^p 
 
 w 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 / 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 *t ^^° /^ 
 
 fc 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 !.l 
 
 2.5 
 
 Ki 1^ III 2.2 
 
 ^ lis IIIIIM 
 
 1.25 ill 1.4 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 ^. 
 
 n 
 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 /: 
 
 % 
 
 ^If^^ 
 
 % > 
 
 P^VV 
 
 > 
 
 '^ 
 
 y 
 
 >^ 
 
 V 
 
 iV 
 
 <^ 
 
 c^-^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 ■'-'V^" 
 ^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts susceptibles de nuire 6 la qualite de la 
 teproductlon sont notds ci-dessous. 
 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 y/ 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 intdrieure) 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 □ 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Des pages n>dnquent 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes g6ographiques manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires 
 
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. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol --^> (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required, the 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites a tec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la conditlot^ et 
 de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filrnage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, salon le cas- 
 le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 f ut reproduit grdce d la 
 gdndrositd de I'dtablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul cliche sont filmdes d 
 partir de Tangle sup6rieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mdthode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
I 
 
 ^' 
 
 t 
 
 

 
 ^ 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION 
 
 TO 
 
 Proper Understanding 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OKA QUESTION; 
 
 AND A HELP TO ITS EQUITABLE AND SPEEDY 
 
 SETTLEMENT. 
 
 BY BETA. 
 
 ■ I will also show miiu! opinion."— Kliho. 
 " He that is flrst in his own cause scymetU jiiHt; but his 
 neighbour comcth and scarcheth him."— Solomon. 
 
 Profits t(> he devoted to heivefit of *' Oka Indians/' 
 
 MONTREAL: 
 
 1879. 
 
c 
 
A CONTRIBUTION 
 
 TO A 
 
 Proper Understanding 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OKA QUESTION; 
 
 AND A HELP TO ITS EQUITABLE AND SPEEDY 
 
 SETTLEMENT. 
 
 BY BETA. 
 
 " I will also (how mine oplnion."-<Bt.iHir. 
 " He that is first in Ma own oause seemeth Just; bnt his 
 neighbour oometh and aearoheth him."— Solomon. 
 
 MONTREAL : 
 1879. 
 
 
[ 
 
I 
 
 THE OKA INDIANS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Object in Wriling — The Seminary Claims long ago Con' 
 tested — The Purpose of the British Government — 
 How Expressed — The Lata Officers of the Crown — 
 Attornej/'General SewelTs Opinion — Law Officers of 
 England again Report on the Question — The Argu- 
 ment Stated — The Memorial from Inhabitants of 
 3Tontreal, Sfc — The Seminary's Memoir, Sfc. — Dis- 
 tinguished Advocates of Paris, M. Dupin — Memorial 
 again Referred to — Act of 1841 — Tlie Previous One 
 Disallowed — The Seminary Change their Course — 
 Conflict Follows — Indians Imprisoned — Protestant 
 Mission Commenced. 
 
 To write anything more than has been written on the 
 long-pending and perplexing case of the relative claims of the 
 Seminary of St. Sulpice, and of the Indians of Oka, to the 
 Seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains, will by many, I 
 doubt not, be regarded as uncalled for, and therefore, to say 
 the least of it, a waste of time ; while to others, who believe 
 that the claims of the Indians have not to the present been as 
 fully explained and urged as they might and should be, the 
 prospect of additional " light on the subject " will be hailed 
 with satisfaction and pleasure. Additional light I think I 
 have in my power to throw upon this question ; therefore, in 
 furtherance of a spesdy and satisfactory settlement, and by it 
 to remove from amongst us both a scandal and a danger, I 
 offer this contribution. 
 
Men of commanding talents and position have, at various 
 times, been employed by the Seminary to explain and defend 
 their views and interests in this case. Others, at the instance 
 of the government at the time, who naturally desired tlie 
 opinions of men of high legal training on this subject, have 
 written professedly from a disinterested standpoint ; and yeti 
 such has been the course of their reasoning, and especially 
 the conclusions they have reached, that the conviction has 
 been forced upon many, that the relative influence of the con- 
 testing parties had, consciously or otherwise I would not 
 determine, much to do in prompting and controlling both the 
 one and the other. 
 
 The effort to sustain the Seminary's claims dates from the 
 time of the conquest of Canada by Great Britain. Then it 
 was sought by the Marquis de Vaudreuil that the Sulpicians, 
 with the Recollets and the Jesuits, should have leave to sell, 
 in whole or in part, the estates and moveables which they 
 possessed in Canada, and take or send the produce thereof to 
 France. This, permission therefore was formulated by the 
 Marquis, and being agreed to by Lord Amherst, the English 
 Plenipotentiary, was introduced as an article of the treaty of 
 capitulation. It, however, was disallowed by the British Govern- 
 ment, and never became legalized. But instead of granting 
 the above dem^and the British Government determined to con- 
 fiscate all such estates, and to form by them a fund for pur- 
 poses of education, generally. This determination the Sul- 
 picians labored to prevent, and by persistently applied means 
 were so far successful as to arrest the action the Government 
 had proposed to take. Still, so resolved were the Govern- 
 ment upon their course that, in 1765, the Lords of the Trea- 
 sury sent instructions to Receiver-General Mills, to the follow- 
 ing effect : " Seeing that the lands of these societies, particu 
 larly those of «he Jesuits, were being united to the Crown 
 domain, you are to strive by means of an arrangement with the 
 parties interested in them, to enter into possession thereof in 
 the nane of His Majesty ; at the same time, however, granting 
 
to those parties such amnesties as you shall judge proper ; and 
 you are to see that the estates in question are not transferred 
 and so lost to the Crown by sequestration or alienation." 
 Again, he was directed to see that " Schedules were drawn up 
 oi the landed estates of the divers religious communities, and 
 particulars demanded as to the nature of their constitution, 
 rights, privileges, amount of property, &c., with lists of the sev- 
 eral Churches, the numbers of Clergy, amount of incomes, &c.,&c. 
 
 In 1770, considerable discussion was held by the members 
 of the Privy Council on the proper settlement as to the laws 
 and form of government, &c., &c., which were to be given to 
 Canada. The petitions from Canada, with various other 
 papers on the subject, were placed in the hands of the King's 
 Advocate-General (Marriott), the Attorney-General (Thurlow), 
 and the Solicitor-General (Wedderbume). Marriott's conclu- 
 sion was that all religious communities, both male and female, 
 should, as soon as their surviving members died out, be abol- 
 ished. That their estates and revenues should be restored to 
 the Crown, and afterwards employed in educating all the young 
 without distinction of communions," &c., &c., and, further, " To 
 forbid all religious processionings in the streets, to relegate the 
 estates of St. Sulpice Seminary to the Crown domain ; and 
 to cause all (obligatory) Church festivals to cease." 
 
 His argument for relegating to the Crown the Sulpician. 
 estates was in substance as follows : That the Sulpicians who 
 as principals at the time of the conquest weie not resident in 
 person, did not fall under the privilege of the capitulation, nor 
 come within what is termed by civilians the cams federis, so 
 as to retain the property of their estates under it. And the 
 reason of this was that they were not in a position to accept 
 a favor as a condition of ceasing their resistance, or objects of 
 distress, or persons who had shown a courage which merited y 
 some special mark of favor. Nor could they retire from a 
 country in which they did not live. The Sulpicians at Paris 
 transferred to their brethren in Canada what, it is argued, 
 they had no right to transfer. 
 
s 
 
 From prudential motr es, doubtless, the design so far as the 
 Sulpician's estates wove concerned, was not carried out : yet 
 their title to them was ever considered by the government as 
 utterly invalid ; which view of the case was made to appear 
 on several occasions. One was by an Act in 1774, entitled, 
 " An act for making effectual provision for the government of 
 the Province of Quebec, in North America." The principal 
 objects of the Act were : " To ascertain the limits of that 
 province, which were extended far beyond what has been 
 settled as such by the King's Proclamation of 1763, and to 
 secure to the Roman Catholic clergy, except the regulars (or 
 members of the religious orders) the legal enjoyment of their 
 lands, and their titles in their own communion, or from all 
 who professed the Roman Catholic religion." To read the 
 discussion on the above bill in its passage in both the Lords 
 and Commons, as given in the Pictorial History of England, 
 would show to every doubting mind that it was with the most 
 determined purpose the exception against the regulars was 
 made, and not by any means was it an os'ersight, or uninten- 
 tional circumstance, as the Sulpicians have endeavored, in 
 their Memoir of the Titles of the Seminary, to show. 
 
 In 1788, the claim of proprietorship was brought by a 
 movement from the Seminary before the Governor of Canada. 
 One of those conflicts, so many and so bitter between them 
 and the Indians, and which their treatment of the Indians 
 occasioned, had taken place; and they therefore sought to 
 obtain a declaration from the Governor in their favor. The 
 Governor laid the case before the Crown Officers, who declared 
 against the assumptions of the Seminary most directly and 
 emphatically. 
 
 Among the reasons the Crown Officers assigned for doing 
 so are the following : — 
 
 " Ist. The Sulpicians had not power to create one or more 
 bodies of their own members, with power to possess and hold 
 property in Mortmain." 
 
 " 2nd. The Seminary in Montreal could not show that it had 
 
in itself the legal establishment of an ecclesiastical body, with 
 powers independent of the order of St. Sulpice at Paris, to 
 take and hold property in Mortmain." 
 
 And certainly this conclusion is sustained by the fact, that 
 all properties given to the order, even to those in Canada, and 
 for objects to be performed in Canada, were deeded to the Sem- 
 inary in Paris distinctly and specifically, and that when the 
 Seminary in Montreal was in full operation as such, as de- 
 clared by themselves. And further, not only were the proper- 
 ties given thus, but the French King's Patent confirmed them 
 in this order : i.e., to th - ninary in Paris. And, again, it 
 was not until after the iquest that a d:fi*erent course was 
 attempted, viz., that of making over the properties in Canada 
 to the Seminary of Montreal. 
 
 In 1804, Mr. Sewell, the Attorney-General of Lower 
 Canada at that time, prepared an able and comprehensive 
 report, in which were again refuted the claims held and main- 
 tained with a somewhat desperate determination by the Sem- 
 inary, and in 1811, the whole subject was referred to the law 
 officers of the Crown in England. These were Sir Christopher 
 Robinson, the Advocate-General ; Sir Viedy Gibbs, the Attor- 
 ney-General ; and Mr. Solicitor-General Plumer. Their joint 
 report was to the effect : " That the St. Sulpicians in Canada 
 had not a valid title to the lands transferred to them by the 
 Community of Paris." 
 
 The opinion of the Attorney-General SeweU, who for many 
 years subsequently was the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court in Quebec, and justly distinguished and honored for his 
 great ability as a legist, and for his unspotted integrity and 
 uprightness as a judge, is somewhat elaborate. In substance 
 it is as follows : — " The motive of the gift of the Island of 
 Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, in 1663, by an 
 association for the conversion of the Indians in that Island, 
 created a trust which was never fulfilled, and the title was 
 bad for non-user. The French King afterwards authorized 
 the establishment of a Seminary at Montreal to carry out the 
 
8 
 
 gtant. The ownership was in the Seminary of St. Sulpice, 
 and the Seminary of Montreal did not subsist as a separate 
 corporation. The deed of gift, April, 1764, by which the Sem- 
 inary of St. Sulpice, Paris, assumed to convey the property to 
 the Seminary in Montreal, is void. The Island of Montreal 
 being vested in a foreign community, incapable of holding 
 lands in His Majesty's Dominion, the right of property would 
 devolve to the Crown. The estates were public property held 
 by the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, under trust for a parti- 
 cular purpose, and tliey fell to the Crown by right of conquest. 
 The absence of a right to transfer the property must make the 
 deed of gift null. The right of t)ie property in the Seminary 
 was only that of admi/aistrators, and not such as would en- 
 title them to convey. The grantees, not being a distinct cor- 
 poration, were incapacitated from taking under the deed. 
 Without a new charter, the Seminary could not be prolonged 
 after the death of such of its members as were alive at the 
 time of the conquest." Mr. Sewell was strongly convinced 
 «* that the rights of the Crown to the property could be enforced 
 in the courts." {See Lindsay' a IMome in Canada, pp. SoS 9.) 
 
 At a subsequent period, and when Attorney-General 
 Sewell had become Chief Justice, a case was brought before 
 him in which the Seminary appeared as respondents. The 
 Chief Justice declared against them because, although they 
 pleaded possession, yet such was on " d iitre precaire " ; and 
 further, that although they felt it necessary to prove they 
 were seigniors in possession, it was necessary to prove they 
 were " seigniors and proprietors;" but which in his judgment 
 they were unable to do. 
 
 In a memorial presented to the Home Government " by 
 the inhabitants and proprietors of the City and Island of 
 Montreal against the s ^sumptions* of +.he St. Sulpice Seminary," 
 there are statements which have an important beaiing upon 
 the case I am now discussing. They say : — 
 
 " Some further proceedings took place in 1819 under the 
 administration of the Duke of Richmond, the precise nature 
 
of "which is DoL publicly linowQ except in so far as maybe 
 judged by the subsequent action of the Government. 
 
 '' In 1834 instructions were seot to His Excellency 
 Lord Aylmer, to require the St. Sulpicians to suj-render the 
 property to the Government. 
 
 " In 1836 the subject was referred to the Commissioners of 
 Inquiry, who were unamiously of opinion that the St. Sulpicians 
 had not a valid title to the estates." 
 
 At different periods the Seminary has sought to maintain 
 their claims. In a " Memoir " on the subject they endeavour to 
 establish two points : First, that previous to the conquest, as 
 well as subsequently, they had a legal existence. And, second- 
 ly, that they had a legal right to hold property-. This memoir 
 is a most labored production, and from the wire-drawing and 
 twisting process that is apparent in almost every paragraph, 
 the disappointed reader is compelled to throw it down as a 
 mass of sophistical pleading, and with which even its author, 
 or authors, must themselves have felt dissatisfied. 
 
 Next they published what they designate " A refutation of 
 the Crown OflEicers on the right of the Seminary of Montreal to 
 the property in their possession." This tract is remarkable 
 for two things particularly : How roundly they can abuse a 
 person who fearlessly does his duty, as did Sir James Marriott ; 
 and how cleverly they can spin and twist a line to bind down 
 all arguments against them, while in the whirl of the opera- 
 tion they have not grappled with one of any weight or im- 
 portance, t 
 
 Following this is an able and very elaborate opinion from 
 M. Dupin, " An Advocate of the Royal Court of Paris, on the 
 Rights of the Seminary in Canada ;" and then, although pub- 
 lished several years previous to the one by M. Dupin, is " An 
 Opinion of twelve of the most eminent Advocates of Paris 
 touching the rights of the Seminary in Montreal in Canada to 
 certain property." These are remarkably able papers ; that by 
 M. Dupin especially. He was one of the twelve of the paper 
 ast referred to, which was published in Paris, 18th Aug., 1819. 
 
! ■ ! 
 
 I ' 
 
 10 
 
 But as he himself says, " when the undersigned was consulted 
 for the first time on the subject, in March 1819, he had before 
 him none of the documents just enumerated " — [ " the several 
 memoirs published by either party to the suit now p'^nding 
 between the Seminary of Montreal and Mr. Fleming ; also a 
 memoir of the English Crown ofiicers, the analysis of the dif- 
 ferent pleadings, and the extract from the opinion of one of 
 the judges (Judge Sewell) before whom the said suit was 
 brought together with divers other documents relative to the 
 questions discussed therein,"] " he had only to give his opinion 
 on the merits of the instrument styled, a ' concession,' executed 
 on the 29th April, 1764, between the Seminary of Montreal 
 and that of St. Sulpice at Paris." Having therefore these 
 documents before him when delivering the opinion bearing 
 only his own signature, dated Paris, 10th June, 1826, he was 
 much better prepared to deal with the whole case than, when 
 with the eleven other distinguished advocates, he was not 
 possessed of them. His paper is a very able one, yet it pro- 
 duced no effect upon the law oflBcers of the British Crown, 
 nor upon the Government, at least so as to turn them from 
 their course ; a fact fully established by the declarations made, 
 and the actions proposed several years subsequently, as may 
 be seen above. 
 
 A further reference to the " memorial by the inhabitants 
 and proprietors of the Island and City of Montreal," will be 
 in place here, as it throws additional light upon these points 
 which so strongly influenced the Government in its action 
 towards the Seminary ; and will assist us in judging more 
 accurately on the matter then, as now, in question : — 
 
 " In the year 1663 the Island of Montreal was by a deed 
 duly executed made over to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, in 
 Paris, subject to the condition ' that the domain and property 
 of the said Island shall be inseparably united to the said 
 Seminary, without any possibility of their being separated for 
 any cause or reason whatsoever.' 
 
 " In 1667 the Seminary memorialized His Most Christian 
 
11 
 
 Majesty, praying that. His Majesty would be pleased to grant 
 to them letters patent to enable thera to hold the Island of 
 Montreal in mortmain, and to establish a Seminary in the said 
 Island." 
 
 " The Letters Patent were accordingly issued in the month 
 of May, 1667, granting both theses requests. 
 
 "On the surrender of Montreal to the British Army, 
 several ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice were found residing in that 
 city, but whether legally established as a community is not 
 known and indeed admits of much doubt. To these ecclesias- 
 tics^ calling themselves the community of St. Sulpice of Mont- 
 real the Seminary of Paris made over by deed in 1764 (after 
 the cession of the country) the property and estates in this 
 country. 
 
 "In the year 1781, on the occasion of their tendering 
 fealty and homage to H^is Excellency Sir Frederick Haldi- 
 mand, this conveyance was brought forward as constituting 
 their only titles, although subsequently a prior claim was set 
 up founded on the Letters Patent. As it is now admitted 
 that the St. Sulpicians of Paris had no right to sell or alienate 
 these estates, the only point of enquiry is whether the Letters 
 Patent alluded to conveyed the property to the St. Sulpicians 
 of Montreal as affirmed bv them. 
 
 " It is almost superfluous to offer a single observation on a 
 document where the meaning is so distinctly expressed. The 
 said donation set forth in the contract of the 9th of March, 
 1663, is subject to the condition that the domain and property 
 of the said Island shall forever be inseparably united to the 
 said Seminary (of Paris) without being liable to be separated 
 therefrom for any cause or reason whatsoever, and this ' said 
 donation * His Most Christian Majesty accepts, consents to, 
 and approves, willing that it be forever united to their society. 
 There is nothing vague or doubtful in this declaration of the 
 Royal pleasure. The donation was to the St. Sulpicians of 
 Paris, and * the said donation * is by the Letters Patent for 
 ever united to their society. 
 
12 
 
 iin 
 
 1 : 1 ■ 
 
 "The absurdity of supposing that the words *to their 
 society ' were meant to indicate the St. Sulpicians of Montreal, 
 is still more apparent when it is considered that to listen favor- 
 ably to the said memorialists, was the moving cause why the 
 Letters Patent were issued ; it would indeed be a most singu- 
 lar display of Royal favor, if, as * the St. Sulpicians of Mont- 
 real contend,' the Letters Patent deprived the said memorial- 
 ists of the donation, instead of permitting them to hold estates 
 in mortmain, as piayed for ; such an interpretation of the Royal 
 intention being yet more improbable as implying that the 
 property was bestowed on a community not then in existence, 
 and which there was no cerlainty would ever be legally estab- 
 lished and competent to accept the douation. 
 
 " Public documeots ol'a later date put it beyond all doubt 
 that the Si. Suipiclaos of Paris were the owuei^s of these 
 esfcai.es. An edict of 1693, other Letters Patent of 1714, and 
 an aridfc of the Council of State of loth May, 1716, establish 
 that fact. Their title Is also affirmed in leases and deeds of 
 conoessIoQ executed in this province wherein the St. Sulpi- 
 cians of M^onfcreul appear in the capacity or agents to the com- 
 munity at Pat-is; and lastly, by the deed of cession of 1764, 
 wheveio it is det-.laied and admitted by both parties that the 
 St. Si'lpieians of Paris were the undoubted owners of the pro- 
 perty and eytates of this Colony. 
 
 " The evidence to this point is clear and convincing, and it 
 follows as a nahiral consequence that the estates in question 
 are lapsed to r<he Crown by right of conquest, as the property 
 of a foreign society domiciled at Paris at the time of the con- 
 quest aod cession ol' the colony. 
 
 " The acfc of fealty and homage teodeved by the St. Sul- 
 picians to Bis Excelleacy Sir Fyederick Haldimand in 1781, 
 and desijcd by them as an abandonment by His Majesty of 
 the lights of the Crown in their bebair, scarcely merits serious 
 notice. The extravagance of such a pretension will at once 
 be exposed by obs'^rving that it rests on the supposition that 
 rendering fealty and homage to the governor of a distant 
 

 18 
 
 colony is sufBcient of itself to naturalize foreigners ; to consti- 
 tute a body corporate and ecclesiastical ; to convey the right 
 of holding lands in mortmain, and to dispossess the Crown of 
 estates and revenues worth about £500,000 ; and these im- 
 portant results are also said to have been obtained contrary to 
 the Royal instructions in that behalf, and against the provi- 
 sions of an Act of Imperial Parliament, 14th Geo. III., cap. 83, 
 excluding the St. Sulpicians from ad right, title, or claim, to 
 these estates. 
 
 " A reference to the authorities mentioned in a former part 
 of this memorial, and more particularly to the reports of Sir 
 James Marriott and Mr. Attorney-General Sewell, will show 
 that the rights of the Crown in this matter are not dependent 
 on the decision of the law courts, and that the power of the 
 Crown may be legally and properly exercised for the gradual 
 suppression of the ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice, and the acquisi- 
 tion of the estates now in their possession by adopting to- 
 wards them the same means which have already been used in 
 respect to the Jesuits and RecoUets." 
 
 Under Lord Sydenham's administration an Act was passed 
 in ] 841 which confiimed to the Seminary the title to these 
 estates. An effort had previously been made, under the ad- 
 ministration of Lord Colbome, to effect such a confirmation 
 *by an ordinance-in-councij, but because of its absoluteness it 
 was disallowed by the Home Government. Having failed in 
 that instance the Seminary were now glad to receive the one 
 of 1841, although it contained " terms, provisoes, conditions, 
 and limitations " whic' sufficiently marked the determination 
 of the Govfernment that they should regard themselves still 
 but as trustees, or administrators, of the estates whose titles 
 were now confirmed to them, but only as such. This, if not 
 as they had fondly hoped the ordinance would have been 
 made, they were obliged to accept and subscribe to ; and in it 
 to read the authorized exposition of the British Government's 
 views of the design of the original donors of these properties 
 to the Seminary at Farie. 
 
14 
 
 I •■ 
 
 Shortly after the passing of this Act it became apparent 
 that the Seminary had resolved upon putting a new face on 
 the ordering and management of these estates, that of the 
 lake lands seigniory particularly. Previous to the Act, and 
 under the old state of things, the Seminary acted as the guar- 
 dians of the Indian's right ; and in that relation took proceed- 
 ings against all trespassers on these lands. But now the y act 
 as masters, proprietors in their own rights ; and soon take the 
 needed measures to initiate the Indians into this new dis- 
 covery. Nor is this all ; for no longer desiring the presence of 
 the Indians at the Lake of Two Mountains, they move — suc- 
 cessfully move — the Government to set apart for the Indians a 
 block of Ipnd (1,600 acres) in a distant and northern portion of 
 the province. 
 
