IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1^1^ 12.5 
 
 ■SO *^^" hHB 
 
 •^ 1^ 12.2 
 
 ^ lis IIIIIM 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 IIh 
 
 
 ■• 6" - 
 
 
 ► 
 
 Phote)graphic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STRHT 
 ^ WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO 
 (716)S73-4S03 
 

 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 Institut Canadian da microraproductions h'^toriquas 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiquet 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou peliicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartas gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relit avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge inttrieure 
 
 Blank leav js added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas M filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppltmentaires: 
 
 L'Instltut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lul a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproculte. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mtthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagAes 
 
 |~n^ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 I J Pages restaurAes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dtcoiortes. tachettes ou piqutes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 ^j/Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality inigaie de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire 
 
 □ 
 □ 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure. 
 etc.. ont 6ti flimtes d nouveau de fapon & 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est fiimd au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
 
The copy filmed here het been reproduced thenks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Librery of the Public 
 Archives of Csnsds 
 
 L'exempleire film* f ut reproduit grAce A la 
 g^nAroeitA de: 
 
 La bibliothique des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appeermg here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Las imsges suiventes ont At6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de I'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exempialres orlginaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprimAe sont fllmte en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le ces. Tous les autres exempialres 
 originsux sont fiimte en commen^ant par la 
 premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniAre page qui comporte une tellr 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Ur: des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, salon le 
 cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE". le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 fiimto A des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul cllchA, il est filmA A partir 
 de Tangle supArleur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 

 

 •TT^ 
 
 "fm 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 THE JESQIT QDESTIOH. 
 
 DflliTOH IHeGflHTHY'S 
 
 GHEflT SPEECH 
 
 IN THE DOMINION HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 [Reprinted from the ** Hansard" by request, with permission of the author.] 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At the close of the sitting last evening I rose some- 
 what relactantly, and only because I thought if I did not seize that opportunity, 
 you, Sir, would call in the members, and the opportunity of addressing the 
 House would be lost. 1 thought then, and \ think now, that considering the 
 nature of the motion which is before the House, it would not have been 
 unreasonable for the Government, or some member of the Government, to 
 have defended theii action in the past in allowing the Bill under discussion, 
 and to have given those reasons to us which, perhaps, would have justified 
 their course, and, at all events, would have enabled those who differ from them 
 to show wherein that difference lies. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. 
 O'Brien) is entitled to the thanks of this House and country for bringing this 
 matter before Parliament. It would have been, I think, an everlasting disgrace 
 to us if, in this, a free Parliament and free country, there would be no 
 member found out of the 200 odd who compose this House, to give voice to 
 the opinions of a very large body of the people who have been aroused with 
 regard to this measure. I say when my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. 
 O'Brien) gave reasons why he thought this Bill should still be disallowed, 
 notwithstanding the action of the Government, v/hen he assailed the action of 
 the Government upon constitutional grounds, and when to that was added the 
 attack made by my hon. friend from West York (Mr, Wallace), and the most 
 elaborate attack, upon legal grounds, made by the hon. Member for North 
 Victoria (Mr. Barron), it does appear to me that it would have been ordinary 
 courtesy to those hon. gantlemen, and to the House itself, t^ some defence 
 should have been made from the Treasury benches. I hardly think that we 
 can take seriously the defence which has been offered by the hon. member for 
 Lincoln (Mr. Rykert). I do not for myself take it seriously. With regard to 
 the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby), the case is different. His 
 remarks require attention, and from me they shall receive serious consideration. 
 But, although my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Rykert) is a gentleman of 
 long standing in the House, he frankly told us that he prayed, as I under- 
 stood him, that he never again would have to present himself before his 
 constituents to ask for a renewal of their confidence. 
 
 Mr. RYKERT.— I did not say so. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I must have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, and, 
 of course, take, that back. Then my hon. friend, the other gentleman to 
 
 ^wmfd^^kamm^i 
 
 \..\i 
 
whom I have referred (Mr. Colby), who spoke so feelingly and so ably, whose 
 voice we are always glad to listen to, whose wisdom we all recognize, is 
 possibly a prospective Minister ; but, although that be so, I think it would still 
 have been perhaps better if we had heard from an actual Minister, and not a 
 prospective Minister, on a question of this importance. It may bci that before 
 this debate closes the House will hear from the Treasury benchtd upon this 
 subject. Their silence so far in the discussion is, I consider, hardly giving us 
 fair play. Fortified by the leaders opposite, fortified by the great number of 
 hon. gentlemen who are going to support them in this House, I do think they 
 should have allowed the small band here who are opposed to their action any 
 possible advantage that could be given by the debate, and not have remained 
 silent, but have given the reasons why the course of the Government shou'd 
 be sustained. However that may be, we must take the situation just as we 
 find it, and I was not willing the discussion should close without giving the 
 reasons why I am taking the course which I propose takir.g on this important 
 matter, and in which I will have to separate myself from my political friends 
 with whom it has been my pride' and pleasure to act up to this time. The 
 question must be considered in a two fold aspec|. It has to be considered 
 as to its constitutionality in the narrower sense of th«. term, and as tp its 
 constitutionality in the wider sense of the term. If it is ullra vires the Legis* 
 lature of Quebec, it ought to have been disallowed. If it is intra vires, if it is 
 within the powers of the Legislature of that Province, then I still say'it ought 
 to have been disallowed. But the matters are so entirely separate and 
 distinct — the one resting upon legal constitutional principles of one descrip- 
 tion, and the other depending upon considerations of a widely diflferent 
 character, that I have to a.sk the permission of the House to deal with these 
 matters separately and distinctly. First, it is well we should clearly under- 
 stand the character of the legislation which is assailed. It will not do to 
 ignore the past; it will not do, as the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) 
 did, to say it is not necessary to consider fine spun legal arguments, or to 
 deal with the question in that way. All these questions have first to be 
 considered from the legal point of view. We have a very large volume, down 
 to the present time, of the cases which have been disallo\ ed, most of them 
 because they were beyond the power of the Provincial Legislatures to enact. 
 Therefore, the first question which the Minister of Justice had to report upon 
 was whether this Act was constitutional in that sense of the term. The first 
 question was whether it was within the powers of the Legislature of the 
 Province. Then the other question came before himself and colleagues^ — a 
 matter more of great public policy than of la*— as to whether on these 
 grounds the measure ought to have been disallowed. It is well to look at 
 the Act, and although I have no doubt that all of us have read the Act and 
 pretty well understand it, yet I will ask the House to bear with me while I 
 give shortly a summary of what I consider to be the salient features of this most 
 extraordinary piece of legislation. It commeiiced by a letter from the Premier 
 of Quebec, in which he addressed His Eminence the Cardinal, who, I suppose, 
 occupies somewhat the position of the Prime Minister of His Holiness the 
 Pope. In that letter Mr. Mercier, having recited the history of the case, 
 says : 
 
 «' Under these circumstances, I deem it my duty lo* ask Your Eminence if you see any 
 serious objection to tlie Government selling the property, pending a final settlement of the* 
 question of the Jesuits' Estates. 
 
 Here we have the Premier of one of our Provinces asking of His Holiness, or 
 of the Secretary of the Propa.^anda, occupying the position to which I have 
 referred, for peimission, it beiag his duty, as he says, so to do, to sell the 
 property" asking him to se«i if there is any serious objection in Vhe way of 
 
 m^ 
 
mm 
 
 T 
 
 •n.- 
 
 8 
 
 the Government selling the property, pending the final settlement of the 
 Jesuits' Estates. It is sufficiently startling to find such a recital in a British 
 Act of Parliament, and I venture to say it is unheard of, I venture to aay that, 
 in all the legislation passed by the Parliaments of Great Britain or the Legis- 
 latures of any of the Colonies, you will search in vain to find any so humili- 
 ating a statement as this "very first clause of the Bill presents to you. But 
 that does not seem to excite surprise in the power to which it was addressed, 
 because the answer is in this form : 
 
 " I liasten to notify yon that, having laid your request before the Holy Father at the 
 audience yesterday, His Holiness was pleased to grant permission to sell the property which 
 belonged to the Jesuit Fathers before they were suppressed, " 
 
 So the permission is given 
 
 " upon the* express condition, however, " 
 
 So the condition is annexed 
 
 " — — that the sum to be received be deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy See." 
 
 . Thus the Province of Quebec is permitted to legislate. The first step has 
 been gained in the settlement of this important question. The free Parlia- 
 ment of Quebec, entru-ted under the British I>Iorth America Act with 
 important powers, and representing a mixed community, a community with 
 wl^h the Supreme Pontiff of Rome has no power to interfere as a temporal 
 power, asks, and the Supreme Pontiif graciously grants permission to that 
 Legislature, to deal with what, Lthink I will show to the satisfaction of every 
 member of this House before I close, was recognized as a portion of the 
 public domain. Mr. Mercier did not see his way to allow this condition to 
 be imposed. It could not be at the disposal of the Holy See, but — and to 
 my mind it is a distinction without a difference — it was to be retained as a 
 special deposit to be disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the Holy See. 
 I do not know whether there is very much difference between thes^ two 
 provisions. It is a difl'erence in words, but not a difference in fact or in 
 
 .substance, as the sequel has shown. Practically, it has been a gift to the 
 Holy See, and has been distributed as to His Holiness the Pope seemed best. 
 Then, having obtained this consent, as a condition precedent to the legislation, 
 we find that negotiations were entered upon, and the result of these negotia- 
 tions is that the lands of the Jesuits* Estates are to be left intact. That is 
 another concession granted by the representative of the Holy See ; and, instead 
 of that, compensation in money is to be made, and the claim is presented, 
 which we find amounts to §2,000,000. As §i,ooo,coo of that is the property 
 of this Dominion, I do not think we have got rid of that claim yet. I do not 
 suppose that the Province of Quebec could do more than make an arrange- 
 ment in regard to that property which belonged to that Province ; but, in 
 regard to that which belongs to this Parliament or to this Dominion, I 
 suppose, by-and-bye, we will have our First Minister asking leave — because 
 what can be assented to by the authorities here as right in the Province of 
 Quebec would not be wrong in regard to the property belonging to the 
 Dominion — we may have the First Minister here asking that the portion of 
 that property belonging to the Dominion shiill be dealt with by permission of 
 His Holiness at Rome. I find further in these documents the following : — 
 
 " I deem it my duty to ask Your Eminence if you see any serious objection to the Govern- 
 ment's selling the property, pending a final settlement of the question of the Jesuits' Estates." 
 
