CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Micro ^productions / Institut canadicn de microroproduc'ions historiquos r^iQQQ ■ Technical and ^■■. . .jgraphic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Inst, e has attempted : • ^u\^\r\ V e best original copy available for filming, t eaturcs J inis copy which may be bibliographically uniqui', v-'hicn ,nay ?.!ter any of the images in the loproduction, o: which may significantly change the usual methoc^ of filming are checked below. □ Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged / Couverture endommagee □ Covers restored and/or laminated / Couverture restauree et'ou pelliculee I I Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps / Cartes geographiques en couleur I I Culoured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations / Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur n n Bound with other material / Relie avec d'autres documents Only edition available/ Seule edition disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior .margin / La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou tie la distorsion le long de la marge interieure. Blank leaves added during restoratio. .s may appear Within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete film^es. Additional comments / Commentaires supplementaires: L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la metho- de normale de filmage sont indiques ci-dessous. P L. Coloured pages / Pages de couleur Pages damaged / Pages endommagees Pages restored and/or laminated / Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed / D Q D D D n Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees Pages detached / Pages detachees Showthrough / Transparence Quality of print varies / Qualite inegale de I'lmpression Includes supplementary r-itehal / Comprend du materiel S'jp^;lementaire Pages wholly or parlially obscured by errata shps, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalemient ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont ete tilmees a nouveau de faijon a cbtenir la meilleure image possible. Opposing pages with varying colouration or discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variables ou des decolorations sont filmees deux fois afin d'obtemr In meilleure image possible. This itpm IS (ilmpd at the reduction ratio checked below / Ce document est lilmc au taux e reduction mdique ci-dcssous. lOx 14x 18x 12x 16x 20x 22x 26x 30x 24x 28x 32x The copy filmed hero has baen reproduced thanks to the generosity of; National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grace ^ la gin^rosit^ de: Bibliotheque Rationale 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. Los images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la n9ttet6 de l'exemplaire film6, 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 exemplairos originau. doni ra couverture en papier est imprim^o sont film6s en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidra page qui comporie uno empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la promiAre page qui comporte une empreinto d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derni*re page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last roccdod frame on each microfiche shell 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 fram.es as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method; Un dea symboles suivants spparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, seion le cas; le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbola V signifie "FIN '. Les canes, planches, tableaux, etc . peuvent etre film*s i des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clich6. il est film6 ^ partir do Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche ci droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No 2 1.0 If^ iia I.I 1^ 2.8 32 m in |.2£ 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ APPLIED IIVHGE Inc 1*609 V { ^\^^^V'^y^'^^^ ACTUALITY The Del pit Case I901 CONTAINING The narration of facts. A dissertation on marriajre laws of the Province of yuebec. All the documents of the Civil and ecclesias tical courts. The orij^inal text of eccle siastical sen fence of (Que- bec and k.)me. [Ecclesiastical enquete. Jud$!;' ment in extiasc of JILSTICI: AKCMIIiALI). CHAS. HEBtKT, EDITOR, 34 ST. VINCENT STREET MONTREAL C: A N A O A ami KlTlH yi i: NA riONAl£ ACTUALITY THE DELPIT CASE CONTAINING : The narration of facts. A dissertation on marriage laws of the Province of Quebec. All the documents of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. The original text of ecclesiastical sentence of Quebec and Rome. Ecclesiastical enquete. Judgment in estcBSo of justice Archibald. Montreal. CHAS. MLBtkT, Cditor. J4 ST. VINCIINT STHELT 6X 1^43 Ento.0,1 .coniing to A,, of P.vUam..ut. in the year --.'";;--; ^^^ hun.lred and one, by Charl-s H-b.rt. of M.m.real, m the Oft., of the Minister of Agriculture and Statistics at Ottawa, THE <1 U'^WvVL^ 'OIL DELPIT CASE AN ESSAY 0\ MAkKIAGH BY A. l_.AYZVC^2Sr Oh May -Jnd, 1893, Mr. Edouard D.^lpit, ngod twenty- three years, married, at Montreal Miss Marie Berthe Au- rore Jeanne Cote, whose age was sixteen years and two months. Although the married pair had been TOwed at the time of their birth to the catholie faith by their parents, who were also born members of the Roman Church, yet they had given up the practices of religion ; and if they could have removed from their brows the indelible trace of baptism, they would eagerly have done so. But not being able to wipe out a material fact brought into exist- ence in the past, they had to remain catholics, at least in name Tney resigned themselves to their lot iu this respect. When, however, an opportunity presented itself of opeulv showin:- their contempt lor the catholic reh- oion th.-v avail.'(Uhoniselves ui' it by havin- th.nr union blessed by a rroteslau* Uuitariau clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Barnes. Theirs was i\ot a happy marriage. Throu!,^h rauses v-^rv lun-d to appreciate by the pul)lic. discord crept into their household. We would have contented ourselves with this simple statement il Mr. and Mi>- Delpit had not both published recently m the newspapers the -rievaiiccs each had. in reality or other- wise, a-vainst the other. It was Mr. Ddpit who hrst adopted this reo-rettable course. His leugaty letter may be summed up thus: his wife had an unbearable di.spo- sition ; she w.is a bad wile and a bad mother. In her reply Mrs. Delpii maintained, with an appear- ance of truth/lhat her husband was tyrannical and lirutal. Both of them, however, agreed upon one point : that It was absolutely impossible f.n- tliein to continue to live toii'ether. In the bitter feelm-. h.nvever. which each displayed towards the other there was nothm- to .justify the faintest suspicion that either of them had been unfaithful to the marriage v..\v ; and the only reasoual>le .•ondusion at which'anvone who paid close attentKm lo this affair could arrive is that there Avas deep-roame year — the inarriaire of Mr. Edouard Delpit and Miss Marie Berthe Aurore Jeanne Cote was declared null and invalid by reason of clan- destinity. (I) It woulil be :is iinpvo|>i'r as it would bt,' useless to pro- tost against a judgmenr delinitely con finned by a supe- rior tribunal far removed from the local uiiluences that might inlluence the decision of the judges b'fore whom the case was first placed, and w'l.i. being acijuainted with the husband or wife, or hi> or her relatives, might be unconsciously preiudici?;ion we luiviso our n-mler.-i tn makt' tliemsdv.'s m r|uaiiitril with ill! the details !>et tbitli in thi." ease. Churrli regards matrimony as a isarrament. It Jbllovvs that ov.'ry coiijuiral uniou betwotni those who are mem- bers of the ("utholic Church by baptism is but a roueu- l)ii!:iLie if sueh union is not etfeoted and bhissed by her. Moreover, thi're are uuaierous precedents tor sueh a decision on her part and it is always permissible to thosi' concerned to have tlu-ir abnormal condition reli- giouslv It'galized in the eyes of the Catholic Chur.h by having the marriage cfremouy performed by one of her priests. What has surprised ill person- who hav taken any interest in th.' Delpit case is that Mrs. Uelpit did not herself ask the intervention of the Catholic Church, in- stead of opi'osiug its authoriiy. Tnkiiig this circura- stani"e mto I'oiisidi'ration those »>xcidli'nr people who have never experienci . tlie iroul)le> and sorrows of life look upon unhappy Mrs. Delpit as the victim ot a cruel tate ; and few i>ersous ask themselves it really the sen- tence jiroiiouneed by he ecclesiastical triljunal could have been other than it ha> l)ecii. In some (juarters this siiiL'ular opinion h:i> b'-i'ii un- hesitatingly exi)resse(l : IVhi/, if /lir murriiiixi' oi Mr. nm/ Mrs. Dilpit iras rir- /will// mil!, (lid not the Chunlt. itistrad ol eople of irreproachalile eharaeter. t»nlv. thev forget that leilhei under liie nil''- of th«' Ciiureii nor under tlioso of the . ivil jtowi'i may ili'' ni i- trinionial lie be broken with impunity, and that the mutual and free consent of a man and woman who desire to enter upon i!i ■ main •(! state is, according to both divine and liuiuaii laws, imperatively uecossary in order to ]errali/e their union Ix-fore mankind and before (rod. It was not an advice that Mr. Dflpit souyht from the ecolesiastical authoritioo; it was a sentence. They could not decline to aicede to his request. A jiidge may try to reconcile the suitors whd appear belbre him, but he cannot force conciliation upon them. We cannot, therefore, understand why this judgment of the Koman Church should have given rise to the many bitter comments which have been written and spoken upon it. It was of a purely disciplinary, reli- gion.s, and moral ordi^r. The Church does not impose its reii'ulations upon people who do imt acknowledge its authority ; and in our time it does not attempt to use any other means in dealing with the masses but that of pt-rsuasion. Its decision, therefore, in the case which we are discussing, applies only to matrimony in its divine nature, ;ind not in its material and civil aspects. This is so clear that the party who benefits by the ecclesiastical judiiment must apply to the ordinary tri- bunals to decidi- whi'ther a marriage contracted by two catholics, even though they are not practical ones, before a protestant clergyman has tlie >ame i-ivil eltects as a marriage contracted before a clergyman prof'ssing the same creetl as that to which the bridegroom and bride othcially belong. In other word.s. what we want to know, ()n into surroundings for tli(> di'- maiids of wliiidi her earlv educalini! had not fitii-d her. AiivliMW. it is- to these cin-unistanco that we trace, after a study necessarily incomplete. th<- dissiMisioiis in the Delpit household. We are, perhaps, mistaken; but this ('oes not matter much, for it is not for the purpose of layiiiij bare to the public t:a/e the priv;i. v of a discordant houseliold that we liave written this book, but rather with the object of •Irawiiiii from it a useful lesson and _of helpinii' to brills' about a cliange in our laws if they are so faultily framed at pre.sent as to allow cnnningness to en I rap and deceive the credulous. II If we undertake to point out the badness, the vaiiue ness. and the imperfections of our marriair'' laws, espe- cially thosi' relatiuir to the validity of matrimonial cere- monies, we must, lirst of all, define the nature of this act, aud glance cursorily at its development through different civili/atioiiH and ages, and deduce therefrom its grave labile importance. Siach is tht> (>l)ji>ct we are about to tiy to attain. Marriagi' should be thus (U'fined ; The nssoriation of a man (iiir/ a irouuui v'ho unitr lo prr- jietiiiite iJifiir kiii'L to lulp tdik nther. hi/ mulvnl servirei'. to l)ear tlu linn/en. of life, and to share a conunon (/eslinj/ in fornuc as i)i joy. This important iustitutioii, lonsidered in the li^ht of pr(>S' 'iit-dav rivilization, iiiav bi' viewed under vt-vv diffi'rent -.is]*' ts. Thus, th<' lonlinut'dfxist.-nfe ot'humai ;ind. ilie uTati float ion of its do>ii hot 1 tender an stmiiL;', moral ;ilfinity. iln' union of individual interests, are some of tlu- aims of \vedlo(3k. which manifest them- selves in that state in various ways, aceording to cir- cumstances, localities, and times. ?! ulo.-i>i>hers. av Ttalb Iv in marruiue th e union of two sexes : iurisi-onsults reijar d it lis a eivil control t ; priests look upon it only as a sacrament : and economists study it from the jioiut of view of the more or less active propagation of individuals.' M irriage is as old as tin wor :'ld- ■naiur;il man lage, o f course ; for, in thi- plain and .-iiupL' words of Genesis. rJod said to the first man anman : " Increase and multiply, and 1 I'nm t lie ;ivs ( ■t Ad im ind I'Ai the patrnu'h- th''ir oti's])ring entered upon tin- m 111 leu ^l!^t. by ob and serv- mir iiatun th.' ,1. aw vh wnen. lb M. ises liad ilraw up wisii laws, matrimony was .■~till a phiin ecremony It wliioh the lather acted MS pontiti":ind reju-i'^'iited th 1) i villi' .Author of in'ation. Placinir lie ' r!'.jlit liand.N of Bie.ssed be both the bi'throted in I'ach other, he said ot you: be virtuous in your couduct ; and may the (rod of Abraham be with you I " In ever. preserving in marriage its nat in:i! features, how- inn.sl .'iinient law-iiivers deemed it their duty to forbid certain -persous lo cimtract it. such M OSes an( 1 th. 10 as blood i-eliitivi's in the first and eviMi in the s^ooud degree ; but they did not forbid divcrec, whieh was a custom, and whieli is still a custom, notwithstanding the rules of Catholicism to the contrary. Civilizaiiou has been powerfully inllm'nced by the two distinct forms which hav^' always characterized mar- riage. One is monogamy, whicli is, m our opinion, the perfect sort of marriage, and which puts thi' man and the woman on a plane of equality so far as the differences Ijetweeu th''ir moral and physit al nature will permit ; th.' other is polygamy, (f) whi'h was th.- almost gene- ral law in amient times, which half of ihe world fol- low to this day. and which ha>- no other result but to place the unmn and enjoyment of the sexes at the dis- posal of the few. "Th.' Romans, of all p-'oi)l.'s," says Teulet. " have beeu the most scrupulou.s observers of th'' rule whiih permits only one man to marry oiu- woman. The conliary rule, it has b>'rn proved, has been the result of climatic iu- flueuces ; for the oldest lunuuiuiTits of hi>tory show us that polvgamy was alway- practised in Asia and in Africa, while it was forbidden as a crime among>t the Greeks and Romans."' In Athens a> well a- in Koiiie ihei'' weri> exceptions to the general rule of moiiouamy. but a> tliey were short- lived and did not lin l)')ok on this subject the learned Dr. liegnard >ay.> : " In .\ustralia. when a man wants a wife he wanders around ihe enc.imprnent ot a lril)e oth. i than his own; and tlie moment he sees a eiij walking alone, h.' ru-^hes towards h.'r, knocks her into insensibility with a l>iutal 12 blow on the head, and dratrs ht-r into a secluded j.lace. where he awaits the return of his newly-found spouse to cousciousuess. When she au-.iin opens her eyes she liladly submits to the r,,nsuiamatioii of this rather violent sort of gallantry, and yi.'lds herself up tn her conqueror — a conqueror in the full sense of th.- terni— and thus a marriage takes place." \rannu>t the K'nid-. in India, in lirazil. in Cliili, amongst the Kaffirs, the Tana-oos, the Kalmucks, ete., the doctor adds, eeremonies are gone through at the time of the nuirriaii-e in which the future husband iiululges in nameless brutalities. Th.' >tory of the Rape of the Sabines had its origin, most likelv", in the remnants of a system of " marriage by <'apture "' amongst the Komans. To our \'U'\y. these various lorms of marriage were, as a inatver of faet, ■■onstituted nothing more or less than .•oncubinao-e in the strictly eiymolo'.iieal meaning of the term. Indeed, .oneubinage can be traced baek to the earliest human communities or societies. It was the precursor of marna-v. (Jradually there arose ditferences m the position of wom.'U wh') formed part of the liouse- hold, owinir to the deplorable .-tieets of slavery ; and these caused the distinction h.'tween wives and comu- bines. Th.- wivi-s. who had !>eeii in a Iree ov .'mancipa- ted condition, liad rights. They occupi^'d the position of .oinpanions to t ho head of the household, and their children were leuitimate. in ihe sense that tln-y could succeed their father. The ron. ul)ines, who wore simply slaves, were only servants or human chatttds belonu-ing totally to their master, who did as he pleased with tliom Their rhildren wero illegitimato : tiny -ould not inherit from their father ; they had no righis at all. These distinctions between wives and concubines and their respective chiMven liad somrlhiiiu of th'^ sanction 13 of law ill the days of Abraham. Ishmael was th.' ille- gitimate sou of the patriarch borne by his concubine Hagar. When Sarah unexpectedly ccas.'d to be barren the lot of Hagar and her son Ishmael was entirely changed, and they were heartlessly driven forth into the wilder- ness with but a loaf of bread and a jug of water for their subsistence. We see almost a counterpart of the position of the concubine amongst the Romans, who accorded a superior civil eondition to their children, called '- state children", over the ofTspring of an illicit or temporary intercourse. The Franks. how>'ver, whih' they established a distinc- tion between wives and concu])ines, made none whatever between their children. Thierri the First, the son of a con.ubine, shared the inheritance of his father C'lovis on an equal foutiui:- with Clotaire. (Modomir, and Siuvbert, who were the children of the wife. It may be point^'d out her.- that in ancient times eou- cubinage, owintr to the social -ustoms and conditions in which it lirst spraiiii' into exisience, possessed a very important feature. Whatever might otherwise be her condition, the woman was looked upon as an inferior being. The delica.y which is part of her v-ry nature obtained scant respect. The degraded position accord.'d her may well !).■ illustrated by the fai't that in the Middle Ages the most enlightcued of the Church's representatives di^scussed seriously the (luesiion whdher (rod had given her a soul. The two worst wrongs lioin which woman suffered were liius inllicted. Renarded ats a slave or servant, her modesty was but the sport of man ; and besides, she became in his eyes a men- instrument of pleasure, to be taken or cast oti at his will. Briseis. the daughter. .ft he pnesi Cliryses, was amongst the prisoners taken l)y the Greeks m the nei'^hborhood of Troy. She pleased the lustful eyes of Agamemiioa, who 11 tonk p.'isonal possession of her. When her lather olFcr.Kl a ransom for hor freedom, Agamemnon replied : " Old man, let iiie not see you here : your 'laughter belongs to me ; she will follow me ; she will share my bed ; and I will only give her baek to you when she has lost her youthful ness.'' If the wuman was free, and, therefore, a wife, ^he was obli'A'd to dwell in the saui'' house as the i-oneixbine, exerei-inu- some autlii>rity over her. it maybe, but forced to humiliate ht^rself in tlie presence of youth, beauty, and UTaeefulness, delighted wh<'n she received from the hus- band attentions denied to her rival. Atramemnon's legitimate wife was Clvtemnestva. " 1 shall takeBris'is to Ar^■o^.' he said, "■ where she shall dwell in my palace ; for I like her better than Clytemuestra, to whom she is superior in body and mind.'" Agimemni>!rs morality was that of all the early ages of histuri' man. Briseis is sa(;rificed to man's lust ; Cly- temuestra broods in sile'iice over the shame of the con- tempt in which she is held. It can be readily understood that, in such social con- ditions, con^'tibiiiage was qx;ite natural amongst the an- cients and in the Middle Ages, slavery t>nabling the wealthy man to buy as many women as he could atiord. There vf -rr oth'r distinguished libertines whose name.s miffhf !)'■ mentioned, such as Solonnm, wlio, accordniirlo Holy Writ had a thousand "strangers"; Priam, who populated Troas with his bastards ; Xer.Kes, who in his reiiowii'tl vv ir against the Grreeks, ordered three hun- dred and sixty-live iN)ncubin"s to b' pla'cd in his train : Commodus, who had three hundred ; Heliogabalos, who turned his senate into a harem. These are revolting ex- cei^tions ; t)ut it iseiiNirly provid that concubinage, in divers forms, depending on the individual taste, disposi- tion, ami means of men, wa-^ for e,Mituries the crying 15 evil of m.uikiiul in ijiMierol. Th»' Frank Kiiiirs, won Charlemagne himself, had i-oncnbines. Yet Charli'mag-ne was eanonized ! It was owinq- to this tol'-ration that the Churoh was al)le, UitiT on, to effect amongst her own ecclesiastical representatives, the greatest and most diffi'ult of reforms — the celibacy cf her priests. When, later on, the period of servitude, whi<'h was really slavery in all hut name, no loucrer, on ai'count of the powerful influence of modern ideas, continued to exist, wiih its cruel wrongs perpetrated through man's unbridled passion, the Church l.-d a moral crusade ; and the Council of Trente (1545) laid down rigid regulations relative tochistian marriage. After that concubinage, if it was not altogether sup- pressed amongst Chri>tians,cessed to be indulged in open- ly ; and when it wa^^ practised it "vas with the free con- sent of the woman, just as is the case at the present day in civilized commixnities. This species of concubinage has become alarmingly widespread in modern times ; and it cannot reasonably be hov>ed to see it checked or stopped until regulations and laws concerning marriage to an extent which it is not our intention to dis.uss here *** Marriage, according to jtirisprixdence. is a contract entered into by virtue of the ' law of peoples ". Since it is recosrnized and legalized by civil society the laws res- pecting it must be observed by those who wish to be- come licitly united. In former tim'vs the permaneticy which our present laws decree as to its binding chaiae^er did not exist ; by a contract entered into by mutual desire and consent. — a contract with which the State did not necessarily have anything to do — husband and wife were I united ; they did not i-.'^iiiiL' ..ther witnesses than there parents, relatives, ;or i'neuds. although .sometimes they liked to se.-ure wide publii.'ily to an event so imi)nrtaut to both nl' them. Surh a marriage was none the less a lawtul union of man and woman. Our remote ancestors .ailed it a "natural marriage", and held it in the highest esteem, mistaking it for a legitimate marriage. For this reason the Catholi'' Church makes a precise distinction, in this .'onnection. for thos^' who acknowledge her laws as possessing supreme authority. She stamped out the .'ustom of natural as well a< of civil marriage by elevat- in"- the union of man and woman to the position of a saerament, and by eommandiug that no marriage not blessed by Crod through being celebrated by one of her priests. This di'cree wa^ obeyed by catholic nations for :i long time ; but now a change has come over them in this respect, and in many countries the religious ceremo- ny is mn reurardcd as iie.essary. being simply a sort of blessinu- upon I he wedded pair. It is noteworthy that in Fraii''-^ th'' law recogniz^'s civil marriage alone as legally valid, and the mayor of every village or ward, or his assistant, is the only oliicial in whom is vested the authority to perform the raarria^-e ceremony, and to issue a certificate of its perform lUce. before four witnesses, whether parents and relatives or not of tlie bride and bridegroom. There is no necessity for the married couple to go through any religious ceremony in connection with their union, as this would in no way increase the validity of the civil contract. We readily admit, however, that those who refrain from having a religious ceremony performed after the civil function ha> taken place are in a small minority, because even people who no longer profess the catholic faith consider it to be the correct thing to do in the eyes of their neighbors. 17 Tln' force of habit i^ till' cause of this. Aniou^st ihe w'lirkiiig chisses. both cfrcuioiiii's are performed tlie saiae day. thf iu'wly marrii'd roiipl.' [>roceediug at once from the mayor's office to the church, accompauii d by their witnesses ; and tlicy do not feid themsidves really mar- ried until they have obtained the sacrament of matri- mony. It is customary for those who belong to the upper classes, or to the nobility, to wait a few days Ijefore se- curing the nuptial benediction at the hands of an official representative of the Churidi ; aiul while the civil cere- mony is gone through in a perfunctory way, the sacra- mental marriage is marked liy all the accoiapaninicnts of a solemn festival, attended ])y a crowd of I'chitives, friends and acquaintances, with an abundance of flowers and with special music. So indispensable, in fact, is the religious ceremony re- garded that the bride aiul bridegroom do not cohabit until it has taken place. Marriage, then, it is evi nt from the foregoing consi- derations, partakes of a dual charaiter, as we regard it in our own times ; it is a saciameutal act, and it is a civil contract. That it ought to be invested ^vith this dual charaeti'r few sensible men will deny. \V ith us the sti- ptilative or civil act is held in disesieem. The catholic priest ai'iainisiers ilie sacrament, the protestant clergy- man i)lesses the union ; but neiilier of them, nobody at all, indeed, takes ihe pams to find out whether sorai' fact affecting the man or the woman, which would vitiate the marriage, does or does not exi-t. .