IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
^/
:^
11.25
■tt|21 lU
itt Uii 122
S D4 ■■■
« US 12:0
WMU
lU 11.6
FhotogFaphic
.Sciences
Corporation
^
39 WiST MAIN STMfT
wnSTni,N.Y. l4StO
{7Xt) %n-4S03
(i
CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(Monograplis)
ICMH
Collection de
microfiches
(monographies)
Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa
f\e\
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notts techniques et bibliographiques
Thfl
tot
The Institute has attentpted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any
of the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming, are
checked below.
D
Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagie
n
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou peliiculit
□ Cover title missing/
Le
titre de couverture manque
Coloured maps/
Caites giographiques en couleur
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
D
□ Coloured
Encre de
D
n
n
n
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur
Bound with other material/
Relie avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge interieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may appear
within the text. Whenever possible, these have
been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas ete filmies.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplementaires:
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il
lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet
exemplaire qui sont peut4tre uniques du point de vue
bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image
reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification
dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^
ci-dessous.
□ Coloured pages/
Paget de couleur
□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagies
□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dteolories, tacheties ou piquees
□ Pages detached/
Pages ditachtes
Showthrough/
Transparence
Quality of print varies/
Qualite in^gale de I'impression
The
poa
oft
filiT
Ori]
beg
the
sior
othi
first
sior
oril
n
□ Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue
□ Includes index(es)/
Comprend un (des) index
Title on header taken from:/
Le titre de I'en-tlte provient:
□ Title page of issue/
Page de titre de la livraison
□ Caption of issue/
Titre de depart de la
The
shal
TIN
whi
IVIaf
diffi
enti
begl
righ
reqi
met
depart de la livraison
i/
Generique (periodiques) de la livraison
I I Masthead/
This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est filme au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous.
^2^ ^*X 18X
22X
26X
XX
/
12X
16X
20X
24 X
28X
22X
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
BibiiothAque nationale du Quebec
L'excmplaire fiim6 fu* 'eproduit grAce i la
g4n6rosit6 de:
Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec
The images appearing here ere the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in Iceeping with the
filming contract specifications.
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 w'th a printed or lliustreted 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.
ly^aps, 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 a.id top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettet^ de i'axemplaire fiim«, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sont film6s en commen9ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d Impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires
originaux sant film6s en commen9ant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illuetratlon et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur ia
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le
symbols V signifie "FIN".
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
filmAs d des taux de reduction diffArents.
Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seui ciichA, ii est film6 d partir
de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas. en prenant ie nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
lie
^Hili
Judyinent of ihe Lords of the Judicial Ccmmitlee of the Privy Qmncil on the
Appeal ./ Dame Henriette Brown v. Lea Curt et Margidlliera de t (Eavre
et Fair nine de Notre-Duiue de MontrM, from Canada ; delivered 2U/
NooemUr, 1874.
Present :
Lord Selborne.
Sjk James W. Col vile.
Sir Robert Piiillimore.
Sir Barnes Peacock.
Sir Montacutk Smith.
Sir Robert P. Collier.
THIS is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court orQueen's Bench for
the Province of Quebec, in Canada, confirming Judgment oftEe Court of Re-
view, which latter reversed a Judgmehtf^f the Superior Court in First Instance.
The question which was the subject of these different Judgments related to
the burial of the remains of Joseph Guibord, one of Her Majesty's Roman Catho-
lic subjects, who died at Moijtreal on the 18th of November, 1869.
His widow and representative, Dame Henrittte Brown, instituted and pro-
secuted the suit in the Canadian Courts, and was also the original Appellant
before their Lordships. She died on the 24th of March, 1873, and by her will
devised her property to the " Institut Canadien," and also appointed them her
universal legatees.
This Corporation, having accepted the appointment, applied for leave to
continue this Appeal, which leave was granted by their Lordships on the 26th
of June, 1873. e .7 v
This leave was granted without prejudice to any que&tion which might be
raised as to the competency of the Institute to continue the Appeal. It appeare*^
that the widow had been condemned in the costs in the Canadian Courts, and
her universal legatees were therefore, of course, interested in procuring the rever-
sal of these sentences ; and the objection to their competency, though mentioned
in the " Reasons " of the Respondents, was not insisted upon in the arguments
before us.
The suit on behalf of the representative of Guibord was for a mandamus to
" IjCs Cur6 et Marguilliers de I'CEuvre et Fabrique de Montreal," upon receipt
of the customary fees, to bury his body in the parochial cemetery of members
of the Roman Catholic Church at Montreal, entitled the " Cemetery of La C6te
67085
i-r
P348.55
9 4/^"T
— 2 —
dcB Neiges," conformably to usaire «n^ i^ i
civil register. ^ """"^^ «"d *« ^^w, and to enter such burial in the
La Fabriqud de Montreal " ;«. *u
certain lay church officers .Llled " M^r^ ,yaUn consisting of the Cur6 and
and churchyard is analogous to thS churcL''^"'" '.'''^*'°» *« '^^ «h"rch
1 his corporation manages the tempSi?L T^^^^ ^" T- F"«''«^ P«"«h.
are a so sometimes designated by the t kof^!^ lLvIHT^' ^^''^ temporalities
La J'nbrique de MnniriJ " i J ^t ^'^ *abrique."
from the larger by a paline In .1,1 ?? "" """"" P"" beine seDamL
»nrl th„.e „h'o hi, dS"?- J,V^ ™»"" Pf'. »■•« buriei «nb„,,tiid Knlf
ne a|)|.enrs from the evidenr»rnL!l T °? ''' »»crements de I'liElise • ° ,„^
»ho h,«l ,„,rored ^S pu 2hC„T »th ^t »">'"«! '"ioide. .Sd c^Lni*:,^
In the other and krger par" ire b„rln?H- **'!!,« '•^•""oi'^d to the Chu^h
way and with the rites of the Chureh ^'"'"'^ ^"'»" C»thoIice in the S
custo j;„ isr «iy niriverrr^ -^ - "■«"» ^ "•■' « « «-
ler or reserved part. "^ ^^ ^" *^^ ^'^''g^r part, never in the smal
in.o aJrrirS' tt;' ra^-i^t^'"- " P- in Which grave, a., and
otZTZT^ytt^t^. '„";' '"'f'T -e - follows ,-
unexceptionable mora/chamcter and 1 ^° 'S' ■"* "PP"»" •• have been of
t.on a Itoman Catholic, wh XftJhe reWntd '^'ti^t'' ?=^ ''"P'"» «"<l^uof
r,,! f " S° y^" 18" a literary and sdenMo ?„^.^/^' """ "' '"'« ''™»h.
real for the purpose of providing a library reni^n" ™ *"■"«''' »' Mont-
for edue,t,on. It wa> incorporated bv T'^pJ^f,- "S'T"' *"<■ ""'er appli«„c«,
under the name of the " I„«E Can.dien^™ °'""' ^'"""« <!« ^i"'-. «• 26l1^
The preamble of thia Statute recites :-
had a l,£:^'T2!oo1 tirs'Tnd l"!"!:^?" "^"^ -*«>«" ^00. that they
and periodical pnwktions KVollowsl^ "«"''?"IP''''"'''^'' "'"• newiS
ration. The prayer was Kranted hv IZr "^ ?^f'' '" '* constituted a legal mZ
the AsaociatioS L direc?r»mo„g^\trrltr„s"^^^^ "'^<^-^'
make an annual return to the Government o^Z?.' .'^' ""f "orpomtion is to
for the purpC^f Sin'gXX'S: ?' t i^s"'"'" P^P™'" " Committee
ought not to be allowed to remain therein ^^■'"''■^' "'"'<''' » "■«'■• opini™
:h?' ^F?""«'"' '--^^'no ^^ considerable majority to the
the^morality of lU library, and that th^etSt^rt^^LT^r^U^trJ
B. Q. R,
• ' « •
• , • •
'
Y5.
wh burial in the
of the Cur^ and
n to the church
English pariah,
^h temporolitiea
ular cemetery,
being separated
>aptized infants
'^g'ise ; " and
• and criminals
to the Church.
