IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 9 
 
 ^ko 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 • 5 '""^ lllllr^ 
 
 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ■^ Mai 2 2 
 
 1 '- |||M 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 'It 1 
 
 
 
 w — 
 
 •1 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 A 
 
 '^V 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^^*'- 
 
 W\ W 
 

 X? 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 ^ 
 
 vV 
 
 1981 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 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. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 CouverturR restaurde et/oj peMicjISe 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ograpr.iques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couSeur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 It se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans )e texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela ^tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 i|u'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point dp vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 >y 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Pages endommiigdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqui^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition availt;ble/ 
 Seule Edition dispcnible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurc;es par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 4t^ filmdes d nouveau de facon & 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce docun.cr.;. est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 -/ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproductid thanks 
 to the generosity of; 
 
 National Library oV Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire filr. vi fut reproduit grdce d la 
 96n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont dt6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire ii\m6. et en 
 coiformit^ 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 paqe wivh 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, an'i ending on the last ppge with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol --^(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la co;jverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sont film^s en cummenpant 
 p&r le premier piat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui compoite une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, suit par le second 
 plai, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 oriyinaux sont film^s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre pagv") qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants appara?tra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: Se symbole -^ signifie 'A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole 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 uppei 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 §tre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd A partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
■HR9S!!?'"""'"''"*" 
 
 CANADA 
 
 v SPEECH : ^■::: ' 'V 
 
 OF 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON, 
 
 MINISTER OP JUSTICE, '. : 
 
 On the Motion of Mr. O'BRIEN, M.P., in reference 
 
 to the 
 
 /! :\ i^iy-A: 
 
 
 JESUITS' ESTATES ACT 
 
 DBLIVBBBD IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 OTTAWA, 
 
 i 
 
 ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27th, 1880. 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I feel that in addressing the 
 Hoase upon this question and in presenting to it, at this 
 •tage of the debate, the reasons which, I believe, justified 
 the Government in advising His Excellency not to exercise 
 the power of disallowance as to the Jesuits' Estate Act of 
 Quebec, I must ask more than the usual indulgence of the 
 House. I shall be compelled, in the first place, to dwell at 
 considerable length, on details which the House has already 
 heard discussed ; &ad I shall have to speak under a sense of 
 the fact that with one large portion of the people of Canada 
 nothing that I can say will be satisfactory, and that with 
 another, and I hope the greater portion of the people of 
 Canada, no defence of the Government is necessury. Never- 
 theless, considering the arraignment which the policy of 
 the Government on this question has had, considering 
 the interest which the measure has excited in all quarters 
 of Canada, it is only becoming that I should ask the indul- 
 gence of the House in order that I may make a plain 
 

 statement of the reasons which have induced us to 
 give to His Excellency the advice for which we are 
 to be held responsible tonight. I desire, before begin- 
 ning a statement of the-je reasons, to take exception to 
 a remark which was made by the hon. member for Simooe 
 (Mr. McCarthy), at the outset of his address, with reference 
 to the position which members of the Government occupy 
 in this debate. The hon. gentleman, in complaining that no 
 member on the Treasury benches had risen to take part in 
 the debate down to this stage, spoke of it almost as an act 
 of discourtesy. He seemed to think that the mode in wUioh 
 the discussion shouM be carried on was a mere miitter of 
 politeness and a mere matter of fence. I do not so regard it. 
 I understand the position of tbe Government to be this : The 
 case on behalf of the amendment was first presented forcibly 
 and ably last night by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. 
 0'£rien), sustained by an hon. gencleman on the opposite 
 side of the House (Mr. Barron) ; but I leave it to the sense 
 of the House, whether, when the debate was adjourned bt 
 near midnight , any argument remained unanswered which 
 called for an answer from the Treasury benches. But with 
 regard to the hon. member's complaint on the ground of 
 discourtesy, I have to appeal to the sense of fairness of the 
 House in this particular. No member on either side of the 
 House wac unaware from the commencement of this debate, 
 that the main argument on which the conduct of the Gov- 
 ernment would be assailed, would be presented by the hon. 
 member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)* I was the Minister, 
 who, if there be a diflference between colleagues as to the 
 extent to which responsibility is shared, was primarily res- 
 ponsible, and I submit it to the sense oi fairness of every 
 member whether, before giving the reasons upon which I 
 must stand or fall as regards the correctness of the advice 
 which I gave to His Excellency, it was not my right to hear 
 my accuser? The hon. gentleman thinks otherwise, and tne 
 position he takes is this: That courtesy to him and to the 
 gentlemen who will divide with him on this question to- 
 night require that his arraignment of my report, his 
 arraignment of the Government with regard to every sub- 
 ject of this discussion, should have been made after my 
 mouth had been closed, and I had ceased to have a right to 
 defend myself. If there is any fairness or courtesy in that 
 position, 1 am willing to submit that 1 was wrong in reserv- 
 ing the remarks which I have to make until the hon. mem- 
 ber for Simcoe had been heard. Now, in presenting the case 
 which I have to present on behalf of the Government, I must 
 ask your attention for a few moments again to the weari- . 
 