 There is no doubt at all about the meaning of this. There is no doubt about 
 
 the understanding which is arrived at. Before the Government are put in 
 
 full possession, and in order that they may be put in full possession of these 
 
 estates, there is to be a compensation made, and, finally, the bargain is 
 
 worked out, and the conditions of the bargain are, what ? The conditions 
 
 are that this arrangement is to be non-effective until it receives the sanction 
 
 ^ii| 
 
 '■'•'■ 'I 
 
 %l 
 
•7.'a,v 
 
 of His Holiness of Rome. It is to be ratified—that is the term used— but 
 it means practically that it might be vetoed, and to malce, no doubt, that there 
 was no attempt at conciliation or at sparing the feelings of those who are 
 known to entertain strong feelings on this subject, this matter was not 
 submitted to His Holiness of Rome until it was "brought before the Legis- 
 lature of that Province. Whether that was by arrangement or not, I do not 
 know. Whether it was paying proper respect or not to the Sovereign Pontiflf 
 to ask him to express his approval or disapproval, I do not pretend to judge, 
 but the legislation of tht; Province is clearly made dependent upon the act of 
 His Holiness the Pope of Rome. Not only so — and then I have finished 
 my summary of the Act — but the sum of money which is granted, the 
 $400,000 granted which is payable out of any money of the public revenue, is 
 to be distributed, in effect, though perhaps not in the terms of the contract, 
 under and with the sanction of His Holiness of Rome. Now, that is shortly 
 the meaning of this legislation. I will have finished with the Act when I 
 make a further observation, and I make it now, perhaps, a little out of place, 
 but it must not be altogether lost sight of. This Act in effect does away with 
 the purposes for which the Jesuits Estates were appropriated, and I think 
 that is a matter of such great importance that I can only feel astonished at 
 the calmness with which myhon. friend from -Stanstead (Mr. Colby) regft-ds 
 it, and the indifference with which it has been received by the Protestant 
 portion of the Province of Quebec, as my hon. friend has stated. This Bill 
 puts into the general fund an amount which was granted for educational 
 purposes. It misappropriates — I do not use the term in its technical sense, 
 for I quite recognize the right of the Province to use the fund — but from a 
 general standpoint it misappropriates this fund by providing that $400,000 
 may be paid thereout to a certain institution. Now, having said so much as 
 to the Act, let me say a word or two <s to the property, and that brings me to, 
 what might be a long history and a long statement, and I hope the House 
 will not be impatient with me when I deal with this somewhat complicated 
 matter, which I will endeavour to "lake as phin as I can. I do not accept 
 the theory which I have seen put forward in some quarters, that the Jesuits 
 held their estates in trust for educational purposes. As far as I have been 
 able to examine the deeds — and I have examined the statement made in the 
 year 1824 — these estates were given to them in fee simple for all time. So 
 far as I can judge from the history of the body at that time, it was not an 
 uncommon thing for the Jesuit Fathers to accumulate both lands and goods 
 in very considerable quantities. I find that one of the accusations made 
 against them was avarice; one of the causes of the suppression of their order 
 shortly after that, was the complaint made by the other orders of the Church, 
 that they were avaricious, and that they accumulated wealth unduly in their 
 order, notwithstanding the vow of poverty which they had taken. But 
 however that may be, I think it is quite plain that they did hold these estates 
 for themselves. Now, then, just let me trace the story of events by which 
 this country became subject to the British Crown. We must never forget — 
 I am afraid that some of my friends from the Province of Quebec do some* 
 times forget — that this is a British country, that by the fortunes of war that 
 event was decided and the greater half of North America passed under the 
 British Crown ; and that being so, effect had to be given to the laws to which 
 the country then became subject. Now, what were those laws ? Granting, 
 Sir,— which is not quite accurate— that the Jesuits held these estates at the 
 time of the Conquest — I spoke before of th^ manner in which they held them 
 originally — but granting they held them at that date— which would not be 
 accurate — when we have before us the decree of the Parliament of Paris, 
 suppressing the Jesuit Order in the year 1762, taking from them their tand ; 
 
when we have that, it would not, I say, be strictly accurate to affirm, that at 
 the time or the Definitive Treaty in 1763, these Jesuit Fathers held their 
 estates as they certainly did aforetime. But even if they did, while admitting 
 freely that this country, New France, having then a settled law, and passing 
 under the British Crown as a conquered country, while I admit freely, that the 
 British law did not, by virtue of the conquest, become the law of New France, 
 I do say, it is beyond all doubt, that it was in the power of the conquering 
 State to enact such laws as to the conquering State seemed proper, to change 
 the civil law which then prevailed, and to introduce the common law of Eng- 
 and. It is beyond all controversy that, the treaty having been agreed to on 
 Ithe loth February, 1763, on the October following, the King did issue a 
 proclamation that introduced at once into this country, the laws of Great 
 Britain, and that those laws continued to be the laws of this country until, in 
 1774, the Quebec Act was passed, which restored to the French Canadian '^ 
 inhabitants, the civil law which, they liked best, to which they were 
 accustomed, and for which they had sued to the King and to the British Par- 
 liament. The constitutionality of the proclamation, the power of the King to 
 introduce English law, is not now open to controversy, because the very self- 
 same treaty underwent consideration in the celebrated case with which all 
 lawyers who have made any attempt to master this subject are perfectly 
 familiar ; and it was upheld as constitutional, as a proper exercise of the 
 prerogative, power and as being binding and efficacidus to the full extent and 
 limit of the command contained therein. Now, Sir, what was the effect of 
 that ? It will not be denied that at that time the Jesuits were an organization 
 which could not be tolerated, and were not tolerated, by the laws of England. 
 I am not going now into any argument, any citation, to establish that point ; 
 it is beyond controversy. It was laid down by the law officers of the day — 
 I have their citations here to establish it — it was»laid down by Blackstone in 
 his Commentaries, the first edition of which was published shortly before that 
 period, that the Jesuit organization was an illegal one, and then the moment 
 British laws were introduced into this country, ipso facto the Jesuits' estates 
 became forfeited to the Crown, and the title of the Crown to these estates has 
 always been recognized from that period up, has always been considered as 
 indefeasible. If sanction was wanted for it, we could find it by the action of 
 the Parliaments of this country, upon petition of the French Canadian people 
 of the country, who desired that the lands should be kept for educational 
 purposes when it was proposed to give ont of these lands, and perhaps the 
 lands themselves, to General Amherst, who had been the jjeneral in command ■ 
 at the time of the cession. So not only have we, as I will prove, the law that 
 was enunciated by the law officers of the Crown, by the highest authorities of 
 the day, but we have the action of our own Parliaments, the Parliament of 
 the Province of Quebec before the Union, the Parliament of United Canada 
 after the Union ; and yet. Sir, here, 100 years afterwards, we find the Premier 
 of the Province suing humbly to the Pope of Rome for liberty to sell the 
 Jesuits' Estates. Can humiliation go much further, if we are indeed a free 
 people. 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS.— Ha 1 Ha ! 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Some of my hon. friends laugh ; I do not see any 
 laughing matter in it, I cannot see why they should laugh about it. If the 
 property is in the condition that I have proved it to be, I think the conclu- 
 sion that I have stated follows from it ; and if we are a free people, if the 
 Act of Supremacy means anything, if we are not subject to His Holiness of 
 Rome in temporal matters-:— I am not speaking of spiritual matters, I am 
 speaking of the public domain of this country, I aifl talking about the temporal 
 power, it was of that power that consent was asked to dispose of the estates 
 
1 
 
 JM^ 
 
 6 
 
 — and so I say it is a humiliation to us as a free people to find that one of 
 the Premiers of this Dominion has thought it necessary to obtain the sanction 
 of an} fortij^n authority to dispose of this property. It is argued that the Pope 
 is no lon?[er a foreign potentate ; I think he is. His temporal power was 
 never feared, it was the spiritual power which was struck at by the Act of 
 Supremacy, not the temporal power of the Pope. It was the power that he 
 claimed to e.\communicate sovereigns, to absolve peoples from their al- 
 legiance — these were what were struck at by the Act of Supremacy, not his 
 guns or his men, for guns and men he never had in numbers to alarm or affect 
 any of the great powers of Europe. Now, Sir, am I right or am I wrong, in 
 what I have stated ? — because I desire to make no misstatement of this ques- 
 tion. Let us see just what the law oflicers of the Crown stated at that time. 
 We know how it was dbne. The law officers, I believe, at that time, were 
 Mr. Thurlow, the attorney-general, and Mr. VVedderbnrn, solicitor-general, 
 both distinguished lawyers, either of them, perhaps, competent to give an 
 opinion in matters of civil law. Sir James Marriott was skilled in civil law 
 and in ecclesiastical law, and he was called upon for a report — merely for a 
 report, because the responsibility still rested with the law officers of the 
 Crown. Extracts of his report have been published, and we are more or less 
 familiar with them, and his report established, and the law oflicers adopted 
 his conclusion, that the Jesuits' Estates were at once forfeited to the Grown. 
 That under the Treaty there was no claim for either the Jesuits or for other 
 religious communities ; but, anxious as the Sovereign was — and, I say, if you 
 will look back at the history of that period, no man with British blood will 
 have cause to regret the conduct of the British authorities in those days or the 
 manner of their disposition — the Sovereign said : 
 
 ■■' 'l"hc Jesuits are beyond tho^ptile. We cinnot listen, for one moment, to tlieir holding 
 their estates, but the other religious communities are to be permitted to remain in possession of 
 their estates, and they are to remain there for the purpose of ei>al)linf; us to judge whether it is 
 necessary under the treaty (afterwards, under the .Statute of 1774, ihcy were continued in their 
 possession), in order that effect miijht be given to th.it portion ul the Treaty, and that portion of 
 the Act of Parliament, which guaranteed to the inhabitants of tiie conquered country their 
 rights." 
 
 I shall have to trouble the House with reference to the facts which govern the 
 
 whole Siibsecjuent proceedings, and let me commence with the earliest date. 
 
 On 13th August, 1763, in the instructions which were given by the Earl of 
 
 Egremont to Governor Murray, we find these words : 
 
 "Though the King has, in the 4t!i article of the Definitive Treaty, agreed to grant the 
 'Liberty of the Catholic religion to liie inhabitants of Canada ;' and though His Majesty is far 
 from entertaining the most distant thoughts of restraining his new Roman Catholic subjects from 
 professing the worship of their religion according to the riles of the Romish Church, yet the 
 condition expressed in the same article must always be remembered, viz. ;^' As far as the laws 
 of Great Britain permit :' which laws prohibit absolutely all popish hierarchy in any of the 
 dominions belonging to the down of Gieat Britain, and can only admit of a toleration of the 
 exercise of that religion. Thi< matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the Definitive 
 Treaty. The French Ministers proposed to insert the words coinme ridevaut in order that the 
 Romish religion should continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their Government { 
 and they did not give up the point till they were plainly told that il would be deceiving them to 
 admit those words, for the King had not the power to tolerate that religion in any other manner 
 that ' as far .-is the laws of Great Britain permit.' These laws must be your guide in any disputes 
 that may arise on this subject ; but at the same time that 1 point out to you the necessity of 
 .idhering ic them, and of attending with the utmost vigilance to the behaviour of the Priests, the 
 King relies on your acting with all proper caution and prudence in regard to a matter of so 
 delicate a nature as this of religion ; and that you will, as far as you can con.sistently with your 
 duty in the execution of the laws and with the safely of the country, avoid everything that can 
 give the least unncces.sary alarm or disgust to His Majesty's new subjects." 
 
 That is the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. We find in 1765 
 these instructions further given, and they are found in the commission to 
 the King's Receiver Generll, and read as follows : — 
 
 " And whereas the lands of several religious societies in the said Province, particularly those 
 of the Society oLthe Jesuits, are, or will become, part of His Majesty's revenue, you are therefore 
 
to endeftvor, by .i(;reeinent« to be made with the peisonn iiiterestetl for the present in ony of the 
 !wid eitatt-i, to Inke the said estates into your charge, giving unto tliem respfciively Micli conipetfent 
 allowance thereon for their livec, ns you may judge proper, taking care that these lands may not 
 be sequestered or alienatei' from Mis Majesty." 
 