C8 in the usual
> ; but it is the
ir in the smal-
graves are and
' have been of
ni and educa-
is death,
med at Mont-
ler appliances
-^ict., c. 261),
y of Montreal and
I of the" Institut
em of mutual and
0, that they
newspapers
legal corpo-
incorporates
)ration is to
personal.
Committee
leir opinion
Hty to the
'le judge of
ement was
— 3 —
1 ^"ur^u ^j^^V^^P*;'^ I" *^® "•'"•^ y^"*' ^^^ -f^™"" Catholic Bishop of Mont-
real published a Pastoral which was rend in all the Churches of his Diocese in
which he referred to what had taken place at the meeting of the I.iHtitution ind
alter praising the conduct of the minority, pointed out that the majority had
fallen into two great errors : first, in declaring that they were the proper jud-
ges of the morality of the books in their library, whereas the Coundl of Trent
had declared that this belonged to the office of the Bishop ; secondly, in declar-
ing that the library contained only moral books, whereas it contained books
which were m the Index at Rome. The Bishop further cited a decision of the
LouncU ot Trent, that any one who read or kept heretical books would incur
sentence of excommunication, and that any one who read or kept books forbid-
den on other grounds would be subject to severe punishment ; and he concluded
by making an appeal to the Institute to alter their resolution, alleging that
otherwise no Catholic would continue to belong to it. He says .L ^
n es;;S:;.!irl^S'?^Sl^^=r!SL?^^i^?^Kl3rii;::^S;^ ar'^'^ exocmn.unicatlon dent
The resolution of the Institute was not rescinded.
In 1866 several of the Roman Catholic members of the Institute, includinc
Ouibord, appealed to Rome against this Pastoral.
u- u ^^'^J^eived no answer to their application. But in the year 1869, the
Bishop ot Montreal issued a Circular—
de ri;?e",'Sd^'S,n1^";int£:iSr,rr^^^^^^^ ''"-'"•" «' •• ^-' -« '« ^«-^'' Cong,.gation
.„l 1 T/"' r^''*'"J?'' """5 date from Rome 16th July, 1869. He also sent a Pasto-
ral letter from Rome dated in August of that year, which contained two inclo-
beforeur- '^"*^"'^ '''■ ''"'''®'' °*" *^^ ^""^^ ^^'*' "' P""*^^ ^" **^^ «'^««
" Illme. nc lime. Dne.
d osceseos cicro omnem curam conftTio nt Pnii.T^; »": "fo V misprinl] .iiisferiint, ul una cum lua)
perniciosas doclrin^.s"n eo X'erf conaillS ir ^ mur ' hum Zo""'!;:;,", ",' " ""■"""'"If" '"^^'V""' 1"°"«T'«
observaniia maneo. """""^«' "O" possunt. yucl a luas pro mei muneris ralione comniunicans omni cum
" RomtB ex iEd. S.C. de P.P. die 14 Julii, 1860, 4c."
The other inclosure was a Decretnm of the " Con«MeKatio '
care of the Index was committed, it was as follows :~ ° '
to whom the
" Dt.'cretum.
„ B„ r- ■ „ ■ " Feria II, (lio 12 JuMi, 1869
8ANCTI8S?Mo"DffioK™S "°™""» K'='«^"° t^'<"-.linalium a
^^^B^H^Praf ^WBiP||fi'
"""• r— .»,,... in quorum fidem, Ac ' ■"• " •'•w-rtij
member of the IiS, f ^^'i\^ °^ '^^^^ing the '< Ann„ • ^. "*^ °"^ that any
tio.ede,a„tJr'-'"'«. would be dep.vfd'ol thf-sri^^.^-;^ l? -J^ng^
The I„.t,tute held a meeting on the 2, . « ""
ThrBiT""^'""' produced no effect
It ia right to b. "yPocnsie, en fo.gaant do se
document and fnn^ ""' ^''^ entirely new^nJ * ®'*"^''«^ed the prin-
, It "houTd'alt^^^^^^ --- eo^uIdZ; ht^ tenTo" "r^/--"
of the case that r„;t '"f^^^ned, m order to comnlff !u ^^" ''^ Guibord.
i'J> was attended bva'f' "^"^ «J^ ^^^-''^ M>rh^^tath 'kI''^''^'*'^ ^'^^^ry
to administer Holv Cof *' -^^^ "^ministered uncUon / ^'"^ dangerously
Institute, which rnjJ:T?'""'°" "nie«« he ZiJn^Au- *° ^""' but refuse
Guibord hav?ngdtd'"'""l^^ *^ ^"- ^nembership of the
Srrttstt^r ^^^-^"f p'^^To^^^^^^^^^^ V'^^Sth of November
Wlpp'^w^^
Institute are men-
1'lnsiiiui Uana-lien le 17
^ProKNpta. quocumque
' KU tocorum ordimriit.
votitorun inlicli,.
>n to the fact that
Ao belong to the
». retain, keep, or
ea out that any
'** in remaining a
t, " inSme 4 I'ar-
and resolved ;
«ucune espftce d'ensei-
son sein.
laliondel'Annuairede
snt et simplemenl k co
ted Rome, SOth
which that offi-
iibord's death,)
8 why they are
fianimit^ par le corns
Pnncipe la tolerance
*me 4 I'article do la
'. en foignant doBe
ndemnation "
'hed the prin-
n any former
' by Guibord.
wary history
dangerously
but refuse
rship of the
f November,
% the widow
iie Clerk of
' usual fees.
— —
ih. r^.^J'T'?^ ^ *}'" *PP>icfttion M. Rouaselot, the Cur6, havin«r heard of
the death of Gu.bord and knowing that he was a membe ortl"e Institute
had apphed to the administrator of the diocese for his diroc io.L He repl tj
that he had yesterday received a letter from the Bishoo of Vfu^rio? T *
ing him to refuse abilution " mdmo h IWticle de k mJf^ ^ ' ^T^'
s^'o^iird'^i^i'^r''""^' the.effre;ptmi: XX^iL Ji^j!::;^^
to Uuibord. The Cur6 having received the letter, refused to biirv fl.. l»vl
Lur d 'buroCeVf ''n "T"^' ^^'^^^^ Ro.uu,'c:thoi:L';e;7or?ii^y
It seems that the agent of the widow offered to accept burial in th«
^n^Th ^•^'^r'/M^'"'^"'^'-^'*^^'*' ' ^"* ^»"=* ««•- ^'« rSed ''
Un t»ie 23rd of November the widow presented a netition f/. tu^ c
«« ple,t was t« the .ame effect as the petitL o? the DeSanb ^„d .e?
rc«:r„Krt""4mf„r"'^"'""'^' "- ■-'-'^ <"" "- -"leSai'
The second plea in substance denied that the Respondents h- v:.f„„«^ *„
and to give him such burial as he was entitled to. ^ ^ *° ^^ '°'
reH,pi;M™ 'z:iro :^e^r;;«ii te^ro^-h-ii"
ever nature is indepen.lent of all civil interference or contrXthitfi^Hl"
to the exclusive control, and management of the Respondents and of the si!!^
nor Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authoritv • that the Rp^nnnl.?^ • ^l"
E7c tit/en ^'^^^ ^^" ^^^^^ ^^^" P-Xstd'^rp sts^r
itoman Catholic cemetery m question, and are empowered bv law to r^Jnf «„!
