Mnjesty does liberty prevail more than in the Province cf Quebec. * * Is it possible that 1 he intflligjut public opinion of the Province of Quebec should deny those Jesuit Fathers the civil rights we have grarited to every one else ? " Then we have the opinion of several gentlemen in the Upper House. Among them, Mr. Starnes, who said : ' ' I approve of the Bill as it is, for that question should have been settled Long ago. Protestants and Catholics ought to be satisfied with the manner in which the question is now settled." The Hoc. David Ross also said : "Some newspapers have shown me upas the friend of the Jesuits and as a bad Protestant, because I lent my assistance to the settlement of this question. I will answer it by saying that I am neither a friend nor an enemy of the Jesuits. We had to deal with a question of justice, and I gave it my support. The Protestants themselves entertain the belief that the Jesuits deserve some compenaation for the estates taken away from them. Moreover, the Protestants whom I represfnt in the Cabiret, are weil satisfied with the settlen.ent of this question, as you have heard \he hon councillor for Wellington express it, an i with the indemnity which falls to their lot." So that you will see Protestant public opinion today in Quebec is strongly in favor of the Bill and the settlement made, and against disallowance. I am glad to see also that while the Orange body has seen fit to pass resolutions as a body in favor of disallowance, there are some Lodges in the Province which have had the courage of their convictions, which havj stated the question broadly and have not seen fit to endorse the action of the Grand Lodge. I find at a meeting of L.O.L 152, Dorchester township, a strong resolution was passed condemning the Quebec Government for pass-iiig the Jesuits' Estates Bill, and expressing the opinion that a number of the Orange lodges luid acted un- wisely in condemning the Dominion Government for not disallowing the measure, as they firmly believed that if an injustice had been done, redress would be bettor secured by the various Protestant denominations taking united action in pressing the claims of the Protestant body. The reso- lution goes on further to express the hope that that course will te followed, so that the legal opinion may bo tested. As I taid a few minutes ago, an effort has been made to tiro the public mind in the Province of Ontario by calling on the people to form organisations with a view of putting who to ex- re IS ago osed jeety la it ebeo id to the U down the Roman Catholic religion in that Province and alao throughout this coantry. We find that Mr. Haghes has taken a very active part in this matter. I mention him because, day after day, his name is cited as an authority on the subject, and only last night I find n reported that he addressed a meeting in the Pavilion in Toronto upon this important question. Bat, after reciting, as my hon. friend from Mnskoka (Mi*. O'Brien) has done, all the misdeeds of the Jesuits, he winds up by asking the people of this conn* try to establif li uii crifanifiation similar to one existing in Scotland, and propoaes the following a' the objects :— " The objects of the Alliance are :— (a) Tue defence of oar commoa Ohristianity ; (6) the exposare of the errors of Popery and Infidelity.; (o) the instruction of Romau Catholics in Bible tinth ; and ( testant denominations, and various political opinions, who are thoroughly agreed that the Papacy is an enemy to national and social prosperity, and to personal freedom, and who are resolved to resist the aggressions in the Empire by every possible means." So you will see that the sum and substance of the argu- ments of those people in the Province of Ontario is, first, to inflame the public mind by reciting historical reminis- cences, and then to arouse a certain feeling in favor of the Protestant religion. I find, also, that the Kev. Mr. Boas says: " The Church of Rome in the Province of Queb^o is established and endowed in violation of thp piil principle. We hereby request the Dominion Governmett to take stepj to secure the revision of ihe British North America Act, so as to lead to the disestablishment and disendow- ment of said church in said Province." It IB thus evident that nearly '^M these gentlemen run in the same direction. I am glad, however, to find that, con- spicuous among many people in the Province of Ontario, are niv,r of jargor minds, men such as the Hev. Principal Grant, who has expre'^sed himself on several occasions in regard to this matter, and has published a letter in the public press whioh I will do him the justice of quoting. Ue 10 as much interested in the welftiro of Protestantism as anyone in the Province of Ontario, and he has seen fit to discuss this question on its merits and to publish his views in the press. He says : " If the matter was to be settled at all, and before giving anjopinion on that point, let U3 remember that the great majority of the people of Quebec are Roman OHtholics. I do not see what else Mr. Mercier could have done thna require the sanction of the Pope to the bargain. It may seem astonishing to Protestants that Roman Catholics should acltnowledge s man living in Rome as iho head of their church. But they do. Protestants must accept that fact in the same spirit in which all facts should be accepted.' ' IB 80 it is clear that he Las not the same dread of the Pope '•zeroiiiiDg llli: his clerical povrers, as far hb this Act is con* oern^d, as some gentlemen have. He goes on : *' The grant of money to the Jesuits. But the money was not awardedr and has not been giren to the Jeaaits. It has been giren to the Roman Oatholic Ghurch. Donbtless the Jesuits will get some of it. Mr. If ercier, in his speech, quotes a letter, dated 11th October, 1884, from the Secretary of the Propaganda to the General of the Jesuits, promising on the part of the Pope that when the matter was settled they would get a share, the proportion to be subsequently determined." The House will tha4 see that there are persons who regard this question from a different standpoint; as also, in this city of Ottawa, the Rev. 