 To this newly found paradise of sterility, rock and frost, 
 the Indians refused to go. But just as determined as the 
 Indians were in their refusal to go, just in such a determina- 
 tion did the Seminary put themselves that the Indians should 
 go. The Indians naturally asked why they should be re- 
 quired to leave lands where their fathers had lived and died, 
 and where they had lived since their birth ; and the Seminary 
 answered by narrowing the lines of their restriction yet more 
 and more. Land and its timber, which they had freely used for 
 their various wants and maintenance generally, they are now 
 forbidden to use ; and the prohibition is enforced by various 
 forms of penalty and punishment. 
 
 To compel the Indians to conform to their wishes became 
 now the settled purpose of the Seminary. For this they ar- 
 ranged their policy and applied the means necessary to carry 
 it out. The Indians feeling the lines of restriction and annoy- 
 ance drawn tighter from time to time became the more restive. 
 Of this complaints were raised ; and each party in turn sought 
 aid and relief from the Government. The replies to the Indians 
 showed very plainly that their real condition was neither 
 apprehended nor understood. The Government counselled 
 them to peace and submission to the Seminary ; but, as this 
 
H 
 
 15 
 
 was impossible from the course the Seminary had chosen, the 
 counsel was not followed, because it could not be. 
 
 The Seminary hud never known failure heretofore in work- 
 ing out their plans, and why should they now fail with such 
 opponents as these Indians ? This must not be ; and, it shall 
 not he, if they can maintain their standing. 
 
 But the Indians, now driven to a point, also become re- 
 solved, and conclude upon a course altogether unexpected by 
 the Seminary. They will abandon the Church of Rome at 
 once and forever, and as — so they thought — the Seminary are 
 on their lands as their ministers, by relieving them of such 
 duties as were involved in this relation, so would they be 
 relieved of the persecutions and presence of the priests at the 
 same time. With this view of the case a band of the Indians 
 waited upon the priest at his presbytery, and with becoming 
 decorum and definiteness they communicated to him their 
 resolve. 
 
 On serving this notice the Indians took all necessary pre- 
 cautions to avoid even the appearance of any intimidating act 
 on their part, and having performed what they considered 
 their duty under the circumstances, they returned as peace- 
 ably to their homes as they had left them. Having done no 
 wrong they feared no evil ; but in this instance as in others 
 previously, they did not fully count the costs. The priest went, 
 to Montreal immediately after the visit made him by the 
 Indians, and deposing that his life had been threatened 
 obtained a poss^ of constables, who with their chief followed 
 him back to Oka. Then, to give the Indians another lesson 
 on the duty of absolute submission to the powers that be, they 
 arrested at night, and while in their beds, five of the most 
 prominent of the party who had waited upon the priest, and 
 carried them to the gaol of St. Scho tique. 
 
 Tidings of this soon spread abroad, and gentlemen in 
 Montreal, aroused by such an outrage upon these poor Indians, 
 bailed them from the gaol, and engaged a lawyer for their 
 defense. 
 
16 
 
 ! I 
 
 This led "to the commencement of the P«ofcft«tant Mission 
 Bxaoitfr these Oka Indians ; and this again to discoveries of the 
 great want aod wretchedness to which these Indians were 
 reduced while V«viug on lands oLtaJLed for their be'Aedfc, and 
 from which the Srminaiy were deriving a princely revenue. 
 
 It is impoftant oo bear in mind that the Protestant Mis- 
 sion to Oka dates fjom this time; and was brought about 
 entirely by the priest's own tveatmenfc of these Indiana. If, 
 therefore, s'.ich be a matter of complaint by any one, the Sem- 
 inary, and they only, are the parties responsible for this cir- 
 cumstance. 
 
 Br.t the Semi aa.ry are a powerful body; whiob fact being well 
 and widely known gives them gieat ioSuence wii-h, not only 
 the members o" their own chnrch, but w'th many others also, 
 who, having strong political fears or aspirations, would not on 
 any consideration have this community set themselves against 
 them. J. iien, again, the Indians aie \iQor and powerless, so 
 that when looked upon side by side with the Seminary, are, 
 in the estimation of many, as mere 'nobodies. When, there- 
 fore, their claims ai*e brought up for calculation or adjastment 
 at any time, and it is known they conflict with certain de- 
 mands or assumptions of this Seminary, it is not difficult to 
 apprehend that they stand at a great disadvantage. That 
 there are those who will put Christian principle and even- 
 handed justice into the scale, no matter who the persons, or 
 what their claims, to be afl'ected thereby, is freely conceded : 
 but that such are a majority of the people — however consider- 
 able as a minority they may be — none will say, I apprehend. 
 
 With a view to promote a settlement of this case, the 
 Government has at different times obtained fiom gentlemen 
 of high legal standing, an opinion on the points at issue 
 between the contending parties. There are, it is understood, 
 three opiiiions from gentlemen thus consulted. Two of these 
 opinions I have had an opportunity of reading ; the tliird, 
 which was the first in the order f iven, I have not seen, and 
 only know its character from the conclusion which it supplies* 
 
 I i 
 
17 
 
 
 And yet these opinions, although coming from men of great 
 influe.ice in the legal profession, will not, I am persuaded, give 
 any measure of yatisfactlon to the friends of the Indians. By 
 this it may be surmised, that they are not favorable to the 
 claims set up by such , and this is quite true. Nay, more I 
 will say, they are almost altogether, two of theixi at least, ad- 
 verse to these claims ; yet such of itself would not be unsatis- 
 factory if those claims were shown to be unreasonable and 
 illegal. On such a showing the conclusion would be submit- 
 ted to, and measures taken accoroingly. But that such is not 
 the case, it will be my business to show ; as to this end the 
 present effort is made. Should I accomplish, what I am vain 
 enough to believe I can accomplish, and thus promote an early 
 and equitable settlement of this long-pending and irritating 
 question, I am persuaded that a blot would be wiped from the 
 character of our Government, and a festering danger removed 
 from our community. 
 
 I am aware that I hazard much when I say, that it is 
 against the recorded opinions of the Hon. Mr. Langevin, the 
 Hon. Mr. Laflamme and the Hon. Mr. Badgley, that I write 
 thus, in the way of protefib. But as I have not taken my 
 position in hasto or without due reflection, I am prepared for 
 the consequences, if I be but judged at the bar of fair and im- 
 partial reason. 
 
 It is true, I again remark, that the above-named gentlemen 
 have given such an opinion on the points at issue between 
 the Seminary and the Indians at Oka ; and each one adverse 
 to the claims set up in behalf of these Indians. But it is also 
 true — and such is material to the case in a considerable degree 
 — that the Seminary had before this given their opinion ; and 
 that in strong and [pointed language. That Mr. Langevin, 
 who was the first of the three to deliver his opinion to the 
 Government, was uninformed of the Seminary's arguments, 
 conclusions, and strong desires on the matter when he wrote 
 this, may not be supposed ; no more than that knowing such he 
 could be capable of setting up any argument but one in perfect 
 
18 
 
 accord with theirs. To differ from them, he, as a consistent 
 and devoted Roman Catholic, and that of the present and 
 Ultramontane School, would regard as much more than a 
 misfortune, it would be a crime of no ordinary magnitude ; 
 while with them agreeing, he would consider as proof of 
 highest demonstration, that he was right both mentally and 
 morally. Therefore, in the most perfect accord with the 
 Superior of the Seminary, Mr. Langevin delivers hia opinion 
 in the following words : " The seigniory of Two Mountains is 
 the absolute property of the Seminary of St. Sulpice of Mont- 
 real, as shown by the title or grant of the 27th April, 1718 ; 
 by that of the Ist March, 1735, by the permission granted to 
 the gentlemen of the Seminary, by the Treaty of Paris, to sell 
 those seignories and carry away the proceeds to France, if 
 they had chosen to do so; by the 3rd and 4th Vic. chap. 30 
 (now chap. 42 of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada), 
 and by the Seignorial Act of 1859," See Par. Returns, p. 40, 
 Letter Ottawa, 26th Oct. 1868. 
 
 A few days previous to the writing of the above, the Rev. 
 Mr. Baile had addressed a letter to Mr. Langevin, in which 
 are the following statements : "This seigniory" (that of the Lake 
 of Two Mountains) " was conceded to us upon i. title very 
 onerous to us, in October, 1717. Our gentlemen petitioned 
 for it, so as to enable them to transfer the Indian Mission, 
 which they had at their own expense established in our 
 seigniory of Montreal in 1677, at first at the foot, on the moun- 
 tain; and afterwards at the Sault-au-Recollet in the domain. 
 It was granted to us by the then Governor and Intendant, to 
 enjoy the same forever, in the most ample manner, even if the 
 Mission was taken away from thence, on the conditions that 
 the expenses of the transfer of the Mission should be paid by 
 us ; that we should put up a stone building, a church, and erect 
 a fort for the protection of the Indians and the defence of the 
 colony, against the incursions of the Iroquois. We have 
 £Bbithfully fulfilled these conditions. 
 
 " The expenses incurred in fulfilling these conditions were 
 
19 
 
 so considerable that, on the 26th September, 173S, the Marquis 
 of Beauhamois added new lands to this seigniory. The King 
 of France, in approving of these grants, added a greater ex- 
 tent, in the depth of the land, as an indemnity. 
 
 " Those are our titles ; they are so clear that, in virtue of 
 the Treaty of Peace, concluded between the French Crown 
 and that of England at the time of the cession of Canada in 
 1760, our seigniories were considered as private seigniories, and 
 we had the privilege of selling them and taking the proceeds of 
 such sales to France, the same as any other seignior who did 
 not wish to remain under the English domination. The gentle- 
 men of St. Sulpice did not, however, like to abandon the 
 colony at a moment when the fruits of their sacrifices were 
 most wanted. 
 
 " In 184(0, the titles of the Seminary of Montreal to those 
 seigniories which were held in property by the Sulpicians of 
 Paris and of Montreal, under the French domination, were 
 confirmed by that famous ordinance which has been the 
 dawning and the basis of the commutation of the seigniorial 
 rights in the whole province. You are aware of the sacrifices 
 v/e then made." 
 
 What the Hon. Mr. Iiangevin's argument is, I have not had 
 the opportunity of knowing ; but his conclusion, which is that 
 most important to be known, is, as seen above, in perfect 
 accord with that of Mr. Baile. 
 
 That a Roman Catholic is taught to treat witii greatest 
 deference the person and utterances of his clergy, is well 
 known, and, to a certain extent, such cannot be objected 
 against. But it is also known that when a priest, or a num- 
 ber of priests, and those many of them of high authority, 
 speak and act with emphasis and point on a matter affecting 
 the interests of their Church, &s have the Seminary of St. 
 Sulpice about the estates they hold, then to diissent from 
 them in thought, much less to oppose them by word or coun- 
 sel, would be a sin it were difficult if not impossible to exceed 
 in all the catalogue of transgressions which that ChurcL has 
 
V 
 
 20 
 
 chronicled. And assuredly the Hon. Mr. Langevin is not the 
 man to do such a thing ; for he has not so learned Christ — 
 nay, not so learned of his Church, — the teaching of which is 
 often found in striking conflict with that of the Saviour's. 
 
 Well but, I may be told, this surely has nothing to do with 
 the merits of the case. If Mr. Bailo is rijjht Mr. Langevin 
 cannot be wrong in following him, however closely he may 
 adopt his line of remark, and accept his conclusions. 
 
 But this is the vory point Mr. Baile is not only wrong, 
 but wrong in almost ev^ery line he has written as given above ; 
 and Mr. Langevin's fault is thathehas followed him in his errors, 
 and reproduced those errors with the weight and authority 
 of his own name, as a lawyer, and a member of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Let me point to the leading errors which Mr. Baile has 
 given as in the quotation above : — 
 
 " The seigniory was given to us " — he means evidently the 
 U8 of Montreal, which is not true — it was given the Seminary, 
 in Faris. " Upon a title very onerous to us." Not so ; it 
 only required the removal of that portion of the Seminary 
 engaged in teaching the Indians. The Indians — the other 
 component part of the Mission — could, and doubtless did, re- 
 move themselves. '"'The expenses of the transfer should be 
 paid by us." And what could the expenses of half a dozen 
 priests from Montreal to Oka amount to, will Mr. Baile inform 
 us ? " That we should put up a stone building, a church, and 
 erect a fort for the protection of the Indians," &c. Well, and 
 this was all, and for which they had received a grant of nine 
 TTiilea square of fine land / But Mr. Baile has exceeded the 
 truth in the above statement, as he does when he says, " This 
 seigniory was conceded to us upon a title very onerous to usJ* 
 Will the Reverend gentleman explain how this was ? 
 
 The statement in the grant, as to what was required of 
 them, is " On condition that they shall bear the whole expense 
 necessary for removing the said Mission, and also cause a church 
 and a fort to be built there of stone, at their own cost, for the 
 
 
u 
 
 21 
 
 security of the Indians." In the above are the following dis- 
 crepancies, which the reader will notice ; no " stone building " 
 was required of them, and the fort was " for the security of 
 the Indians," simply ; show'Mg how both parties — the French 
 Government particularly — lelt about the interests " of the 
 Indians." 
 
 Then again, after enumerating the things the Seminary 
 wore required to do — even to "the erection of a fort," &c., he 
 adds, " we have faithfully fulfilled these conditions ; " and yet 
 he knew when he penned the above, that they had built no 
 ''stone fort," as for which omission they had to frame an 
 excuse to Jie Fiench King when they made application for 
 the second grant. 
 
 Again this veracious and accurate gentleman says : " Our 
 gentlemen petitioned for it, so as to enable them to transfer 
 the Indian Mission which they had, at their own expense, 
 established in our Seigniory of Montreal in 1667." But will 
 Mr. Baile say how they became possessed of the seigniory and 
 Island of Montreal ? Was it not for the very work of which he 
 speaks, viz , the conversion of the Indians ? Th^s he will not 
 deny ; but if so, what does he mean by the expression, " which 
 they had at their own expense established in our seirrniory of 
 Montreal ?" Was it not to mislead ? Fye ! fye ! Mr. Baile, 
 why write after this fashion ? 
 
 " These are our titles ; they are so clear that, in virtue of 
 the Treaty of Peace concluded between the French Crown and 
 that of England at the time of the cession of Canada \ii 1760, 
 our seigniories were considered as private seigniories, and we 
 had the privilege of selling them and taking the proceeds of 
 such sales to France, the same as the other seigniors who did 
 not wish to remain under the English domination." 
 
 That the above is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case 
 is clear to all persons who have made themselves properly ac- 
 quainted with our history, and that to at a period v^hich should 
 be of interest to every one ; to the man especially who aims at 
 anything like a knowledge of the leading events of our country. 
 
ss 
 
 
 
 
 ill' 
 
 i!' 
 
 i'!' 
 
 'iill I 
 
 iiii i 
 
 particularly. And yet Mr. Lan'»"vin and Mr. Badgley have 
 both repeated this error — Mr. Langevin because he would not 
 be thought capable of saying anything that would conflict 
 with a statement,, and especially so positive a one, of a dis- 
 tinguished clergyman of his Church. But of Mr. Badgley 
 what shall we say ? Why, that he has relied too much upon 
 the source where he got his information — a source which his 
 argument points to in other instances besides this, and leaves 
 little doubt upon the mind that the Seminary largely supplied 
 him with the material found in his opinion. Had Mr. Garneau 
 been consulted on this subject — and none will charge him 
 with being devoid in interest for his Church and people — he 
 would have saved them from a mistake which a schoolboy 
 would be censured for making.* 
 
 But of the facts of the case the Rev. Mr. Baile cannot 
 plead lack of information. He knows that much of the dis- 
 cussion that was kept up for a number of years bi^tween his 
 Seminary and the British Govemmeut, arose out o>* the very 
 fact that such a permission had never been given ; but that 
 contrariwise, the Government had demanded, again and again, 
 a surrender of the estates held by the Seminary. And that 
 the Seminary held them was only due to the fact that the 
 Government hesitated to take the extreme step of compelling 
 their surrender ; which hesitancy i<he Seminary evidently re- 
 garded as the product of fear, and that the Government did 
 not dare to do as they threatened. Be this as it may, nothing 
 needs to be clearer than that the Government in every instance 
 that the question came before them, declared that the Semi- 
 nary had no valid title to the estates. And all this the Rev. 
 Mr. Baile, the present Superior of the Seminary, knew full 
 well, and yet his statement as above ! 
 
 As Mr. Langevin has clearly enough looked no farther for 
 information — at least to him authoritative information — upon 
 this subject beyond the present Superior of the Seminary of 
 St. Sulpice, and found all there that he conceived he needed, 
 80 he felt he had no higher duty to perform than to echo the 
 
 * 8«e ftppendiz A. 
 
23 
 
 i 
 
 utterances of this dignitary of his Church. But as he has 
 chosen this course he must now bear to be told that his opin- 
 ion is on a par value with the paper on which it is written, 
 and no more. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Laflamme is the next legal luminary asked 
 to shed light on this dark question, and in looking at his 
 paper one is struck by the absence in those submitted to him 
 by the Hon. Mr. Mills, the then Minister of the Interior, of 
 any written by the law officers of the Crown both in England 
 and Canada, during the frequent discussions upon this subject 
 previous to its settlement by the Act of 1841. This, I think, 
 must be conceded to be a reprehensible omission. Mr. Mills 
 may not have been aware of their existence, neither may Mr. 
 Laflamme have been. But while some excuse may be taken 
 for Mr. Mills, he being ac Upper Canadian, none such ought to 
 ue received on Mr. Laflamme's account. He is a lawyer, and 
 has lived all his life in the Province of Quebec, where he 
 studied his profession. ]ror him, therefore, to be so unin- 
 formed of incidents so important in our history, as not even 
 to seek a perusal of them in forming an opinion on the subject 
 to which they refer, is remarkable indeed, and by no means 
 to hi.s commendation as a legal authority. That he had a 
 vague idea that somc'jhing had been written which bore upon 
 the question, is made clear by his reference to it. Yet his 
 reference, and especially the way in which he makes it, is 
 utterly damaging of any influence his opinion on this subject 
 can be designed to wield. 
 
 He says *' Although the right of the Seminary to hold the 
 lands given to them by the French Crown was put in question 
 after the conquest, not by reason of its validity, but on the 
 ground they being a foreign corporation and Incapable of 
 alienation to a new corporation, and although the claims of 
 the Indians to the lands in question were on several occasions 
 brought forward, they were invariably disposed of as having 
 no foundation." Just think of this statement, and coming from 
 a legal authority such as the Hon. Mr. Laflamme ! He saying 
 

 !!;:!; 
 
 •\''\ i 
 :|-"ii 
 
 
 liln* 
 
 I ;fl 1 
 
 
 III 
 
 |i 
 
 24 
 
 " they " (the questions between the Seminary and the British 
 Crown about the lands of the Seminary) " were on several oc- 
 casions brought forward," but " were invaiiably disposed of 
 as having no foundation/' when the very opposite is the fact 
 in the case ! 
 
 But the Hon. Mr. Laflamme, even as Mr. Langevin, is a 
 Roman Catholic, and as such, is bound by considerations 
 which Protestants, generally, have little conception of, to 
 speak and act as their Church directs, and especially in mat- 
 ters of high importance to their Church's interests — as this 
 question of the Sulpician estates has ever been regarded. He 
 had, however, a twofold reason for concluding in this instance 
 as he has done. One, the Church, in the person of the head of 
 the Seminary, had spoken ; and the other, Mr. Langevin had 
 given a written opinion, which although not placed before the 
 public — so far at least as I have known — was pu* ' fore Mr. 
 Laflamme. It was much easier for him therefore, fraught 
 with far less unpleasant consequences, to follow Mr. Langevin, 
 at least to his conclusions, seeing that he had followed a high 
 clerical authority, than to risk a ditfeient result, and for so 
 inconsiderable a class as these poor Indians. 
 
 The rule with Mr. Laflamme seems to have been, to mag- 
 nixy everything in his way in favor of the Seminary, until 
 the twig had become in his eyes like a cedar of Lebanon : 
 while everything in favor of the Indian he minifies to the 
 smallest possible dimensions ; indeed, until in some instances 
 it becomes an all but invisible point. I will hold this gentle- 
 man's paper for services yet to be rendered. For the present 
 I lay it aside. A similar use will be made of the Hon. Mr. 
 Badg'ey's paper ; for, fortunately for the Indians, there is a 
 point from which we can start where most that is adverse in 
 the opinions of these gentlemen will be seen to be altogether 
 unimportant. The only end accomplished by now referring 
 to then :s, to show how little influence we should allow them 
 in settling this question, when describing the supposed rights 
 of the Seminary. 
 
 . Ill 
 
 illHiiil 
 
 Vi I 
 
25 
 
 That Mr. Badgley has read, and marked with much atten- 
 tion what the Seminary has caused to be written and circu- 
 lated, there is strong internal evidence to prove. His standing 
 for impartiality and fairness would have been much more 
 flattering, had he but brought up and treated the opinions and 
 arguments of the law officers of the Crown in England and 
 Canada, of which there is good reason for believing he had a 
 perfect knowledge, or, had he made the least effort to show 
 how superior, in his judgment, were the arguments of the 
 Seminary's defenders in the several occasions in which the 
 question had been submitted to them. 
 
 One fact quite damaging to his " opinion," as to those of 
 the other gentlemen who have agreed with him, is, that the 
 British Government and their advisers never varied in their 
 findings in any instance from their first declared judgments ; 
 and altnough the Government did not go to the length of 
 compelling .the Seminary to surrender the estates in dispute, 
 yet they never failed to deliver a strong judgment that such 
 estates were the Crown's, and not thi9 Seminary's. A considera- 
 tion of the Act of 184il will, I think, make this fully apparent. 
 
M 
 
 ill i 
 
 PART II. 
 
 I 1: 
 
 iliiii; 
 
 lii':!; 
 
 M Ii; 
 
 
 in 
 
 lii: 
 
 
 The Passing of the Act of 1841 an Important Event — The 
 Rev. Mr. Bailees Estimate of it— A Material Differ' 
 ence pointed out — Questions Discussed — Terms Impro' 
 perly Used-— Chief Justice SewelCs Opinion — Differs 
 Widely from that of the Seminary^ Sfc. — History of the 
 Conflict of Opinion — The Crown Recedes from its 
 Claims — A Probable Reason — What the Act of 1841 
 and its Passing Declares — Its Requirements — Henry 
 Vni. Quoted — Seminaryites Challenged — A Phrase 
 Explained — The Question Answered — The Second 
 Question— Statements of Indians^ Rights — The Word 
 "Mission" Defined — The Instruction to be Given. 
 
 The passing of the ordinance of 1841, now known as the 
 3rd and 4th Vict. chap. 42, was an important event in the 
 Oka question. It was then that the Seminary of St. Sulpice 
 in Montreal obtained a charter of incorporation, and then, only, 
 it became legally qualified to hold property in its own right — 
 a fact which of itself goes a long way in proving that then^ 
 only, would the government recognize its right to such, and 
 retire I'rom the claim which, from the conquest to that period, 
 it had fully and firmly maintained. 
 
 "Then," says the Rev. Mr. Baile, "the titles of the Sem- 
 inary of Montreal to those seigniories * * were confirmed 
 by that famous ordinance." In another instance he says : 
 " that the right and title of the Seminary to that seigniory 
 were recognized in the most ample and most unreserved man- 
 ner, in the charter that was granted them in 1840, by the 
 authority of the British Government." 
 