the precise spot in the cemetery wher'e each buriaf is to be made tesiSes
heir abovemen honed capacity the Resj^ondents are also civil offi^^s wfthin cpr
^^JT^' \T:'^ *°^J'^^' ^••*'^^" d"^»^ defined by law anHe wtl v r^"
ponsible in that capacity and sphere only ; that L R'espondents!^^ ^theTr
2
— 6 —
(loiihlc rapiicity tliusexiHting, aru, by tho Roman (Jutholic rolij^ioiw authority and
by the la\v,H«!t over tbo burial of puiKonH of Konnui IJatholio donoinination dying
in the parinh of Montreal, and lire reHiH)nHihlo to tlie religious and civil autho-
riticH riHpectively for the religiouH and civil portions of miioIi functions ; that
the Ktspondents for the execution of their double duty, and in accordance with
the iminmorial custom of the Roman Catholic parishes throughout the country,
have assigned one part of the cemetery for tlif burial of persons of Catholic
denomination and belief who are buried with Romm Catholic religious cere-
monies, and other piirt for the burial of those who are <leprived of ecclesias-
tical burial ; that Joseiih (Jiiibord was a member of a literary society at
Montreal, called the Canadian Institute, iind iis such was at the time of his death
nnd had been for about ten years previous notoriously and publicly subject to
cnnonicnl peniilties resulting from such membership nnd involving deprivation
of ecclesiasticnl burial ; that immediately after the death of Jose|)h Guibord, the
Rev. Victor Rousselot, Roman Catholic priest, and curate of the parish of Mon-
treal, submitted the iiuestion of his religious burial to the Rev. Alexis Frederic
Trutenu, Vicar-General of the Roman Catholic diocese of Montreal, and adminis-
trator of the diocese, with supreme ecclesiastical authority therein, in the absence
of the Bishop, by virtue of the rescript of the Pope, dated 4th October, 1868 ;
and that the stiid administrator replied by a decree declaring that, since Joseph
Guibord was a member of the Canadian Institute at the time of his death, eccle-
siastical burial could not be granted to him ; that the Plaintiff", by her agents,
having required M. Rousselot and the Respondents to give to the body both reli'
giousand civil burial in the cemetery in question, they repeatedly infoimed the
said agentsof such decree of the administrator of the diocese, an<i that in conse-
quence thereof ecclesiastical burial could not be granted and was refused, but
that they were ready as civil officers to bury the remninH civilly, and authen-
ticate the death according to law, which offer was never accepted by the Plain-
tiff or her agents, and that, having regard to the above facts, the Plaintiff" could
not claim from the Respondents for the remains of her late husband more than
civil burial, and that under the conditions laid down by the ecclesiastical laws
of the Homan Catholic Church, which the Respondents hal never refused. The
plea then concluded by saying that the Respondents had refused nothing but
ecclesiastical burial, for the refusal of which they were responsible only before
the religious and not before the civil authority.
The widow filed several answers to these pleas, some in the nature of de-
murrers, souio of traverses of the facts alleged, and to the thrid plea also a
special answer, setting out the facts with respect to the dispute between the
Institute, the Bi.shop, and the Court of Rome, — which have been already men-
tioned :
The Respondents joined issued on these answers, and also by leave of the
Court, filed a special replication to the Petitioner's third answer to the Respon-
dent's third plea ; in vhich, after repeating that the Civil Courts were incom-
petent to question a decision of the ecclesiastical authorities on ecclesiastical
matters, and could not inquire into the grounds upon which tcclesinstical burial
had been refused to Guibord, they nevertheless, cited the decrees of the Council
^ of Trent with regard to the Index and the proceedings relating to the Institute,
Iiority and
tion (lying
ivil aiitho-
ioiiH ; thnt
liuice with
n country,
t' Ciitholio
jioiw (!ci'e-
r eccleaiaH-
Horioty at
riuH tieath
Huhject to
oprivation
libonl, the
h of Mon-
»H Frederic
d athnitUH-
le iibaenco
fer, 1808 ;
ice .FoHeph
sath, eocle-
ler ngentH,
both reli-
bimed the
t in conse-
' fused, but
id authen-
the Phiin-
n tiff could
more than
stical laws
'used. The
othing but
ily before
ture of de-
lea also a
tween the
lady inen-
ave of the
le Respon-
pre incom-
;k'siastical
iciil burial
lie Council
Institute,
— 7 —
md concluded by an averment that, in consoiuence of the premiseH, Guibord at
the same time oth.H death must bo couMidored an- un p^ohrur public," and an
•uch. obnox.ouH to the canonimi penalties imiKwe.l by the Koni .n Catholic ritual
among which waH privation of Hcpulture
ner«il^fI.^'in''.V • '"''r' r'u'T •"'^'*"^" ^''^'"^ refuHcd to obey the pastoral, and
persiHted in their refusal « lejugment de rEvOque imposant la peine cai.mi.
que HUH-mentionn6e est demeur6e en pleine force et effet "
that tho vLi?-''';' "f^*-''" "*"*'"g *1'V l"-"cmli"g relating to an appeal to Home,
rn Lfl^ ''^''''■^^'r"''"!' ^'''^'"" "'^" <-'<>"''i'I-'ratimi all thi VactH relating
n ui r. nr v/ rr"/ '":""'''■'* ''^•^.'^ Institut,- had " justenient rendu le decreet
q 1 1 a pru6 de la .(Jpulture eccl,:.8.asti.,ue," and further, " que le .16cret, rendu
dans la forme (ui il se trou ve, est d'ailleurs un ..!,5cret nominal "
Issue was joined on this special replication,
on thi.r^r Tl'^'i -^'"Si" t,'\'""l'''''"»^<'» it is for the first time allege.1 that
Ssti^arburii "° ^ '" ^"'^'''"" ^''''^''''^ ''^ disentitled to eccle-
th. d'llmi.rr'v ''''Y'^''^ ^'^"'.' ^'' •^"''■"^*'' Mo-delet in the Superior Court, on
tne demurrers and on the merits.
rers ti^ih^Z) S'^Y\J".''f"«"* ^^^ V'"' '"'''''^ °" *^'« "^^'''t^' '^"'l "" tho demur-
ssl but d Ir"l . rV' -T* ""'* "'•J-'-^J -^ P^"-eniplory writ of mandamus to
Zw^r tl H • I *'l"^ '^ "^[^ ""* l'"^ '^"^ '■''S'"^! ^i^''^-- to the widow's special
ZZZ t t' '''""^P'^l ^••/he special replication, which it seems to havi con-
siUered as improperly pleaded.
rhere was an Appeal to the Court of Revision, before three Jud-^es who
reversed the Judgment of the Court below, quashed the writ ori,/iua ly issired
and dismissed the writ of mandamus with costs ^ '
nres..ntT !wi/ "''^T"^ the widow appealed totheCourt of Que.Mi's Bench, and
KS to , Ini r". .'•^'^"«''^'"" "S'''"'^^ ^""•- "f the Judges, which the Judges
refused to admit. It is unnecessary to enter upon this part of the case, as in the
nJtTn '''V/S";"f"^ *''^i!- r^'"-^'^'-'" fully ixpressed their opinion hit lies',
petitions could not be su.stained.
sion '^lmt^h",^?n^"T'f '^"''''^ ""'"""'^ **^^^ Judgment of the Court of Rovi-
was founded TU^Tv ""'i T'" "' \'' *''" Sromids upon which their decision
nlea hnr^^' V'^. 1''"'-"^ ''\''''''' ^'''"^^ *'^« ™'^"^'''« '•"i"'^^ »P«" the third
of The w i '^1 1."^'"' T'^'^ ^^'' Appellant upon the question as to the form
of the writ and the regularity of the proceedings.