\dmilting the rari- ty of cases like those of Delpit, Lachapelle, and others, where the question of validity has arisen, it may be said, without fear of contradiction, that if certain tests were applied to the assertions ot the couples seeking to be mar- ried, there would be still fewer instances of coniiiDnl in- 18 felicity biouaht to the public aazo, or exist.'ut in th.^ privacy ol the lioiir^ehold. *** Vt'i' liavc stated that in Fraiu''' «ivil marviag-i' alone is valid belore the law. There is one point, however, to whirh attention should also be dire.-ted. In that country, the relia'ious ceremony may uot take place ix-t'ore the civil niic ; an to $20.00) for the first offence, but if the offending clergy- man has alreadv been convicted he is very severely ptm- ished, being sent to' jail for a period of from two to five years, and liable to detention al'terwards. We are not unmindful of the fact that the marriage law in France would, if an attempt were made to copy it here, arouse considerable indignation from two points of view ; tile obligatory subordination of the catholic clergy to the civil law, and the severity of the punish- ment with which infractions of it are visited. It may be comfortiug for many .lied, so th't it is not so exacting or cruel after all. Besides, every law that does not contain a penalty clause is null and void ; and it wouhl. therefore, seem that those who in- veigh against the French nuirriage law, are actiuited by enmity towards the State. In France, as elsewhere, and as here, clergymen of all denomiuation.s are subject to the laws of the land like other citizens ; and we deem it but right to say that they are the most law-abiding per- — ' i-V — ..^, - '. i . eiulio ill TliO A-Oi,»> lix Tilil L y . m 'M 19 liut the tyiui^- of tlu' uuptinl knot by a rivil offii'ial does not prevent its being uunulled afterwards. The certificate, drawn up in legal form, is a proof that the law has been complied with, and protects the marriage irom future attacks. This document contains ; 1. The ."uruame.s, names, professions, ages, places of birth, and residences of the contracting parties ; '2. A statement as to whether either of the parties is uader or over the age of majority ; 3. The surnames, names, professions, and residences of the parents ; 4 The consent of the parents, grandfathers and grand- mothers, and that of the members of the family, if this is requested ; ■'>- The 'aites respectueux ", if there are any ; (T) ''>. The publication of the bans in the ditt'erent places of residence ; (2). 7. The declaration of the couple lo espouse each other and the pronouncement of their union by the civil official ; s. Lastly, the surnames, names, ages, professions and residences of the witnesses, and their declarations that they are the parents or relatives of the marrying pair. This certificate of civil marriage in France is not issued before certificates of the birth of the two betrothed, and of the death, as the case may be, of parents and grand- (1) 111 Frame, acte" renp^ctucux. ov sommation^ respectueuaes. lire li'giil n'- quests, repeated three timos-once successivi' niontli — nmde by a yountr man or young wnmun having reached the ago of majority, calling upon liis or her parents to !;ive their con.^ent to the marriage. If, after tlie third request lias been made, the parents continue to withheld their con.sent, the marriage takv,s plaie without it. (2) Previous to the celebration of marriage, the St;ite official makes two announcements, at a week's interval, in front of the town-hall door, on Sunday : and a short statement reg.arding these public announcements is port- -t up at the tuWn-ua':! duril!^' th:j intcrvciiiiig wcc:;. (Civil Code), 20 latb.M.s ami -i-Miuhanilicrs, are huiided to ihe public official. Cau;se.s for annullinii- a marriage are thus restrieted by the Civil Cod.' to two — namely, insanity at the moment when the marriaize oereuiony i-s being- peribrmed, and an "error in th.- p^-rson ". (1) presuming, of ^onrsi-, the absence of fraud "V falsehood- in the certificates prod- uc'd, which it would he hard to hr.d out. Penaltie snffieiently severe are providi'd to meet such cases and to make them exceedingly rare. (I) I. Thf following are tlie provisinus nf thoth of them, or by whichever of thorn iliil not give a free consent. When there has bceti an error in (lie perton the marriage can bi' eoiitcsteil inily by the one who has been led into error. Art. iJ'l. — In reference to the forecoiuir article, the application fn for annulment, but tho most eminent jurists consider tiMt marriage should bf dis.solved wh'n there Ih a physical defect whi. Ii bindi is in any way the b4-getting or Iwjariug of children. This opinion, however, although a just one, In merely Plutonic. In thi« respeei the Catholic C'hiiri h has more reason on her side than tha Civil Code has, altlioui.'li she founds the enfon ed celilia< y of her clergy on a (.•t for till' ilesh. X« mnri' rloipient arguments against marriage could be put forth than those ontaim-d in St, Jjromes letter to Paula's daughter on the necessity of rciua' linu a virgin, and in his two bookH addrusHcd to i..v;..> ! sphere, of relii^-iou. It l.-avcs tii>' cl.M-jTjnnon of all .re.'ds free to look after th.'ir own reli- srious followers. The stipulation that the t'ivil ccnaiiony must precode the re'lgious on.' is no mor(> an cncroachmtMil upon the domain of the Church, or a blow aimed at it. influem-e or prestige th.m is the inakiuir of a notarial contra.t in continent. H.' says ; •' We .slumld nil the sixmer .see t. _• City of God tinislied. and till" u.irld come to an onii." (De Botf^ Conj , IV, 9). For tlic.'twiihstaudingour criticism of the Church's wrongful preponderance in our civil laws, we give it credit whenever it U due. rejrard to tli.' monetary iut.Tosts of tlio-.' nbout to get marriml. wliieh h'Te as in other .ountrii-s, must be drawu up aU'' 4giied belbre the marriage takes place, whether it be a eivil or a religious one. ju.st as a sale must take place b.'fore possession eau be taken of a house or a i>iece of land. It will now. we think, be admitt«'d that our muddled laws reL;ardiuu- civil marriage should be so altered as to laeilitate a regular, uniform, and Just performance ol the ceremony. With this important .iid in vi.-w jniliiic officials should bi' appointed to register the three great evi'iits of life : births, marriages and deaths. "We have no hesitation in adding that .ve would have no obie.'iion to ..-ntrustinir su.h a ifisk to oarisii pri-sts, rrotestani ministers and Kabbis. pruvid that the work was doll'' in a unif'M-ni mann'M- laid down by law. 11 It is necessary to revert to the Delpit >ase in order to prove the necessity of such .1 reform in our legislation eoueerniu'oii- tradictory replies. This hu'k of accord alone shows that there is a serious delect in our marriage laws. Freedom of conscience is guaranteed to every subject ])y the Constitution under which we live Everybody living in this le, wiieilier believers or not, belonged, even thoueh tliis might have regrettabh- con- sequences in mixed marriages, liut if this aihiii^-sion be made without reservation, it would not be possible, m a bilingual and l)ir>'liuious country like Canada, to re.og- ni'.e 111 any reliirion a pn'ponderance over ihe other This dominating inlluenci , so inimical to public trau- (luillity, is exercised by Catiiolii- Church, as is proved by the fact that she has the s])iritual power to declare null and void a marriage celebrated by a protestant clergy- man, while, ou the other hand, the protestant synod is not competent to deliver a similar judgineiit in the case 24 of two of its own religions followers who entered the married state boforo a catlioli,' prit^st by IVand or other- wis'^ This L'xpo.siiion of thi' iii"qualiiy of tlu powers oi onr two gri^at religious institutions is enough to provi' its perils as well as its utterly abnormal fhiraet'T ^y^ do not bflieve that ihe Roman clergy favor this nmln.' iiilhe'nre and :iuthority of rh«'ir Church. ( )n the contrary, we think that th^v would i;!a true in each iniitani 26 nage contains no >ucli clau-^i's to asMire tlie validity of an act whii h hinds two liws togother lor life, and on which depends thi' security of the family, after \vhii>h society itself and the State itself are modelled. As the law at present stands, any person who conceals his or her real name, age, profession, residence and par- entage, although the same person cannot cash a cheque or a dral* .vilhout being identitied, nothwithstauding the circumstances that tlie very presentation of either presu- mes the absence of anv wroniri'nl intention. *** We shall now glance at the most crncial as well as the most dangerous ]iart of the subject — namely, the de- crees promtiluated by the Roman Chur>h at the Touneil of Trent respecting the sacramental character <'[ mar- riage. Every catholic must obey these decrees under the penalty of incurring the Churiii aiiaili.'uia . and since, as we hav<' already stated, we a linii that every church has a right to make regulations as to its own members, we shall refrain from alluding;' in any way to matters of dogma, fur that would 1),' an assumption of a right which we do not and eannot possess. All catholics must accept its teachings, and whoever does ni i believe in them should not criticize the authority it exercises over its adh'Ments. But, without touching on dogmatic matters, we may assuredly try, without laying ourselves open to charge of presumptuousness, and without wounding the sus- ceptibilities of anybody, to help forward a ri'l'onn ili.it would result in the reconciliation of the publh interests witli the legitimate inllueuce of the Catiiolic (/liurch. Allusion has already been made by us to the desir- ableness of appointing public offic-ials to look after the re- 21 gistratioii of births, iriarriaues and d-aths. In doiun' so, we deem it right to airinii that w<' have not the least desire to infringe upon the privil<'ges euoyed by the Catholic Church. Such a step would iu nowise atiect religion, being simply a question wholly civil in its nature. To prove the gravity and urgence of the reform which We advocate, we shall reproduce the words of Toite Leo XIll. quoted by Canou Archambault in his iir>i L'Miteu sermon i" the cathedral. Said His Holiness : ■ Marriage is the contract itself, and every lawful mar- riage between christians is itself aiul by itself a sacra- ment ; and nothing is more contrary to truth than to contend that the sacrament is an extrinsic.- property, and .an be separated fiom the contract."' Leo XIII says distinctly that he is speaking of nutr- viaue between christians, or, to be more precise, b'tween catholics. The latter must yield obedience to this doc- trine, for their Church is dogmatically a divine institu- Ilou. There are amongst our people, however, dissentients who are not u-uided by the decrees and doctrines of the Roman Chur>-h, and over whom cnuncils, the Vatican, ■.\\\u the episcopate can exert no miluence. To th'-m I he decrees of the Council of Trent are dead-letters. The.se l).-ople. who i.re sufficiently numerous, would welcome such changes in the h'W as we demand— chaiiires that would in no degree interfere with the authuritv or jiower li'ticr ti the Kiiur of Sardinia, lliat the sa> iam''iii is I'oi ;in accidental 'juality superadded to the contract, but It is the very essence of marriage; so that the conjiiiial union between Chistiaus is only lawful in the raarriagt 28 6ai;rameiit. Any oihi^r union is really coiicul)iiiau('. A civil law which, based ou the idea that the sacrament is divisible from tlie contract of marriage between catho- lics, claims to regulate its validity, contradicts the Ca- tholic Chui^'h, usurps ii> in;iliable riirhts. and practi- cally puts concubinage and tlie sacrament of marriage ou the same footing by sanctioning both as legitimate. " Comment on these words is needless. All that we advocate is tliat the previous intervention of the civil law should be mad- obli^'atory, without, of course, attempting to give this civil procedure the char, acter of a blessing upon th(> marriage of two catholics or two protestauts. The marriage would only be accom- plished in fact after the administration of the sacrament or the bestowal of the nuptial benediction according to the observances of the religion of the contracting parties. Such a provision in th" law would simply prevent mar- riage betwen persons not legally qualifit-d to "uter upon that state of life, and, as a consequence, would render such cases as that nf the Delpits impossibb". The public officer would make out the certifi<'ate, which would be merely a guarantei^ thai no impediment, nothing that could afterwards atfect the validity of the contract, existed; and o)ily on this certificate l)eing produced could mar- riage be celebrated There is nothing' that w.' can see in this r-lb'-m calcul- ated to aflfect the beliefs of any part of the population, or hurt the f.M>lings of clergymen, while it would l)o an effi- cn.'iou-^ preventive against dissolutions of marriage, which assuredly it must cause the Church some sorrow to pronounce. Our task is linished with the demonstration of the ne- cessity of this change in our marriage laws. We hope that some member of the legislature will take up the question, that he will find many oth.r laMiiberB 29 ud anxious to ■Nuppun willing a and the leirislature w so iit'i-ossary a r«'fnrm. Ill "-1 vt^ us a law that will render impossible in the future any of those scandals whi'h bring shame or despair into family tnrcles. Ma>ilm,l. Marrli l"). 1901. -* APPENDIX No. 1 TESTIMONY OF K DOUARD DELPIT, On th.' I'Jth ot'Mav ll'OO. PART I 1 What ;iri' your iianii' and suru.im'- ? My nami' is Marii-Doniiuiqu'-.Tean-Edouard Delpit. 2. What is your age ? 1 am twt'nty-nine years of a^*-. G. What is your occupation ■' I am civil employee. 4. Are you a Roman Catholic ? I am a Roman Catliolic. 5. Do you pfribrm your religious duties / I do not ahvavs perlorui regularly my religious duiicx. • c Arc you Mr.Uclpit. who petitions the Ecclesiastical Authority to !'.>o. 7. You acknowl''d'4v ihe petition signi'r ill my douiiuid. I look upon a recoucilia- tion with thf said Joanne B. Cote as absolutely im- possibL'. ft. Do you lonsider I In- niairiage and baptism certili- catrts pn-seuted by vou as itutheutic fuos ? I do. 10. Do you admit the indis.solubility of mariage ? I admit (liat thtj christian marriage can be dissolved only by ihf death ol' one of the contracting parties, or is lialile to be dissolved by an impediment recognized by the Catholic Church. 11. Do you know the importance of tlic oatli you have just taken '{ ! do. I- Whi'U W'Te ycju married ? On the 2nd day of May 1893, in Montreal. 18. With whom .' ^Yirh Marie E. J. Cote. 14. How old was she ? .She was It) years of age at the time of our marriage. 1."). Was she a catholic ? She also belonged to the Catholic Chui' ii lt>. Have you b(>en mnrrieii with the con.seni r parents :" Wi' were married with the consent of her parents. 17. \\'h" ' ave you been raaTied by a protestnnt min- ister ? I was married before a protestani minister because it was her father's wish. I did not endeavor to have the marriage solemnized by a catholic priest. Miss Cote's father thought prop.M- that liis dauglitt-r should be mar- ried before a piolestant minister, i'rohaljly, because at that time he indulged in Spiritism. I could not say if he thought that himself was excluded from the Catholic Church tor that same reason. I kuow that at that time he did not perform his religious duties as a catholic. I do not know if the girl would have liked to have her marriage solemnized by a catholic priest. She did not express any wish of that kind. In going l^efore the protc-iaiit minister to be married I did not think that I was renouncing my fiith. I thought that I was >iill belougiag to the Catholic Church. 33 is. Did ynu mak.' :i (lerlaratioii tii thf pidtfsiant miii- istiT :i*'(iut your quality of catholic ? I did not declar" to the protcstaiit iiiinistcr iluit AVi' wert' catholics. Had iic asked me such a (jui'Stiou I W'Hiid havt' (li'i'lavi'd that I was catholic and 1 am con- vu!i''d thai Miss Cote would have answered the same, lit. Do you believe in the validity oi your marriage ? At that time I bv'lieved that I was contractini^ a \';ilid marriage before the minister and I llmught so till iaiely. .0. You did not know the eoclcsiastn-ai iuineaeh.a-'nt oi elandestineuess ? I did not know that iiiii>eaelun''nt of clandostiii'- ness ; that is why I considered my marriage as a valid one. •Jl. Did you always belon;,'' to the Roman Catholic ("hureh, at heart and by will ? I always belonged to the Catholic Church at heart and by will. 22. Were you not a member of the puritan sect of the Congregationalists '' I never belonged to any prolestant .seet. 23. Did your wife ever leave the catholic ndigion ? Miss Cote never ceased to be a catholic ; she never professi'd to belong to any other Church than the Catholic Chur(;h. After our marriage we kept going on at the laiholie ehurch. W,' have had three children who were baptisi'd i" the catholic ehureh. 1'!. A.. ., a separated as to bed with Mrs. Drlpit ? If so where lives Mrs. Delpit ? I am separated as to bed with Miss Cote ; she liver with her lather in Montreal since two or three weeks. 1 ilid not speak to her for many months and 1 do not know what she intended to do when she left me. :.'•'). Did you ever practise Spiritism or any other prac- tices condemned by the Church ? if so, did you believe that you were still a catholic ? I atterided some meetings of Spiritism and I thought then that. I was still a catholic. -0. Ih^s Mrs. Delj)it always b«!en a catholic ? Did she not renounce her catholic faith ? Was she a member of any heretical sect? Did she take part in or attend pro- testant reliL>"ious ceremonies V And what was her aim in :^:I'^. 34 doing so ? Did she practise Spiritism ; did she practise at the same time her relisious duties as a catholic ? ;i; i; Miss C'ott'. s00. r.Airr u. 1. You are Mr. Edouanl Delpit. party in the case f a- nnllilication of marriaire, DelpM /•vCote? Yes. 1 'in Kdouard Delpit th" ])etitioner lo have his marriage with Miss. J. 15. <."ote declared null. 2. When did you le.ivc Fran >? 'u April 18SS. 3. ..I that time you Wi'ie a ratiio'ie and practising your religion '? I was then a catholic and was then [)ractisini; m\ religion. 4. Later did you only neslect to perform your religious duties (»r have you accepted the protestant errors ? Later, I never accepted the pmtestant errors. In my lirst icstimouy I admitted that I haye not always 35 practised my religion, but I have always n'maiued a cathoHi'. ■"'. Is it ii'>t aoconliug to your wish thai a unitarian miiiister was < hosen to solemuize your marriag'i' ? And i.s it n(it because that .•ro'd was in aocordam'e to vour ideas? It'ncjt, what wa-^ the reason of that thoice f It is not in ai-.'ordam e with my wish that a minis- ter of t!ie Unitarian C'hurch was asked to solemnized my marriage. It was in aecordauee with the desire expressed by :ny I'ather-iu-law. The reason why I accepted this mini.T.ter, lays lu the wish as expressed by my lather-in-law. I do not be- lieve that Miss Cote had anythinir to do with the choice of a minister : she never said a word about that before me. Never did she express surprise or pleasure to be married before a minister. At that time I was engaged to another youiii;- lady; Miss Cote was aware of that fact and she wanted to hurry up. Besides, at that time Mr. Cote was r was she goini; regularly to the prote.stant meetings She used to visit the Catholic Church ; she heard the mass. She has never, to my knowledge, ijone in a Protestant Chunh ; when she became a miitinT, the care of her child kept her from going to Church ab olten as before; I told her many limes that it was nnuh l»et- ter for her to IduL alter hc-r ehildren in her house than fo and hear the mas.s. Since the time of o\ir inarnau;e, uever saw in our house a protestant minister, in the 37 lualuy, .'ithiT of a friend, of a mmistor or in ord.'r to ^ linage my wife to change her catholic religion. 17. When was your first child born ? I helit've that my lirst child was l)()rn on the loth of August, 1894. 1^ Was he baptized a few days after his Inrlh. He was baptizi'd the day after or the second day after, in Notre-Dame Church. ]\Ir. Tote, my father-iu- law was the godfather ; the priest who bai^tized my child did not raise any objection to Mr. Cote being god father. Accordiiii;ly I .ousider Mr. Cote himselt as a catholic. If he liad been <-<>nsidered as a protestaut, I suppose that the priest would not have accepted him as a L''odfathcr. The n'oduiotlier Avas Mrs. Derome, sister nl Mrs. Cote, aunt of my wife and a very pious catholic woman. My wife, Mrs. Delpit, did not object to the bap- ti.sm of her child at the cathoiii- church. T'. After the birth of her t'hild. was Mrs. Delpit in the habit my knowl- edge, .she always kept the same catholic ;".h. From the time of our marriage, she always kept iu our sleep- ing-room, some small statues of the Virgin, etc. "20. Can you state what was the reason for her coming back to the catholic faith ? When many members ol n,\ family had come in this .: Delpit raise any objection to that l)urial and did 38 she ask tliat th • 1"irial bo made in a . atholir liuryint^ ground ? Hor mo .. Mrs. Colt-, was burii'd in a proteslant buryiuir ground, bixi that was against the will of the whole lamily, who said that it was not projier for a catholic to be buried in a proti-stani iiround. When the la>t rituals took pla.c. Mrs. Deiomt- voheuiently pro- tested. As a fact, I am not aware that my wife made anv protestations about that. At the time of tlie burial ot Mrs. Cote, her relations protested, but I am not aware that they asked to have the Imrial made in th" catliolic ground. Contrary to what is asserted, at the time ol' ir.y marriaire I never boasted ot incredulity. Mrs. Delpit never told me that she belonged tf> the Unitarian creed. After havinsr heard the evidence given by Mrs. Delpit, I consider as fallacious all her sayino that she w^as a protestant. The minister who married us did not ask me if I was a catholic. Had he askex-prefrct, ex-iiispt^i'tor tri'iieral for th-' pap«'r and th^' pniitiii;^ matter of tin- MiiiisliT of the lntelieve in the validity ol my sons marriage I would oppose all ''ndeav- ors to have it annulled. I doii'i know ixi.tly the date of my son's mar- riaire ; I iieard of it only si.x. monihs after. As to the knid of marriage which he contraeted, I was apprised ot II only in the month of January last. 5. You were awav from Canada at the time of your sou's marriage ? I was in France at that time. '■ Sine., when are you in thi- country' Hardly two vears. 7. Sini'e when i- he, Mr Ivlouard I'lliui. in Canada ? My son went away from France on the TMh April 1888; he was not ipiite eii^hteen years old. '^. Did he always belong totlie Catholic religion, born, l>apti/ed and brought up in that religion ? He was born. baptiz«'d iu the Catliolic Church, and wa- educated in ri'liirious institutions ; h" made his lirrtbrm his ivliirious duties ? At the time oi' his dopartur" for Canada, my son Edouard had showed uo evidence of incredulity, and when he .anic hark to France, four years after, he still used to perform his reliuious duties. 10. Did he give up his faith since his comiim- ii. tliis country ? and 11. Did he write to you while you were in Frr'ice and him in Canada ? From the reading of his letters did you ever understand that he r.-nouni'cd the Catholic reli- gion, or that he had l)«>come a protestant ? A yrar after his d>-parture lor Canada, I <-uuld see in reading his letters, that there was a small change in his r.'ligious feelings; but I never understood that he had renounced his religion, nor that he was prof.'ssin^- protesrantism. Hi' wrote to nie about spiiitiMii, and I told him to be careful. 12. Did he write you any particulars on Miss .T.-ainie Berthe Aurore Cote's p-liu'ion, education? If yes, what were those i)artic'ular> ? He never mentioned Miss Jeanne IJerthe Auror,. Cote in the letters he wrote to mo. The first time ii.' spoke to mc of her, he told me she had been broui;ht up ill a convent. He told us that th'' brother of that youiiir girl's father was a prnst. 13. Did he say to you that Mrs. Delpit was a i>rotcst- ant. or that she was professing spiritism ? He never told us thai .>he AVas a prot.'st.int. or profes.sed spiritism. I knew this only wh.-n i cmiu,. in Canada. She did not herself profess s"piritism 14. Did he inform you that his inarriaLr,. l,;,,! |„,,.,, ^q. leninized by a jirot. 'slant minister? I never was informed by my son tiial his marriagv had been solemnized by a proteslaut minister. 1 heard of this only in the month of January last. 15. Did he tell you why his marriage \Tas solfimiK^ed before a protestant ministi'r ? He told nie it had been done so aecordiii;^ to llic wish of his father-in-law. I was told that the reas..u of this was in ord'-r to save money, but I believe that ih.- main reason was to quicken the said marriaire. 