 The Seminary and their friends have accustomed them- 
 selves, when speaking of the confirmation of their title by the 
 
27 
 
 ordinance of 1841, even as by the original grants, of saying 
 that they had an absolute ownership in the estates held by 
 them. The proper idea is, an absolute right or title to these 
 estates. The diiference here is a material one, and the Sem- 
 inary know well how to use it to their advantage.* 
 
 A number of gentlemen may be incorporated as a Trust to 
 administer a charity, &;c., &;c., and because of which act have 
 an absolute right and title to the estates, or property, devoted 
 to such an end. This, it will be seen, is very different from 
 being the absolute proprietors of such estates ; for then, and 
 for their own ends, and according to their own will, would 
 they act, none having a right to interfere with them in so 
 doing, much less to call them to account for their conduct. On 
 this latter acceptation of the word the Seminary has acted, and 
 the government has winked at their conduct, and because of 
 the license thus tacitly granted the Seminary has gathered 
 assurance, so that now nothing short of absolute ownership is 
 the idea that will please them. Their wish, however, does not 
 give validity to their claim, and it ia to this as it is, and not 
 as by themwished to be, that we must look. 
 
 The questions which the ordinance brings up for discussion, 
 are, first, what is the nature of the titles confirmed to the 
 Seminary by the Act of 1841 ? And, secondly, what interests 
 were secured to the Indians of the Lake of Two Mountains, 
 by that act of confirmation ? Other questions there are which 
 might be framed and pressed as the result of that memorable 
 act ; but these are the only ones which at this moment I care 
 to consider or discuss. 
 
 First, then, what is the nature of the titles confirmed to 
 the Seminary of St. Sulpice by the Act of 1841 ? 
 
 That the titles were then absolutely confirmed is a fact 
 indisputable. Yet, before this, it is to be borne in mind they 
 had not only been disputed, but declared " void," " without 
 effect," "invalid." This statement, however, is withdrawn, 
 and now the declaration is, " And the said corporation shall 
 have, hold and possess, as proprietor thereof, as fully, in the 
 
 » 8«e Appendix B. 
 
W'''l' 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 11;! . 
 
 1 1 
 
 I ! 
 
 ill 
 
 tiH'il 
 
 ;l!ji 
 
 III!! 
 
 !l; 
 
 
 i! 
 
 '^ ! 
 
 mil 
 
 28 
 
 same manner, and to the same extent, as the ecclesiastics of 
 the Seminary of St. Sulpice of the Fauxbourg of St. Germain 
 lez Paris, or the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Montreal, according 
 to its constitution, before the 18th September, 1759," «Sz;c., 
 &c., &;c. 
 
 But now that the property is in their hands, is it in their 
 hands as absolute proprietors, or as proprietors in trust, or rather 
 as administrators, is the question ? That there is a manifest 
 impropriety in using the word "proprietors," when, beyond a 
 question, the idea of administrators of a trust, as stated by 
 Chief Justice Sewell, is the true one, must be admitted. Ob- 
 serving, however, the principle laid down by M. Dupin, 
 " that qualities erroneously ascribed cannct affect the right of 
 any one," and looking into the act for guidance, we shall be 
 saved from all misapprehension through this word in its con- 
 nection as above. 
 
 Adding to the value of the word " proprietors " the Semi- 
 nary append the one " absolute," and thus constitute them- 
 selves the absolute proprietors of the estates in their hands ; 
 and by them the words are employed in their widest appli- 
 cation. The Hon. Mr. Langevin joins them in saying : " It," 
 (the seigniory of Two Mountains), " is the absolute property 
 of the Seminary of St. Sulpice of Montreal." The Hon. Mr. 
 Badgley declares, " That the title of the corporation of the 
 Seminary of Montreal has conferred upon that body a valid 
 and absolute right of property in their several seigniories, and 
 constituted that body the sole and absolute owners of the 
 property known as the seigniory of the Lake of Two Moun- 
 tains." The Hon. Mr. Laflamme's conclusion is in substance the 
 same as the above. And yet in opposition to these declara- 
 tions. Chief Justice Sewell, in an able paper on the subject, 
 says, " the estates were public property, and held by the Semi- 
 nary of St. Sulpice, Paris, under tr^'st for a particular pur- 
 pose." And again, " The right of thy property in the Semi- 
 nary was only that of administrators, and not such as would 
 entitle them to convey!** 
 
 *See Appendix 0. 
 
 m m 
 
29 
 
 The judgment of the late Judge Sewell has this to com- 
 mend it : It agrees with the original grants to the Seminary 
 of Paris ; with the views given by the historian Garneau ; 
 with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, when 
 showing why by the Treaty of peace the religious orders 
 were not allowed to sell or make away with the properties 
 they held ; with the reasons given by the Government why 
 the estates should be relegated to the Crown ; and, fu :ther, 
 with the famous ordinance of 1841, of which so much has 
 been said. 
 
 But in order to form a proper idea of the case, let us go 
 back to the state of things anterior to the Act of 184)1. Here 
 we discover that a conflict of opinion was waged, and had 
 been waged by the Seminary against the declared opinions of 
 the law officers of the Crown, given on several important 
 occasions ; and the repeated expression of purpose by the 
 Government that the Sulpician ^states should be relegated to 
 the Crown domain. 
 
 Look we at the order in which these Acts occurred : — 
 
 First, — There was the refusal of the Crown to grant the 35th 
 Act of Capitulation, by which it was sought to give permission 
 to the religious orders — the Jesuits, the Recollets and the 
 Sulpicians — to sell their properties, movable and immovable, 
 if they chose, and to remove with the proceeds thereof to 
 France. 
 
 Secondly, — There was the declaration of Sir James Mar- 
 riott, the King's Advocate-General, which should be considered 
 that of the Attorney-General Thurlow, and Solicitor-General 
 Wedderburne iis well, for they were associated with him in 
 the consideration of the case. 
 
 Thirdly, — There was the North American Act, in which as 
 of marked purpose, the religious orders were excluded from the 
 relief to the priests, &c., &c., &c. Again : 
 
 Fourthly, — In 1804 was given the clear and very able 
 opinion of the then Attorney-General Sewell; and in 1811 
 that of the Advocate-General, Sir Christopher Robinson ; the 
 
Ili'' 
 
 i: 
 
 s& 
 
 111''!;.: 
 
 
 
 
 m\ 
 
 „; Ml" 
 
 1 1 1 i • - ; t I 
 
 l|:i' i 
 
 
 i; I 
 
 if 
 
 Attorney-General, Sir Viedy Qibbs ; and the Solicitor-General, 
 Plumer. In 1819 proceedings against the Seminary were in- 
 stituted by the Duke of Richmond. In 1834, instructhins 
 were sent to Lord Aylmer to require the Seminary to surren- 
 der the property to the Government ; and in 1836 the subject 
 was referred to certain commissioners of enquiry, who all 
 agreed in declaring that the Sulpicians had not a valid title 
 to the estates ; that they were not proprietors of them ; that 
 the Crown could recover them through the courts, and that 
 even without a process ; and that so clear was the right of the 
 Crown to these properties that they could proceed at once to 
 relegate them to the Crown domain. 
 
 This, let it be remembered, was the state of the question 
 up to the year 1836. 
 
 That the Crown eventually receded from its purpose of 
 relegation, and actually conceded these estates to the Semi- 
 nary, a few years after this, is a fact ; the reasons for ^^hich 
 may perhaps be made sufficiently clear by the memorial from 
 certain of the inhabitants and proprietors of the Island and 
 City of Montreal, already referred to. 
 
 It will be remembered that a rebellion broke out in Canada 
 in 1837, which reached unto the following year. Of this the 
 memorial remarks : " The district of Montreal, where the 
 St. Sulpicians are established, was notoixously the most dis- 
 turbed part of the Province, and in no other district did the 
 rebels assemble in arms in opposition to Her Majesty's 
 forces. Nearly all the French leaders of any note — chefs de 
 Jtehellion — were educated at the St. 8ulpicia>ns* College in 
 Montreal, and the number of persons enrolled in the Hunter's 
 Lodges was so great as almost to justify the remark that the 
 desire of expelling British power from the colony was univer- 
 sal with the Franco-Canadians of the District of Montreal. 
 The influence of the St. Sulpicians, although inefficient t<6 
 check rebellion and to imprint on the minds of the Canadian 
 youth sentiments of loyalty to their Sovereign and attachment 
 to British institutions, has nevertheless been exercised with 
 
 m 
 
81 
 
 remarkable effect in a case where their temporalities only are 
 concerned." 
 
 The Memorialists refer to the fact that great numbers of 
 the French habitants were drawn into the rebellion in the 
 hope that if successful, all tithes, &;c., &;c., would be abolished. 
 Yet so great was the power of this Seminary that they pre- 
 vailed upon a large class of these very persons to refuse their 
 countenance to a petition got up after the Rebellion for the 
 abolition of these dimes, and also to sign one for them ; by 
 which their rights to them might be secured. If, therefore, it 
 was argued this Seminary was so powerful as to induce a 
 large portion of the people to act so contrary to an object for 
 the attainment of which they had risen in rebellion, how was 
 it that they not only did not use their influence to prevent a 
 rebellion, but that in their portion of the province the greatest 
 number in leaders and followers were found. 
 
 It has been intimated that because of important services 
 rendered the Crown during the Rebellion the Seminary were 
 rewarded by a confirmation of their titles. This looks 
 very like, first, fanning up a rebellion, and then after- 
 wards, by betraying their dupes to the Government, selling 
 their people to buy back a title -to their estates. 
 
 Be this as it may, one thing is certain, that the Govern- 
 ment just after the Rebellion, and for services said to have 
 been rendered them by the Seminary during that rebellion, 
 confirmed the Seminary's titles, and as a cousequence have left 
 them in the undisturbed possession of these estates up to the 
 present. Hence, i^ is evident that the confirmation was to 
 buy off those who could, when they chose, be troublesome and 
 dangerous enemies ; but who, under a certain treatment, be 
 made valuable and useful friends.(?) 
 
 Yet whatever were the reasons which induced the Govern- 
 ment to be thus favorable to the Seminary, that favor was not 
 so bestowed by them as to lead to the conclusion that it was 
 because they discovered they had been in error, and now, hav- 
 ing made the discovery, they would recede from their former 
 
I 1 
 
 ii'li 
 
 1 ll'l I 
 ill!' 
 
 ll 
 
 m 
 
 l'!! 
 
 
 I i 
 
 ihk'iM 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i; 1 
 
 82 
 
 avowal of Crown rights. Not so, by any means, was this the 
 case ; for they act throughout as masters of the occasion ; and 
 with a purpose to show that they would hold the Seminaiy 
 to its original obligations as trustees, or administrators of the 
 estates they were now about to confirm them in the possession 
 of, and which by the act they would declare was the design of 
 the original donors. This, several acts of the Government at 
 the time fully establish. 
 
 First, — By refusing assent to an ordinance passed under 
 Lord Colborne's administration, entitled 2nd Vict, chap 50, 
 and that because it was sought by it to make the Seminary 
 the absolute owners of the estates in question, and thus cut off 
 the Indians' rights of which the Gooernnrient would not 
 listen to. 
 
 Second, — By passing the ordinance of 1841, already referred 
 to, and having put into it, " terms, provisers, conditions and 
 limitations," which ordinance with " its terms," &c., &c., the 
 Seminary was compelled to accept and subscribe to. Thus was 
 clearly established the statement of Chief Justice Sewell : that 
 they, the Seminary, were but administrators of a trust, and 
 not the proprietors of such. 
 
 Mr. Laflamme says that " an important modification is in- 
 troduced into the original grant by this act." That the entire 
 property of the Seminary, comprising all the seigniories, is se- 
 cured for the joint and several purposes mentioned and de- 
 fined therein, although they were liot specified in the original 
 grants." 
 
 But this act of the British Government was an invasion of 
 the Seminary's rights, (as indeed was, by implication, its 
 refusal to confirm the previous ordinance of Sir John Col- 
 borne's administration), if the conclusions of the Seminary and 
 the defenders of their claims are admitted. The Government 
 most clearly took the whole arrangement, as well as the con- 
 firmation, into their own hands, and Adrtually said to the 
 Seminary : " This is our plan and purpose ; we are determined 
 you shall hold these properties as administrators, simply. 
 
 III; !m: 
 
 lllii^i: 
 
 :i!i!: 
 
this the 
 on ; and 
 leminaiy 
 '3 of the 
 Dssession 
 iesign of 
 iment at 
 
 id under 
 ihap 50, 
 eminary 
 18 cut off 
 mid not 
 
 referred 
 ons and 
 , &;c., the 
 Chus was 
 ell: that 
 rust, and 
 
 Lon is in- 
 ae entire 
 3S, is se- 
 and de- 
 original 
 
 vasion of 
 ition, its 
 hn Col- 
 lary and 
 ernment 
 the con- 
 . to the 
 ermined 
 simply, 
 
 and that subject to * terms, provisoes, conditions and limita- 
 tions,* as we propose, and to this we require you to give your 
 assent and acknowledgment. This, or nothing, gentlemen. 
 On your acceptance of these our terms, we will confirm and 
 make your title absolute, as was that of the Seminary in 
 Paris. If not, then our purpose of relegation shall hold." 
 
 To this proposition, hard to submit to, doubtless, seeing 
 the expectations that had been indulged, the Seminary thought 
 it prudent to yield; trusting, as events have since shown they 
 did, that as time passed away, so would from the recollections 
 of most people the real conditions on which the confirmation 
 of their titles rested ; and that then the rejected ordinance, 
 rather than the affirmed one, could be used without ary fear 
 of detection and exposure. This point they have for some 
 time past felt assured they had reached. The confidence with 
 which their assumptions have been made, and the subservi-^ 
 ency of their many followers, have done much in accomplish- 
 ing this. But it is now hoped that sufficient light will be thrown 
 upon this subject so as to sweep away this foul imposition at 
 once and forever. 
 
 By the act of 1841, every farthing of the revenues from 
 their whole estates is appropriated. A strange and inexpli- 
 cable circumstance this, if, as averred, this Act has made the 
 Seminary the absolute owners of the estates from which those 
 revenues flow. Further, not only is direction given for the 
 appropriation of all the ordinary income from the estates of 
 the Seminaiy, but, in the event of any surplus, be it much or 
 little, it is to be applied for " such other rf.ligious, charitable^ 
 and educational institutions as may from time to time be 
 approved and sanctioned by the governor of the province for 
 the time being ;" and, it is added, " And to and for no other 
 objects, purposes or interests whatsoever*' 
 
 Again, as if to make the idea of absolute ownership with 
 the Seminary altogether impracticable, (an attempt to assume 
 which, it is clear the Government apprehended might be 
 made,) it is declared that " the sufficient support and mainten- 
 
Ml I 
 
 
 !' ijlji'i ' 
 I'll I! 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 Hiiilii! 
 
 i 
 
 !i! 
 
 lilltUi 
 
 I > 
 ! 
 
 94 
 
 ance of the members of the Corporation, its officers and ser- 
 vants," is made for them ; by which we see that beyond this 
 they have not a right to one cent of the revenues from these 
 vast estates. And, as if to make any unauthorized application 
 ot these revenues utterly impossible, and that they should 
 ever have before them the fact they wete but the Administra- 
 tors of a Trust committed to their hands, the Act of 1841 
 further declares that " the said Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of 
 St. Salpice of Montreal shall, whenever and so often as they 
 may he required by the Governor of the Province, lay before 
 him,, or before such officer or officers as he sftall appoint, a 
 full, clear, and detailed statement of the estate, property, in- 
 come, debts and expenditure, and all the pecuniary and tem- 
 poral afairs of the said corporation, in such manner or form, 
 and with such attestation of correctness as the Governor shall 
 direct!* That this is not language to be used to persons who 
 are the absolute owners of property, and that in a country 
 where the liberties of the subject are respected or acknow- 
 ledged, the simplest reader can ucderstand. Nay, I question 
 there being a government, or sovereign, however absolute now 
 on the face of the globe, that would think of placing such re- 
 strictions on the absolute owners of property in their country. 
 The thing is too absurd for any one to imagine but persons like 
 our Seminary of St. Sulpice, or of any one to accord it to them 
 but those who voluntarily yield themselves to the spell which 
 that Seminary is so capable of exercising. 
 
 Mr Laflamme says, so sacred are the rights of property re- 
 garded in England that even Henry VIII. did not dare to 
 confiscate the properties of the monks, &c., until he had ob- 
 tained from them a consent to his doing so. Admitting such 
 to be true, does he think there is less regard to vested rights 
 in our day than in those of that imperious and wilful mon- 
 arch ? If not, will he please to inform us how it was the 
 Qovemment so long maintained their right to confiscate the 
 estates of the Seminary of St Sulpice ? Surely it was not 
 because tiie Seminary had given their consent to such an act. 
 
 i!i!^ 
 
35 
 
 The inference Is plain and easily drawn, viz., the Government 
 believed that at the cession of 1764, they had lapsed to the 
 Crown. Again, will he tell us how it was, on his assumption, — 
 and as well that of the Seminary, and of the Hon. Messrs. Langevin 
 and Badgley, that the Seminary were the sole and absolute own- 
 ers of the properties in question, — that the Government, in the 
 Act of 1841, took the position of a gfra7i<or,and,by the provisions 
 of that Act, made, as he says, " important modifications in the 
 original grants ;" 3'^es, and to such an extent as to reduce the 
 Seminary to the condition of administrators? I think it 
 would puzzle this erudite lawyer, ereh were he aided by the 
 Seminary and the Honorable Messrs. Langevin and Badgley, 
 to give consistent answers to these questions. I am aware the 
 Seminary are adepts at wriggling, but here they are mastered. 
 The only answer that can be given to the above is, the 
 Government felt they were the owners of the property and 
 the masters of the occasion, and therefore they would main- 
 tain their rights and act accordingly. And especially would 
 they do so as they knew they were dealing with men of most 
 accommodating principles and of easy consciences, therefore 
 they would so lay their lines and tie their knots, that with 
 anything like prudent supervision by the Local Government, 
 the Seminary would be kept straight and up to its duty. If 
 since then the Canadian Government has thrown down the 
 lines and allowed the Seminary to do as pleased them, and by 
 which immeasurable injury has been perpetrated on the poor 
 Oka Indians, the blame of this is not with the British Govern- 
 ment. And those, therefore, through whom the injury and 
 blame have arisen, should now arise and make the only atone- 
 ment possible by putting the Seminary down, and the Indians 
 up and on, the rights and immunities which were then, by the 
 Act of 1841,as by the original grants, made|and secured to them. 
 The oft quoted passage — " even if the mission be removed" 
 i.e. from the Lake lands, has a bearing which seems not to 
 have come within the apprehensions of the Seminaryites. 
 They, ever intent upon looking only at one side of the question, 
 
II! 
 
 
 i I 
 
 !:■ 
 
 
 ii 
 
 iHliiiii 
 
 ! IP li : 
 
 I lli : 
 
 llilil 
 
 'I',! 
 
 nil ! 
 ij ! 
 
 i 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 i 
 
 
 i : 
 
 >!H,|!t 
 
 nil 
 
 m 
 iiiii 
 
 : 1 
 
 36 
 
 and that one the Seminary's, have not imagined could have 
 any hearing in favor of the Indians. But Mr. Laflamme him- 
 self, helps us to a right apprehension of the design of this 
 clause. He says there was put into the deeds by which lands 
 were given the Jesuits in behalf of the Indians, the foUowi: g : 
 *' that in the event of the lands being abandoned by the 
 Indians they should revert to the Crown." In the case of the 
 Sulpicians a clause materially different was put into their 
 grants. But why ? because, as the lands in the latter case 
 even as in the former, were given for the Indians, the inference 
 would be that without such a clause should the Indians leave 
 the Lake lands, they must revert to the Crown. From this 
 we nave the following inferences : — 
 
 1st, — That as such a clause was never put into grants of 
 seigniories for the French colonists, because unnecessary, it is 
 plain this seigniory at least, was designed for the use, for the 
 exclusive use, and benefit of the Indians. 
 
 2nd, — That in the event of these Indians, — " the Mission,'* 
 removing away from the Lands, then the Seminary would be 
 allowed to settle them with French colonists ; or it might be, 
 with other Indians. 
 
 3rd. — As these Indians — in the only and proper sense of 
 the word Mission, in Uiis connection — have not moved away, 
 therefore, the use of these lands, to the utmost of their need, 
 for settlement and maintenance, is secured to them even by 
 the only consistent interpretation which can be given to this 
 sentence, though often through a manifest perversion of its 
 import, quoted against them. 
 
 Therefore to the question: — What is the nature of the 
 titles confirmed to the Seminary of St. Sulpice by the Act of 
 1841, known as the 3rd and 4th Vict. chap. 42 ? I answer : It 
 secures to them, their successors and assigns, in full property 
 as trustees and a>dministrators, the seigniory and Island of 
 Montreal ; the seigniory of St. Sulpice, and that of the Lake of 
 Two Mountains, according to the " terms, provisors, conditions 
 and limitations," of said act, " and to and for no other 06- 
 iecte, purposes or interests whatsoever." 
 
87 
 
 Id have 
 He him- 
 of this 
 ih lands 
 lowi: g : 
 by the 
 e of the 
 io their 
 ier case 
 iference 
 IS leave 
 3m this 
 
 rants of 
 
 iry, it is 
 
 for the 
 
 'ission,'* 
 ould be 
 ight be, 
 
 lense of 
 d away, 
 need, 
 ven by 
 to this 
 1 of its 
 
 of the 
 Act of 
 iwer : It 
 roperty 
 land of 
 Lake of 
 ditiona 
 her oh- 
 
 The second question proposed for discussion, is, what in- 
 terests were secured to the Indians of the Lake of Two 
 Mountains seignioiy by the Act of 1841 ? 
 
 According to the Seminaryites these interests are small, 
 very small indeed ; in some instances almost altogether in- 
 visible. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Baile says : " The Indians whom we have 
 always treated as our children are, therefore, on our lands ; 
 they have, and can only have, but the titles which we think 
 proper to grant them." (The grossness of this assumption is 
 quite noticeable.) 
 
 Mr. Langevin says : " It is found that the titles of the 
 seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains, and the acts of Par- 
 liament relating thereto, give to the gentlemen of the Semi- 
 nary of St. Sulpice, Montreal, the absolute ownership of the 
 said seigniory, and consequently the Algonquin Indians have 
 no rights of property therein." 
 
 Mr. Laflamme declares : " That the claim of the Indians 
 is justified by no recognized principle of law." And 
 
 Mr. Badgley states : " That the Oka Indians have not and 
 never had any lawful proprietory claim in the property of the 
 said Lake seigniory." 
 
 The statements of these gentlemen are good and irrefutable 
 only on the ground that they had made good their conclu- 
 sions ; that the Seminary were the ahiohite owners of the 
 estates in question. But as I have shown tho,!; the idea 
 of absolute ownership under the circumstances of the Seminary 
 of St. Sulpice is odt of the question, if not an absolute ab- 
 surdity, therefore the statements amount to nothing so far as the 
 Seminary and the Indians are concerned. 
 
 Still, it is admitted, — that in one sense,— because the law 
 treats the Indians as minors, they cannot be properly regarded 
 as having lawful proprietory claims on the property ot the 
 said seigniory of the Lake lands. Yet if the Seminary be 
 but aiimiuistrators of the estates which they hold but in trust, 
 then is it clear, that not only in the Lake lands, but also in 
 

 |i:'',;ii 
 
 
 I I 
 
 HM 
 
 I 
 
 liiiii 
 
 m 
 
 ^'ii: 
 
 H 
 
 I'! i! r'i 
 
 i! 
 
 Ilii 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 i 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 i ' 
 
 ! 
 
 ''If 
 
 1:1 
 
 ij 
 
 i 
 ) 
 
 
 , 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 38 
 
 those of the Island of Montreal (for these were given the 
 Seminary for the conversion of the Indians,) these Indians 
 have a large and unquestionable interest, even to the most 
 ample means for settlement and maintenance. 
 