some narration of the position which these lands occupied 
 in the Province of Qnebec. Not that that matter has not been 
 discussed in every detail, bat because in almost every detail 
 I have essentially different opinions from those of my 
 hon, friend from Simooe (Mr. McCarthy), and because, in 
 some respects, the points upon which the merits of thi$« case 
 depend were lost sight A by the hon. member in the admir- 
 able address he made this afternoon. Why, I venture to 
 say, without the slightest disrespect for the hon. member, 
 for whose talents no one in this House has a higher respect 
 than I, and I would be the last person to disparage any ob- 
 servations which he might address to us-^I venture to say 
 that the reason why this House ought not to ask His Excel- 
 lency now to disallow that Act, if we had no better 
 reason, is that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCar> 
 thy) — a master of legal argument — addressed the House for 
 nearly three hours this afternoon, and presented a case in 
 which, to say the least of it, the greatest doubt mast 
 exist- '-presented a case in which, for one whole hour, 
 the hon. gentleman voent from detail to detail, from 
 step to step, for the purpose of proving — what? 
 for the purpose of proving that the Jesuits of Quebec 
 lost their legal title to the estates in question — a fact 
 which is admitted in the preamble to the Act. He 
 spent an hour more in discussing theoiogical questious, 
 and questions connected with the ecclesiastical history of 
 England, which, in England itself and in every one of her 
 colonies, have been kept asleep for the last two hundred 
 years by the spirit of toleration on which alone a British 
 country can be governed. Now, let me call the attention 
 of the House to a brief statement with regard to the posi- 
 tion of these estates, not lor the purpose of showing that 
 this society in the Province of Quebec, whatever its character 
 and merits may have been, had a legal title to the property, 
 but for the purpose of showing that this is not a question 
 which we can decide, but is one which must and ought to 
 have been left to that authority which the Constitution 
 makes not only competent to deal with such questions 
 but omnipotent in dealing with them, subject only to 
 control in so far as the rights of the whole Dominion 
 or the policy of the Empire may be involved. Now, 
 Sir, the House will remember that, long before the 
 cession of Canada to the Crown of Great Britain, the Jesuits 
 bad labored in the wilderness, and in the schools of Canada, 
 and in the churches of Canada, and that, as a reward for 
 their missionary zeal, for their talent as teachers, and for 
 their services to this, one of the great colonies of France,. 
 
that order had been erected into an incorporated body, 
 under the most solemn acts which the King of France 
 coald pass under his hand, had been endowed with these 
 estates by the King of France, and by private donors, who 
 wished to place in their hands the means by which the 
 work of Christianity and civilibation amongst the savages 
 could be carried on, and by which the work of education 
 amongst the youth of the Province of Quebec could be 
 carried on. These were the terms on which they held their 
 lands when the battle was fought on the Plains of Abraham, 
 and the conqueror took possession of Canada under 
 terms which are in the first place set forth in the 
 capitulation of the city of Quebec, and afterwards 
 in the capitulation of the city of Montreal, and under 
 terms which are plainly defined by the law of nations, 
 recognised by every civilised country in the world* 
 What were these terms? By the law of nations, 
 recognised, as 1 have said, in every civilised country in the 
 world, the conquering power took possession of all the 
 rights, privileges and property of the conquered monarch in 
 the country, but he took no more. He took the sovereignty 
 of the country, he took the King's fortifications in the conn- 
 try, he took the King's stores of arms and ammunition in 
 the country, he took the King'p lands in the country, he 
 took the King's treasures in the country, but be had no right 
 by the law of nations to lay his hand on the property, 
 movable or immovable, of the humblest subject in the 
 country. If he had despoiled private property it would 
 have been an outrage which would nave disgraced 
 the British arms, and he would have committed an 
 act, let me tell the House, which, irrespective of the law of 
 nations, the conquering General stated in the Terms of Capi- 
 tulation, begun at Quebec, repeated at Montreal, he would 
 not do. It has been said in this debate that, by the Terms 
 of Capitulation, the Jesuits of the Province of Quebec, and 
 all their property, were placed at the mercy of the conquer- 
 or. I do not so read the Terms of Capitulation. Let me 
 see article 34 of the Terms of Capitulation of Montreal : 
 
 " All the communities " 
 
 And at that time the Jesuits were in community in the 
 Province of Quebec 
 
 " and all the priests shall preserre their movableB, the property and 
 
 revenues of the seignories and other estates which they possess in the 
 colony, of what nature soever they be, and the same estctes shall be 
 preserved in their privileges, rights, honors and exemptions. " 
 
 That was the request made, and the answer given to that 
 request was uneq&ivocal — " Granted." And yet we are told 
 
i 
 
 if 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 that these estates, which oame within the ezaot words of 
 that provision as to the seignories and property, movable 
 and immovable, of the priests and religious orders in the 
 Province of Quebec, were reserved to the King's mercy. It 
 is true that the preceding section 33 was refused until the 
 King's pleasure should be known, and in that there was a 
 distinct reference to the Jesuits, but that article referred, 
 not to the property only of the ^esuits, but asked in addi- 
 tion to the provisions as to their property in section 34, that 
 they should have all their constitutions and privileges, that 
 their monasteries should not be entered by troops, and that 
 safeguards should be given to them from military intrusion, 
 and that they should preserve their rights to nominate to 
 certain curacies and mis--ions as theretofore. Those privi- 
 leges, vague and undefined by the terms of the article, were 
 met by the words : " Reserved until the King's pleasure be 
 known," although the response to the article, dealing with 
 the properties of these people, was the unequivocal one — 
 " Granted." The conquering arms of England were used 
 against the soldiers of France, but not against individuals, 
 either religious or secular, either in France or in Canada. 
 Now, we go a step further, and we read the Treaty of 
 Peace. The war had gone on, and the treaty was not made 
 until 1*763, and let me read to the House a passage from the 
 treaty, because the Terms of Capitulation are liable to be 
 qualified by the final and definitive treaty at the close of the 
 war. This provision was made by the treaty : 
 
 " H'.8 Most Ohristian Majesty oedea aad guarantees to Hia Britannic 
 Majeaty in fall right, Oanada with all ita dependencies, as well as the 
 Island of Gape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the Gulf 
 and River St. Lawrence, and, in general, everything that depends on 
 the said countries, lands, isiands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, pro- 
 perty, possession, and all rights, acquired by treaty or otherwise, which 
 the Most Ohristian King and the (Jrown of France have had till now 
 over the said countries, islands, lands, places, coasts, and their inhabi- 
 tants, so that the Moat Ohristiac King cedea and makes over the whole 
 to the said King and to the Orova of Qreat Britain, and that in the 
 most ample manner and form, without restriction, and without any 
 liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty under any pretence, 
 or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned." 
 