 Again, in a letter from Lord Shelburne to Governor Carlelon, November 14., 
 1767, we read : 
 
 " It hnh been represented to Ilis Majesty that the Jesuits of Canada make large remittances 
 to Italy, and that they imperceptibly diminish their effects for that purpose • • • '1 00 
 much care cannot be taken that they do not embezzle an estate of which they enjoy only the life- 
 rent and which must liecome on their demise a very considerable resource to the I'ruvince, in 
 case His Majesty should be pleased to cede it for that purpose." 
 
 As to the effect which is to be given to the treaty, although perhaps I have 
 
 said enough on that point, I want to fortify my position. I do not expect 
 
 hon. gentlemen will be willing to take my ipse dixit in a matter of this kind, 
 
 and I desire to establish from j the public records the doctrines which were 
 
 held by the law oiBcers at the time, in order to make good my point. Sir 
 
 James Marriott reported at great length, and the book is accessible to all, and 
 
 no doubt many hon. members have taken advantage of it. He reports on 
 
 this particular question, which hon, members can easily understand when we 
 
 look at the terms of the treaty. Let me read from it : 
 
 " Kis Britannic Majesty agrees to grant the lilierty of the ('atholic religion to the inhabi- 
 tants of Canada ; he will consequently give the most effectual owlcrs that his new Koman 
 Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rights of the Roman 
 Church as far as the lawsof Great Britain permit." 
 
 Now, we all see the difficulty that at once arose, The laws of Great Britain 
 
 at that time hardly permitted the exercise of the Rom.in Catholic religion. 
 
 The law officers of the Crown, however, decided that this was not to he treated 
 
 as a dead letter, but that full effect in every way must be given to th« treaty. 
 
 The difficulty was in reconciling the terms of the Roman Catholic religion 
 
 with the laws of Great Britain, which practically fotbid the practice of that 
 
 religion, and so the proposition is worked out. And how is it'worked out? 
 
 Sir James Marriott gave an opinion on this point as follows : — 
 
 " Now, I consider that the laws and constitution of this Kingdom, permit perfect freedom 
 of the exercise of any religious worship in the colonies, but not of all sorts of doctrines, nor the 
 maintenance of any foreign authority, civil or ecclesiastical, which doctrines and authority may 
 affect the supremacy of the Crown or safety of your Majesty and the roahn ; for a very great and 
 r.ecessary distinction, as it appears to me, must be taken between the profession of the worship 
 of the Romish religion, according to the rites of it and its principles of church government. To 
 use the French word, the culte, or forms of worship or ritual, are totally disiiiict from those of its 
 doctrines. The lirst can, may and ought, in my opinion, be good policy and ju.slice to be 
 tolerated, though the second cannot be tolerated." 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn, afterwards Lord Loughborough, gave an opinion on the 
 
 same subject. Speaking more especially in regard to the Jesuits, he said : 
 
 " The establishment of the first (the Jesuits) is not only incompatible with the constitution of 
 an English province, but with every other possible form of civil society. My the rule of their 
 order the Jesuits are aliens in every government." " They are not owners of their e.Uates but 
 trustees for purposes dependent upon the pleasure of a foreigner, the General of their order. 
 Three great Catholic states have, upon grounds of policy, expelled them. It would be singular 
 if the first Protestant st.ate in Europe should protect an establishment that ere now must have 
 ceased in Canada had the French Government continued." "It is therefore, equally just and 
 expedient, in this instance, to assert the sovereignty of the King and to declare the lands of the 
 Jesuits are vested in His Majesty, allowing at the same time to the Jesuits now residing in 
 Canada liberal pensions out of the incomes of their estates." 
 
 This opinion was repor^d by him to the law officers of the Crown, and the 
 opinion of the law officers of the Crown framed upon it is the foundation of 
 what was afterwards embodied in regard to this subject in the Quebec Act. 
 Then we find in the Quebec Act that while the religion of the inhabitants of 
 the country was specially protected, that the religious communities were 
 excepted therefrom and that they were left to be dealt with by the Crown, 
 thereby leaving those matters just as they stood, — owing to the conquest, by 
 virtue of that conquest and by virtue of that proclamation, leaving matters 
 
.> 
 
 8 
 
 exactly as llu;y stood with regard to the religions communities, and dealt with 
 the people of th"- country as distinct and separable from their religious com- 
 munities. Tlicn let tnc read what was the outcome of the Quebec Act. It 
 was passed in 1774., and in 1775 ^express instructions are given to Guy 
 Carleton, the Captain Ge'iieral and the (Governor in Chief of the Province of 
 Canada, and Un-se are the instructions : 
 
 "Thai the Society of Jcsiis be KU|j;>ressed .ind dissolvod, nnd no loiiKei !)« continued u a 
 body corporjic nnd politic, and nil their rights, posseitsiunH, and (iroiwrty simll lie vested in Ui, 
 for sui.li pi!i notes .is \\i: imiy licrcnftcr 'hink fit t<j ilirect or appi>inl ; Init we lliiiik fit to declare 
 Our Koy.d intention to be, that the prfst-nt nienibern of tiie said Society as CKtabliihed at 
 Quebec, shall be allo%\^-d sufiici-.'iit Btiponds and pioviiions during their natural lives." 
 
 Now, can it bo reasonably argued, that this Kstate of the Jesuits did not vest 
 anti pass to the Crown, and were not iield by the Crown ? I have spoken of 
 this simply as a lawyer, I have spoken of it simply upon the grounds and 
 with reference to the authorities which I lind. I offer no opinion of my own 
 about it, and I simply state facts as I find them. Let me follow up a little 
 further to see wliat becomes of these matters. Sir James Marriott s opinion 
 is again invoked, but I will not trouble the House with this long extract. 
 Sufhcietit to say that it substantially agrees with his former opinion. In a 
 few words, just to siiinmarise what he states, he says : 
 
 " In a few words llic Society of Jcsus liad not .md cannot have any estate in Canada legally 
 and completely vested in tlieni at any time, and therefore could not and cannot transfer the s.ime 
 liefore nor after the term of eijjiiieen uonths so as to make a good title lo purchasers, either with 
 or without llie powers or ratificilioii of the Father Oetieral wiio, as he could na retire, so he 
 cannot retain any posse>,sions in Can.ida, since the time limited for the ••ales of estates there 
 agreeably to the terms of the treaty ; because he is as inc.ipnble fif becoming a Utitisl .ubject, as 
 he was of beinj.' a I' reiiili subject ; nor can the individiials of the communities of the Jesuits in 
 Can.ida, lake 01 irntiiifei wh.it liie Father Ciciieral cannot take or transfer ; nor can they, having 
 but one coininon stock with all other communities of their order in every part of the globe, hold 
 immovable possessions, to be applied (or the joint benefit of those communities which are resident 
 in foreign states ; and which m.iy beoonie the enemies of His .Majesty and his Government." 
 
 Mr. MILLS fHothwell). — That is the third opinion as to Itow the est&tes 
 are confiscated. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — it is the third opinion. It is in the yame report to 
 which I have referred, or ra'her it is the second oj)inion on this special ques- 
 tion submitted to Sir Jam- s Marriott with regard to the Jesuits' properties. 
 Now, in 1770, General An.herst, then Lord Amherst, I believe, petitioned the 
 Crown to be compensated lOr the services whicli he had rendered the country 
 in the conquest of Canada out of these estates ; or rather he made a petition 
 generally, and the King ordered and directed that the General should be 
 compensated, and compensated out of the Jesuits' Estates. I only state 
 that to show that these estates were dealt with at that lime beyond all 
 peradventure as part of the Crown lands. Now I would read one extract 
 which shows the dilTerent manner in which the Jesuits were treated from the 
 otiier religious communities ; by-and-bye, perhaps, it may be my duty to point 
 out why it was so, for I cannot very well, however much I would wish to avoid 
 it, however much I would wish to do as my hon. friend behind me (Mr. 
 Colby) did, ignore the past, I am afraid it will be impossible to treat this 
 subject properly without some little reference to the historical facts we have 
 relating to the Jesuit Order. But however that may be, we find that the 
 Royal Instructions in 1772 were conveyed in this way: 
 
 "It was declared that for the present and until we can be f jlly informed of the true state of 
 the religious communitiej, and how far they are or are not essential to the exercise of the 
 religion of the Church of Rome as allowed in the said province, to permit those religious com- 
 munittes to remain in possessioa of their estates." 
 
 There, was a clear line of demarcation in dealing with the ordinary religious 
 communities. I, perhaps, am not Ifamiliar enough with the language to state 
 what that difference was, but there was a clear distinction drawn between the 
 ordinary religious communities, if I may so express it, and the particular body 
 
which is now more especially under discussion. Now we have come down 
 
 very nearly to 1791 or 179a. We have got things down to the period in 
 
 which the Province was granted a species of representative government which 
 
 continued up to the Union of 1840 or 1841 ; and we find, if we consult history 
 
 that there was a loud protest against the King appropriating this property 
 
 It was no denial of his right, but it was against the wisdom and fairness and 
 
 justice of his handing over this property to the General who had conquered 
 
 the country ; the allegation being put up then, and then, so far as I know, 
 
 for the first time, that this property had been really given to the Jesuits for 
 
 the purpose, and in trust, for education. I think. Sir, that if you will consult 
 
 Mr. Garneau's History, which I believe is the history most acceptable to my 
 
 hon. friends from the Province of Quebec, that it will be found as early as 
 
 1 800 that that matter was brought prominently before the Legislature, and 
 
 from that time out the agitation in that view was kept up so briskly and so 
 
 successfully, that in 1830 or in 1831 the Crown ceded and granted to the 
 
 Province all these Jesuits' Estates for the express purpose for which it had 
 
 been asked, and that was for the purpose of education. The Province 
 
 accepted the trust, the Province dealt with it on that footing ; and if I ma/ 
 
 read the first section of the Act, 'chapter 41, William IV, passed in 1832, we 
 
 find that by an Act of that Province it was stated : 
 
 " That all monies arising out of the estates of the late Order of Jesuits which now are in, 
 or may hereafter come into tne hands of t)ie Receiver General, shall be applied to the purposes 
 of education exclusively." 
 
 Again, in 1846, 9 Victoria, chapter 59, another legislative declaration, this 
 
 time by the united Provinces, says : 
 
 " That the revenue and interests arising from the real or funded property forming part of 
 the estates of the late Order of the Jesuits and now at the disposal of the Legislature for educa- 
 tional purposes in Lower (Canada, shall be, and are hereby declared to be applicible to such 
 pur{X>tes, and to no other." 
 
 And, finally, in 1856, 19 and io Victoria, chapter 54, the legislation on the 
 
 matter says : 
 
 " The estates and property of the late Order of the Jesuits, whether in possession or 
 reversive, including all sums funded or invested, or to be funded or investeil ns forming part 
 thereof, are hereby appropriated for the purposes of this Act and shall form a fund to be called 
 the Lower Canada Superior Education Investment Fund. ' 
 
 I think if there ever was a title to an estate or property recognized by legis- 
 lative action, clear in its origin, made more certain and more definite at every 
 stage in which we find it cro'pping up from time to time, it is the title to the 
 Jesuits' Estates. When we ate asking His Excellency the Governor-General 
 to disallow this Act, when we are taking upon ourselves the responsibility of 
 saying yea or nay on that question, it is impossible that we can deny to our- 
 selves the opportunity of scrutinizing every syllable and every letter in it ; and 
 I find here : 
 
 " The Act of the legislature, 48 Victoria, cha()ter 10, notwithstanding section 5 of the said 
 Act, and notwithstanding any other Act to the contrary, shall apply to •'^e .said estates, the 
 proceeds whereof may be applied also, notwithstanding any Act to the contrary, for the above 
 mentioned purposes, or for any other purjx>se8 approved by the Legislature. 
 
