IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A o ^ >. A^ ^ />^i^ < V^^ z w ^j^ 1.0 1.1 1.25 BA£12.8 15.0 ^^^" 110 I ■2.5 2.2 2.0 U II 1.6 6" %J>i Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST A^AIN STRE^l WEBSTIR.N.Y. • ^^80 (716) S7!l-4503 CiHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques C Tachnieai and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniquaa at bibiiographiquaa Tha Inatituta has anamptad to ob'ain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibiiographieaily uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara ehaekad balow. n Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur rn Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagte □ Covara rastorod and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pallicul4a p~| Covar titia miaaing/ n n La titra da couvartura manqua Colourad mapa/ Cartaa giographlquaa wi coulaur □ Colourad inic (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) r~~| Colourad plataa and/or illuatrations/ n Planchaa at/ou illuatrations •» coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Ralii avae d'autraa documants Tight binding may causa shadows or diatortion along intarior margin/ La ro iiura sarria paut causar da I'ombra ou da la diatoraion la long da la margo intiriaura Blank iaavas addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa hava baan omittad from filming/ 11 sa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchas ajoutias lors d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta. mala, lorsqua cala 4tait possibla, cas pagaa n'ont paa «ti filmAaa. Additional commants:/ Commantairaa supplimantairas: T t( L'Institut a microfilmi la maillaur oxamplaira qu'il lui a AtA possibla da sa procurar. Las ditails da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-4tra uniquas du point do vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifier una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dana la mithoda normala da fiimaga sont indiquas ci-dassous. □ Colourad pagaa/ Pagaa D Pagaa da coulaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagias Pagaa raatorad and/oi Pagaa rastaurAas at/ou palliculias Pagas discolourad, stainad or foxai Pagaa dicolortes, tachatias ou piquAos Pagas datachad/ Pagas ditachias Showthroughy Transparanca Quality of prir Qualiti InAgaia da I'imprassion Includaa suppiamantary matarii Comprand du material suppl4mantaira Only adition avaiiabia/ Saula Mition disponibia r~~| Pagaa damagad/ pn Pagas raatorad and/or laminatad/ [^ Pagas discolourad, stainad or foxad/ r~~| Pagas datachad/ r^ Showthrough/ fy] Quality of print varias/ r~~| Includaa suppiamantary matarial/ rn Only adition avaiiabia/ T P o fi O b( th si ol fil si Ol Tl sh Tl M dii en be rifl re* mi Pagaa wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to enaura the best possible image/ Lea pages totals ment ou partieliement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont iH film^es A nouveau da fapon A obtanir la maiileure imaga possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimA au taux da rMuction indiqui ci-dassous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 28X XX / 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« hat bMn reproducMl thanks to the ganarotity of: Library of the Public Archives of 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. Original copies In printed paper covers are f*!!med 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. iNAaps, 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 righ; and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film6 fut reprodult grice A la g4n*rosit4 de: f La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivsntes ont 4t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soln, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet« de l'exemplaire film«, at en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de flimage. Lee exempiaires origlnaux dont la couverture en papier est Imprlmte sont fllmte en commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustratlon. soit par Ie second plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exempiaires orlginaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: la symbole -^- signlfie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols V signlfie "FIN". Les csrtes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de r«duction diffArents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reprodult en un seul clich«, 11 est film* A psrtir de i'angle supArleur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bes, en prenant ie nombra d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants lliustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 6 6 > MEMOIR ON THE FART OF THB The Seminary of Montreal is in possession of its proper- Ity, and this is sufficient to enable it to maintain its rights. jBut in consequence of the reports which have gained ground that its right of property is not indisputable, it has become [its duty to make its titles known. All that has been urged I against its amounts to a denial of its legal existence and of ! its legal right to the property held by it. To the assertions thus hazarded we shall oppose the two following proposi- tions, and establish them by proof. If the subject has but little of what is agreeable in it, it is yet of the highest in- 1 terest to the Province, which either through its Poor, lats Hospitals, its Schools, its Colleges, or its Indian inhabi- jtants, reaps the chief share of the benefit of the said pro- Iperty. The Seminary of Montreal has a legal existence. it. Prop. In the first -place we find that the said Seminary wr.s in pyj^gpcgi^^n existence in the early times of the Province. The enre- (gistration in the Conseil Siipcricvr, cf the Letters ruiciU of [1677 establishing the Seminary, is recorded in our Archi- ves. The entry of enregistration states, that " M. Lefcvre f* demands that the Letters Patent establishing an Ecclesi- " astical Seminary in the Island of Montreal, be homologa- I" ted." — We find also, the record of the enregistration in 11717, of the Letters Patent of 1714, " at the instance of the A Bishops. *' Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, estaUished " at Ville-Marie, Seigiliors and Proprietors." — We have the enregistration at Montreal, in 1718, of the same Letters Patent granted " to the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of " St. Sulpice, established in that City."-'We find in the col- lection of the Laws of Canada,the Seminary of Montreal ex- isting and mentioned in the Edict of 1623(289);— and men- tioned also in the Jlrret and Letters Patent of 1 702,(305 &c.) Slc. Now by this existence itself,the Seminary is legalized : ^ — Because in the declaration of 1743, there is in the Article IX., an exception in favor of the Establishments already actually in existence in Canada : — Because the French Laws, before the Edict of 1749, had excepted Seminaries from the necessity of obtaining Letters Patent for their Es- tablishment; of this kind is the Ordinance of 1659, which the Parliament of Paris would not enregister without this exception was made in it, {Mem. du Clergii, 593, §*c.): such is the express provision of the Ordinance of 1666. In Canada then, (where the Edict of 1749 is not in force,) Letters Patent were not requisite to the establishment of the Seminary of Montreal, for which, nevertheless, they were granted. The existence of the Seminary then, for thirty years, would be alone a sufficient title [Diet, de droit Canonique de Durand, vol. II. page 353]; and it has existed for more than 160 years, reckoning from 1677 to 1840. The Seminary has then a legal existence, by the Art. IX. of 1743; because Letters Patent are not necessary for the establishment of a Seminary ; and because it had exist- ed more than 30 years before the year 1743. This legal existence is proved by the Bishops of Que- \ \ bee having recognized the Seminary of Montreal, so far as ' ^ to adjoin several Curacies to it in 1678 and 1694, &c. [Loix du Canada, 304J. Now no persons were better ac- quainted with the Seminaries than the Bishops, who, under the French Government, had full authority to establish and endow them ; and this must be more especially true with regard to a Seminary which, in 1678, had only existed for a single year. This legal existence is proved also, by its having been St Sulpice, recognized by the Heads of the Order of St Sulpice, who could not but be aware which of their houses were legally established, and must have possessed this information es- pecially with regard to that at Montreal which they had been directed by the King to establish — [Loix du Canada^ page 80.] Now the Heads of the Order of St Sulpice have so expressly recognized the legal existence of the Se- minary of Montreal, that in 1696, they bestowed a consider- able sum on it to be placed at interest for ever [our Archi- ves] ; and in 1 764, they ceded to it all their right to any pos- sessions in Canada, when they were permitted to sell them by the Treaty of Peace. Would they have exposed them- selves to lose the whole by giving them to a Body not le- gally constituted ? The Heads of the Order of St. Sul- pice, have so expressly recognized the legal existence of the Seminary of Montreal, that when the Edict of 1693 was made, they prayed the King to grant to it the property of the Greffe [Idem, page 289 ; and in the Arret and Letters Patent of 1 702, they are stated to have prayed the King that several Curacies might be united to the Seminary of Montreal— [304, &c.] Authoiitiei This legal existence is attested by the Civil Authorities in Canada ; — by the Court at Montreal, and the Conseil ♦SMpmeMr in the enregistration above cited, [page 4]; — by the enregistration in the said Council ( Conseil) of the Let- ters Patent for the union of the said Curacies (our