 Now, in return for that cession of Canada and Cape Bre- 
 ton and all the islands of the St. Lawrence, this solemn 
 compact was made by His Britannic Majesty : 
 
 " His Britannic Majesty on hia aide agrees to grant the liberty of the 
 Oatholic religion to the inhabltanta of Oanada. He will conaequently 
 
 Sire the moat precise and most eSectnal orders that his new Roman 
 atholic subjects may profess the worship of their religi a, accord- 
 in|( to the rites of the Romish Ohurcb, as far aa the laws of Great 
 Britain permit Hia Britannic Majeaty further agrees that the French 
 BhAbitanta, or others who had been suDJecta of the Most Ohriatain King 
 
6 
 
 in Oanada, maj retire with all safety and freedom wherever the^ shall 
 think proper, and may sell their estaten, provided it be to subjects of 
 His Britannic Majesty." 
 
 This Horse has been told that the essence of the whole 
 clause is in the qaalifleation, " as far as the laws of 
 Great Britain permit," and we are told that that of itself in- 
 trodaced all the laws of England relating to public worship, 
 the Supremacy Act, and everything of that kind which 
 could be invoked. 
 
 Mr. MoOARTHY. Not by me. 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. member for Simooe 
 did not assart that it introduced the Supremacy Act, 
 bat the argument was made before he spoke in the de- 
 bate, that that introduced all the restrictions on the ez- 
 eroiso of religion; and we were told that it even in- 
 troduced the Supremacy Act, under which, let me 
 tell the House plainly, if it had been Introduced in the 
 Province of Quebec, no man could have exercised the 
 Catholic religion at all. The very essence of the Suprem- 
 acy Act is that no person — I am stripping the Act of all its 
 verbiage, I am giving its essence, and at the same time 
 quoting its ezac^ words when I say, that thb> gist of the 
 whole Act is this : That no person outside the realm of 
 England shall have or exercise within the Queen's do- 
 minions — even spiritual superiority. If no spiritual supe- 
 riority in Eome then no bishop in Canada ; if no bishop in 
 Canada, no priest in Canada; if no priest in Canada then no 
 sacrament for the living or the dying in Canada. Every 
 altar in Canada would have been thrown down by the very 
 terms of a treaty in which His Britannic Majesty, in return 
 for the cession of half the continent, solemnly promised 
 not only that the people should have the right to erercise 
 their religion, as they had been accustomed to do, but that 
 he would give the most precise orders that freedom of wor- 
 ship should be carried out in «)very particular. Now, Sir, 
 obviously the treaty meant no such thing ; obviously His 
 Britannic Majesty did not take with one band the cession of 
 this country, and hold out a false promise with the other. 
 Obviously he meant that there should be perfect freedom 
 of worship in Canada, the newly ceded country, subject only 
 to the legislation which might be made upon this subject 
 from time to time by the Parliament of Great Britain, cer- 
 tainly not that it was subject then to the laws an regards 
 freedom of worship in Great Britain ; for, let me remind the 
 House, that instead of there being any freedom of worship 
 in Great Britain at that time, the ezercit^e of the Eoman 
 Catholic religion then amounted to the crime of high trea- 
 
fion; and no dissentor, under the risk of long imprison- 
 ment, ooald enter a oonventiole or a mee^^ng-house ; bo 
 that obviously it did not mean to introdnoe into the country 
 ceded, the laws of Great Britain with regard to public 
 worship or even with regard to supremacy at that time. Bat 
 let me sugost to tho House what the obvious meaning was, 
 as quoted from the words of the Attorney General and the 
 Solicitor General of England, and of the Prime Minister 
 of England, in diocussing this treaty stipulation, and 
 what, upon its face, every sensible and unprejudiced man 
 will say its meaning was^ and that was this: ''Insofar 
 as the laws of Great Britain permit freedom of worship in 
 her colonies " — and the laws of Great Britain at that time 
 did permit freedom of worship in her colonies — and like- 
 wise " in so far as the laws of Great Britain passed in future 
 years might permit." Well, Sir, we pass on to the Quebec 
 Act of a lew years later, in 1774, and I come now certainly 
 to a branch of the argument against us which my hon. 
 friend from Simcoe did press upon us this afternoon, namely, 
 that by the express term of that statute, the provisions of 
 the Statute of Eliz ibeth with regard to the supremacy of 
 the Queen, was enacted with regard to the Province of 
 Quebec. Now, let mo ask the House, for the purpose of 
 considering how far passion has guided and swerved the 
 reason of some of those who have spoken upon this question, 
 to look at that statute, and they will find that the rights of 
 the people of Canada and their freedom of religious wor- 
 ship are as fully guaranteed by the terms of the Quebec 
 Act as they were by the terms of the Treaty of Paris itself. 
 While it is true that one of the provisions of that Act de- 
 clares that the statute made in the first year of the reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth should apply over all the countries which 
 then did, or thereafter should belong to the Imperial Grown 
 of this lealm, and should apply to the Province of Quebec, 
 this is subject to a limited construction, because if it is 
 to be read in its literal sense, it was an absolute pro- 
 hibition of the practice of the fioraan Catholic religion in 
 the Province, an absolute prohibition under the penal- 
 ties of high treason itself. But the Act left no such 
 "Ambiguity to be dealt with by mere construction, be- 
 cause it goes on to limit the operation of the Statute relat- 
 ing to Royal Supremacy, by declaring that instead of the 
 oath of abjuration which, by the terms of the statute of 
 Elizabeth, all people professing the Catholic religion were 
 to take, not only to abjure all foreign jurisdiction in relation 
 to temporal matters, but all foreign jurisdiction in relatiom 
 to spiritual matters as well : there is to be a new form of 
 