 So that this special property, set apart for education in the Province of 
 Quebec — not the education of the majority, to whom my friend behind me 
 pays such humble court, but all the people of the Province of Quebec, the 
 minority as well as the majority — has been swept, away by this enactment ; 
 although, when the Premier was taxed in Quebec the other day with the 
 question, his answer was by no means such as might have been expected, 
 but was evasive, and not, I am afraid, altogether according to the record. If 
 ever thera was legislation which we could interfere with on such grounds, it 
 is this ; — property given by the Crown, for the express purpose of the edu- 
 cation of the people of the Province ; property which remained for that pur-' 
 
Si 
 
 10 
 
 pose from the year 1831, to the year 1888; property which a Parliament, 
 elected under an excitement of race and revenge, has decided should be taken 
 away from the minority, as well as the majority, and dedicated to other pur- 
 poses and other uses. Weil, Sir, I say — and that is my first proposition — if 
 I have satisfied this House, that this property was public domain— and, if I 
 am not able to satisfy the House of that, I am incapable of making any state- 
 ment — then the proposition with which I started, is made out, that this 
 Act uses Her Most Gracious Majesty's name as enacting that, her own 
 estates, or the estates she had surrendered to the Province of Quebec, for the 
 purposes of education, were not hers, not the Province's. All this history of 
 the past is to be blotted out ; it is to be all child's play ; the Crown did not 
 own, the Crown did not get, the Crown did not take, the Crown did not grant 
 a rod, but went through a farce, when it dedicated the property for educa- 
 tional purposes, at first to the Province of Quebec, and again, to the United 
 Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. All that was humbug, nonsense, 
 child's play ; the property was all the time vested in either the Sovereign 
 Pontiff, or in the Order of Jesuits ; and, as a result, the Pope is applied to, 
 as the only authority which could authorize the disposal of this property, 
 which, most people had thought, belonged to the Crown, for permission to 
 dispose of it. Let me do no injustice : let me read the words again : 
 
 " Under these circumstances, I deem it my duty to ask Your Eminence if you see any 
 serious objection to the Government's selling the property, pending a final settlement of the 
 question of the Jesuits' Estates. " 
 
 If the Supremacy Act is in force, and whether ii is in force or not, I hold it 
 to be, and I believe it can be established to be, a well settled principle of 
 international law, that no foreign authority or power — I care not whether it 
 be temporal or spiritual — can be allowed to Interfere with the affairs of 
 another country or another state ; and if that be the rule of international law 
 — as I think my hon. friends, if they choose to consult the authorities, will 
 find it to be — how much more does that principle apply to the municipal law 
 of the country, and to the law of Elizabeth, w^hich has been handed down 
 and made specially applicable to this country by the Quebec Act of 177+. 
 How was it possible, I say, to tell that an Act of Parliament would be sub- 
 mitted to His Excellency the Governor General, that he was to pass upon it, 
 by the advice of his Minister of Justice, and that the Minister of Justice 
 should send it back — hov: ? Why. Sir, with a dozen other bills of no more 
 con.sequence than an Act incorporating a joint stock company or a railway 
 company — no explanation, no justification, no reasons given. I regret thai 
 I have not heard the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice. I niav do 
 him an mjustice ; but I read here, that when an appeal was made from the 
 Evangelical Alliance or some other body in Lower Canada — those people 
 who my hon. friend says are willing that this legislation should stand — the 
 hon. Minister of Justice reported that this was a fiscal matter. Sir, I do not 
 understand the Queen's English if this can properly be described as a fiscal 
 matter. But so it passed before His Elxcellency, and upon that His Ex- 
 cellency has acted ; and I trust the opportunity will be afforded to His Ex- 
 cellcRcy to reconsider that question, and see whether Her Majesty's name is 
 thus to be trailed in the dust, is thus to be dishonored, and whether this 
 legislation should not disappear from our Statute books, whether it be pro- 
 vincial or federal. Well, I assail this, not merely upon that ground. I assail 
 it upon other grounds. I say that either this Act is unconstitutional, that it 
 is ultra vires of a Province, that it ought to have been disallowed upon that 
 ground, because it violates a fundamental principle of this country, that all 
 religions are free and equal before the lav; or, if that be not .so as a legal 
 prop98ilion, then. Sir, I claim that there should have been exercised tba^ 
 
11 
 
 judgment, that discretion, that policy, which would at once stamp ont in 
 whatever province it reared its head, the attempt which has been made here to 
 establish a kind of State Church amongst us. Sir, is that law or is it not ? 
 We find that in the good old days a Protestant Church had to be despoHed ; 
 and for my part, Sir, I have never regretted that the Clergy Reserves were 
 s-'cularizcd, and I do not believe that any one who belongs to that Churiih 
 can 3ay that that measure has proved injurious to it, It placed it on a 
 footing of equality with the other religious bodies throughout the Provinces ; 
 and I believe that Church has grown and prospered far more as a Church, 
 holding no legal pretence of superiority over other religious bodies, than it 
 would have done if it had continued to hold the Clergy Reserves, no matter 
 bow much wealth they might have added to its coffers. Now, what do we 
 find in this Bill, enacted by the United Parliament of Canada — an Act refer- 
 ring to l/pper Canada and Lower Canada, and, so far as I know, to this very 
 moment, the law of the Province of Quebec ? First, we do know that the 
 laws of the Provinces which were in force at the time of the British North 
 America Act, remained in force until repealed. And what do we find ? 
 
 " Whereas the recognition of legal equality among all religic.is denominations is an admitted 
 principle of colonial legislation, and whereas, in the state and condition of this Province, to 
 which such a principle is peculiarly applicable, it is desirable the same should receive the sane- 
 tit '11 of the direct legislative authority, recognizing and declaring tlie same as a fundamental 
 pr, . -ipleof civil policy." 
 
 Therefore the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession, without 
 discrimination or preference, so long as the same be not made an excuse for 
 acts of maliciousnesss, or a justification of practices inconsistent with the 
 peace and safety of the Provinces, is, by the constitution and laws of these 
 Provinces, allowed to all Her Majesty's subjects therein. There is a legis- 
 lative declaration of what every man who lives in this country has always 
 understood to be the law. Does this enactment of the Province of Quebec 
 violate that principle ? Is the grant of ^00,000, to be distributed under the 
 sanction of His Holiness of Rome, not a grant of public money to a par- 
 ticular Church ? I am not saying whether the Church may or may not be the 
 correct Church ; I am simply speaking of the legal principle. I ask, how is 
 that ? Let me give you an answer from the books of the Legislature when 
 the Clergy Reserves were secularized. What were those Reserves ? They 
 were lands bdonging to the Crown, held in trust for the support and 
 maintetiance of the Protestant faith, and held to apply to the Church of 
 England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. When these lands were 
 secularized, it was declared that the Act was for the purpose of sweeping 
 away the last vestige of connection between Church and State. The holding 
 of these lands by the Crown for this purpose formed a connecting link 
 between Church and State, which Parliament stated should be swept away, 
 which the representatives of the Proviijpe of Quebec joined with those from 
 the other Provinces in saying should be swept away. Will any man of 
 common sense tell me that this grant of $400,000, given as it is given, is not 
 a recognition of Church. and State ? How is it given ? 
 
 " The aforesaid arrangements, entered into between the Premier and tlie Very Reverend 
 Father Turgeon, are hereby ratified, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is anthofized to 
 carry them out according to their form and tenor. 
 
 " The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorizeil to pay, out of any public money at his 
 disposal, the sum of fout hundred thousand dollars, in the manner and under the condition'. 
 mentioned in the documents above cited, and to make any deed that he may deem necessary for 
 the full and entire execution of such agreement." 
 
 Then the document I have just cited declares that this $400,000 is to be dis- 
 tributed under the sanction of his Holiness the Pope of Rome. Now, I have 
 heard it said— I rather think I heard the First Minister applauding the 
 sentence — that this was given for the purposes of education. Surely the First 
 
II! 
 
 12 
 
 Minister has not read the Act, or he would never assent to a statement of that 
 kind. Education — why, if it is possible to draw a distinction in an Act of 
 Parliament, it is drawn here. While the S6o,ooo, which is the supposed com- 
 pensation to the minority, is expressly given for education — expressly tied up, 
 and is not to go to any sectarian purposes — the other is left subject to the 
 disposition of His Holiness of Rome. There is but one condition annexed, 
 and that is that this money is to be spent within the Province of Quebec. 
 That is the sole condition. We have had an indication in the press this 
 morning that a bull or a brief, whatever be the correct ecclesiastical term, 
 either has been or is to be issued, disposing of this money. Do you want any 
 further evidence that the grant was made absolutely subject to the disposition 
 of a particular religious body ? If so, on what pretence, on what ground was 
 it made. Was there a legal claim ? Mr. Mcrcier says no. Was there a moral 
 claim .-' I would like to know who will answer this. Even my. hon. friend 
 behind me will not say that. He and his Protestant friends have always 
 repudiated the idt:a of a moral claim. What pretence of a moral claim is 
 there ? Where is it ? In whom is it ? Why, the Jesuits of those days, if 
 they held it individually, are extinct. They left no heirs. If they held it as a 
 community, and undoubtedly that was the opinion of the law officers of the 
 Crown — an opinion which I humbly venture to think was right — it belonged to 
 the wiiole body. That was held by the Parliament of Paris in the great 
 Trading i.^ase, where the General Superior of the Order repudiated the liability 
 contracted by one of the communities or one of the Jesuits. After full 
 investigation, after an appeal to the highest tribunal, the tribunal of the 
 Parliament of Paris — and hon. gentlemen, I am sure, from the Province of 
 Quebec will not object to that — my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Curran) 
 laughs. He is an Irishman and perhaps despises the Parliament of Paris. I 
 confess I do not join with him, although I am Irishman also. I rather 
 think that must have been a very important appellate body. At all events, if 
 you will read the report of the Attorney General with regard to that, if you 
 will read the proceedings, if you will remember that all the books of the Order 
 were for the first time brought into court in order that the Order might escape 
 liability, and repudiate responsibility, and make it appear that they were not 
 bound to these merchants for the money that Father Laviolette owed — if you 
 will look at all that, you will see the result was the court determined there 
 was a solidarity amongst all the communities, and that the Jesuit property 
 belon^^ed to, and was at the disposal of, the General of the Order and was 
 vested in him alone. I have taken the trouble to examine into the authority 
 of the General of the Order, and if it were not too tedious, I would give some 
 extracts which would abundantly establish that. I, therefore, contend there 
 can be no pretence of a moral claim. Is the incorporated body of the other 
 day the successors of these men of 1763 ? On what pretence ? If I read the 
 Act of Incorporation aright, I understand it to mean that the whole body of 
 Jesuits throughout the world are incorporated by the Province of Quebec. The 
 first clause of the Act is as follows : — 
 
 " The ' .Society of Jesus ' shall be a corporation, composed of the Reverend P'athers Henri 
 HudoH, .Adrian Turgeon, Leonard Lemire, George Kenney, Arthur Jones, and all persons who 
 now or may hereafter form part of the said Society, in accordance with its rules, by-laws and 
 regulations. Under the above n^mc it shall have perpetual succession." 
 