1 he questions of toriii, which are not unimportant, may be disposed of before
the graver question which arise out of the third plea are considered
othei grouiiT? '" • ''^^^"'^'^'""^ bad upon the ground of uncertainly, or upon any
to thf(S.^nTp'"''''r"S"^'l"'*'" ^^.f *^'" '"''^ ''''' »" proper form according
tho ullwMir 1 Proceduie for Lower Canada ; the procedure therein pointed out,
in .11 " '"'"'d'^HUs, was not a writ of mandamus in first instance, but
dantstn :f '""^r"^ *" T'r' " P'!i*^"" ^'"'y'^^S ^r an order upon the Defen'
w not as in7h'" 'P'"'?"^ '''!' /^'' ^'•'' '^'''S *" ^' ^«"« ^y t'^« Defendants
thrwri^' n V "''' f ';,'^'''^ of mandamus in England, to make a return to
the writ, but to appear to the sumnions, and plea to the petition. The section
— 8 —
of the Code of Procedure oeiiring upon tluH point are 1023, 1024, nnd 1025.
Article 1023 evidently contomphitcH a writ orHummonu. It unyn the applimtion
is made by petition, Hupp(jrted by liflidavits setting forth the factH of the ciwe
preBtnted to the Court or a Judge, who may thereujion order the writ of sum-
mon8, for it goeH on, '• and such writ iH werved in the name manner att any other
lorit of aumnutm." This is rendered more clear by Article 1024, which directs
the subsequent proceedings to bo had in accordance with the provisions of tho
lirst chapter of that section. Thut refers to Articles from 097 to 1002, both
inclusive ; which, in cases similar to our quo loarranlo, require an information
to bo presented to the Court or a Judge, supprted by afliilavits, ii|K>n which the
issue of a writ of summons may Ik; ordered The writ of summons commands
appearance upon a day fixed and is to be served in the manner pointed out. The
Defendants are toappear on the day fixed (Article 1011, and to plead specially to
the information (Atticle 1012.) [u the caseofmnndamus under the Code, therefore,
the parties are not to make a return to the summons ; the pleadings are to com-
mence with a plea to the petition, and not a plea to the return to the writ. In
our opinion, therefore, the objection to the writ, so far as it related to its being
a mere writ of summons, and not a writ of mandamus, was untenable, and the
practice of the Court in this respect, which has always been adopted, is in com-
pliance with the direction of the code. The other technical objections to the
writ have no substantial fondation. Three of the Judges of the Court of Queen's
Bench held that the writ was correct in point of form, although one of them, Mr.
Justice Badgley, being of opinion that the writ asked for too ranch, held that a
peremptory writ could not issue commanding the Defendants to do the one thing
only viz., to bury, with, according to his view, they were legally bound to do.
The procedure therefore requiring a petition and plea to the petition, it appears
to follow that the applicant for the writ is not so strictly bound by the prayer
of his petition as he is in this country to the command contained in the first
writ of mandamus, and that the Court may mould the order for the peremptory
writ in the same manner as the Court here may mould the rule for a mandamus.
There being no rule which requires a peremptory writ of mandamus to be
granted in the precise terms of the first writ, it seems to follow that the general
rule applicable to pleadings, either in equity or at common law, may be acted
upon. According to them, a Plaintiflf may generally obtain a decree for less
than that for which he asks, and for relief in a more distitict and specific form
than that for which he has prayed, provided it is within the scope of the prayer.
In the present case the prayer of the petition was— that the Defendants
might be commanded to bury or cause to be buried the body of the deceased
Joseph Guibord, in the Roman Catholic Cemetery, conformably to usage and to
law. That was, doubtless, as pointed out by the Court of Review, extremely
vague.
. The objection to issuing a peremptory writ in that form was clearly stated
by Mr. Justice Mackay (Record, pp. 270, 271).
" Under such vague conclusion," he observes, " the point really meant to
be tried is hidden. That the Defendants are bound to bury Guibord H the
Roman Catholic Cemetery, according to the usages and the law, is indisputable,
and is not disputed. Peremptory mandamus to do this would nevertheless
H
S4, and 1025.
lu appUuUiun
in of iho Ciwe
writ uf Btim-
p an any other
wliicli direcU
isiouB of tliu
to 1002, both
) information
oil which the
118 coiuiiiand»
ited out. The
tdripecinllv to
ide, thereiore,
;h are to com-
the writ. In
1 to itH being
able, and the
id, is in oom-
Kstions to the
rt of Queen's
of them, Mr.
t, held that a
the one thing
bound to do.
>n, it appears
»y the prayer
d in the first
3 peremptory
i mandamus,
damns to be
b the general
may be acted
^ree for less
specific form
f the prayer.
3 Defendants
the deceased
usage and to
V, extremely
learly stated
ly meant to
libord Jn the
indisputable,
nevertheless
— 9 —
leave things just ». unsettlod between Plaintiff and Defendants as thev wore
the day before the Plaintiff nresentec' the re(iu<^te " ''*''*'"'"""•♦ "" ^^"^V w««fo
But if the principle abi)vo laid down bo acted upon the Court n„iv in ..
rdTSrdr"t:.^::5:i':i\"^^'^ ^^^^ ^*^«^ ^--•^- "hrDetuSii^n;.' ;
burial with the^ritPnlT l»»« I>«lendants are bound to provide tx^clesiaHticHl
burial with the rites and cereraomes of the Roman Ctithol c Church thev mav
ay so. If they consider that the Defendants are bv.und to buyU.el^^^^^
b Lra^ll^idirSi^^^ "'"' Mies of those interred'^itl^oocLtL^^^^
this writ " Are^fhlfv M. f r'"r^"*r.V^^' '*"*'""^'*^" ^»»" '^'^ ^^^ Defendants to
et ftiarguuiiers, lor the time being, in their coriwrate capacity as holders of th..
auostionTnf'TM-^ "T'"'"'^ • ° determine the merits of the on*e, and the grave
a\7r:utrueL\%i:adi:r'"'"'"' '^" "'^^' are raised by 'the third'plea!
Pnm^"p°'l1®'*,*'*/..'^'' ^y^^' '* •' desirable to consider shortly the status ofthfe
as m the Kingdom of France itself, won the Romim Catholic Church U.l,,»
S therfwa. veZ" r, ;■ 'J!""' ¥«'' '''B-'ly Ecclciaaticl Court,, „„*d be.ide,
lueni mere was yeated in the Superior Counc 1 of Canadii tlie iurisdiolion r»m,»
" afpel^STnorrh^'r" 5V^' ""f '''''' ^^ ^^^^ Par^mS oTS^e af^^^^^^
appellatio tanquam ab abusu," or the " appel comme d'abus "
♦V,. Ik ."?"' ^ ," ^*""^^ *^" I^fo*' Public Eccl&iiafltique Praucais " ed 184fi
L TtfiV'rfcr^Lf ^'"^V' -t forth, with notes VtheTared :dito'r!t'
tne /ytn Article. Pithou s treatise defines the " appel comme d'abus " as that-
less:;i^eKi;|r„s^^ ^e JuHsdlction ou altenut contre
concordats, e.lits, et onlonnaticerdu Roy Xs^de Bon P?r?«m«^. '• 'l^T'* *' P"^"**" ^e •'Eglise Gallica.te.