41 li.i. Were you iiovor told tliat Mrs. Delpit was a piM- testaut at the time of hor marriage ? That Jier family \vas prntostant ? I never heard ihat Miss Jeanne li.Mthe Anrorf < "6te was a protestant. IT. rJid you ever know ^Irs. Delpil as a latholic? I always knew her as a eatholic ; she used to keep in her room statues represeutii'g the Holy Yiruin. Be- sules. I know as a I'act tliat she went to eonfession and reet'ived the holy eomrauniou. 18. Yoti are not aware that she was a frequent visi- tor in the protestant meetings, with thi' intention of heeoming a protestant ^ I never was aware of the fact and never iieard thai she liad been a frequent visitor of protestan ehurehes; she never told me that her marriau'e liad heeii solemnized by a protestant minister. When she told me about her marriage, she believed in its validity. ]!'. Is it luit a faei that Miss Cote's family was eonsi- d'Teil a protestant one ? I am not ae(jnMintt'd with the family of Miss Jeanne Berthe Aurore Cete; however. I was always said that it was a eatholie family. Only 1 heard that Mr. Cote, the father ol' Jeanne Berthe, was eonsidered an r^prif fart. ■I'K is Mr. Delpit still a catholic .' My son Edouard, I am convinced of the faet. is still a catholic, though he does not practise as I would like him to do, but I hope that he will do so. The character of Jeanne Berthe Aurore Cote is a sirange one; to me she seems to be very hypocritical, and very sellish. She lies with so mii> h pluck iliai I think she is unconscious of the fact. 1 do not tlunk I could l>e1ie H her even under oath. In my estimation she has a great interest against lie nuUihcaiion ol her marriaii'e; she has a pecuniary interest. It is possible ihai both parties believed lu tlie validii y o|' their marriai^e. I do not bi'lieve .I.'auiie Ui'ithe Cute when she asserts that my .son, at the time of his marriage, was not a catholic ; throufrh respect I'or his j)arents, he would have not turned his reiiiiion without tellinsr us about it I do lint believe her when she asserts that my son Edouard has alwavs been a protestant previous {Hid siui'f his marriagf. My sou's children were bapt- ized in the catholir ehnreh and that was not done at the ifcjuest ol'Mrs. D.dpit. As Mrs. Delpit claims to have Iteconie a catholic eighteen mouths ago, and as her last child has been baptized t^A > yars and a half ago, evidently, it could not be done ''t IIk- re([uest oi Mrs. Delpii, but at my sou's request. To my knowledge, my son. Mr. Delpit. never assisted to any protestant meetings, .Tudiiiiig from the throuirhly christian education received bv my son, I would iu)t believe that he was the first to ask have }iis marriage solemnized by a protestant minis- ter. Even, I would rather think, and such was my late husband's conviction, that in all that matrimonial attair, my son Edouard was under the inllu>-nce oi' hypnotism, and that he would have never thought ol' this marriage liad he enjoyed his Iree will. In tlie family's intimacy, all that past soiled with protestantism, these anti-religious practices, never were nieiitioiied, the \\i)rA protcMant was mentioned at all only when came the question of the annulation of the mar- riage. My son never told me a word rotestaiit. Mrs. Edouard jlelpit never spoke a word to me that could make me l)elieve that she was a protestant. Concerning the bai)tism of his first child, my son, Edoiaard, Avrote to me that his son was born, that he had ])een christened, and irave me also the godmother's name, a lady by llu' name of Derome. The <-hildren have been l>ron!rlit up l)y the father; the first one was sent in Frauci-. wlien three years old; at that time he w'as totally ignorant on relision, but he was so young, his mind was not mueh developed, he could hardly talk. I heard that Mrs. Delpit had quitted the convent ou account of hi'r bad health, because she was always sick. She went s > far as to say that her mother had vowed her to the blue color, and that her friends had nicknamed her la pftiU bhue. She said so to prove that her mother was a devout woman. We have seen things that trave strenutli that up to the rime of her marriage, she had been vowed to tiie blue color. 1 43 No. 4 TESTIMONY OF NORBERT FA PARI), riiYsiciAN Q. What art-' your iianii' aud surname' ? A. My nairie is Norbert Faiard. Q. How old are you ? A. Fifty one years old. (J. Wliat is your octnipation ? A. riiysiciau. Q. Are you catholic ? :m Q. Do you perforin your ndigious duties. '■■H A. To my best. ;.i Q. You know tlie importance of the oath uuder which '■'M you are ? ::| Q. You admit the obligation of telling the trutli, all 'J the truth, and nothing biU the truth in answer to the ^i question that shall be put to you ? :;& A. Yes. M Q. Are you acquainted with Edward Pelpit ? *i A. Yes. 'lpit. born Jeanne Berthe ('6te ? A. Yes. Q. Since when ? A. From her childhood. I knew her when she was a younir girl. .^ Q. Did you know her at the time of her marriage ■ with Mr. Di'lpit ? 44 Q. l)\i\ you know hfr ;is a catholit' ? A. I thought that the fatht-r was a catholii' and for the same rt^ason I thou^'ht the dauirhter was a latliolio. But at tlu' same time, 1 kiiewtliat tliey wro praeti: iuii- a reliL''iou of their own : The spiritism, and they bi-lieved themselves it was an independent religion. Q. Do you know the diifereuee existing between a ])t'liavior as eond'-mned by the Chun'h and leavini;' formallv the C'atliolic, Chunli ? A. Yes. Q. Do you know it Mrs. E. Delpit, born Jeanne Ber- the Cote, has ever formally renouuhe ever ad- hered an otlier faith than th<> eatholic faith Q. Did she publiely att.'ud a protfSt;ii. Surch as au ndcpt of that church ? A. For ray part I do not know ; I heard it. Q. Wa'^ she known as havinu' renounced the catholic faith ? A. Xo, not to my knowl^'dge. Q. Do you know if Mrs. Delpit was married before the Catholic Church or btd'ore a protivstant minister .'' A. For rav p:ii't, I do not know, l)ut relatives of Mrs. Delpit .-aid tlial sh>' was married before a protestant min- ister. Q. Before what minisi-r :" A. I do not know. Q. Of what di'noniination ? A. I do not know. Q Why w'as Mrs. ])elpit married bid'ore a !>roteslaut minister !* A. I do not know. Has one or the, other renounced I dou't think so. How old was Mrs. Delpit at the A. Q riage A. Q his faith ? time of her mar- .4 bout Iti years, I believt Since how lon>j: h;id sht she was educatetl .\. 1 think sh about U) or 17 years. eft the convent where har corainu' off IVoni the ronveiit :ind her marriage ? A. Naturally, I iii''t Ihm- at lu'r father's when I wont there. Q. Did you talk witli her ? A. Y''S, sonit'tinies. (i>. Did she tell you thai site had r<'nounced to the oatholic faith ? A. No. Q Did she dfi'lare that sh'- Avas practising .vpiriiisin? A. She did not say so. Imt I saw it by inysidf. I attended meetings where she was herselt practising spi- ritism. Q. Are those practices forbidden by Church tliat kept her fr(nn futtiiling her rcli<.nous duties V A. I do not know if these practices are completely forbidden by Church and kept her from practisiuLr her re- ligiiius duties as a catholic U. Did you know of Iot marriai^e ? A. Yes." Q. L'id vou go 'ind pay her a visit mi that occasion ? A. Yes sometimes ; alt'^rwards there was sickness in the family. I was the family physician. Q. ])id she speak to yon about the snlemnization of her marriage by a })rotestant minister ? A. No. I dill not have any occasion to converse with her about it. Q. Immediately after her marriage did she not show by her religious actions that she was a catholic, sudi as gfting to chur<'h or attending public prayers ? A. At my knowledge, I know that her lirst child has been baptized in the catholic chunh. I do not know any other action of her life. Q. Were her children baptized ? A. The lirst one has been ; as for the other I do not know. Q. When was her first child born ? A. About five or six years ajjo ; about six years ago. A iifiii t o'lft '^'f^f^T p^tt*** tHi^ m ivmH*-?*^' ! kii !>! >riS2. 46 Q. If her liist .hild has been baptizod she theu seemed to be a catholic ? A. Well, it t.'iided to show that she was a catholic. To tell the truth she did not seem to practise her reliiiion. Q. Did she pret'-nd liaviiig renounced her taith ? A. ^o, I do not beleive it. She uerer talked to mo about it Q. When :• A Q. How ? A Q. Is she a catholic to-day ? A. I believe so. 1 do not know. Q. Does she peri'orm her reliLMous duties ? A. I don't know it persounally. Q. II sh.' is a catholic to-day and if she renounced her iaith formally when has she renounced her protest- ant errors ? A. I k)io-\v nothiiii;- about it. Q. With the i)er.'nissiou of what bishop ? A Q. Which priest received it ? A Q. Where is her written reuounciatiou ? A t-.w1 48 tliat h.' was iiiarryiuiT a oatholh- s'luci' \" lh<' in'cst'iit tim'' 111' riiiisidfifd his rnavriauv is a valid 'Hie Z A. I know iidtliiiiL;' about liiai. />'/.' ///(.' (k'fcNsiir I'f till ii'idriiiioiiial tit: Q. ,\t ilu' liui'' i>i' luM- raarriainv with Delpit did you consid'!- Mrs. Jfamii' ("otr as a catholic or a pvotostaiit ? A. I lousider.tl ln-r ii>Mth"r as a I'atholic nor as a '.'ro- tt'.staiit. They hail a religion n| their own and her mother at th}' time of her deatli wa- out. of th'! Catholic Cluirch ihouirh she had not abjured I considered her dauijhler as outside of th.' catholic religion and practi.suig Spi- ritism. Bil tfn .l/ii/gf Q. Ib'r moilirr died without beiuir heard in eo)i- fcssion V A. Yes. No. 5 TI'STIMOW ']■ ALLAN r.FU.N A KD (,'UTK, (bi the K'.th of Ai'ril 1900. 1. Do you ^Wi'ar upon the Holy I'lvanirell^lH to tell the truth, the who], truth an'i'J. Dorches- ter St. 3. Are you a rehitive of .Teaiine 15 ('6te. (b fendaiit in this case ? lam the fath.'r of J.H. ('ote, (b'friidaiil in tins case. 4. Do you believe in religion ? If so m whi' h : ii 49 no t did you i'\or h^'loiig t(/ iiiiv iiiid -iucc wh.'u did l.'av.' it vou Il:i I'l Var; vr l)t'l(>m^"d U) thf Catholic C"ii ury \nn r'liouiiced tlii- «atliolic iailh :" It and h'dor'' \A-hom that rciiuuc'iati whi. h so WiUTC. wJli'U on was rcocivi'd ? ih. I iK'Vt'i- inadi- any action hv wiiich I catliolic laith, ifiioun. G. What is thi' roa> a of your saying that yot I I).' longt-'d no inon' to th.- catholic I'aith 'i I Icit tlic Catholic ('|;ur,h because I did not l)i'liovt in it. lurthciinorc 1 do nui b.doiiir to any r.diTious scot 7. Do you tiniik thai liie la.t for you of practisiuq 8l)iritisni sc«s yuu aside of the Catholic C iiuich I I) not b.'li, id you c\cr bdo; g to any protcstant churi-li ? lli'VtM- .on ETed I I o \viii' li r.'!ii>-ion d any protevfant rciinrjon. " ihi ni"ni!» Jclnlin- to Mv I list wile did II ,t d it a!iie tim, ;,- | ,||,1 >[\ my niotiier w.-re cathulie,s. 10. ("nnltl you say why your dauirhtcr .1, ■i-~ of your family ithnlic faith. She ailcT and anio le rih. W IS l:i;irne(| 'ic a I'role.siiiiit minister ;• My daughter was married b 'f^ re a prot»»slaui mu ister because Mr. Deljiit did not practise tho catholi reJiginn H ked ine my advice and i inhl him t belo:e the minister nf the rnitarian Chnr.h, as beinir church standing nearest to my own bill, i 11. In what religiou was your daiitz-hl. the baptized and educated o go lh« aiin. H. r- My daughter .l.'anne l!. has be,-ii bapti/ed and broughi-up in the catholic icli g» on. 12. Is your wife a ciiiholic and does she perform 1 religious duties ? If not since when his sh- 1 practice (d'her religious duties f ler ft th. I h. vc Hiiswer.'d this (juestion as far as mv first Wile lb concerned. My second wifi< is cathol 13. At the time of h di-ur daughter J.'ann|; H.r ' give tip th,- pra.ti,-. of th. -.uhoUo rehg.ou and l^.r u hat '■'"'^h.ha. al,aud.m..dih.-'ath..h, r,.!i^..mtr,.n.ih^ ;,...,. ofl.-i N.'ar>, she.ould ant dn „tn.rw... than tollou ^'^IfHa^vmudlm.hu.vJ^^^ a. n V Xh she d.-chtn"s h.-r nU.MU.on ul abaudnnnu. a>". aii.olic ndigion ' If 60, vvh.r., wb,-n and b.lore ""^'"siu mad. iu. attth.M.n. d.-d in a .oleum .nann.r bv wh..li she declared hev mtention ot abandnn.no .he :; tl >H ■ rel.trion, bvU th. ya- pv,.y,uu> to h-M- mavnage .;,; wi^ iH.Mvdinu m a Fr.neh ute.hoi.^t eollege in-n. the n,..uthol-Oetob..r in ih.' mouth ..I January. IG Previimslv to her marria-.' was >h.' a . iMtoi ul th'lthoUe eht-treh '^ l.^d^h. tuHil U... du,. iMu. '''^'"Tire h,.r n.arrn.-' -he was n-.i a visi.ur of the . ,,ih,,Ur eliur. h : ^h.' di-l n-'t tultil dniies prosenb-l by ^'^iV^'flt^nn.. ,.h..rnKU-r.:,g. h:..y.;urdau.h,e^^ ..xi.res'.-d tie' w.^h t!i;n it be Nolemni/>Mi by a rMthnlie '""" Ai th- uui-ui h.'r niairiag.- my dauu-hier did ''X- oress no such wish. * 18 To voni kuowled-e did she express thi^ .nt.n'.ion b.fore oth'.M- p.'opl.. •? Ifso. before whom^ To mv knowled-e .she has ..xpressed no sueh wish. v.. Aft.-r h.T marna-e did sle us- to -o to the ea- tholie rhur. h and did she fnltil b-r r-dmion^ dun.- 11 BO. sin. '■ wh.ii um>' ? , . », i i , >v 1 :,ui n..t au-HP' that whib' in Moutr-al ^b.' l.er- for.ned h.T duties in the eatholie ehureh ^0 Mad your dau-hter Jeann.. U-rlb- had any share ill iho>'' p-aetiecN of spiritism ? Yes. she had a shure. Spiritism is tl v....ii:on of souls, the fore-sijrhi, et'. ... , 21 While sharing those practiees ol spiritism has youi dau-hterJ.'ann.. Heithe r.'uouneed tb- eathol,, r-li-mn 22. Do you sve a dili' r-'iie.' b-twen ih.' tnei c! il- 61 i Bcrthe Cote had ii.'t oniy neLileet.-d to duties but had also renouneed tli^ ■atllolle ;altll. ■J4. At th.' tin Ihi' soiell inizalici! ueh qu"-ii<'ii was asKed 2:.. Wlial has Ivlward D.dpit said abdu! that? n as nai' ■h a^ I ean reiiieml)i'r li an 1 ni'tliiim- to he minister ahdUt that •Jtl. And yiir ilau-lit'T to whai r.'huioii ili'liixi<'U» ••ducaiioii lo mv daughter However, my dau<,'!iter when niU' of rears 01 air« made her tirsl communion IIK I was loii firm- ed in the >athi'lic ■ hurt h. No. 6 TESTIMONY OF MARIE EKILDA DEROME, o N THE Till DAY OF MAY 11*00. 1 Dm you swoaron the ll"ly Er;ni?.'lists to say truth, all thi^ tmili and iiothiiiu l)Ut \h'' truth? Yos. Hir. 2 What an' ymxr naiut' and surnanio ? iht ICrilda Deronu rii' 'Ur ;iU' M^ Q Y A. 21 yoars. Q. Tht' place , sir. Q. Did you see her often belore or alter her mar- riaixe ' A Very little. Q. Did }-ou consider her as heinir a catholi.' thenf A. No Q W ill vou say why? A. IJ.Miuise I never saw her i>raelisin!r any religion. Nevertheless she made her lirst euiniiiunion a yar pre- vious to me. O Wlier-' did she inak«' her iii>i euiiiiu union { A Ait.ndinu- then Miss Genereux's a.-ad^niy (this lady is dead n<>w), (she mad.' lier lirst ronnnnnion at St. James ehnrch. Since her tir>t connnnninu 1 never saw her accomplishing any religious duties Q. Did ^hl■ then .-xjiress the desir.' i" attend the catholie chur.h ? A. I do not recollect. Q, Did she ever let you know that sh.' had lu know ii (she behaved her>elf .i-^ a pro- testaut seholar '. A. I dout know. Q. Do y- your o'-' upation and the plaee of your resid.'Ui-e ? My nam.' is Claude Einile Terrin I am '"> ♦ y^'ars ol atT'' I am a . atholic priest and 1 live iii Montr, al. •J. Yon kiiow till- iniporlaiiiT of tli.' oatii Vou have jueit tak''n ' \ .!o. .;. Do y.-ii Kiiow Mr. Edouard D.lpit ? ."^in.'- how lonsr ? Did you know him at the time of his marriage ill 180:5 > 1 kii' w Mr li Ipit ai ihi' tim.' oi \n> iiiarriaare. I inaiie his ai<|uaiMiaiu;e u litti.' h-'foi.' 4. Was h<' considered us a >:itlioii' '. Did \'-\\ know him as su»h ? 54 :i s a Y 1 kn.'W liim us :i catliolu \,\\\ ;it t!b> saiu-.' timo i-ationalist. lik.' a i:iit.'l)()ni Jfaniif Brrth.' Cote? SiiKv liow loni:- ? r»i\v lur at the time >!' liiM' mairiaiiv wiih Mr. l»>'lpit ' I know .Trajuii- B. Cott- since sh.' was about ten years ol au'»' tl. Did von know her as a ratholif : At ih".' lime 111" her niarringt' I h)ok von know it Mrs. IC Itrlpi 1 tl I. Iiorn Jeanne oie. li;i> evt r t'ormallv reiK.nio 'd th^' < at I iidt khi'W il .1. line < B. hnlie, taith ? 1 the ha^ r'liouneiH catholie laiili 8. What other ereed
  • ut I do 1 lot thiuk -he was awan> o f iiiiv thins- wroTiff in dointi' so. rSho was oil ly foUowino- the example set t)y her parents. 14. Were vou apprised of her marriage? Did you 50 an d visit lier on that occasion Did she mention to vou the tket of her marrvinu' before a protestant minister I knew ofhcr'niarria rotestant l-V Immediaielv after her marriatre, did not she liehave in atteiidme' the .atholic cliurch or in atholic I;il &. iiiir i'art 111 i>iM)l!c prayers, C i do not know wha't she did after her mam: far as velijrion is coiicc rned Hi. D Oe Slie c laim navint;- ven ounced her fait I I d U si o not know 1 i she lia> renounced her faith le i- a. cailiolic no w I ia\'inL;' reiiouncei 1 1 ler faith formerly, when ha< >he leiiounccd her pr-icslaiit error: I know nothuiir about it. 1^. Don't you think that .she chiims liaviii-- renounced ;iith in order to strengthen her case and secure the her validity of her marriage I d o not know what is her aim in saying- that >li. Jia.s renounccc >ince. 1 her faitli 1 lecause i di iioi see in. At the best of your know ledize did Mr lldouan 1 Delpit ujion lii^ w 1 le as having renounced the ilholic faith .' Wliv did he hiin-ell •I'oi'i a p rotest- ant minister aliout the C;lt an say l-^ that Del udic reliL^ioii pit marriage as bein va lid. 56 evtMi as hciii"- sdL'unii/rd ]>\ a prDtestaiit iiiiiiistev? Why ^ Yes, Di'lpit tliou^-ht his marnaue as liciiiu' valid. I come to this coiiclusiou by their a.tioiis. They Wfre introducd as wile and liusband aiiiougst llie >'ar Deronie). (On the Ttii M\v, IOoO). 1. What is your naiar mid your suniaine ? Emilia Campbell, wif'- of Elzenr 1 I'M". 'in. 2. What is your age ? Forty years old. 3. What is your condition ? That of a married woman. 4. .Are you a eatholic ? Yes sir. 5. Do you fullil your religious duties ? Yes sir. 6t tj. You are awaro ot the iinportau»e ol the oath that you have just taken ? Yes sir. ". You reoojrnize the oblisyation ot saying the truth, all the truth and nothing- but the truth in answer to the questions that will be put to you ? Yes sir. 8. Do you know Mr. Edouard Delpit ^ Yes sir, I know hini. 9. Since when ? Since his marriaue with my niece. 10. Were you acquainted with him at the time of his marriage i;i 1893 ? No sir. 11. Was he considered as being a catholic. Did you know him as such V Previously to his marriage, no sir : I did not know him. 12. Did you know Mrs. Delpit, born Jeann>' Berthe Aurore Cote ? Yes sir. 13. Since when ? From the time ot hi'V birth. 14. Were you ac(iuaiuted with her at the time of her marriage with Delpit ? Yes sir. 1'). Did you know her as a catholic ? She was practising no religion at all. That is to !»ay she did not practise her parents' religioi. ; she fol- lowed the reliii'ion of her parents from the time of her first communion 16. You know the dilierence there is bt'tween be- having in a wav cdndiuint'd by (he Church and se»"ede formally from the Catholic Church? Yi's sir. 17. Do you know ifMrs Eilouard Dedpit. born J-anue B. Cote has evt-r formally uiven i\\> the catholic faith? To my kn()wled<''e, no. 15. What other i reed did >he accept? Ah, I cannot say ii that may he terim-d prartising, but 1 know she did not follow the Catholic Chvi!ch and •\xviw m\r».ti in cT^inritm 58 10. Did she i;o puhlicly to n prot-'stant cl \'>-has an adi'pt '.t'thiit church's .Tcfd ? I cannot say ; it is not to my knowit'diifi". •20. Was she kn'own l^s having' rcnouncd the catholic Yes in ihi- wav. Ilcr mother had beeu calU'd at the scho,d' I tiilkcd over this matter with Mrs. Mar- chand, and >aid that he,- dan-hter wouhl not b.- compel- led to fulfil any reli-iuus duties, that she would not -o to confession ; Sirs. Man-hand went so far as to t e U me that sh.' did not make the prayer in common with the others because liev mother had asked so. 21. That is to sav. Mr>. iJelpit did not pr;ictice i Yes sir. ■ , 1 r •2-2. Do you know il Mr.-. Delpit was married betore the Catholic Church or before a protestaiit minister? She was married betore a protestaiit minister. 2-\. Before what ministev ' 1 was saiilie had "iveu ith. and all the l:imilv is catholic Bn til' Jii//<^e. Q. Hid she tell you that she reiioui alth ^ A. I cannot say. iced the eatholic Q. Yi>u do not rememt)er if she . ver told you so ' A. No. We reiuouslrated wiih lier and she answered .•-he did not believe. Xalurall", she foUo^ved her -parents l)rincii)les ; her an>'', ,ver Avas : it is not accordins' to my e heard so and so from my parents and ihey 3II0W the Bible. Such was her ansv.-er. 31. Did .she iiMosruize l)efore vou ;he f;ict of tn iuL,' a crt>c( il; I hav -piritist 01 1 1 ve saw tier invse it ; one dav as my sister'shouse. 1 witi-essed a nieetiim- of spiri saw that slie indukred in .-piriiisra. That, t I was at tism. 1 00 1 lace previon-lv to her marriai :3'2. Do vou know it those pra< tices. such as torbidden by the Church, did preve^i 1 hi-r of lultilliiic; her duties as a c atholi and ■Aisc. ler tuisl) and who liad no relijriou. Both of them were well matched. :V-\. AV ere vou into rmed of h'-r mavriatre ? les. 34. Did vou pay licr vi>it in that ocias ion 1 \ es. 35. Did .'-h.' tell vou that her marria'ie was solemnized bv a Protestant minister les. was .!..> ,). in irri ;iot» 60 i #ii took I )i:ice I saw thill sht^ was raai rii'd Ix'lori' a })role.st- anl ininisicr. 36. luiuu'diately alter her inarriaii did she not be- havt lufotiii th()li<- hv tht- tart of \ kimw it. This y.-ar, I know as a fact that sho was h«Mrd ni i-oiifessiou by Mr. G-ivot, of St.. Tames rhurch 4t!. Whort' is th»' act ot hor abjuration V To my kiiowUnliie. I di> not know. 47. Do you not beli* ve that she idainis ot being- an apostate in order to secure th-' validity of her marria2-e? I heit, all those parti. 'ipatiuir in the proceedint^s, even those who witnessed the ]->roceedings were excommuni did so because slie was livinir with us at the time. I believe it would have been as hard a task for him to bring her ])aek as for her lie knew all about it : he had bcen'liviuii- at my .sister's hous" during- many months. 48. Do you know where Mr. and Mrs Delpit made their weddinET trip ? W'dl, I believe thev had none. 1 (ton": reeollect well 4!» Mrs. did not ■hur.h ? While in houiseville. where iLey went D.'lpit iro at the meetiii'j in the eaiholi' I don't know I am aware that, some time alter tlieii marriage, they went at Louiseville, but 1 do not know if, while there, Mrs. Delpit went at the meetinir in the catholic church. oit Did she not behave as a catholic ? No. not to :.iy kiiowledee. 51. Why, in so short a period did she change and re- change again her religion :" Because she was with us, and she knows that the whole family is catholic Mr. Cote's mother was a protestant, but later sh.' turned catholic. At th.i! time, my brother-in-law was a catholic. My sister died with- out seinix the priest. She refused to see the priest. 52. Have you anything else to add t.> your declaration ? 1 do not seea=^...= v; To vour ku.wlod^. dul Mr l«..lpi. -n^id-v his ^vU.'as having ivucuu.xhI to th. ^-^^^^^^ ^^^^ ' Well. I n.-ver talk.Ml to him about that. ;,4 11,. marri.Hl her as a wile because she had .m reh- „,o,;. h,. would no, hav.> tak..n h.r as a xvih had she ''■"'Vi:Se-.ha, he Would no;. Jud..ug Uom the ,.,,„,„., n. ,vhi.h h' UM.d to ,alk about priests, sinee 1 know huu. Wh.n one has a do,, wh.-h h- els I k^IX in order to >eandalise evry IkhIv and thai all the .amilj Tw tn Ls ,0 ,h.. la.t that he .all-d hisdou" by the name olP V h.. 1^ wvon. in USUI.- .h^i-igion now in l^tohav,. h. mama,,, annulh.!. ;.' ^-"^ ,;',^.;: ..vueihx whieh h,. kept ui hi- hands, t t h.. 1 haN- K. .,. ■, n-imes^ \11 ol iheni kii.'W all about it ii!;. Whrw-hehim^..iru>arried h.lorea pr.,i.:stant """'";;[„Ln-,. he liad no rel.-.on. 1 was not mueh ac- nuainted wnh hini b.-loro h-s marriage. *.-,.; \Va^ ii throu-h respeet or cousid-'vation Un nis ^vit■.• h.. I hen elaiined to be a prot. -taui * H.. liked b'ti .r beiu- married belore a [.rotes ant mimstev Th.r.- wa- a undersiand.nu between him a".d niv bro,h..r-in-law. At that nin,. they agreed per- (■,.,tlv \v..ll it' ill,. V do not to-day. ll. \l\C b.d>-v,.d ,ha. h,. was niarrvin^a pr.est- ^'"' ' 11.. ku,.W .. well. II.' kn..W Ihal .>he protess,.d uo reUgn.n, that is ,o say. .hat sh,- was n,,. pn-h-ssing the e.iholic religion, i'.e kn^'W all ab,,ni it 58 iMd he say anv.'.ur. ol th.. kind to ,,nvb.,dy to V >ur knowh'dtr'' ? No, not u. mv kn..wledi.-... 1 • ann,,i say. 59 |,„1 h ■ ..V to bnnu leT ba. k m the atholi- faith ? . , I ih never, not iliai 1 knew, never. ,;.. Was he .•onvine..d ,.nhe validity .d hi., uu.rrutge even when solemni/ed by a prot,.stant minister Certamlv, siuee he was marn-d belor- a protestaiit u.inist.r. Th.'re was a contraet ol marnag.' ma. •■ by a u V in a word everv thing was done tte.-ordn.u^ to Ihe u.ual rules. H- b.du.ved him-lt a marn.d man .il Whv that .' 63 ]).'c;\ust> whi'ii lAvo jH' wlio prnfi's^ no rclis^ion art' iiKirrii'*! l)y a pr(it<'st;uit minister their iuarria£re is iiMUilly roiisidered a valid nnc. Tliat's tiie reason wiiy he h.dfeved in the validity ot his niarriairi'. til'. Was he not awaP' <>i that hiw ol lli<' I'hiirch which renders ntili \\i<- niarriaue d'-mnized by a protestant minister.'' I do not kniiw; 1 n>'Ver lieard anytluiiL; ai)oiit iliat. • 'S. If he was aware of that law, ht- was then eonvin- .I'd that lie was marry inii' a protestant since till now lir b(dieved in the valitlity of his mariiai;!' ' He knew that he was niarrying a woman who piolebsed no reliuion at all 04. Ynu think that lie married her be* ■in>e shf pro- fessed no r'// /he (l''tc>isor ol tin unit rnittiuinl Hi it i^» i»id Mr.-.. l»elpil ask tl >t her lir.>t .liild !ie eiirisl- rii.