Archives), in which enregistration the Council declares the said Cura- cies to be united and incorporated with the Seminary esta- 6/isAed at Montreal ; — by the Grant made in 1717, by the Governor and Intendant, of the Seigniory du Lac, to the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, established at Montreal, {idem). The Grant was confirmed afterwards to the whole body of the Sulpicians, of which the Seminary of Montreal was a branch ; this was necessary for the pur- pose of preserving the subordination which is observed in Ecclesiastical bodies, but did not prevent the Governor and Intendant from regarding the Seminary of Montreal as a body so far legally constituted as to be capable of possess- ing Seigniories. — Its legal existence is also proved by the Ordinances concerning Mortmain, made in 1732 and 1743, having been formally notified to the Seminary of Montreal, (our Archives) which was therefrom considered as holding property in Mortmain, as a community. The King. This legal existence is also proved by a great number of Royal <^ctes in our Archives. These are, — the Lettres de Terrier of 1695, in which the King recognizes a Community of St. Sulpice established at Montreal ; and that the donation of 1663 had been made for the purpose of establishing a Communaute there. — Lettres de Ter- rier granted in 1724, in which the King recognizes a Community of Ecclesiastics established with permission 1 at Montreal, by the body of the Sulpicians ; — The Commission of the Greffier at Montreal, in which the property of the Greffe is recognized to be vested in the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St» Sulpice, esta- blished in the said Island. — Edict of 1693, [in the col- lection of the Laws of Canada, 289, &c.] where it ap- pears that the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sul- pice are established on the Island of Montreal ; and be- ing endowed with the profits arising from the Seigniorial administration of Justice, and with the rights of appoint- ing the Greffier and the property of the Greffe, — The ./^rr^< of the Council of State, dated the 15th May 1702, for the union of certain Curacies to the Seminary of Mon- treal ; in which it is recognized that the Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice have established the Seminary at Montreal by virtue of Letters Patent issued in 1677, 1304) ; and the King unites the said Curacies to the said Seminary, directing at the same time that they shall be served by such of the Ecclesiastics as shall be appointed for that purpose by the Superior, (306). — The Letters Patent to the same effect, dated June 1702, in which it is again repeated that the Sulpicians have established a Communi- ty and Seminary at Montreal, [306]; and the King declares that the said Curacies shall remain united tOy and incorpo- rated with the Seminary of the Ecclesiastics of the Order of St. Sulpice, established at Ville-Marie. A Community esta- blished by the Sulpicians, under Letters Patent, and to which the King unites certain Curacies : how strong a proof is this of the legal existence of the Body ? — Letters Patent issued in 1714, in which the expression " enclos du 8 )r. Establish- ment. "V " Seminaire de Ville-Mane,** are repeated several times [325, 327, 328.] They therefore suppose the existence of a Seminary recognized by the King. — In the order made by the Councii of State in 1716, [338] the King directs ** that 2,000 Hvres shall be paid by the Seminary of St. " Sulpice, established at Montreal, and possessing Building ** Lots in that City, of which as well as of the whole Island ** it is Seignior : and that with regard to the other Com- ** munities, &.c." The Legislator thus recognizes a Com- munity like the other Communities, eflfectually established, possessing Building Lots, and being Seignior of the City and of the whole Island ; and levies a Duty on that Community. This is certainly to recognize it as a Corpo- ration, and it is the Legislator himself who so recognizes it. — An order precisely similar, made in 1722, [431] fur- nishes the same proofs. This legal existence is proved by the Establishment of the Seminary, and we have the instrument by which this was expressly effected — the Letters Patent of 1677. (80). They are intituled, " Establishment of a Seminary in the " Island of Montreal" and on the back is written " For " the Establishment of a Seminary in Mw France.** (idem.) — The enregistration of the said Letters in the Coun- cil proves the same thing ; they are stated to contain these expressions, " fVe have permitted and do permit the Esta- " blishment of a Seminary of Ecclesiastics in the Island of ** Montreal" What then is wanting to its establishment ? That the Sulpicians should send out Ecclesiastics ? They had already done so (80, 81,) and never ceased to do so, as may be seen in the numerous Instruments above cited. times stence 'made directs of St. uilding Island Com- I Com- blishedf e City m that Corpo- ognizes 1] fur- (lent of ich this r. (80). yin the " For ''rance.^* e Coun- n these e Esta- sland of ihment 1 f They do so, 3 cited. The Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice are then proved to be a Comiflunity established by Letters Patent. This is all that is necessary to the legal constitution of a Body. The King permits the Sulpicians to establish a Seminary and Community at Montreal ; we then find, by the Letters de Terrier of 1695 and 1724, and by the Arr6t and Letters Patent of 1702, that the Sulpicians did establish a Seminary and Community accordingly. We have therefore a Semi- nary erected by Letters patent, and consequently most legally established. The Seminary of Montreal once established, continued until the Conquest, — from its nature as a body having per- petual succession ; Conquests by their nature leave every thing as it was before, unless the conquering party make a change ; — the 33rd and 35th Articles of the Capitu- lation mentions the Seminary of Montreal with the other Communities, and designates it by a corporate name " the " Priests of St. Sulpice at Montreal." The Capitulation also mention their Regulations and Constitutions, and con- sequently speaks of it as a Community; and if the subjects there mentioned are referred to the King's Pleasure, the Seminary must remain a body corporate until the King shall have expressed his pleasure to the contrary. — The 34th Ar- ticle when it secures to all Communities the property then belonging to them, preserves also the Communities them- selves who are to enjoy them. Since the Conquest, as before it, the Seminary has pas- sed thousands of Deeds of concession and other Instruments, in which it has acted as a body corporate ; But bodies cor- porate may, accordioi, to Blackstone [U. 205. French Conquest. -t Usage. 10 edition.] be establishec! by custom alone. And by the an- cient French law, thirty years were sufficient, and this Ju- risprudence has not been changed in Canada, since the declaration of 1743 does not mention Seminaries, which we have seen are exempted from the necessity of Letters Patent. Recogni- The Government, [which alone possesses the right of tion by Go- contesting the legality of bodies corporate, because its au- thority alone can be infringed by their illegality] recognised so expressly the corporate capacity of the Seminary, that it payed the Rent of the House in which the Greffe was kept, by an Order of the Council in 1 766, and ordered the Mi- nutes of the Greffe to be returned to the Seminary by an order of the Governor in 1766, and caused a Greffier to be appointed by it in 1776, by a Letter from the Lieutenant Governor to Mr. Montgolfier the then Superior. Now, no individual in the Seminary had any right to do any of these things ; and to recognize the right of doing them, was, therefore, to recognize them as belonging to a body corpo- rate, &c. P . d -A. still more solemn act of the Government is the recep- Homage. tion of the Seminary to perform Fealty and Homage. Now it was in its corporate capacity that the Seminary was allow- ed so to do, for Mr. Brassier performed the same in the name of the Seminary : this shews it to have been a Body Corporate : — he was received as the Procurator ^of the Seminary without shewing any Instrument appointing him such, another privilege belonging exclusively to bodies corporate : — ^he was received as acting for the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary, without any mention of their names ; this V I the an- his Ju- ice the which Letters iglit of 1 its au- Dgnised 'i that it IS kept, the Mi- y by an r to be utenant st/'"' Patent of 1677, which perpetuated the Donation cl'the Sul- picians, could only be carried into effect in favor of the Sulpicians of Montreal, (the Sulpioians in France being n 12 disqualified) it follows that these Letters Patent qualify the Sulpicians of Montreal, and make them a corporate body, if they were not so before. Thus, therefore, the Letters Patent of 1677, must, in order to have ensured the endow- ment, have rendered the Sulpicians of Montreal a legal cor- poration. If the King of France had divided the corpora- tion of the Sulpicians and the property, this legal division would have created two corporate bodies. Now the Law of necessity, which is the first of Laws ; the Law of Con- quest, which is the Law of Nations ; the Law of Treaties which is the Conventional Law of two Sovereigns, and of two Nations, have divided the Coi:poration of the Sulpicians. By virtue of the premises then the Sulpicians of Montreal are still a legal corporate body. By the Conquest the Sulpicians of France became as nothing to the Govern- i^ ment here, and therefore as far as the present Government is concerned, the Sulpicians of Montreal form the whole corporation of the Sulpicians. They do so too, because all the Sulpicians of France may be considered as deceased as far as Canada is concerned, and consequently the Sulpi- cians of Montreal are, with respect to Canada, the whole corporation of the Sulpicians ; and therefore, they are still ^ a legal Corporation. Our adversaricjare forced to admit this by the principles they lay down. 