 So that the Act of Incorporation, which I venture to think is not worth the 
 paper it is written upon—and I trust it may be found so — actually incorporates 
 the whole body. of Jesuits, and only in that sense. They pretend to represent 
 the body of 1763, which was suppre.ssed in 177+, but I place no reliance on 
 that suppression. I admit we cannot take notice, standing in an English 
 country, governed by Rnglish laws, paying regard, as we are bound, to the Act 
 
13 
 
 wm 
 
 of Supremacy, of that suppresion. The English law officers of the Crown could 
 not notice the suppression by the Pope of the Order of tit* Jesuits. I affirm 
 that beyond all fear of contradiction. I say it is impossible, in an English 
 community, to say that the Pope's bull or the Pope's brief dissolving a corpo- 
 ration could have the slightest possible effect. So that the matter stands in 
 the way I have endeavored to point out, and I say, without fear of contra^ 
 diction, that my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colby) was right, when he 
 said there was not the shadow of foundation, or even the pretence of a moral 
 claim. Under these circumstances, is there any possible standing ground for 
 this Act ? Does it not violate the rule of the separation of Church and State 
 in this coi^ntry, and the equality of all religions ? I need not go through the 
 second ground of this resolution, because I have sufficiently dealt with it ; so 
 1 have now come, and I trust without undue delay, to the other branch of the 
 argument which I desire t<S present. In all fairness to my hon. friends, I mugt 
 say that, if there is, in the legal propositions which I have endeavored faintly 
 to put forward, a reasonable doubt, I do not think that, standing alone, it 
 A'ould be becoming on the part of a Minister of the Crown, to disallow the 
 measure, because that would place it, as you will see, in the hands of the 
 Government here, to disallow, on pretence of u//ra vires of the Local Legis- 
 lature, enactments which might be open to question, and which the parties 
 ought to have the benefit of the ruling of a Court upon. But I have endeavored 
 to point out, upon the grounds I have already stated, that this Act ought to 
 have been disallowed as being beyond the power of a Local Legislature. I do 
 not desire to be at all misunderstood. I do not pretend that the Crown of 
 England, or the Crown of any other country, cannot submit matters to a foreign 
 Power. We know it is done continually. We know that matters are settled 
 by arbitration, and that generally, and almost always, it is done by calling in 
 the arbitration of a foreign Power ; but I contend that, while the Sovereign 
 Power can do that, the private subject cannot. There is a broad distinction. 
 If I have a dispute with my hon. friend, I cannot submit that to the President 
 of the United States, because the dispute would be between British subjects. 
 And I say that a Province cannot do that, because it does not represent the 
 plenary power of the Crown ; and I say that even this Parliament cannot do 
 it, and, of course, it does not stand in the same position as the Parliament of 
 Great Britain and Ireland. But on the grounds of policy, surely I am right. 
 Surely there are not men enough in this House who will cast any doubt upon 
 the clause of this resolution which declares that there should be a separation 
 of Church and State, and absolute equality of all religions before the law. 
 Surely,, in this part of the nineteenth century, and in free Canada, we will not 
 have to fight for a principle which we thought was determined for all time when 
 the secularization of the Clergy Reserves took place. Is it because this is a" 
 particular church ? If it is right in the Province of Quebec to grant money to 
 the Church of Rome, it would be equally right in the Province of Ontario to 
 grant money for thejmaintenance of the Methodists or the Episcopalian liody 
 or Scotch body ; and, if we did that, there would be no hesitation — and pro- 
 perly so — in bringing before the House the complaint of the minority whose 
 money would be spent in that way and for that purpose. We never find that, 
 when the body to which I refer feels that its interests are at stake, and that 
 injustice is being done, it has any hesitation or makes any delay at all in 
 coming at once before Parliament and announcing its grievances. Those 
 people never say: We are afraid we will be stirring up religious strife, causing 
 hard feelings, or putting race against race or Catholic against Protestant. No, 
 they come here — as they have a right to do — and boldly put their case before 
 Parliament, no matter what it may be ; and they always manage to get justice, 
 at all events. If Parliament think any doubt is to be cast upon this measure, if 
 
 i: 
 
14 
 
 they find that this money is dedicated for educational purposes, I think in 
 that case the point I am attempting to make would fail ; but when I observe 
 the deiniteness under which the $60,000 is voted, I cannot see that any such 
 purpose is intended with regard to the ^400, 000. I, therefore, say that that part 
 of the case is made out. Let me now come to a question which I would have 
 "willingly avoided. Let me invite the attention of the House 10 the greater 
 question which is before it. These are technical matters chat I have dealt 
 with so far— matters perhaps of moment, matters of great importance, but 
 still, after all, they are more or less purely legal in the narrow sense of the 
 word, or purely constitutional in the same narrow sense of the word. But I 
 assail this legislation upon broader and higher grounds. I say that the 
 incorporation of, and the grant of money to, the Jesuit body under any 
 pretext or for any purpose, was an Act which should at once have been 
 disallowed if it were passed by a Provincial Legislature. I put that upon the 
 highest possible grounds. I think I have a right, and it is a right which I 
 propose to exercise, to speak with freedon on this subject I will assail no 
 man's religion. I will not utter a word, which, properly understood, will give 
 offence to the most sensitive on this subject ; but I deny the right of my hon. 
 friend behind me, or any one else, to gag me, and to say. You must remember 
 that the Jesuit body is under the protecting a;gis of His Holiness of Rome, 
 and you must not speak of it except with bated breath. I deny that any 
 such rule can apply to this free Parliament. It is not a question of religion. 
 It is not a question whether thi; religion of the Church of Rome is better than 
 the religion which I was brought up in, and which I profess. I am rot to sit ir. 
 judgment on my fellow members. They are quite right to worship their God 
 in the manner they choose, as I am right in worshipping Him in the manner 
 I choose, but I contend that the Church of Rome needs not the Jesuit*body 
 for its organization or its support. It is true that, during the reign of certain 
 Pontiffs, that Order has received the support of the Church. It is also true 
 that, during the reign of other Pontiffs, it has been banned and sometimes 
 dissolved. One case has been mentioned, and it was once before, if my hon. 
 friend will go so far back, though it is perhaps unfair to bring it up here in 
 judgment against them. The fact, howrver, proves that the Order, or Com- 
 pany, or Society of which we are speaking, is not in any sense essential to the 
 free, perfect and full enjoyment of the Roman Catholic religion. And what 
 is the Society, what is the object of its founder ? I will quote from what 
 appears to be a very fair statement in the Quarterly Rcviav of 1874, containing 
 a summary of what appears to have been the object of the founder. It was : 
 
 " To effect an organization which wo jld result in a thoroughly disciplined and mobilized 
 boily of men, moving Tike a highly trained military unit at the word of command, and standing 
 ever ready under the proclaimed chieftainship of Jesus, to war against and smite by superior 
 dexterity in arms, the foes adverse to the absolute ascendency of the Papal system. 
 
 let any person who knows anything about their history quarrel with that 
 definition of the Order of Jesus. I should be glad to know wherein that 
 definition is incorrect. They take a vow of implicit obedience to their chief. 
 He says go, and they go ; come, and they come. They are educated sd as to 
 have no will, and, to use the language of the Spiritual exercises of the founder of 
 the Order himself, they ought to be : 
 
 " Like a corpse who has neither will nor understanding, or like a small crucifix which is 
 turned about at the will of him who holds it, or like a staff in the hands of an old man, who 
 uses it as may best assist or please him." 
 
 I believe I am citing nothing which is not reliable. I take this from the 
 authorized version cf the Constitutions, as they are called, and it is to be 
 found among the Spiritual Exercises determined by the founder. Let me 
 give one extract upon this subject : 
 
\->^IJ.il^.'^''. 
 
 ■P"P" 
 
 15 
 
 " It is so complete and entire that while every member of the society is obliged to obey the 
 (;cncral as implicitly and as blindly as if he were Jesus Christ, in all things whatsoever, without 
 reserve, without exception, without question or exaniination, or even mental hesitation, to carry 
 into execution anything he may prescribe with the same fullness of consent and submission that 
 they feel in the belief of the dogmas of the Catholic faith itself, to be in his hands as passive as a 
 corpse, or as a staff in the hands of an old man, or as Abraham when under the command of (led, 
 lie was ordered to sacrifice his son, he must persuade himself on principle that all he has ordered 
 to do is right, and above all personal feeling and volition." 
 
 # 
 I am quoting from the decree of the Parliament of Paris. Much more might 
 he adduced to the same effect. Those who have thought of this subject, 
 those who have given it any consideration, have, no doubt, made up their 
 ;nind one way or the other on it. Nothing, perhaps, is more true than the 
 .statement that is made in the report of the Attorney General of Paris, who 
 was tailed upon to investigate the position of this body. Looking at them 
 as one set of people are anxions to do, and they appear to be all right ; look 
 at them from the other side, and they hardly appear to the same advantage. 
 I think it is only fair to say — I do not desire at all to be misunderstood — 
 t^e individual men are, perhaps, the e/t'/e of their order, highly educated, 
 better educated, better men upon the whole, for their system of drill, the long 
 probationary period they have to undergo, necessarily weeds out the weak 
 ones and leavs only the strong and robust — intellectually as well as physically 
 — and, I suppose, that amongst no equal number of men will the compeers of 
 the Jesuits be found. I will read a note showing the view of the Attorney 
 ( jeneral of the Parliament of Paris, in his report : 
 
 ' ' The constitutions have two faces " 
 
 That reminds me of the shield of the hon. gentleman opposite, one side of 
 which he presented on his visit to England to float our bonds, and the other 
 side of which he shows to rs when he comes back. 
 
 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.— Both sides were perfectly correct. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I accept that illustration also ; that applies still more 
 
 forcibly to what I am^oing to read — both sides here appear to be perfectly 
 
 cc^rrect also : 
 
 " The coi.stilutions have two faces, because they were formed into two intentions — on the 
 one side for the glory of God and the salvation of souls ; and on the other side, for the glory of 
 111' Socii'ty and its future extension. This causes the dilference of opinion concerning them. 
 1 i;cit admirers look only at the first aspect, and their detractors see only the second." 
 
 X^ow I think that statement was one that I was bound to make, becau.se I am 
 
 not at al) here as a Protestant bigot, I do not pretend to make any statpmont 
 
 htT(^ as a Protestant. I was astonished to hear the hon. member for 
 
 .^tanstead (Mr. Colby) speak as a Protestant. I do not speak as a Protestant, 
 
 I speak a.s a representative, of my constituency, entitled to discuss all subjects 
 
 ihat arc presented here, and without offence, as I trust I am doinfi; on this 
 
 occasion, to the feelings of any hon. member of this House. Now, let me 
 
 g've. a slight idea of their organization, of the vows which they take, of the 
 
 obodience which their constitution inculcates, and which they are always 
 
 willing to render. I will show what is said of them in modern times, because 
 
 I iiave been told, and I admit the fact, that it is not fair to judge any order 
 
 or body of men by their history of two or three hundred years ago. But I 
 
 think I will be able to show that, down to a very recent period, there is in 
 
 this body no change nor shadow of turning, that it is their boast that they 
 
 are, and w'U continue, as long as they exist, to be under the same rules that 
 
 the foundei of the Order, now the sainted Ignatius, established for them. 
 