-d ill I 111' Catholi'- C'liiir'h A 1 don I bidii'Vr >h' did. 1 was there, at that time and as soon as \\\<' eliild was l,(.ni, I said, •thai child 11. I 111' ciiri'~l«'iied." 1 dii not r-'' oli.'ct that -he ex- pressi'd any stu h wi-h. IJ Uo von bi'liev-' ihat, at llie tim'' of Ii'T niirriaL;'', .leaiiiK' 1) Cote did Hot "illy proff-s the lathtihc reli- Uiou, but bi'loin:<'d to the protestant religion V A Sh'' proli's-.'d no religion ? Q. Did she adhere tn anv protestant . iiuich ' A All 1 cannot say, 1 never s.iw ln'r go m a protes- !:ill1 cliur'll 11. tin Ju'/->: Q Are yon not in tronbli' with Mr r>elpii, von or vonr hn'-l)aiid ' A, \o. *i 1 iiican liilii'iiities a at nioiirv inaii'i- ' A No . Iioth ol them s' 'ed a trail.' but it did nut bUci i-ed and liu> wiioh- thinu' wa«i seitled to Mr. Ddpit I'mi- certain services aud we admit thot^c favor,s. Q Di'l your anccstur?? belong to the j)rotestaut reli- gion ? A. Our amesiors, and iheuce those of Mrs. Allan Cote, my sister, Were protestarts. My i itlier was bapti- sed in ih'' Catliolic Chur^ h wh n ten years id' aire. No. 9 Ti:sriMOXY OF .TE,\XX1': MAWiH HEIITHE AUKDRE COTK l).N THK liiTH l),VY t- td t.'ll the truth the whole triiih and iKitliint;- but I in- truth. 1. What is ynur w.uiv an vur a.-lual diuai' ile ? I residi d in (^u. >eeii in Montreal Idi ili.' |)m^i six w^'ek uriiijf threi' years. I have 4. Are vou a Rdiuaii I'ath Mill IMV i).-..) half. 1 a unman < 'at hnlic lur a y ear ana a Alt' yo\\\ parents Catludic ? M\ pai'Mit-i are nnt ('atholic- 0. l)n you practise your reliu^ious daii'vs ? I have done no for the past year and a half. 7. You uiKhrstand the seriousness of the oi have taken ? Uh you tak> I nnd-T-iand t Ih' -•n..usn''ss of tlie oath i havi 8 Arr you marn.d i* I am. ;• VVheu v.ere you marned ? I was married on the 2d of May 1^W.{. 65 IM. WllJl Wll om t WAS married to lidoiuird Didpit. 11. What was your iiue then ? I was sixli'cn yt-ars and two months at the dat.- of my nlal•na^•l'. 12. Had you the consmt ol your parents ? \es, I had the consent ol'iny parents. i;i Havi' you always been a Catholie ? I was not always a Catholic 14 Were you a C'atliolie at the dat.- of your marri; At tlie time ofmv marriaijfe, I was not a Cath ollc. lo. Did you ever beloiiLr to the sect called heretic ? I belonged to heretical sect, particularly the Un tarian Church H5 Have V ou ever tak. nv wi th tl K- intention of ud'u n jiart m a protestant ceremo- nng to a as a member ? C I took jiart in religious ceremonies of the Unit iiurc with the intention o ivrian f be that Church. ■omin? a member o* 17. Did you ever take part in .spiritualism or auv other l)ractices of similar natuie ' On that ooca-i.>n did you ev-r make any renouncement of your faith ? I took part in spiriiualism, but I do not re( ollect ol h;>v-ine- made any renouncement ol Catholicism. 1 was th n very youni What was Mr. Delpit's a he always one 1 . Why Jill you tret uinnifd by ;i rroiestant Miuister ? I was married bv a Protestant Minister because it was t'n>' rhiiii'c of Mr. Ueljiit. i!4. iJid you stale that you were a Catholic to the Pro- ti'staiit Minister ? 1 did not declare that I was a Catholic to the Pro- testanl Miui>ter, because all tlie arraui^emeuts of our niarrian w"er>' ? Would Mr. Itelpit have stated tlial be wa.> a Catholic .' 1 could not then slaie ihat 1 wa> ; 'athoiic. for at lh.it liini' I was not. A> to Mi. iJ. dpi 1 coubl not vouch tor IS repiy •Jtc Did you consider m b.'ini; married by a prolcsiant iniiii>ter that you had dis. ard.d yotir religion .■^ 1 do not consider that my i>cing married bv a pro- testant minister had any ett'eot upou relijri. u> (jui'-nons. 1 dil not think ofilie-e iiiaiti>r>. as I >onsiui'r«(l niy-ejf a protest ant. 27. Did you consid-'r your raarriaije valid V I < oiisidered mv marriajie valid and I think so now. '28. Did you ihen know anythinii- aljout the ecclesias tical impediment of ciandestmity ? 1 did not know anything aboiit it 2!'. Do you coi'.^eni that your marriai^e be declared void ' 1 do not wi-liihai my m iiTiat;-e --h"uld be dc tared null 3(1. Have yoiiany objection liiat your uiarriaire should be revalidated. .■-ii' vour lirst 'Dinniuniuri in iheC'aihoIif Church. " "Yes. 2. In wh.ir institution did you v.'ci'ive vour .duca- tion ? I W'Mii lo Miss GeiiiTL'Ux's sihoul wli.'n- I \v:isi>re- pan'(l lor my litest comniunioii by Ki'vcrcnd Abbe I'ala- tiu ; ul't'T which I attoud>'d llie Conirr'x^ation Coin.'ut on "It Jean Baptisti' street. Subsequ.'utly 1 vi'ent lo Mrs. Marchand's .\eadeniy where I spent in the nei<;hbnrhood of'thre.' years. From then- I attended the Fremdi M.-tho- dist lustituti' tor tw months. Subsequently I returned to Madaiui' Man'hand's Aiad''my \\hieh I att<'iided tor two mom lis. I was married one month alt.'r I left Mr.s. Marchaud's Academy. •i. At wliat dati- did you cease to be a Roman Catho- lic ? What S'hool were you attendin!>- at that time ? I . .Mscd |,i bi' a lalholic at about twelve years of ag.', 1 was. at that timi-. attending Mrs Marehand's school. 1. When you were at Mrs. Mar.hand's Academy, well' you thi're >onsidrred at'aiholii' ? .\o, I w I- not roiiMdrri'd a catholii-. and it was tor that ivaxm tliat I lell ih" 8i>ters ofthe CoiiL-r.-^'-atiou. I lii' faith oj mv pa- rents whi. li berame my uwu. liven when I was at the convent, i foi I, M (1 the practice of Spiritualism : it was lor that iva>on liial I left the Si^t.•rs of th.' Coiiv'ieuatiou toenter .Mrs. Marehand's Aradeiny From that time, I ccasfd to pra' Moihnilisi Instirut>' wcr.' you '■uiisidL-ri'(l a pr"ii'^t;iiil :* Vfs. I wnit to ihu jirntt'staiil I'liunh witli the srhuhus. Duriiiu- the time tliat, I was ilidt', I followed the cxi'i-ciscs of tlu' protcstaiit rclig'iiiii • iii>trui-tioii> of till' minister. I did nut take the coiiimuiiioii.berause 1 was not thrii' wli'^n the communion was jiartakeuofon Holy T!iiu>d.iy ; if I 1i:k1 been there I shimld have taken the comumnion witli the otliers. I receivi-il Bible teaehings everv siinday. Mv i>r' your twellth year nf aL!-e did you make any reli'jious devotion at the Cat!ioli<- ("hureh ^ I \nav liave entered the Catholie rhufeh but I did uot pi'rform my religious ui't. Until witiiin a year and a half I had not eruifessed sinee nine years. 'I iJo voii admit that there i.s a diH'er''ii( e bi^tween nejrleetiii'.^' one's ii'lio yoii consider that at the time id your marrias^e vou Hot oiilv nc>j;lc,tcd your rcjiufion l)ut renounced it ? Y's. I am i>ositivc mid alliini this. 11. A vear and a half a-jo wleii you relumed to the oath(dic iaith. did you solemnly abjure that you Were iu erio! in your aitious 'f No. i did not make any iut!)lie declaration that I was in error, i do not know il the priest had seen the bishoi) to settle my case. .As far as I ,uii concerned, I settled that matter betore uiy confessor. 1"2 Have you anything to add to this deposition *. \o Interro" ihe (•nthnlic reliu'i(MJ ? Idid. -. For what leimth dl time ? I practised the eatholie relicrion all th<' tini'' i was th'Te, thai is to say one year and a hall. o. You mentioned in your >\vorii deelaratinn that you left that convent hecause ol your n^t havinLT hen a catholic ; h<.\v did ynu show this ahandonment of ilie catholic iaith ? IJy wliat ac'iidus .' 1 (lit not make any renounciation of (he catiiolic iaith. At that time I was too youuii' lUid I followed my j)arenis desire who took mc Irom there to i)laie iw in another catholic institution. Mrs. Mar.'haii I's Acad. 'my, \<> have the liherty of not pra<'tisiii-r i lie catholic r,'lioii.'n because they had ahaiidoned their lu'lnd' of it. 4 Had you aiiv dilllcultv With the nuns on thai sub- ject ? Wliat dilii.Milty :■ I (1(1 not iccollfci hi'vine- had aiiv difficulty with the nuns Mil this subject. .'> Where \o\\ looked upon by the nuns or the oth'T scholars as one havinL;- abamlonned the catholii' iaith .' Many of lh(> scholars considered that 1 dul not practise the catholic faith iuit not the nuns. • 1, I Mil they at any lime say that you were a pro- testanl '. ' ' I do not know. 7. Who are the nuns who . ..ijd [.rove that you then stated that you wer>' a proteM.ani '. 1 do not know. *^ At Mrs. Marchaiid'.s were you i^enerallv known as one who did not belonL"- to the catholic ri'li-rion ' 70 At Mrs. Mnirliiinfl I wa^ ;^,in.'rally known an oiio not })• loiiiriiiir to th'" I'atliolic laitli. 0. Whit arvaiiuri'iiitMits wtTc inadt^ bi'tW'^>'n your father ;!ii of the food 11. \Vh\ did vou ri'turn to a ■atholio school like Mrs. Mail h.ind's ? Jjcrause at ]\Irs. Marchand's school 1 had free liberty not to practise any ndiii'ion and also because the school was near our home. 1-2 Was this conduct no| looked upon as if you were returninL' to your first belief? My return to Mrs. Marchand's was not an evid- ence that I was goinu' back to my oriirinal faith 13. At J.oui.seville, to wliieh phice you made your wedtiinnr trip, did you not attend a tatholic church there and follow the religions ceremony not only for oliteness for those witli whom we were visit iii^j-. 14 Witli whi>m were you visiting at Louiseville? We visited Gnbriel Moise Caron. who was a friend of my liusband. 15. At the tiine of your marriaire. did you consid-T Mr. Delpii a ciiiholir :" At the time of my marria'je I did not consider Mr. De]])it a i-atholic, lU. I/'d he state that he was a protestant or not a cathfdic and at the same time not conforming to any religious .Teed ':* I never heard him speak of his religious belief. 17. Yon do not. even now, know Mr. Delpit to be a <>atholie ? I do not even now. icS. Do you iricall to slaic i;y this ih:;' ;: '.ii-s not 71 l)ra.iise the cutholi.^ faith or th:it he li'li the caiuolii faith ? I never saw hi m practise th e ea tholic faith. He must havf .'eased lo I).' a catholic for inaiiv years 19. The first year of your marria'jf' both sid.-red yourselvi's i)rot''sTaiits ? <>l you cou- I cou.sideri'd myself a inoti'staut duriim' the first year ol my marriaui As to )miii. I do not think that he hi'li.'vcd 111 ;in y ri'lio-ioii. I. Were your rhihlren bapiiz.'d My chihlren were haptizi'd. !1. ]I. >\v many years :iiti'r your marria2e was it before your first ihild was horn ? My 1 y in-st child wa marriasire to h:\\r him baptized in The Catholi.' Church 1 ^^ hiu did you r.'nounee the ])rotestant faith? Eighte.'n raoiths ago I rcnounc.'d th.' protestant reliffion. 25. With the permission of what bishop? 1 do not know thai a bishoji interv.'ii.'d. All pass.'d through the conf.'ssional. 26. Through what priest ? It was the Reyerend Father Garceau who set' led the whole matter at the conf.'ssional. 27. If you did not make such a renoutninient. was it because you did not b.'lieye that you h:id forma II v aband- oned the catholic faith ? All that I oau answer to this question is that j *u iiUUtOIliiig ! II III 11. /i 1^ reiiffiou. 72 to b 28. Siiii'erely and uiul"r your ciuth. did you over cea^t t' a I athol 10 Yes. uudt'i- my oath I dfclaii' that at oib' time, I ceast'd to l)f a ('atholic. 29. It ;i census liad })eeii taken, wnuld you have been reiristercd as a protcstant or a eatholie :" At tile lime of my marriai^'e. it' :i eeui^us liad l>een taken. I would have })een r^-nLstercd. at my rt'((uest, as a protestaut. 30. At the d .in of your moth. t were hrr remains taken to a (,'liurch, aiul whieh ? At the di'alh id my ninth'T. In-i' remains were not taken to ,inv ehnrrh. She was liuiii'd in the protestant cemetery . 31. Did your iamily try u> hav" her ri'mams taken to the catholic cemetery? The question of takinu' h.-r remains to the catholic cemetery wa.s m-ver discussed. ■')2. The priests who visited you, did they not express the necessity for you to reinmnee the errors tliai you pretented to have professed and to make a declaration ot profession of faitli in the Cathohc ( 'hur>-h ? The priests who visited our family endeavoured to convert my mother who was in (hiUL'^er of death, but 1 cannot lel! if there was a question of renouncement. As to m« iiey did not make an endeavour to have a reiiouii. ement troni me nor to convert rae. Amonirst the l)riests who endeavoured to convert my mother, the only one i can recollect was I'ahlx' Marre. When I ri'turned to the catholic faitii eit;-hieeu months airo. it was not the priest hut pious friends who per- suaded me. K.niiiniird 1)1/ III! (lifmrr Oil hrhitlf of the uidtri 1 1 lie Q, Did you renounce the proievmnt errors eighteen inonlhs airo ? A. 1 have already answered that ipiesti.iii when 1 said that I had settled th:il (jnestiotl :it the rollfesslonal. 73 No. 10 TKSTIMONY < >F KEV. LEOroLD MASSICOTTE On THi: Ttii day f May, litOn. 1\' Evuutii'lisi.s, to ti'll the truth, t ;e whole inuh and imthin:;- hut the truth? A. "i ^s, sir. Q. IMfiis.- tel' us vour name, surnaiui'. aire, phue of resideiicf. your U'l-upatiou and religion ? A. My name is Leopold Massiiotte ; I am 33 yi-ars of age and I Uv.- at No. 1 St Elizahfth St. Q. Your oic\ip.itif>ii ? A. Minist. : . Q. Your reliiriou ? Methodist. (^. Do you know Mrs. Edouaid Di'lj)a. horn .I.Mune B. Cote, if so, siiuf whiMi V A. I knew her vi-ry well siun- iibout IS'JO. I made hi'r iiMjuaintanoe hiier on iu 1803, at the M»"thodist iistituti'. In 1890, I atteud'd a me<'tin: of spiritualists iield l)y Mr. Cote; it is at that time that I ma.d' the aequaintanoe nf th' i'amily, aud afterwards I kn.w the little girl as a seholar ol the Institut- in 1893. Q. Ar<' you aware that .Teanue 11. Coti- fre(jut'nled a methodist school in Montreal ? If so. whei md how long ? A. fshe attended thf miMhodi--t Instituie at least one year. I am stir*' ol' it, in IS'.t;;, perhaps two year>. Iu 18!':! she was retm 'unt. (^. Were you a t''aelii'r of .leanne 15 Cote/ A. Yi's, sir. <^ Was Jeanne L. Cote looked upon then as hfiojiii- niir to the methodist Church and why ■ A. Not necessarily as lielnniiiiig io the methodist ChuTi'h. h" f we looki'd upon her as a protectant, and here are the reasons why. On the demand for the admi- ,ou. her i>areiif- had written in answer to the (juestions (there are 7 or 8 (jues- liuii.-." "' W ii.iT v_ iiuii ii uo ViiU ijtiiOiiii' Tx .' i litV iiiaue Tiie 74 foUowiiio- iiiiswr ; "Si>irituili>t, lormerh' catholic"- Then, ihe director and myself coneliided that the parents being lormerly eat holi.s and then spiritnahsts ha.' the iutt>ution to edueate their chihl i)i the pmtestant Chur.h bi':'aus.' th«'y were iiiirustinc' witli iis the eare oi tlie • hild : that tln'v were willinii' that \v«' yiv^' her a pri>- estani i'i!u,atiou, and we looked upon her as a protes- tant. As I'ar as I know, she never joined us as a nit'thn- dist. 1 am not aware that she partook the communion witli us. Slic was treatt'd as one of our own as Lcinpf a protestant. The demand for aduiittauce is still at the college and 1 >aw lately the director eoiiceruiug this matter. Q. Has .le.nuie 1!. CoLe e\ '-i madi: all} l'uriii;il :h lem by whi.h she renounerd the eatholie faith when -he was at your institute ? A. Xot in oiii' .■ollee-e , hill -!ie lollowed ,;]! the re- liaiousexereises. and the demand ter .elmif lance declared thai .she was not a eathidic. Q. Has .[enunc 15. Cote been received as a membev of the nieihodist Church? If mi. when, by whom and what action did she make showing that faef ? A. I do not l>elieve that siie ever join, d our ehureji. It is pos.-ible but I do not know it. Q. At the time ol her marria-je with I'.d-.uard Delpit, in imi did ,Te;,nne H. Cote I)elone- to ih.' ineih,,dist Churrh ^ A. 1 do iioi know. Q. Why was siie married l^-fore th.' uiiiiiirian Clmrch? Did she then belont;' to fliat Chur. h :" A. I do not know 1 only lamed ri'eently that she wa> married : 1 did not -.(■,■ her sime that time. Q. Could you .-ay why Jeanne B. Cote left so .soon the inethodisi school :" A. She left the In>litiite .'It ih'' .lid oi' I h.' s.-hol;ii- voar. the end of April, tlen all Till' Institute closes its door^ the scholars leaves for hom.'. Q. The fact beiii<>- that Jeaiiu.. B. Cole was mani.'d before the unitarian Chureh, that she had her children in the eatholi,' r.'lii; ion, don't you doubt the sincerity of her adherence i,, ih,. methodist Chureh ? ^ A. There has been no adherence to the methodist Chureh on h.'r I'lut. ! ■. annnt aeeomi! for it. The fact 7» that she w;ts minriod hy m prot •>taiil luiuistt^r ot'th" nnita- riau Church dof>s not lunonnt to murh lor me. 1 do the sariK' thini!' vfry olteii , iit'arly ovory month I :r.ii callt^d upon l)y . itholii - to marry th ■ I don't ask thfnn if they are catholics or not. As 1 have already stated, we looked upon her as on^' of our own, hecuiso the requt st for admit tiiuee de;d:ir;'d that she was (hpirituali.st fbriU'T- ly a cath"!ie). In our institr ion, the scholars are class- ified according to tht-ir creed ; we conclut' your residrncc, your rt liii'ion ^ A. Mahina Lemne Marchand. widow of Modcric Marchaiui. Q Your age ? A. Fifty seven years. Q. Your occupation ? A. Director of Mrs. Marchand's Academy. &-1 8t. llubort St Q Your reliu'ioii ':* A. Catholi<'. 3. Do you know Ji'anni B. Cote, daughter of Allan ji.niard vuie, wiic oi i.tiouaiii iJi'i.ni.' 7ti Y t'S, SP \. Did slu> i'ollow:! f'oursi'of studios at yo, whi'u a)id how Khil;' / Well. I caiuiot exactly siaie whi'ii and how lonir. >She all 'iidt'd my >chool fo"- aboui ! wo years and "ii hull'. I eannol say in what ^ear it was. Q. Was it lonu' hefoie her marriaii'e ? -A Nn, slie was married a lew wee';s alter she lett my >ohool years and a halt' I do not know it' it was l.ir two ve.rs eom- ph'tely Li't u-< say th it sh'' w.as a i)upil at my •-chool lor about l-"i or 1*1 mdiitli- .'). Wh.'ii Jeanne 1) ('(,;.■ aitnidd \ ('U'- Aead^mv. did you pay any i)ari!'-ular aii.'utioii ii. Ipt eone.ThinL;- her ridiLiious dutn'.s .' Hit mother railed and told m^' that sle> did not waul any reinjrious dull''-- lor her. Xo .dn|e>sion, no jirayer b.-t'or- or alter idass.'-, not .v.n IIolv History, in liii" iiothiiiLT at .ill; thai sh.' did nea briiiur her up aeeordiiiir to th-- atholi.- I'aitli , that ih-y had tlndr own eret'd ; that th''y wrrf spiritualists. She told nie not to take any rare about her ndinrjous b.diel. Two ol mv teachers eiiM v;i\ ;h,. s;\)n<' thin- Th.' same iMnhibition was extended •.. Mis^ Ihbiult who pdd a \ isii to her home. Shi- lovrr kii'dt ' ilie >ani.' ihinii-. »!. Dnl sji.' l.diow ihi' reliiri()ii> te.i. hmL' and ..iher rc- iilfious c.Memonies as Is usual i'or thecathi.lir |e ^,ls ot your Academy f No sir. " Notliinjr at all 7. Did Mr. C'oti- mak.' anv r.^nark . on.'.'rninu' ih" reli- gious duticf oi his daiiijht.r :" 77 No. Not Mr. Cotr, I do not know Mr. Cotr. I IH' saw hira. It is Mrs. Cote wii o ciimi' ami saw lui' '<. Did til.' young liirl agrcf wt'IluiL''lv wiili ill" or- _ oilier father (ot' her niotluT) i'oii.,'rninu' tlir- matter :" She iit'v.'i iLsked nie to Ix' aHow.'d to follow a rt'ligious ti'arluni>-s. Furtli.-nnon' sh.' n.'Vi'r told : I would like to follow the reliii'ious i.'a.hiiiirs. I hi'li.'vo iliat slie w;is entirely indifferent. So mu'h so owing lo :hf fact that she was not vi'ry iiiti'llig.'iit and that sh'' in'V.'r paid jnu'li attention to what shi- was doini!' That i- lo say tliiii her mind was not niu'h devi'loi>i)i'd. (I. ])id she sometinit's give to unilcrsiand thai -hi' had not Ti'iiouiiied the rat hull, • taith ' I cannot say anythiiig <'f th" kind. She was a \ .'ly i|uiet young girl. She would n.'i try to inllnenee others to my kiiowledg''. Siie would n^t have heeii adowed to remain with us iiad we ihou'jht that >Iie oouid inliueiiee our other {.'Upils. Shi' was very mditterent, -ery quiet. It is hardto>ay whether she made us un(' r.istandthat she had lenounced the eatholio iaitli as lor.g .is she did iiolhiim' at all and followed no religion^ exereises. 10 To your knowle.lLi-e did sh" piMloriu anv religious dutie.>, for instanr.', did -lie attend in ronl' --ion ? No sir 11. To your knowledu'e did slie do anything showinir her having reiiouueed the ■ alholie [;iith ^ I cannot say an\, thing about that, neither for nor ciiuira. l'"or I helieve the child lior-- her parents' in- tlueni e. She was not much devel()p!)ed mentally ; she was 111 our academy in the fourth y 'ar i- nion y I have uo opinion on th<' matter. I could not say she was a catholic ; j rathev thouirht that she fdlowed the rt'ligion o| her mother I never thought she iielonged to our religion Q. You ihouiiht she belonirol to a protestant se< t ? A. I know well that -he was induiirmg her religious duties at Lome. Her mother told mv so. She .said to me that she wanted iiolmdv to interfere with the reli- 78 gious iilu.ation ul h''X child, ihat every thine was done at hoiiif, iliat ihi'V had ni«'fting>. I do not know what kind oi rclij^H)us sfcl it was 13. llavi' you aiiyihinir loadd to vur tL-stimoav ? No sir. Hi/ the Aftanii 1/ for f/f inntriinonial fie Q. Did she noi tell you that not only was siu- not a cathohc but btdonircd to a prote.stunt sect ? A. No. If >li.' .-raid so to nie I dou'l rcuUect it. It seems to me that she did not. (•^i-nedj MALVl.VA LE MIliE-MAKCHAND. No 12 TESTIMONY nl M.AiaJARET (AMi'iiKLL < '.N Tiij.: o.M) uAv Oi' May \.mo. 1 TVliat .ire your n ini.-, .Nuiiianie. ;iLr>', and the pla.e ol your r-'sifh-nce V My name i- Margaret Caniphell ; 1 am .")(» veurs old \l the present iim.> I am livin<,' in Qae!)ee. - Wliat relij.i,,u do yuu belong lo i Have you alway.s been •( cathoiie? Are you still a catholic? 1 am a catholic. 3. You know the importance ol' the oath under which you are V Yes. 4. Do you belon-j; to a tfuuiiv win. Ii has always been catholic I ' I belong to ii t'amil'- whteh has always been 'ic. Did you alw.iys live in i^uebec? 11' not, where you living beiiirc .«' Since when are you in Quebt-c ! I was born in Levis and I have lived 8 or 10 years 7!l ill Moiitr.-al. I am liviiiu' in (^uebi-c siiux' llio mouth <>i July ol last year. 0. Aro you a sister to Mr.-*. Cult', Mrs. Dflpil'.-, wilf, horn .T>»!nn!" Ut'i-th^' A.uro'"e Cote ■* Yvs. 7 You i.rc well a'(juaiutt>d with the t'amily of Mr. Cote, your brother-iu-law i Since how long ? I am arquainte him.selt 'i-s a caiholic ])ul -vili accept neither prii'st nor confession. 9. Has not that family always been reputed a caiholic one V The family of Mr A 15, Cote has always bet-n re- puted catholic, altliouirh they toljowcil him in his prac- tii t.'s ol sj)iritism 10. Are you acquainted, persun.illy Witli .\Ir ('ete.-'Do you think he IS al)le to say, untlcfoath. by interest or lor any oiher ie,'.s,,ii, things which he knows uniriie (• i Ui\o\\ Mr Cote personally and I do not lielieve him able (if sayini; under. laih thiii'jfs which he kiii'Ws lo be untrue. 11. Yi'ii know Well Miv liejpit, liorn Jeanne B. A Cote :' Since whai time { I am ai ijuaint.-d with M^> Ddpit from tie- time of her birth. 12. Ho you believe her able ,,f asserting under oath, to serve her interests or for some oiher reasons, facts whicli fire not true ? No i;{ Has she bee;, brouirht up it) the catholu- reliLiinn ? She has inf.de her hr^t lommunion. but aft-i that she tlnl not i>-actibe any more. 80 14. Wcro ;ill till' srhonl< wht'rc she was a studontj calholic Olio ? Slii> was a studt'iil ;it t!u> (Ouvi'iit nl ihc Cousjrp- iration and alliM-wa-ds sln> sjn'iit a \ i-av in the iiroti-stant (•oiitino rii' Vv'i'siinoniit. 1-"). 1);) yoti know ill!' reason wliy sht? !•• ft the Sisters' ronv'in ? She li'it till' convrnt ot thr ( '(in£Ti'''L:'atiun bfcause her father and her moihor wanted h^r to i^o in a ()rotest- ani. scIiodI. I dii not helie\e it was on aceoiint of her idt-as ;m-ainst the ratliolie religion. I'i. Did slu- not eiiaiiufe her religion ? She did not ohaii'^i' h^r religion but only al>audon- ed ihi' praitici- of it. IT. Hid she not go at th>' protestant meetintrs with thf mtiMition of aei'i'])tiiig ih'' er I ot that ehnreh i I do not know it shi> went at the protestant meet- ings with the intention of idhoring to protestantism. Sh«' wore tiie eoi- r> npi>ose II was in order not tu go to > onfessiou b<'fore the niari iage 1'.' .At thai time did she go to tlit,- eatholie chnr.h ? Did vh,' profess eatliolu'i^m ' And what about her farailv ? At th« time, I tb> not know as a fart that sh« used to visit the eatholie ehnreh. She prayed like other la- tholies Willi this ditlereii(« that she would not go to con- fession ; 11 \va>. the .aiiie ihing with her father and her mother 20. Alter ln'r marriage did she piofes- the eatholie religion ? Did she iiear the mast, V Did -he keejt in her house, in her room, anything that could let von know what was h''r r<'ligion ? ■Alter Itpr marn.itfe slie did noi pr.ietis,. iumii- dur- inir the lirst year ; she did not go to mass any more; dur- inu the same year, she had in her house a ("rueilix, jne- tures representing tlie Holy \irgin. St. Joseph, etc. •Jl, Have her child r 'ii been l)aptized ? Was it at her 81 request or at Iilm- husliuiul's request :" Who stood a-- god- t'litluT :md as godinothor :" All her childri'ii ^v,•re baptized iu the Catliolie r'hiirm Hi»r lir-i i-hUt] \v;i> horn about :i year ;ifter her iiKirriagf and .she hml him baptiz.-d immcdiatly. I still consider her as b.'iii'.'- catholic al heart and i'li her mind. It is one oi' my sisters. Mrs. Delpii"> aunt. who lirsi spok.' of havmii' the child l)aptized and the fath''r and hihi'mt agreed right away. The ])j(>, ted in his staiidiiiu;- as birth -he piactised no reli- gion :it all. Ibnvever, some tjnies slie would l.'