'They argue that the Cession made to the Seminary of Montreal is null because it was made to a cor- porate body. But if the Seminary is not legally a corpo- rate body, it is not a corporate body at all. In that case the Cession having been made to individuals there is nothing to prevent its being valid. — They insist that the property 13 lalify the ite body, Letters ; endow- egal cor- corpora- division he Law of Con- Treaties !, and of ilpicians. Montreal uest the Govern- vernment he whole 3caiise all deceased he Sulpi- he whole ' are still principles ide to the to a cor- a corpo- t case the 3 nothing property aforesaid should revert to the Crown ; but if it was granted to individuals it has become private property, and the Crown is excluded from it. His Majesty's pretensions can be well founded only in case the property is now held by a Corporation. It follows then from the principles * laid down by our adversaries, that the Seminary is a real and legal Corporation. But is this legal Corporation capable of holding property 1 Seminary T¥Ti 1 1 1 1 • rt mr 1 • IT 1 capable of — Who could doubt It 7 We have seen m the Lettre s de iioUmg Terrier of 1695, (p. 4.) that the donation to the Sulpicians P'^^P^^y* . in 1663, was made for the purpose of establishing a Com- munity at Montreal ; and the Letters Patent of 1677, (p.80) make this a donation in mortmain for the purpose of facili- tating the Community and Seminary at Montreal. It was necessary that this donation should avail to the said Com- munity, and therefore, that it should be capable of holding property. It must have been capable of holding property, because by the Deed of 1696, the whole body of the Sul- picians made a donation of a considerable sum to be placed at interest, (p. 5.); and the same body in 1764 made OTcr to it all the property held by the Sulpicians in Canada, (in so far as need shall be, are the words of the Act) which property might have been sold by it. The Community in question must have been recognized as capable of holding property, because the Bishops of Canada by the Deed of 1696,' gave property to it jointly with the Corporation of the Sulpicians ; — and because (p. 5.) the said Bishops as early as 1678, united several Curacies to it. The Com- munity in question must have been recognized as capable ofholdingproperty, because (p. 4.) the Conseil Supcrievr I II 14 in the enregistration of the Letters Patent of 1714, calls it Seignior and Proprietor ; because the Court at Montreal in itsActsofenregistration declares the Letters Patent [which authorize the ^ulpicians to hold their property in Canada under certain charges] to be granted to the Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice established at Montreal, [p. 4.] The Commu- nity must have been recognized as capable of holding pro- perty, because the Conseil Superieur in eniegistering these Letters Patent for uniting the Curacies, declares them to be united to the Seminary of Montreal, [p. 5.] The Community must have been recognized as capable of hold- ing property, because the Governor and Intendant granted them the Seigniory du Lac, The Community must have been recognized as capable of holding property, becaiice in the Edict of 1693, and the instrument appointing a Greffier in the same year, the King of France recognizes the right of jurisdiction, and aftervrards the property of the Greffe. The Community must have been recognized as capable of holding property, because in 1702 the King unites and in- corporates several Curacies with the said Seminary, and gives the right of appointing the Incumbents to the said Se- minary. — The said Community must have been recognized as capable of holding property, because the Letters Patent of 1714 recognize the Seminary of Montreal as possessing a certain tract of enclosed ground. — The Community must have been recognized as capable of holding property, be- cause the Arrets of the King, in 1716 and 1722, recognize the Seminary of Montreal as possessing several Lots of ground,and as Seignior of the City and of the whole Island, and tax it accordingly for 40 years. — The Community 15 > calls it ntreal in [which Canada istics of yommu- ig pro- ig these them to 1 The 3f hold- granted 3t have aiice in Greffier e right Greffe. able of and in- y, and iid Se- gnized Patent sessing f must :y, be- ognize Lots of Island, munity must have been recognized as capable of holding property, for during 40 years, that is to say, until 1756, at least, the King made an annual allowance to it as appears by several receipts of the King's Commissioners. [ Otir »^rchwes]» — The said Community must have been recognized as capable of holding property, because after the Conquest the Go- vernment caused the Rent of the House in which the Greffe was held, to be paid to it for more than thirty years, and then returned the House to it, and returned also the minutes of the Greffe to it, and caused it to exercise the right of appointing a Greffier. — The Community must have been capable of holding property, when His Majesty re- ceived the Seminary to perform fealty and homage, declared it proprietor of certain Seigniories, and vested in it the pro- perty and possession of the same* A Corporation is in fact nothing more than a fictitious personage recognized by the Law, and possessing the pri- vileges enjoyed by persons and individuals in all cases where not expressly prohibited. (Domat. 11, page 104^. It is common to all Communities to have their rights, pow- er of transacting business, and privileges. (105.) Proper- ty may be bequeathed to any Community whatever. ( 1. 471.) A Community cannot even be established unless property is assigned to '' for its support. (Hericourt, H. 3. Art. 2 and 3)* — Therefore, as soon as a Corporation is established, it becomes capable of holding property by complying with the requisite conditions of the Law. Another difficulty is opposed, founded on the alledged impossibility of the existence of the Seminary, separated from the Corporation of the Sulpicians at Pari?. 16 % ^ ill , i I Seminary We answer : — First, That the legal existence of the Se- real exists binary is proved. It is urged in reply that it no longer has separated gy^h existence, since its separation from the Corporation Sulpicians of the Sulpicians at Paris. It is for those who alledge this of France, ^q prove it : — and as they do not prove it, we must conclude the Seminary of Montreal exists, although separated from the Corporation of the Sulpicians at Paris. — Secondly, It is a fact undisputed throughout Europe &,c., that not only has each of the Orders of the Francis-cans, the Domini- cans &c. a legal existence, but that each particular esta- blishment of the said Orders, is a legal Corporation as much as the entire Order. These Establishments have then two kinds of legal existence, the one as part of the Order, and the other as a separate Corporation, having its proper buildings &c. In this manner the Seminary of Montreal, in as far as it was a portion of the Order of St, Sulpice, existed before the Conquest, only as such portion of that Order ; but as a particular Seminary established at Montreal, it had a proper and peculiar existence, which made it a legally constituted corporation apart from the entire Order aforesaid. Thirdly, Before the issuing of the Letters Patent of 1677, the Ecclesiastics of the Order of St. Sulpice who came to perform duty at Montreal, exist- ed only as a portion of the Order of St. Sulpice, because no other legal Corporation had been formed of them. But when the Letters Patent of 1677 has constituted these Ec- clesiastics to be a Community and Seminary at Montreal, they certainly effected something : they established a Cor- poration and Community at Montreal, which did not pre- viously exist there, and they created a new legal Corpora- 17 the Se- iger has poration dge this onclude ;ed from idly, It Qot only Domini- lar esta- ation as its have rt of the aving its inary of er of St. I portion ished at , which rom the suing of le Order al, exist- because m. But ese Ec- Tontreal, i a Cor- not pre- [Jorpora- tion, that is,the Seminary of Montreal.This Corporation theft, has a legal existence independent of that which it has joint- ly with the rest of the Corporation of the Sulpicians. — Fourthly, If it were other wise, a Sovereign might forbid any union between the Communities within, and such por- tions of the same Communities as might be without, the limits of His Kingdom, and by this separation the Establish- ments of the several Religious Orders within His King- dom, would cease to exist, and would be annihilated. But the Communities in other States,being thus separated from the body of their several Orders within such Kingdom, would also cease to have any legal existence, and would be annihilated ; and thus, by a single word, a Sovereign might annihilate all the Religious Orders in the Universe. Who does not perceive the absurdity of all this ? There is but one way in which this mischief can be avoided ; and that is, by allowing that if any Prince forbids the Commu- nities within his Dominions to have any union with those in other States, the said Communities will still subsist, but will be separated from such portions of their body as may be in Foreign States ; any thing that happens in the latter, having no power to affect any institutions elsewhere. The separation then of the Seminary of Montreal from the Corporation of the Sulpicians at Paris, could not affect the legal establishment of the said Seminary, which would only be thereby deprived of its correspondence