 On several occasions the fact has been forced upon our 
 attention, that in every thing written by the gentlemen 
 whose opinions we have been considering in which the claims 
 of the Seminary are touched, they are drawn out in their 
 largest possible, or imaginable proportions; while those of 
 these Indians are reduced to the smallest point conceivable. 
 
 Yet we may be glad to find that the act, with its docu- 
 mentary elucidations,is before us, and that we are not dependent 
 upon these expositors for a correct apprehension of the merits 
 of the case. We tmn therefore to the act, and from it we 
 gather the following : 
 
 " And to and for the purposes, objects, and intents 
 following, that is to say * * * the Mission of the Lake of Two 
 Mountains, for the insti'uction and spiHtual care of the 
 Algonquin and Iroquois Indians." The interpretation 
 given to this, in substance is the following, that in keeping 
 open a school for instruction and a Church, with its required 
 priest, or priests, for spiritual care, is all the act makes provi- 
 sion for from the Seminary ; and that even this is forfeited by 
 these Indians in having become Protestants. 
 
 But Mr. Laflamme says, — and he more than once has paid 
 that which helps our cause, although undesigned by him 
 doubtless when doing so , — " The statute confirming the above 
 grants," (the original grants to the Seminary) " has not sub- 
 tracted from, nor added to any of the obligations of the 
 grantees towards the Indians." We were quite aware of this 
 fact before Mr. Laflamme stated it, and it is quoted to show 
 that Mr. Laflamme had principles of law and lacts before him, 
 even while failing to give them their proper significance and 
 bearing: — "Therefore, what rights the Indians are acknowledged 
 to have had before the passing of the act of 184fl, were not 
 destroyed by that act, while the admitted rights and usages 
 
ven the 
 Indians 
 be most 
 
 3on our 
 ntlemen 
 e claims 
 in their 
 ihose of 
 vable. 
 bs docu- 
 ipendent 
 e merits 
 n it we 
 
 intents 
 e of Two 
 J of the 
 iretafcion 
 keeping 
 required 
 s provi- 
 eited by 
 
 has said 
 by him 
 le above 
 lot sub- 
 3 of the 
 3 of this 
 to show 
 ore him, 
 nee and 
 wledged 
 rere not 
 I usages 
 
 
 antecedent to that act must be taken to explain its design and 
 application." 
 
 Our first duty is, to learn the accredited import of the 
 word, " Mission." How did the Seminary and others use the 
 word; and what meaning did they thus practically give 
 to it? 
 
 In the application of the Seminary for the grant of the 
 Lake lands, they say, " it would be to the advantage of the 
 Indian Mission of Sault au RecoUet, * * to have the said 
 Mission transferred * * * to the lands of the Lake of Two 
 Mountains." In the removal of the Indians — the Mission — 
 being removed from the city they would have fewer tempta- 
 tions to dininkenness, and would serve as a barrier agpinst the 
 incursions in time of war." 
 
 In the grant of 1717, in reply to the application above, — 
 the term is used in the same way with the words added : — 
 " Even if the said Mission be taken away from thence." 
 " That the Indians of the Mission of the said Lake of Two 
 Mountains." 
 
 In a letter to the Hon. Mr. Langevin, 9th Nov., 1868, the 
 present Superior of the Seminary says : "Since about 200 years 
 past the Mission has been established on our domain of the 
 seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains." " In keeping up 
 of the New Mission becoming every day more onerous, the 
 produce of the hunt not being sufficient to supply the wants 
 of the Indians, we created farms around our domains, when 
 these will yield a plentiful crop, they will suffice to meet the 
 expenses of the Mission." 
 
 In the above extracts, it is clear that while the idea of a 
 Mission, as comprehending two classes of persons — the teachers 
 and the taught, — the Indians are the only prominent parties 
 referred to. And that it would be the merest folly to regard 
 the term simply as meaning a place kept to impart instruc- 
 tion, (foe, in which but one party may or is likely to be found. 
 This idea, although having with it the weight of Mr. Laflam- 
 me's name, we must put aside as utterly worthless. 
 
'Iffl 
 
 II I 
 
 40 
 
 I 
 
 li.lM!::!!, 
 
 m 
 
 '! lili:; 
 
 i 
 
 ii'lii 
 
 Hi: 
 
 llpili'i 
 
 pill!' 
 
 But if the estates of the Seminary have, by the act of 1841, 
 placed upon them, as a perpetual charge, the Mission of the 
 Lake of Two Mountains, and by this is understood the Indians 
 as a leading component, and essential part of that term, then 
 by what reasoning coming from men having any pretensions 
 to sense or justice, are the priests to be so pro^ ided for as to 
 give them the whole of these lands, while the Indians are to 
 have absolutely no part or share in them ? Indeed, in the 
 fact that a " sufficient support and maintenance " of the entire 
 Seminary, servants and all, is otherwise provided for by the 
 act, it becomes a question if the Indians, and they only, be 
 not meant in the words, " To and for the Mission of the Lake 
 of Two Mountains." It is certai^ily a curious specimen of 
 reasoning which leaves the Indians altogether out of this pro- 
 vision ; and of the reasoner who has the assurance to tell an 
 intelligent public that the teaching priests are the only ones 
 provided for ; and that for such provision is set apart a country 
 eighteen mUes square, having now in it seven parishes, with 
 their villages and towns, &;c., &;c., and on which for the Semi- 
 nary are cultivated some twenty-five large farms. Surely 
 impudence of assertion has rarely, if ever, surpassed this. 
 
 It may not be amiss here to ask the Seminaryites what 
 kind of instruction the Indians were to have given them at 
 this Mission.? Would they say that such as the district 
 school imparts to the children of the village is all that is in- 
 tended ? This, I apprehend, is all the microscopic vision of 
 these gentlemen can see in the ordinance. But from their 
 liliputian conceptions we turn to those of the French king 
 and Government, many times given by them, in the early 
 settlement of this country. By these we learn the instruction 
 they designed for the Indians was such as " To render the 
 Indians stationary in their habits of life, and as well to 
 accustom them, if possible, to French customs and laws." These 
 were Champlain's ideas of instruction for the Indians. 
 
 In the establishment founded by M. de Sillery, " he ar- 
 ranged for habitations and grounds for the converted Algon- 
 
 Ijilfil' 
 
 I 
 
41 
 
 )f 1841, 
 
 ; of the 
 Indians 
 m, then 
 ensions 
 [>r as to 
 s are to 
 in the 
 e entire 
 by the 
 )nly, be 
 he Lake 
 men of 
 his pro- 
 tell an 
 ly ones 
 country 
 63, with 
 3 Semi- 
 Surely 
 is. 
 
 s what 
 lem at 
 district 
 t is in- 
 ision of 
 a their 
 h king 
 
 early 
 iruction 
 der the 
 well to 
 
 These 
 
 he ar- 
 Algon- 
 
 qulns and Montagnais, wno could be induced to leave their 
 wild habits of life and take up their residence near to their 
 Jesuit pastors." Of Madame de la Peltrie, who founded the 
 Ursuline Convent, it is said, " This lady's determination to go 
 out to New France, and to devote her property to the pur- 
 pose of educating the daughters of the French settlers, and of 
 the savages." In the Jesuit relations we are asked, " Is it not 
 a highly commendable sight to behold soldiers and artizans, 
 I Venchmen and savages, dwelling together peaceably, and en- 
 joying the goodwill of each other." 
 
 It is evident from the above extracts, and many more such 
 which are found in the histories of the early settlement of 
 Canada, that the instruction designed for the Indians was 
 such as would lead them to a Christianized civilization, and 
 thus fit them for the privileges and responsibilities of the 
 ordinary French settler. In order to this they were to be 
 drawn away from their wandering habits of life to those of 
 quiet husbandry ; and for which any reasonable amount of 
 land was placed at their acceptance. 
 
 Again, the idea of their being treated as minors was not 
 then in existence ; for we are distinctly told, that " the pre- 
 valent desire in France at the time for the propagation of 
 Christianity, by the aboriginal inhabitants of the colony to 
 the Roman Catholic faith of the kingdom, in favor of which 
 the letters patent of the company declared that the Canadian- 
 bom descendants of French inhabitants of the French colony, 
 and the Christianized savages should be held to be natural- 
 born subjects of France, with every privilege belonging to that 
 right without requiring letters of naturalization therefor" 
 So greatly were the men of those days inspired with a zeal for 
 the Indians of the country that Champlain is said to have ex- 
 claimed : " It is a more glorious thing to secure the salvation 
 of one soul than to conquer an empire." 
 
 Even Mr. Laflamme unwittingly renders important testi- 
 mony on this point. He mentions several instances in which 
 lands were given to the Indians through the Jesuits. But 
 
i 
 
 I ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Hill!!!'! 
 
 Iliiii! 
 
 
 il';!' ,1111 !i 
 li I 
 
 lii 
 
 
 I 
 
 i!;!"i! 
 
 Ill 
 
 :J!Jiii|| 
 
 42 
 
 because they were given in franc alleu, and not by seignorial 
 tenure, — as if such were material to the object of the argu- 
 ment — he concludes against the claim instituted in favor of 
 the Indians. Nevertheless he says : " And such of the land 
 within the seigniory as had been granted to French settlers 
 was reserved, but the rents were transferred to the Jesuits 
 for, and as the property of the Indians." Then of two other 
 grants — one of them at Caughnawaga — he remarks : " These 
 grants instead of being made as a seigniory, are made directly 
 and absolutely to the Jesuits for the Indians, and for their 
 settlement and maintenance, and with the condition that 
 when such lands shall be abandoned by them they shall revert 
 to the Crown." 
 
 There are several points worthy of special notice here. 
 
 1. That while a title could be " made directly and even 
 absolutely to the Jesuits," it was at the same time made for, 
 and in behalf of the Indians, a.nd subject to the condition of 
 reverting to the Crown if abandoned — not by the Jesuits, but 
 by the Indians. 
 
 2. It is made clear by the above, that " settlement and 
 maintenance " on these lands for the Indians was the object 
 of the Crown of France. Then why, I ask, should such be 
 denied the Indians on the Lake lands ? 
 
 And 3. That the Jesuits were but administrators of the 
 lands which they held in trust for the Indians. Confirming a 
 statement made in a memorial addressed some year and a half 
 ago to the Government at Ottawa, by the Civil Rights Alli- 
 ance, and drawn up by their Council — Messrs. Doutre and 
 Maclaren. The statement is as follows : " We do not now 
 undertake to define what a Mission meant at the dates of 
 these concessions, but the facts made patent by these deeds 
 are : At the time the first deed was prayed for, the Seminary 
 was burdened with the Indian Mission, then located at Sault- 
 au-Recollet in their seigniory of the Island of Montreal. The 
 concession was not asked, nor granted for the benefit of the 
 Seminary, but for that of the Indians exclusively, as long as 
 
 ill, I;:. 
 I lti!i: 
 
43 
 
 leignorial 
 ,he argu- 
 favor of 
 the land 
 I settlers 
 e Jesuits 
 wo other 
 : "These 
 3 directly 
 for their 
 tion that 
 all revert 
 
 here, 
 and even 
 made for, 
 idition of 
 jsuits, but 
 
 nent and 
 le object 
 such be 
 
 :>rs of the 
 
 ifirming a 
 
 md a half 
 
 ffhts Alii- 
 
 ►utre and 
 
 not now 
 
 dates of 
 
 ese deeds 
 
 Seminary 
 
 at Sault- 
 
 eal. The 
 
 ;fit of the 
 
 IS long as 
 
 
 they would remain there ; the deed contains a kind or entail 
 in favor of the Seminary, in case the Indians should either 
 migrate therefrom or become extinct from any cause, accord- 
 ing to the laws of the Province of Quebec, at the date of the 
 concession deeds, as well as at the present time, the Indians 
 were constituted and are still grev^a de substitution, with all 
 the rights attached to that quality. The Seminary as appeUa 
 d la substitution, have no right whatever, except that of 
 supervision to prevent waste." In another part' of this 
 memorial is the following, showing how closely its writers 
 draw the resemblance between the Seminarv and that stated 
 by Mr. Laflamme of the Jesuits. " The Seminary holds the 
 same position as the Dominion Government towards the 
 Caughnawaga Indians and other tribes," (having taken it 
 doubtless because of the suppression of the Jesuit order,) 
 " And are bound to deal with their wards as the Government 
 are dealing with theirs — ^that is, to turn the whole income 
 and productions of the seigniory to the benefit of the India as, 
 including the mines or quarries, if they exist, the produce of 
 the forest without waste, the income derived from pastures, 
 the constituted rents of all conceded lands, representing the 
 seigniorial cens et rentes, and the indemnity, paid by the 
 Government for the abolition of the lods et ventes." 
 
 In the treatment of the Indians, as it is seen the French 
 authorities and leading men in the colony designed and 
 desired they should be treated, there were motives commercial 
 and military, as well as those of a benevolent and Christian 
 character, which moved them. 
 
 Those of a commercial character are given by Parkman in 
 the following words : "The complete conversion of the Iroquois 
 meant their estranofement from the heretic Enorlish and Dutch 
 and their firm alliance with the French. It meant safety for 
 Canada, and it ensured for her the fur trade of the interior 
 freed from English rivalry. Hence the importance of these 
 Missions, and hence their double character, while the Jesuit 
 toiled to convert his savage hosts, he watched them at the 
 
 ■i 
 
I! 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 Hill I Ipl ' ! 
 
 'iliiiiil ' ■ 
 
 li 
 
 m.r 
 
 B^ 
 
 MA: 
 
 
 li! 
 
 I 
 
 iPP 
 
 44 
 
 same time with the eye of a shrewd politician agent, reported 
 at Quebec the result of his observations, and by every means 
 in his power sought to alienate them from England and at^ ^ch 
 them to France."' 
 
 The warlike policy that pointed to the settlement of the 
 Indians and their adoption of French modes of living are of 
 frequent reference. The Seminary did not forget to use this 
 potent argument when applying for the Lake lands. They 
 intimated to the French King that the Indians " would serve as 
 a barrier against the incursions in time of war." 
 
 Of Champlain it is fsaid, " recDllecting the many efforts 
 hitherto made by France to defend Canada, he sought to 
 attach to her interests the native tribes, to whom he sent 
 missionaries to preach the Gospel." 
 
 Of Maisonneuve, Mr. Garneau says : " The dangers attend- 
 ing the formation of an outlaying settlement daunted him 
 not, and he hastei A, in ihe year 1642, to lay a foundation for 
 the settlement of Montreal, the few buildings he erected on 
 the site laid out, he surrounded for defence with wooden 
 palisades, and he named the infant city Ville Marie. He 
 then began to gather around the place such of the neighboring 
 natives as had been christened, or desired so to be ; wishing to 
 teach them the acts of civilization, beginning with the culture 
 of the soil" Quotations in any number like the above could 
 be drawn from Garneau, and other historians of Canada. 
 These however show very distinctly : — 
 
 1st, — That the conversion of the Indians to Christianity, 
 as professed by the Roman Catholic Church, was an object of 
 leading moment to the French authorities. 
 
 2nd, — That to promote such, and to render the fruit of it 
 serviceable to the colony a strong efiort was made to induce 
 the Indians to settle on lands set apart for them. 
 
 3rd, — That lands were freely granted for such purposes, 
 while to encourage the Indians to settle upon them, they were 
 to be treated as naturalized subjects of France. And 
 
 4th, — From the above the inference is pl&in and clear, that 
 
 l!!!i!!!|liili 
 
45 
 
 reported 
 T means 
 d at. 'ch 
 
 b of the 
 g are of 
 use this 
 I. They 
 serve as 
 
 Y efforts 
 
 ►ught to 
 
 he sent 
 
 3 attend- 
 ted him 
 ation lor 
 Bcted on 
 
 wooden 
 rie. He 
 jhboring 
 Lshing to 
 3 culture 
 ire could 
 
 Canada. 
 
 istianity, 
 object of 
 
 ait of it 
 ;o induce 
 
 jurposes, 
 ley were 
 
 lear, that 
 
 to have refused lands to Indians, being disposed to settle on 
 them, and especially having received such from the Crown for 
 this purpose, would have involved the charge of opposing the 
 wish of the King and of the people, generally ; and have led 
 to a prompt and complete confiscation of all lands they had 
 received from the Crown for such purposes. 
 
 Inasmuch then as the Seminary of St. Sulpice of Montreal 
 have never treated the Indians on the Lake lands as the pur- 
 pose of the French King and government, expressed in many 
 ways and instances, have shown that purpose to be ; nor since 
 the passing of the Act of 1841, as by that act the intention of 
 the British Government is gathered, therefore, they should be 
 compelled to surrender to the Crown all lands which were 
 conveyed to them in the interests of Indians, generally, and 
 of those on the Lake lands particularly ; and that measures be 
 taken as speedily as possible to have the original design of 
 the donors fully and faithfully carried out. 
 
 An efibrt is made to show that as the Indians have left the 
 Roman Catholic Church the Seminary are now, thereby, 
 relieved from all further obligations or duties towards them. 
 This, like almost all that has been written to the prejudice of 
 the Indians rests upon certain assumptions, which, being 
 unfounded, are misleading and vain. The assumption is, that 
 the Indians renounced the Roman Catholic Church without a 
 good and sufficient reason for doing so. But such is not the 
 case. The facts, of which there are many, abundantly prove 
 that the conduct of the priests of the Seminary actually drove 
 them away from their Church. 
 
 And here it may be said with perfect truthfulness, that 
 the facts as to the Indians' case and conduct are without a 
 parallel ; for who ever heard of an aboriginal people brought 
 to embrace Christianity and kindly tieated by their teachers, 
 afterwards rising against those teachers and leaving them, 
 almost in a body, and going over from them to an antagonistic 
 creed and church ? The Seminary had these Indians under 
 their exclusive care and management for over two centuries ; 
 
 / 
 
46 
 
 |ii!!!!l!' 
 
 i!i!i!ii!iil; 
 
 Biiii 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 ,iiFi;illM": 
 
 . II ii, 
 
 Hi II 
 
 lii' 
 
 and that with every means necessary supplied, that the 
 Indians might not only be converted to, and established in, 
 the Christian faith, according to the Roman Catholic Church, 
 but settled on lands abundantly provided for that purpose ; on 
 which tD obtain a suitable maintenance, and even a reasonable 
 prosperity. But during all this time a policy was pursued by 
 the Seminary with an evident purpose to disinherit the In- 
 dians and absorb the seigniory into their own possession. The 
 policy was so evident to the Indians that they complained o^ 
 it again and again to the Government. After the Act of 1841, 
 the Seminary seeing they could now talk of title, and, 
 one recognized and acknowledged by the Government itself, 
 set themselves to act the part of proprietors, and that so un- 
 disguisedly and tyrannically, and with so evident a purpose 
 of driving the Indians away altogether, that, aroused by srch 
 a display of deception, fraud, and cruelty, and concluding that 
 a priesthood who could perpetrate such acts, and a Church 
 which could tolerate and even encourage them, could have no 
 just claim to the Christian name and relation, (^ese Indians 
 renounced both one and the other at once and forever. And 
 yet this fact, so condemnatory of the Seminary, and so natural 
 and proper on the part of the Indians, is held up to the 
 advantage of the Seminary and to the prejudice of the Indians ! 
 Wonderful logic ! truly ; an astonishing deduction from plain 
 and simple premises ! Surely some exfciaordinary influences, 
 such as seminaries of Romish priests know well how to use, 
 must have been in active opera,tion in this instance, or such a 
 conclusion in favor of this Seminary and to the prejudice of 
 these Indians would never have been thought of. 
 
 lliliil !"' 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 \im$\ 
 
 !'! 
 
lat the 
 hed in, 
 L:nurch, 
 »ose ; on 
 sonable 
 jued by 
 the In- 
 an. The 
 lined o*" 
 of 184.1, 
 lie, and, 
 it itself, 
 , so un- 
 purpose 
 by srch 
 linff that 
 
 Church 
 have no 
 
 Indians 
 ir. And 
 ) natural 
 to the 
 Indians ! 
 >m plain 
 ifluences, 
 w to use, 
 )r such a 
 judice of 
 
 PART III. 
 
 What is Designed in this Discussion — No Wavering in the 
 British Government— Imporiant Assumptions Esta- 
 blished — An Indictment Laid — Counts, Deception^ 
 Fraud, Cruelty - How Proved —A Recital of Facts 
 Startling and Many — Case of Firing the Church — 
 Indians Charged— The Probabilities Strongly in their 
 Favor — Judging from Probabilities the act mu^h 
 more likely to have been by some one or more of the 
 Seminary's Creatures. 
 
 I do not wish to be understood as having attempted to 
 disprove the arguments of Messrs. Laflamme and Badgley, by 
 which they had defended the claims of the Seminary to the 
 Lake lands. Yet I would have it admitted that I have shown 
 the statements and assumptions of the head of the Seminary 
 on this subject to be altogether contradictory of facts, ahd 
 that Mr I angevin, in having followed so closely that gentle- 
 man in his statements and conclusions, has given a much 
 stronger evidence of deference to priestly authority than a 
 desire to be regarded a reliable authority on this question. 
 
 I have also shown that the Governments — Imperial and 
 Colonial — never indicated the slightest wavering in judgment 
 or purpose as to the course they would pursue in the matter, 
 from the time of the Conquest to the settlement by the Act of 
 1841, and that through all this time they were in direct 
 opposition to the assertions of the Seminary and the opinions 
 of theij' legal advisers. That in this constancy of conviction 
 and of unwavering purpose, they were guided by their law 
 officers in England and Canada. And it is noteworthy here, 
 j and should be borne in mind, that the opinions of the law 
 officers of the Crown were given after, as well as before, they 
 
48 
 
 mm 
 
 ill '';:.. 
 
 mm 
 
 In.: , 
 
 had been duly informed of all that the Seminary, and the 
 distinguished Parisian advocates employed by them, had 
 written on the subject. 
 
 From the " memoir," and the " refutation," by the Semi- 
 nary much could not have been expected; for those produc- 
 tions are scarcely respectable special pleading efforts; but 
 of the " Opinion of twelve of the most eminent advocates of 
 Paris," and especially that of M. Dupin, advocate of the 
 Royal Court of Paris," the former in 1819 and the latter in 
 1826, too much cannot be said ; they are masterly productions, 
 and worthy the names they bear. Yet these did not move 
 the Government to yield its convictions or to change its pur- 
 poses. Nor are we surprised at this alter reading but a bare 
 outline of the arguments of the law officers of the Government. 
 Such being the case, neither Mr. Laflamme nor Mr. Badgley 
 should feel unduly humiliated when told that they had not at 
 all succeeded in their efforts to sustain the Seminary's claims, 
 when such advocates as those employed by the Seminary in 
 Paris had failed, and that completely. 
 
 Further, I will assume to have shown that the conduct of 
 the Government, first, in rejecting the ordinance of 2nd Vict., 
 chap. 50, because it gave absoluteness to the Seminary's 
 claims, and had omitted the clauses in favor of the Indians ; 
 and again, secondly, by passing the subsequent one of 3rd and 
 4th Vict., chap. 42, — in which are " Urms, provisoes, conditions 
 and limitations," and to which they required the Seminar}^ 's 
 agreement and acceptance, proved most clearly that the 
 Government acted as grantors, and not simply as one of two 
 parties agreeing to, and arranging for a settlement of conflict- 
 ing claims. And, again, that the Seminary, in accepting a 
 settlement by an ordicnce in which were terms, &c., &c., of 
 the nature these bear, and as tendered by the Government, 
 and especially in the uncomplaining promptitude of their 
 acceptance, virtually and substantially confessed to these facts 
 in all th^ir weight and fullness of import and bearing. 
 