ft 
 
 oath and a new Bi.atatory provision for tlie people of the 
 Province, whereby they shall no longer be bound to abjure 
 foreign jurisdiction in matters spiritual, and shall be 
 entitled to all the privileges of British fibjeots, and all 
 privileges of worship on taking an oath of allegiance 
 merely, which applies only to the temporal affairs of the 
 reigning sovereign. Therefore, instead of its being in any 
 sense true that by the terms of the Quebec Act the restric- 
 tions of the Supremacy Act were imposed upon the Prov- 
 ince by the express terms of that statute, the people 
 of Quebec were relieved from the most odious provision of the 
 Supremacy Act — the provision by which they were bound 
 to swear against conscience, and in abnegation of their 
 faith, that they would recognise the power of no foreign 
 priest, even in spiritual matters. So much then for the 
 Quebec Act of 1774, by which, I think, ! have shown that 
 there was a toleration extended in regard to the Province 
 of Quebec which did not exist in the mother country, and 
 which was utterly inconsistent with these old statutes^ 
 which, forsooth, 115 years afterwards, we are asked to 
 advise His Excellency to apply to the Province of Quebec. 
 Now, Sir, in 1791, 30 years after the conquest of Canada, 
 the King cl Great Britain issued a proclamation suppressing 
 the Order of Jesuits in the colony. As history has told us, 
 the estates which are even now iu question, were looked 
 upon with a covetous eye by Lord Amherst who had taken 
 an active part in directing the armies of Great Britain. 
 On this subject I need not go into details. This covetous 
 attempt was frustrated, but suffice it to say, at this stage of 
 the controversy, that the King of England, and I submit it 
 to the legal sense of the House, the King of England had 
 no power to revoke the terms o* the charter of incorpo- 
 ration which the Jesuits of Canada had received from the 
 King of France. I admit that the Parliament of Great 
 Britain could have brought in the whole body of the 
 common law, and could have applied to the colony all the 
 penal statutes which the bigotry of that age might choose 
 to invoke. But the King of England had probably no 
 such prerogative. If the King grants a charter, the King 
 himself, with all his power, cannot revoke it. It is only 
 Parliament who can do that, and, in this instance, by the 
 attempt, I venture to think, of the King to suppress 
 that order, and to revoke that charter, he exceeded the 
 authority which he possessed. But, Sir, we were told 
 that by a royal proclamation all tbo common law of 
 England was introduced into Canada. I doabt that that 
 could be done. By the law of nations, recognised at every 
 
stage and period of Bngliah law, the laws of a oonqnered 
 country prevail until the paramount authority of the 
 oonquering country imposes new laws upon it. But the 
 monarch of a conquering country probably cannot of 
 himself change those lawc^, cannot of himself do it under 
 the constitution of Great Britain. But if there is a doubt 
 npon that subject as to the general rule, I say this, that tho 
 King O! England could not introduce the common law 
 by h's proclamation in violation of the treaty w>iioh he had 
 iTdde in 1763, and by the terms of the treaty he had 
 reserved all those rights which touch this question, even in 
 the remotest degree. Therefore, it is idle ior us to discuss 
 how far he might have made other branches of the common 
 law applicable to this country. In the jear 1800 the last 
 Jesuit died, and I think that by the law of England, appli- 
 eable, perhaps, at that time to this property in Canada, 
 on the death of the last surviving member of the corpora- 
 tion the property escheated to the Crown, and the Crown 
 oonld have taken possession of it as escheated lands, Steps 
 were taken to assert this right on the part of the Crown ; 
 but the question had been complicated in the meantime by 
 the fact that the Pope had suppressed the Company of Jesus 
 nearly all over the world. By the terms of that suppression 
 and by the terms of the civil law, which, it is contended 
 still prevailed in the Province of Quebec, the properties, 
 instead of reverting to the Crown, passed to the ordinaries 
 of the dioceses in which they were situated. I do not 
 mean to say that that is so : I present that to the House as 
 one of the questions which has been raised, and which tends 
 to make this case anything but a plain one, I wil' ''o more. 
 I will admit the hon. member for Simcoe's contention, that 
 the common law had in the meantime been introduced, that 
 the civil law had been superseded, and that by the terms of 
 the common law these estates had become escheated to the 
 Crown. One of the questions, however, which has been 
 constantly agitated ever since in the Province of Quebec 
 is this — that if you are to subject this property to the rigor 
 of the common law, you at least ought to give the benefit of 
 that principle of the common law, which declares that 
 whenever property of any kind has been escheated to the 
 Crown some consideration should be shown to the persons 
 who are morally entitled to it, and regard should be ha 1 to 
 the use to which it was intended to be applied. By this rule 
 of practice the escheat does not wholly result as an emolu- 
 ment to^e CrowQ or as an augmentation of the levenue, 
 bnt a liberal proportion is appropriated to the intention of 
 Hie donors or to those who morally may be considered 
 