 Now, let us see what is said of them by comparatively recent writers. I 
 
 regret that our library does not afford a very full catalogue of works in regard 
 
 to this subject, and I have been compelled to rely upon authorities writing 20 
 
 or 25 years ago. I will read such as I have, and the House will be able to 
 
 judge of their pertinence to the Order at present. Mr. Gamier says : 
 
16 
 
 " They know hut one law, one faith, one morality. That law, faith, and morality, they call 
 authority To a Superior thev submit life and conscience. To their Order they sacrifice indi- 
 viduality. They are neither Frenchmen, Italians, Germans nor Spaniards. They arc not 
 citizens of any country. They are Jesuits only. They have but one family, one fortune and one 
 end ; and all these are included in the word Community." 
 
 Mr. LANDERKIN.— A regular Tory Order. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Very much like that : that is the only reason you 
 do not belong to them, I am afraio. I am now quoting from the Quarterly 
 Review, and if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to read that article, and it 
 is a fair critici.sm, so far as I am capable of judging, of the works cf the 
 Jesuits ar.f! the Jesuit writings which were under review, I think they will be 
 satisfied. In the Quarterly Review of 1874 I was very glad to find that the 
 popular delusion as to the poisoning of the Pope who dissolved the Order, 
 was exploded by the writer. Down to a very recent period, indeed, this has 
 been believed on the authority of a high and distinguished German doctor, 
 who wrote in 1 872, and stated on undoubted authority that Pope Clement the 
 Thirteenth had been poisoned by that Order. 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS.— Oh, oh. 
 
 Mr.( McCarthy.— I say that a German doctor said so, and that this 
 English authority in 1874 exploded that doctrine and showed that it did not 
 rest on any solid foundation. I was very glad, and I am sure any hon. gentle- 
 man will be glad to find that that is so. But the author who dealt with the 
 Jesuits in that impartial spirit may perhaps be entitled to some credence when 
 he depicts, as he does in the following year, some doctrines held by the 
 Order. He endeavors to establish, and in my humble judgment, he does 
 establish, that the three principles upon which the Order is established are 
 justified probabalism, mental reservation, and that the end justifies the means. 
 To argue that, would involve an inquiry foreign perhaps to this discussion. 
 I am merely stating the conclusion at which the writer arrived, and every hon. 
 member can form his own opinion as to whether that opinion is well or ill- 
 founded. But, in practical matters, let us see what this Order lays down. 
 First, as to -the duties of a judge, the writer says : 
 
 " We are told, al.so, it is by no means decided that a judge is bound never to accept money 
 gifts from a party to a suit before him. If the gift were proffered with the view of influencing 
 a prospective judgment, contrary to justice, the judge should, indeed, sternly refuse acceptance ; 
 ' but, the .sentence having been already pronounced, it is a matter of controversy ' whether he 
 may not retain what might then seem a mere offering of gratitude from one benefited by the 
 delivered sentence, even when this had been contrary to justice. Decisions of this character 
 subvert fundamental notions as to right and wrong. Let us tai<e the case of a person knowing 
 all about a theft and accepting hush-money from the guilty party. According to received ideas, 
 the compact would be criminal. Father Gury, however, decides that, provided the person 
 briljed be not ex-officio oound to give information, the bargain would be quite lawful, ' as 
 without injustice he might keep silence about the thief, in deference to his entreaties ♦ * • 
 therefore, espari, without injustice, silence might be observed in deference to gifts given or 
 promised.'' 
 
 I need not tell the hon. gentlemen who have paid any attention to the subject 
 that Father Gury is a comparatively modern writer, that his works were pub- 
 lished under the Propaganda, and therefore under the highest authority, and 
 his works are for morals, for teaching in the schools, and for the guidance of 
 those who desire instruction of this kind. So far in regard to the judges. 
 But there is also a law for witnesses, and the law for witnesses is even more 
 dangerous than the law laid down for the judges. The writer says : 
 
 " The first point laid down is, that no obligation to make reparation can attach to any one 
 who has given false witness from invincible ignorance, inadvertance, or delusion, a proposition 
 which, though not wholly free from objections, we will not canvass. But Father Gury proceeds to 
 consider the case of one who, with the view of supplying deeds that have been lost, and of 
 promoting the success of indisputable right (the indisputableness of such right being left to the 
 subjective test of individual appreciation), either reproduces, that is, forges, or tampers with a 
 writing, a chirograph, or a deed of acknowledgment ; and he concludes that, though a {>erson 
 acting thus, ' would, indeed, sin venially on the score of a lie, the document produced not being 
 the authentic one, on the strength of which judgment should rest ; and though he might poMibly 
 
17 
 
 incur a grave sin against charity toward himcelf by exposing his person to imminent peril of raj 
 severe penalties in the likely event of detection ; nevertheless he would be free from all sin 
 against mutual justice, and would consequently stand absolved from all obligations to make 
 restitution.' " 
 
 Mr. CURRAN. — Will the hon. gentleman give the authority ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am quoting from the Quarterly Review of 1875. 
 
 Mr. DESJARDINS— Who is the writer ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— I cannot tell. 
 
 Mr. CURRAN. — Has the hon. gentleman consulted Father Gury in the 
 original ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I leave that for the hon. gentleman to do. I do not 
 suppose a writer in a great magazine like the Quarterly Review misrepresents 
 Father Gury ; if the hon. gentleman thinks so, I rather imagine he will find 
 himself mistaken. If he will take the trouble to read the article, which was 
 not written in a spirit of hostility but rather of inquiry for the truth, I shall 
 be glad. I have now done with that part of the subject. But I think there 
 are people in this country, the fair sex, who ought to be protected. It seems 
 there is a rule, a law for them also, and that breach of promise is not an 
 improper act in certain events and in certain cases. The writer says ; 
 
 " In the matter of plighted troth we learn from Gury, 'that he' who has sworn it to a girl, 
 ricl> and healthy • • is not liound by his oath should she happen to have become poor or 
 fallen into bad health.' Again we are informed that a probable opinion, countenanced by St. 
 IJguori, would allow an engagement to be broken off if a ' fat inheritance ' should acciue, 
 seriovisly motlifying the status as to fortune of either party, and the case is thus illustrated : — • 
 ' Edmund has betrothed himself to Helen, a girl of the same station and fortune as his own. 
 .\s he was on the very point of celebrating his wedding, he acquired a fat inheritance from a 
 decesseil uncle. Wherefore, he lepudi.ites Helen, that he may marry another with a fortune to 
 match. It seems that r.dmund should not be disturbed for this. Jilting is no infrequent 
 practice, but it is striking to find it justified in a handbook of morals, whenever ' faith could be 
 kept only by the surrender of a big advantnge which would be tantamount \6 great loss." 
 
 That is a comfortable doctrine for one side, but rather uncomfortable for the 
 other. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL.— It is hard on the girls. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, as my hon friend says, it is hard on the girls. 
 1 will pass over the next extract in consideration for the galleries. If this is 
 anything like a proper statement of the moral teaching of the Order, I hardly 
 think it is one that ought not to be bonussed, to use a familiar term, by any 
 of our Local Legislatures. Rut what as regards the history of this Order ? 
 Is it disputed'as an historical fact that they are responsible for the expulsion of 
 the Huguenots .'' I trow not 
 
 Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec). — It is disputed. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am astonished to learn it ; I thought it would not 
 be disputed. Is it doubted that they cancelled and brought about the revo- 
 cation of the Edict of Nantes. Is it doubted that they were responsible for 
 the causing of the Thirty Years' War ? Is it seriously open to question that 
 they had much to do with causing the Franco- German War } Of course, 
 those hon. gentlemen who will not believe anything against the Jesuits will 
 not believe that, but there is weighty evidence to show that they were con- 
 cerned in perpetuating that war, wliich, as we all know, occurred in com- 
 paratively modern times. 
 
 Mr. BERGERON.— In whose interest. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— In the interest of the order and body to which they 
 belong, in the interest of the Church, of which they are the light horse, the 
 Cossacks, the advanced guard. Now, I suppose Cardinal Manning's state- 
 ment with regard to them will not be denied to be, at all events, an authentic 
 statement ; and Cardinal Manning, in his book of sermons published by Duflfy 
 of Paternoster Row, at page 187, says, writing of the Jesuit Order : 
 
^ 
 
 18 
 
 il 
 
 ill 
 
 "That it emb<Klies the character of its founder, that the same energy, perseverance and 
 •hdnrance, it is his own presence still prolonged, the same perpetuated order, even in the spirit 
 and manner of its worl<ing, fixed, uniform and changeless." • , 
 
 That is within the life of the distinguished prelate who speaks of them aS 
 being the satne as they were 300 years ago. 
 
 Mr.. BERGERON.— We do not deny that. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— No person will deny that. Then, it is useless to 
 continue the argument, it is useless to make citations ; but I dp think that 
 their expulsion from France in 1880 would be of interest to my hon. friends, 
 and that it would not have been altogether treated as of no consequence. It 
 is strictly true that France is now a Republic, enjoying a free Government, 
 but it is perfectly clear that the Jesuits were expelled, and the gentleman who 
 had charge of the educational department in France put forward those 
 grounds for the reason for their e.xpuJFion. If I cite from past history I will 
 be told, " Oh, the Order may have changed," and if I cite from modern days 
 I dare say that thoro will be some othei answer, but I do say this, and I think we 
 ought all to be willing to accept it, that everybody else cannot always have 
 been in the wrong, and the Jesuits always in the right. They have been 
 expelled from every country time and time again. 
 
 Mr. BERGERON.— But they are back again. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, ihey are back again. 
 
 Mr. AMYOT. — They were not e.xpeli^v. ..om Russia. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — They were, and I will give the lion, gentleman the 
 date of their expulsion. Having been expelled from Russia and Prussia they 
 found a harbor of refuge in that country after being suppressed by the 
 Sovereign Pontiff, and, having lived there under the protection of that Gov- 
 ernment, their education and training of those whom they brought up were 
 found incompatible, as they were found elsewhere and must always be found, 
 according to their teachings, incompatible to any State Government or to 
 any organized condition of society. These are the reasons which made not 
 only the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia necessary, but also brought 
 about, as we find, the putting an end to " the concordat" which, up to a cer- 
 tain time, had existed between the Court of St. Petersburg and the Sovereign 
 Pontiff at Rome. I will refer to what Mr.Ferry said, in introducing this , 
 measure in France for the expulsion of the Jesuits, and 1 am not going to 
 read it all, but just one or two particulars, because I do not cate to deal with 
 what may be termed even remotely the religious aspect of the ques'tion. I 
 want to treat this simply from the position of state, whether, as a- matter of 
 statesmanship, as a matter of policy, it was proper to have admitted this Act 
 to remain in force, or whether it is not proper and right that this Act should 
 still be vetoed. The measure in the French Chamber, as explained, is chiefly 
 directed against the Jesuits on the ground that " they are the enemies of the' 
 state, that their teachings are in opposition to the principles of government, 
 and would suppress all freedom of education." Many other reasons were 
 given against the Jesuits by Mr. Ferry, and the following among the rest. 
 He qqoted the decree of the Parliament of 1826 which recites: 
 
 "That the edicts by which the Jesuits had been banished and dissolved, were founded upon 
 the recognized incompatibility of their principles with the independence of every Government." 
 