-o at th<' catholic church, would cro.s- herself, would kiie.d down before the altar and i)ray like otlier people ; 1 remem- ber that she came to hurch tonr or li\e times with me. She n, v,.r -aihe would have told nie so most i-ertainly. She never iantr'ied at or gest, d at ihe catholic relijrion. To me it would seem a calumny to say that she has been a protestant. Sli.' never exjirc-sed befori> me the griet oi havinL'; had her marria'^e solemn- ized by a protestant unister. I never saw her ni: '■' the catholic reli- ves. 2(1. Wa- this miirriaj»e solemnized by a catholic priest ? What WHS his name .' Was this marriai^e looked upon as a mix.'d marriage ? This marriag'- was solemnized bv -i catholi.^ priest iu Notre Dame church, (d Montreal. Before its .solemu- 6 82 iz.itioi) Mr. Cute \veiU to i'nnt'<'ssiiin, S(t that it was a iiiar- riasfe bi'tw.'.'U tW" 'tithnlii's. In ^^.n1r'»al. M. Cote is looki'd upon as a imii-prai t isiiiu' c :ithubh'd bv her prac- tices ot Spiritism. I'lie lour last \vars ot ]u'v lii'e shfma.de extraordinary pt'iiaiires, siioh as keeping- ott' the soi'ial world, li'oinu' no inure at tht,- thfaire. reru^iiiLj to h'r child the pennissiMU to ixo out. j)rayiiiLr very uiurh and claiming all tlic time to havi' remaiiii'd a eaihnlie. ■2H. iJid any ])ody objei't to suili a burial .■' Did Mr.s. Didpit, tor one, raise any objection. Wa.s that burial lu arconlance with Mr, Cote's wisli / Noliody was opposed ai;ainsi ,i ])urial in a protest- ant uTouiid. Mr. Cole was in t'avov ol' a burial in a jiro- testaiii huryiiiu 'ground, -'■'. Wa.s aaythiiiu,- done in order to bavi' Mr.s. C6te buried in a catholie r.'vious 83 to his marriag." ; he dot's not perform liis rl'li^■ious dutii's mor.' lo-(iiiy iliaiihf us.'d to do. ;M. Ill yourt'stimatioii, do you hi-licvt', that by inter.'st i.i ii.i Minn- iilliiT iiMsoii, ho ini^hi. wiiiie nnd'T oath. iiiakt' a stati'iiicnl, kiKiwiiii;- tliat statemi-iit to hr lal.s"' '? I always had inuoli . onlidi'Uii- in him : 1 don't tliuik him able ol domy- m). J'J.i i)//irii). 1. You assert positively thai Mrs. Delpit l)eliaved ;is a iatliolic bul did not pra( "tise. I always looked u|miii h^-r a> a calhulie. She aevr reuouueed her iaitli. Uotore her marriaire >he was es- traiiy her praetiees of Spi- ritism. When she was a youug g'irl she always lian' yoiir iiniiH', siivuamf, orciiiKit loii, aui' ;mil ve>uli'ii.'.- ' My ii;iuu' is Mrs. CthImii'I Moiso Caron, boru Anastasie Cai-dU, oi' Louisi'vill ■ I im 47 yoarsof ajje. 2. You are a oatholic attuudiiiii' yiir religious duties ? 1 am. 3. You know till' iiniiiirlaii'i' ol tli>' oath you havf just taken ? I do. 4. Yi)U know .Mr. and Mr>. Delpit V Since wheu .'' I kiinw Mr. and Mrs. Delpit sinoe their marriaire. On lliat o !V;iiik :iii(i iiiiabh' to swear what is untrue. 6. And as reuards Mrs. fe^^iit? I have le.ss eonfuh'iie, ] Mrs. Delpil. We found her t(i he eiiildish. I wt'iiUl nut l)elifve lu-r even tunh'r oath. 7. What was tlu;ir relin'ion ? Iielore and alter their marriage? Were they e;itht visit at oiir ii(ime Ijev eh'thcs were white and bin. and she tidd us that h<'r mother iiad her consecrated to the Holy Virgin truni the aii-e of thri'c years to the time of her marriage. All her clothes were white and blue, excei)ting those that her husl)aiul had Jtist bought for her marriage. We never ibmliled that she was a catholic before and at the time of her marriaiic. The whole of her couversatious was ou religious topics, 85 on wliat took placo in tlie convent at the tim*^ of her first cumniuniou, and so forth. She let us understand that she had ])e. married in tlie private chapel of the Ar''hbi-hoi^ of Mo.» ea!. Durint^ her stay at our plaee she attended mass every Sunday. She had her own prayer-book ; in her loom sh(> had many prayers joijied together. She had also a rosary and the jtrayer. If she ever said a word against the religion it was rather to please her husband who did not practise. A< to Mr. D.'lpit he always said that hf was a catholic. i5ut he did not practise his reliiriou. He attended mass, however, on Sundays. He boasted of beintr indilierent on religious matters. S. Mr. and Mrs. Delpit made their wi'dding trij) at your place ' They came to our place two months after their marriaiic. During all that time, did they behave as catholics or i>rotestants :* Did you believe tln-m to })e or were they reputed to be catholics or protestants ' During all that time. Mrs. Delpit behaved herself asacatholic. 7\s to iJelpit I did not follow him so closely. I always thought ihem to be both catholics. But as to Mr. Delpit I ihouglit thnt his faith wa diminished. Amonir her clothes, in her trunks, there were many n-li- gious books and i>ictures of St. Christopher. I must say that I knew Mr. Deli)it previous to his in;uri:ige and Mrs. Delpit only alter her marriaire. I'l. Did they attend the id))er to catholics only 11. Did you have any knowledLre that at the house thi'V have said their eveninir prayers and recited the rosary, etc. ;• I have already answered this (jitestion. \'2. I 'id they ever speak conlidentiMllv about their youth, their education, their r.digion, their courtshi|> ? Delpit told me al)out a month after he came to our place that one could be saved when i)rofessinve, in the way ol teasing us and for the sake of discussion. i3^-^_- 86 As to Mrs. Di'lpit, s!u' ucvcr Liavo us the oci'iisiou to dimbt til lior h.-iiiii a . atholir. 18. Did tlit'v «'V"V It'll you that thfir uiarriagf was ,'*i)|i'tninzt>taiit minister, and did they give you the reason why .' Thi-y n<'vi'r told >is ihai tlifir uiarnai^e wassolomu- izt'd by a i>rot<'staiiI luiiiisti-r Mrs. Drlpii told us that thi'^' haci hi'fu married at ihe .■\rchl)isliiij)'s palaee by a eatliolii- priesi. I iieard ot'iheir marriage bei'oro a pro- lestaut minister those last days oi" May. 14. How long did they stay at your ]>laee / Two months. 1."). Did you see th-Mu airain sime their wedding trip? If so, is there anythinii- in their hi'havior whiray tor the cmiversion ol his lather. We gave her many sacred things that .>.he kept preciously. 111. Did vou know the Cote family bi'lore the marriaii'e of her './■ ('///(■((). IT. Do yon consider the marnaLre contracted by Mr. and Mrs. Delpil as the marriage oi two catholies before a jirotestant ministir .' I never thought the D«'li>it marriage could have 87 bt^cii soleiniiixe thai Mr. and Mrs. Dtdpit \vrised when she heard her husband admit that the children outiht to be baptized. I havt; iiothinL!' more to add. (Signed) MKS. t^ABKlKL MOISK C'ARUN. MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No 2 1.0 I.I 1^ tli B_3» III ^-i ilia I 2.0 I 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ >!PPLIEn IIVMGE Inc: 88 Quebec, 17th day of March, 1900. f To His Lordship L. N. Tegin, Archbishop of Qui'bec, Qiiobec. My LoriJ, 1 have the honor to respi'ct fully siibmit to your Lnrd- shi|) thi> followiu? facts : I am a roman catholic, beloii<7U. I was baptiz«'d there, on the l!Hh of MaylSTd; I made my iir.st comrauiuou on the '21.st ni June ISSOat Sarlat, depattment of Dordoirne, at thcje.suit Father.s' Colle-^e of whom I was a pupil. I came to Ca- nada in IHSS and since ISOO I have always lived in the province of Quebec; I reside in the city of Quebec since ls'.i4. On the second day of May l^<9:!, I was married in Montreal l)y the i'everend William S. iiarnes, minister of the Church of the Messiah (unitarian ehuroh) to Marie I'erthe Aurore Jeanne Cote, who belonged as I do to the l{oman Catholic Clntreh She was liorn in Montrciil. on the 7th day of Marcli 18T7, has ^\,'^'\\ l)ai)tized there on the '.Mh of "March is"? m the parish < liurclj of St. Vincent ec!i'ullv re([iiest Your liordship to declare the nuUily oj that marriaire I inclost; in tile above i)etition the tollowin;:- documents: 1. My certificate of birth dulv lejrahzed ; 2. The certificate of birth of M.irie Aurore Cote, \vh < on beinij couHrmed, added fo her sur-iame the n.niie of Jeanne ; 3. The certificate ol inairiau:e (bin ered on theSnddav 89 of May, 1890, by the IJevd. William S. Barnes, minister of the Unitarian Chunh. I havo the honor to be, Your Lordship, with the most profound respect, of Your Lordship. The most humbl>' servant. E. DELriT. ANSWER TO THE PETITION OF Mr. EDOUARD DELPIT, To HIS LORDSHIP MOR L, X BeGIX, Ari'hbishop of Quebfc. 3T>/ Lormplovee, ol' the city of <.^ueb''c. dii the ITth day of Marcli r.tiiO. iiskinu- that his miuriaii-e with Marie Berthe Aurore Jeanne C'otc l)i' declared null and void, she has the honor to suinnit to Your Lorilshi;) the following- facts : 1. At the time of the marriaue t)f Marie Berthe Aurore Jeanne ('6tc with 1'aI mard Delpit, the said Delpii did not practise any religion whatever, or at least fre((uented as such in the family of Marie Berthe Aurore Jeanne Cote, and that as a matter ol' fact, at the personal know- ledtre of the said M.irie Berthe Aurore Jeanne Cote, tlie said liidnuard Didpil did not practi.^e any relioion whatever. •1. Tlie lather and mother (d' the said Marie Berthe Cote, lonir before tlie said m.'Uriavre and at the time ol its solemnization, ilid not lieLniL;' to the lininaii Oatholjr Church , •'i. That as a fact tlie father of th-' --aid M.irie J.'ann.- B'lthe Aurore ("6te. and her mother, diil not prol.'ss in.' Konian catholic reliu-'ion, her mother dyiiitr without the 90 last ritt^s (if thi' Chu'.-.h and the iathcr not being ihi-n and even now a ini'mhtT dI that Churi li ; 4. That it was airivcd bt'tw'.Mi th.' -aid Edouavd Delpit. who thiMi took the qualiiy o| a non cailiolic. and thf parents ofth" said Mali.- Ji'ann.- B.'vthe Aurore Cote and this one her>'df, tliat {lu' niarriage would be solemnized befovf thf unitarian iluu> li whieh was mere iu aciordaueu with the creed ol th.' parti. 's. Monir.'al. Ttli Ajiril If'oO. JEANNE RERTHE COTE. ECCLE;\ Mr. j-Mouard 1). Ipit. of Qu.-he,'. dati'i' Mareh I'.'iM), pravinif that his niarriatre with Mrs Marie lijrthe .\urore Jeanne Cote be declared null .md invalid on the ground ol .lan- destinity ; wli.Tcas Mr. Edouard Deipil and Mrs Jeau- Ue Cute liav.' . ontrat'it'd inarriau'o .ui th.- s.'iond dav -. at Sarlat, in the diot cse of I'eri- gueux, in France . Whereas the said I'laiiitill Fdouard Delpit lias never adhered to any protcstant sect whatev-'r. never declared that he was no more catholi.- althouti'li lie had neglected to lullii the duties prescribed by his religious laith : but on the contrary he assumes havine' always been a catholic at heart ami by will ; Whereas at the time of his marriage the said I'^dou- ard Iielpit was cuminonlv known as a catholic as it ap- jicars by several witnessi's heard in this cause ; Whereas (III the other side Mrs. M. 1>. .\. .teaniie Cote, liMvn the seventh day olMandi 1S77. ])aptised the ninth of the same month, broutrht up in the ■ atholic laith, havinir made her lirst communion .unl beineiily renounced tlie cathcjic laith as n ajipears l)y her own evidence before the Court and particularly by the declaration of Mi.ss Maru'aret Camidiell, maternal aunt of the (b'feinlant, of Mrs AiKi^tasie f'aron .iiid ot iieverend Mr (Maude i-hnih' I'errin. priest ; Whereas (he said M. 1! A. .leanio' Cote .ibandnn'fl the practice ot her religinn ratluT then renounced it by reason of her intelligence not being much develoj)ed. 92 I of her tLMider age, ol' spiritualist prarti.'os and of her mothor's iniluiuicc who, acfonlint!: to Iht family's ojn- nioii, was cxalttnl by spiritualist ]>rai"tices ; WhtMeas it appears by many evidences that the said Mrs. M. 15. A. Jeanne Cote heloufjs to a family which has always been reputed catholic, although it was known as practising spiritualism : Wheri'as the said Mrs. M. 15. A. Jeanne Cole has not really renounced her lailh outwardly, has not changed her religion and has always been considered a catho- lic showiiiir that she was a catholic, even at the time of her marriage, by the accomplishment of many pious (>xercises proper to catholics such as frequeutation of catliolic church, reiitation of Holy Virgin beads and recitation of many particular pravers which she much esteemed; Whereas the defendant in this cause ehas declared that she had been married before a protestant minister because Mr. Edouard Delpit had himself made that choice without her particii)ation : Whereas the said Mrs. M. 15. A. Jeanne Cote has as- sumed that she had jiractised spiritualism -vvitlnuit re- membering that she had the intention to renounce her faitli ill such oc( urreni-e : Wiiereas the said Mrs, M. 15. A. Jaeiine Cote has been able to resume lier catholic ridigious practices without having' to do a profession of catholic fa.ith and without abjuring any error : \Vherea> Mrs. ^I. 15. A Jeanne Cote's father has been married in is;i J with a catholic, in the catholic <'hurch, without iia\ ing obtained nor asked a license lor a mixt niarriau'e, declarini:' him>elf a catholic by this action : Whereas the said Mrs. M. 11. \. J<'anne Cole ha- er- inilted her childri'ii to l)e baptised in the catholic ehurch withmii any protestation, haviiiLT on the contrary mani- fested li.'i' happiness tii:it her hii-baml had consented to their l)aptisni by a caihohe priest : Ilavinir heard the Kevereiid M. Joseph-Edouard l-euU- tault, . uri' of Ste-Marie de Beauce. Doctor m Ivclesias- tical 'iaw, Defensor of the lien in the present cause Delpit-Cote, the said Defensor having nothing to add as he has declared ; After having seriously and caielully examined the 93 (jut'stioii. wishing only t.o please Irod, in thi' prcsiMu-o of thi' Il.'vtM-iMid J. E."F.'uiltauit, d.'fi'iisor of llu> iriar- riago, of the Rcvcn'iul Jult's-C'lovis Arscnault, Notary, Chancellor of the ()tli partii's htiviui;- b.'.-iit yoar, protocols No. 4i:!Tl oi' liis Kiuiiiiiiico th^' Cardinal M. Lodocho\v>ki. rii'l'i'i'i ol' till' Sacred C'lHi'^^r.^Liaiiiiii ol' til.- Propuiraiida by whuli it appears that tli.' Holy See ii.w withstaiidiiiLi' tlie appeal made V>y tln' Del'en^or ol' the lien, judg'.'.s that there is no reason to pvonouucea second seiiti'iiet- in the eausc Delpit-Cote and tlii're only remains to deliver a certiiii'ate ol lib'Tiy to th>' party who has invoked th«' nnllity ol'th.' marriaLif befoi',- the (Jlliciality ol (Quebec ; Therei'ore. We declare that according to the judunient rendered by Our OlUcial on the 12th"'of July V.»\^) Mr. Edouard Dfl]>it and eonseqnently his consort, Mrs. Marie Aurore Herthe Jeanne Cote, an' Ir.'.' o| all matrimonial ti" and ean, it they think it proi"'r, contract a seeoud in:ii'ria'^'(\ In witness whereof, \Ve have delivered the present declaration at (Juebi-c in Our i'i>isiopai I'alai-e on the tenth day of l)e. ■ember I'.tOO and have ordered that it be transmitted imnii'diately to both iiitcr.'sted parti^'s. (riven at (^ui'bec. under our siau, the seal of the Av'-hdioci'sr and ihe counter-siiiii of < )ur si'crei.iry. the tenth of Deeember nineteen hundred. (Siirnedi L N. AKcmu.siio!' i'f Quebec. PLAi.N 111-F'S DECi.ARATIOX Till' di'ilaraiioii i^ as follows : The plaintitf alle'..;es that he was born at Beaunioiit- dir Peri'iord. departmeiii of Dordoii-ne, in France, on the liJth dav oI'May. 1 S70, of parents bi'loiiiiinu- to the Catholic Church, as appi-ars by the extract of baptism producd as exhibit No, 1 of plaintitf ; 2. That he received his iirst Communion, and that hi* was confirmed aerording to tin' riti's ol tin' Catholic Church, the 'Jlst day of June, l>>so. at Sarlat, in th,' dio- cese of rcrirrneux. in I'rance ; •3. Thar tin' (k'ti'iulaiu was horn at Moiitn'al, of pa- rents protcssinii- tin- Catholii' leliuion. un ih-' 7th ol' March, IS77. and was bajitized at Mnntn'al on thi- Hth ;)t thi' sanii' month, as ap'pears l)y the extract of baptism [)r(iduce(l ;is cxliibit No. -2 ; •4. The defendant having 1)0. '11 broni,^lit tiii in the Ca- tholic religion, received her Urst Cnmniunion at Moiit- r.-al. and was coiifirmi'd ai tie' same pi; on tlu' L:4th of May, 18s8. •'>. The plaintilf having sought in marriage the defend- ant about January, 181I3, th.'V presented themselv«'s upon the -Ind of May. l'808, before" the Rev. William S. Barnes, minister of the Unitarian Churdi .'U ^Montrcil. who re- ct'ivt'd their consent, and gave them their certiticate ot marriage ; ti. At the date of this prct.Mnh'd marriage, the jilaintitf and the defendant w>'re l)0th commonly regarded as Ca- tholics, and. in fact, belonged to the Catholie relin-ion in whieh thev Wi're born, and had publiely lived up to that time ; 7. The plaintilland the defendant have always per- formed th.' reliirious exerii>es proper to Catholics, and havi' never either direeily or indirectly u'iven r.'ason to believe that thev had renounced the Catholic leliiiion ; 8 Under the circumstances, the i)laintili' and the defendant could only marry in the Catholic Church, and in {presence of thi'ir own viire. who alone was a eom- petent oflicer according to law. and according u> the rules i)romul'.:ated by the Riinan Catholic Chureh to whiih the parties in this cause belonged. I*. The Kev. William S, Barn,;s, who celel)rated the pretended marriage ol the plaintili' and defendant on the L'lid oi Mav ]8!»3, was not a competent offie.-r, in the eyes of the law, to celebrate the marriaiie of tw.: Catholics ; 10, The plaintili' applied to Monseigiieur Louis Nazaire Begin, archbishop of (Quebec, to take into <'()nsideration the validity of his said marriage with the defendani, and by sentence pronounced the Vith day of .Inly, lHOii. the liev. Cyrille Alfr.-d Marois, a'postolic prothonotary, vicar-ueneral of the diocese of Quebec, oificial judge deh'U'ate for matrimonial causes, pronounced and declared the marriau-e contracted by the said Edouard Uelpit, 96 m phiiiitifl, wiih Mini.,' IJ.'rrhi' Auron' JcaiiiK' C'otr. in iho city <.r Monti-tMl, on th;' :2ii(l nf May, It^'.'S, null ami invalid. ( n thr ground oi' .laiiflestiniiy, as ip]M'ar» by tho copy oi' the said siMiTcH't' ; 11. Tlial tlu' pretended marriai:.' of the plaintiil witli tlio delendant. liavinsi' been deelarod null as to thi' niar- riaj^e tie, idaintitl has the right to demand its annulment. ;is to its civil elfeets by reason ol' the elan- destiiiity resulting Irom the fact that ii w.as celebrated !>v an iiieomi)etent oliic-iM'. and not by a minister ot the Chun h to vhi(-hthe j)arties belonged. 12. That aecording to the law of the country the mar- riage of two Catholics can only be celebrated by a ('aiho- lie priest, a.s also the marriaLre of two Protestants «^an only be celebrated bv a i'rotestant minister, and in con- sequence the nuirriaLie of the plaintili' and the defendant, .should be declaiedunll, abti>ive. clandestine, and without civil effects ; Wherefore, th.' i>laintitf prays that the pretended mar- riage of the said iCdouard Delpit with the said Marie Berthe Aurore Jeanne Cote, celebrated at Montreal the :2nd day of May, l-',io, liy the Uev. William S. ISarnes, having been annulled as to the marriage tie by the re- litiious authority to which they l)elonged, it l)e now declared null as to the civil et'iects, and that the said decree of th.' erclesiastical authority pronouncine- the nullity a> to the marriage tie 1)e recognized and coii- llrmed to all legal eflects. and that lull ibrce and ellect be L''iven to it irom the civil point ol' view. I (Si-ned) lUSAlLLON cSi BKOSSAKD. Affi/a. jor PIniti/i/f. Montreal, 4 Janirarv, 1901. DEFENDANT'S PlEA Thi' deieudaiit inscribes la law for the ee'veuth day of February next acrainst the demand in this case and asks that it be rejected with costs for the following rea- sons • 97 1. Becansiv fvi'ii iFih>' parties w.-rt; ('MtliMlic at the (late <>t '^aid inariai:<\ accor'liii'jr to hwv thf niarriaui' <>1 two (.'athohcs can I>e vali to nullU'v th ■ liiMi oF said marriage ; 8. lindaiit. E. Lafi.kur, Conusel for Defeudaut. Montreal. Jauuarv 2.)th 1901. THE DEFENCE And the defendant, under reserve of the inscription in law, lih'd by her with the present, as a defence to the action, saith and alleL!-cs : 1. She does not know the alle hi'tori' a rouip'ti'iit au- thority and arconliug to hiw. >\ To till' iHh allegation shi" >aiili tliit ill.' Iv'vm'nd AVilliam S. 15arii.'s. !>>' whom said mairiag.- was xdi'inii- izeid marnaye havinii- not been d"clared null by a comi)etent tnl)uiial but having been duly solemnized publicly and bv a competent officer of the civil status, the plantiil is ili-iounded in askinii" its annulationas toits civil etiects. And the defendant alleges : !>. That on the second day of May. 18^:!. R.-v. William S. Barnes, a minister of the' Unitarian Church at Mont- real, an otlicer authorized by law to keep and record a re'aister id' the rivil status, has duly solemnized the mar- riage o! plaintiti and defendant aceordinu' to the formal- ities prescribed bv law ; in That said "W". S. Barnes was provided for said mar- riage witii a license issued by the Secretary of tlie Pro- vince of Quebec, under the si'al of the Lieutenant-Gov- eiiiorofsaid proviiu-e. dispensing with the publication of bans ; 11. That after the solemnization ot said marriage, the plaintiti and defendant have lived together as wile and husband, and that three children wre born of their tmion ; V2. That defendant .-ontracted said marriage in good iuiih. relying on the said plaintitt''.s declarations and 99 bi'li^viiitr thiit >hi' was manyiug bei'ort^ a .■omp''t«nT officer : 13. That sincf tht^ solemnization of said marriage iu ;8'.>3. up to the plaintiff's demand to the eeelesiastif-al tribunal, delendanl has always civil status of a len]nyi publu-ly th. 14. That considering reasons above alleged, plaint iff is not receivable to claim against a tree consent and a lon<;' possession of civil status, and <'annot be allowed to invoke the so-called nullity of said marriaue. 1."). That considerinti- the trood faith of defendant, plaintiil is ill-founded in aekincr that said marriau'e b- 11 in its civil effects, whereas the said mar- it were null (what is denied ))v defendant) decl; ireii nu riaije, even 1 would produce all its civil etlects towar dsth> ■IK lallt and their c hild of 1 tierelore cl said action reii lelK hint coniludes by askini:- ih • dismissal the whole with costs to the undersiirned. Montreal, January i-'itli. I'.Ol. (Signed) (Signed) TaILLKFER I'V' TI^liERT, Attorneys lor Defendant. E. Lafleur, Counsel lor Defendant. ( JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE JUSTICE ARCHIBALD Rendered March 31st. 1901 THE TWO ('UNTENTIONS. (Ju ihcsi' j)K'a(liii'ii'ru hoiort' the rourts. to dotorniiut' the validity of the marria'ji'. tio far as any eivil tie or oldiiratioij resulted therefrom < til the othiT hand, the eoiii.'iit ion of the dflcndant ^va^ that the aition was l)ased upon a the' "y of marriaL;.' which eoiLsidered the eoutraet of marr' i^^e — (1 do not speak of the various ei\il oblii^ations, which may be .stipulati'd in 'onncctiou with it, but of the airrecmcnt of a man and woman lo live tosrether duritii.' life as husband and wife) — as e.staldishina- a juirely spiritual lieu between the parties, which is wholly of the resort of ecclesiastical authority either as to its formaticin or its dissolution. Till'; cnlTiTS DUTY. II I were to Judu'e merely by the words of the di>clara- tion, I would have mi diliicully m deciding that this latter J 1(12 was the tru«f theory ot thi' action. Thus. paraLiraiih 11 , ol thf (liM-laratioii : '" The pp'tt-nded mamaur. ol the phiin- tiirwith ;he defeiulaut. haviuiz' been (l.vlar.'d null as to the inarriatre tie ; the phiintiti'is well touuded to demand Its annulment as to its eivil eliects ; ' and th.'U in the euuclu'-iiin, " whereoi' the plainiiti prays that the pretend- ed marriage of the said Edouard Delpii with the said Cote, solemnized at Montreal, the -Jiid of May, 1893. by the Rev. William S. Barn-s. having been annulled as to the iiiarriau'e tie. by the rtdiu'ious authority it t)en()W declared null as to its eivil elfects, and that the >aid deer >l' t)ie eeelesiastieal authority be leroguized and ermliniied, etc." These words appear sulhishnp of (^U'^bec '_''rant''d to tiie parlies the loHowini;- ceriilicate : ' In conseciueiice we declare that in virtue of the )udi.;iiiiiit rendered by our olliiial. the 1-th of .luly, lliiH), Mr. Edouard ]>elpii. and conse- (pi.-iiilv his consort. Madame Marie Berlhe Auiore .leaiine Cote, are fret; from every matrimonial boiifl, and thai they may, il they think lit. enter into new niarriag. >.' f THE cm RCHS CEAIM. This leaves no doubt as to the chiim ol the eiclesiustie- al authorities of the Roman Church that the civil judge is totally excluded Irom de.iding as to the validity of a marriage, lint that he is limited to tlie eiuiuiry as to whether civil rights resultini;- from inarriatre are to be declared null, in whole or in jiarl. as a result of the annulment oithe marriage b\ ihe Chur' h. This ciiuso lias awaked so much public inlen'st. and is of so much ))ul)lic imj^ortance. that I fee] it to Slate, as clearly as i)ossible. the opposini: \ n are entertained upon the Nubject. ArchbiBhop Bruchesi, the head ol tlie Caiiioli. CI of the and It liecrsvary u - wliii h liur. h 103 in the (lioi'ose df Moiitrenl, on the occasion ol ct'i't.iiu publications madf in n't'ercnce to this cause in the news- paper i)ress, thought it neo'ssary to issue a ])astoral letter, which is a \iTy abli' and complete expi»itioii of the doctrine of the Chtiich. with regard to 'Ue sul)iert under consideration. I shall (juoie a i'<'W -futences IVoni this document : — " 1. MarriaL-c, a divine iustittition. which tounds the ianiily, and with the fi.aiily tlie Christian nation, is a holy thing in ilseil, especially since Jesus Chrisi raised it to the dignity of a .sacrament of th.