10 
 
 entitled to it. If that ocDHideration were to prevail to any 
 extent, the olergy, and it may be the Jesaits, on the 
 reinstatement of the order, woald have some kind of moral 
 right to componsatioQ respecting these estates. Bat let me 
 call the attention of the House to this faot, which I think 
 has been kept oat of view, and which certainly the hon. 
 member for Victoria (Mr. Barron) who addressed the House 
 last night, overlooked in his argument, that the very 
 brief by which these properties were t&ken possession of 
 on ♦he part of the Crown, when they were eventually 
 seized, does not allege the right of eooheat, but declares the 
 right by which the Crown intended to claim the properties 
 to be the right of conquest — a right which, as 1 have said, is 
 repudiated by the law of nations, was repudiated by the 
 Crown officers of Great Britain at the tin-e, and which, 
 after all that has been said in this debate, has not had 
 one word said in favor of it. Thai was the only title 
 \y which Great Britain claimed she had a right to these 
 estates. Now, io is true likewise that subsequent statutes 
 vested the title in the Province of Canada, and ultimately 
 in due course of law, and as the result of siatutes, the title 
 to those lands became vested in the Province of Quebec, 
 As to the conclusion which the hon. member for Simooe 
 drew, that the Province had a good title to them, a perfect 
 titlo under the law, I have not one word to say ; and if this 
 Act had come before us as legislation in recognition 
 of a legal title, I would have fell bound to call tho attention 
 of my colleagues to the faot that a very great mistai^e had 
 been committed, ou which, perhaps, it might have been 
 necessary to have advised the Provincial Legislature to 
 reconsider its conclusions. But it is admitted by the Leg- 
 islature of Quebec that a good title existed in the Province, 
 and all that is said on the face of this Act or in the argu- 
 ments in support of it, is this : That there existed (i. moral 
 claim to some degree of compensation, little or much, which, 
 to a greater or less extent, was binding upon the conscience 
 of the Legislature of that Province. Now, Sir, the lesult ot 
 the existence of that claim— the result of tlie assertion of that 
 moral right, whatever it may have been wortli, was that, 
 from year to year, when the Province went on to assert its 
 right to those estates, and as the Province ventured to place 
 
 Eiece after piece of the property on the market, it was met 
 y a protest from the united hierarchy of Quebec, demand- 
 ing that such propertiec should not be sold, should not 
 h<* diverted from the original charitable and religi^s pur^ 
 poses for which they were intended, and so every step by 
 which those estates were sought to be made useful to th« 
 
11 
 
 ■ 
 
 revenues of the Provinoe was contested in the most formal 
 and solemn manner. It is reoited in part of the preamble 
 of this Act, ih&t not many years ago, one of the most 
 valaaole parts of the property, being situate opposite the 
 Basilica in the city of Quebec, was brought to market, and 
 there was met by the solemn protest of all the hierarchy of 
 the Province. In face of that protest, casting as it did, a 
 cloud upon the title of the Province, involving as it seemed 
 to do a dit.pute as to the ri^ht of the Government, and as 
 to the title of the purchaser, that property had to be with- 
 drawn from sale. Let me assure this House again that in 
 presenting our case I am endeavoring to do so, not from 
 my individual point of view at all, but simply from the 
 point of view in which we may be asked to withhold or to 
 give advice with respect to the great power of disallowing 
 a provincial statute. Let me call attention then to all 
 these details, and let me ask the House to keep in mind 
 that state of aflFairs with respect to the property itself, with 
 respect to the assertion of this claim, good or bad ; with 
 respect to the apseriion of this moral right, worth little or 
 much, and to remember the difficulty of marketing the 
 property in the Province of Quebec under these circum- 
 stances. If the House will bear all this in mind, and then 
 will read with me the statute which we are asked to disal- 
 low, I say that the provisions of that statute v;ill<cea8e to 
 be obnoxious to any reasonp-ble man, that they cannot be 
 misunderstood and that they can hardly be misrepresented 
 even by the most viclent prejudice. The sale, as I have 
 said, was forbidden. I am not driven at all to defend the 
 policy of the Government ot the Province, as to the pro- 
 priety of opening up that question ; as to the propriety of 
 not insisting that these properties should be sold even if 
 they should be sacrificed in the face of that formidable pro- 
 test. That was for the Legislature of Quebec to say. The 
 constitution has charged me with no duties and with no 
 responsibilities, as to the weight of any legal or of any 
 moral claim which the Legislature has thought proper to 
 recognise. I may concur with gentlemen who have spoken 
 this afternoon that it was unwise not to insist on the strict 
 statutory title based on confiscation, severe thoagh it may 
 have been, but in this case the constitution ban not made 
 me the judge. It has not made me o^- my colleagues the 
 arbiters between the two sets of opinions in the Province 
 of Quebec; it has not clothed His Excellency with the 
 power -to step in and consider every question which arises 
 among the people of the Provinoe: it has vested that 
 authority in ihe Provincial Legisl&iure, which by a cnani- 
 
f • 
 
 12 
 
 n 
 
 I ; 
 