dro.ct commun, divi„ ou nature., mais aUir pXliv:i'rc2VoySa".rd" rEglic"; dtelSr"""""^ '"
rathiJ?.Vli'"T'"^r'"'^ ^^^ P"^^^^ documents which show how the Roman
o%:'provinc: :^ ^^« -"<l--t and ^tn
The 27th Article of the Instrument of Cession is in these terms :
tou.;^iti^-.i^Sertaa--j-^ff'-^
8
— 10 —
I i
dans les ^slises et do frequenter les sacroments comma ci-devint, sans 6tre inqui6tiis d'auoune maBifero directe-
menl ou indirectemont. Ces pmiplos suront oblig.'s par le Gouvemement Anglais 4 payer aux prftlres qui en
prendronl som les dimes ot tous les droits qu'ils avaienl coulume de payer sous le gouvprnHmonl de Sa Majeslo
Tr6s Ghrftie;ine. Accorde pour lo libra oxeroice de leur religion I'obligation de payer W dimes aux nrfilres
d'5pendra de :a volont6 du Boi."— (Page t5, " Actes Publics.") r j i
Again, in the Treaty of 1763 it is said :—
" 8a Majesty Britannique consent n'accorder la liberto do la religion Ciilholique aux habitants du Canada
el leur periuet de professer le culle de leur religion, autaut que ies lois do I'Angleterre le perraettenl." '
And lastly, by an Act of Parliament passed in 1774 (U Geo. Ill, c. 83),
intituled, "An Act for making more EffectUiil Provision for the Government
of Quebec, in North America," it was declared by section 5 that, for the more
perfect security and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of the said province
His Majesty's subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in
the said province of Quebec might have, hold, and enjoy the free exercise of the
religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy, declared and
established by an Act made in the first year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth, over all the dominions and countries which then did, or should there-
after belong to the Imperial Crown of this realm, and that the clergy of the said
Church might hold, receive, and enjoy ther accustomed dues and rights with
respect to such persons only as should profeBS the said religion.
And by the 8th section it is enacted ,•
"That all His Majesty's Canadian subjects within the province of Quebec, the religious orders and commu-
nities only excepted, may a so hold and enjoy thoir property and possessions, together with all customs and
usages relative hereto, and all other their civil rights, in as large, ample, and benellcial manner as if the said
Proclamation, Commissions, Ordinances, and other Acts and Instruments had not been made, and as may consist
w|th iheir allegiance to His Maiealy, i^nd subjection to the Grown and Parliament of Groat Britain • and that in
al matters of controversy, relative to property and civil eights, resort shall be had to the laws of Canada as the
rule for the decision of the same," &c. v,».u<»u<» oa
From these documents it would follow that, although the Romiiin Catholic
Church in Canada may on the conquest have ceased to be an Established Church
in the full sense of the term, it, nevertheless, continued to be a Church recognized
by the State ; retaining its endowments, and continuing to have certain rights
(e. g., the perception of " dimes " from its members) enforcr able at law. °
It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the effect of the Act
of Cession, the Treaty, and subsequent legislation, has been to leave the law of
the Roman Catholic Church as it existed and was in force before the Cession, to
secure to the Roman Catholic inhabitiuits of Lower Canada all the privileges
which their fathers, as French subjects, then enjoyed under the head of the
liberties of the Galilean Church ; and further, that the Court of Queen's Bench,
created in 1794, possessed, and that the existing Superior Court now possesses*
as the Superior Council heretofore po.ssessed, the power of enforcing these privil-
eges by proceedings in the nature of " appel comma d'abus." Considering the
altered circumstances of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, the non-existence
of any recognized ecclesiastical Courts in that Province, such as those in Franoe
which it was the office of an " appel comme d'abus " to control and keep within
their jurisdiction; and the absence of any mention in the recent Code of
Procedure for Lower Canada of such a proceeding, their Lordships would feel
considerajjle diflBculty in affirming the latter of the above propositions. Mr.
— 11 -
Justice Mondelet, indeed, (Record 227-236) refers in him-nr .rmnn* *
cases of a mixed character in v-hich the GiyTcoavtZZt^
recently exercised a jurisdiction somevvha anltuT'to t !t xer^^^^^^^^^^
" appel comme d'abus." But on examination thecal tr^ be suiTs of a
Judges of the Court of Revision, that in such a suit the procedure must Hp
different from the present, and that at least it would be neces u v to br?n„ ,K
proper ecclesiastical authorities before the Court as Defendants ^ ^ *^^
It 18 another and a different question, to be considered hereafter whpfhpr
the jurisprudence and precedents relating to the " aonel co.mnp rS^'
not be considered by their Lordships b° evideLing^^he Z o? the ChnJ"'^
bertotd^ -ladministration of U^ ' the Appilln\lmp;?ns^t^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he precise .<«^... „t the present time, of the RomSn CatholL Chuil i„*^^^^^^^^
matenally in several important particulars from such vol un tar v rplil"''
Church must beget corresponding obligations, and it is obvious that this stafpn?
things may give rise to questions between the laity and cleTv whil L ,^
In the case of " Long . the Bishop of Cape-Town,'' their Lordships said :-
inay adopt, rules for enforcin,,' discipline wi hin theirbX wl?i4 w m' h? h ^^ members ofany other communion
implication, have assented to them It muv b7f .rihpfi^i h^ .Y '.' bo b.ndmg on those who, expressly or by
cialion has not only agreed on I™ ter ns^ nu^m^l h, ? ., ^^V ^''"'' "^^""^ ^'"y relisious or other lawful asso-
the rulesofthe assLi?ti^;%°aVe been vo ale b^inV onrs'members of not'*' ^ '^"'?°*k' ,1° ""'ermine wLX
of such violation ; the decision of such tribi nnl wi i h« hin i- u '* •°^"°'' '^"'^ ^''*"' shall be the consajuenca
theyl?e\toutt';:.;!,'„!;:r '" """" "'"' P™"'P'- ■■" *^ J"^S-»' which
. N"*' what is the question to be here decided? It is the ri^ht of r..-u a
to ...terment n. the ordinary way i„ the cemetery of his'par1»h?J'ri"gh?";S
'iikA.
\> '
— 12 —
ceable by his representative. It may be observed that the Cur6 and Mareuil-
hers are only proprietors of the parochiai cemetery, in the sense in which a
Parson in t-ngland is the owner of the freehold of the churchyard, that is to say
subject to the right of the parishioner to be buried therein. The Respondents'
do not contest that Guibord had that right, but say that they have refused^othTng
but ecclesiastical burial, for the refusal of which they are responsible only to th!
o^^fr^f ?h^ °?' *^, **"/ '^'Yi^^'^t^ority. They admit, however, that the conse-
quenceof the refusal of ecclesiastical burial is that the remains of the deceased
canbeinterredonlyin the smaller or reserved portion of the cemeter" it
cannot be doubted on the evidence that this qualidcation of the general right of
interment, this separation of the grave from the ordinary pl4 of sepulture,
implies degradation, not to say infamy. ci^ui^ure,
_ That forfeiture of the right to ecclesiastical burial, involving these conse-
quences, may be legally incurred, is not denied by the Appellants^ Their "on-
tention IS, that it was not so incurred by Guibord ; that, according to the law of
the religious communUy to which be belonged, he retained at the time of his
manLrl' "^ "^ ^" '^' ^^'^'' ^''''''' °^ '^' ^^^^^^^^ i" t»^« »«"^1
Their Lordships are disposed to concur, with one qualification, in the opinion
hTsTs : ^ '' ®'''^'^^* ^ ^ *^" "^-^^^ ^^^''^^^^^ ^f these queEns
de le^ adS&ceTSVrs'^^^^^^^^^^ n« P«"vent se refuser
Ss;5S;S2.^""^^~^'-^^^ " ar=i^
If this passage is to be taken to imply that it is competent to the Bishop to
deprive a Roman Catholic subject of his rights by pronouncing against him e^
mere mom ecclesiastical penalties, their Lordships are of opinioS that theTop^
sition IS too wide. They conceive that, if the act be questioned in a CoSrt of
Justice, that Court has a right to inquire, and is bound to inquire, whether that
act was 111 accordance with the law and rules of discipline of the Roman Catholic
Church which obtain m Lower Canada, and whether the sentence, if any by
Tom^etlV^S^^^^^ "'^ regularly pronounced by on auth'o'ritj
f *i.^ o^ worthy of observation, as bearing both upon the question of the ataiua
of the Roman Catholc Church in Lower Canada, and the manner of icertaS
the law by which it is gcnerned, that in the Courts below, it was ruled, appar'!