- new law '2. In Christian marriage, the natural (Ontract and the sacrament are oui' and the same tiling. Xotwith- standiiiii' the opinion of certain theoloiiian-- of the last centuries retiardiiiQ: thi' distiiiition between thecoiitrai't and x\i-- sacrament, it i- tn-day certain tliat sucli c>i>iiiion caniint be sustained •'4. The Church has the viurhi to [dace obstarU^s m the wav of marriage, fiihcr by i)i(diibitiiiii' or iinalidat- in<>-, viz., obstacles that either render it ilhcite or null.... Tin Church, a complete' society, which has received trom .Ii'sus Chrisi all ]iower for th.' liov-'rninent of its m>-inbi'is, . Amo.mst ilie invalidatinii i'l)stacles to marriage established by thi- Chuieh. one of the most imiinitant is that of claiuiestinity Beiause oj this impe.lunent, 111 order that a marriage may l)e vmHi! between two Catholics in the limits wliere the ('oiincil of 'I'lein lias been pnbiislied, the preseiiec ot ihe [iroper [iri-'st ami tw'o witnesse.s. are necessary. Ciinse<|Uently, the mar- riage of two Catholics before a civil otHi'ei, oi a I'mtest- ant minister, is null I'v virtue of the constitnlioii i 104 oi Uij souviTeiii'n Pontilia thori' ar.- rouiitiie.s, uiid the province of CJueboc is of the uumh r. where, in spite of th'' proiaul'jation of thi- Coniicil of Trent, we are to consider as valid marriasjes celebrated ilandebtmely b.twft'n two parties, one being' Catholic and th'' other a bajitisi'd non-Catholic The marriage of a Cailiolic and a baptised Protesiant, or rice versa, celebrated before a Piot.stant mini.ster, althouirh irravely illicit, and call- ins' down the c-nsnies of thf CKunh, is, howv^r, a mariiace contracted in a valid muunr. even in the eyes ol the C'hurch herself Once lonsummaled. this niarii.-ige cannot be broken by any earthly i>ower. di atli alone rendering liberty to the party surviviiiii'. Bnr to jiidLre if on.' of the parties is really hereti.al. or to declare wh''n a Catholic denying practically his iailh, bctoiues a h.-retic, espei'ially in that which roncerns the sacra- ni"ni of marriage, this belong- to the ecclesiastical tribunal alone, and the civil power cannot interfere without i>;issiiin- the limits of it.s jurisdiction, and with- out usurpinir a riuht which Jesus Christ confided alone to Hia Chunh ■■>». Ail marriagi's contracted with an invalidatiUL;- im- pediment of eccl-siastical law, if the dispensation has not bei-n obtained froni the coiai«i'teiit ri'liiiU'Us :iulhor- ity. are null Irom thr begmninu-. nnd are not only Hiinnllable. •' 1 i Matrimonial cases are alone answerable to the one ecclesiastical tribunal. This proposition is bat the necessary proof of Catholic leaching'' ujion tlie elevation of marriage to the diirnity of the sacrament, for the Church alone can judge all cases conceminir the sacra- m'Uts and th-dr administralion. 11 fhe Siaieiaiinol. tli.'retore, establish iuvalidaiiiig imp>dinients to niarriaue, at least between Christiaus, neither can it arant dispensations from imi)ediments established by the Church any more than it can, directly or indifecily, atiict the sacraiuiiii of rnarriaire, and conse- qui'tilly .'tnnul thv natur.d c onira. t. wiilioui which there is no sacrament "12. The secular powr can, i ' -relort , adpidiir"' only upon the tf-mporal features of marriair,., und Ilt.' airau'i we mu^t distiuiiuish between the inseparable etie.ts of the substaiK e ol the contract, or ol th«' sacrament, and lOf) those whi>'h may l>i^ sfparalcd. As to ilic lir.>t .ii'iMts, irorn the laoiut'iit that it is admitti^'d as kgitimai.-, ihe • 'lUisc whirh prnduced them, n'asoii exaiis tliat the elliMts thi'mselves may be coiisidtrod as Iro-itiiiiaii-.... As to ih'' nth r effects, the ainomit ol the marriage portion, the niilit ol succession and heritage, etc., they are within the domain ol the seiular authority which ran li'e of Lararuee r.< l'^\ ans, rejmrted in 'it LoW'V Canada Jtirist. pace :i8.'>, on demur- rer, decid.'d as loliows (translated): " Accord'iig to tlie jurisprudeiu;e oi' the country, the senteiK .• ol the Roman Catliolir liishoi) reirularly pionouiiced and deciding' as to the validity or nullity ol the spiriii;al and relisious tie ot manuiire. between Roman Catholics, can and oushi to be recoirnized by the Superior Court...... Marriage in the Roman Catholic Church is a sacrament, and a spiri- tual and relisiious b.^nd. o\''r winch the Sujierior Couit has no jurisdiction. In this case, on the inciiis. ,!ciie, .1.. held a.- follows (translated): " That bet.ore iironouiicinL! on the validitv of such a niarriaii'c, the Superior Court loliows: There is no cjvii eleuienl in the contract ot uiarriaL^e, except tliat whi' h relates to the civil riglitN and obliLrations ol the eon.^ort^ resulting from the marriaire. I'rom this it would lollow iiecf^ssarily. i hat wh'-re theCliuicli, a>i in ihi'< connirv. i^ entirely tree and separate lioni the Slate, the .-ivil auilior- ity has no right to make laws concerninir niarriage itselt, but onlv concerniim the civil eH'e -ts which flow tVnm it. lOG Tilt" saiib' (lo.Mriiii' is found v.^ry sli'diiu'lv expressed in th>- work oi'thc laic .Imlue Lor:iiiL:-iT on Miirriaire. Till': CODI'; I'KOVlSKtXS. 1 may .say al ouev that iu my opiiiuiu, suih a [ ri\ il status til -(iji'ninize ,inv marriaii-e. Tie- arLiunieiu of Judii-c .letlc is intended to prove that the ^-Mieral lan- iruaire of these articles is to he ivst r.iiiie,! hv the prcced- irii- law. Thus tiir word ■' publicly . must, he ihinks, be considered to mean pul>liely according;- to (he provi- sions and customs ol' the various relii>-ious d-'iiomina- tions with rei-ard to the marriai".' of their adherents, and that the words ''com]>et,.nt offieer ' must I.e inier- pre'ed to mean a ■ oni]>ei,.nl olhcer as limited i)y --aid customs, and. m the ,a.>e ol Catholics, the cure ol the l)arish to which the parties belonired. To establish this position, the learn.-d Judu'c cited the report oi the codifi- ers as follows (translated): "Mr. Commissioner Day, lea rintx that the word ■'publicly" employed in article 12s, might be interpreted as exaeting that the celebra- tion of marriage should tike pla.'e iu the church, as was customary in France, whi.h, as he said, would establish a rule contrary in the .onstant and reeoonized usaire of 107 all thi' Piot-'stnut dt'iiominatioiis. with th" i-xii'ption ot" tlif Aim-liraii C'huich, l)ut the (jtlur . oiniais.^ioiier.s answerinc' to these ohsiTvatioiis. said tlu' word "publii- ly " has a ci-rtaiii fhisticity which maktvs it ]>rel'eral)le to ajy "tht'r. l]i>iiii:' sust-eptiblc of more or less extension, II has been einjilnyed in order that it niiiiht lend itself to the ditferent inleriiretations which the diljerent Churches and reliifioiis congregations m the province may require ti) o-ive it accordini!- to their parti. iilar usages and customs, ujton wliich it \va^ not desired to pro])Osc any iiiiiovation. All that was di'sired was to hinder dandesiine niarriati-cs ; so thus would be reputed as made puldidy, i hose which were made accordiuir to the usaiT'-s ot the Cliurches to whicli the parties Ijtdoiiii-ed " .irixn': .ii-:tti-;s view. As to ilie iniei-[)r>'tation to be uiven to arth'h- 1l".', relatini;' to cempeteni ofiicers, ihc learned jud ire, alter observiuff thai this article is very vauiie. and qiioling wiih api>roval the words o| Troplons-. as follows; " If I have been able someiinie.s, to atrive at a souiul concep- tion ol certain parts of our law. it is alwavs history which has been my principal light, ami mv most useful lielp." i>rnceeds as follows (iranslafed) : ' II We consult the ancient monuments of ih" Church, u is seen that even in the early times Chri-tians <',debraied their jaarriati'es only in the assembly of the failhluh and tinder the auspiees of the priest, who gave ili.-ni \\io nuptial beiiedh tioii. Nevertheless, this benediction, althouiT-h i)raciice(l in the i'hur< h. was not necessarv lor the validiiv ol tiie marriage, and many ])ersons profited trom this fact to abandon the tisa,\]\ liook ol iheCiipit- ulaiies uf Charlemagne, and oi' his successors, jei ihose who heretofore were not married, not be suilicienily aiidacious to mairv without the lieuediction of the prii'st.' 108 '■ iJui ihrs ■ hiw.s al'tur a tiini'. t<'li into (Icsui'tudi' and the abuses resultiiii^ from till' rhuuk'stiiiity ol mairiag-e multiplied If) such mi exti'Ut that it bi'.ami' in'ci'ssary to givi' a ri'inedy. It was the ("ouiiril otTreut that intro- duced this relonn in Ibrmally t'orl)iddintiiii> niarriaires, and in .-xaetinii- lor ihi' inu[)ost' ol assurinij publicity, the previous proelam-ition ofbanns. and n-le- brafioii bet'or'- ihi' jiroj.i'r enrc of the parties, uj'on pain ol nullity. ■• Uui ihi> rehinu nl' the ,nuii. il \va^ uoi at lirst ai'.e[)tc'd ill France. French jurit^-consiilts held that the < ouncil hid exi'eeded its powers in introduciuii' a rule of di.sne, and reiused. in consequi'iice, to recooiiizf the authority of its decrees. This refusal is still invoked lo-day by the delendaiit who, relymu' u]ion til.- d'ci>ion nl the Superior Court m the case of Connolly v.- Woi.lrich (1! .Turisi, :2:20), holds that these decrees ol the Council of Trent, never liaving been received in Fvaiiie. have no authority in this country. The def.Mi- daut relies even to establish this pretension, upon the opinion ol the Lords ol' the Privy Council in the truih.ird case (11 Jirrist, 217), but this authority fir from (-oming to her hel[). may. on ilv cont rarv. be iir.oked aii'ainsi her. In fact here is what is said at the phici- cited: ' It is a matter of almost common knowlediz.'. certainly of histo- rical and legal fact, that the deerees of this council, both those that relate to discipline and to faith, wer.' never admitted in France, to have eli'ect /irojirio vignrt. though a great portion of them has been incori»orated into French ordinances.' ■' I'liu- tlie I'rivy Council establishes it as true that as a general rule th.' decrees of the Council of Trent were not received in I'rance, but it admits what besides is incontrovertible, that a great part of these decrees were alierwards inserted in the ordinances of the kiiiffs of France, and thus became the law of the kingdom. "Now, it happens tiiai those of the decrees of the council wiiich iroverned the formalities exacted to hinder clandestine marriages, viz., the publication of banns ami the I'elebration before the proper cure of the jiarties. wen- lu-eciselv adopted bv the civil auth<)ritv. and uro- 109 mulirat'-d in tlilit,M>'m oi(lin;iuces whirh \V( >h:il'i ii'ivv t'xaniiue. • Tht' decn't^s of this coniicil, mon'over. won' ^n wide and au.swfied so wtdl to the needs of the iuu>' that it wa> iiiit ne(e>saiy to wait long, in >pite of tlie pas.^ions and the inejtidiees rais«'d atrainst them, in order to see them ai;<'epted and pnimulirated under form of law. Thus in 1;")7'.». oiiiv lili'-eii years alter the Couni'il of Trent. Henry III, by his oKimaui e reiid'-red in the States of Blois, declares, that 'none of hi.s suljiecis .-an validly eonirael marriaroclamation ol banns made upon thie-' ditferent holidays.' (Ord. de Blois, Art. fii). In IGdti H<'nry IV, Ity liis edi.t of the month ol Deeember, eoniirmed these di>po.sitions of the Ordinance of Blois, and de.jared. besides, in article 12, as follows : ' It is our will thai causes concerninif raar- riayes be and belonir to thi' jurisilidion of tlie iu«li:'i-s of the Church upon condition iliat they shall be oblii;-ed to follow the ordiiian<'e8, even that of lilois, in arti.'le 4(t, and aeroclaination of the banns shall be mad«' by the cure of eaeli of the contracting parties with the consent of the fathers, mothers, lutors or curators, if they are miufirs, or und>'r the power of another, and that at the ci'h>l)ra- tion of the 'n-rriaire shall be pres'Ut four witnesses worthy of faith, besides the cure, who shall receive the consent of the partic.s, and shall join them in mavriace accordinir to the form practiced in the Church, and we expressly lorl)id all priests, as well secular as reijular. to celebrate any raarriaije except between their true and ordinary parishioners, without the ]iermission in writim^ of the cures of the' parii>s. or ot the diocesan bishop, not- wiihstaudiucr the immemorial customs and priviiegi-s IIU whiili mi'^ht ]}'■ ;ill''U'fil tn tlu' coiitrarv, and \v>' "rdiT tli:ii there shall Ix- madf a 'adod and faithi'ul reffistcr. as well of the liiarriaijN's, as of the puhlieatioii of baniis. kv ol' th'' disj) •]is;iii,in-. (ir permissions, whii'h shall have be''ii Liranti"!.' "I-asily, Louis XI\', ])y his ■•diei oi' th«' inouih of Mar-Ii, lil'.N. d-'crees : 'That tiie dispositions of ili'' holv eanous and tlie ordiiianees of the kini^s our predece-sors, fonii-rninii- the eeK'hratioii of marria^^es, and espeeiallv these whiseueo of the proper cur-' of those who eoiitract shall be exat tlv observed, and in exe- cution of ili'Mii. we forbid to all .-ures and jiriests. as well seeiilar aiid re^-ular, to join in niai'riaue oih-r iiersons than thos.' who a/e their true :ind ordinarv parishioners, liviiiir aetually any all the authors; and It is the law, the lijuinion law of Fraui'e. whieh beiame alt.o the law ol our eountrv. submitted then to the authority oi the Most Christian IviiiL;-.' ■• We may add that this leuislatiou applied in l-'ranee to all the citizens without distinct loji, not oidy to Catho- lics, but also to I'rotestants. and that the latter, who. by the Edict of Nautes. had obtained, in ]V.»s;, religious liberty almost complete, had been brought back by the revocation of that edict in liiSo, to the retrime anterior to the edict : that is to say, to .any ord( r of thii s's where their civil status was not recoo'nized and established except in so far as they submitted themselves to the rules established for the Catholics, as well for the proof of the birth of tlieir children as for the celel)ration of their marriages, or for the burial of their dead. And at the period of the cession of Canada to England, ihi're "Was not in this colony any reijisters of civil status for the establishment of the birth, marriaiie or death of Pro- testants. II '■ Sncli was the stall' of things lliat tln' KiiU'- ul I']ii- glaiul t'imiul i\stal)lish>'ci in (.'aiiaila in ITivl. " J^i't us ni)\v SIM- iithis sysii-ni, wlm h was onis iln'ii, al'tfrwaids r.-ccivi'd any ni'ri'ii' sdvi'ri'iiriii V, Wf i'staV)lisli at rmn' that it is a nih' ol intmiat ionai law that till' laws ol a ri'dcd ny I'liiuiucrt'd rountr'. ai'i- rniisidiTrd ai)i)rovcd and maintained hy tin' m'W -nvri- oign. and thai thi'\- remain in rofi-<\ •■xci'piiii^;'. how- ever. th()s<" whiih may l)i' i-ontrary to tin' I'nndamen- tal priui'iples ol thi' 2ro\-.'rnmi'nt ot'th'' loncjuiTiiiL; ;>tati'. For then, these laws would bi' I'ound .-oiiirary .to the will alrt'ady expn's-nl oi th(> new sovi'reiii'ii. "' Ihit this rill.' may he modilii'd hy the special eondi- tions id' eessiiiu madi' bi'twi'i-n two States. ]'"or the purpose ol'pioperly appreriating. then, the etteets of the ecssioii ol' the country to iMiuland. upon the legi.slation ■\vhi( h "we have estHl)lishrd ahove upon the suhjeii ol the celebration ot niarnage, it bemmes necessary to take into account iirst the state r^t' the Kuurlish leL-islation upon the subject at that y '. and afterwards to ex- amine the conditions made the inhabitants of the country :ii this respect by thi .itijjulations of the treaty of cession of 1 T'''-).'" The h'arned judu'e tluMi proceeds to point out that the law in England as ,o marriaire was similar to that in France, with the exception that the Church iMiirland alone had the ritrht of celebrating marriacres. and he cites 26 (reorge II, cap. 3->. passed in IT-i^. called Lord Hardwick's Act. The learned J udii'e <'ontinnes (translated) : 'The legis- lation of the two countries, viz.. that of the dominant State and that of the province ceded, was thi>n, upon this matter of marriages, perfectly ("oncordant upon one point, viz . as to the principal and essential formalities exacted in the two countries for the validity of a mar- riau'e ; ami abs(dut(dy irreconcilible upon am^ther point, viz.. as to th" jurisdiction and the competence in the matter of marriatre On this second jioint. then, irre- pressible conflict if nothiiiL;' had come to soften the as- peritie.s of this situation and modify the application of 112 th<' nil.' nl' iiii.Tiiational l;i\v that wi- hiiV'' alrfadv laid 'li.wii ami r.'.ou'iiizi'd. • l>tit tlii> articl.'s of til" ( apituiatioii ol (^uehci' mid of Moiitri'iil had stipulated that the tf-'' fxcrfiso of the Ca- tholic rtdiuioii should hi' Ictl to th.' inhabitants of (he colony and tli" Kiiirlish n:(*iicrals in th« nairio of their sovereiirn. had acct'ded to tliat condition. Tiiis >ii[)ula- tiou was also formally renewed by the di linitivc treaty of peace siffued on the Kiih lj,tion, shovyin!^ that froi . lime in time other denoraiuatioiis of Christians obtained the riuht to keep re make furtiier rel'ereuce to this lefrl^liltion. as w.jII as to the fiir.'her arirument of Mr. .1 ustice .leite, upon which he founds the rijrht of the ecclesiastical authority to take co;jriiizance of <-auses seekinu- the annulment of iiiarriaae. riiOTKSi'ANT lilGHT.N I.\ F]{AXCE in the meantime, I may be pennitt.-d to reuiark that, aiihoiieh the historical statement of the law, as made hy Judge .letie, wius accurate so tar as il ^ftes, yet there were omissions of some material lacts, both with reeard to our law under the French reo-ime. and under the; lMiuli>h,of a nature radically to atfe(>t the e,,.i,lusion to which the leariii'cl ]udi>e airived. The Edict of Ni'iites, promuluated m l.iMHhy Henry IV, was, as Judire .Ii-tte remarked, a charter of reli<}ious liberty. Il yiive to Protestants iierf<-ct freedom of wor- ship (witli c.-rtain local excei)tioiis) ; it unive them the riirht to solemnize marriage on equall\ favorable terms with those enjoyi^i by the Catholics ' In lact. it wss a complete charter nt relio-jous toh ration. The rijrhts oi the Protestants under this edict were from lime to time restricted by various edicts marie by I^juis XIV, but still at least partial toleration ol Pro- 1)3 t.'>tiiiii \\(M>lii;) .'xistfd 111 l'i-:m>»' in \>\i\:i. ,it ih.' tunc of the iTcaiion ol ili>' SupiMior Cmmcil ;il C^Ufltci;, mid then* is souif .•vid'Mi.M- liiat sume i)arts, ut l.'aM, ol tin- Edit f I'rotestaiit judires. as they had the riiilit to do under the ]v!ict ol Nantes, in France. 'I'liere do b. mixed not, ho\\ever. appear to have tjeeii any trilmnals ever established here. As admitted by the counsel for the plainiili. and in lact, the oi'diiiaiice revoking the Kdict ot Naiiies, was never eureu-isiered here, aiiil, therefore, never was law here, hut the etiect ol that is iieutrali/ed by another fact, viz . ill li;7'i the Superior Cciincil (d' (Quebec proiiiulLrat- eranfed to ii by the Kiim', one of i he" articles of which wa> as tollows (see Ivlits et ( )rdoiinaiices, Vol. 11 p. Ti!) (translated) : '■ It is fortiiddeii to persons of the pretended relomied reljo-jon to assi-mble tor the purpose of exiM-cisine- iheir reiieioii within the limits of this country umoii pain of chastisement accordinii' to tlu' rigor of ordinances, and such persons shall not winter iu the future ill this country, without iiermission. and if anyone shall winter here f,,r a leuitimate caus". tie shall have no public exercise of live as a Catholic without scandal. Thus it IS seen that the conclusion ol the honorable judge that under th- Imvu-Ii iveinie previous lo the c-es- siou none but a lioinaii Catholic priest eould clehrate marriae-es in this country, .ind that oiilv ol his own l)arisliioners was strictly accui'att.'. though such accur- aey did not dep.'iid entirely on the grounds laid down bv him. (•LI) HXCLISII L.VW. his rellfrinll, aiid tial Now, it we look at Lord Hardwick's Act. which was the law ol Englaii'i relating to luarria^e at the time of the cession of Canada, we will lind a much more import- ant omission. That act is the :2'.th Cre(.rge LI, Chap. 3:5, and the ell'eot (d' 11 was to rendi'r marriaires cele!>ra!ed 8 114 els.'wli'T'' lh;iii ill an Aim-li.':iu Church, alter pul)lii'atioii ol' bami^ or li'i-nsL' obiaiued from ecclesiastical author- ity null and void. But it dili'crcd iVom the French rule in tlii- that all ]> r.^ous whether liiiglish churcli.neu, Roman Catholict; or dissentiu2r Protestants, could be married as such and vviihuut in any way oonfonning to th- Eiiiilish Churi h. Now. the omission to which I have reterrcd is contained iis Ih*- ciu-htecnth ''lause ol said act, which i- as follow^ : " Provided likewise that nothing ir. till- act contained shall oxteud to that part of Great Britain called Scetland. nor to any inarrias of the matrimonial stale is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law : The temporal courts, not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriages a sill, but merely as a civil inconvenience, the punish- ment therelore, of annulling incistuous or other unscript- ur il in n 1 i:i.r..v i\ il,.. j.vuvince ot tii,. spiritual courts, 115 whiih dit pro s'lf/ite mtinuc. And Uikou in a civil liu'ht, the law treats it as it do^s all other contracts, allowinc: it to lit> crood mid valid in all ca.si's where the parties at the time ol raakiiifr it were, in the first place, willinir to contract ; secondly, ahle lo contract, and lastly, actually ditl ("ontract in the prnper forms and solemnities re- quired l)y law. Fir-t they must he wiliintr to ('ontract. Con^ptisua lion connihilim tacit Hijftiin is the maxiin nl the civil law in this case, and it is adopted by the common lawyers who, indeed, have borrowed (especially in an- cient tim»'s) almost all their notions ol the leiritimacv of nia-riaiie from the I'auoii of civil laws." Then as to the ability of the parties to contract, Ulack- sinie* says : "These disabilities are of two sorts, first, sucli as are canonical, and. therefore, sufficient by ihe ecclesiastical laws to void the marriage in the spiritual court; but these in our law, only make tli- marriaire voidabl.'. and not />»■« I'ncUt void, until setiience of null- ity be obtained. Of this nature are precontract, con- saiisjruinity. or relation i)y blood ; and alfinity or ndation by marriage, and some particular corporal infirmities." Then as to legal disabilities : "The fir>t ut these legal disabilities is a prior marriage or having audthcr hus- band or wife livinn-. The next legal disability is want of au'c. This is sutficient to avoid all other contracts, ou account of the imbecility of Judgment in th- parties contracting.... Another in capacity arises Ironi the wani of consent of parents or guardians The fourth, want of ^■ason. Lastly, the parties must not ouly be willing and able to contract, but actually must contract them- eelvi's in due form of law. to make it a good civil mar- riaire. Any contract made p^r vi-rba df firfi;iul lliat \\)\w Iiiliocciit III was th<' lirsl who ■ '-(laiiicd i-elfbraiioii ot marriaLTi' ia liie Chui- h; bi'l'or. whu'h it was totally a civil loiitrait. and III the times nf tli" trt'aud rebidliuii. all marriaires were DM-forrnecl by tli • jixsiiiU's of tlie p-ace, and lln'se marr.ages vver<' declared valid without fresh solemuiza- tioii by statute 12 Car. II, .ap. 30." It IS undeniable that aeeurdiiiu: to thf canon law, a uiarria;fe jier rrrbt '/>■ pnesfuti without lh>> intervention of a priest was a valid marriage. See exhaustive judgment by Mr. Justic.> Muuli in Coiiiinllv rs Wo ilrii'h. 11 Lower Canada Jurist. A SCOTTISH llJ.rSTK'ATION. It is nndeniabii' also that that was the law of ^* )tiand at the time of which we treat (see Dalryraple vs u.ilrym- ple, 2 Haggard's Consistory reports, p. 54). This irreat case decided in the Consistory Court of London in 1811, and afterwards unanimously eonfirm"d by the Court of Arches, concerned a Scotch marriage. Dalryiuple wiis an Eiiiilish ofpccr. and was in lSu4, (juar- tereii in S.otland. Tlicrc h" met Miss Crurdon, and they bei-ame mutually attached, and made in writing a mu- tual a.'knowledsruK'nt and dei-larution of marriage, wliih thev niiTei'd. however, to keel) secret, as it was thought iJalrympb's family wouM object to the uuinii It was also alleged that th>'re iiad been coixubitus. JJalryinple afterwards married another woman in due form, accord- inu- to the English marriaue act. The questions decided were, first, whether tlie present declaration of marriage was alone suilieient to constitute a valid marriage; and, second, whether joined witli con- cubit us it was suilicient. The case lieinir tried in Enii- hiitd, the Scotch law was proved by eminent lawyors examined as witnesses. The court also took into consi- deration the opinions of text writers and Scotch judicial decisions, ami found a vast preponderance of all three soure(jU''nc.'>. In most civilized countric^s, ac^tinii' under a sense oi the force of sacred obliijations. it has had the sanctions of reliiiiou sujieradded. It then becomes a reliii'ious as wll a- a natural and civil contrai't : For it is a -jreat mi>takc to sujipose that because it is the o'le, it may not likewise be ihe other. Heaven itscH i> made a party !