 : 1 
 
 moua vote, as was pointed out by the hon. member for 
 Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) last night declared that 
 this was the true and proper solution of the question. 
 Under those circumstances have I any right to exercise a 
 superior and overruling judgment over the Province? Is 
 that the theory upon which our constitution is to bo 
 worked out ? This moral claim, as they choose to call it, 
 may have been as weak as air, but it was considered 
 weighty by the conscience and the judgment of those 
 whom the constitution solemnly appointed to decide and 
 after that it is not for us to say : " Tne Legit-laturo 
 arrived at a wrong conclusion." I can state the matter no 
 more forcibly than in the very words of one of our oppo- 
 nents on this question, who declares that the authority 
 given to the Provincial Legislatures over certain classes of 
 subjects carries wita it, like all authority, a liberty to 
 error which must be respected so long as the legal power 
 is not exceeded, and the error is not manifestly subversive 
 legally or morally of the principles of the constitution or 
 of the great objects of the state. As far, therefore, as we 
 have to consider the power of the Legislature to recognise 
 a moral obligation — leaving out of sight for a moment the 
 theological questions which my hon. friend from Simcoe 
 (Mr. McCarthy) and I are to join issue on, with a view to 
 the Hoi4Be passing judgment, as to which is the better 
 theologian forsooth, and as to whose advice on the question 
 of theology His Excellency the Governor General as the 
 supreme theologian is to act — I contend that the Legislature 
 had supreme authority to decide, and had a perfect right 
 to decide, without veto or controlling authority at Ottawa, 
 even though we thought they decided erroneously. Now, 
 Sir, having asked the House to bear in mind the situation 
 in which these properties stood in the Province of Quebec, 
 the way in which un attempted sale was met by a protest 
 which completely frustrated the sale, let me call the atten- 
 tion of the House to another state of facts as regards the 
 various claimants upon this property. There wore the 
 Bishops of the Province who said : " As a result of the sup- 
 pression of the Society of Jesus in this Province we were 
 vested with all the estates as the ordinaries of the various 
 dioceses in which these properties were sitaateJ." Nay, 
 more, they said : " We have inherited their moral claim 
 too, because when the m'^ans were striken from their hands 
 of carrying on the missionary work and the work of educa- 
 tion, we took it up and, by the sacrifice of our people's 
 labors and treasures, we built up institutions of education 
 sdX over this country." The Society of the Jesuits had in 
 
18 
 
 the meantTme been re-inttated and re-organised in the Pro* 
 vince, and upon this point let me call the attention of the 
 House to the argument of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mn 
 McCarthy) which was that by the decree of Buppressioo in 
 France the order became extinct in Canada. He cited to 
 prove that the decision of the Parliament of Paris, which 
 merely decided that the Jesuits in France were liable for 
 the debts of the Jesuits in Paraguay, because the properties 
 of the two sets of men were held in solidarity. That deci- 
 sion has not the remoxest effect upon the status of the 
 Jesuits in Canada, who, themselves, were a body corporate 
 under the most solemn instrument which the King of 
 France could give them to indicate his will in that regard. 
 I have mentioned that the bishops claimed that they repre- 
 sented the moral right, which, a^ I have said, the Legisla- 
 ture thought was worthy of compensation, and the Jesuits 
 claimed it likewise. Look at this as a business matter. 
 Look at this matter simply as relating to a piece of land 
 in the city of Quebec, and tell me how, under these circum- 
 BtP:nces, the title was ever to be cleared of this dispute. 
 Obviously not by compensating first one party and then 
 the other, becaaae under those circumstances the Legisla- 
 ture would have had to pay twice the value of the claim. 
 It could be only settled by getting the two parties to arbi- 
 trute and to leave it to some person to settle their mutual 
 dispute, or by saying : " You must conform to the decision 
 of some person who has authority over you both." Let me 
 argue this question throughout, if we can, without feeling 
 that we belong to different religious persuasions, without 
 feeling that a religious question is mixed up with it at all ; 
 and, therefore, let \xfi leave out for the moment any name 
 which might excite tiid prejudices of some portions of the 
 community. The Bishop of Quebec and the other con- 
 testing parties who struggled for compensation for this 
 moral claim were all members of the same church, and 
 by their membership recognised supreme authority in the 
 head of that church to settle their disputes, even though the 
 settlement sLould be against their will. The head of their 
 church had that authority — not by any provision of the 
 law of Quebec miL:^, not by any provision recognised by 
 English law mind, il;ut by the consent of the parties who 
 were free to belong to that church and free to leave it, and 
 while they did belong to it were subject to a spiritual 
 superior. He had that power by their choice ; he had the 
 right to say to one or the other, no matter how small or 
 how great the proportion might be thai was divided between 
 them : " Ton mast submit ; it is a fair settlement between 
 
14 
 
 you, and I, as your supreme arbiter bind you by my deci- 
 sion." Tlie Government of Quebec, therefore, having made 
 up its mind to recognise the moral claim, if for no other 
 purpose, for purposes of public policy, found that they could 
 not arrive at a solution of the question without some person 
 to act between the claimants acd to bind them both. It 
 was only by a method like that that they could reach a 
 solution — paying once, and once only, the value of this 
 moral claim. Now, that being so, let me see what was 
 done in pursuance of that method of settlement. The head 
 of tnat church, so possessed with power to preclude the 
 Jesuits from making any further claim, so possessed v ith 
 power to preclude the bishops from making any further 
 claim, authorised, in 1884— and this is an important fact, as 
 the House will see when I proceed a little with the argu- 
 ment — authorised the Archbishop of Quebec to act as his 
 attorney in the negotiations for the settlement. On the 7th 
 of May, 1887, a document appears which has been one of 
 the means of exciting hostility to this Act. On the 7th of 
 May, 1887, the head of the church reserved to himself the 
 right to settle the question with regard to the value of that 
 moral claim and the division of the proceeds — reserved it to 
 himself in virtue of his prerogatives as a potentate ? Not 
 at all. Beserved it to himself simply in the withdrawal of 
 the authority which he had given lo the Archbishop of 
 Quebec, and left himself unrepresented in the Province by 
 any attorney whomsoever. And, therefore, when it is said 
 that the Pope reserved to himself the right to settle the 
 question, he was not by any means claiming to reserve 
 any right in the public domain in the Province, or any 
 right to the appropriation of money of the Province. 
 He was simply withdrawing the power which he had given 
 to another person to settle the question, and saying : 
 " Until a new authority is given, you will negotiate with 
 me." The next step, Sir, was on the 17th of fllay, 1888, 
 and that was in a letter which was written by Mr. Mercier, 
 the First Minister of Quebec, and which, without an undue 
 desire to defend the propriety of these negotiations, the 
 policy of the Act, or any other step of the transaction, I 
 think has been very much misunderstood in this discussion. 
 That letter recites, among other things, that the Holy 
 Father, by reserving to himself the settlement of that ques- 
 tion, virtually had cancelled the authority, the only author- 
 ity, which existed in the Province of Qnebec, to negotiate 
 with the Government. The First Minister said : 
 
 " My predecesBora in the Qovornment deemed it their duty, in 1876, 
 I believe, to order tlie demolition of the college and the division of th& 
 
15 
 
 property into bnildiag lots, ia view of an immediate sale, which, how- 
 ever, did not take place, owing to certain representations from exalted 
 personages at the time. 
 