with the main body of the Order. Fifthly, These principles become still more evidently true, when we consider the nature of the French Government, under which no Community could be established by any Order without the express or implied r I ,! ■! !r i permisision of the Sovereign. Such Communities must there- fore always have had a separate existence distinct from that of the main body of their Order. Sixthly , If the Seminary of Montreal had never enjoyed any legal existence except as a portion of the Community of the Sulpicians of Paris, it is clear that it could only have existed through the latter. But the said Seminary has a legal existence independrmt of this. For though it is true that we find the Ecclesiastics of the Semina- ry of Montreal, called Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice of Paris, because that is the proper name of the whole Order of the Sulpicians, yet those of the Seminary at Paris were never called Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Montreal. The Superior Officers of the Seminary of Montreal are not the Superior Officers of the Seminary at Paris. The two bo- dies were then distinct, and had a separate existence, though both existed by competent authority ; so distinct was their existence, that the Seminary of Paris created that of Mont- real (80); that the Seminary at Paris owes its existence to Mr. Oilier, and that of Montreal did not exist until ten years after the death of Mr. Oilier ; that the Seminary at Paris exists by virtue of Letters Patent issued in 1645, and the Seminary of Montreal by Letters Patent issued in 1677, (80, 81). These two Corporations, then, being perfectly distinct, it is impossible to say that the one cannot exist without being united to the other. Seventhly, This sepa- rate existence is proved ; — because we have seen that the two Seminaries have entered into contracts with each other ; — ^because it was the Bishop of Quebec who united the Cu- racies to the Seminary of Montreal, and the concurrence of the Archbishop of Paris would have been necessary if 1i^ it there- om that inary of ept as a t is clear the said s. For Semina- 3f Paris, r of the re never il. The not the two bo- i, though v^s their )f Mont- itence to en years at Paris and the in 1677, perfectly lot exist lis sepa- that the 3h other ; 1 the Cu- •rence of >ssary if the Seminary of Montreal had not been capable of existing separately from that of Paris ; and because we have shewn that the Semmary of Montreal possesses the power of hold- ing property of itself, and Unconditionally. Eighthly, If the Seminaiy at Montreal had no legal existence, except by virtue of its union with the Seminary at Paris, it became by this union with a legally constituted body, a legally constituted body also, and there would then have been no need for Letters Patent to create it such, and those of 1677 were without effect. Ninthly, But these Letters Patent themselves furnish an answer to every objection. The question is, whether the Seminary at Montreal has any legal existence. It is clear that this question can only be answered by referring to the King's Act which gives this existence. Now the Letters Patent of 1677 are this Act. And what is their tenor ? That the Seminary shall cease to exist, ifby any event it shall be separated from the Corporation of St. Sulpice at Paris ? There is not a word to this eifect. The answer may be given in the trite maxim : " Ubi Lex non distinguit nee nos disiinguere debemus." The Letters Patent give existence to the Seminary at Montreal, purely and simply ; they have, therefore, their eifect whether it be united to or separated from the main body of the Sulpicians. Yet further, ev(5ry Community being perpetual, the King in establishing it, does it without any regard to any future events. In the event, therefore^ of a separation in the body of the Sulpicians, the Semi- nary of Montreal would nevertheless continue to exist. Not only is the legal existence of the Seminary of Montreal independent of its union with thcbodVofthe C >2<) Recapitu- lation. i- i 11 '1 •■ i 1 Sulpicians ; but by its separation from that body it obtains'tt new legal existence, as we have said and proved. — [p. 11.] How then does it happen that the Order of St. Sulpice could create a legally constituted body at Montreal ? — The answer is simple, and is this : The King gave it power to do so by the Letters Patent of 1677. — Being thus created it was recognized by the King as a Comnmnity, as we have proved : — after it was thus created, the King also bestowed on it the Gre^t', united Curacies to it,&-c. — In the event then of any separation in the main body of the Sul- picians, the Seminary of Montreal would continue to exist. The Seminary then is a legally constituted body, be- '^cause having existed before the declaration of 1643, it be- came legalized from that time forward by the IX. Article — because being a *S'eminary, it is exempted from the neces- sity of obtaining Letters Patent by the Ordinances of 1666 and 1659, and therefore its very existence, especially for so long a period, renders it legal ; — because the Bishop of Quebec and the Body of the Sulpicians w^ho were well acquainted with the nature of their Seminaries, have al- ways recognized that of Montreal as legally established ; — because the Governor and Intendant considered it capable of taking grants of Seigniories ; — because the Conseil Su- perieur enregi^tered the Letters Patent by which it was es- tablished, recognized it as Seignior and Proprietor, caused the Ordinances which concerned Comnmnities only to be notified to it, and enregistercd the Patents of the union of several Curacies to the said Seminary ; — because the King recognized this Comnmnity as established w ith his permis- sion, as capable of possessing a Crcffc, — of holding real ai ()l)tuiiis'« -[p.ll.] Sulpice ,1 ?— The power to s created y, as we jng also . — In the the Siil- ! to exist, body, be- 43, it be- L Article he iieces- s of 1666 (cially for Bishop of *\ere well , have al- lished ; — It capable 07iseil Su- it was es- )r, caused )nly to be 3 union of ; the Kinj^ is permis- Iding real properly, — of havin]and was a mere forest, this Jurisdiction formed the greater portion of the Revenue of the Seigniory. According then to the avowal thus made by ihe whole body of the Sulpicians, to whom the Donation was immediately made, the Seigniory constituted the endovment of the Se- minary of Montreal, for the support of which alone it is de- D 1 1 :^> I f 1 r 28 Qiared to have been received. The Donation then wa» made especially in favor of the Seminary of Montreal. The fKing, in the Edict, confirms this appropriation of the said Seigniory to the Seminary of Montreal, because in exchange for the Right of Jurisdiction, he gives to the said Seminary the property of the Greffe, In a great number of legal Instruments, the Seminary of Montreal takes the title of Seignior. (Our ArchiVeSi.) The Court at Montreal, in the enregistration of the Let- ters Patent of 1714, declares that they were granted to the Seminary of St. Sulpice. The Letters Patent which au- thorize on certain conditions the holding in mortmain of the property given by the Donation, are also in favor of the Seminary of Montreal : the said property is therefore, to be held in mortmain for it. The Conseil Superieur in homologating the said Letters Patent in 1717, styled the Seminary of St. Sulpice estab- lished at Montreal, " Seignior and Proprietor." Two Judgments also, rendered at Montreal, the one on the 25th of September 1 743, and the other on the 6th of March 1744, call the Seminary of Montreal, Seignior of the Island. And on the 26th March 1734, and 26th November 1734, the Intendants recognized the said Seminary ?is pro- prietor of the Greffe, which was only given to it in exchange for the Seigniorial Jurisdiction, as we have seen. Th's is certainly recognizing the Seminary to be the Seignior. We have also seen (p. 8.) that two Arrets of the King's Council of State, rendered in 1716 and 1 722, expressly re- cognize the Seminary of St. Sulpice established at Montreal, 29 eal. The the said !xchange seminary ninatry of \reSi) the Let- ed to the hich au* ain of the 3r of the ore, to be d Letters ze estab- le one on he 6th of lior of the Vovember ry as pro- exchange Th' S IS gnior. the King's pressly re- Montrealr « to be Seignior of the Town and of the whole Island, and lery upon it accordingly certain charges which were paid during forty years. This is equivalent to its being recognized as Seignior by the Kings of France, during a period of forty years. ff the Corporation of the Sul'picians takes the tide of Seignior, it does so for the advantage of the Seminary of Montreal, and as the Superior of that Seminary. But die property itself belongs to the said Seminary, because it was to perform the work, and the property was its endowment. Thus it was for the Seminary of Montreal and for its be- nefit, that the Corporation of the Sulpicians acted. That Corporation prayed for Letters Patent in 1677; but it was for the purpose of establishing the Seminary of Montreal, and of obtaining for it the power of holding in mortmain the property bestowed on it by the Donation. By the Edict of 1693, an indemnity is given to the Seminary for the Emoluments arising from its Seigniorial Jurisdiction ; but that indemnity is the property of the Greffe, which is vested in the Seminary of Montreal. The body of the Sulpicians demanded the union of several Curacies ; but it was for the purpose of incorporating them with the Seminary of Mont- real, and the right of appointing the Cures was given to its Superior. In the cession made in 1764, they take the title of proprietor for the sole purpose of giving every thing to the Seminary of Montreal; but they give it only in so far as need may be, and declare that the whole ought to belon{3 to ♦he Seminary of Montreal, and be appropriated to the pur- poses for which it was founded. Every thing thus de- monstrates that the Corporation of the Sulpicians was pro- Vi 15 r i Co-propri- etor. 30 prietor only in its quality of Superior over each of its several establishments ; (thus it was the Superiors of St. Sulpico who acted when the Scminarv itself did iict ;) but tl!..'