•> the con- tract, and the consent ofthe individuaU pledired to each other is ratiiied by a vow to (rod It was natural enotiLih that such a contra, t should, under the relisrious systems wliicli i)re\-aile(l m I'Juinpe, fall under eccleKi-astical notice :ind coirnizaiici' with respect lioih to it> tlieolo- gical ami its Icjai enustitutioii I'houLih it is not unworthy ol n'markihat amid^t the manilold ritual ])ri>- visioiis made bv the divine law aivcv, of the .lews tor various offices, and transaciimis of life, there is no ce- remonv presiniiin, it re\-er- eui ed mairiauc as a sai'iameiit, still so fir rcspei led its nai ural and civil origin as to consider that where ihe natural and civil coulract was formed, it had ihe lull es-eiiee of matrimony witliout tie- mterveniion o| a piie~.t. It had even m that state ihe character ol a .sacrament ; for it is a misapprehension to suppose that this intervention was required as a matter of necessity even tor ihai purpose before tire Council ol Trent The consent of two parties expressed in Wurds of pre- sent mutual acceptance constituted an actual and legal niRrriage, technically known by the naim.' of spoiisa/ia /ii'i- vfrhii ilf /n(r-tttiti Such \^a^ the state of the canon law. the known f)asisofthe matrimonial law of iuHope The l.'anied judge then ciio a numi>ei of cOHes to show that the canon law as modihed by one or two sta- tutes was the matrimonial law of l-lnii'land al.so. and states that he proposes to treat it as tiie law of Scotland J 118 unless modili th 'U cites 32 Henry VIII, Cap. 38, Sec. 2, and -J K-l VI. Althoacrh Sir William Seott in his judu-ment considered ihe f|nestiou as to the matrimonial law ot' ]*]iiLrland, and determined that marrian'e /^ec vrrhd i/f prtsfufi wa;^ tro.id marriaiT'- without the intervention ofa priest in England before the Marriage Aet. still the case concerned the law ofSeoiLnid. and the rt-marks made eoneerninu' the law of Kiml.uid were nhifer i/ic'^i. and therefore did not carry the weio-ht (li judicial decision. .AN IRISH CASE. The (question was. however. .^ubs.Mjueiitly rai>ed in ihe case of Ki'-hed Chitrch in Ireland, married a IVesby'erian woman at the hotise of a Presbyterian n)inister (Uiiy placed and ac- cordiiiii' 10 I'resbyterian forms. bseqnently Millis married another woman in Eiiirl. ''» dne form under the Marriasz-e Act. He was indicted .n Ireland lor Idg- aray, and the ca.se tnrtied on the validity "f the lirst marriage. (The Marriaire Act did not extend to Irehxnd.) The juilges in Ireland were eqnally divided and theca.se went to apiieal belore the House ol Lords (See in Clark and Finnelly's Reports, pauv r)34.) The whole lore of the subject is exhausted in this case, and tlii' judgment has since been i(dlowed as decisive, although it was arrived at by an even division of the judges. Timlale, chiei'justice, states the opinion at which the judges arrived as follows : " By the law ot Enirland as it existed at the tim • of the passim;- of the Marriair<' Act. a contract of marriage per vrba i/t' prfrxtiifi was a contract indissoluble between the parties; themselves .itfording to either of the contracting parties, by application to the spiritual court, the power of compelling the solemnization of an actual marriage : but that such contract never cons- tituted a full and coiniilete juarriajre in itself unless made in the presence and with the intervention i>f a minister in holy orders. It will appear, no doubt, tipon relerring to the diU'erent authorities that at various periods of our history there have been decisions as to the nature and description of the re|iok back to the time when that law liist (ibtained in EuLiland to enable ti- \'< an^wt-r that (juestion without es8, we think the entering into the contract in his presence cannot in the legal sense of the word be held to be enler- inu into it in th'* presence of a person in holy orders." The case of Heamish and Heamish was afterwards con- sidered by the House of Isolds, which was thi' case ol a clergyman of the Estaldished Church in Ireland under- takinu' to marry himsell without the assistance of a third person in holy orders, and liie judges there felt them- i 120 selves bound l)y ili'' i-asi' of The (^u"'ii asx^iin-t Millis al)ovt> relV'iiiHl to, but thi' iollnwiiiu' nMiiMiks, liowevfr. Ofi'unvd iu thi' judgment, wlii.h will hf touiid in tin' Sth Jurist. N.>S., at l>age 781, as IoIIdws : " ll:iil ih.' .-a.-.' h.'i.n ffs iiovn Wf might have thought that tlie law ol Edmund. the liulnir. and iho other iiidication.s ihat bv the hiw of England a priest wf»s to be present at a marriagf, were but rejections of the uvneral law of thi> t'hureli by which from tie' riiliest times the intfrvcntion of a priest had been in<-uleuted and i'rom time to linn' enforced by P'^nalties, tliougli never before thi- C'ounejl of Trent, bv nullifying the marriage at which no priest assisted. That view was presented and lonsidered in Tiesrina rs Millis, audit 7-aist'd a question worthy of all the zeal, learning and genius whirh it called forth, but that vit-w was not ado])ted in the re.sult, and it is not >ompcti'nt for us to restore it \nd whatever hardship such a law mav, in ^he cf)urse of years, have wrought to dissentinsr bodies, and also to British subjects in the colonies and in foreign countries where no priest could b.' procured, if the law was ever rightly held to apply under such cireumstances, as to which we say nothinu."' etc., ete THE ('(!MMn\ EAW (»1- l-NC LA.N'D. In England it is .^een that an establisiied Chureh existed, of which the soverein'ii was the head, which could make ecclesiastical laws governing the Church and the ])eoplt' as nu'rabers of the Church, and haviui; eccle- siastical courts to put such laws into force, of which the sovereiii-h was also th" head. And there it ajipears that the agn-cment of the parties to a present marriage was sufficient, ao far as the temporal law was coucerued. to make a o-ood marriage, but the ecde.siastical law re- quired a religious solemnization. It is more tlian doubtful whetinn- these ecrlcsiastical restrictions would accoin- panv colonists to this country, in which no ec. lesiastical estahlishmont was ever introduced. The Chunh of England in Canada is not the Established Church nf P'n- liland, but merely a voluntary association of persims holding the doctrines and worshipping according to the forms oi the Church of England. No •>cclesiasti.al rt> utterly unsuitalile to his rountry.lu theT'nit.'clf^tates, to which th.' ((iiiiniun law ■>[ Knulaiid wa> also carried h)y cnlonists. the decisions arc nnamnioas iliat tht> com- mon law oi' liuLiland relilinii- to marriairc was such as set forth in tin- case of Italryiiiple I's l)alrvin]>le. viz.. that the prt>-:eut au'reemeii! of the parties to l>e then Im-hand and wife, constituted a valid niarriatr(\ liisliop on the hnv of marriaiio and divc)rce. vol ], number 77, .says : "Because ot tlie hiuii favor in which marriage is held by the law. we have Iransnuti-'d ;o us ' the special maxim seni/irr /irtrsz/Dii/i/r /iro iiiiitr>i/nnti(>. \\]\i'\i a man and a woman arc livinii' loircther as husband and wife, ilic law will hold ih.'in to he .^uch cvn a'jainst stroiiii' probal)ilitics that they are not — or when a cere- mony ol marriasre is shown there will be a like pre-uinp- tioii that it is valid unlc>s some distinct and special fact clearly ap]iears in the partic^ular case to the coiitrarv." At number IKi. Bishop says : " From the familiar jiio- ])osition that colonists to an uninhabited countrv take to their ]i,.\y locality those laws ot the mother-countrv whiih are aihipted to their somewhat altered situation and circumstances, it follows tjiat all -uch laws ol I'^nii'- land relating' lo marriauv an a Catholio priest williont banns arc] without licence. Tlie jud;rment was in part as follows: " Both the defendants are saul to be 1 122 Protostnnts nud I'liiisli subjects, and the place in which the ceremony was performed was Madras, where they resided as pnrt of the British settlement there: and the (liiestion is whether under the laws of marriaire operatinsf on tliera at Miidras this can be considei<'d a Icn-iii mar- riage. In order to decide this question, it is material to consider who the ])avties were, and anionu- whom the coreiTiouy took place. Now. British subjects settled at Madras, are "roverned by the laws of this country, which ihcy carry with them, and are unartected by the laws of the natives. The question, therefore, is whether by the laws ot this country to which they alont' are subject, and by whii'h alone their actions are to he iroverned, this marriai^.' was li-cr.il. In this country we juda:>! of the va- lidity ot a inarriaare by what is called The Marriai^e Act, but that statute does not foUmv subjects to lorei'jrn set- tlements. The question rem.iins whether this woulfl be a valid iniirriai^e hen^ before that act ])assed. The important ])oint of the case, viz., what the law is by which sii,-h a question is ;:o be governed was most fully and aMy di.s- cussed in the case of Dalrvmple rs- Dairymiilc, which has so olten been alluded to,;iiHl the jula''e. From that case au'l from those author- ities it also appears that before the Mani.iue Act marriaires in this I'oitntry were alwavs governed by the > anon law, which the defendants, therefore, must be taken to have carried with them to Madras. It appears also that a con- tract of marriaa^e entc-ed into per verha er- formed, the .resrularity of which it is unnecessary to dis- cuss, because it was i'oilowed by lohabitatina. All that is required therei'ore bv the cmiiom law has b. .'u amply satisfied. " 123 THE APPLICATIOX IlEKH. Bi^ho]) thpri'iipoii proo»»pds to state ihe law :is intro- dui'f'i into till' States as b('i:)<; tht' cominoii law of Eu'^iand as stated in the above riU'd cas", aiul to point out that all American judirmfiits have tn hold ii. and that owinL( to the maxim that cveryihin'j is pi'sumed in favor of marriage in State> where spei'ial torms are directed for marriage, if nullity is not pronounerd for violation of those rnles. lib' lomniou law niarriaii'e exists side by side with the statutory on<'. Authorities ar.' uiimiMdus which hold thai > olouists only carry with them siK'h 'portions ol the luw of their own ■oiintry as are applicable to their new situation in the cunntry col'Uii/ed. "'ee p^pl■sytll ('onstitutionul Law, pages 1 to 0. See also C'larke, ('olonial Opinions, itpon the qttestion as to what laws colonists car^y with them. I may say also that the case of Connolly and Woolrich, which eoncerned a marriage in the Xorthwest Territories by mutual consent alone, without the intervi'ntiou of anv priest, but simply in accordance with th- customs of the C'ree Indians, was held to be a valid inaniaLTe liy the courts of thi- country, and althouLih an appeal was carried to the Privy Cil. that api)eal was not pro- secuted. Breakey cs" P.reakey. 2 U.C. Q.B., 84!i. 0-C..nnor r.v Kennedy, 1A, O. U.. Q. 15.. 2.'>. Piers vs Piers. 2 H. L. v.. Ul DeThorei, rs Attorney-General, 1 L. \l. II L. and P C. Hhti. (rasiry Velaide .Aroneuarv c.s Seuibecutty Valualie, f5 L. R. H. L. an.l P. (.-.. :i-± R'nhh rs iiobb, M, (). K. Q. B., tiOl It appears then almost certain that the common law of En'jfland. so far a^ hmuiiiil to this country wuld hold a marriaire ])er rfrha (le praesenli without tiie inter- vention ol a priest as a valid marriage, but in any event it is ceriain ihat a> introduced into this country it did hold sucii a coi'tract as ts, tlicri* can, I think, he no doiiht that a iiiarriaae soh'iiini^^cd in \ho pii'^iMice of any ordained niinisl"r in tliis count r\-. wouhl iind'T the judfrnient in ttie ease of the Queen cs MilHs be a valid marria^r'" pn-vious to ihe fo(h'. I refer to 1") Vietoria. Cap. T*."*. Section 1, Avliieh is as follows : •• Whereas the recoii'nil ion ot legal equality amonu' all religious (h.'iiominations is an admitted prin- ciple .d' colonial leu-islntion ; and whereas in the state and eo'idition ot this ]>rovince to whieh surh a prineiple is pei'uliarly a])pii'able, it is desirahle that the same should receive the sanction of direct legislative authority recoiiiiiziiiL! and deolarinu' the same as a fundamental principl.' of onr civil poli -y. therefore, etc." — and the fitatxit.' jiroci'cds to enact sin h ahsolute relirrious equality. There had heen an "nrlier statute, namely. .S'l, George III, Cap. 4. relating to the registers of civil status which enacted amoiiu- other thini;s as follows ; •' It is Ivreliy enacted hv l!ie authority of the same that from and alter the 1st dav of January, which will he in the year subsequent to the passing ot this act. in each parish churcii of the Iioman Catholic communion, and also in each of the Protestant churches or con'jrei^ations within this province, there shall be k"pt b\- the rector, curate, viear, or othei' priest or minister dnini:- tlie parocliial or clerical duty thereoi. two ren-isters of the same tenor, each of which shall be re]iuted authentic, and shall be equally cousidered as \,"s-a\ evidence in all courts of justice, in each of \\ hicli the said rector, (uirate. vnar or other priest or niiniste- shall lie h(dd to enregister regularly and success .ely all biiptisms. marriages and burials so soon as the same shall have been by them performed."' Now. Statute lo \ ictoria furnishes an authoritative legislative determination of the interpretation to he li'iveu to the words of o."), George III. jiarticularly as to the meaning of the wonl Pmte^/fiii' in iliat statute, so that it is no lonurer ]>ossible to pretend that the woi'd extended only to adherents of the Aiiijlican ('hur'h. and to min- isters of that denomination. 125 Tilt' siaiulc ••;■'), Ireoig.' Ill, in ih,' Ihst phu .■ , ousti- tutes all ministers, whethtTProtestimi or Ivumau Catiiolic, havinariized bodies of Christians rights to keep reuisters of eivil status, and remarks that in these statutes, although the persons applyinir fovt. Iceau.se if th'- JjegK>latixn' had >upposfd ihat -neh a ts could not be performed by i he Clii-istian orLiMuizatioiis appi\iii reij:i.-tcrs of eivii siaiiue would no! lia\c h.'cii grauted without grantina'. .it the same lime, the right lo perform the acts of civil status themselves. One of thes>- acts leaves thi.> puini wiihoul doubt, and iliat is the very first one passed, nam Ix . H Cieorge IV, Cap. 2. coiicernuui' the Church of .Scotland. in whi'h it was declared ■ that all marria-auizations of Christians. It may, therefore, be considered as certain that since the i-essiou an ordained minister of any denomination of Christians in this i)rovince coitld celebrate a valid mar- riage, and was an olhier of civil status to keep :.i reiiisier l:;i i 126 tlnT'-ol, .since 8.") G''or<4v 111. without any licence, witlioiu ;iuy puhliralioii oi'ihi' biiiins. without any restrirtion as to thi' plaii' wiicrt' lliH niarriajTi' ishoiild be ri>h'bralt-d. and wiihoni any rt'tert'urc to ihf fact, tluil the persons married AVere or were not raeinl)ers ot" the partienhir reiiiiiuiis denomination to wliiih the minister beioni^ed. LAW IJEFOIJE (MISSION 111 opposition to this was ih' law |)reviously existiu;^ thai no p'-rson eould he married in this country oxt'ept by a Catholic- priest in a I'atholic church after the puh- liealiou ol'hauns or dispensation from tlie eeclesiastieal authority. und in this country -without a subuiission, either real or feigned to th>' Lathulic reliLiioii ; and we have to <;ou- sider which of these two laws continued to prevail in this country after the cession. llalleck, Inierna'ional Law, i)atiii<'i tVoui tlie uaiivt'N." This List .st'ntt'iict' is < v.nictt'd ti'xtnally from the j .idi^iiK'Ut of Lord Maiisfif'id in Hall rs ('ainphfll. 1 Cowp'-r. Ut'port l2ii>S. Sff alsn am liontn's citi'd by Hal- leek at ]>n the touiitry hud fiipituhili'd to the Bri- tish, bixt no now <;;:ovfrnmeiit hml yt l>fen osta])lishtMl. and no derniitc treaty iif cession hadl).'»'ii made. In tl.oarti> les ol re ot authority lo retain. I am yet to siek lor any principle derl abl" from that law (the law of nations) whicli bows the conquerors of a countrv to the l<'t«al iii>tii ..tions o| the conquered Th>' laws may harsh and oppressi\ >' in the extreme ; may contain institutions a])horrent lo all the fi-elings and opinions and habits of the ionqu«iors But it is ariru>'d to be the doetrine of the law ol England It would lie a most liitti'r frtiit of the vi.tories of its 8ul)j '♦« if they were bound to adopt the j-alous and oppressive systems of all the "ountries whi'h they sv* :"ied, aud I o groan under all the tyranny, civil and • . siastical, of those, systems, until their own government, occupied by the j)res8Ure of eitisiinjr hostilitie.<. had time to look alxjut, to colleet information, and to prescribe rules of conduct more con'-"'>iial to thi-ir oriirinal hal)its. I am perfeetly nwtne that it is laid down generally that the laws of a conquerd country remain until altired by the u>'W authority Kven with regard to the ancient inliabil- ants. no •^mall portion of the ancient law is unavoidably sni)erseiled bv ilie revolution ol government that has iHken i>lace. ■ allegiann- ol the subji'cis, and all that relates lo it - the administration of the law in the sover- eign and ajjpellate jurisdiction and all the laws con- nected wiili the I'xer'ise of .Novereiirn authority This very libel furnishes instances ol this son. In the third article it is stated that dispensations from th ptiblic- alion of banns must be had from the authority ol the StateHof Holland, whi>h would b' .ontrary to the pre- rogativ.' of the Hritish sovtreigu to issue such dispens- .itioiis" 129 lu tln> caso just rcl'errfid to, Lord Stowdl indicated that in tho condition in which things then were, vi/.. where the country liaplicable to the British holders of the coiuitry, and the ancit'ut inliabit- ants; but tliat Avas owinjf to the fact that in that <;i.sc no gcm-nment had bei'n set up by the conquerors. In the present case by the 14th, Oeorge III. a statute was passed which specified the laws which should pre- vail, and there could certainly be no ground whatever for the su[)position that in the rasi> of this eountry one law could govern the ancient inhabitants, and another and diifercnt law covern the n-'weouiers. NEW LAW FOR ALL. It is, therefore, manifest that the old law was incomp- atible with the institutions of the conqueror and did not remain, and that not only the I'rotestant subjeet- of this country were entitled to the use ot the common law in this country, but the Roman (^atholic French subjects wore also entitled to it. .Vnd Mr. Justice Jette admits that as a niatti'r ol law, tiie previous provisions being incompatible with the new ones, would be superseded and become obselete ; but he derives from the fait that the Catholics were permitted by the Treaty of I'eaee the free exercise of their reiiginn. that thfirold institutions relatintr to matrimony lnnned part of the exercise of their religion, and eonsetiueiitly was reserved to their jurisdiition. There can be no (iout)t that so far as reirards the formalities lor the eelel)rati()n o{ marriages in Catholic ehurches. those who belong to those churches and require marriage within them, are bound by (heir contracts, eithi-r expri'.ss or implied, to conform to the rules <.t the (Miuri'h lo wliicli tl.ev beionir ; but that is very far from sayiny that as a matter ol' law they are not entitled to take ad'antasre ol the more liberal rules prevailing for their Protestant fellow subjects. All the authorities I liave cited, while they ailmit a religiiiUN element 111 marriage, allege that it is essentially a civil contract, but one of so high a nature that nearly every civilized people has thousjht proj^er to enforce the 130 obliirations whith How IVom it by considrratioiis ot rt'ligioii. The 14th George III proviil'd tliat tlu^ i^untry should still retain the previous law iehitinfrty and «ivil riiihts, and provided also for the tree exercise of the 1 oman'Catholir veliiiion subject to the supremacy oi' the sover''i'j:n ; l>ut the law relating to marriage does not fall ■wiiliin thi- description of laws relating to property and civil rights. As lUaekstone observes, ' It is partly canonical and partly civil." Marriage undoubtedly doe.s produlaced under ih.- juris- diction of the legislatures of the provinces, marriage, including all the hindrances thereto, belongs to that of the rarliament of Canada. And although the solemniz- ation of marriage is giv.'U l)y tiie same statute to the local legislatures, it is made a special category not included in that of property and civil riirhts, and it is e which prevail now Both in I'inaiaiid aiul in France there existed an established ("hurch which had jurisdic- tion over tile people generally, recognized by tiie State, and sanctioned by civil penalties. There was no toleration or freedom of conscience in religimis matters. Heresy was an oHence punishable by temiuiral penalties, and th<' laws in that respect were executed with considerable rigor. 131 The peopL- could not escape by ceasing to prole.ss the religiou of their respective churches, lieliirious tolera- tioiv was an idea stiil in the luture. The iirst toleration act was passed in England lu ItisS. It uave ireedom ot religious couvictiou, but was very far from giving reli- gious equality, and it left Roman Catholic under special di>al)ilities whicli were not removed until the 81st, (xeorge 111, in IT'Jl, long alter the cession. One of the most potent means by which it was sought to compel religious uniformity under both of the systems above reterred to was by compelliii2' ihe baptism and education <>f children by the cstaVilished Cliurch ; by law.s compt with the laws which prevailed earlier and still prevail, in every country where religious equality exists. Till'; rS OF Tc-D.W. \Vc have then now to look at reted. Thus iu a case of Vairliano »•< The Bank of iiuglaud (23, Q. B. D, 243). Lord HersT'hell thus stated the rule: "The proper cnurse is in the iirst instance to examine the lanuuaire ot the statute and to ask what is its natural meaninu- uniuliiu'iiced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with enquir- ing how the law previously stood, and then assuming that it was probably mtentled to leave it unaltered, to see if the words (dtiie enactment will bear an interpre- tation in conformitv with this view .... I am ot course 132 lar from assorting- that n may never be had to the previous .state of the la for the purpose of aidin;^- in the coustruetion of the provisions of the code ; if, for exampl'". :i provision be of doubtful import, such resort Wuuld ])e pcrleetly legitimate." Apart from a series of statutes ooneerninff registration and ofHcer-s of eivil status, some acts coueorning the vatiditv oi marriag-i's previously celebrated, and some relating to marriage licenses, we have no Canadian legislation on the subject affecting this provin. c pre- vious to the code. Arti grant li(;enseN or dispensations for marriage may exempt I'mm such publications. Arliclo Jl» says ; " The marriage ceremony may. how- ever, be performed without this certificate (that is the certificate of publication of banns) if the parties have obtained ind produce a dispensation or license irom a / .- 133 •oompotont authority, authorizing;- ilif omission of the publication of banns." o9a. " In so far as n'lrards tlic solcninizalion of niar- riagH by ProtL'staut ministers of the Gospel, marriage licenses are issued by the Department of the Provincial Secretary, under the hand and seal of the Lii'utenant-Oov- ernor, who for the i>urpose ihereoi is the competent authority under the precedinn' article." Article 1208, of the Revised Statutes of Quebec, refer- ring to these licenses, is as follows: "'The licenses issued xindi'r this section are furnished l)y such persons as the Lieutenant-Governi>r-in-('ouncii names for that purpose to all persons requiring the same, who shall previously hav.' given a bond together with two sureties, being houNcholders. and in the torm appended to tliis section." The amount of this bond is eii:-ht hundred dollars, and the condition of liability is the existence or non- existence of any lawful let or imi)edim"nt, pre-contract, affinity or I'onsann'uinitv to hinder the proposed eonsorts l)eing joined in holy matnuKuiv', ami afterwards li\iag together as man and wife. There is no lesrislation affecting Lower Canada regard- ing the issue of these inarriaii-e licenses except such as refers to the conditions under which they are to be issued, and to the disposal to be made of the fees which are authorized to be charged therefore. The issue of these niarriaii-e licenses is an exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. This vva^i said f)y Lord Stowell. m the case of Kudiiiir r.v Smith, above cited, \-.'here h" n lerred to tl" fact that the law of Cap • Colony, f)eiim' then a conquered country, could not interfere with the exercise of the royal prerogatives to grant lieen,ses or dispensations. MAKKIAGH LICENSES. M ! Lamb, in the second Revue Critiifue at page 3K,remark8 • m the subject of inarri.igi* licenses, " Heretofore in;ir- riage licenses have been issued by f he (.rovernor-Geiieral as representing the Crown. Our statute jaw ;^o, Creorge IIL Cap "2, section l. as well as the Civil Code recog- nized the existence oi this licensing poW'T, although it does not appear to have been specially enacted in Lower Canada as in Upper Can.ida (See consolidated Statutes i;^-i Upper Canada, Cap. ^3, s.Htiou 2). This .syst,'?n is .