'Mr. Herridge, speaking on the qaestion, stated that it was purely a question of money, and that he could see no reason why there should he any inter^ ference on the part of the Government with a Bill which was not, in his opinion, detrimental to the interests of the country or to the policy of the country. The fact is that the people are not thoroughly informed on this question, and in the papers from day to day the historical references are not correct. In fact, they are just as incorrect as some of those which my hon. friend (Mr. O'Brien) made to-day, as I shall point out later. The Ministerial Association in Toronto is composed of a number of men of all denomina- tions, and they could not find out whether the Jesuit Order had ever been suppressed in this country or not, and, after searching for a week, they rould not come to a conclusion. And yet these are the men who pretend to guide public opinion. I deny their right to do so, or 1 say, at all events, that, before they do so, they should first inform themselves as to the facts. Then I find tbat a resolution was moved by Dr. Mc Vicar and seconded by Dr. Campbell, and what is asked by that resolution is to have a certified copy of the Bill sent to the Queen, and then they say she will disallow it. Why, they do not seem to understand the constitution of this country, when they think that an Act of the Province of Quebec can be eent to the Qaeen for disallowance, whereas it is only the Acts of this Parliament which are subject to disallowance by the Queen. They are in absolute ignorance of the provisions of the British North America Act. Kow, I do not intend to defend the Jesuits, but I am going to quote a few authorities to show that, in this country, at all events, they are not as bad as my hon. friend (Mr. O'Brieu) makes them out to bo. In his speech, he said he did not propose to discuss the oonrse of the Jes^iits in this country, but only to refer to their misdeeds in Ihe past. I will quote from one or two articles on that subject, because it is just as well to understand what Pi-otostaata 18 think in regard to the Jesuits. As I said, I do not pretend to make aoy elaborate argament on the sabject, or to defend the Jesaits or their acts, bat I find that pnblio men in tlika ooantry, persons who have written on this qaestion here and in JSogland, are of one aooord that the Jesaits of to-day are not the Jesoits of 100 years ago. That is where my hon. friend goes astray. He refers to their intrigaiog in Earope, and to their determination to upset every State in Burope, and to varioaa acts of theirs which will not commend themselves to anyone ; but he should have also referred to those authorities who took an entirely different view of th« subject. In Pai kman's work I find this testimony given to the Jesuits : •• The lives of these early Oanadian Jesuits attest.the earnestness of their faith and the intensity of their zeal: bat it was a zeal bridled, curbed, and ruled by a guiding hand. Their marrelloua training Ik equal measure kindled enthusiasm and controlled it. roused into aotioa a mighty power, and made it as subserrient as those great material forces which modern science has learned to awaken and to govern. They were drilled to a factitious humility, prone to find utterance ia expressions of self-depreciation and self-scorn, which one may often judge unwisely when he condemns them as insincere. They wera devoted believers, not only in the fuadamental dogmas of Bome, but in those lesser matters of faith which heresy deapisea as idle and puerile superstitions. One great aim engrossed their lives. For the greater glory of Ood they would act or wait, dare, ruffer or die, yet all in nn- qnestit ning subjection to ttie authority of the Superiors, in whom they reoogni^ed the agents of divine authority itself" Then I find that Macaulay — and I do not suppose many in this HouBe will question his authority ~ in his " History of England," spoke of these men as follows : — " No religious community could produce a list of men so variously distinguished ; none had (^xtended its operations over so vast aE>pace; yet in none had there been such perfect unity of feeling and action. There was no region of the globe, no walk of speculative or active Ufa in which Jesuits were no I to be found. They guided the councils of Kinga. They deciphered Latin inscriptions. They observed the motions of Jupiter's satellites. They published whole libraries, con- trove.**y, casuistr^r, history, treatises on optics, alcaic odes, editions of the fathers, madiigals, catechisms and lampoons The liberal educa- tion of youth passed aln est entirely into their hands, and was con- ducted by them with conspicuous ability. They appear to have discovered the precise point to which intellectual culture can be carried without the risk of intellectaal emancipatioa. Enmity itself was com- pelled to own that, in the art of managing and forming the tender mind, they had no equals." That seems to bo entirely in oppofiition to the views which have been expressed by my kon. friend, atid the various asgertions as to their practices in the mother coun- try. But wo have an authority in this country which I thick will also be received in this House. I refer not to the organ of the Third party, but to the Montreal Gasettt, 14 which, OD the 25th Jane last, Bpeakio^ of the Jesuits, and knowing well what they are in the Province of Quebec, says : " There isprobablj n;. :-«ntry in the world In which the Society of Jeans has et joyed so fair a reputation and bj large a share of goodwill from the people generally, without distinction of cr^-ed, as have fallen to their lot in Canada. Their piety, humanity and courage are asso- ciated with the most heroic and romantic periods in onr annals. ' The story of their trials and triumphs on this continent, and especially within the limits of our own land, is one of the must iaiercsting and instructive in the records of missionary labor.' if wo except certnin works hnd ambitions which marked some passng'^s In their career, the members of the crier in Canada have never forfeited that respect which is due to the taitbful prosecution of uuble aims." So you see that we havo testiraouy frotn the Province of Quobec, thut at least thoy haee sumo hioinis in this country, and that thuy ate not. looked u))od in the sumo light as thoywriioin the rn)tht;r country and on the continetit. !Now. Sir, one of the argnmonis of my hon. friend was that the Jesuits are hostile to the Roman Catholic Church. Well, I have r«ud d ff -ront sermons, that of Father Hand in Toronto and Father Wholan in Ottawa, and 1 find that they take the view that the Jesuits aio in nKOid with the Church ofKomo, as is evidenced by tbo ioltu;ram sent some time ago t) Mr. Alcrcior. Ho read this telegram atLaprairie, on July 22, from Komo : " You cannot be called a rebel against the Bishops of the Province of Quebec for hiving incorporated the Society of Jesus, when the Holy Father allowed its members to Sbek incorporatioa." So you see that ip ovuience that they nvo entirely in accord with the Chuich ot Rome, and are not in the wame position as they vvere in i77;{ whon they were 8af)|)rtrssed by the Pope. But, there i-* another evidence whiuh ray hon. friend did LOt refer to. When they were restored in 1814 we find in the Popo's Bull thut he does not refer to them in the eame tei'mis as my hon. friend. There we read : " The Catholic world unanimously demands the restoration of the Society of Jt^sus. We daily receive the most earnest peiHions to this effect from our venerable brethren the Archbishops and Bishops, and from other earnest persons " This shows conclusively that they are in accord with the !R)man Catholic Church, they are t^ub-iervient to it, they are delegates of that Church in miSHionary works. Now, my hon. Iriend, in speaking of the Jesuits in England, has not told all that he might have told. It is true that by the Act of Supremacy, (1 Elizabeth) pains and penalties were placed upon them, but it might be u question whether that Act ' lien applied to this country when it was not a portion oi the British Empire. But that is set at rest by the Quebec Act of 1774. The next we hear of the Jesait» in