 U To avoid further difSculties, as I supposed, my predecessors let the 
 matter lie and allowed the property tc be so neglected that it has be- 
 come a grazing ground and a receptacle for filth, so much so that it is 
 openly said in Quebec that the matter has become a public scandal. 
 
 " CJnder these circumstances, I deem it my duty to ask Your Emi- 
 nence if you see any serious objection to the Government's selling the 
 propertv, pending a final settlement of the question of the Jeenits' 
 estates." 
 
 My hon. friends so far misoonceived that request as to re- 
 present it to be a petition on the part of the Government of 
 the Province to a foreign potentate for permission to sell 
 the property— a permission which they did not need, be- 
 cause by the law of the Province they had the power to sell 
 it, and they had from year to year sold portions of it, 
 and put the proceeds in the public Treasury. But in ask- 
 ing his consent to the sale of the property, they were 
 asking that, when they brought it to the market again, they 
 should not be met h^ the protests of the bishops whom 
 he had the power to control ; and, therefore, when the 
 First Minister said : "Will you permit this property to bo 
 sold, pending a final settlement of the Je juits' estates ?'* — 
 he was simply asking that that protest should no longer be 
 made, and that there should be a consent to the saiu on 
 the part of all \7ho asserted any claim whatever, even 
 though it were only the shadow of a moral claim. He 
 said : "This is a receptacle for filth, so much so that it has 
 become a public scandal ; let us all agree that it shall be sold, 
 pending a settlement of the Jesuits' estates." Surely that 
 is only the ordinary transaction of everyday life, when a 
 man has possession of real estate to which another sets up 
 even an unfounded claim. He will say : " Bather than that 
 this property should go to wapte and be a public nuisance, 
 better that we should all consent to sell it." Yet we are told 
 that the First Minister went to the feet of a foreign potentate 
 to enable him to exercise power which he ought to have found 
 in the statutes of his own Province. He was not denying 
 his legal title or power; but he was simply saying : " Give 
 me your consent, so that this claim, whether little or much, 
 shall no longer stand in the way of a sale for the benefit of 
 all concerned." He said : 
 
 " The Government would look on the proceeds of the sale as a special 
 deposit to be disposed of hereafter, in accordance with the agreements 
 X/i be entered into between the parties interested, with the sanction of 
 the Holy See." 
 
 Simply this, that all parties claiming the property, or any 
 rights in respect of it, shall agree that the property shall 
 
16 
 
 be sold and the proceeds shall be kept inviolate, so that 
 anybody having any claim against the property shall not 
 be prejudiced, but shall have the same claim as before — pre- 
 cisely the same arraugement as any business man having 
 property to sell would make with his adversary. The letter 
 goes on to say : 
 
 " As it will perhaps be neceflsary, upon this matter, to consult the 
 Legislature of our Prorince, which is to be conrened v^ery shortly, I re- 
 spectfully solicit an immediate reply." 
 
 We were told in sarcastic tones to-day that it was absolu- 
 tely necessary to go to the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, but 
 it might only perhaps be necessary to consult the Legis- 
 lature of the Province of Quebec. I say when we know 
 the facts with regard to that property, the criticism 
 becomes unfair. The Government of the Province had 
 already power to sell the estates by law, and, therefore, 
 unless it were agreed upon with the head of the church 
 that the property should be sold under these conditions, 
 and an agreement were made to value this very claim, and 
 to put aside the funds to meet it, there was no necessity to 
 consult the Legislature at all. If the personage to whom 
 that letter was addressed had declined the negotiations, it 
 would not have been necessary to consult, the Legislature, 
 because the Provincial Government had ail the legal author- 
 ity the Legislature could give them. It was only in the 
 event of a compromise being arrived at and the payment of 
 money being involved, that it was necessary to consult the 
 Legislature. And yet this letter has been put to the House, 
 as if, forsooth, the fair and true meaning of it was that it 
 was only perhaps necessary to consult the Legislature, but 
 at all events it was necessary to consult the Holy See. Now, 
 the answer to that letter was in these words : 
 
 *'I hasten to notify you that, having laid yonr 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 
 efore they were suppressed, upon the express condition, howeyer, that 
 the sum to be received be deposited and left at the free disposal of the 
 Holy See." 
 