. tI:o property itself, and the immediate right to it v,t.3 vcbl^d in the Seminary of Montreal, to be employed in the fui.hcr- ance of the objects for which it was founded. The SciVii- nary is the only particular establishment of the Sulpiciuns which has been styled Seignior of JMontreal, and the Supe- riors of the Order take that tide only because they are the Superiors of the Seminary of Montreal. But if the Seminary of Montreal had no other tide than that of co-proprietor, wiih the rest of the body of the Sul- picians, its right after the Conquest would not be the less incontestible. We prove this, fourthly, by the nature of co-proprietor- ship. In fact, if that portion of the Sulpicians in Canada lose their right to the property in Canada, of which they were co-proprietors, it must be because the other portion remai- ning in France, arc become Aliens. But in that case the portion of the Sulpicians in France would air 3 have lost their right to the property of the Order in France, of which they were co-proprietors, because the other portion of their body remaining in Canada, had had also become Aliens, as far as France was concerned. Yet no attempt has ever been made in France to forfeit the property held in France by the Sulpicians there. There is therefore no reason to take away from the Sulpicians in Canada the property of the Sulpicians there. For if the contrary were admitted, the property which belonged to the Order of the Rccollcts, 31 ts several :. SuIpicG tt tli...;. the vGst-jd in e fui .lior- 'he SciVii- ^ulpiciuns the Supe- ?y are the title than f the Sul- ot be the )roprietor- anada lose they were ticn remai- at case the ) have lost e, of which ion of their i Aliens, as it has ever 1 in France ) reason to property of I e admitted, e RccollctSi or of the Jesuits, in Canada, would be lost to the Members of thcss Orders in Canada, and that which belonged to tlicin in France, in Spain, &c. v/ould be also lost to the l.lembcis oftlie said Orders remaining in France, in Spain, &c. So that the conquest of a few Colonies or a few Pro- vinces, would strip all the Religious Orders in the world of their property, and would annihilate them. These are the strange paradoxes to which the idea that the Seminaiy ought to be despoiled of its property, would lead. What has been the conduct of England in India, in Cor- sica, in Malta, &lc. ? She has maintained to the several Religious Communities their property and establishments in these countries, without enquiring whether the latter belong- ed to the body of the Order remaining elsewhere. The rest of the Order being Aliens, have been supposed to have no longer any right to the property, if they ever had any ; and that those of the Order who remained on the spot were the only persons who ought to enjoy the property as represent- ing their absent Brethren : the sole interest of the Govern- ment being the exclusion of Foreigners subject to other Powers. This is what was done by the King of Prussia after the Conquest of Silesia, except in instances where he wished absolutely to sup'press Communities by virtue of the right of Conquest. This is also what has been done by se- veral Catholic Sovereigns, who, contenting themselves with having Superior-Generals in France, have allowed the par- ticular eijtablishments to enjoy their property, without en- quiring whether it belonged to the Order in general, the Superiors of which did not reside in France. The reason is, that the essence of these establishments is, that the pro- 1! *r I \m m .1; UP Biv ' i-i' I l:i! petty should be etnpbyed in furtheranee of di« work, and In ^e support of the Institution by which it is to be perform- ed* The rest belongs to the internal Government of the Order in which the members alone ere interested. Thus the Government, without enquiring whether the property of the Bulpicians belongs to the whole body, has but one thing to attend to ; and that is, that the work is performed, that the Seminary of Montreal performs it out of the pro- ceeds of the said property, and ih'A no stranger makes any elaim upon the latter. What has been the effect of th© Conquest 1 The Sulpi- cians of France lost their rights by it ; but the Sulpicians of Montreal being subjects of the King, have lost nothing They are then, co-proprietors as before ; but the Sulpicians ©f France being now incapacitated from being co-proprie- tors, the Sulpicians of Montreal remained the sole proprie- tors* The property belonging to the Sulpicians not being capable of being possessed by some portions of them who have been incapacitated, naturally falls to those who remain cg^pable of holding it ; and the effect of this is to preserve the said property for the purposes for which it is destined. Jn truth, if one moiety of a Community becomes incapa- ble of holding any property, the other moiety will possess the whole ; because the change in the number and quality qf the members makes no change In tho Community itself, which exists as before in the persons of those v/ho stiU re- tain the necessary capacity. If Members incapable of holding property were admitted into a Community, Aat Cwnmunity will still hold it In the persons of the members Vfho are aot incapacitated; the latter are in the ease of the Sulpicians of Montreal. Frame others party adopt possei nada^ qualiti Ift] then* ] shouk inPrs more Conqi theT and 01 which Franc of nee with tance than legal. ; Fil the cernd fact, Fran if the raeKt 33 >rk, And tn \ perfonn- mt of the d. Thus roperty of s but one )erformed, the pro- nakes any I he Sulj^' Ipicians of 8t nothing Sulpicians ;o-proprie- Je ppoprie- 9 not being them who K^ho remain to preserve s destined, (les incapa* vill possess and quality unity itself, vhostiU re- capable of nunity, di£it te members ease of Hie SupfKfse a family to p(>s!fess in colnmon, property hi FF8nic« and in Canada. Some of them remain in France^ ethers in Canada. It m clear, that after the Conquest each party will poises the' property in the Country which tbey adopt This is the cai^e of the Sulpicians : those of France possess the property ctS the Order in France^ those in Ca* nada^ that which i» in Candda, by virtue of their reipcictiti qioalitiei^ as subjects in cnt Coutitry, ind Aliens in the other. If the King of France had ditided Ib6 Sulpkians and tbeh' property into two portions ; so that those in Canada should have posseiSded the property in Canada, and those in France the property irt France ; nothing cctuldhave beeft more legal. What the King of Fraoice did not dOf the Conquest did. The Conquest, Which k the Law of Nations ^ the Treaty of Peace which is the act of two Sovereigns and of two Nations^ the genera! Law with regard to Aliens, which annuls any ri^ on the part of the SuTpiciaRS of France to the property in Canada, and vice versa, the La^^r of necessity, which is the firs€ of Laws; the general usag6 with regard to conquered Countries in similar circtnns- tances (as we have proved, p. 29): — these are surely more than Laws enough to? render the separation in quesJiion legal. i Fiftiilyy We prove the right of the Seminary from The gifljl- the feet that it has betome as far as Canada is eon- ""y 't,*^® whole Cor- cerned, the whole Corporation d' the Sulpicians^ Inporaiion of fact, all that happens with regard to the Sulpicians in St^ Sulpice France is foreign to our Government, they are to it as if they were extmct, or had never existed. The Gtorctn- meiit knows none but the Sulpicians of Ca«Ada,who,^as ht 34 Will urn 1 I? u t as it is concerned, form the whole body of the Order. The Sulpicians of France not being subjects of the King, they cannot be any portion of the Corporation of the Sulpicians in Canada; they are in the sama situation as children inca- pable of inheriting who are accounted for nothing — jyronvllis habcntur. (Ferri^re Grand Cout. Vol. 1. page 362, No. 8). The Sulpicians of Canada constitute then to all intents and purposes the whole body of the Sulpicians. They would be so according to the Rules of the Order, if all the Sulpicians of France were separated from the Order ; and the conquest has as effectually separated them as their will could have done. By this separation then, whether voluntary or forced, the Sul- picians of Canada are become the whole Corporation of St. Sulpice in Canada. They would be so if all the Sul- picians of France were dead ; and by virtue of the Con- quest they are all dead to Canada. Therefore the Sulpi- cians of Canada are here the whole Corporation of the Sulpicians. Therefore the Donation having been made to the Corporation of the. Sulpicians, is, by virtue of the Con- quest, made to the Sulpicians of Canada, that is, to the Seminary of Montreal. Sixthly: We prove the right of the Seminary by the Conquest. Conquest. It is a principle, that Conquest leave all things in the state in which it finds them, unless the conquering party makes any change. — A Conquest mor ^ especially leaves each individual in possession of his property. The Capi- tulation has done more ; it was agreed by it, (Ait. 34,) " that all the Communities shall preserve the property and " revenues of the Seigniories and other Ei.tates which they 35 ler. The ing, they ulpicians ren inca- pro nvllis 2, No. 8). tents and uld be so piciansof iquest has ave done. 1, the Sul- oration of the Sul- the Con- the Sulpi- on of the n made to ' the Con- is, to the in by the ngs in the Ting party illy leaves The Capi- (Art. 34,) 3perty and ivhich they (( " possessed