England is Ibo Act 10, George IV, to which my hon. friend did not refer. That Act was passed for the purpose of suppressing them gradually. I will presently show how they have been supprcstei in England, and whether they are considered in England to be as obnozioas as my hon. friend represents. That Act is entitled an Act for the re- lief of UiH Majesty's Boraan Catholic subjects, and was passed on the lilh of April, 1829 The statute says : " Whereas by various Acis cf Parliament certain refltraints and dis- abilities are ioiposei on the Roman Caibjliv subjects ot His Msje^ty, to which ether aubjecta of His Majesty are not liable ; end whereas it is expedient that such restraints and disabilities shall be from henceforth discontinued ; " And whereas Jesuits) and members of other relif^ious orders, com- munities, or societies of the thurch of Kome, bound by monastic or religioua vowa, are redideat within tbe United Kingdom, and it is expe- dient to makn provision for the (rradual "^uppiession an 1 final prohibition ot the same therein ; be it therefore enacted. " Now, mark you, Mr. Speaker, at that very time, long after the passage of the Quebec Act, wo find an English Parliament declaring that it was wise to pass an Act for their gradual supprebsion. It goes ou to say : "That every Jesuit and every member of any other relij^ious order, community, or society of tbe Oburcti of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, who, at the time of the commencement of this Act, shall be within the United Kingdom, shUl, within six calendar months after tbe commencement of this Act, deliver to the Ulerk cf tbe Peace of the county or place where such p«r3on shall reside, or to his depaty, a notice or statement in th^) lorm, and containing the particulars required to be set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed ; " And be it further enacted : That if any Jesuit or member of any such religious order, community, or society as aforesaid, shall, after the com- mencement Oa this Act, come into this realm, he ehall be deemed and taken to be guilty of misdemeanor, and, being there lawfully con- victed, shall be sentenced and ordered to be banished from the United Kingdom f )r the term of his natural life. "Provided always, and be it farther enacted : That in case any natural-born subject of this realm, being at the time of the commence- ment of this Act, a Jesnit, or other member of such religious order, community, or society as aforesaid, shall, after the commenctsmeat of this Act, be out of tue realm, it shall be lawful for such person to return or come into thi; realm ; and upon such bis return or coming into the realm he is hereby required, within the space of six calendar months after his first returning or coming into the United Kingdom, to deliver such notice or statement to the Clerk of tbe Peace of the coanty or place where he shall reside ; "Provided also, and be it further enacted : That, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, it shall be lawful for any one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, being a Protestant, by a license in writing, signed by him, to grant permission to any Jesuit, or member of any such religious order, communityi or society, as aforesaid, to come into tbe United Kingdom and )o remam therein for such period aa tbe said Secretary of State shall think proper, not ezeeeding in any ease tb» apace of six calendar months. " 'flii le ItIM I !'> " Now, Sir, that Act was passed to show that there was a desire or the part of the English Government to sappress the Jesaits. At this very time there were handreds of Jesuit! in England, and sorely the English Parliament is as desirons of protecting the great Protestant religion, sarely the Arob bishop of Ganterbary and the other Bishops of the Charoh of England are as desirons as my hon. friend, t« protect the Protestant religion ^ and if the Jesaits are as obnoxious as they were a hundred years ago, if their precepts and doctrines are as antagonistic to the best interests of the country as my hon. friend pretends, sarely the English Government would say : We will put an end to them, and drive them out of the country. Now, Sir, what do we find ? We find that a notorious gentleman who has figured in English parliamentary life, Mr. Whalley, in 1875, in the English House of Commonp, brought ap the question of suopression of the Jesuita. After they had been barely fifty years in the mother country, after a penal olaase had been passed making it a crime for them to remain in the country more than six months, this gentleman declared, on the floor of Parliament, that the Jesaits had increased in number from 447 to 1,967. He called upon the English Par* liament to drive them out of the country. And what did members say ? They counted out the Hoase, they laughed at him, and they left him there making a speech upon this question. Then, in oider not to be outwitted, ho placed a notice in the paper asking Mr. Disraeli, at that time at the head of the Government, what he intended to do? Mr. Disraeli said : " There is no doubt that there are in this country members of the So- ciety of Jeeus, commonly called Jesuits, and there is also no doubt that their presence in this coantry is, under 10 Geo. IV., known as the Roman Oatholic Emancipation Act, a misdemennor. During:, however, the period which has elapsed since the passing of that Act, now nearly half a century, the Qoyernment of this country has, I believe, in no in- stance — none, at least, known to myself— proceeded against any Jesuit for committing a misdemeanor under its provisions, and, so fi^r as Her Majesty's present adviseis are iriluencfd by the circumstances with which they are acquainted, the same policy will continue to prevail. At the same time, I beg it to be understood that the provisions of the Act are not looked upon by Her Majesty's Government as being obsolete, but, on the contrary, ae reserved provisions of law which they are pre- pared to avail themselves of if necessary." Now, that does not look like the English people being op- posed to the Jesuits ; it does not look as if they were under- mining the State and the Protestant religion in England; on the contrary, they are performing a good work, and they are not the misohievoQS people that my hon. friend says they are now. But Mr. Whalley was not going to be out- n generallod ag;ain. He moved again on Jaly 13, 1875, a mo- tion for a committee, as follows ; — ** To fluqnire into and report to this Home aa to tbe residence in thia •oantry, in contraveation of the Act 10 Qeo 17, of any persons being members of tbe Order of Je^us, commonly called Jesuits, and as to tbe names, present residence, and ostensible ocoupatioa of such persons ; also, as to the nmount and nature of any proparty vested in, or at tbe disposal of auch persons for the purpose of promoting tbe objects of such ■ooiety or order, and, so far as may be practicable, to enquire into and report as to the doctrine, discipline, canons, laws or usages under which such order ia constituted, and bv which it is directed and oon trolled " What was the rosult of that motion ? It was that ho oonld not get a seconder for