ently at the instance of the Respondents, that the law, including the r tuaT of
t^ tak.'^':?i-T^\-°* ^"r^"^ .^^ ^•*"^'^^^' ^"* '^^' '^' Courts were bound
to take judicial notice of its provisions.
ih. JolL??''Ti^" ""^u^'u '"^'°^ "^^"^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ""I'^^^-i^ ^ conceded that
the ecclesiastical law which now governs Roman Catholics in Lower Canada is
Identical with that which governed the French province of Queb^ If modifi-
cations of that law have been introduced since the cession they have not been
introduced by any legislative authority. They must have heen^the subject of
somethmg tantamount to a consensual contract binding tha members of that
rfgSly prTer'^' "" " '' '""^' '"^^'' '^ '""^'^'^ ^' * ^''''^ Court, to 2;
the
EEiBa^aSiifiTiyiM
6 and Marguil-
ase in which a
J, that is to say,
be Respondents
refused nothing
lible only to the
that the conse-
>f the deceased
I cemetery. It
jeneral right of
« of sepulture,
ig these conse-
is. Their con-
ig to the law of
he time of his
y in the usual
, in the opinion
these questions.
e peuvent se refuser
ve de sa paroitse, &
ue ou autre autorite
> the Bishop to
igainst him ex
bat the propo-
in a Court of
whether that
Oman Catholic
3e, if any, by
y on authority
n of the status
of ascertaining
ruled, appar-
the ritual of
ts were bound
conceded that
vev Canada is
!C. If modifi-
have not been
he subject of
mbers of that
Court, to be
- 13 —
It seems however to be admitted on both sides that the law upon the point
in dispute IS to be found m the Quebec ritual, which w.is cert.inl/ accepted as
law in Canada before the cession of the province, and does not differ in any
material particular from the Roman ritual also cited in the Court below The
yuebec ritual is as follows : —
sans baplLe. So. A ceux qui auMient ^ A i^l^.fl . ''^ '* '■"''«^"'" Ga'liohque. 2o. Aux enfants morls
par fr6ne8ie ou accident, aiix(iuels casonlTdnit^ornriT'^. t ' P'*'*'^ ™*'?® ''" °^'''' T" ^ serawnt lues
llsauraientdonn^desinarquTderMirQjanttf^^^^^^ 5o A ceux qui ont eto tues en duel, quand rafime
salisfail a leur devoir pascal, k ZinrnfLTayJntLZhJ^..^ «''"''''"'■ *'"8 «""5" '"Ril'me. n'auront pas
noloirern.nt coupables de quek.ue M morte? comZ ,1 tnZlT.''' u" '=,""^'""°" '• ^ <"'"* ■!"' =""' ">°'^^
los antres sacremenls avant que drmourTr s'H Z,U ,nn^. .«^^ "7 se confesser, et rte recvoir
assez impie pour blaspb^mersclemmenret vo^on !ir«mLr„ «*"^.^°"'°'r pa^lonn^r 4 ses ennemis, sMl avait m
pas user de la ra6me r^u/ur ™ ceft^ Ilnefaudrait
cas les tolasphfemes ne serui-nt pas volonta res^n n[r Li iE^a". 5""" "^"i'l^" ^l^ '"^ ^'°'«"''^ ^" «>"'• <=ar en ce
seraientmorlsdanslMmw^^niten^e tersnr^^^^^ f^^I"^"- ^° A"" P^cheurs pnblics qui
farceurs, usuriers, etc A IWd de ceur*)nl irprimrr''- "^ """' .°" '^""™''' P'-ostilu6es, l«s sorciers et les
menis, on ne doit pas ausslleur ^fuseHa stml nr« ppHA.!- 7 "' 'T"' """"^^ °" "° '«"■• ''■''"«« P"* ^'^^ ^acre-
The refusal of ecclesiasf ical burial to Guibord is not j ustified, and could not
have been justified by either the Ist, 2d, 4th. 5th. or 7th of the above rules
To bring him within the 3rd rule it would be necessary to show that he
rna,^T°'""T*'p''^ na^e. That such a sentence of excommunication ^gU
be passed against a Roman Catholic in Canada and that it might be the d.?Jl of
^le Civil Courts to respect and give effect to it their Lordships do not deny ^ ?
is no doubt true, as ha. already been observed, that there are now in Canada
no regular ecclesiastical Courts, such as existed and were recognized bv ?he
State when the province formed part of the dominions of France. It must
however, be remembered that a Bishop is always a judex ordinal a«coS
an official to act for him. And it must further be remembered that unl^Js
araongHt the Roman Cat lolrcs of Canada the many questions touching, faith Ind
?S TlT ' ' "r" '^'' "^"""^^ '^^"^"^ of their Church, may arife amongst
them. There is, however, no proof that any sentence of excommunication was
aX'rr SS' ,^"^^-^-r;^- by tli Bishop or any other ecclerstrc:
autnority. Indeed, it was admitted at the Bar that there was none- their r.orS
ships are therefore relieved from the necessity of considerg how far su^h t
sentence, if passed, might have been examinable by the Temporal Court when
^ itXn ??f "if ''' ^'^'^ '^r\'''^ ^""^'^>^ was brought b^efore tharCouTt
inirs t?.on ft f \ r' u """'^ *^'^^ "" ^^"^ ^'^ distinctly raised by the plead-
Wf'^ fu?''^°^ '"''*' ^'^"^^"«« 5 ^"d the necessity of such a sentence to
thf li^ .' "'f "'f T"^' .'^ ^'' *« «""^« ^^*«"t, admitted by the al egation in
the Defendant s pleading that 7e dicret, as it is there called, of the Adminrstrator-
General, was un dicret nominal. Auunuis^raior-
the Jpfni!!? T''\ ""• *!-^ f^'-guraent H was suggested, rather than argued, that
the refusal of ecclesiastical buna! ( ^iibord's case might be brought within the
4
-:#«;»«
— 14 —
i^*" °^**'l ''i^?'^? ?!^^' *"•* j"'*^^^^ °" the ground that, without legitimate
reason, he had failed to communicate at Easter But uoon thJ« fh»J. ',« ?T
huve to observe that this failure was not the ground m^Thchec^reliSbr
nal was denied to him ; and that, so fur from Wilfully abstai U ng Trom"^^^^^^^^^
the sacraments of the Church, those sacraments were refused to Mm Xn he
r.nw'^ "^ """^^l^ of refusal finally insisted upon was that Guibord was '' un prehear
public within the meaning of the 8th rule. pecnear
This defence was set up for the first time in the replication.