in the Colony, of what nature soever they might be ; and that the same Estates should be preser- " ved in their rights, privileges, and exemptions." Ac- cording to the Laws of Conquests then, and more especial- ly those which relate to property, the Seminary preserved its property &c, by the terms of the Capitulation. But the Seminary enjoyed the Revenues of the property of the Sul- picians, therefore it has the same right now. — But it enjoy- ed more especially that property which it held in conunon with the Sulpicians of France, as we have already shewn, (p. 28.) It has then always been co-proprietor of the said property. But the Sulpicians of France are no longer ca- pable of holding the said property, — none but Sulpi- cians can come into their place, and no Sulpicians but those of Canada, who, therefore having been formerly co-pro- prietors, are become by virtue of the Capitulation which excludes those of France, sole proprietors of the property of St. Sulpice in Canada. One consideration which it is important to bear in mind, is, that if it be argued that the Sulpicians of Montreal lost their quality of a Community and their property, by becom- ing subjects of the King, it must be allowed that having become Aliens as to France, they have also lost their right to be members of the Corporation of the Sulpicians ii France, and to the property of the Order there. On the contrary, if they had left Canada, they would have pre- served all their rights in France ; and as the treaty of Peace authorized them to sell, they would also have preserved the , value of their property in Canada. Such is the condition which it is attempted to attach to the quality of a British E >- I : ■i It 1 i ;j I. 1 ' ?>■■ K "i 5^' ■' si;- ■ I' ri 36 subject. By refusing it, every thing would liave been gained, estate and property, in France and in Canada ; by accepting it, every thing is to be lost, estat*^ and property, in France and in Canada; such are the sad consecjuen- ces of the attack made upon the Community and pro- perty of die Seminary of Montreal. Acts of Seventhly : We prove the right of die Seminary by means ^'"^^°^'*''''"' of divers Acts of the Government. The Government (as merit. . ^ we said before) paid the Rent of the house in which the Greffe was held, during thirty years. It caused the Minu- tes of the Greffe to be returned to the Seminary. It caused the Grefficr to be named by the Seminary ; all these Acts are connected with the right of the Seminary to the pro- perty aforesaid, and to the Greffe which it received in exchange for the Seigniorial jurisdiction, by the Edict of 1693. fValiy anil Eighthly : We prove the same thing by the Fealty and Homage, jjomage rendered by the Seminary to the King in 1781. In order to learn the effect of this ceremony, let us con- sult certain Law Authors. — Pothicr (V. page 70, edition in 4to.) says that by this ceremony, "the Fief that was " vacant ceases to be so, the Vasscil being invested by the " Seignior." At page 71, he says that the Vas.sal would have the right of complaint, if he was afterwards troubled by the Seignior, or in any other way, in die possession of his Fief. Blackstone (Vol. 3. chap. 15, French edition) says, in speaking of the Law with regard to Aliens, that to be entitled to exercice>thc right of forfeiture it is necessary that the Seignior should not previously have done any de- rogatory Act, such as that of receiving Fealty and Homage, ii; I, 1 37 ve been ada ; by :)rc)perty, nsc(|ucn- and pi'O- 3y means inient (as ivhich the he Minu- It caused lese Acts the pi'o- ceived in Edict of ^ealty and n 17SI. et us con- [), edition ['that was ted by the >sal would s troubled session ol" h edition) ns, that to necessary B any dc- l Homage, for in Uiat case it would be presumed that he had rccc- gnized the right of the Alien who rendered it. Ferri^re (Grand Coutu. Vol. 1, page 127, No. 3,) says " The per- " formance of Fealty and Homage gives no title to the "Fief, but is an art of use, execution and possession, " which forms a presumption against either the Vassal or " the Seignior. Hcricourt ; (H. 11. Art. 61.) The Sei- " gnior after having received persons holding in mortmain " to perform Fealty and Homage, cannot afterwards oblige " them to dispossess themselves of the property." Le Dictionnaire de Justice, (in three Volumes, verba, Foi et Homage) says that this ceremony is a token of the pro- tection which the Seignior owes to his Vassal. Blackstone (Vol. 2, page 302,) says that the obligation is reciprocal, and that if the Vassal was obliged to serve, he had a right to full protection in return. According to Pothier then, the King could not disturb the Seminary in the possession of its Seigniories, and ac- cording to Hericourt, he could not oblige it to dispossess itself of them. According to Ferriere, then, the perfor- mance of Fealty and Homage afibrds a proof for the Semi- nary, and against the King. — According to Blackstone then, the King could not enforce any claim against the right of the Seminary as an Alien, but would be under the neces- sity of acknowledging it to be the legitimate proprietor, even if the property had been originally usurped by it. According to Pothier then, the vacant Fief has been filled by the act of the King, who has invested the Seminary with it. According to Blackstone then, and the Didiaii- naire de Justice, the King is even bound to piotcct the So 38 I 1:1 ¥i minary in the pcssessior of its Seigniories. — (We bring forward our claims upon Hk Majesty with confidence, be- cause it is from Him that we derive them.) But it will perhaps be said that this performance of Fealty and Homage gives no title. We answer — the King has received this Fealty and T^^mp.ge, and has recognized the right of property in the Seminary ; — He must, there- fore, have found that it had both the power of holding the property and a legal title to it, which is all that is neces- sary for holding it. And if the King is satisfied, who shall contest this right ? — When the King, who alone is inte- rested, recognizes and certifies the right of the Seminary, who shall complain 1 — When the King, does not hold his authority to be violated, who shall assert that it is attacked? — If any thing more were necessary we might say, that the King to whom the ancient Titles, Donations, Letters Patent &c. were presented, found that they were applicable to the Seminary of Montreal (as we have proved them to be) - He found that the Seminary as co-proprietor, possessed by virtue of ancient Letters Patent : He found that being CO proprietor, it was not necessary that new Letter" Patent were in any wise necessary : — and this was so clear that the King exacted none of those dues which are payable on mu- tation, and the Inbaniment mentions no such dues. By the act of receiving Fealty and Homage, the King has not only admitted that the ancient Titles ought to a- vail to the Seminary : but this act forms of itself the strong- est tide according to the authors above citeci, ^o strong indeed that the right of the Seminary cannot be afterwards disputed by the King himself, nor can the Seminary be i I \ ry^ 39 Ve bring ence, be- nance of -the King icognized 5t, there- )lding the is neces- who shall 3 is inte- ^eminary, t hold his attacked ? , that the ?rs Patent iicable to em to be) possessed bat being jr« Patent \r that the le on mu- the King ight to a- le strong- '0 strong ifterwards ainary be 1 f; I 4 compelled by the King to dispossess itself of the property ; it must be recognized as the proj/rietor, even if its posses- sion had not before been lawful^ it is put in possession and invested with it by the King himself : to put into posses- sion is to do more than give, and yet if the King had given the property, it is certain that no Letters Patent would have been required. So strong is the Title thus given, that the King is not only bound to allow the Seminary to enjoy the property, but also to protect it in that enjoyment. Ninthly : We prove the right of the Seminary by the Cession. Cession of 1764, although this proof be in no wise necessa- ry, after all those which we have already given. It is a principle of the Feudal Law, that Lods et Ventes &c. are not due when persons holding property in common sell to each other, because there is no mutation. The cession th ^'n, having been made by the Sulpicians to those who held the property in common with them, there was no mutation of Proprietors, and consequently no Letters Pa- tent 'vere in any wise necessary. Such are the principles applicable to Lands held in mort- main, as may be seen bv an Arret in 1724. (Vol. 3. des Amortissemens, p. 498). The cause related to an exchange made between the Chapter and a Chaplain of St. Germain. The Chapter and the Chaplain maintained that they form- ed part of the ^ame corporation, and that therefore as there was no change of proprietors, there was no real exchange : The Lessee of the Seigniorial Dues maintained that the matter related to property held individually, and not in common, and that therefore there was a change of proprie- tors, and consequently a real exchange, — The principle if 40 therefore was admitted on both sides that whore the pro- perty was common to both parties, there could be no real exchange, because there was no change of proprietor. — The property of the Sulpicians in Canada, being therefore common to all the Sulpicians, the cession of it elfected no change of proprietor. — Consequently no dues of mortmain could take place neither could Letters Patent authorizing the holding of the property in mortmain become neces- sary. • But what is this cession ?— It is in fact a partition of pro- perty between the Sulpicians in France and those in Cana- da.