it* After making a epeoch and ■howing thai the number of priests had increased from 447 in 1829 to 1,967 in IbTiv — these are ezaotly the figures he used at that time— notwithstanding the violent speech he made on that occasion, the people of England said : We have no fear of the Jesuits. To-day I venture to assert that if anyone wiil consult hisiory, will look at the Order in Bngland, will visit their colleges at Stoneyhurst and other places, they will find evidoi^ce of the fact that the greatest men to-day have been educated there, including Protestants, and men who are as strong in their Protestant faith as is the hon. member for Muskoka (Sir. O'Brien). That is all I intend to say with respect to the Jesuits of England. I do not justify the acts of the Jesuits, but I do say that the men to-day are not the men of 100 years ago, that they do not possess the same feelings and intentions in regard to destruction of British power as they did in those days. To-day you will find those men are desirous of pursuing iheir holy work without the interference of politicians. The hon. gentleman has refeiTed to the history of Canada. He has not, however, placed altogether a proper construc- tion on the Act of 1774, 14 (ieorge IH, o. 83. The hon. gentleman read section 5, bat he might also have read Motion 8. Section 6, as stated by the hon. gentleman, goes on to say : " Sec. 6. And for the more perfect security and ease of the miada of tbe inhabitants of the said ProTince, it is hereby declared that Hia Majesty's subjects, preferring the religion of the Clhurch of Rome, of and in the aaid Province of Quebec, may have, hold and enjoy the full exer- oige of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King'a supremacy declared and established by an Act made in the 1st year of the reign of Queen Blizabeth, orer all the dominions and conntrles which then did, or thereafter should belong to the Imperial Grown of tha lealm ; and that the clergy of the aaid church may hold, receiTe and •njoy the accustomed duea and righta, with respect to auch peraona •olj aa ahall profess the aaid religion." 18 IM' '! ! Even taking that langnage as it stands, it appears that the Soman Catholics have a right to oarrj on their oharoh affairs in the same manner as they had hitherto done, so long as they did nothing contrary to the lawd of England. Bat section 8 goes on to say : " Spc. 8 That His Majesty's Canadian ^ubjeotg, within the ProTinoe of Quebec, the reli^^ious orders and oommuuitiei only excepted, mar also hiild and enjoy their property and pofseiiions, together with au cui^tums and ua)>i;ea relative thereto, and all other cirll righti, in M large, ample and beieficial manner a3 if the said proclamation had aoi been made and as may cunsiut with their allegiance to Bli Majesty." So while tbo Imperial Government would not recognise the supremacy of iho Pope in England, yet at the same time they gave the Koman Cathoiics power to carry on the affaire of tbo cliurch so long as they did not conflict with the laws of Enftland. Tbo hoa. gentleman has referred to the petition of Lord Anihernt. I am glad he has referred to that peti- tion, bc( uufo I think if the hon. gentleman had read the whole history of tho Question, and read the opinions of the law officorH of the Crown, he would have come to the oon- clutiion that tbo Govern ment were right in passing the law giving an unnnity instead of land, because the officers of the Crown were not quite certain in regard to the title. It is true that Lord Amherst in 1*770, after having performed signal services for England, petitioned the King to have the Jctsuits' Ehtatcs trunbfeired to him. The petition was re- ferred to tho Committee of the L )rds of the Privy Coancil ; thej repcrted iu favor of it, and it was referred to Lords Grtiy atid Williams, who reported on May 18, 1790. If anyone will take tho trouble to follow their report, he will see that, in their opinion, tho subject was surrounded with grave doubts* It di&cussed the whole question in regard to the tenure of tho JesuitB, it dit-cusbed the whole question as to wnere the land came from, and under what power the Jesaits held it ; and wo have tbo fact that at the close of their labors the com- mibsionors appointed to investigate the title stood 6 to 2 on the question. But they recommended the Government to take poBros-sion of the land. Tho Government iid so. In 18(J0 tbfy took losbession of the land in this country, they placed tho ehcriff in posbctision of it, but they would not give it to Lord Amherst's heirs, and they passed an Act in 1&03 giving an annuity of £3,'J00 sterling a year instead of the lands asked for, which the law officers of the Crow:: re- commended should be granted. If hon. members will look at tho recital of the Act, they will observe that the words are very significant, and those words are such as to justify me in stating that the law officers of the Crown were not dis- tinctly in favor of the validity of the Crown's title, but h&d gravo doabts in regard to it. The recital goes on to »av that: "la coni^eqannce of dlfllculties aHi'nK from local oircumiUncea Ble Majeity'd lutentiuQB woru not carried iuto elTect." So bon. ^cntlomon will see that while these lands wore roqaestod to be granted to Lord AmhorHt, yet when the Bubjeot was iliHcuNscd by thu law otUcord of the Crown 8Uoh grave doubtH hui rounded tbo qiioHti^n that the Government woald v">i ^runt tlut laiidn but g'.anted a money allowance. The next wo hoar of the Jesuits was on the Hth Saptember, 1791, when they wore HuppicSHed in Canada under Eoyal instrnct onH. Tbo^e inHtructions we find in theChisboiina Paperh page 252. In 1791 wo find thoso intttraotions: " It ii uar will and pleasure— tliat the Society of Jesnita be suppressed and disED viH, and no longer ci lUiniied as aboly corporate or politic, aai all their possessions and property Hhall be vested ia us for such purposes as we niHy ber.!after thinic tit to direct and appoiat ; but we think fit tt> declare uur Royal iateution to be that the present member* of the said » )ciety ii^ er'tablishei at Quebec shall be allowed sufficient stipends and pruviaioas during their natural lives." Bat WO huve tho very siirnificant fact th:.t after that proola- mation wud i.saucd in 1791, tbey rema'nod in posBossion of tho ebtiitcrt icn or eleven years, during which they hod control over iliom. Wo find in tlie report ot the Attorney General und buJciturGonoial of Eiiglaud they referred to the fact thui Lord Huidimund allowed the Jesaits to remain in po^pt ri^lon of the lands fot that period. I am not surprised that Mi*. Moroier said they had a moral claim, because ihi}' appouf tu have a moral, if not a legal, claim to tho cstator4. Lord Godericb, in a despatch in 1831, sent to tho Lugihltiiure iu iliat year this question for their dis- position. He says : *-n A"t9 which he con* aiders free from ( bj^niion of any kind, and if such report be nyproved by Your Rxi;ellency in Ooiincii, that such approval be forthwith com* munioated to the Provincial Govermneut. *' That he make a separate report, or separate reports, on those Acts which be may consider — •' 1. As b-^me iiltopjether illepal or unconstitutional. *' 2. As ilk-gtl or unconstitutional in part. " 3. In case- of concurrent juris'iictiou as clashing with the le^i-latioa of the General PiirliHment "4 A-: htfecting the I'nterests of tho Dominion generally. And that in such report or reports h"^ gives his reasons for his opinions " Thepo rules have been endorsed by all legul geiitlemen in this Ilout-o, ftnd I think no person cm di^wy that they embody the line and correct principle. Wo also find, by the So.