 Again, I claim to have shown that by the Act of 1841, as 
 
4» 
 
 , and the 
 lem, had 
 
 lie Seml- 
 I produc- 
 arta; but 
 ocates of 
 io of tho 
 latter in 
 )ductions, 
 lot move 
 3 its pur- 
 tut a bare 
 rernraent. 
 , Badgley 
 tad not at 
 's claims, 
 ainary in 
 
 onduct of 
 2nd Vict., 
 eminary's 
 
 Indians ; 
 f 3rd and 
 onditions 
 eminarj^'s 
 
 that the 
 le of two 
 
 ■ confiict- 
 jepting a 
 c, &c., of 
 (rernment, 
 
 of their 
 hese facts 
 
 ■ 1841, as 
 
 by the exprensed wishes, purposes and designs of tho French 
 King and Qovernment, and the leading men of the colony, lay 
 and clerical, that the conversion and suitable settlement and 
 maintenance of the Indians was a leading feature of their 
 policy, and to promote which full provision in land grants 
 was generously and judiciously made. 
 
 And yet, with all these facts before us, what shall we say 
 of the conduct of the Seminary of St. Sulpice towards the 
 Indians of the Lake lands ? What shall we say ? What but 
 that by a course of dishonesty and selfish ^ess they have laid 
 themselves open to the most telling censure; and that now an 
 indictment should be brought against them, and ^^hcy com> 
 pelled to surrender again to the Crown the lands they have so 
 perverted from their original object, — the lands not only of the 
 Lake of Two Mountains, but of those of the Island of Mont- 
 reaX, as well. 
 
 For that both these estates were placed in their hands to be 
 administered in the interests of these and other Indians, is as 
 clearly established by the testimony of history as any facts 
 can be. 
 
 In order to effect so important a change — the deliverance 
 of these poor Indians from their Egyptian bondage and inhu- 
 man treatment — I propose the following indictment, and 
 which should be pressed f' gainst the Seminary with all becom- 
 ing determination and vigor. 
 
 The Indictment is one of three counts, viz., Deception, 
 Fraud, and Cruelty. 
 
 Isi Count — Deceptim. This has been practiced on the 
 Hundred Associates who first made over the gittnt of the Island 
 and seigniory of Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice. 
 Their object in doing so is given as follows : " That the said 
 Associates, in their quality aforesaid /or the promotion and in 
 consideration of the conversion of the IndAans of New France 
 have given and do give by these presents, by pure, simple, and 
 irrevocable donation, to take effect duriig the lives of the 
 parties, to the priests of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, * ♦ * 
 
 4 
 
iiiiiil! 
 
 I IM il 
 
 iiiiiil'''' 
 
 
 I! 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 ! 
 
 \\- ,', 
 
 
 W^fj-'^r 
 
 ilU'i:: 
 
 ill 
 
 
 0;- 
 
 ! 
 
 : 
 
 
 iHl'i;',. : 
 
 
 ■I 
 
 I 
 
 1; 
 i! 
 
 ! 
 
 
 60 
 
 and the said parties have agreed that after the charges 
 herein above-mentioned shall have been paid * * for the 
 preservation of the island and the continuance of the work, 
 there simll remain any portion of the revenue arising frcr.v 
 the property hereby ceded, such rcTnainder shall he employed 
 for the advancement of the work." 
 
 Mons. Dupin infox rns us that " the Associates as a society 
 was composed of many individuals, priests as well as laymen? 
 for the conversion of the Indians of New France!* " But in 
 what manLior," Dupin asks, " were these letters patent " (the 
 Royal assent and authority for the concession) " themselves 
 demanded and obtained ?" And he answers : " It was made 
 for an object clearly pointed out, for the promotion and in 
 consideration of the conversion of the Indians in New France, 
 the whole was coTwecrated to this work ; and even in case ci 
 excess or increase of revenue, such excess or increobse was to be 
 employed in like manner." 
 
 And he adds, " The whole principle of the donation was 
 exclusively destined to the accomplishment of the work 
 pointed out." 
 
 " The Letters Patent," which Mons. Dupin says, " are the 
 complement of the Donation" — as without such the donation 
 would have had no effect— declare, " For these reasons, * * * 
 we have permitted, &c., &c., them by these presents, to erect a 
 Seminary on the Island of Montreal, there to labor, * * * o?i 
 the conversion of the Indians." 
 
 But shall we ask here how long this seigniory and Island 
 of Montreal were used in the interests of the Indians ? These 
 lands we are told were consecrated to God and this work, yet 
 in a short time after being so used, a plea was raised to remove 
 the Indians to another place, and never since, now for over 
 one hundred and fifty years, have the lands of the Island and 
 seigniory of Montreal been used by the Seminary as originally 
 designed. 
 
 It is almost needless to repeat here that the grants of 1717 
 and 1733 were asked for, and in the interests cif the Indians, 
 
51 
 
 charges 
 
 for the 
 
 he work, 
 
 Ing frcr.t 
 
 mployed 
 
 a society 
 laymen? 
 •' But in 
 snt " (the 
 emselves 
 as made 
 I and in 
 u Fra/ace, 
 I case ci 
 was to he 
 
 tion was 
 tie work 
 
 "are the 
 donation 
 US, * * * 
 to erect a 
 
 « « « 
 
 on 
 
 id Island 
 These 
 work, yet 
 remove 
 for over 
 (land and 
 )riginally 
 
 s of 1717 
 Indians, 
 
 and that as asked for, were so granted. No names but those 
 of the Indians, and of the gentlemen ot the Seminary, were 
 recognized or mentioned as the grantees — and those of the 
 Seminary only as applicants for the Indians. But have they 
 been used for the Indians ? As long as it was necessary to 
 keep the Indians on these lands to give a coloring to their 
 possession by the Seminary, so long were they allowed to live 
 on them — but only then in a fretted and starving condition. 
 But so soon as the Act of 1841 had given any virtue to the 
 Seminary's title, then, as pretexts were found for removing the 
 Indians from the seigniory of the Island of Montreal, so were 
 reasons discovered for driving them from the Lake lands, and 
 the Government was moved, and successfully, to grant other 
 lands for this object. 
 
 In view of all this there is something especially repulsive 
 in the cant 8,nd affected concern for the Indians which the 
 Seminary manifest in their " Memoir," when appealing deplor- 
 ingly against the Government's purpose of confiscation. They 
 say, " If the subject has but little of what is agreeable in it, it 
 is yet of the highest interest to the Province, which either 
 through its poor, its hospitals, its schoc its colleges, or its 
 Indian inhabitants, reaps the chief share of the benefit of the 
 said property." To the poor, the hospitals, *^id the Indians, 
 the benefit of this property is small indeed. It would be well 
 if the present head of the Seminary would publish the amount 
 from their princely revenues which goes to either of the 
 above objects. The account, however, would have to be con- 
 siderably more in accord with truth than the one giTen the 
 Parliament a few years ago, of what was done for the Indians ; 
 for it would be a task which the whole Seminary would fail 
 in accomplishing, were they required to show one particle of 
 truth in the whole return, so far, at least, as the Indians were 
 concerned. 
 
 Then, as to the poor, let the noble and princely donation of 
 the great sum of $26 given about a year ago, and when Montreal 
 was in great straits to make some provision for the hundreds 
 
tm 
 
 52 
 
 
 'lilllll J ll I; 
 
 m^> 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 '■ill" (j i!i 
 
 I ill"".: ;..'.:: 
 
 'M 
 
 of suffering poor in their midst, and to do which were giving to 
 the utmost of their ability, speak. From this great and wealthy- 
 society a donation of $25 was dribbled out; and so affected 
 were the charitable committee by this expression of niggardli- 
 ness, that but for a far greater concern for the feelings of the 
 Seminary than had the Seminary for the poor, or for their 
 own credit as professed followers of the benevolent Saviour, 
 they would have returned it back to them with some expres- 
 sion of the indignant feelings it had created, and which was 
 freely expressed at the time. , ^ 
 
 The " Indian inhabitants " are said to " share in the benefit 
 of the spid property," — but how? will the Rev. Mr. Baile 
 explain ? 
 
 But while the Seminary took these lands — the Island of 
 Montreal and seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains — for 
 the conversion of the Indians, and agreed to employ them 
 fully for this object (and such was the understanding of the 
 French King, the French people, and the Hundred Associates), 
 and that conversion meant to the Roman Catholic faith, yet their 
 conduct towards these Indians has been such as to compel 
 them to renounce the faith of the donors ; and thus, through 
 the deception practised by the Seminary, the Indians have 
 been driven away from the faith of the Church of Rome in- 
 stead of being held to it. 
 
 Again, another form in which this deception has been 
 practiced is in circumventing the purpose of the French King 
 in preventing these religiou . orders from making such acquisi- 
 tions in lands, &c., as he knew they were bent upon making, 
 and which he felt it important to prevent. In order to do 
 this, Lodis XIV., the King by whom the grant of the Lake 
 lands were made, published an Arr^t of his council of the most 
 stringent character. In the Ist Act he prohibited the forma- 
 tion of any order in either France or its colonies without his 
 express permission conveyed by Letters Patent. And in the 
 9th Act he says, " We declare to be null all establishments of 
 the kind described in the first article." He issued a prohibi- 
 
 iNiiil ! 
 
53 
 
 iving to 
 ?7ealthy 
 affected 
 ggardli- 
 j of the 
 )r their 
 Saviour, 
 expres- 
 ich was 
 
 5 benefit 
 r. Baile 
 
 dand of 
 ins — for 
 y them 
 ; of the 
 ociates), 
 jret their 
 compe^ 
 through 
 Qs have 
 ome in- 
 
 as been 
 ch King 
 acquisi- 
 making, 
 3r to do 
 le Lake 
 he most 
 e forma- 
 hout his 
 d in the 
 aents of 
 prohibi- 
 
 tion that no acquisition either of houses or lands should be 
 made by these orders without his express permission in writ- 
 ing, under penalty of escheat to the domain of the Crown." 
 But from the first this Seminary of St. Sulpice set itself to 
 circumvent the King's prohibition by getting into its posses- 
 sion vast estates, the professed object being one thing, and the 
 real one, as since fully manifested, the very opposite. Here 
 then, the case of deception as priactised by the Seminary, first, on 
 the Associates ; second, on the French King ; and third, upon 
 the Indians, is made out. And especially is it so, when the 
 great and ruling object of conversion to Christianity, as held 
 by the Roman Catholic Church, for the Indians, is considered ; 
 and how this Seminary has driven these Indians from their 
 Church, and to renounce forever the faith which the French 
 King and the Associates held with so much deference and 
 strength of conviction. 
 
 The next Count in the Indictment against this Seminary 
 is, that of Fraud, — 
 
 If a thing got from another under false pretences, is fraud ; 
 or, if a thing got for one object, and, subsequently is employed 
 for another, and that in express opposition to the will of the 
 donor, is fraud, then in both these instances has the Seminary 
 of St. Sulpice practised fraud on the French, the original donors 
 of these estates ; on the British Government, who sought by 
 the Act of Confirmation in 1841, to secure the application of 
 them to and for the persons and objects for which they were 
 devoted ; and on the Indians of Oka, for whose benefit, in a 
 particular manner, these lands were given and set apart. 
 
 The Seminary of St. Sulpice received the Island and 
 seigniory of Montreal from the Associates and King of France 
 with the acknowledged and well understood object of employ- 
 ing them then, and subsequently forever, for the conversion 
 and benefit of the Indians. But they shortly afterwards, on 
 a plea raised by themselves, removed the Indians from thonce, 
 and never since have they appropriated these lands, or any of 
 the income from them for the benefit of the Indian tribes, as 
 
 I 
 
!•' 
 
 illll'l'lliliii'i 
 
 lljijllll 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 iiiililn!!!' 
 
 i ,.'j' 
 
 
 
 M , 
 
 J ll' 
 iiiilllt 
 
 54 
 
 they were bound to do when these lands were placed under 
 their trust and management. 
 
 The removal of the Indians from the Seigniory and Island 
 of Montreal '*t the time and under the circumstances it was 
 done, go far to show, and the complete alienation of these 
 lands from the original objects since then, to prove, that the 
 Seminary never really designed to carry out the object and 
 purpose for which these lands were entrusted to them ; and 
 in this we see a fraud practised on the Associates and on the 
 King of France. 
 
 Again, as the Seminary obtained the Lake lands originally 
 for these Indians, and for them only, but since then have not 
 only denied all right to the Indians in them, but by ceding 
 the larger portions thereof to others than these Indians, and by 
 keeping considerable portions of them for their own use and 
 benefit, contrary to the express purpose, as clearly indicated in 
 the original grant.'', and otherwise by arrets of council, many 
 times declared, they have practised fraud upon the King of 
 France and upon the Indians for whose special benefit he 
 entrusted the Seminary with the Lake lands. 
 
 Then as the British Government confirmed the title of 
 these lands to tha Seminary, with the most explicit direction 
 for their application and us 3, and as the mission of these In- 
 dians was one of those objects (properly so because most 
 prominent in and most amply provided for by the original 
 grants), so we infer that, by the course which the Seminary 
 have pursued in ignoring the Indians' rights altogether, they 
 have practised fraud herein, alike upon the British Govern- 
 ment as upon the persecuted Indians of Oka. 
 
 And, again, while the Indians have been prevented the 
 use of both land and timber for the most ordinary and 
 necessary ends of living or maintenance, and for attempting 
 to make use of which have been again and again imprisoned 
 and variously punished, the Seminary have not only appro- 
 priated for their own use and emolument some twenty-five 
 largo farms of the land, but have cut down, annually, some 
 
55 
 
 I under 
 
 [ Island 
 it was 
 f these 
 tiat the 
 3ct and 
 [u ; and 
 on the 
 
 iginally 
 ave not 
 ' ceding 
 , and by 
 use and 
 [;ated in 
 1, many 
 Kinijf of 
 lefit he 
 
 title of 
 irection 
 ese In- 
 le most 
 original 
 jminary 
 Br, they 
 jrovern- 
 
 ted the 
 iry and 
 jmpting 
 )risoned 
 T appro- 
 nty-five 
 y, some 
 
 thousands of cords of its wood, the sale of which brings them 
 a large revenue, and this, in contravention of the Act of 1841, 
 which secures to them only, and that from the whole of those 
 estates they have the management of, a suitable maintenance 
 or support for themselves and servants. Here again we have 
 proof of the most flagrant acts of fravd perpetrated on the? a 
 poor Indians, which calls loudly for punishment, swift and full. 
 
 Another and glaring instance of fraud and decention was 
 practised by this Seminary in 1854 and 1859, when by a pro- 
 cess of deception, which ough at the time to have been detect- 
 ed and punished, they succeeded in passing tb'jmselves off as 
 the seigniors and owners of the seigniories tliey hold, instead 
 of being but as administrators of these seigniories and but 
 in trust for specific objects and charities. By this act they 
 obtained a large sum approaching to a quarter of a Tnillion 
 dollars. As Mr. Laflamme has ahown in the case of the 
 JesuitJ, holding lands similarly in trust for Indians, when any 
 such lands were in seigniories and held by censitaires, the 
 proceeds from such were received by the Jesuits for the 
 fndians, and applied for their benefit. This course should 
 have been followed by the Seminary, in an honest observance 
 of the purpose for which such lauds, especially those of the 
 Two Mountains seigniory, were placed in their hands. 
 
 But they have not foUov/ed this course ; but have appro- 
 priated this large sum, obtained in commutation, to their own 
 use. In this again they have practised a wicked fraud on 
 these poor Indians ; and for such, also, should be visited with 
 a condign punishment. 
 
 Nor is this all ; for in the carrying out of their fraudulent 
 course the Seminary have so improved their success as to induce 
 the belief that in the payment of this money they were recog- 
 nized as the real and only owners and proprietors of this seig- 
 niory, to the prejudice of any right on or interest in such by 
 these Indians ; pleading as their justification the Act of 1841, 
 although such explicitly guards the rights of the Indians in 
 the following manner : " Nothing in this ordinance aforesaid 
 
.\ 
 
 lii 
 
 
 mm 
 
 66 
 
 contained shall extend to destroy or diminish in any manner, 
 to affect the rights and privileges of the Crown, or of any 
 person or persona, society or corporate body, excepting such 
 only as by this Act and the said ordinance expressly and 
 especially destroy, diminish or affect." 
 
 As in the indictment the counts of Deception and Fraud 
 have been proved, so can that of Cruelty be also. On this 
 point a mere look at the condition of the Indians at Oka and 
 its neighbourhood should be acknowledged as sufficient proof. 
 And here let it be borne in mind that this Seminary have had 
 these Indians in their charge for over two centuries, and that 
 with the most ample means for their improvement. That 
 while they had ample means for prosecuting their work in the 
 most satisfactory manner, and to the most desirable consumma- 
 tion, and that without any opposition from any one, they 
 have failed, and that in the most signal and complete degree 
 that one can well conceive. That such is not the fault of the 
 lands, the condition of many French settlers who have been 
 brought in upon them — making seven large parishes with their 
 villages or towns — fully prove, for they have succeeded to 
 comfort, if not in a number of cases to affluence. Neither 
 can it be set down to a fault of the Indians, for those of their 
 own tribes settled in other places have risen in condition far 
 above these, and that in proportion to the training that has 
 been given them. But these Indians have been both neglected 
 as to their proper training and education, and persecuted and 
 harrassed in their living, in order that they might remove 
 from these lands altogether. As by craft the Seminary got 
 them away from the Montreal Island lands, so by force (craft 
 having failed here in this instance) they would drive them from 
 those of the Lake lands. In this conflict of many years we 
 see the reason of the impoverished condition of these Indians. 
 They have been compelled to a wandering and demoralizing 
 mode of living ; and the precariousness of their means of 
 subsistence has oft-times reduced them to absolute want and 
 stars'^atiou. 
 
 m.:.:. 
 
 ^^w 
 
 
57 
 
 A most painful revelation of their abject and suffering 
 condition was made when the Protestant Missionary went 
 first among them. Since then contributions of food and 
 clothing have had to be made annually for them, otherwise 
 not only suffering, but death itself, from absolute want, would 
 have been the consequence in a number of cases. Indeed it ia 
 supposed, that with all that has been done for them by a Pro- 
 testant and benevolent public, not a few have found an earlier 
 tomb than otherwise they would have done had they been 
 possessed of the necessary means of subsistence, and with 
 which the Seminary was so richly endowed to supply. Heaven 
 in more instances than one hasavenged the cause of these hapless 
 ones on those Seminary gentlemen. The case of one who toan ap- 
 peal of charity made in behalf of a number of these Indians who 
 were suffering from want, and who replied in a brusque and 
 unfeeling manner with the words, " Not a cent" is most 
 striking. After following up that style of feeling and conduct 
 towards these Indians for some time longer, he was cut down 
 by a stroke — a stroke so sudden that he could not have ap- 
 plied to him " the Htes of the Church : " a deplorable circum- 
 stance truly, in the estimation of a Romanist. Another case 
 that speaks loudly as the voice of God in Pro.idence, 
 is that of a priest who had ruthlessly imprisoned a poor Indian 
 for making from the timber of their own lands, hoops, by the 
 sale of which he was getting a scanty living for himself and 
 family. On being liberated from prison after serving his full 
 term (for pardon or the slightest modification to them for pny 
 offence is a thing so rare that it may be questioned u any 
 Indian at Oka can recollect an instance of such having taken 
 place towards them from one of these Seminary priests) the 
 Indian went to Montreal, and almost the first object he saw 
 when he reached the city was the funeral of the very priest 
 who had occasioned his imprisonment ! 
 
 The numbers whom the Seminary, by themselves, and a 
 certain class of " bullies," or " foresters," have had arrested and 
 dragged to prison, both male and female, and the reasons and 
 
lillluill S. 
 
 mm f 
 
 1. 1 
 
 11* 
 
 I 
 
 """I'ifllS 
 
 
 I!!,. 
 
 'SlUUiili''' 
 
 : 1. ' 
 
 58 
 
 circumstances of their doing so, would fill many pages of 
 revolting and harrowing narrative. These "foresters," as 
 they are called, are picked " bullies " who go prowling through 
 the forests to arrest the Indian found cutting any timber, no 
 matter what the object. Finding such, they fall upon him, 
 tie his hands, and then carry him to the gaol, which is about 
 eighteen miles away. One they so arrested while in the act of 
 cutting a piece of a tree ; and having bound him so that he 
 could scarcely move hand or foot, they threw him into a sleigh, 
 and drove him away to prison, not even allowing him to put 
 nil on a coat, although the time was winter. When they arrived 
 
 with him, he was so benumbed, being so bound and coatless, 
 that he could scarcely walk or stand. Three Indian girls for a 
 most trivial offence, an offence which men of any feeling would 
 have smiled at, they arrested and took to the gaol. A day or 
 two afterwards the chief went to see them and found they had 
 been made by these bullies the subjects of most coarse and 
 brutal treatment : their clothes nearly torn off their persons, 
 and their flesh blackened and contused in a number of places. 
 When these bullies are supposed insufficient for the work their 
 masters have for them, application is made to the Government 
 at Quebec, which has always responded most promptly, by 
 l!;i! i i sending to Oka, for the Seminary's use in dragooning these 
 
 Indians, any number of police they desired. And these have 
 generally been found quite ready to carry out the humane 
 wishes of the gentlemen of the Seminary. 
 
 Instances of the cruelty on the part of the Seminary towards 
 the Indians are many, yet there are two or three special cases 
 which should have a place here. One of these was the 
 destruction of the church the Indians had, and in which 
 they worshipped some two or three years. Shortly after 
 its erection the chiefs were prosecuted by the Seminary 
 for what they were pleased to call "a trespass." The 
 I church was built upon a site which an Indian woman 
 owned, and which for the purpose of building the church 
 thereon, the chiefs had bought from her. Yet its presence 
 
 I 
 
 |;!.'1EIII!J'''MV 
 
59 
 
 in the village was an annoyance to the Seminaiy, and it 
 must be removed from it. After some sparring in the courts, 
 and by a process on the part of the Seminary and their 
 lawyers, rarely heard of anywhere where any measure of 
 civilization has been attained, or honorable principle prevails, 
 the church was pulled down in the presence of the Indians, 
 and in the most ruffianly manner. The leading lawyer em- 
 ployed by the Seminary, by a gross and shameless evasion 
 deceived the Indirns' lawyer so as to induce his non- 
 attendance at the court at the time, and then by a snap- 
 judgment, obtained by default, the case was carried against 
 the Indians. 
 
 But something more must yet be done ere the demolition 
 of the church can be effected. A document must be had to 
 authorize this. But how shall this be obtained seeing no action 
 of the court has been obtained to authorize it ? But this can 
 be got over, and easily, according to Romanistic ideas, and 
 hence the necessary document is drawn up as if duly author- 
 ized ; and the signature of the officer of the court necessary to 
 give it legal effect is forged ! Forged ? Yes, forged ; for such 
 has been established in the court. The Seminary's junior 
 lawyer, who conducted the case at the time, professes to know 
 nothing about this. The officer whose name was appended to 
 the paper swore it was not his signature. How it came there 
 he was not prepared then to say — although afterwards he said 
 he had no hesitancy in declaring his conviction as to who the 
 writer of his name was. Of course no one would dare, directly, 
 to implicate the junior counsel of the Seminary in so vile an 
 act. And yet people will — well — they will think, and sometimes 
 rather loudly as to whom the writer was. But as the signature 
 was not forged without a hand, and as certainly u ''»'iend of the 
 Indians would do such an act, and therefore cannot be charged 
 with so grave a crime; and as it must have been done by some 
 one — and he not a very honorable, honest or trustworthy a per- 
 son — so the mattermustremainforthe present. Whoeverhewas, 
 I daresay the Seminary has not refused him absolution for the sin 
 
mm 
 
 "IB'i! 
 