- — Before the ccntiuest, both of them possessed in com- mon the property of the Order in the two countries. The conquest made the two portions of the members of that Order, foreia;ners with reirard to each of the Governments respectively, and therefore necessarily separated themi. — The property therefore was necessarily divided also. This was the effect of the cession. By it the Sulpicians of France abandoned all their property in Canada in favoi of those at Montreal, and thus renounced the right of selling it which the Treaty of Peace had given them. The Sul- picians of Canada in their tir-n and b} an Instrument bear- ing the same date, ceded certain Rents secured on the Ho- tel de Ville at Paris, of which they might have retained pos- session. — They did not cede their right to the other proper- ty of the Sulpicians in France, because by becoming Bri-j tish subjects they had lost all right to them. In this man- ner a complete partition took place. The properly in France remained with the Sulpicians in PVance, and that in Canada v,ith the Sulpicians in Canada. But this parti- {( a ply- r< "1 n u B the pro- )e no real prietor. — iherefore ftected no mortmain luthorizing | ne neces- ion of pro- e in Cana- .d in com- ries. The ers of that overnments ed them. — also. This ulpicians of in fa vol of t of selling The Sul- imcnt bear- on the Ho- 'tained p os- ier proper- oniing Bri- n this man- iroperty in ;e, and that tliis parti- 41 tion which the conquest had rendered necessary and legal, is strictly according to the rules of Jurisprudence develop- ed by the judicious autlior of the JJictiomiaire (hi Domaine. In treating of a partition made betv»een an Abbot and the Monks — he says, " up to the time of the partition, each " had part of an undivided right to the whole proper- " ty ; so that the whole belonged to him generally, aUhough *' no part belonged to him in particular." (Vol. 2, p. 417, 1st column.) The partition being made, it does not of it- self give occasion to any Seigniorial dues, which are occa- S'onrH by mutations only. — Before the pavtition each por- ti . ', AC Sulpicians had part of an undivided right to the whole. After it, as tliere was no mutation, there v.as no change of Proprietor, nor any necessity for Letters Patent. So also (5, 9nd Col.) " No mortmain dues would ac- " crue on any partition between the Abbott and the " Monks,if it were pure and simple." Therefore in the case under consideration, die partition being pure and simple, no mortmain dues accrued: L^nd therefore no Letters Patent authorizing the holding of the property in mortmain were necessary The ai.t • - ',i os a reason Ibrtliis v.hich admits of no re- ply — " The ]). inert}' held in common by die Abbey or " Convent, belongs to the Abbot and (he Monks, who by " the original authorization to hold inn ortrnain are become " reciprocally capacitated to hold each his portion. They " may therefore put an end to the community of their rights " by a ; I'vtition by which each shall be enabled to enjoy " his sJw; 3 sepM-ately, and in diis case no mortmain dues " would accrue." (426, 2nd col.) If the authoiization to Partition made. ^ 42 I ■■V * J. !i ' i ! i Jf il ';^f ■i^ [| 1 1 (3 f 1* hold in mortmain be required, — it has already been given, the original authorization has rendered all the Sulpicians capable of possessing each his portion whenever a partition is effected. The Titles then of the Seminary, as founded on the cession or partition, are the ancient Letters of mort- ! main, those of 1617, and of 1714. This, says M. Dupin in his opinion^ is a partition render- ed necessary by circumstances, and which does not create any new righ^ but declares and determines rights to pro- perty which was befc ' \>. divided ; and the sole effect of the cession has been, to cCtermine what part of the pro- perty heretofore held in common, is to belong hereafter to the Seminary of Montreal. That which completes the demonstration of the validity of the cession, is, that the King approved it by receiving Fealty and Homage ; and so clearly approved it that be has recognized and recorded the right of the Seminary in the act of receiving Fealty and Homage. By not re- ceiving any mutation fine, the King acknowledged that none was due, and therefore that there was no change of Proprietor,' and this was acknowledging that no Letters Pat3nt were necessary. The King thus removed the diffi- culty from the very beginning, by showing that no Letters Patent were necessary in cjnsequencfe of the said c^^sion. He approved the cession, and as he alone was interested in proving it invalid for the purpose of acqui;ing the pro- perty which would have been forfeited, he a'c ne is entitled to complain, if his au.hcrization was necessary, and through neglect had not been demanded. Let us recall the circumstances under which the cession was (( 43 en given, Sulpicians a partition s founded 's of mort- Dn render- lot create s to pro- le effect of of the pro- ; hereafter the validity y receiving that be has inary in the | J not re- :?dged that ► change of no Letters !d the diffi- no Letters id c^'sion. interested ig the p ro- is entitled ssary, and Jie cession was made, in order to understand the consideration which belongs to it, and the august authorities by which it is supported. By the Treaty of Peace, the Sulpicians were allowed eighteen months to dispose of their property in Canada. But by the Donation' of 1663, and the Letters Patent of ^617, the said property was to be vested in the corporation of the Sulpicians for ever. The sole manner in which this right of selling (or of ceding) could be recon- ciled with the conditions of the Donation and of the Letters Patent, was by a cession from the Sulpicians of France to those of Canada. By this means the Sulpicians of France enjoyed the right given them by the Treaty, while at the same time the conditions of the Donation and Letters Pa- tent were complied with, and in the only possible manner. The cession being made to the Sulpicians of Canada, the corporation of St. Sulpice continued to enjoy the property through its members, who themselves became a corporation. The cession then was the execution of the Treaty of Peace and of the Letters Patent. How can it be possible, that by petty subtleties an act performed under authority so imposing should be set aside ? The following is another of these circumstances. In -pjjg -^ov^X March 1764, the Superior of the Sulpicians received the Pioi»ise. following Letter from Mr. de Guerchi, the French Ambas- sador at London: — -" Lord Halifax has told me that His Britannic Majesty consents that the Priests of the Semi- nary of Montreal, shall continue to enjoy the Real Pro- " perty belonging to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, and situ- *' ate in Canada, but without depending in any way upon " the Seminary at Paris." This Letter was the result of a <( (( 44 a ^: p' meeting of the Council, called by the King, with reference to Canadian affairs. (The proof of the fact here asserted v/ill be found in the Archives of Government at London, where it will be easy to verify it.) A short time after this, on the 29th of April 1 764, the cession took place, and de- monstrated that the dependence of the Seminary of Mont- real had ceased to exist, according to the wish of the Gov- ernment. The promise thus made by the King, and the cession, form together an agreement by which the Sulpi- cians renounce their right of selling, and the King binds himself to allow the Seminary of Montreal to enjoy the pro- perty. And now that the Sulpicians have fulfilled their en- gagements, can it be wished that the King should not per- form his ? — We entertain other ideas with regard to His Majesty's gracious promises. It may perhaps be asked whether the Seminary of Mont- real was so far a portion of the corporation of the Sulpi- cians, as to be regarded as co-proprietor of the property of that body. There can be no doubt that it was. The Letters Patent of 1677 permit the corporation of the Sulpicians to estab- lish a Seminary at Montreal. (Loix du pays,'60.) Now it is evident that it could establish nothing but a community of its own body. The Letters Patent set forth that in con- sequence of the good which the Ecclesiastics of the Semi- nary at Paris had done at Montreal, that the King is willing that they should erect a community and Seminary at the latter place, and it is clear that the intention was that those who had commenced the good work should continue it for ever, in an establishment permanently attached to the place. t n. ( 111 45 reference e asserted London, after this, , and de- of Mont- ' the Gov- and the the Sulpi- iing binds )y the pro- d their en- d not per- ;ard to His y of Mont- the Sulpi- jroperty of ters Patent 5 to estab- ^0.) Now community hat in con- 'the Semi- g is willing ary at the I that those tiniie it for ) the place. ^ It was therefore the Ecclesiastics of the same Seminasj who were to compose the new Community at Montreal. — In confirmation of this, it appears by the Lettres de Ttrrier of 1695 and 1724, and by the Letters Patent for the union of the Curacies (304, &c.) that the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice had erected a Seminary at Mont- real by the King's permission. There can be no doubt that they did not establish a community and Seminary of any other corporation. And whenever any favor was to be asked of the King, the Petition, (always in the name of the parties interested) was made by the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary at Paris, (p. 6.) that is, by the Superiors of the Order who petitioned on behalf of an Establish- ment belonging to their Order. We have also an infinite number of ancient and authen- tic Instruments in which the Priests of the Seminary of Montreal take the quality of Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris. And this fact is so well ascertain- ed, that the Crown OflScers admitted it in 1789, and proved it by divers other Instruments