^Hional Papers of 1877, pni;o 102, that the hon. mom her for Went Durham recommended Ihut the qu> btion as to uftm vires, with reference to tho Esclieats Bill, should be loferrod to tho Supreme Court. Again, in 1876, the hon. gentleman, in regard to an Act respecting the Legis- lative Assembly, m\d : " It appears to the undersigned that several of the provisions are open to very feriousquestionsaH being M/^/ao(»va of a Local l Act should be left in its operation ; it being quite poiK ■ibie for those who may object to its conBtitutioaality to raise weir objections in the courts." There we have two of the highest legal aathoritiea in this country, as high almost ad can be found in anj country, the hon. First Miciciterand the hon. member for West Durham, laying down the principle that upon the question of the eonstitutionality of an Act the decision of tbe 'rnnrts ought to be invoked. We 6nd the Mail of 6th February endorsing that view in the following words :— " There is nothing in the British North America Act to limit th* exercise of the veto power. That it shall not be exorcised merely oa groundii of ordinary policy, uoleas the Provincial Legislature hM exceeded its jurisdiction, is a good general rule, which onc>) more w« commend the Qovernmont for observing The authority given to th« Provincial Legislature in certain classes of subjects, carries with it, like all authority, a iibprty of error which must be respected, so loag m the legal power is not exceeded and the error is not manifestly subver- sive legally or morally of the principle of the constitution or ot the great objects of the State." I have pointed oat that the Mail in a former article con> tended that this Act was ultra vires, and, therefore, the couits should be invoked to decide upon lis conHtita- tionality ; and we have afSrmed that principle in this House over and over again. It was affirmed in regard to the Streams Bill, the consenisus of opinion being that ia regard to legislation whir;h was claimed to be unconstitu- tional, the proper course for the Government to adopt was to let the measure go into operation, and leave thoee affec'.ed by it to contest its coustitutionality before the courts. 1 commend to this House the opinion expressed by the hon. member for West Durham upon that queution, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite wU hardly Oissent from it. It is a ptoposition which, I think, was well con- oei{red, and which, though perhaps not accepted Sy the House at the lime, was in entire accord with the views laid down in 1868 by the right hon. leader of the Govern- ment. The hon. member for West Durham said : " Can any member of this Houfe, who is a real, live lever of tb» Federal system, fiad any poesible objuction to this proposition 7 Wher* the law and the general interests of the Oominioa imperatively demand it, then and then only shall the power of disallowance be exercised ; but it wuuld impair the Federal principle and injuriously afifoct th« autonomy < f the institutions of our several Provinces were this power to be exeiiised on subjects which are within the exclusive control of the Local Legislatures, on the ground that in the opinion of fiia fixcel- 25 Icncy't adr' ers, or of iha n»nadian Parliament, any ench legislation is wroDf^. * * I admit that, under the constitntion of Canada and the Pruriucoa, t^ <^ LochI Lef^islaturea have the power to deprive the subject of his property under these conditions, but I say that if we import into the Constitution of the (Confederation a restriction upon that power and decUre it, as a majority iu this House propose this ni|;ht to decUre, w« will declare it to be the right anl duty of the Government, whanevar the power is to be exercisei, to nalhfy its exorcise by didallovring sncda Acts." On that occasion tbo Govern tnont doclarod that tho Act should bo diHalloweiJ, od the ground that it interfered with private righ'B; but the general principle Ittid down was that in all matters of unconstitntionalitj, the coarts sboald be invoked and nobody else. We have also a case almost in point in this country, the case of tho New Bruuswick School Lavr. When that ca^e aroi>e, members cf Parlia- menb who were versed in ooDstitational !aw expressed opinions which would be entirely in accord with the action taken by tho Government of the day. That seticol law was one to compel the Roman Catholics of Now Brunswick to contribute to a system of education which tbey could not conscientiously avail themselves of. It wa^ a law which affected a largo class of the community, and which that class contended interfered with its rights. That Bill was allowed to go into operation, and wa^^ not intorrer«^d with by the Dominion Government for x-oasous given by th* iirst Minister, who says : " The Provincial Legislature has exclusive powers to make laws ia relation to education. Ii may be that the Act in question may act aii<- favorHbly on tha Ciitbolics or other religious denominatioos, and if m it is for such religious bodies to appeal to the i:'rovincial Legi:ilatan which has the sole power to grant redress. " The a'^Bumpi ion by the Provincial Legislature and Government of Canada of th'^ right to sei-k the imposition ot further limitations of tiM powers of the Provincial Parliameuts is subversive of the Federal charae- ter of the Union, teuiing to the destruction of the piwers and inde- pendence cf the provincial law to the ceutraliuation of all power in th* Parliament ot Ganaia. " The people of New Brnnawick cannot, and will not, surrender their rights of self-goverument within the limits of the constitution." He went on further to say : " Tn the case of measures not coming within either of these category '<« the Government would be unwarranted iu iniertering with local legia- lation. " In the present case there was not a doubt that the New Brunswidk Legislature h%i acted within its jurisdiction, and that the Act was coir •titutionally legal and could not be impugned on that ground " On tho Eeccnd ground which he bad mentioned in which he cod> ■idered the Dominion Government could interfere, it could not be held that the Act io any way prejudicially affected the whole OominioOt because it was a law settling the Oominoo School system of the f rovioea of New Brunswick alone. " The Government of the Dominion could not act and they would -liaTe been guilty ot a violent breach of the constitutioa if, because thej 26 bold • different opinion, they ehould set up their judgrmants af^ainit th« ■olemn decision of a ProTince in a manner entirely withiu the control of that Province." There is the deciBion of the First Minister, onlirely in accord with that of Mr. Jnstice Taschereau. Judge Tasohereau adopts almost the very lanG;aage of the First Minister in the case I have reterred lo, the Qaeeu vs. Severn. It seems to me that, that cape is on all fours with the case before tho Hou^e. The hon. the Minister of Inland Eevenue (Mr. Costiffan) moved the following resolution in this House in 1872:— *• Thdt the Loc%l Legislature of New Brunswiclc in its last Session in 1871, adopted a law respecting Oommori Schools forbidding of any religious « d<:c-«tion to pu'iils, and that that prubibition is opposed to the Beniiments it the entire population of the Oominion in general and to the rel'giou- convictions (f the Roman Catholic ponulfttion in ; '».