 I ', 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 4 
 
 60 
 
 —and indeed some are wicked and censorious enough to believe 
 that the Seminary even rewarded him for it. But at any rate 
 the church was pulled down ; and that in the open day. It was a 
 most fortunate thing that day for all concerned that the 
 Christianity under which the Indians had been brought, as 
 Protestants, was very different from that of the priests and their 
 followers ; otherwise, there would have been a scene of blood- 
 shedding that would have stirred our whole country. The 
 Indians were dreadfully excited, and only needed a word to 
 have set them on their tyrant persecutors and their rowdies. 
 It was as much as the Protestant Missionary could do to re- 
 strain them. But ho did so ; and this deed of vandalism was 
 completed without any life being lost, or a drop of blood being 
 shed. It may here be asked if a body of Romanists, with a 
 priest at their head, and the knowledge that they could soon 
 have disposed of a party that had come to pull down one of 
 their churches, would have been counselled as were these In- 
 dians on that day : and that if even so counselled they would 
 have obeyed ? These are points worth considering. 
 
 Another case memorable for important considerations I 
 will also note : 
 
 Purposing to repair the fence of a pasture which had been 
 acknowledged theirs for over a century, the Indians cut down 
 some trees to this end in the neiffhborinjj woods. For this 
 warrants for over forty of them were obtained, and a band of 
 police from Quebec was brought up to serve them. The 
 police, with an officer at their head, duly arrived ; and at once 
 went to work — although in the night, and the Indians were 
 then in bed. In making the arrests neither law nor order was 
 observed ; and scenes of great brutality were enacted. 
 
 The following day the Indians held a council, and resolved, 
 that if the police came in a legal way to make arrests they 
 would at once submit ; but if, as in the night just passed, they 
 came, they would resist them even to the death. With this 
 purpose a number of them remained on watch all the follow- 
 ing night, and fully armed to meet any comers. The night 
 
61 
 
 wore away and no arrests were attempted ; therefore, as the 
 morning appeared, the Indians broke ' ♦' eir watch and went 
 to their homes, and many of them to their beds. 
 
 Shortly after this an alarm of fire was heard, and as many 
 of the Indians got out of their houses and were running to the 
 fire the word was passed : '* Take care that this fire is not a 
 trap to catch you by the police when you have got into the 
 village." 
 
 But the fire was more serious than was at first supposed ; 
 for it had fallen upon and was byiming the church and the 
 presbytery, with the outlying outbuildings. And now the 
 question was, By whom was this fire set ? And after an in- 
 vestigation — of the Seminary party only, let it be re- 
 membered — a conclusion was reached that the Indians were 
 the guilty parties ; and, therefore, some thirteen of them were 
 at once arrested and put in ward and subsequently taken to 
 gaol. 
 
 After several months the trial came regularly before the 
 court at Ste. Scholastique. Here appeared some notabilities, 
 whose countenances and characters will long be remembered. 
 Any amount of swearing could be had to convict the Indians, 
 but unfortunately for that side, there was a considerable 
 amount more than was needed, or than was good for the 
 Seminary's case. It is also true that the Indians could also 
 swear in the matter, and fortunately there were others on 
 their side that were not Indians. And still more — and equally 
 fortunate at least — there were some four persons in the juiy 
 — despite all manoeuvring to prevent them being there — who 
 had sufficient intelligence to distinguish between a made-up 
 tale and a simple statement of facts ; and above this, that 
 had such ideas of responsibility to God, as well as to man, and 
 of the nature and office of conscience under the influence of an 
 oath, that they would declare their judgment according to the 
 facts of the case as brought before them. The other eight 
 showed how carefully they had been brought up in the faith 
 of their church, and how sacred was the duty for every son 
 
 i^ 
 
m. 
 
 m- 
 
 m- 
 
 W 
 
 62 
 
 of the Church of Rome to obey the word and will of his 
 priest. And as tliej' fully understood the will of the priest 
 in this instance, what need was there of any long discussion 
 over the verdict they should give; and hence they would give 
 it accordingly. 
 
 But the four dissentients had a principle and a grit that 
 could not be swayed by such reasoning, and therefore, after a 
 protracted and ineffective debate, the conclusion was : We can- 
 not agree. The majority dare not bring in a verdict adverse to 
 the wish of the priests, and the minority dared not biing in a 
 verdict contrary to their consciences, and consequently, they 
 had to agree to differ, and a no verdict had to be returned to 
 the Court. This was a sore discouragement to the Seminary, 
 who, from the number of witnesses, good and true, they had 
 brought up, felt they were justified in looking for a verdict 
 in their favor. But they would try it again, and again they 
 did try it, and with a similar result. 
 
 Certain particulars in the last trial are worthy of a special 
 record. In charging the jury the judge observed there was 
 but one witness which connected the Indians with the fire. 
 If they believed his testimony they must bring in a verdict of 
 conviction ; but if not, if they believed this witness's testimony 
 unreliable, then their verdict must be one of acquittal. The 
 jury then reti) id, and at once concluded that the witness in 
 question was altogether unreliable ; that he was a liar ; and 
 nothing should be believed that he had said. Yet they must, 
 they said, bring in a verdict for the Seminary, because, for- 
 sooth, the trial had cost them already a large amount of 
 money ; and because the Protestant Missionary of Oka was 
 the cause of all the trouble ! It was unfortunate for the ten 
 sagacious jurors who reasoned on the above principles, that 
 again there were men of unbending principle on the jury; 
 and that although now there were but two such, yet as one 
 fly would spoil a pot of ointment, so these two jurors suf- 
 ficed to spoil the nice and religious conclusion of the ten. 
 Intimidation was employed, and violence threatened, yet 
 
63 
 
 these men of conscience would not give way, and so the 
 priests could be no more gratified now than on the pre- 
 vious occasion. After much manoeuvring by the Seminary's 
 lawyers to change the venue to one where they might look for 
 a whole jury of obedient sons of the Church, and but for the 
 Attor^ y General, who opposed their movement, would have 
 succeeded, the trial is to take place early in the coming year 
 in the town of Aylmer. Man}* are looking forward to that 
 time with mingled feelings of hope and fear. Yet to all who 
 believe that God rules, and that the triumphing of the wicked 
 will not be always, th^ -e is strong hope that the salvation of 
 God, in the deliverance of these Indians out of the hands of 
 the gentlemen of the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Montreal, will 
 yet be effected. 
 
 Some further remarks on this subject &ye called for, and 
 which I will here make, ere I turn to take up other topics. 
 
 Without presuming to decide on the guilt or innocence of 
 any person in this case, there are certain facts which will have 
 weight with every impar'*al and intelligent reader. These I 
 now supply. 
 
 It will be admitted by all persons who know anything of 
 Indian character, that whatever may be said for or against them 
 in this instance, they as a people are not devoid of cunning. 
 Cunning and shrc'^^dness are characteristics of the Indian in 
 a remarkable degree. But if so, how account for the following 
 particulars, in which are seen the very opposite of such ? 
 
 First, after sitting up all night with anus, to watch against 
 illegal and brutal arrests, they wait for the xnoming light to 
 fire the church — if they are the ones who did so, — to do what, 
 so far as concealment is concerned, they could have done so 
 much better at an earlier hour, and to themselves, with equal 
 convenience ! 
 
 But if so foolish as to wait until daylight to do what they 
 could have done, so far as concealment is concerned, so much 
 better in the night, why was it that they fired off their can- 
 non ere doing so ? — for so the priests and their followers have 
 
64 
 
 sworn — as if to arouse the people, among whom were the 
 police, to come and see them do a deed which they might well 
 know would excite the Romanist people of the village to the 
 uttermost ? 
 
 But if even they did all these foolish things, and came down 
 with their gun, first to fire it off", and then, when the people 
 were aroused, to set fire to their church, &c., how is it that 
 before doing so they went to their homes to leave their guns 
 and such other weapons as they watched all night with, and 
 came down to the village unarmed, in twos or threes without 
 any order, and that with a certainty of encountering an infu- 
 riated village community and the police then among them ? 
 
 But he who can imagine all these foolish and improbable 
 things of Indians, saying nothing of the character of these In- 
 dians for Christian forbearance and propriety as manifested 
 on other ar^d most trying occasions, either knows nothing of 
 them, or If, under an influence very like that of the majority 
 in the two juries, which had this case before them for their 
 sage consideration. 
 
 But did not the Indians fire off" their gun or cannon on the 
 occasion i Yes, they did ; and the facts here are quite on the 
 side of their innocence. This cannca had been stolen from 
 them some years previously. 
 
 A short time before the tire occurred, a Canadian told them 
 it was in his cellar, and that they could have it when they 
 chose to come for it, — only, he said, do not come for it when 
 my wife is at honie.**Leaming, on the night previous to the fire, 
 that this woman was across the Lake, they went to the man's 
 house and got their cannon. This a number of the young 
 Indians rejoiced over, and set to work to give it a thorough 
 cleaning. This done they loaded it with powder and were 
 going to fire it off". But the chief prevented them, saying 
 they would awaken and alarm the people, but, said he, wait 
 until it is day, and then you can fire it off". This they agreed 
 to do ; but when they heard the alarm of fire, they thought 
 that now the firing of their cannon would render a service in 
 
65 
 
 arousing the people, and they fired it off accordingly. Several 
 of the young Indians who had fired the gun were seen return- 
 ing with it afterwards, — such was taken as proof to a de- 
 monstration that they were concerned in the firing of the 
 church, and so were arrested and suffered, while waiting for 
 trial on the two occasions, some five months' imprisonment. 
 
 Well, but what about the Seminary's witnesses ? What 
 did they testifj' ? And who were they ? They were, first, the 
 j)riest, the Rev. Mr. Lacan, whose portrait, with that of Father 
 Philip aad the chief witness, Pourrier, graced the columns of 
 the Witness at the time. He, Mr. Lacan, swore that he heard 
 the gun, and that it was fired some time before the buildings 
 were fired ; and that shortly afterwards he observed a number 
 of Indians stealing by his window, in groups of threes and 
 fours. It is true his blinds were closed at the time, and 
 they being of fixed laths, there are those who question the 
 power of even Mr. Lacan to see what he says he saw, under 
 the circumstances. But this Mr. Lacan is an extraordinary 
 man, and his powers are not to be measured and judged of 
 by those of ordinary mortals. But this man Pourrier, who 
 has proved himself so useful for the priest on more occasions 
 than this one, stands before us with an extraordinary record. 
 
 One thing on record is, t'lat an Indian swore that this 
 Pourrier met him one day after the tire, and asked him why 
 he did not witness for the Seminary ? " Because," said the 
 Indian, " L did not see the fire take." " Neither did I," 3aid 
 this Pourrier, " but I get fifty dollars for my testimony !" It 
 is true it was but one testimony against another, for of course 
 Pourrier denied having ever said any such thing. Pre- 
 [jonderating circumstances with many incline them to believe 
 the Indian, for he is a man of character, while the testimony 
 of others — even witnesses of the Seminary — prove that 
 Pourrier knew very little of what he swore so hard about. 
 
 For instance, he swore that having heard the gun he 
 repai'*'^'^ to the tree close to the Seminary gate. That there 
 he sa,v, as he stood behind a tree Ljar to it, two Indians come 
 
 S 
 
66 
 
 down, jump over the gate, get up on a stable, pour oil upon 
 the roof, and then set it on fire. He waited to see all this, he 
 said, and then the Indians to leave the place, when tlie fire 
 had got considerable headway, and yet he gave no alarm, nor 
 did he attempt to arrest the Indians he could so well identify. 
 He declared, further, he was quite dressed at the time, and 
 saw everything he described most clearly. 
 
 Yet, and quite damaging to this man's testimony is the fact 
 that, two witnesses, called by the Seminary, and testifying in 
 some instances in their favor, declare most positively that on 
 the firing of the gun they repaired to the tree where Pourrier 
 said he stood ; and that although they remained there for 
 some time, looking at the fire, they saw nothing of Pourrier. 
 But to the question, " Did you see him at all anywhere V the 
 answer was, " Yes, we saw him some distance away, partially 
 dressed, and talking with a blacksmith at his shop door ; 
 and looking as though he had just got out of bed." Testimony 
 so clear and explicit, and that from the Seminary's own wit- 
 nesses, goes far in proving that, as the jury unanimously con- 
 cluded, this man is a liar, and not to be believed, no matter what 
 he says, and to make it highly probable that what the Indian 
 said about him was little short of the truth. That his testi- 
 mony, and other services for the Seminary, are valuable to 
 him, many think they have sufficient reason for believing. 
 
 Then, as to the two Indians this noted Pourrier says he 
 saw set fire to the stable, it may be said that quite a number 
 of Indians, and even others not Indians, swore they saw one 
 of them, some time after the alarm of fire was given, come out 
 of his house, and but partially dressed ; and after looking for 
 a short time at the fire he returned to his house and to his 
 bed. The fact is ho was one of those on watch all the night, 
 and had but a short time before this gone to his home, from 
 which he came only on the alarm of fire, and to which he 
 returned very soon again. 
 
 Of the other Indian, witnesses quite sufficient to prove 
 anything in a court disposed to receive from an Indian's tes- 
 
timony to what was credible and likely, declared that he was 
 not in the village at all during the night, and that he did not 
 return to it until some time after the fire had been out. 
 
 I have been thus particular to show what a spirit of perse- 
 cuting cruelty animates this Seminary towards these Indians. 
 The trial is not likely to accomplish anything but a worry to 
 the Indians and their friends. It is known that these trials 
 are costly things. The Seminary have any amount of wealth, 
 and their policy is evidently to so worry the Indians that they 
 will be glad to move away fiom the Lake lands and leave 
 the Seminary in their quiet and undisturbed, possession 
 even as they succeeded to those of the Seigniory and Island of 
 Montreal. 
 
 One word more about the fire ere I leave this subject. It 
 is said that the fire first took in a small building across the 
 Seminary yard, and opposite the presbytery and the church ; 
 and that when it began the wind was blowing away from the 
 church and presbytery, and therefore there was no fear at the 
 time for these even if the stable was to burn down. But a 
 change in the course of the wind took place quite unexpect- 
 edly, and communicated the fire of the smaller building to the 
 larger ones. If therefore the Indians had fired the stable with 
 the intention of the greater harm, they were foolish, unless they 
 foreknew the wind would speedily change. But if, as some 
 affirm as their conviction, a member of the Seminary, servant 
 or otherwise, set fire to the small building so as to throw sus- 
 picion and blame upon the Indians, and which might eventually 
 lead to their imprisonment for some years in the penitentiary, 
 and all the attendant consequences to their great and serious 
 injury, then they got more than they calculated for, and which 
 now, in a feeling of desperation, they would press to the ruin 
 of a number of these Indians, 
 
 But would you implicate the Seminary, or any members 
 of it, in an act so vile and reprehensible ? I may be asked. 
 But would not the Seminary, I ask, implicate quite a number 
 of these Indians in this vile act ? Assuredly they would. I 
 
68 
 
 therefore, having as high an opinion of these Indians as any 
 one ought to have of the gentlemen of the Seminary, feel no 
 repugnance, or sense of impropriety in simply stating what 
 many have concluded upon, as to them a most feasible con- 
 jecture of the origin of the fire of the church and presbytery 
 village of Oka ; and that it is just as likely that some member 
 of the Seminary, or one of their servants, set fire to the stable 
 on the opposite side of their yard ; and that this stable, by a 
 change of the wind afterwards, set fire to the church and 
 presbytery, as that the Indians did it. Yea, further, I think 
 it much more likely that some of the rowdies whom the 
 Seminary keep about them for services they deem of great 
 importance, set these properties on fire, than that any one of 
 the thirteen Indians they have had under arrest for that act 
 would have done it. 
 
 ill 
 
 m 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 A Cme Supposed — Parallel Points Suggested — Tlie Way oj 
 Duty Indicated— Demands for its Performance Urgint 
 — A Commission Called for — The Country being 
 "Gobbled up^^ by the Roman Catholic Orders — The 
 Remedy which Other Countries have Applied— Such 
 not Desirable — Why not take the Necessary Measures 
 for a Remedy now ?—Loud Calls for Reform, 4*c. 
 
 Let us imagine that we are living in some large city, say 
 in London, England. That here are found a number of gentle- 
 men, who, deeply deploring the many forms of suffering in 
 that city, especially in a youthful class known as " Street 
 Arabs," have formed a purpose, and even united in a company 
 to carry it out, to reclaim such if possible from their wandering 
 and vicious iiabits, — habits which were not only ruinous to the 
 youths themselves, but exceedingly troublesome and danger- 
 ous to the commv^nity generally. 
 
 After a while other gentlemen, hearing of their purpose, 
 and fully sympathizing with them in their enterprise, put into 
 their hands large means to be employed to this end. They 
 very much desire that the enterprise should be a thorough 
 one, and, therefore, lay it down as one of the objects for which 
 they now richly endow this charity, that every " Arab " child 
 reclaimed, shall, as soon as that fact is ascertained, be placed 
 in circumstances to sustain himself, either as a mechanic or a 
 farmer, and for which they now make all suitable and ample 
 provision. 
 
 As preparatory to the above, they direct that certain insti- 
 tutions shall be commenced ; first, to gather these children 
 into " homes " for a preliminary training; and, being success- 
 ful in this, to settle them for life in such trade or business 
 
70 
 
 as the youths may choose ; but farming is the one the bene- 
 volent friends and patrons would prefer for them. 
 
 But in process of time things have changed. The Street 
 Arabs are not objects of interest with the present directorate. 
 In the use of various pretexts and means the directors, or 
 trustees, have assumed that the properties put into their pre- 
 decessors' hands for charitable purposes, are now, and always 
 have been, their own ; and that, instead of being but trustees, 
 or administrators, as some have contended, they are the mas- 
 ters and proprietors in the most absolute sense of these terms. 
 And further, so fully have a number of leading men of the city 
 become influenced by the blandishments of these directors, and 
 especially by the power which their management of the great 
 properties they hold has given them — a power it is well 
 known they have both the will and the purpose to use to the 
 uttermost for theii own ends, that they salute them as the 
 lords paramount while the poor Street Arabs, who, by the 
 founders of the charity were so kindly thought of, and so 
 liberally provided for, and to whose interests these directors 
 were so closely pledged, are now the merest nobodies in their 
 estimation. 
 
 We can easily conceive that were the original framers and 
 endowers of this charity permitted to come again to the earth, 
 they would with indignant feeling drive these unfaithful 
 and unrighteous directors from their trust, while to other and 
 more reliable hands they would promptly commit it. The reader 
 can at once see a parallel in this supposed case and in that of the 
 Oka Indians. A society was formed and an endowment made 
 — large and generous, with specific objects in view — as for the 
 Arab children, so for the Indians. And just as the directorate 
 in the supposed case, so have the Seminary, by a process of 
 chicanery and impudence, risen to assumptions the most gross 
 and outrageous. The Indians, as the Street Arabs, are de- 
 spoiled and cast off ; and yet men — celebrities in their way — 
 fawn upon this great and powerful corporation, esteeming a 
 smile of simplest recognition, especially when accompanied by 
 
71 
 
 considerations of a weightier nature, as ample remuneration for 
 such sycophancy and deference. 
 
 What the resuscitated authors and founders of the sup-^ 
 posed charity would do, could they come back to the earth, 
 that should the authorities of the country now do in this 
 Oka case, as on them rests the responsibility to defend 
 the poor in their rights, and to punish the wicked who 
 have invaded and despoiled them. And should those, 
 who, being invested with this authority, shirk the duty to 
 which they are called, then the people, from whom such 
 authority proceeds, should arise, and with most determined 
 purpose, resolve that justice shall be done, even though the 
 heavens of ecclesiastical assumption should fall to the ground, 
 and forever. 
 
 That these Oka Indians, who are wards of the Dominion 
 Government, should be left to be the sport of the vindictive 
 and cruel policy of the Seminary, and that for many years 
 past, is a reflection upon us, as a people, even great as that we 
 oft-times throw upon our American neighbors, for their con- 
 duct towards their Indians. The condition in which it is well 
 known these Indians have long lived, and the pressing wants 
 under which for years they have suffered, should, long ere 
 this, have evoked for them an earnest determination of redress. 
 Thai, there is a remarkable forgetfulness — or, rather, an unac- 
 countable ignorance — of the leading particulars of the long con- 
 flict waged by the Government and the Seminary on one hand, 
 and by the Indians and the Seminary on the other, is a fact 
 by no means honoring to our leading men. Yet irrespective 
 of all considerations but those of justice, in a proper consi- 
 deration of the rights which the Indians unquestionably have, 
 and of the duty to see those rights properly acknowledged 
 and secured, a commission of enquiry should be appointed to 
 make a thorough and complete report of all the facts in the 
 case. These ascertained, the Govei nment .should then proceed 
 to such action in the premises as so important an interest de- 
 mands. It is quite evident that a commission altogether ol 
 
I 
 
 72 
 
 Canadians would not be just to the Indians. For it is quite 
 clear from the many opinions given, in late years, on the 
 question of title as between the Seminary and these Indians, 
 that the influence — the powerful influence of the Seminary — 
 is but too apparent and real. One or more of the Commission 
 should represent Imperial interests and views ; and to them 
 should be submitted the papers that have passed to and from 
 the Government previous to the passing of the Act of 1841, 
 and then the proper consideration of that Act in all its bear- 
 ings on the several parties and interests concerned ; when, 
 if necessary, the whole should pass under review and be 
 conflrmed by the Queen's Privy Council in England. 
 
 The Dominion Government on whom especially the duty 
 of having this long-vexing question settled, has for years 
 shirked its duty, and has looked about more for excuses for 
 not attempting it, than for evidence of what should be done 
 in the case. And yet, when it is considered that this Oka 
 <][uestion is but one of a number that should be considered, 
 — that mitst be considered — and that ere lonor will of neces- 
 sity have to be considered and dealt with in Canada, as they 
 have been in other countries, it would be well, to prevent the 
 great evils that must otherwise follow, for the persons on 
 whom the responsibility rests to arise to their duty, and per- 
 form it with thoroughness and effect. 
 
 I have shown that the most carefully arranged provisions, 
 and guards, were thrown around the vast revenues of the 
 Sulpician Seminary when the British Government consented 
 to confirm their titles to their immense estates. It is equally 
 clear that no Government of Canada has entered into the 
 jealous carefulness of the Home Government in guarding the 
 conduct of this Seminary since then. Hence the Seminary 
 has dealt with its income as it has pleased it : and from one 
 degree to another until the claim of absolute ownership, 
 and right to do as they please with the estates in their 
 hands, is the undisturbed and hitherto unquestioned out- 
 growth. 
 
78 
 
 Other orders of the Church of Rome are acting in the same 
 way. Original purposf j in the endowments bestowed on them 
 are lost sight of. The estates of every one of these orders 
 are becoming greater and greater every day. Not only do 
 they hold in the cities, properties, the amount of which 
 would astonish the reader, but in the country, by primary 
 right and by mortgages on the farms and properties of the 
 habitants and traders generally, the entire province of Quebec, 
 is, to use an Americanism, being gobbled up. 
 
 In England, Hallam informs us, despite the statutes ot 
 Mortmain to prevent it, " the English monasteries got within 
 their grasp a fifth part of the lands of the Kingdom." And 
 were full revelations obtained of the possessions of such in the 
 province of Quebec, it would be seen if they had not attained 
 to that proportion of the lands and properties here, they were 
 reaching fastly and surely towards it. 
 