 Mr. BERGERON. -What are you reading from ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am reading from the published report of the 
 debates that took place in Paris at the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits. 
 
 Mr. MULOCK.— What report is it .? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — it is a condensation of the report of the debates. 
 Mr. Ferry then goes on to saj', from the statement of the Arc.ibishop of Paris, 
 Mg. Darboy : 
 
19 
 
 "That the Jesuits v/ere neither subject to the jurisdiction of the Diocesans, nor obedient to 
 the laws of the State." 
 
 And further : 
 
 "That the State is, in temporni mntters, iubordinate to the Church, nnd has only the 
 authority which an inferior triininni possesses, (or (.Diifirming ihr; sentence of the superior ; that ii\ 
 ((uestions of niarriajje. burial, institutions- for charitable purposes, liberty <if conscience, and 
 quuslions of the moral law, the spiritual jioWer may intervene to correct or annul the civil laws." 
 
 Further, Mr. Ferry quoted from some passages from public works, showing : 
 
 " A detestable hostility to all the laws and in-ititutions of modern society. * These works 
 distinctly tauglit the divine right of kings, and advocated the carrying on of religious wars. 
 They attacked the Revolution, and glorified the levocalion of the Kdict of Nantes ; they calum- 
 niated Nicker and Turgot ; they rejected the prim-iple of the national sovereignty, and they 
 taught that France was beaten in the late war liccause she h.id deserted the Pope. In these 
 books universal suffrage and trial by jury aie dtnounc*! as vexatious institutions, lilierty of 
 conscience and of worship were condemned, and the liberty of the press was asserted to be a 
 principle that has never been admitted by a wise government." 
 
 Whether those are principles which ought to be endorsed by this Parliament 
 
 it will be for the House to judge. 
 
 Mr. BERGERON. Were they expelled then .? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Yes 
 
 Mr. BERGERON. But they are there now. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman has perhaps more information than 
 I have on that subject, but that they were expelled is beyond question. I told 
 the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Aymot) that they were expelled more 
 than once from France. They were expelled from France in 1595,31 the close 
 of the War of the League. Now, I do think that in this stage of the debate it 
 is not necessary to trouble the House by reading the decree of suppression of 
 the Pope in 1773 ; but surely if the Order has not changed, surely if they have 
 remained as they were, there is ground for interference. I think that it was 
 about the time of their expulsion from France, in 1762, when it was asked of 
 them to change their mode of carrying on operations, and when the answer 
 was: " We must continue to be as we are or cease to exist." 1 say that when 
 those things are considered ; this evidence of a statement made by the Pontiff 
 with full knowledge of all the circumstances it is impossible to displace ; there 
 is no way of getting rid of that evidence. It cannot be impugned by the 
 members of the church of which the Pontiff referred to was a distinguished 
 ornament. It cannot be impugned by any candid person, because the character 
 of Pope Clement was of the very highest order and hi; stood conspicuously 
 above his compeers. Now, a list was given — and, therefore, I need not repeat 
 it — of the expulsion of the Jesuits from various countries. It is not to be 
 lost sight of that they were expelled from Germany in 1872. They had been 
 admitted into Prussia by Frederick II. and why were they expelled ! It seems 
 to me that the rea. :)n for their expulsion is particularly applicable to our 
 position here, for there was in that country a mixed community of Protestants 
 and Catholics. The Jesuits were admitted to this country, the corporation 
 having been dissolved and their having been sent about their business by a 
 decree to which I have referred. And having obtained a foothold in Prussia, 
 what was the Hsult } Let me read : 
 
 " But in North Germany they became very powerful, owing to the footing Irederick II- 
 had given them in Prussia, especially in the Rhine Provinces ; and gradually moulding the 
 younger generation of clergy after the War of Liberation, succeeded in spreading ultramontane 
 views amongst them, and so leading up to the difficulties of the civil government which issued in 
 the Falk laws and their own expulsion. " 
 
 Now, Sir, I have done with the extracts which I propose to make upon that 
 subject, and I come to the more important part of the subject. under con- 
 sideration. It may be that all I have said is true, and that yet if this matter— I 
 am arguing it now, of course, upon that theory — was in the legislative com- 
 petence of the Province, it ought still to remain as law. I venture, Sir, to ask the 
 
20 
 
 i' 
 
 House seriously to consider the position in which we stand. The worship of 
 what is califtd local autonomy, which some gentlemen have become addicted 
 to, is fraught, I ventnre to say, with great evil to this Dominion. Our allegi- 
 ance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into Provinces, the 
 right of local self-government which we possess is not to make us less citizens 
 of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious for the promotion of the welfare 
 of the Dominion ; and it is no argument to say that because a certain piece of 
 legislation is within the power of a local Parliament therefore that legislation is 
 not to be disturbed. Hy the same Act of Parliament, by which power is con- 
 ferred upon the Local Legislature, the duty and j)i)wer— because where there is 
 power there is a corresponding duty — are cast upon the Oovernor-in Council to 
 revise and review the acts of the legislative bodies. The Legislatures are not to 
 be at liberty to run in different directions, to promote in one Province one nation- 
 ality and one church, and in another Province another nationality and another 
 church, or in anv other way to run counter, because such courses must inevi- 
 tably bring about the dissolution of Confederation. It is not because a Province 
 is kept in clieck, it is not because its legislation is vetoed, that there is danger 
 to our system. We can impose no law upon a Province ; it is merely a nega- 
 tive power which llie central Government possesses — a power to prevent evil 
 laws, in the sense which I speak, in the wider field of tlie Dominion, viewed 
 here from the centre — and tiiis power ought to be, of cour.se, prudently, wisely, 
 but duly exercised when occasion may require. It must be exercised by 
 Ministers who are responsible to this House. To my lion, friend from West 
 Durham (Mr. JJiake), we are indebted for the clear recognition of the principle 
 that His Excellency the Governor-General, in every act of allowance or dis- 
 allowance, must find Ministers in this Parliament who have the confidence of 
 this Parliament, and who are willing to accept the responsibility for that act. 
 And that is the safeguard to the Constitution ; that is the safeguard which will 
 always make it ir^possible for any Minister here to advise His Excellency to 
 disallow measures which ought to be permitted to go into operation. But if the 
 other system is set up, if the alternative presented by my hon. friend from 
 Stanstcad (Mr. Colby), is to be adopted ; if you are to say that because a law 
 has been passed within the legislative authority of the Province, therefore it 
 must remain ; we can easily see, Sir, that before long these Provinces, instead 
 of coming nearer together, will go further and further apart. We can see that 
 the only way of making a united Canada and building up a national life and 
 national sentiment in the Dominion is by seeing that the laws of one Province 
 are not offensive to the laws and institutions, and, it may be, to the feelings of 
 another — I will go so far as to say that they must be to some extent taken 
 into consideration. Not, by any means, that those considerations are always 
 to govern, but they are matters worthy of the consideration of statesmen. If 
 the powers of the Provinces were foreign powers, if they owed no local allegi- 
 ance, if they were not subject to the control of a Governor who enjoyed the 
 confidence of this House, the hostile legislation of one Province would be a fit 
 subject of remonstrance from a friendly power. It may not be a very apt 
 illustration, but at the moment it occurs to me that Napoleon III. remonstrated 
 during the time of Lord Palmerston, because he said that under the law of 
 England persons who were known to intend his assassination were harbored in 
 England. We know what the result of that was, that the English people 
 rebelled against the interference of a foreign power. I do not know whether 
 the same spirit dwells in their descendants or not. This illustration shows what 
 mean. Under our system, no matter what the law may be, no matter how 
 hostile the people of the adjoining Province of Ontario may consider this law 
 to be, the answer which is given as the final and conclusive answer, without 
 appeal or resort, is that it is passed by the Province of Quebec in the legislative 
 
 
21 
 
 power of that Province, and therofore it must go into operation. Now, taiie 
 this particular Bill. If the view which I venture to hold is correct — and, Sir, 
 I hold it after careful consideration— the view which is held by a large body 
 of the people of the Province, men distinguished for learning, men distinguished 
 for piety, men distinguished in all the walks of life, as to the character of this 
 Order ; the view which is held, with the record before us of the expulsion of 
 the Order from every Christian Stale in Europe; I say, is it possible to imagine 
 that the establishment of such an Order as that is not a matter of concern to 
 the people of the Province of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion ? Putting 
 the question on the lowest ground, is this Order thus subsidized going to con- 
 fine its operations within the Province of Quebec ? True, the money is to be 
 spent there, although I do not know \yov/ that is to be seen. I find no 
 machinery for ascertaining how the money is to be expended ; but, assuming 
 that the money is tb be spent there in good faith, it only strengthens the Order 
 for incursions beyond the border. We know that some of its members — some of 
 the very same gentlemen, I believe, who have been incoipurated — do sometimes 
 visit the Province of Ontario. It is idle, therefore, to say that you can estab- 
 lish such an Order as that, and it is not a matter of common concern to the 
 rest of the Dominion. 
 
 Mr. AYMOT. Do you object to that ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. 
 
 standing here. 
 
 Mr. BERGERON. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. 
 
 already pointed out, 
 
 I decidedly object to them, or I would not be 
 
 They are British subjects. 
 
 Yes, I believe in this country they are ; but, as I have 
 the whole body, numbering perhaps 20,000 men, is 
 mcorporated by this little Bill of the Province of Quebec. The very words of 
 the Bill are ; " All who now are or may be of that Order." I have heard it 
 said, Oh, you are too late. Where were you when the Incorporation Act was 
 under consideration ? Why did you not raise your voice then ? Why ilid not 
 the Protestants then strike at the root of the evil ? I do not know, though I 
 am pretty familiar with what is called the doctrine of estoppel, that any such 
 doctrine can be applied to a people. I am not awaje that the laches of a 
 Government I have supported, or that the laches of hon. gentlemen on either 
 side, are going to prevent the people from objecting, even if it be too late to 
 object to the Act of Incorporation, to the Act of Endowment, honored by the 
 official seal of the Legislature of the Province of Quebec. In my judgment 
 the Act of Incorporation amounted to very little. The Jesuit body claimed to 
 be incorporated before, and they did not pretend to get incorporation except 
 for the purpose of holding lands in the Province. They claimed to be incor- 
 porated under the revival of the Order by the Pope in 18 14, and the only 
 object of their incorporation by the Act was to enable them to hold real 
 estate, which is a matter not particularly concerning the rest of the Dominion. 
 What does strike me, what has roused the people of the Province from which 
 I have the honor to come, as they have never been aroused in my time, is that 
 one of the Provinces has thought fit to recognize by its legislation and its 
 grant of public money, the Order which they have been brought up to oppose, 
 the experience of which in later years has strengthened their early ':raining in 
 that respect. Is it the work of politicians ? I think in that it is unique in its 
 character. I believe on no platform, in no place, has the voice of any public 
 man in the Province been raised in promoting* this agitation. It has come 
 from the people. It is promoted, not by the so called professional politician 
 or any politician, but by the people. By the people it is supported, by the 
 people it is maintained, and by the people it is bound to succeed, be it sooner 
 or later. This is not going to end the controversy. The controversy, as it is 
 said, has come to stay. The principle which this Bill involves, and which this 
 