>vid- cutly adopted ht>re under the commou law ol Enghind. Bv this roimn.in hivv as well asliy statute law, the Ci(Ava hultls supremaey, in eivil as wU as in eeciesiastieal matters.'' The origin ol' marriapfe licenses, as distinct from dis- pensations from the Cluireh of Home, is found in the statute tlb, Henry VIII, Cap. 21. Seetions 3, 4, •"). (5, 7 and ><. These' sections pvohil)it suing for dispen- sations. lii'ense.s, etc., to ih-' Pope, or any i^evson out of the realm, and i>rovi well spiritual as temporal, within this realm and elsewhere within vour dominious, and as beneficial to the persons obtaining the same as they should have beiii il they hail been obtained with all thiniis requisite of the See oi home or of any other i)erson by authority thereof, etc." And .section 8: " And that ali children procreated after solemnization of any marriage to be had or done by virtue of such licenses or dispensations, shall be admitted, reputed and taken legitimate, in all courts, as well spiritual as temporal, au W(^ >ee that marriage licenses, so far as Kngland. is concerned, \v«'re originally issued solely by the Pope of i-iome, as head of the Catholic Chun'h. until by the siattile above cited it was provided that they .-hould be issueil l)V the .\rchbi.-hop of Canterbury under the supremac- f the Kin:;. Later, when tlie I'^stablished Church of I'Jmi-land was sitbstituted in lieunl the Catho- lic f'hurch as the reliuion of that >-ountry, and the sover- eign became the head ot the Cliurch as well as of the State, the issue of such licenses was part of jiis prero- gative, which, iiowi ver, still ll(«wed. and still Hows throuirh the same cjiannel, namely, the Archbishoj) of Canterbui V. li; t liis country, there l)ein!j no ecclesiastical establishment, the ])ren,gative of the Crown to issue marriage licenses has always, before Confederation, been exercised by the (rovernor-Ceiieral. the representative of tite sovereign, and in this province since Confeder- 136 aiiou by llie Lieutciumt-Govcmor. There <'xi.st uo statutes so far as this proviin-e is eoncerued limitiug the exercise of this prerofrative or restraining its effect, t^xcept the Code itsolt, which enacts ceitaiji nullities in niarriasje, and permits the exercise of pre roo^ativ duly so tar as to dispense from the publication of banns. Under the Eniilisli Marriage Act the issue of special lie. 'Uses still remained vested in the Archbishop of Can- terbury, though cdiumon licenses were to be issued by surrogates appointed for that i)urpose. but the common license could not license persous to be married iu any other place tlian the parish church where oue of tiie parties beh ngi'd, and within i^ertaiu hotxrs of the day ; but the special license i.-«sued by the Archbishop of Cnii- terburv could license persons to be married at auy cou- venient time and place, and it was provided by the Marnaiie Act that mistakes of fact with regard to domicile of the parties should be absolutely covered by the license, although nullities resulting from the want of consent of parents would uol be thereby covered. It is not i)retended that the license in ([u^'stion, beinu' an exercise of the j)rerogative of the sovereign, could exempt from the execution of laws, so that all provisions of the i-ode which involve nullity of marriaa-e. or even those which make tlie laarriage voidable in tht' discretion of the court, could not be rendered valid by the issue of a marriage license ; but I think that the license would be .>utHcient to cover any impediments which might arise from the allegiance which the jiarties to be married owed to a particular religinus denomination to fullil its rules and discii>line, particularly .se.'iiu:' the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, a^ well as others, is subject to the supremacy of the Crown. From the above citation we may at lea^t safely con- clude that the persons appointed by the Lieutenant- Governor for the i.ssue of marriage licenses are not to en<|uire to what denomination of Christians the parties beldiig, nor whether the t'unciionary to whom the lic.'use is addressed is in charge of the congregation to which the. parties belong, since it is provided that these licenses are to be issued to all persons who apply for them, and furnish the ne.-essary bond, and siin'e it also m'pears from the latter part oi Article o'.K\ of the Civil C^de thit 137 the minister wlio has ceh-brati'd a niairiage iiuder the authority of such a license is not liable to any action of responsibility for damasres, or otherwise, by reas. R. Q. B., p. 25, it was remarki'd : This presumption," (the validity of marriage). " is not the same as the presumption raised with regard to other facts, but is much stronger. The evidence for the purpose of reiielling it must be strong, distinct, satisfactory, and coiKdusive. A presumption of this sort in favor of marriage can only be negatived by disproving every reasonable possibility." These remarks in that case decided by the Queen's Bench in Ontario are fully justified by the followiny; House of Lords and Privy Council cases : I'iers rs I'iers, 'J H L. C, a.31. De Y horen r.< Attorney-General, I L. R. H. L., 68ti 138 r. (', L;istly. Vi'hiiiU'i- Aroiiogiiry t-s Semhecutiv' Valgalit". ti L. R.. H.L. and V. C, p. 372. Bn-ab-y rs Bn-akoy, 2 U. C. Q. B.. p. :U::. Kohb vs Kohb, 2o <». R Q. B.. p. tiOl. Thus it Catholic could not lie mairii'd bctVivc a Protestant minister, their seeking marriage before such minister would be jiresuni'Hl tn be a renunciation of the Catholic faitli. COMrETKNT OFFICERS. "We continue then to analyse the articles of our Code, and would now reier to article 12S : " Marriage niu^i be soleninized openlv by a cnmpetent oilicer recogniz(>d by law." and article iL'it: "All priest.s, rectors, ministers and other officers authorize I by law to keep registers of acts of civil status, are competent to solemnize a marriaire ; bfit none of the oliicers liiusauthorized can ' compelled to soleuiuize a niarriai:'e to which any impeu.'uvnt exists aocordine: to the doctrine and belief of his rehgion and the disripliue of the Church to which he belongs." The g.'uer.d lanuuat-e of articles TJs and 129 ol the Civil Code, providniii' that marriau-es mu^t be celebrated publicly and before a competent olhcer. and that all person.s" having authority to keep registers of civil status are competent officers, would certainly, if interpreted literally, give authority to any such oliicer to perform ;inv nnirriasre iu a public niauuer, and that is admit'ed by' the judiiments of Mr. Justice .Tette and Mr. Justice Papineaii. to whiih 1 have above referred: but it is said that this literal interpretation, as well <<[' the word " pub- licly '' as of the words "competent officer'" must be restrained so as to mean publicly according to the usages oi the dillerent couiirei^ations, and '• competent otHcer "' must mean one competent tn m.rry the particular persons presenting themsfhrs. and in tlie case of Catholics, the proper cure of the parties : fir, says Judge Jettc. the codilier^ expressly say they did not intend to change the ])r'-existinu- law. Takinir the pre-existiny- law (so far as Catholics are concerned) to be such as the learned judge has stated, namely, that Catholics can only be married after proclamation of banns in their nw n rovid.>.s, "The mitrria-jre IS solemnized at the plat'c of the domicile of one or other of the parties; if solemnized elsewhere the person ofiieiatinir is oldiged to verity and as'''rtain the identity of the parties." This is quite in.onsistfut with the idea ih... only the proper cure of th" partii's, and in ihfir own church, could perform the marriaiie. 'f he same conclusion results Irom the provision ahove cited as to the oilicer officiatiui^ at the marriage, requirinij- the production ot a certiiii-ate of puldication of banns, unless he himself has proclaim-'d thi'm. Thus, any person may clearly marry in any other jdace than that in which the banns have been proclaimed, but in that case a certificate of publication must be produced, and the lun.tionary must identify the parties. Again, it is provided that were the parties have come from some phu'e out nl Lower Canada, the officer cel- ebratintr the marriaue must ascertain whether there be any impediments to the marriage. In this case the officer is oldiged to celebrate the marriaire of a person who comes irom another country who is not or may not l)e a member oi' his Chur<'li at all, or belong to the jiart- icular religion which he professes. Only he must as- certain that there i.^ no legal impediment. Then, by articl.' 12i', the last .lause provides that the minister of any church <'annot be obliged to solemnize a marriage airainst which there exists any impediment according to the doctrines or discipline ot his church. What would be the sense of this provision if the minist- ers could only marry their own parishioners in their own chunhes :" I5ut does not this provision clearly in- dicate that in the event of any impediment existing, accordinir to the doctrines or discipline of any church preventing the marriage of any person in that church, that he may resort to another church where such impe- diment does not exist :• 'I'heii, by the old ordinances, marriaires without .^uch due formalities were absolutely void and produced no ci\ il ell'ei t. By the Code, article l."it;, it is i)rovided. ' Kvery marri- age which has no! been contracted openly, nor solemnized before a competent officer, may be contested by the 140 parties themselves, and by all those who have an <'X- istiiig and actual interest, saving the ris^'ht of the <-o\\vt to decide ai-cordinii' to the <-irfUinstauces." This i- the complete ojjposite ot the old provision. Mr. (jriroiiard in the RfVHe Crilique is at a loss to dis- cover how th'' cndiliers iiia-hiih the eod- ifiers cite under the article in question, dei lares for the absolute nuUitv uf su'-h marriaa-es. That is true, but Laurent, Aubry et liau, and Demlombe. who are also cited, iustify the article in its prcs.-nt form. Ai^am, article liil l)rovide^s '• When the parties arc in the possession of the status, that i> wIumi they hav«' lived together a> man and wile publicly, and the certi- ficate of their niarriaii'e i> produced, they cannot demand the nullity of such act.' This is also in absolute cun- tradiction of the oltl law which deolar.-d that such mar- riages would produce no civil ctlect whatever. Then again, there is the article which jMOvides that whi're the parties arc in good faith, though the marriage be null, the civil etiects remain, 'fhis also is in al)solute cnniradiction of the old law. The truth is we have followed the t'ude of Napolfon in reference to marriage almost as closely as in other respects, only Wi' have not confided the solemnization of marriage to a <'ivil oiRccr. but have left the formation of the civil <'ontra.'t to be enforced by considerations rehiiing to religion. If we compare our code with the Code Napoleon on this subject, we find that we have adopted the earlier codification almost word for word, except with regard to actes respectueux, and to the- plai'e and manner of puhlicaiion ot banns and the per- sons who are appointed olficers ot civil status. rur.LiciTY, Thus, our article 128, which requires the marriage to be celebrated publicly before a competent olficer, is borrowed from article 105 ol the Code ^ Napoleon, which provides; •The marriagi' shall be celebrated publicly before the civil otiicT ot the domicile of one of the two parties." It is then natural to look for the iuterpreta- tJ.Mi r>f tliic ix'.oj) •• T-iiililieii- " tn VveneVi in risnvnd^eiii'e. 141 npon that arti.lo S.'O Sin'v, Auihoritifs, under article lil.T whi-ro lie Mim> up ;i lariT'' iiiuiibtT <>!' cases lileil by him a.s follows : " Clandestinity or uon-publicity ot" mar- riage does not result ne.i-ssarily Irom the fart of the i-elt'bration out of thf town hall." (Se.- Laurent. No. 470.) Merlin Vd. Mavriajje. sec. 4. sub-sec. 1, 1 Proudlicn, p. J2"l. -2 Durantoii, Nn.'.S.)."). It is to be noted that all the.se authorities are under a system which provides tjiat uiarriaii'es have to be cel- ebrated publicly in the toAvn hall of the domicile of one of the j)arties, and by the eteuce is said to have result- ed from the fact that although the officer was competent to celebrate a marriage between his own p-arishioiiers in the ])lace where this marriage was actually celebrated, yet he was incompetent to celebrate a marriage between persons belonging to another denomination of Christ- 142 This liiniiatiou .'aiuiot b.' dfrivcd lri>in the rode, nor ■ ■:in it !«.' presiimod ; lor iiulliti.'s. espe.-iiiUy when ihi^y roli-r to iho validity of marnao;!', aro never ]»re.sumed. Il caniidt i)i' deri\'e(i ironi the old law Ijet'ore the >i'.s>iou under whfli no oin; l)Ul a Catholii' priest eould marry auvt-ue, Catholie or ProtcstaiU, he.aus'- it is admitted thai stieh a law, heiii;;^ aul;igoiiistii' to ih'' iundaiueiitiil priiicipl.'s of our ulMlion> of tlo' treaty of cession, as well as of i he ])rovisioii^ ot \i, G-eo. Ill, .'ap. 83, guaranteeing to Roman Catholics the free exercise of their re''gioii. TlIK TREATY UF ('KSSION. is tii.'U the gruiit of free rxereisi- (if religion to be iu- terpr.l-'ii as eonvevini:- to ih.' Roman (."atholic Churcli a compulsorv jurisdiction over thoir own members in a niait>'r whieh w shall see coiieerns the eivil authority * In England, in I'i'^H. di.>-«'nters from the Mstiibli-hed C'liureh.Tiili.M- than Koiaan Catholies, were granted the frei- .■xi'r toleration carried witli it the iiglil to uuvern their own inai riai>. .-. l)Ut buih Troteslant dissenters and J\omaii ('alhoM.'s in l^iLilaad. uinh'r Lord llardwirk's Act, could onlv l''u:ally marry m the Aiiglii'aii churches. I'll.' id.-;, (,i'>i..,i;trriirni/ed that they mmht be separated. Tiiey had demanded that the . iv'il status of the people should be mdepeiideut ot 'he reliLrioii tliat tliey professed. This (hange em ountered irreat obstacles. Since then liberty ol worsiiip has been proclaimed, and it is now jiossibie to semilarise legislation. We have adopted this 143 great idea that wi- must piTmu all that rrovidein't^ permits, and that the law which oauiint l'or>'e the reli- gious opinions ol the citizens >]iould (mlvsei> Frenehmen. as nature only sees men." These remarks ot'Mr. j'ortalis art' evn more applicable to this country than to France, siui'e hire ther-' is nut a vi'siige ol .(inne.tiiiu l)etween the C'liureh and the iState. eacii l)i'ing al)soluiely inde])e!ident oi'thi' uih'-r. nor has theState any eonci'ni with tlv promotion nl'thi' mteri'sts of one denomination of .hnsiiaiis rather than of another. '\\ hat ilie State aims to >eiure is ilu.t the per-ons lo be married shall not ln' \Vithin rertam r>dation>hip> ; nor persons incapable of giving consent ; nor persons already «;ontraeted in marriag>' ; nor, if th«'y i»e minors, that the peace of families shall u-il l)i> l)rokeu by marria^.' withnut the consent ot iheir parents or uuaidiai.s. Tliesi' ends the law seeks to ai'eomi)lish by providinii- that publie proclamation oj' the intended marrian-' shall b.- made ill the plait's whcie I he partie.N ar.' l)est known, and sutlirjiMil tinu' betori'hand to I'liable jiersoiis interested, to make opposition. But to thi> pruvisioii the law gives an alternativ-' by recer'inir a !■ iiaiaiii"i- I'rom two res|)i)ii- sible hoiisehiilders, who bind themM'!v>"> in a sum ot eight hundred (hdlars (s-SiHi), on 1). 'half of the prooos^'d eoiisoris that no impediment to marriage exists bet weeii them. Then the law reijuire-s pu!)licity in the niarriaire oerrmoiiy itself, to provide ih.it no lonstraiiit shall he put upon the eon.sent of either jiarty there!. >; and iinallv it required there sluill .-xtst Mil" and cerium proof of the faet ol' the eidebration, whieii it scures ))y means ot •auilientie ree'isters. wlinh it oidain.s to l>e k.'pt l)y IIn oliieers. It recjuires no religious cereniony ol anyes (d' tiie Cinineil ol Trent, a'- modilled subsequently l>y ponti- Heal authority, and althouLrh he may feel hims.df bound ])y these, it is needless to say that our civil law does not llow troni these sourees. I conelude tli'ii, that th'- State, having laid aside ev.ry attempt to interlere with the religion of the people, and haviiuv lelt them entirely i'ree to wo ship as they please, or noi to worship at ail, there is no reason to restrain the ueneral language of the code so as to trive an obligatory bi'-isdietioii in relation to marriaire founded ni>on coii- ".siderutious o| the partienlar ilenomiiiatioii of Chi isliaiis to wlii'li tlie parti. 's belong. This view is also strengthened l)v a <(inibiiiation of th" conehvling clauses of Artiele-. 127 and 12!», of the(Mvil Code, the former providinu 'hat imp 'diractits existing according to the rules of the sevi'ral ehiirehes are re- cocni/ed. and tlie hitter, that the minister of any chureh cannot be eompelled to soli'iniiz.' a marriage to whnh there exists an impediment according' to the rcliirious belief ot such chureh This clause assunu's that an 145 ofij. or ol'.ivil status would h.' funvd by mandamus to w>k-mm5!e a marriage wher.' no imp.'dimcnt existed and It Muvly implies tliat where no l,.gal hindranee eki^ts su.h person^ ouuld l)e Ie- testant miiii>.ter of two Catholics, i.s not illei^al a.s'having be,. II i>,'rlor;ii,d by an itieoinih-i.ni luio Unnary. TilK MARRlAdH Vf)II». I do not rail aiimlioii lo the cir. um^ianc-' that m.ir- riages by mcomp'teiu functionaries are not bytiie terms 10 i4»; ivriiole latJ oi th" Civil Cd.- void, but only voidable in thi' discretion (d' tlio rnurt. and that the declaration sets lip no rir.-unislaiuv of want ot publicity or clandestinity lo nuide that discretion. Nor do I call alb'ntiun to the fact that where a cer- tilicate ol niarriaii'e is preseuti'd, and the parties are m possession of the status of man and wife, that n.-ither can contest \h>- validity of such .'ertificate under tlu' terms (>f article It'.l of the ("ivil Code. 1 do not mention either, the point that, althou^■h I am asked to declare the marriage in this case without .ivil .■Ifeit. tht'i-e is no all.-ialion ..f liad faith on the part ot the consorts, uotwithstandiu'j;- th.' terms of article 163, whii'h enacts that even where a marriage is invalid, the uood taith of the parties shall preserves its .ivil .'ffects. The-^e matters have not bfcn submitted to inc. But they indicate how profundlv our h^gislatiou on the sub- ject has b.'en lullucnced by the Code Xapol.'on, wl'-'h, ill ;di tli.\s- re-p.'cts. is almost textually lollowed. THE KCCLKSIASTICAL DECREE 1 . omc now to . on^idi r the value of the ecclesiastical d.'iTre dissolvinii' tlie marriage tie, which I am asked to .onlirm. I shall imt require to dwell lonir on this sui)- ject. Mauv of the remarks already made bear ui)on it, 'and need not be ivp.-ated Had it not been for the ia.t that th" jurisdirtion of the ecclesiastical authority to dis- solve the maniauv tie ha> Iteen sustained by the judg- ments of eminent men and text writers already interred to. 1 .'honld havf considered it elementary that such an a-sumpiion of e.vlesiastical authority was a grave attack upon <>u! system of free and ri'sp()nsil)ie government, under which every elector has hu voi.e m the makint;' and excution of the laws. The Ar.libishop in his pastoral Irtter, says that mar- riage is not a civil act : it is purely religious. If there is a contract in it, it is oiu' With th- >acram.'nt, and not di- stinct from It; and thus it concerns entirely religion, a-id n..t the law. ConsiMiuently the Church only has the riirht to make a> well a.s t.. adminisi'T laws relating to the .unlirmatioii of the marriaL;e tie. It was necessary to go that far Id maintain the jurisdiction assumed in tins mat- t7 iiT. It inarri;i-v j.s tr. ]w ^•nverll(KI hy the sov.'roi"ii authority ilowiim through Parli.iiiiont, it must hfiidmin- ist,'rf(i hv the s(,v-erein:ii authority exercised by the eon- sfiluted courts. That marri.ge is a civil contract, no lawyer deuies. To sustain the position of the Archhi.shon you must set aside ihe un.inimous jurisprudenco of I; ranee, you must iiruore th.' laws ol' England, vou must lur-et the British North America Act, which assi-nis marnaire and divorce to the federal I'arliam.'nt. and you must abolish the code of our own provin.e, whi.li make> provisions covring ihe whole ground and assi-iis tlir adniini.strati ill of them to the lourts. I'othier, who is our leading authority as to the Freu.h law, (t; Pothier-Buirn.'t, p. tj) says : (t'raiislatnd) : "The marriaoe that th- faithful contract, heiiiira ,-,mtract with .lesus Christ has elevated to the di-es contracted in viol- ation of these iaw.s, when they import nullitv are absol- utely null and void." And adds: "There is not, more- over, in this case, ;t sacrament of marriage ; for there cannot })e a sacrament without the tiling whicti is the ma(t(,"r of the sacrainent The civil cnirtract bcin^- the matter ol the sacrament of marri.iire, there cannot bi-'a sa- crament of marriaire when ih,. civil contract i> null.' Pothier then iiroceeds to point out that ihe secular power had l)e(.n always ackiiowledire.I. an wh^ held ih.-,! inarriaiie, as distiiiu-iiished from the civil riudiis whicli Hows troni If, belniinr.s exclusively to the Chun h. See the .able work of the late Mr Justice Loranger, on Mar- liairi', Vol •_', j)ages 1, 2 and ;i. 148 Su.'li was also certainly the doctnu.'. m Eii^hmd at the titm- of thf cession as well as now. The ta.t that causes relatint^ to marriaixe wr.' Mi.p"ii't''ding to peribnu a marriage between niuiors without ionseni oi' parents, up(ni an ecclesiastienl dis- pensation. {-2 Edits ^c t)rdon., p. 311.) Surely it is eiiouuli to say that our cixb' leaves no doul)t as towhat autliority governs laws relating to inar- ria"-e. It >eenis trite to remark that justice, or, in other -wo'rds, the administrative determination and execution or civil rights, Hows only Irom the sovereign. The claim of iurisdii'iion which is put forward, mu.st rest, I suppo- se," on the supposition that the right of the ecclesiastical court to hear matrimonial causes, which existed as an in.stitution under tlie French regime, has in some Avay or another survived the change of sovereiiinty. There can be u<> nr,,und ior such opinion. Tliough colonists carry with them the laws of their country, they do n.)t carry its eourts. Though the laws of a ceded territory may remain under the new sovereignty, neither .ouiis nor olTicials remain, and the laws can only l>e put in execution in so far as courts ^hall be created having jurisdiction. This does not ne-«l argument. It is a necessary (Min- sequeni'c of the maxim that honor ami justice llow from the sovereign. So mueh is llii> the case that it is only by statutory provision that oliices do not become vacant 'on the driiiise ot the .roun. bm are only sus- j)ended until proper oaths have lieen taken. Then whence the power in the Catholi, ChureJi, or anv other, to summon parties, and soleiuiily deeide a.s to 'the validiiv of the marriage tie between them:' No such trrant ol" power has evressed or implied. In this they are not diflerent from other voluntary as- sociations. Persons, when they becomi' memt)ers. bind themselves to abide by the laws of the association, and they recofTuize the authority of the officers as provided by the laws. But there is no kind ol roercive juris- diction existing in any i>i' them. The case of Long is. the IJisho]) of ("ape Town, re- ported in 1 Moore, Privy Council, N. S., 411. coneerned the Church of Kngland in ."'h the Hishoi> of Cape Town had pro- bedience. It was held that the letters i)aieiit under which the bishop acted having been issued after con- stitutional government had l)een established in the Ca])e of (lood Ilojie. were iiietiectual to create any jurisdic- tiun, ecclesiastical or ciyil wMlhin the cnldn' In uiviim- judgment, the eouri said : " The Church uf Kngland iu jdaces where there is no church es1al)lishcd l)y law is 111 the same situation with any other religious' body — in no belter, nr no worse pusilidii ; and the mem- I)ers may adopt, as members of any other c()}iimunion may adopt, rules for enforciuir discipline within their 160 hody \vhi
  • y the law of the colony, othi'vwise than as memhers ot a voluntary association. The Bisho]> of Natal atterwards siied the trustees of the colonial l)ishopri'\s fund iov arrears of his salary. This case came heibre Lord Komelly in 1860 (see L. K., 3 E<1., p. I). His Lordship held that the law as declared hy the Judicial Committee left all the Episcopal lunc- lions exactly as by the law of th«* Church of England they belonged to his offline, were he bishop of an Eng- lish diocese : with this exception that he cannot enforce the- execution of these orders without having recourse to the civil tribunals for the purpose. The i'ollowing is extracted from an opinion given by 8ir .John Coleridee. Sir Roundell Palmer, and Doctor Deane in April, IS'i'.t, and may be found in Forsyth's Constitutional ]>aw p. need of this ariiiimeiit. Article l.'ttJ ol the Civil Code says that such informalities as are alleged in this . .'luse are not to eause nullity, but the court has to judge of their gravity. The ecclesiastical atiihorily has proceeded upon some (ithei all.'ged law. which imports nullity. I A f » A 151 The decrco in quostion is not only invalid for want of jurisdiction, hul is in violation of said article latj, mid is ot no Icyal furce or effect. The demurrer is maintened on both grounds, an^ jjo 4. ■' oC Norbort Fnthni ^'^ j;,, 5. " of Allan HcriKinl Cutu 48 >j,^ (I •• of Marie Kvilila Deroino ^'2 j^„ 7 ■• of Rev. Claude Perrin ^r: >;,, 8. " of Kmilia CainplHill ^'' ^o" r," " ■ of Jeanne Marie BerlhcAuroveCOt^'. 64 NoMO. " of Rev. Leopold Mar^sieotte 73 jfo' n" " of Malvina Lemire-Marchand 75 jfo_ 12. '• of Margaret Camiibell 78 jj,,' 13" .- of Mrs. Gabriel Moise Caron 84 Peliliou of Mr. Delpil • '^^ Answer to the Petition of .Mr. I>e!i.it 90 Enl.'suistical Senlon.-o ' Certificate of Liborty | PlaintitFs Declaration ' _ DefeiKlant'.s Plea and Denmrrer '^ Judgment ..f Hon. Jnstice Ariliil>ald ^"^