The Administrator-General's evidence on the point should be noticed :-
'' 0u«*/i()n.— Pour que" raison feu Joseph Guibord, comme membrn do i-inot r. ^■
pas 6tre adniis aux sacremo s de I'Eglise ? ' ''""""^ ™«™°'° ''o Unslitut Cunadien, no pouvail-il
" /M/)(,nM.— Parce que, uomine lei, il est consi(i(?r6 comme o^cheur mihlin On »„. ^
cplu. qui, pour una raison connue publiquement, ne neut Mrtirinnr m?, ..' "" ^"'®?'* ''*■■ P^cheur public
Guibord. en appartenanl 4 i'lnslitut C^na.mm^ppaKaft 4 urinsuLi m^^ d«. I'Eglise. M. ioseph
encore sous les censures de I'Eglise par la luison qu'iVnosS une h hli ip L^ '" trouvait comme il se trouve
par I'Eglise sous pHinBd'excommuiiiLion,/«terneSSurueS '=<'"tena„i des livres d^fendus
a ppss.,ssion des dits liv.-os. Celle esj.ece d'excomrauSon s'enco^rn^«^^^^^^^ et reserv6e au Papa, par la fait do
loi de Eglise qui en .l.fend la leclure et la retS^dfes qurce'a ParJJnt i trnn""'' ••"' "J"? ''"" ''•'"">»" '*
possfedent Oeile excommunication a alteint M. Gu bord par iXrwlCn^'Jl,^?"'''^^"''? ^? *=«"" 1"' '«»
qu'on est sous Veifei de la .lite excommunication ouoiri m I'L ..^li^! t^ '' !'"'' mombre de I'Institdt. Lors-
lique el quP. de fuit, I'on continue 4 eT"tre memK ?'on eKve de la nX- T '"'"°**''*' •»" ''^^''^^ Oalho-
M"''^i.i?ci^r'^'°" '"^ "^ "^P'^'^"'^ ecCsiastique. y^X^ll'^^^^trj;^,^:'!:^^^
The evidence continues —
" Queslion.~Le dlt feu Joseph Guibord, comme membre de I'lnstitut Onnnrfim, a,.-, i
rEvfi^JeTllomlVii^on'rid^Venl V' '* '"' '"''''^' '' '•^«"-' «' «" ^-tu da I'application qu'en a fait.
The evidence further continues—
" Question— A quel mandement fuites-vous allusion ?
' flepowe.— C'est 4 celui produit en cetle cause comme I'Kxhihii n rfa i<> rvo™ j
Mon;;?l^^r:^^^S,iS:S^Sai'caC^S^^ ^e ,.Ev.qua de
tivament. Veuillez indiqli^r lesTermUquidecSt telle chose "*''°'°'°""«"'"°n J et si vous r6pondez ailirma:
•• liiponse.—Ceci est declare dans I'annonce de Monseicnptir de Mnnir^ni «.,= „
tear, j'ai fait publierleqnatorzeAoftt mil huit cent sdxLiPPtnflnf 1.,? n^'^ ®" "" 1""'"^ d'administra-
D. dela Demanderosse.^ Voici duos qS^stemesceci est dS uT?rT ^.'^^''^ •='"""'« P'^**
sent Ici sp6cial..ment et strictement defendues, savoir : de fie narite dp'l nl J,^? chers freres. deux choses
gnera des doctrines pernicieuses; el 2, de publier, reten ir. ga X fve%nnlaT,T i^f^lif". '""' •>"'" ""^ei-
deiix commandamenls do I'Eglise sent en malifere .rravp n v « „„: a' Ia™""".""^* ''" '^'.' '"^"1"' P"""" 1868. Ces
ouotiii aiuiuuwe, sans y aire autorise nar 1 Bir i<tn on nrivn i.,: ™a~ i ' "= "" souu'ineni garaer la
• . I* js impmsible wholly to avoid a suspicion that it had orimnallv w„
nouaZ. '''~"'"'°°-t'°» -- -^ry, and that none had Wen pL-
i li!
ithout legitimate
1 their Lordships
ecclesiastical bu-
5 from receiving
to him wlien he
k member of the
ivas *♦ un prehear
be noticed : —
unadien, no pouvail-il
il par prehear public
o I'Kglise. M. Joseph
ail, comme il se trouve
It dtis livres defendus
au Pape, par le fait do
Itis que I 'on connalt ta
mce de ceux qui les
rede I'Inslildt. Lors-
ibre de lEglise Oaiho-
X saurements, ce qui
illure a et6 refusee &'
il sous I'offet de I'jx-
Qoe (te quelque dSoret
plication qu'en a fail*
anant de I'Kvflque de
)us r6pondez aillruia-
qualit6 d'administra-
roduile comme pifece
freres, deux clioses
lien tant qu'il ensei-
lilut pour 1868. Ces
lit' h les violer scleni-
. seuloment garder te
i rnrliclo de la mort,
'-, el 6lre dispose h ne
e du mot f
•riginally been
his subsequent
lanifest that a
lad been pro-
— 16 —
Ritual ? Or if the force of an JS/.rnVl u i. '^" ^' '''^^^" '" *^e Quebec
the category of person" i^Let^';?^,^^^^^^^^^
must it not be confined to ofTf^noaTl:!! ^^^'^''^'V^^cal law is a criminal pena ty,
case did not cometittrnf rh:^r„iSeTd^^^^^ '''''''' ' ^^^^^
,uei^:z:i!zzi rteslelhie^^'v^r ^' *^" ^^^^^^^ " ^^^-^ ^ y --
Vicah-e ; " but their Cds' it frT'e ■ ^."•'^! "«"«. consulteront ou notregrand
a duty on the par oHhe CW^^ that these words can at most imply
the lai in doubCr/a^es nofa poweTon th" Zt7kTn^''' application'o'f
specifi'^dtrhe^Rraf woYd bS^h^' ^ -^ -largemeL "of^' ^ffcXries
For instance, the e7c Je,a mith W^ ^^^ .T'^* '**'^'^'"S consequlnces.
particular cas'e. expandS ^ Tl nc uSe wftli"i? It '"^^"'^ ''^^^'^"^^ ^^ *^«
habits of intimacy or convercTng with a Jm^ ^"^ P^'''^^" ^^'"^ i»
a prohibited book • any DerVon v^ tfn^ Tf-I u ''^'"'""•^ '°^'^*>' containing
person sending his'son ^^^^0^ t "^rr^^^ who possessed such a book; any
going to a shop where such books were sold '^ S^ ""^''^ '^^^ ^'^ «"«^ ^ ^oo^ ;
be added. Moreover the Index Xl^^ ' /"? many other instances might
by the law of the GalhiJI, rh„lk ■! • . "If '""1 '" ^ ""^n the authority
and, in theifoption S not elbTiehZhM fh'' ^"t ^^"'f '"^ '^'-'>'
in the «^ or law of that Chureh f, ,„1] . .k"" *"" <'«n »uch an alteration
a peiirr'ii'tlil"' J"^" ""**• '«=°°'''""8 '° ««> ecclesiartioai law of Fmnce
pu&ir^r„lr *"' "" '"°-'"<=»»«"<»l"i'-«'l in order to constitute a man I'
EecoS45;^7/:i-<*"-""^'''''^^"'''"-'«0°»«-"-. vo. Sepulture, A.„. 1715.
Durant de Maaiam (Droit Canonique, t. 6, p. 442 ) says —
»— - » m ^
I!
111!!
1)1
— 16 —
re.|ui8e,parcH<iuMlyadescroan^Urft7nA^Z^?r.>af^ notari6l6 sur oelte miiior., nest pas absolniupnl
ture est regarJi imrmi nous 0"™™™ tHl ^^nmrt^ n^^^^ oar le rofus d., la iipul-
Calle niainte se ,)orte devanl des jiiKBg s^cS! Mi^?mr«1?. infl "" Jesus-Clinsl. est r.covahlo A s'on pliindre.