>"ti« cnlar ;— Ihit the R( man Catholics of New Brunswick cannot, witdoat acting nr C( n-CK'Dtii us y. fend their children to schools established under ih^ law in question and are jH compelled like the remainder of the population, to pny taxes to be dev )ted to ihe maintenance of these 8cho Is ;— That the said law ia unjusii, and canoes much un^asinesi among th»^ Romnn Cntholic population in general disseminated throiigh- onl Ihe whc'le Dominion of (Jatiada, and that such a state of affairt may prove the cause of diifsetrons results to all the Oonfedcratel Pro- Tinc^s ; — and praying Flis Excellency \n consequence at the earliest possiblM period to di.allow the said New Brunswick School Lhw ; In that debate the whole question was thoroughly cuhscd Tho Globe tbue commented on it: dis- " The question so fur was exclusively a local one, and it, would have been well if it cojldhav.; been fought out and settled in Xcw Hrun~wick, as it was in pa^i years in Ontaiio tind Qaeb^c. Bat the Cath)li-: miroriiy determined to make an appeal to the Dominion Parliament, on the trriMin 1 that by the Confederation Act they w(r<^ secured in the righti which ihey allege have njw been Ukaa away." Tho hon. member for West Durham (Mr. B'ako) moved in amfrtdm(Mit to that roHolu'.ion of VTr. Co-ligan, declaring that it was PxpcMlinTit that tho opinion of ibe law oilioers of tho Ci< wa should bo tiiUon : "ThnttVis RouRe regrets that 1h«i School \e,t rec-^r.tly parsed in Jfew Brun^wiik is uiHatisfactor* to a portion of th" InhiibitHnt-i of thar Pro- vince, and hop>'S that it tniy be so m )difi.'J durinsj tfie next Se-a on of th** Ij' gi.slature of iVew lirunsvirk, as to rerai;v<- ativ jn-t groun'is of disi'onten' t'at now exist; and this Flo ;5e dfvm- it txp-di' n;, th:it (he opinion of t' e law olfi 'ers c-f the (Jrown in Engknd, lui I, if ni)s-;ibip, the opinion of th» Judicial Committee of the Privy C uncil, should bi ob- tained aa to the right of the N 'W Brunswick Leg'slature to make siirh changes in the School Law, as deprived the Romm LVtholics of the privileges they enjoyed at the time of the Union in r»'i'i'ect of teiiiiions education in the Common Schools with the view cf ascertaining wh-'ther the cise comes within thj terras of the 4th s ih.:e'!iion of the 9-)id dau-e ot the British North America Act, 18 •?, which authorises ■^be PftriiMment of Canada to mact reuieii«l Ihws f ir th;^ due eieculioa kit the provisions respecting educritioi in tb*; said Act." 27 You see, therefore, the opinion of the hon. member for West Bnrham (Mr. filiike) was that it was not expedient for the Hoase to pas.? censure upon the Government and disallow tiiat Bill,' but on the oontrary left the decision with the officers of the Crown. On 29th November, 1872, the law officers of the Grown reported as follows : — '* That we agree eubstantially with the opinion of the Minister of Justice of the Dominion, so far as appears from the papers before us." Sir J. D. Ck>leridge and Sir G. Jessell said of it : ^'Ofconrse, it is qnite possible that the new Statute of ih? Province nay work in practice unfavorably to this or that denomination therein, and therefore to the Roman Oatholics ; but we did not thinlc that such a ■tate of thinffs is ecough to bring into operation the restricting powers ot appeal to the Uorernor in Oonncil." It seems to me that this Now Brunswick cni^e is much stronger than the one now before us. Wo had a minority in the Province of New Brunswick of Eoman Catholics, who contended that the law passed was a gieat injustice to them. The First Minister paid he recognised the injustice. The law rfficers of tho Crown paid the sarao thing when their opinion was taken in K-TS, but they all agreed that the matter was of purely local conoorn. I would like to ask the hon. member for Muekoka (Mr. O'Brien) if the views of the Catholic minority in tho Piovinco of New Brunswick shonld not bo respected as well as thoso of the Protestant mmority in Quotiec, which is entirely satisfied with the action of the Government. In N« w Brunswick the Catholics felt that their rights wore ur justly dealt with, tho Government law officerw of the Crown wero ot tho name opinion, and the Government here were of tho name opinion, ^ut in spite of all that, they all agreed that it was a mat tor of purely local concern, with which we had nothing to do. It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair. After Hecess. Mr. KYKEET. When tho House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavf ring to show that in tho question of tho New Brunt-wick School LiiW, the Catholic minority in that Pro- vince, had made complaint, in reference to the legislation of that Province, that their rights had been serionsly in- fringed upon. I endeavored to show that tho Minihtor of Justice of that day, the right hon. the Premier of this country, had expressed his opinion upon that law, and had stated distinctly that while he sympathised with iho Roman Catholics in that Province, yot (hat tho action of tho New Brunswick Legislature was entirely within its juribdiction. 28 I quoted also the authority of several gentlemen, amon^ them the hon. member for West Darham (Mr. Blake). I showed that he moved in amendment to have the matter referred to tbe law officers of the Crown and also expressed hU opinion of the Act. I find that opinion reported in th« Globe ot^&S 19th, 1872: " Mr. BL 4 KB said he had from time to time conside'-od the conatitn- tion with reference to the state of the law in New Brunswick on the subject of schools, and h) subject, nad that the conoluiion of that gentleman mifiht have been fairly re^nbed and might v«iry possibly be correct ; bat be desired to point out to the House those ciruumitances with reference to the /kct wiich led his m'ui Vr>rv strongly — he would not say conola- sively— to a diiFdrent conclu^iion." He moved in amendment that the quention be referred to the law officers of the Crown, and they expressed their opin on that the legislation of Now Brunswick was entirely within the jarisdiction of that Leo^islature. Then wo havo Mr. McDopgall, who poses sometimes as a constitutional* lawyer, who, upon that occasion, gave oxpro:isioQ to his opinion as follows: — " I agree that any int rference with the powers that are given to th* Local Legislature in the framing of laws uanecesasriiy through politieal or national, religious nr oiber motive, exc'-pt o i the broadest publie grounds, would be injudicious and improper." In 187.1, the question of the New Brunswick f cheol law was again biougbttotbe notice of this House. A resolution was movtd by Mr. Cauchon, seconded by the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), in which they recited the resolution of tbe previous year, and a^ked the intervention of tbe opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Tbe reso Intion was as follows : — " The Bouse regrets that the School Act passed in N'ew Brnubwick !