 Some relief it would be in looking at this dark picture if 
 we could believe that the objects contemplated in any one of 
 the endowments of these orders were really carried out. If 
 all were then without any additional tax on the country, the 
 educational and charitable wants of the Province, certainly of 
 the Church of Rome in it, would be fully met. But such is 
 not the case, and hence — see how large are the appropriations 
 to this church every year from the Government's income ; and 
 such on the increase continually. And to what effect ? Are 
 not the people of that faith proportionally the most illiterate 
 of any in the Dominion ? Is not the largest percentage of the 
 poor, the street beggai-s, the suffering and the infirm, seeking 
 relief, of their faith ? Is not the proportion of the sick relieved 
 in the Protestant hospitals of our cities, very largely Roman 
 Catholic ? while very many of their people from preference 
 are found in Protestant hospitals rather than in their own, 
 and that from the fact of kinder and better treatment. 
 
 And what does all this say, in view of the settled endow- 
 ments of the various orders of this Church, and the amazing 
 growth of such year by year ? In view of the large grants 
 
n 
 
 made to that Church by the Government year by year ? In 
 view of the large proportion of the tax from what is called 
 " neutral " properties year by year for their schools ? In view 
 of the regular and ordinary income of their Church, in all 
 parts of the country, and especially of those bequests which 
 are wrung from dying people, by a skilful operation on their 
 fears and hopes of purgatorial expiations ? 
 
 All these things are before us — Roman Catholic as well as 
 Protestant— and to the one as well as to the other, are they 
 matters of greatest and gravest moment. In the conclusions, 
 proper for all under the circumstances, there should be a 
 merging of those differences of religious faith which dis- 
 tinguish us in the one great purpose to remedy this state of 
 things, and that by means which would prevent the more 
 objectionable one of revolution. In Italy, in France, several 
 times — in Germany, in England, and the States of South 
 America — evils of this nature have been broken up by revolu- 
 tion ; and we are drifting fast to the same tei rible remedy. 
 Some years ago the question was put to a then member of 
 the Government, " what all this meant ?" referring to the 
 passing of so many acts of incorporation to orders of the 
 Church of Rome. And the answer, was — "Revolution," 
 " and the more they get, the sooner it will come." This 
 question and answer might have been stimulalated by the 
 fact that about that time an event occurred in the Legislative 
 Assembly, at Toronto, that must have had quite an influence 
 on the gentleman who asked the question, as doubtless it had 
 on the one that answered it. It also has an important 
 bearing upon the subject now under discussion. The Govern- 
 ment introduced a bill to make all bequests, or legacies, within 
 six months of the death of the person who made such, of no 
 effect. Some humiliating disclosures of what was considered 
 nothing short of barefaced robbery had been made, and all 
 parties felt the importance of preventing such in future. I say 
 all parties, for not only were there several Roman Catholics 
 in the Government, but one, and he a leading one, was the 
 
 I 
 
75 
 
 person who introduced the bill to the house. The fulmina- 
 tions of the clergy, who felt that a prolific source of their 
 income was menaced, were soon levelled ag. inst the impious (?) 
 sons of the church, who dared attempt such an act; which 
 compelled the withdrawal of the bill, and so it fell to the 
 ground. By this the great power of the clergy of the papal 
 Church was seen ; nor less their great sensitiveness in 
 everything affecting their sources of income. 
 
 And yet with such startling facts before us, what Govern- 
 ment will dare to do its duty in the premises ? What Govern- 
 ment will turn away from their door the leeches sucking its 
 vitals so greedily, while in receipt of vast means from the 
 sources I have indicated, and others even, which none but a 
 Romish cleric has the ingenuity to devise, or the courage to 
 work ? What Government will dare demand of the Sulpicians, 
 for instance, an account of their incomes and expenditures, 
 because they want to see whether or not a faithful and legal 
 application is made of them ; and whether or not a portion of 
 the surplus incorr.c may not be available for some other 
 religious, charitable, and educational institutions, than those 
 to which the;v now are applied, and for which the Act of 184)1 
 provides ? 
 
 But if Governments are not sufficiently resolute to perform 
 their duty in these respects, is there not a power to press them 
 up to it ? Surely the public are not all so completely blind to 
 their duties and interests as much longer to let matters drift, 
 as they now are drifting, to a fearful revolutionary upheaval ? 
 
 A wise course would be to cause the law to be applied to 
 every order in the Church of Rome or out of it. For of what 
 benefit are laws, however good, if they are never applied ? 
 This would produce results alike beneficial to aU classes ; 
 and then would the poor Indians of Oka know something of 
 justice in its application to their case ; and of peace as the 
 fi-uit of a wise and equitable administration of their affairs for 
 the time to come. 
 
 i^ 
 
<* 
 
 76 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 NOTE A. (See Page 22.) 
 
 Article 35, of the Capitulation. " If the canons, priests, mis- 
 sionaries, the priests of the Seminary of the foreign missions, and 
 of St, Sulpice, as well as the Jesuits and the Recollets, choose to 
 go to France, passage shall be granted them in His Britannic 
 Majesty's ships : and they shall have leave to sell, in whole or in 
 part, the estates and movables which they possess in the colonies, 
 either to the French or to the English, without the least hindrance 
 or obstacle from the British Government. 
 
 "They may take with them, or send to France, the produce 
 of what nature soever it be, of the said goods sold, paying the 
 freight as mentioned in the 26th Article. And such of the said 
 priests who choose to go this year shall be Victualled during the 
 passage at the expense of His Britannic Majesty, and shall take 
 with them their baggage. 
 
 " They shall be masters to dispose of their estates, and to 
 send the produce thereof, as well as their persons, and all that 
 belongs to them, to France." 
 
 This Article was refused until the King's consent should be 
 obtained. And that this was never granted is proved by the 
 following facts : — 
 
 Firsts — By the Order sent in 1765 — five years subsequently — 
 by the Lords of the Treasury to Receiver-General Mills, " to see 
 that the estates of these societies were not lost to the Crown by 
 sequestration or alienation ; as they were to be united to the 
 Crown domains." 
 
 Secondly, — By the Act passed in the British Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, in 1774, entitled " The North America Act," in which, 
 among the objects specified for its enactment, is the following : — 
 "And to secure to the Roman Catholic clergy, except the regulars 
 {or members of the religious orders), \)^.<t legal enjoyment of their 
 lands and of their tithes in their own communities, or from all 
 who professed the Roman Catholic religion." The exemption 
 of the regulars, of whom the Seminary of St, Sulpice were an 
 order, is too clear and explicit to be misunderstood. 
 
 Thirdly^ — Because the refusal to allow the article in question, 
 
77 
 
 is indispensable to justify the action of the Government, sub- 
 sequently, in " demanding from the Seminary the surrender 
 of their estates ; and of .the strong opinions against the Seminary 
 by the Crown officers, several times exprest • nor less », the con- 
 duct of the Seminary in their perfect silence on this subject in 
 all their controversy with the Government on the question of 
 title subsecjuently. 
 
 Garneau, in his History of Canada, explicitly declares that 
 '* by this celebrated Act," the articles of capitulation, "Canada 
 l)assed finally under British domination. Free exercise of the 
 Catholic religion was guaranteed to its people. Certain specified 
 ecclesiastical brotherhoods, and all communities of re/igieuscs, 
 were secured in the possession of their goods, constitutions, and 
 privileges ; but the like advantages were refused to the Jesuits^ Fran- 
 ciscans, and Sulpicians, until the King should be consulted on the 
 subject," And that he refused all concession to the demand is 
 shown above. See History of Canada, Vol. II.., p> 70. 
 
 The reason for this, as given by Garneau, in his reference to the 
 Jesuits' estates, equally applies to those of the Sulpicians. It is as 
 follows : — "It was not till this took place "(the pap .1 decree abolish 
 ing the order of the Jesuits) " that the British Government thought 
 of appropriating their estates ; forgetting, as it d\A., that the Jesuits 
 were only the depositaries of that property, since it had been given to them 
 by the Kings of France, for educating the peopL% and the instruction of 
 the savages of New France." 
 
 NOTE B, (See Page 27.) 
 ORIGINAL GRANTS. 
 
 (No. 7.) 
 
 [ Translated from the Frenchi\ 
 
 This twenty-seventh day of April, One thousand seven hundred 
 and eighteen, the King being in Paris, and desiring to be propi- 
 tious towards the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, 
 established in Paris, from whom those of the Seminary of St. 
 Sulpice established at Montreal proceed, and to whom the Sieurs 
 de Vaudreuil and Begon, Governor and Lieutenant-General, and 
 Intendant of La Nouvelle France, have granted by Deed of Con- 
 cession, on the seventeenth of October, One thousand seven hun- 
 dred and seventeen, a tract of land of three leagues and a half in 
 front by three leagues in depth, to enable them to transfer there 
 the mission of the Indians of Sault au R^collet, which is under 
 
78 
 
 their rare, and this on the terms, provisions, and conditions men- 
 tioned in the said Deed of Concession, which Deed of Concession 
 His Majesty caused to be laid before him to be approved in 
 favor of the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice at Pariii, 
 and solely on the conditions which are to be mentioned in these 
 presents. His Majesty, by and with the advice of Monsieur le 
 Due d'Orleans Regent, has given and granted by and in virtue of 
 these presents to the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, 
 established in Paris, that certain tract of land containing three 
 leagues and a half in front, to commence at a brook which runs 
 into the great bay of the Lake of Two R'ountains, ascending 
 along the said lake and the River St. Lawrence, by three leagues 
 in depth, the said piece of ground being mentioned in the said 
 Deed of Concession of 1717, in order to transfer there the mission 
 of the said Indians of Sault au Recollet ; to have and to hold the 
 same for ever unto the said sieurs ecclesiastiv-s, their successors 
 and assigns, even if the said mission be taken away from thence, 
 in full property, under the title of fief and seigniory, with the 
 right of superior, mean, and inferior jurisdiction ; with the privi- 
 lege of hunting and fishing as well within as opposite the said 
 concession, on condition that they shall bear the whole expense 
 necessary for removing the said mission, and also cause a church 
 and a fort to be built there of stone at their own cost, for the 
 security of the Indians, according to the plans thereof, which 
 shall be by them handed over to the Governor and Intendant of 
 La Nouvelle France, to be by them and with their report sent to 
 the Council of Marine for His Majesty's information, and to be 
 approved ; which works they shall be held to perform within the 
 space of seven years, subject also to the condition of fealty and 
 homage {foi et hommage ) which the ecclesiastics of the said semi- 
 nary, their successors and assigns, shall be held to perform at the 
 castle of St. Lewis, in Quebec, and which they shall hold under 
 the customary duties and dues, and agreeably to the custom of 
 the Prevostship and Viscounty of Paris, toilowed in La Nouvelle 
 France, and that the appeals from the decisions of the judge who 
 may be established at the adlu place shall lie before the judges 
 of the Royal Jurisdiction ot Montreal. That they shall keep and 
 cause to be kept house and home (/<?« et lieu ) on the said con- 
 cession. That they shall preserve their oak timber fit for shipbuild- 
 ing, which may be found upon the land which the said ecclesias- 
 tics s^a^' have set aside for their principal manor house, and that 
 they sViil also stipulate the reserve of such oak timber within the 
 extent of the private concessions made or to be made to their 
 tenants, which said oak timber His Majesty shall be free to tc'.j, 
 without being held to pay any indemnity ; also, that they shall 
 give notice to the king or to the Governor and Intendant of La 
 
79 
 
 Nouvelle France, of the mines, ores, and minerals, if any be 
 found within the limits of the said fief, and leave the necessary 
 roadways and passages. That they shall concede the said un- 
 cleared lands under the simple title of a rent of twenty sols and 
 a capon, for each and every arpent of land in depth, and six 
 deniers of cens, and that there shall not be inserted in the said 
 concessions any sum of money or any other charge than that of 
 the simple title oi rent, His Majesty granting them, nevertheless, 
 the permission to sell or grant at a higher rent the lands of which 
 a quarter will have been cleared. The present Deed of Ratifica- 
 tion to be registered in the Superior Council of Quebec, for the use 
 of all whom it may concern, and in testimony whereof His Majesty 
 has commanded me t(» draw up these presents which he has been 
 pleased to sign with his own hand, and countersigned by me, 
 Joint Secretary of State, and of his commands and finances. 
 
 (Signed,) 
 (Signed,) 
 
 Louis. 
 Philypiaux. 
 
 The title of concession above written has been registered in 
 the records of the Superior Council cf Quebec, according to the 
 command of this day's date, of the King's Procureur-General, by 
 me, Clerk of the said Council, at Quebec, the Second of October, 
 1719. 
 
 (Signed,) Rinel. 
 
 (No. 8.) 
 
 [ Translated from the French."] 
 
 This first day of the month of March, one thousand seven 
 hundred and thirty five, the king being at Versailles,, and 
 having caused to be laid before him the Deed of Concession made 
 on the twenty-sixth of September, one thousand seven hundred 
 and thirty-three, in favor of the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of 
 St. Sulpice of Paris, by the Sieurs Marquis of Beauharnois, 
 Governor Bnd Intendant General for His Majesty, and Hocquart' 
 Intendant in La Nouvelle France, of a tract of land situated in 
 «.he said country, and lying between the line of the Seigniory 
 belonging to the representatives of the late Sieurs de Langloiserie 
 an-i Petit, and that of the Seigniory of the Lake of Two Moun- 
 tains belonging lu the said seminary, and in the front extending 
 about two leagues bj' the Lake of Twr Mountains ; the said tract 
 of land abutting on ?.n angle formed b> ♦he two above mentioned 
 lines, together with the ungianted islands and islets, and the 
 beaches adjoining the said tract of land, having also caused the 
 ^e':;i of Ratification of the twenty-seventh April, one thousand 
 
80 
 
 r -A 
 
 seven hundred and eighteen, by which His Majesty conceded to 
 the same seminary the said seigniory called Lake of Two Moun- 
 tains, and desiring His Majesty to be propitious towards the said 
 ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice of Paris, by confirming the concession 
 of the twenty-sixth of September one thousand seven hundred 
 and thirty-three, he has ratified and confirmed the said conces- 
 sion, to have and to hold the said ecclesiastics, their successors 
 and assigns for ever, as a fief and seigniory, with the right of 
 superior, mean, and inferior jurisdiction, with that of fishing, 
 hunting, and trading with the Indians within the limits of thie 
 said seigniory, on the following terms, provisions, and conditions, 
 to wit : That the bearing of the said land will run in depth south 
 one quarter south-west to north one quarter north-east, and not 
 south-west one quarter north-east as inserted by mistake in the 
 Deed of Concession made by the Sieurs de Beauharnois and 
 Hocquart ; that the said ecclesiastics, their successors and assigns, 
 shall be auVect to the performance of fealty and homage [foi et 
 hommage ) to His Majesty on every change of reign, and furnish 
 him alsi with new census, as well at the castle of St. Lewis in 
 Quebec, of which they shall hold, according to the custom of 
 Paris, followed in La Nouvelle France, without being obliged to 
 pay to His Majesty, nor to his successors { kings) any rent or 
 dues whatsoever, neither for the land to them conceded at the 
 said Lake of Two Mountains by the Deed of Ratification of the 
 Twenty-seventh of April, one thousand seven hundred and 
 eighteen. 
 
 That His Majesty will be free to take at all times, without 
 being held to pay any indemnity, the oak timber fit for his service, 
 which may be found on the said conceded lands ; that the said 
 ecclesiastics, their successors and assigns, shall give notice to His 
 Majesty, or to the Governor or Intendant of La Nouvelle France, 
 of the mines, ores, and minerals, if any be found, within the 
 limits of the said concession ; that the appeals from the decision 
 of the judge who may be established at the same place, shall lie 
 before the judges of the Royal Jurisdiction of Montreal ; that 
 within a year and a day they shall keep,and cause to be kept,house 
 and home [feu ct lieu) on the said concession, in default whereof 
 the said concession shall revert to His Majesty's domain; that 
 they shall immediately clear, and caused to be cleared, the said 
 tract of land ; that they shall leave on the said concession the 
 King's highways and other roadways which may be found neces- 
 sary for the public use, and that they shall cause the same condi- 
 tions to be inserted in the concessions which they shall grant to 
 their tenants, subject to the customary cens et rentes and dues for 
 each arpent of land as in the adjoining seigniories, considering 
 the nature and circum stances of inheritances, at the time of the 
 
81 
 
 mce, 
 
 the 
 ision 
 111 lie 
 
 that 
 
 louse 
 
 ;reof 
 
 that 
 
 said 
 the 
 
 ;ces- 
 
 mdi- 
 Int to 
 ]s for 
 
 iring 
 the 
 
 said private concessions, the same to be observed by the desire 
 of His Majesty as regards the lands and inheritances in the 
 Seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains, belonging to the said 
 ecclesiastics, notwithstanding the fixing of the said cens and dues 
 and of the quantity of land of each concession set forth in the said 
 deed of one thousand seven hundred and eighteen, to which His 
 Majesty has departed from, and as the said ecclesiastics of St. 
 Sulpice have represented to him that the transfer of the said In- 
 dian mission from the Island of Montreal to the Lake of Two 
 Mountains, the stone church, the presbytery, the wooden fort 
 which they have built thereon, have caused them expenses far 
 exceeding the value of the lands conceded to them by the present 
 deed, and by that of one thousand seven hundred and eighteen ; 
 that it would be impossible for them to build thereon a stone 
 fort, as obliged to by the said deed, and that besides, that stone 
 fort would now be useless, the ?and at the head of the other con- 
 cessions upon which the said fort was to be erected for the 
 security of the country, being occupied by the widow lady of 
 Sieur d'Argenteuil ; and, lastly, that the Indians of the mission 
 of the said Lake of Two Mountains being accustomed to often 
 change their place of abode, and so to render the said land more 
 profitable, it would, therefore, be necessary to extend the said 
 land further than the three leagues as set forth in the said deed 
 of one thousand seven hundred and eighteen, the land conceded 
 by these presents adjoining the Sieurs Petit and Langloiserie, 
 being of a small extent in depth, His Majesty has released and 
 releases the said ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice from the obligation 
 of building the said stone fort or any other works, excepting 
 those already made, upon the said land of the said concession of 
 one thousand seven hundred and eighteen, to which His Majesty 
 is now pleased to add an extent of three leagues in depth, if the said 
 extent is not already conceded, and which he now grants and con- 
 cedes to the said ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice of Paris ; to have and to 
 hold in full property and seigniory,as well as the old land mentioned 
 in the said fi^rst concession, which shall, consequently, be of six 
 leagues in depth. Desiring His Maiesty that the said concessions be 
 restricted and subject to the conditions above mentioned without 
 exception, although they may not have been stipulated in either of 
 the said concessions of 1733, or in the said deed of ratification of 
 the 17th April, 17 18. And in testimony whereof. His Majesty 
 has commanded me to draw up these presents, which shall be 
 registered in the Superior Council of Quebec, for the use of all 
 whom it may concern, and which he has been pleased to sign 
 with his own hand, and countersigned by me. Councillor, Secre- 
 tary of State and of his commands and finances. 
 
 (Sigred,) Louis. 
 
 5 (Signed,) Philippeaux. 
 
82 
 
 On the back is written : — 
 
 Recorded in the records of the Superior Council of La 
 Nouvelle France, to be executed according to its form and tenor, 
 the King's Procureur Giniral having been heard, according to the 
 decree of this day's date, by us, the undersigned councillor, 
 King's Secretary, Clerk in chief of the said Council, at Quebec, 
 the 1 2 th December, 1735. 
 
 (Signed,) Daine. 
 
 Compared with the original, written on parchment, and to us 
 exhibited by Messire Joseph Bourneuf, procurator of the Semi- 
 nary of Montreal, and immediately returned to himself by the 
 undersigned notaries for the Province of Lower Canada, residing 
 in Montreal, this day, one thousand seven hundred and 
 ninety-six. 
 
 (Signed,) Louis Chaboillez, Notary, 
 
 Jean Guill. Delisle, Notary. 
 
 NOTES FROM THE DEEDS OF 
 
 GRANTS. 
 
 THE ORIGINAL 
 
 1. That the lands of the Lake of Two Mountains were 
 asked for by the Seminary of St. Sulpice, and granted by the 
 King of France, in special, and all but exclusive reference for 
 the Indians. 
 
 2. That residence and protection on these lands, and main- 
 tenance from them by the Indians, w ore evidently understood, 
 and provided for by the King of France and the Seminary, 
 may be clearly gathered from the following facts : — 
 
 (a). A fort of stone was to be built by the Seminary for 
 the security of the Indians, and that according to a plan 
 which should be sent to the Council of Marine for His 
 Majesty's information and approval (see Grant of 1718). 
 
 {})). Because a prominent plea for the second Grant, i. e., 
 of 1735, was for the Indians, in the following words : — " And, 
 lastly, that the Indians of the Mission of the said Lake of 
 Two Mountains, being accustomed to ofben change their place of 
 abode, and to render the said land more profitable " (doubtless 
 for the Indians,) " it would, therefore, be necessary to extend 
 the said land further than the three leagues, as set forth in 
 the said Deed of one thousand seven hundred and eighteen." 
 
 II > 
 
La 
 or, 
 the 
 [or, 
 )ec, 
 
 t us 
 :mi- 
 
 the 
 ding 
 
 and 
 
 CAP. XLII. 
 
 i 
 
 ry- 
 
 ^L 
 
 were 
 ly the 
 for 
 
 lain- 
 jtood, 
 inary, 
 
 fy ^or 
 plan 
 
 His 
 
 i. e., 
 And, 
 Ike of 
 lace of 
 ibtless 
 fcxtend 
 irth in 
 ten. 
 
 I 
 
 An Act respecting the Seminary of St Sulpice, Confirming 
 
 their Title. 
 
 WHEREAS the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Saint 
 Sulpice, established at Montreal, in this Province, have, 
 since the capitulation made and signed at Montreal aforesaid, on 
 the eighth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thou- 
 sand seven hundred and sixty, held, possessed and enjoyed, and 
 do still hold, possess and enjoy the fief and seigniory of the Island 
 of Montreal and its dependencies, — the fief and seigniory of the 
 Lake of the Two Mountains, — and the fief and seigniory of Saint 
 Sulpice, — and their several dependencies, — all situated in the said 
 district of Montreal ; And the said Ecclesiastics have alleged and 
 do allege, that they, so as aforesaid, have held, possessed and 
 enjoyed, and still do hold, possess and enjoy all and singular the 
 said fiefs and seigniories, and their dependencies, rightfully, and 
 as the true and lawful owners of the same ; And whereas doubts 
 and controversies had arisen touching the right and title of the 
 said Ecclesiastics of the said Seminary of Saint Sulpice of Mont- 
 real, in and to the several fiefs and seigniories, and their depend- 
 encies, of which they have, as aforesaid, been in possession since 
 the said capitulation, and it had been contended that all and 
 every the said fiefs and seigniories became, by the conquest 
 of this Province by the British arms, vested, and still lemain 
 vested, in the Crown ; And whereas Her Majesty, desirous that 
 all such doubts and controversies should be removed and ter- 
 minated, and that Her faithful subjects, holding lands within the 
 seigniorial limits of the said fiefs and seigniories, should be 
 enabled to effect and obtain the gradual extinction of all seigniorial 
 rights, dues and duties, payable or performable for or by reason 
 of such their lands, did, of Her own mere will and proper motion, 
 graciously signify Her Royal pleasure, that the right and title of 
 the said Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Saint Sulpice of Mont- 
 real, in and to the said several fiefs and seigniories, should be 
 absolutely confirmed, under and subject to the terms, provisos,' 
 conditions and limitations hereinafter contained and expressed, 
 which said terms, provisos, conditions and limitations were fully 
 and formally agreed to and accepted by the said Ecclesiastics of 
 the said Seminary of Saint Sulpice of Montreal, all which were 
 embodied >nd enacted in the Ordinance passed in the session of 
 
$i 
 
 
 the Special Council for the affairs of Lower Canada, held in the 
 third or fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, and chaptered 
 thirty ; And whereas for fulfilling Her Majesty's gracious plea- 
 sure and intentions in the said behalf, and for other the purposes 
 aforesaid, it is expedient and necessary that the said Ecclesias- 
 tics of the Seminary of Saint Sulpice of Montreal should be and 
 remain an Ecclesiastical Corporation, or Body Corporate and 
 Ecclesiastical {communaut^ ecdisiastique), for the purposes herein- 
 after mentioned. 
 