in their hands. It was from the Seminary at Paris that all the Priests of the Order were sent to the several communities of the Sulpicians ; they were therefore members of that Seminary. The rea- son was, that the Order was erected into a corporation un- der the name of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, which was necessary, that Seminary being then the only one which it possessed. When it had increased, it sent out Priests to found new Establishments in Canada, &,c. These Priests, therefore, were and continued to be Priests of St. Sulpice at Paris. From this circumstance all the I Ml J 1i I if lit If lis- p:r n^ 46 members of the Order have constantly been called Priests or Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, or more shortly, Priests or Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice ; and the name which has been constantly given to the Seminary at Montreal is " The Seminary of St, Sulpice established at Mcmtrealy* in the Instruments above cited and passed in 1693, 1702, 1716, 1722, &,c. (Letters Patent and Arrets of the Kings of France). And it is also attested by an au- thentic Instrument passed by the Superiors of the Sulpicians, that all the Sulpician Priests were of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, and were all co-proprietors of the proper- ty of the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary at St. Sulpice at Paris. It is then demonstrated that the Ecclesiastics of the Se- minary of Montreal, were Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, both by the Letters Patent of 1677, and by the Lettres de Terrier ; and by a crowd of other In- struments in which they take that quality, and by the admis- sion (and the reason assigned for it) made by the Crown Officers in 1789, in their papers against the Seminary; and by the place (the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris) in which the Sulpician Priests were ordained, and whence they were sent to the several establishments of the Order ; and by the name under which the Order was established ; and by the evidence of the Superiors of the Order them- selves, upon a matter which was within their competency only and perfectly foreign to all who did not belong to their body The Seminary of Montreal then was, by virtue of its said quality, co-proprietor of the property of the Sulpicians in Canada, without any prejudice to the individual rights which we have demonstrated to belong to it* a fr. 47 jd Priests Paris, or Dice; and Seminary blished at passed in nd Arrets by an au- Sulpicians, ary of St. lie proper- ce at Paris. of the Se- jminary of ; of 1677, )f other In- the admis- the Crown unary ; and Paris) in nd whence the Order ; stablished ; ►rder them- ;ompetency 3ng to their virtue of its Sulpicians Idual rights Prom ignorance of these facts arises the error of many persons, who not being aware of the nature of the Order in question, have not perceived the right which the Semi- nary of Montreal possessed, as co-proprietor at least, even before the Conquest, nor the extension of that righr at the conquest by the exclusion of the Sulpicians of France : And who confounding the cession of 1764, with a Donation from one establishment of an Order to another (which is always liable to difficulty,) have not perceived that this was a cession made to co-proprietors, or rather a partition of pro- perty among those who had before held it in common. But the Government taking a clearer and more elevated view of the subject, saw all this, and recognized the Semi- nary as Proprietor, notwithstanding the interest of the Government to the contrary, and notwithstanding the opinion of its Officers for the time being. ..^-^t be now asked, what is the title of the Seminary, Fifteen ti- we answer: Its title is, the Donation itself, made to thepf^^'jj'g^sg. Sulpicians, in consideration of work to be done on the minaiy of spot (even accordmg to the admission of the Crown Offi- cers in 1789) and which ought therefore to avail to those Sulpicians who perform that work on the spot. — Its title is, this Donation, made to the Sulpicians for ever, and which cannot after the conquest have any effect, except in| favor of the Sulpicians of Montreal. — Its tide \s, the Letters Patent of 1677, which confirm the Donadon according to its tenor, and therefore (as will appear from what we have said) in favor of the Sulpicians of Mont- real. — Its tide is, the said Letters Patent, which declare the said property to belong inalienably to the Sulpicians 48 I I :' 11 i r for ever, and therefore at the conquest to have fallen to the Sulpicians of Montreal alone. — Its title is, the same Letters Patent which declare the said property irrevoca- bly dedicated toGodj they belong therefore no longer to men: " they cannot belong to the King,"said Governor Haldimand, who received the Fealty and Homage of the Seminary. — Its title is, the Letters Patent or rather the Edict of 1714, which confirmed the Letters Patent of 1677, in favor of the Sulpicians and with new privileges. — Its title is, that this property forms the special endowment of the Seminary of Montreal, recognized by the corporation of the Sulpi- cians, and by divers acts of the Kings of France, the Edict of 1693, Arrets of 1716 and 1722, &c.— Its title is, its qua- lity of co-proprietor with the Sulpicians of France, who be- coming Aliens by the conquest, left the Seminary of Mont- real sole proprietor. — Its title is, the custom of Conquest, which is that the property of any Order should without any legal proceeding remain to the Establishments of that Order on the spot. — Its tide is, that as the property be- longed to the Order of the Sulpicians, and there were in Canada no others of that Order except those of the Semi- nary of Montreal (as has been proved,) it follows that all the property of the Order belongs to the Seminary of Mont- real. — Its title is, a cession which having been made of pro- perty held in common, operates no mutation according to the feudal law ; and when there is no change of proprietors, there is no necessity for Letters Patent. — Its title is, a cession, which not only according to the feudal law, but also according to the law regulating mortmain, produces no mortmain dues, and consequently renders Letters Patent 49 fallen to he same rrevoca- r lo men: ildimand, eminary. Edict of , in favor le is, that Seminary ic Sulpi- the Edict s, its qua- , who be- of Mont- Conquest, d without nts of that perty be- e were in the Semi- ws that all yofMont- ide of pro- cording to roprietors, title is, a ,1 law, but 'oduces no ters Patent not necessary for holding the property m mortmain. — Its title is, a cession which is an actual partition between the corporation of the Sulpicians, and the corpora- tion of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Montreal, a parti- tion of property held in common, or of which each party was capable of holding its own portion by virtue of the pri- mitive power given them to hold it in mortmain (as we have proved): a cession which is therefore authorized by the Letters Patent of 1677, which originally authorized the holding of the property in mortmain. — Its title is, the said cession which was adjudged to be good by the King him- self (through his Representative) and under which the Seminary was by the reception of Fealty and Homage, recognized as proprietor either because the King deemed that Letters Patent were not necessary in transactions between co-proprietors ; or that the ancient Letters Patent were applicable to such transactions ; or that to place the Seminary in possession (and thereby to do more than give them the property) was equivalent to a Royal Grant, with regard to which Letters Patent are not necessary. — >Its tide is, the cession aforesaid which establishes the absence of all dependence of the Seminary of Montreal on the cor- poration of the Sulpicians in France ; and the consequent validity of the promise of the King to the French Ambassa- dor, that the Seminary of Montreal should enjoy the pro- perty of ihe Sulpicians, on condition that it should be in- dependent of the Seminary of Paris. — And if any doubt could yet remain, its tide is founded on possession, which according to the principles of law would remove all doubt ; for its tide is in fine, a possession of nearly 1 70 years, 90 t lis ;)■' .1 . ] It !| 1 1 , -■ ;f !•' |("; 50 in its quality of co-proprietor, and 80 in its quality of proprietor. Let us close this paper by an argument which must strike any judicious man. The Seminary of Montreal claims to be proprietor of the property it possesses ; some persons pretend that this property belongs to the King. In this contestation an Arbitrator is chosen, and that Arbitrator is the King himself. Certainly those who support His Majesty's claims will not recuse him ; the Seminary with full confidence in his justice consents to this, that is to say, consents that its august opponent shall be the Judge. The Judgment has been pronounced : — it was rendered by the King's Representative, and for a period of nearly 60 years it has never been reversed by His Majesty. — By a solemn act, (that of receiving Fealty and Homage) the Governor, in the King's name, recognized, declared and certified un- der his hand, that iho property was vested in the Semi- nary of Montreal. Who shall call in question so noble a decision? N. B. — When in the citations made in this paper, the page only of the Loix du Canada is mentionned, the offi- cial work, intituled, " Edits, Ordonnances Royaux et Arrets " du Conseil d'Etat du Roi concemant le Vanadaf** is in- tended to be pointed out. juality of lich must Montreal es ; some King. In Arbitrator pport His nary with ,t is to say, idge. The ed by the 60 years it a solemn Governor, grtified un- the Semi- n so noble paper, the d, the offi- }ix et Jirets %da,'^ is in-