■ nnSAiii-faciory to a portion of tbe inhabitants of that Piovince, and hopes that it may be po modified during the next session of tbe Legisl;** turn of New Bruupwick as tr remove any just grounds of dir sati^factioll thot now exist. That the Honse regrets that the hop<) expressed in the said resolution has not been realised and that an bumble address be presented to Her Majesty embodying the resolution and prayincr that Her Mnj^sty will be graciou?ly pleased to use her influence with the LegijUiiire of New Brunswick to procure such a modification of the said Act as shall remove such grounds of discontent." That matter was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and, upon tbe 18th October, 1875, there was a despatch from Lord Carnarvon, in which he stated : " Thnth^ laid it at the footof the Throne, but that ho could no' tdrlie Her Majesty to take any action in respect of it; that ha could not advlM 29 the Queen toad Tiee the Leirielatare of New Brunswick to legiilate in any particular direction aa th&t would be undne interference." Further on ho says : " HoldinfCt M I have already explained, that the constitution of Canada does not contemplate auy interference with the provincial legislati ., on a enbject wuhin the competence of the Local Legislature by the Dominion Parliament, or as a consequence by the Dominion Ministers." So even the law officers ot Iho Crown were of the opinion that, though Bjmpathieing with the minority in New Brunswick, they could not advise interference with that law or advise the Crown to disallow the Bill. On that cecusion, the hon. member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie), who Bympathised very strongly with the minority in the Pro- vince of New Brunswick and ielt that they had been unfairly deal'; with, said : " Bnt there is a higher principle still which we have to adhere to, and that is to preserve in their integrity the principles of the constitution under which we live. If any personal act of mine, if anything I could do would assist to relieve those who believe they are living under a grievance in the Province of New Brunswick, that act would be gladly undertaken and zealously performed ; but I have no right, and the House has no right to interfere with the legislation of a Province when that legislation is eecured by an Imperial compact to which all the par- ties submitted in the Act of Confederation. * • • i have merely to my this, whatever may he our religions proclivities or feelings, whatever may be the feelings that actuate as in relation to local grievances, it is not well that we should endanger the safety of anv one of the Provincen in relation to natters provided for in the British North America Act, which is our written Constitution. * * It is not desirable that we should make the way open or that anything should be done which would excite religious discussions and psrmeate religious animosities.'' That was good advice, and that advice was followed by the House. Now, I come to consider a question which seems to have exercised the mind of the Qlobc newspaper, and that isthearticlcsin thoXaw? Jourwfl/and the Law limes. I have shown, I think, by constitutiocal authority, that the Act, if it be unconstitutional or ultra vires, should be allowed by the Government to take its course, and those who are injured by its operation or aggrieved" by it should at once apply to the law courts for redress. The Law Journal has declared beyond all question that the Act id ultra vires, and, if that be so, according to the practice we have always adopted, the parties should apply to the courts for redro'js. The Law Journal says : "It will, we think, be conceded, apart from any provisions in Im- perial statutes, that it is ultra vires the constitutional power of a Col- onial Legislature to confer on or delegate to any foreign sovereign, potentate, or tribunal, lawful jurisdiction or authority to determine, or nttify, tbe distribution of the moneys or properties of the Crown, or how money grants to the subjects of the Grown, witbin its colonial jurisdic- tion, are to be distributed. The Imperial Crown may in any proper 80 case ngree with another crown or nation to rrfer to a soTerelfra, or to arbitrhtors mut-jally n^reed upon questions affdcting its belliKereat or territoriHl rights or claims ; but thid rc(ra)ity of the Imperial Orowa ia not poaspssed, nor oin it be pxercisod, by a Colonial Government or Legislature. It it would be ultra vires of the Legislature of Ontario to delegate authority to a foreign Dower— say to the President of the United Btates — to distribute, or to rat'fy the distribution of. publio moneys lenally voted (the Clergy Reerve moneys, for instance), it fol- lows that this dtli'gation of authority to the Pope by the Legislature of Quebec Diudt also be ultra vim. What would be unconstitutional in Ontario must be equally unconfatitutional in Quebec " The Law Journal lays down the proposition that the Act m ultra vires, ii tLi. bo ho, the authorities show clearly that they tnuat go for redr«.BH to the coartH ; but what ovidoDcu have wo in thJH iustaaco that the Pope is, as they nay, a fortiijn poieiitalo ? The Law Journal does not pre- tend to Kay how it is, except that, ander the Statute of Elizabeth, there were certain documents, or mandates, or judgments it-sucd or sent forth by the Pope, and that those should not bo rocugnisod by the authorities in England. Eut the Statute ot Elizabeth was passed under difTerent circumstaiices from these which oxi»t now, and the position of the Popo to-day, boroft ot his temporal power, is entirely different Irom what it was years a>j;o. Instead of being a foreign power, he is in this case simply an arbiter between two parties in the Province of Quebec. At the time to which my hon. friend from Muskoka alludes, no doubt the Pope did oxercirio a controlling inflaence in Europe and over many nations, but now ho is bereft of that power and is in a totally ditferout position. The Law Journal says this matter is not yet settled, and t^hould be relegated to the courts That is the position which this Government and all proccdiu^ Governmonts have taken in regard to such a question. Then, as to tho Law Times. In my judgment, the Law Times hhows conclusively that it is quite constita- tional for the Province to vote money in the way it has. The hon. member for Muokoka (Mr. O'Brien) is entirely at issue with tliu Law Times on that point. If he had read the article in the Law Times, he would have found that it holds that ibo voting of money to ecclesiastical institutions or powers is regarded by that newspaper in an entirely differ- ent way fiom that iu which he regards it. I cannot under- stand, therelore, on what ground the Globe made its sudden samn)cr(>ault. The Law Times says it is constitutional to