«ooi6li,eilWeurm6medesesSS'^ '^^^ *'" ''""'''"" •""^'^ '"^ "•» o-'J'-e dans la
. Htrkmirt (Lois Eccl^siastiques, p. 174) ;_
pas quelqie moyen de d^Lse IdgilU^e i proposer^ ^ "'" * '" ''"'"■■" "' dexa.niner s'il n'y aurait
No personal sentence, such as is contemplated by these authorities was as
already pointed out, ever passed against Guibord auiaoriues, was, as
It 18 also to be borne in mind that no sentence, whatever might have been
i,!,''^"^^'^"' P*^'^^ ®^®» *^fter Guibord's death. There is indeed a lptt!.r
called a d^creto^ the Administrator-General to the Curl whiJh, after referr t
to a letter of the Bishop, written before Guibord's death, refuses Lies S.I
ZltZt^ ^^'^ "' " ^'^"^^'!: "^ *^^ ^"«*^*"*^- The repr^entatives of GutoTd
UaTel-erS rf^lXlarsLtit ^'^^ ^^"^^"^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^ «^ ^^« ^ "
.hi|t=^^;^t^^^^
considered a public sinner within the terms of the Quebec ritual
Trent r- ^^^^''' ^ ^ ^^^'' principal reliance on Rule X of the Coqncil of
hibi.;;SKaCtCe'Sra^^^^^^ hujus Indlols pro-
Various observations arise on this citation, which seem to deprive it of all
authority in the present case. uepuve u 01 an
In the first place it is a matter almost of common knowledge certainlv of
historical and legal fact that the decrees of this Council, both thtethrJel ate
to discipline and to faith, were never admitted in France to have effec JonrS
viga^-e, though a great portion of them has been incorporated into Fren^rOr^
donnaiices. In the second place, France has never acknowledgoS nor received
but has expressly repudiated, the decrees of the Congregation Sf the Index
bv the CbuncH of T^Jnl^^^^A''^' ^^u '^^ T" ^''''" ^^^^"""unication inflicted
WL- 1^ I ^'^«*J^ **»« punishment of reading or possessing prohibited
books would have no eflFect in France dana le fortexlSneur. Dupin a Trist
gS?^ He saTs'l "'" ''' ""''""'^ '" ^^""^^ °^*^« '^^ oTtiy,";;:!
I647;;a?p'ro,r„\tal^^^^^^^^^^ <»-' ''a M^ ainsi
congr^gSoL'^qu^errnTrRot^^^'^pS'^ P"i-nce. nl la iundiction des
m^ mmumf: "^if.
;<''S flxcommunlf^s, ou que
•'ianaissiitiee. La muiiiiii'O
n siilut.
98 Ii6r.>tlr}n09 «('>pnrt« de
wo n'osl pas absolnaipnl
siilnles lois do I'Eghse ;
; car le rofus do la stipul-
'. ijuB oha'jut) (1.I6I', pour
r.!coval)l.! A s'nn pliiriilrn.
te Id ban ordrw dans la
»nlentia, il faul le clter
'examiner s'il n'y aurait
uthorities, was, as
might have been
s indeed a letter
[i, after referring
Uses ecclesiastical
atives of Guibord
lone of the essen-
stantive law upon
Guibord is to be
il.
if the Coqncil of
, aut hujus Indlcis pro-
ii (losfmatis suspicionem
icurrat."
deprive it of all
dge, certainly of
those that relate
ve effect propria
into French Or-
ed nor received,
f the Index,
iiication inflicted
ssing prohibited
Bupin, a jurist
fs of the Congre-
aris qui I'a jugd aiasi
') nl la jupidicllon des
IS ses Elats ; muis les
. . II est vrai quo
expurgatorius, lequil
— 17 —
s'augmfinto tous lesans; et c'est li ois « i c •
^V^:^^ toest.b.ish ri^
have consented, since the cession, to be bouTd hv .n h '""^^f^ ^" ^^^^^^ Canada
to enforce, which, is truth, involves thpil^ '-^'^ '^ 'J''^ "« '* '^ ^ow sought
Inquisition an authority nWer Sttdb.rT'''"" "^'^^' authority of the
of France. It is not, therefore no?.! . '^''^''•>''' •'«P»'i''^ted by the old law
mentioned the Roman Catholic subSof hi On ^ *''" ^•^*,"^ Elizabeth, Already
to be bound by such a rule. ^ ^^ ^'^^ ^^^en could not legally consent
The conclusion, therefore to wfuVh tu - t
difficult and important case is that plur^ }'^e'^I^o'•d«hips have come upon this
w.,, at the time of hi, dea'ti tl^r/tS 'v^L^'l '" '"■'"' «"" ^"'^'^
censure as would, according to thp On.K • , ecclesmatical sentence or
Roman Catholics in Canada, justify the^Senial T''^^- *"^ ^^" binding upon
remains. "^ •>" "^"^ denial of ecclesiastical sepulture to his
the B^J^rhrV^^^ order of
orders of their ecclesiastical superior and fhTr '"!? ^•"^ ^'^""^ *« «bey the
to issue against them. Their Lordships I'nnn? ''. ^^'^^ °" '"andanius ought
apprehend that it is a general rule of ?hw "^ ''""f^" ^° ^^''' '^^S^'^ent. They
dencethatan inferior officer can jus fy hi "act rn ^""^'y ^^y^'^^^ of jurispru-
superior only when that order has been ZTT'"" ^^ '^^ ^''^e'' of his
authonty. "'^^ Oeen legularly issued by competent
establishertha^^^^^^^^ ttdSitldV' t I""'' 7? '' '' ^^ «'-rly
Church to ecclesiastical burial, nevertheless tt t "" f ^^^ ^«"»^" Catholic
be sufficient to justify the Cur^ and « W.Hir '' -^'^''.^^ ^^^ Bishop would
in that part of the Parochial cemetery h^S^ ^"/"^"^''^"^ ^ ^^-^^y him
be in erred; or, in other words, the filhoD hv V ^ ^"^^V''" ^^''' hypothesis, to
ndividual case, might dispense with the a^ndf. ^^^ absolute power in any
law, and prohibit upon any grounds reveZd " f *^" ^'"'^'^^ ecclesiastical
himself, the ecclesiastical budal of any paTi linn' not revealed, satisfactory to
their Lordships that the Roman CaSiL ofC;- n^^'T 'I "" ^^'^^nce before
placed m such a condition. '^^noiics ot Lower Canada have consented to be
Their Lordships do not thi i if
and circumstances of the suit hud h^i!!^ -T'"'^ ^ consider whether, if the nartips
had power to order the intelei t o/ G.i'Sl' ^^ "^"'^ ^^ would norhave
religious rites, because the widow finnJlvT be accompanied by the ui^ual
their Lordship's bar have not Sed for^ifr^"S*^^«. demand, and Counsel a
before them in his individual canacitv h.Tl"'''' ^"'^"^^ the Cur^ is not
Majesty that the Decrees of the Cw[ a, *^'^t,^"^ '^"'"^ly advise Hel
Review be reserved Thaf th^ • • , i Queen's Bench and of thp cLJT l
and that, instead oWo?l?Udf b^' ttc "V^: "t^""' <^ny^i^'
peremptory writ of mandamus be tauTd dfre^Slo < f°"r "f "'^''"^ ««''''
'."""*'«"<' I*» Cur^ et Marguilliers
«:i
— IS —
remains being Cughrrthe ,. Lrete^^Tr ,W '"'^ ' ■""* **""' "P"" '"'=''
which should be borne by Se TppeTante ^ ^ '" '^ "'^'"'"'^ •'^^^'
If, aa was suggested, difficulties should arise bv reason nf »« ; ♦
EosiBB SBNficAL, Imprimeur, No. 6, 8 et 10 Rue 8t. Vincent.
ling them, upon
idien, and upon
prepare, or per-
hich the remain
ly interred, for
that, upon such
% reasonable and
e said cemetery,
pay the Cana-
rts, and of this
eoiuatio judicia,
xpressing their
atical members
^ belonging to
as submitted to
V of the Roman
' an interment
the mandamus
> obviate them
t for that pur-
ich ceremonies,