^VH 
 
 ^^^!P^ 
 
 ii 
 
 :,l 
 
 measure has drawn attention to. is perhaps the one which excites naturally the 
 greatest riufignation, and has called forth the greatest agitation. It is impos- 
 sible to believe that the men who are at the bottom of this agitation are moved 
 by any partinilar puri)ose, or particular view, or particular aggran(ii2Pn'ient. I 
 was astonished to hear the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert) denounce 
 these men. They were, he said, mere ministers. Principal Caven, a teacher 
 of the Presbyterian body, a man with whom I have not the honor of personal 
 acquaintance, a man who. so far as I know, in politics differs from me, but a 
 man who. so fnr as I have heard, is entitled to the respe<;t of every citizen 
 where he lives and is known. Dr. Stafford, who ministered in this city for 
 many years — men of that description are not thus lightly to be spoken of and 
 sneered at because they have stepped out from the ordinary walk of their call- 
 ing, and gone on the platform to uplft)ld what they believe to be the rights of 
 the citizens. I submit instead of that being a subject for sneering, instead of 
 its being a subject which would call for the condemnation of my lion, friend 
 from Lincoln (Mr. Rykert). it is the best tribute to their sincerity. This sjyon- 
 taneous exhibition on the part of the people is genuine and heartfelt, be( uise 
 it is really intended and really meant. Now, these are the reasons why the 
 Government should disallow this measure. I have but one other, which I 
 spoke of before, and it is the question of religious equality. 1 listened with rapt 
 attention to the — will I call it plaintive — appeal made by my hon. friend behind 
 me. There is no censure, he said, which you can make upon this occasion, 
 which will not fall with tenfold force upon the Protestant minority of the 
 Prov?noe of Quebec. Nothing that you can say here can remedy the laches 
 which the Protestant minority displayed in not opposing the majority. I am 
 not here to explain the cause of these laches. I do think we need not go very 
 far for the reason, and I dare say before this debate closes we wiH learn it ; and I 
 call upon hon. members who represent the Protestant constituencies in Quebec, 
 to tell us whether they accept the doctrine of my hon. friend behind me. I 
 ask the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Scriver), I call on the hon. member 
 for Brome (Mr. Kisher), I cal! on the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Wilson) 
 to let us in Ontario understand whether there is the turtle dove peacefulness 
 existing between the Protestant minority and the Catholic majority in the 
 Province of Quebec which the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) depicted 
 last night. I call on them to state here whether there is nothing but billing 
 and cooing between' these separate and distinctive parts into which that Pro- 
 vince is divided. My hon. friend's language would seem to imply that. The 
 Protestants enjoyed every Protestant liberty — really, they were allowed to 
 manage their own little Protestant affairs as if there were no majority at all. 
 They were in no way thwarted, interfered with, or troubled by this majority, 
 and the instances he cited to us of this spirit of toleration on the part of the 
 majority were, to my mind, unfortunate and unhappy, Mr. Joly was one. He 
 ■was, I believe, the leader of the Liberal party, as my hon. friend has stated, 
 but has my hon. friend forgotten modern history ? Has he forgotten that Mr. 
 Joly was deposed from his position, or resigned, because of the impossibility 
 of acting ? Has he forgotten that Mr. Joly actually resigned his seat, and 
 that practically he was driven out of public life .'' 
 
 Mr. LAURIER. He was always opposed by the minority. 
 
 Mr. McCARTHY.—Well, so much the worse for that minority. I say that 
 minority has no reason to plume itself upon Mr. Joly's successor. Those who 
 opposed him in former times must certainly now look back with regret. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL.— You mean Chapleau, Ross and the others. You can- 
 not mean Mercier also. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— I do not mean you, 'and that ought to be quite suffi- 
 cient for my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell), nor do I even 
 
t9 
 
 tnnan hit organ, the Herald. Another example cited wan the Protestant paper, 
 the IVi/ness. The Witnesx hail never said anything. I do not know how that 
 may be. But is it true that the WHnrss was excommunicated and remains still 
 under the ban of the Church ? Is it not true that the people of a certain 
 eli>fion cannot buy the Wi/ufst newspaper, under the pains and penalties that 
 may follow ihereor. ? That did not seem a very happy way of manifesting the 
 toleration of the majority of the Province of Quebec. Ai last my hon. friend's 
 argument culminated — will he pardon the word — in what appeared to me the 
 acme of absurdity, when he said the Protestants recognized no right in the 
 Jesuits of a legal kind. The Protestants disclaimed that there is any moral 
 claim. The Pfftteslants were opposed to the introduction of the name of Hii 
 Holiness the Pope as — did he use the word pestiferous? Or what was the 
 word .almost as strong — a bitter pill for them to swallow. But they did not do 
 anything. The Act look away from them their education fund. By one short 
 clause it is declared that the education fund hitherto beloni,'ing to Protestants 
 and Catholics alike shall become a part of the general revenue of the country, 
 and that out of the general revenue of the country the 860,000 might be 
 paid to the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec; and not one 
 word wa.s raised against this Act of spoliation. 
 
 Mr. LAN(5KL1EK (Quebec).— Where is that to be found? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— In the latter part of the Act, if the hon. gentleman 
 will read it. 
 
 Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec). -I have not seen it. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I cannot make the hon. gentleman read it. And 
 . there is not one word from the Protestant minority. It is easy to understand 
 how they get on, as they say, if they submit to all that injustice withoyt a word 
 of remonstrance. It is easy to understand how happy they can be if the 
 Protestant minority are willing simply to take what they can get, a seat here 
 occupied by my hon. friend from Stanslead (Mr. Cr.lby), with a seat in the 
 other House given to the representative of the majority. My hon. friend tells 
 us that no Protestant can be elected in the Province if the majority chose. I*" 
 the Protestants coine here from that Province only to carry out the behests of 
 the other side, they are a deception. We do not realize their position, because 
 we understand that they are representing their religion, but it appears that they 
 are truly the representatives of the majority, and we are told that, if this cry is 
 raised, if this body is assailed, if we venture to raise our voices in this Parliament 
 we are going to raise such a cry that the Protestant representatives from the Pro- 
 vince of Quebec will lose their seats. I cannot believe that it is possible. I 
 cannot believe that my hon. friend is right in thinking so ; but even at that 
 expense, even at the cxpenseof the lossof myhon. friend from this H Jise, which, 
 together with that of other members, would be a calamity to the country, though 
 I cannot believe that that would be the result of a fair, full, frank and calm discus- 
 sion of the subject, although it is one which trenches upon feelings which are 
 guarded most sensitively, still that would have to be borne. For these reasons, 
 I venture to think, it will not be found that my hon. "friend's statements are cor- 
 rect. As he made the statement, my eye caught the report in the newspaper that 
 petitions were being signed in the city of Montreal, that already 3,000 names 
 had been obtained to those petitions, and that more were coming in — peti- 
 tions to the Governor-General, calling 'upon him to disallow this measure. 
 Does this look as if the Prote.stants of the Province of Quebec were desirous, 
 and willing, and anxious that this legislation should remain unchanged, or 
 does it not look as if, if the Protestant minority in that Province were given 
 reasonable encouragement, they would get justice — and no more than justice 
 are they entitled to, and no more than justice I hope they will ever ask for — 
 from the Parliament of this country. Then they will be up and doing, to get 
 
J 
 
 m^ 
 
 I 
 
 24 
 
 their share of this legislation, 4jut in the Legislature of that Province, com- 
 posed PS it is no-fv, they cannot expect it. Tiiere was no Protestant represen- 
 tative in the Cabinet of that Province until recently, and, when one was 
 chosen, he had to be elected in spite .of the Ptotestant minority. I can 
 understand that, if there were a fighting man in that House like the hon. 
 member who leads the Third party here, there might be a chance of obtaining 
 semething like justice, but men with that skill and ability, with parliamentary 
 knowledge to tjack it, are not to be found every day, and we are not to judge 
 the Protestant representatives of the Province, of Quebec on that high 
 standard. We were told that the Herald had not said anything about this 
 iniquitous scheme, though the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mitchell^^said that if he 
 had been there he would not have approved of it. I have not heard anyone 
 approve of it. It has gone without defence. The hon. member for Stan- 
 stead (Mr. Colby) does not approve of it. Perhaps my hon ffiend from 
 Lincoln (Mr. Rykert) does approve of it, in his great desire to have per- 
 fect religious liberty, and not to drive the French out of Canada. My hon. 
 friend candidly told us that he would not have approved of it. Then, what 
 muzzled the great organ of public opinion ? Was it because it was the organ 
 of the Government ? At one time that was the organ of the Protestants of 
 the Province of Quebec. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL. — I will tell the hon." gentleman, if he wishes io know. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I win let the hon. gentleman tell me when I get 
 through. Perhaps then you will allow me to ask you a question or two. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL.— I will give you perfect liberty. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I think we are encouraged to persevere in the course 
 we have pursued, and the course we have taken, by the ebullition of popular 
 feeling which we now see is aroused and is manifesting itself in the Province 
 of Quebec. It cannot now be said that it is only the members from Ontario 
 who have raised this cry and who are seeking for this disallowance. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL.— That is all it is. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Then the petitions are very extraordinary, and I caa 
 hardly accept the contradiction of my hon. friend in the face of those peti- 
 tions, I cannot do better then close in the language of Principal Caven. I' 
 adopt every word which that distinguished gentleman uttered the other even- 
 ing in reference to the question of disallowance. Speaking on this question,^ 
 he says : 
 
 " He was quite willing to admit that within their own distinct limits the autonomy of the 
 Provinces ought to l)e respected. Under the Act of Federation certain subjects were designated 
 as belonging to the Dominion, and certain subjects were named as within the jurisdiction of the, 
 several Provinces, and while he h.-id never committed himself to the principle, as a universal 
 principle, ihat the central authority could not revise the Acts of the Provinces that were within 
 their own limits ; while he distinctly desired not to be committed to that principle ; while he did 
 hold that as a general thing it was a safe and wise principle, as long as the Province has kept 
 fairly and definitely wifhin its own limits, even though its action is not the wisest action, that 
 the central authority should be very careful about revising it — he believed that occasions did 
 arise when it was not simply permitted to the central authority, but that it was the boundeiv 
 duty of the central authority to revise provincial legislation, legislation lyinjg distinctly within 
 the limits of the Provinces. He supposed on most subjects he would be regarded as thinking 
 with the Libera! party, but if the Liberal party had even taken ground in opposition to that he 
 must beg to be excused from following' the Liberal party. He supposed that was a bold thing 
 for a man who was neither lawyer nor politician to say, but was prepared to take the ground 
 that the Jesuits' Estates Act was not within tht limits of the Province of Quebec. So far as it 
 dealt with education it was within those limits,' so far as it dealt with money it was within those 
 limits, but he thought he could show that it was marked by features which took it out of those 
 limits, and made it a matter that the Dominion ought to deal with." 
 
 PUBLISHBD BY N. MURRAY, MONTREAL. 
 
 m^usuim 
 
 mma