vote money for this purpose. Oi course, the Law Times is in conflict with Mr. Wm. McDougall on that point, bat I will refer to hioi later. The Law Times says : " The constitutional question that arises is not the voting away of public money, be the pretext never so shallow, but the subordiaatioa ' muuon.1.' -^-tf luat such a proce'edi;^ i hon It jroes on to refer tn iu Ij cts aud (Jariftj^^i'*"^''* to «nH *^*^ -^'"^ to til as kind. It Boems to me that the Law Times conld cot have oarofally coDsidered the qaestion, othorwiuo it^wuuld not have arrived at the oonclasion I intend to point^out. The hon. mombor for Munkoka states in his resolution thut the Act is not legal, firstly : *' Bpcanse it endowa from the public funds a rellKiouii organ Istatlon, thereby yiolatinp; the uowrittea but undorstood constitutioh .1 piinciple of* complete Beparation of church and state, and the absolutely equality •fall deuominations before the law." We have an unswer to that in the Law Times, which eays : ** The policy of diaallowing a Provincial Act must be determined by mpoDSible MiDiators ot the Dominion. They are couetitutionHlly aa< ■werable to PArliument and the people, aud as has frequently been ■hown, the right to diaallow Acts was not granted in order thi>t uncon- •titntiunal or invalid ieg:i8lation might be got rid of, but in order \.hnt the more important policy ot the Dominion should not be interfered with by the Provincea. Toe whole course of English history shows a •truggle with the ecclesiastical houses to prevent property from fulling into their hands. The policy both in England and her colonies has bwn the same— to prevent the property of the lation from falling into Bortmain. tiut it is a question, not of legalitv, but of policy, and with the policy of the Goveruments of the day we nave nothing lo do.";; ,^„ WhercaH, on the other hand, the Alail says it is entirely a question of policy with which we h uve to do, yet tho Law Times is of a contrary opinion : " If a particular Province choose to depart from this policy and per- mit The abdorplion of property by ecclesiautical orders, itis undoabtedly acting wiihin its cousiitutional rights. The Uovernor in Council would also be acting within his conatituuonal righta in opposing such a policy by diaallowing all Acts tending thereto ; but it iu a queaiion of policy as we have aaid, and not of law. The Act then must be looked at with regard only to its contents. " So that while the hon. member for Maskoka takes ttrong groand that no Legislature has a right to vote money for eccleBiastical purposes to seminaries or churches, or any- thing of the kind in the I'rovinee of Quebec, yet tho Law Times says that they have got absolute power. Now, which authority arc we to take? Are we lo tuke that of tho Law Times, or that of tho hon. member for Muskoka, or are we to say that the Government acted strictly within its oonstitutional rights and privileges by saying : We will not interfere, because thoy had a perfect right to vote their money ; at auy rate it is a matter of purely local concern . Kow, it is stated that the Pope is an alien, and as each has no right whatever to express an opinion upon this question. Vi we look at tho Treaty ot Paris wo tind that, to a large extent, his authority is recognised bo far as is necessary for church purposes. The clause says : '* For her part, Her British Majesty agrees to grant to the inhabitants •f Canada the liberty of the Catholic religion. Uousequently she will 33 ffJ^e most p-»>oi.st. «nH •»»• » aw of Groat Britain n..^:! "/"'i**"»»*» P«ra,it." that u,. g;„ With* the p™^^^:?!"?' f»d, l.«TZ^* gfmmm t'o,ial corporation. wh^Ihff*'*'^'',*''' ""^ of ^aeocliL^tJ^,'' *'''''<»» •« ana which, with thn Pn ;I ^°*}.}? '^hich the oriffinfti „.- ^ *''« «"«?«. flions were ramoan/»,k ^ il°°' ^'*®'^» as we know ^- * ;ng to Ireland S tZ^' ^^^^'^ ^^ England ^^reS' land glad to havethtToll'ZtZ ^-^^^^ P«-p!^ o7K: here u very important qu^^/o^^J'/^'trator?^ Wehafe £!ngli^h courts, in the EnffS P ' ,?„°** ^ ''^^ O'Jthing in the 84 rentH, tho muttur wuh rnfcMred to tho Po|)u, and the Pupo U- saed — 1 do not know wbui you would call it— a luonunoia* mento, or whatover it may be, and Hont that to Irolund. No fault was found with that. I wonder the hon. member for Mus- koka did not find fault with that. He is opposed to Hotno Bnle, as I am mysoH, but at the uamo time, he found no fault with the Pope boin^ called iu as arbiter to settle this most important of all questions. Now, lot us see what the Pupo says: " On leveral oocftiious the Apoitolic See bai eiren to the people of Ireland (whom it has always resarded with apeoial benevolenco) suit- able admonitions and advice, when oiroumstances required, as to how they might defend their rights without inJurT to Justice or the public peace. Our Holy Father Leo XIII, fea-sary for the full and entire execution of such agreement. The money, therefore, is taken out of the consolidated fund, and authority is taken to soil the Je- suits' estates and apply the proceeds as the Lieutenant Governor in Council mny see fit It appears to me that upon every ground advanced by the hon. member for AfuBko!::a (Mr. O'Biien), thiw House is bound tx) answer his interroga- tions in the negative and to vote that the propositions made by the hon. gentleman are not in accord either with facts, or with hintory, or with constitutional law. He ^:ays further : " Thirdly, becaase the endowment of the Society ofJesu?, an alien, secret and politico-relidoas body, the ezpulaion of which from every Christian commuaity waerein it aada footing, has been rendered ueces- Barjr by its ii tolerant and unchristian intermeddling with the fanotioni of civil government, is fraught with danger to the civil and religioas liberties of the people of Ganada." The hon. geniieman forgot to say that there was St. Mary's College, which was a recognised corporation in the Pro- vinoo of Quebec. ,yet he deliberately declares they are an alien corporation. \^hat does the Act of 1887 say ? It states distinctly that they were incorporated as a body and were recognised as a corporation by the Province of Quebec. Those are the facts, and I leave the House to judge as to their application. I have endeavored to show as briefly as possible, although I have necessarily occupied considerable time in doing so, that the rights of the minority are not interfered with, and I think I have shown that successfully; that the people have ao- quiesced in and approved both Acts, which is a fact beyond all question ; that the teol'ng raised in Ontario is entirely uncalled for, the minority in Quebec asking for no such suj port tor them. 1 have pointed out to the satisfviction of this House, I think, thai a large amount of ignorance has been dibplajed by public men in Ontario in discussing this questioi', and that the hou. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) was somewhat at fault in his history of the mat- ter. 1 haveulso rhown that the attacks on the Je(Ponion of th« ^^^^^''^s whioh point of my hon ?? * S'^estion saoh as tS*'^'®*'' *hat thia tWnic that /have JC .^°» J^fa«Ua /MrT^^^ "t^^^^^^ ^o^ernment wa/ f ^^'^ '^a* from erarS ^ • * O'Brien) j