 2. And the said corporation shall have, hold and possess the 
 same as proprietor thereof, as fully, in the same manner, and to 
 the same extent, as the Ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Saint 
 Sulpice of the Fauxbourg of St. Germain Lez Paris, or the Semi- 
 nary of Saint Sulpice of Montreal, according to its constitution, 
 before the eighteenth day of September which was in the year 
 One thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine, or either or both of 
 the said Seminaries, might or could have done, or had a right to 
 do, or might or could have held, enjoyed or applied the same, or 
 any part thereof, previously to the last mentioned period, — and to 
 and for the purposes, objects and intents following, that is to say : 
 — the cure of souls within the parish {la disserte de la paroisse) of 
 Montreal, — the mission of the Lake of the Two Mountains, for 
 the instruction and spiritual care of the Algonquin and Iroquois 
 Indians, — the support of the petit s^minaire or college at Montreal, 
 he support of schools for children within the parish of Mont- 
 
 -I, — the support of the poor, invalids and orphans, — the suffi- 
 cient support and maintenance of the members of the corporation, 
 its officers and servants, — and the support of such other religious, 
 charitable and educational institutions as may, from time to time, 
 be approved and sanctioned by the Governor of this Province, 
 for the time being, — and to or for no other objects, purposes or 
 intents whatsoever. 3, 4 V., c. 30, s. 2. 
 
 » * * * * * t- 
 
 13. (2) Provided that out of the said moneys arising as 
 aforesaid, or received and gotten in and collected, the said 
 Ecclesiastics of the seminary of St. Sulpice of Montreal and 
 their successors, may apply and invest a surn or sums of money, 
 in the whole not exceeding the sum of one hundred and twenty 
 thousand dollars, in constitution de rents on immovable pro- 
 perty, or in the purchase of houses, land and tenements, and im- 
 moveable property, situated within Lower Canada, in order to 
 create and produce income to the said Ecclesiastics of the 
 seminary of Montreal, and their successors : 
 
 13.) Provided, always, that in addition to and over and above 
 such real property producing income, which the said corporation 
 are hereby authorized to purchase and hold to the value of one 
 
85 
 
 hundred and twenty thousand dollars as aforesaid, and no more, 
 they may likewise purchase and hold any other real property, 
 houses, buildings, or tenements, destined for and appropriated to 
 purposes of religion, charity, or education, and producing no 
 income, which are necessary to accomplish the purposes and ob- 
 jects of the said corporation, as the same are hereinbefore de- 
 scribed and defined. 3, 4 V. c. 30, s. 13. 
 
 14. The said Ecclesiastics of the seminary of St. Sulpice 
 of Montreal shall, whenever and so often as they may be there- 
 unto required by the Governor of this Province, lay before him, 
 or before such officer or officers as he shall appoint, a full, clear, 
 and detailed statement of the estate, property, income, debts, 
 and expenditure, and of all the pecuniary and temporal affairs 
 of the said corporation, in such manner and form and with such 
 attestation of correctness, as the Governor shall direct. 3, 4 V. 
 c. 30, s. 14. 
 
 15. The said Ecclesiastics of the seminary of St. Sulpice 
 of Montreal, and their successors, as to temporal matters, shall 
 continue and be subject to the same powers of visitation, as in 
 the like cases were possessed and exercised by the Kings of 
 France, before the conquest of this Province, and are now pos- 
 sessed and exercised in that behalf by Her Majesty, in right of 
 Her Crown. 3, 4 V. c. 30, s. 15. 
 
 16. Nothing in this Act or in the Ordinance aforesaid con- 
 tained, shall extend to destroy, diminish, or in any manner to 
 affect, the rights and privileges of the Crown or of any person or 
 persons, society, or corporate body, excepting such only as this 
 Act and the said Ordinance expressly and especially destroy, 
 diminish or affect. 3, 4 V., c. 30, s. 16, 
 
 From the above Act, the following facts are clearly 
 deducible : — 
 
 1. That the Title of the Estates held by the Seminary 
 was a subject of controversy with them and the Government, 
 irom the time of the Conquest to the passing of this Act. 
 
 2. That while the Seminary held they were the " true and 
 lawful owners " of these Estates, the Government maintained 
 that " by the Conquest of this Province by the British Arms," 
 the estates of the Seminary became " vested, and remained 
 vested in the Crown." 
 
 3. That so persistently did the Crown maintain its right 
 in these estates, that now, while by an Act Her Majesty 
 would put a stop to the controversies which had so long 
 existed on this question, yet, in it she declares she does so " of 
 

 86 
 
 Her own mere will and pleasure," so " that Her faithful 
 subjects, holding lands within the seignorial limits of the said 
 fiefs and seigniories, should be enabled to effect and obtain 
 the gradual extinction of all seignorial rights, dues and duties, 
 payable or performable for, or by reason of such their 
 lands," &c., fee. 
 
 4, Further, that the Title confirmed to the Seminary ot 
 Sulpice, of Montreal, let it be remarked, was that, and that 
 only, which had been held by the " Ecclesiastics of the Semi- 
 nary of Saint Sulpice, of the Fauxbourg ol St. Germain, lez 
 Paris." But as we know by the highest legal authorities of 
 England and Canada, that the Title of the Seminary of Paris 
 was simply that of Administrators of a trust held for objects 
 distinctly specified and understood, therefore, this Act being 
 only to confirm to the Seminary of Montreal the Title as 
 previously held by the one of Paris, they are by it, as were 
 the Parisian Seminary, but Administrators of the Estates they 
 hold in trust for objects specified as " terms, provisoes, con- 
 ditions and limitations " ; and on the right and due performance 
 of which they are guaranteed "the sufficient support and 
 Tnaintenance of the Members of the Corporation, its officers 
 and servants." 
 
 It should be noticed here, that while the Crown insisted 
 upon the " terms, provisoes, conditions and limitations " which 
 the Act contains, that " they were fully and formally agreed 
 to and accepted by the said Ecclesiastics pf the said Seminary 
 of St. Sulpice, of Montreal." The assumptions, therefore, to 
 the contrary of these facts, so confidently and so arrogantly 
 put forth by the Seminary and their friends, are seen not only 
 to be without any support whatever, but in direct opposition 
 to the purposes of the Crown and to the legal and moral 
 rights of the Indians. 
 
 5. As by this Act were the Seminary for the first time 
 constituted a corporate body, and thus qualified to hold any 
 property in their own right (as see latter part of Section 1), 
 so have we another means of concluding on the entire absence 
 of any thing to justify the Rev. Mr. Baile in saying that 
 " the right and title of the Seminary to that Seigniory were 
 recognized in the most ample and most unreserved manner 
 in the Charter which was granted them in 1840 by the au- 
 thority of the British Grovernment." 
 
 ifl 
 
87 
 
 NOTE C. (See Page 28.) 
 
 
 / 
 
 The following papers were placed in the writer's hands 
 since the completion of the main part of the pamphlet, and are 
 here given as important testimony against the assumptions of the 
 Seminary as to their title originally, and in favor of the views 
 maintained by the British Government from the time of the con- 
 quest of Canada to the passing of the ordinance of 1841. 
 
 The first paper is by Sir James Marriott, Advocate-General, 
 and LL.D. of the College of Advocates, Doctors Commons, 
 London. It is a part of his report to the King of the Tlan of a 
 Code of Laws for the Province of Quebec, and dated 1773. 
 
 '* It seems to be pretty clear that any religious communities 
 who, as principals, at the time of the conquest, were not inhabit- 
 ants resident in person, do not fall under the privilege of the 
 capitulation, nor come within what is termed by civilians the 
 casus feoderis, so as to retain the property of their estates under 
 it ; because they were not then the local objects to whom, as a 
 personal consideration, for ceasing their resistance, and on ac- 
 count of their particular courage or distress, the conqueror grant- 
 ed terms of special favor,' neither could they retire according to 
 the treaty ; and if they could not retire, they could not take away 
 their persons and estates ; therefore if it is true in fact, that any 
 estates are now held under the grants of foreign religious com- 
 munities, either in under tenancy, or in trust lor them, or by 
 deputation, such as the Jesuits and the Ecclesiastics of the Semi- 
 nary of St. Sulpice at Paris, that fact is very important. The 
 community of the latter are the temporal lords of the most fertile 
 parts of Canada, and a city dedicated to the Virgin Mary. They 
 have an influence there equal to the power of the Italian clergy 
 in the State of the Church, or, Campagnd, di Roma. 
 
 The parishes in the Isle of Montreal and its dependencies, 
 says Charlevoix, e.g.^ p. 340, are still upon the ancient footing of 
 movable priests, and under the directions of the members of St. 
 Sulpice. They possess a fine and improving estate of eight 
 thousand pounds sterling a year at Montreal, and which will in a 
 few years be worth ten thousand pounds. If all the facts are 
 clearly established, as stated, it is a great question of law, whether 
 these estates are not now fallen to your Majesty, of whom the 
 under tenants and possessors must be intended to hold them, as 
 trustees of such uses as your Majesty shall declare. 
 
 It is in proof by several deeds of estates (it is immaterial 
 whether before or after the conquest) that the relmeuse living in 
 the Seminary of Montreal are merely negotior una ^ stores. They 
 are so described in several instruments of conveyance, which Mr. 
 Mazieres has perused in the course of business. These conveyors 
 

 m 
 
 are said to be Fondes de la procuration de Messieurs les Ecclesias- 
 tique<; du Seminaire de St. Sulpice d. Paris. It appears according to 
 M. Lotbiniere's own words, that before the conquest the Semi- 
 nary of St. Sulpice at Paris was a voluntary partnership, among 
 a number of clergy at Paris who engaged together in buying and 
 selling ; that the joint house of Montreal had a share in the joint 
 house at Paris, in a sort of mercantile way, and an open account. 
 That after the conquest they dissolved the partnership because 
 the house at Paris (says M. Lotbiniere) could not have any 
 right after the conquest in the effects and estates in Canada; they 
 at Paris transferred (what therefore they could not transfer, hav- 
 ing at that period, as he admits, no property in the estate and 
 only a share), the whole in Montreal to the religieuse there, who 
 probably were not {vraisemblablement, says M. Lotbiniere) at- 
 torneys of those at Paris ; and this was done by the latter, upon 
 paying a compensation, being the difference of the accounts upon 
 a balance. 
 
 This after all is oui dire, as he says he has heard and believes, 
 and it stands against the evidence of Mr. Mazieres, if it were 
 contradictory ; but it appears manifestly that the religieuse at 
 Montreal have only a colored and ostensible title. There is also 
 the evidence of a gentleman of undoubted veracity and know- 
 ledge, who, having had transactions with Father Magulphi, the 
 person acting in the colony for the community of St. Sulpice, 
 with a view to some purchase, the real proprietors were forced to 
 come forward, and the uncertainty of their title broke off the 
 negotiation. The evidence of Charlevoix also may be added. 
 
 In 1657, says Charlevoix, the Abb<^ Queylus returned with 
 the deputies of the Seminary of St. Sulpice to take possession of 
 the Island of Montreal and found a Seminary there. By the 
 French law it is clear that no persons, aliens, not being natural- 
 ized, can hold lands ; so that by the right of conquest, agreeable 
 to M. Lotbiniere's own idea, for want of owners domiciled at the 
 time of the conquest, these estates may be understood in point 
 of law to be fallen to the Crown in point of sovereignty." 
 
 The following are notes taken by Mr. H. Black (afterwards 
 Judge of the Admiralty Court in Quebec,) of an address by Sir 
 James Stuart, who appeared in the Court of Appeal in Quebec, 
 to sustain the cause of a Mr. Fleming against the Seminary of St. 
 Sulpice : — 
 
 It appears that Mr. Fleming had built a mill on the seigniory 
 of Montreal, and because of which the Seminary, assum.ing to be 
 its seigniors, took action against him. The case was carried 
 
 . V^i 'X 
 
89 
 
 against Mr. Fleming in the Lower Court, and because of which 
 he appealed. In the appeal Sir James Stuart appeared as his 
 advocate. The Hon. Judge Sewell was the presiding Judge on 
 the occasion when it was that he said, that although the Seminary 
 could plead possession, they could not do so as proprietors. The ap- 
 peal was decided in Mr. Fleming's favor. 
 
 " Mr. Stuart for the appellant," says Mr. Black, ** after stating 
 the facts of the case, said, ' The first head of defence is brought 
 under consideration of the court by a plea of peremptory excep- 
 tion and involves the existence of the Seminary at Montreal. 
 The second plea is the non-joinder of all the parties if the action 
 be brought by plaintiffs in their natural capacity ; the third, the 
 General Issue. To these pleas seven different answers have been 
 filed which substantially reduce themselves to one general propo- 
 sition, viz : a possession of 140 years, and consequently qualified 
 to assume corporate powers. 
 
 True they allege that they have been constituted by lawful 
 authority j but under the pleading offered by the defendants the 
 questions in the first place are : i. Whether they give a suffici- 
 e^n answer. 2. Whether they could show a legal existence under 
 such a plea. 3. Whether they have proved such title. And 4. 
 Whether even if Letters Patent had been pleaded from posterior 
 circumstances they can constitute a legal authority. Under every 
 form of government in civilized countries, secular authority is 
 necessary to the erection of corporations. Under the Roman 
 law, L. 3. 3. I ff. di colleg., & corp. & L. i. ff. quod. cuj. un. 
 nom : — In France Domat vol. 2. p. 9., liv. 2. sect. 2., art. 14, p. 
 75-76. Ibid. liv. I. tit. 15. Sect. i. art. i. ibid p. 77. art. 2, art. 
 5,art.6. Novo. Den. v. corps, vol. 5, p 581. § i. No. i. Ibid%ii. 
 No. 4, see the case here cited — Ibid veibo Communanti EccUsi- 
 astique. Vol. 4, p. 743. § i. No. 1. Corporations then must be 
 established by supreme authority, without letters patent, no 
 ponsession, however long, however peaceable, sufficient. That 
 principle established, distinctive of every thing pleaded. For 
 but one solitary fact pleaded — possession of 140 years the other 
 statement — legally constituted is an inference or deduction which 
 amounts to nothing. In every country where regular administra- 
 tive justice obtains the facts must be stated in the pleadings and 
 not arguments or inferences. Not easy to support general pro- 
 positions by reference to French authorities — but i Chitty. p. 216, 
 is an authority in point. If the Seminary after pleading their 
 possession had then set forth the letters patent it would have 
 been competent to defendant to allege grounds to nullify them ; 
 but as a general rule of pleading the title upon which a party 
 relies must of necessity be set forth. If otherwise — not proved. 
 Printed copies admitted as evidence of public acts only — not 
 
 7 
 
v] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 /a 
 
 
 '» .>^ 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 -<^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1^ 
 
 ■so 
 
 1^ IIIIIM 
 
 ^=^= y£ t 
 
 32 
 
 •" ■- IIIM 
 1-4 III 1.6 
 
 // 
 
 
 ■5£j ^5 
 
 
 & 
 ^ 
 
 ,V 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^•V 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 ^9) 
 
 \ 
 
 
 

90 
 
 111. 
 
 J 
 
 SO of private acts. Reason of this rule — p. I., Evce. 238, 306 
 3. ed. But if the letters patent had been proved they could not 
 confer the corporate capacity which the plaintiffs have tiought 
 , proper to assume. 
 
 The Council of Trent enjoined bishops to provide funds, by 
 a kind of contribution from certain sources, for the education of 
 children. In this manner were established Diocesan Seminaries, 
 and Seminaries to prepare young men for foreign Missions, and 
 afford an asylum for superannuated clergymen. Diet Canonique 
 Tit. Seminaire, p. 277 & 8. Memoires du Clerge Tom, 2. p. 555 
 & 562. Rep. de. Miss. Verb. Seminaire, p. 54. Distinction be- 
 tween Diocesan Seminaries and Seminary ?X Montreal marked 
 even in the manner in which the Seminary at Montreal is qcnsti- 
 tuted. The appointment of the bishop was always confirmed by 
 letters patent of the King superadded to it. Thus the Seminary 
 at Quebec was established by Episcopal authority in the first in- 
 stance, and afterwards confirmed by Royal authority. Edits & 
 Ord. I. p. 25. The Seminary at Montreal is an establishment of 
 the St. Sulpicians of Paris, to whom the seigniory of Montreal 
 was originally granted. Now nothing is more certain than that 
 the sovereign authority is necessary for a corporation existing in 
 one province to acquire property in another. Novo. Den, Verb, 
 corps., p. 587. The object of the letters patent of 1677 was to 
 authorize the St. Sulpicians at Paris to acquire property in Canada, 
 and not to create an independent body. Nous Icur avons permis 
 — to whom .'' St. Sulpicians at Paris. Voulons qu" elle soil unie a 
 perp^tuite a leur soci^ti. What society ? That of Paris, of course. 
 Pour enjouir — by whom } Par eux et leurs successeurs — au dit — 
 Sffminaire et communanU. Edits and Ord. i. p. 80. The language 
 of the Letters Patent always imputing that they shall have per- 
 petual succession it is evident that no new establishment was in- 
 tended, but merely a permission according to the public law of 
 France to acquire property in Canada. 
 
 The whole of the occurrences upon the conquest demonstrate 
 that it was so. But if the corporation were regularly constituted 
 even if it were an independent existing body — now is it possible 
 from circumstances that have occurred that it can still continue 
 to be so ? Every body politic is an emanation of the Royal 
 authority ; and every branch of the political authority of the 
 King of France was by the law of nations subverted and destroyed 
 upon the conquest of the country although the laws and customs 
 of the conquered country subsisted until the pleasure of the con- 
 queror was declared. In Viners Abi. Title, conquest, there is 
 a distinct authority in which this obvious principle of the law of 
 nations is recognized. There is another principle applicable to 
 this case, and considering the known clemency of Great Britain 
 
91 
 
 it contains nothing that ought to excite apprehension in the mind 
 of the most zealous Catholic. For the perfect security and ease 
 of the minds of the inhabitants of this province it is declared by 
 14 Geo. III., c. 83, s. 5, that His Majesty's subjects professing the 
 religion of the Church of Rome may have, hold and enjoy the 
 free exercise of the same, subject to the King's supremacy^ declared 
 and established by an Act made in the first year of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, over all the dominions or countries which then did or 
 thereafter should belong to the Imperial Crown of the realm of 
 Great Btitain. The generosity and justice of the British Govern- 
 ment then secured to Roman Catholics the free exercise of their 
 religion, but subject to the King's supremacy, and the operation 
 of that principle to the extinction of all ecclesiastical institutions 
 depending upon papal authority, (See i Eliz. I., preamble & S. 
 16.) It may be asked, How were other institutions permitted to 
 exist ? The capitulation and treaty had secured the free exer- 
 cise of religion, but had not secured any temporal right to the 
 inhabitants of the Pro\ince. The principle adverted to was 
 therefore in no way controlled either by capitulation or the 
 treaty, (27th Art. of the Cap. — and 4th Art. of the Definitive 
 Treaty of Peace.) • 
 
 Between the period of the capitulation and the art. of 1774, 
 the Curates were not entitled to any legal right which now be- 
 longs to them. But that act not only secured to them the free exer- 
 cise of their religion but also to the clergy the enjoyment of their 
 accustomed dues and rights. With respect to the Seminary of 
 Montreal, there exists nothing by which it is discriminated from 
 other bodies — on the contrary, by the 32nd Art. of the Cap. they 
 are preserved in their constitutions and privileges, but m the very 
 next Art. when it is asked that the preceding Art. shall likewise be 
 executed with regard to the priests of St. Sulpice at Montreal, 
 the answer is, '" Refusedy till the King's pleasure be known." Nor 
 was it necessary or consistent that the same liberality should be 
 extended to the Seminary at Montreal. It was inconsistent with 
 the King's supremacy and the public law of the land, and there- 
 fore it was extinguished immediately on the conquest. 
 
 Its very condition contained the seeds of its own dissolution, 
 for by one of the rules of the foundation its members must neces- 
 sarily be members of the society at Paris, and the effect of the 
 conquest was to cut off all intercourse between these bodies ; and 
 the Seminary at Montreal was dissolved upon the death of the 
 last member, because his place could no longer be supplied by 
 the members of that body which according to the original founda- 
 tion CO J alone furnish them. These grounds are sufficient to 
 show that the plea in abatement should have been maintained — 
 no principle more plain than that a person coming into a court 
 
92 
 
 I 
 
 > r< 
 
 
 of justice must have a legal ability to maintain his action. The 
 cases in the Novo. Den. Verb, corps, p. 587, and following pages, 
 and more particularly the case of the Oratoire, establish that a 
 party may avail himself under such a plea of any disability aris- 
 ing from the want of a legal corporate capacity in the plaintiffs. 
 With respect to English pleading, it not only belongs to a de- 
 fendant to plead the illegality of the existence of a corporation, 
 but the corporation itself is bound to prove its existence, (Kyd. 
 on Corporations p. 291). Mr. Stuart also objected that the action 
 ought to have been brought by the Seminary in their corporate 
 name. Upon the merits he said that there were two grounds of 
 argument — first, that the diction did not set forth a legal ground 
 of action, and secondly, neither the law nor the fact justified the 
 judgment given by the court below. The action is brought upon 
 the supposition that the right of Benaliti is inherent in every 
 seigniory. Novo. Den. Tit. Benalit^ and Rep. de Suo Eod, tit, 
 establish incontrovertibly that it is not an attribute of the 
 seigniory. It rests solely upon the arret of 1686. Edits & Ord. 
 I. p. 266. Upon perusal of that a. ^et the motive of it appears to 
 have been the poverty of the inhabitants, and to furnish an in- 
 ducement to seigniors to erect mills within the Province. This 
 an <H created a new right in favor of seigniors, but restricted it to 
 such as built their mills within a year and a day from the publi- 
 cation of it. And even upon a literal construction of the arret in 
 question all mills became Bannaux in the persons who have 
 erected them though not seigniors. If it be competent to the 
 Seminary to recover in this instance, seigniors may recover, gen- 
 erally, even when they have no mills, or, when their mills are in 
 such a state as to be inadequate to the wants of the tenants. But 
 if otherwise, and that they were entitled to a judgment, general 
 rules of justice point the redress for an injury done. The Semi- 
 nary not only require the redress afforded by the strictest rules 
 of expletive justice, but that they may be permitted to demolish 
 the mill. Why should the defendant not have it in his power to 
 convert it to other purposes ? Besides it is by no means a set- 
 tled point that complaints can be maintained for a disturbance in 
 the right of Benaliti> — See the case of Abb6 Ozanne in the Novo. 
 Den. vol. 3, p. 152. 
 
 ' WiTNBH " PRIKTI>0 HODtB, MoNTRBAI..