 The claimant representing this moral claim says : " I agree 
 that you shall sell that lot in the city of Quebec, but if you 
 sell it, place the fund to my credit in order that we may 
 know where it is, when we arrive at a satisfactory conclu- 
 sion as to what shall be done with it." The answer of the 
 First Minister was that he declined to accede to that, but he 
 proposed a reasonable alternative, that the Government 
 retain the proceeds until this dispute should be settled. 
 Thus what is declared to be an assumption of authority 
 on the part of the Pope, actually iu contravention of 
 
 I 
 

 17 
 
 i 
 
 the Supremacy A.ct, and what we are told aotaally 
 trails the Queen's honor in the duBt, is that the Pope 
 consents to the Quebec Government retaining the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale of the JoHuits' estates, subject to a 
 future settlement of the dispute. The Government of 
 Quebec, pending the settlement of the claims of these 
 two litigants, which were to be held in suspense to be 
 settled, not before the sale of the property but after- 
 wards, retained custody of thiB fund; and when the 
 authority representing these rival claimants agrees to 
 this proposition, it is asscited, foreooih, that because 
 he uses Ihj word " allows," meaning evidently " consents," 
 he has encroached on the prerogative of the Queen. In 
 agreeing to the Government retaining the proceeds of the 
 sale of the Jesuits' estaes, be {.cted simply as the arbiter 
 between the two contesting claimants. He allows this 
 simply as the person who, as the head of the church to 
 which the claimants belong, has, by their own choice, a 
 rigl t to give this consent ; and yet when he consents to 
 _ that, it is actually declared that he is asserting the prerog- 
 
 ip ative of a foreign potentate in derogation of the prerogative 
 of the Qucon. 1 repeat that when wo know the facts 
 with regard to the situation of this property, and with regard 
 to the position of the two rival claimants, it is impossible 
 to misunderstand, and almost impossible for ingenuity to 
 misrejiresent, the preamble of this Act, as unfortunately it 
 has been misrepresented daring the long discussion which 
 has taken place, since the Act was passed, in various parts 
 ol the country. The letter of Cardinal Simeoni, of the 2'7th 
 March, 1888, contains this passage with regard to the con- 
 clusion arrived at: 
 
 " Affirmatively in favor of the Fathers of the Society of Jesua and in 
 accordance with the method prescribed ia other places, that is to say, 
 that the Fathers ot the Society of Jesus treat in their owa name with 
 the Civil Government, in such a manner, however, as to leave full liberty 
 to the Holy See to dispose of the property ab it deems advisable, and 
 consequently that they should be very careful that no condition or 
 clause shonld be inserted in the official deed of the concession of such 
 property which could in any manner affect the liberty of the Holy See." 
 
 As I have said, down to that time, the power of attorney 
 which enabled any one to negotiate with regard to this 
 question had been withdrawn, and then there was 
 simply a now authority given to a new attorney, namely, 
 the fathers of the society, to treat with the Government of 
 Quebec, and the stipulation, not that the property 
 of the Province should be subject to any conditions, 
 but that if thore should be a conveyance made of it to any 
 parties —to the Jesuits on the one side or the hierarchy on ' 
 2 T 
 
! 
 
 11 
 
 the other— >in settlement of the olaim, these parties should 
 not tako a deed which would preclude the Pope from giving 
 a final decision as to the way in which the proceeds should 
 be divideii between them. Then, in his letter dated 1st May, 
 1888, the First Minister of the Province of Quebec distinctly 
 stipulates that he is not recognising any civil or, as we 
 would call it, any legal obligation, but merely the m'^^al 
 obligation in this respect. He says : 
 
 " 6 That you will grant to the Government of the Proyinoe of Quebec 
 a full, complete and perpetual concession of all the property which may 
 have belonged in Canada, under whatever title, to the Fathers of the 
 old society, and that you will renounce to all rights generally whatso- 
 ever upon such property and the revenues therefrom in favor of our 
 Province, the whole, as well as in the name of the old Order of Jesuits, 
 and of your present corporation as the nam > of the Pope, of the Sacred 
 College of the Propaganda and of the Roman Catholic Church in 
 general." 
 
 Then follows the clause to which above all others, exception 
 is taken, and to which I shall ask the special attention of 
 the House : 
 
 "7. That any agreement made between you and the Government 
 of the Province will be binding only in so far as it shall be ratified by 
 the Pope and the Legislature of this Province." 
 
 Now, when we look at the Act itself, when we see what 
 the Government of Quebec abked the Legislature to do, when 
 we see them ask the Legislature to vote, in extinction of this 
 moral claim, whatever it was worth, the sum of 6400,000, 
 we cease to be surprised and to be deceived as regards the 
 eflfectof that provision of the statute. The Ministry of Que- 
 bec were dealing with two rival claimants — the hierarchy 
 and the Jer-uit Society. They were dealing also with a third 
 party, the Pope, who occupied the position of mediator by 
 consent between these two, and the First Minister of Quebec 
 stipulated that before the Province should be asked to pay 
 one dollar of the money, it should have a conveyance, in the 
 first place, from the fathers of the society, in the second 
 place from the Pope himself, and, in the third place, from 
 the Sacred College of the Propaganda and the Eoman 
 Catholic Church in general. He stipulated that before he 
 should be bound to pay a dollar of that money, nay, even 
 before he should ask the Legislature of Quebec to authorise 
 him to pay a dollar, he should be in a position to say: ** I 
 have obtained a complete release from all the parties 
 who forever after can assert the slightest right 
 or title or the slightest claim, legally or morally, in 
 regard to these estates." Why could he not do this? 
 Could he have said : " I ask the Legislature of the Pro- 
 yinoe of Quebec for authority to pay this money on obtain- 
 
3B should 
 m giving 
 Is should 
 Ist May, 
 istinotly 
 , as we 
 le DD'^-al 
 
 of Quebec 
 'hlcb may 
 rs of the 
 y whatao- 
 )r of our 
 f Jesuits, 
 he Sacred 
 hurch ia 
 
 oeption 
 ition of 
 
 'ernment 
 tified by 
 
 3 what 
 ), when 
 of this 
 00,000, 
 ds the 
 •f Que- 
 rarchy 
 I third 
 tor by 
 luebeo 
 pay 
 in the 
 econd 
 from 
 
 Oman 
 ►re he 
 
 even 
 lorise 
 '*! 
 irties 
 right 
 
 , in 
 this? 
 
 Pro- 
 tain- 
 
 Ing a conveyance ftom the fathers of the soototy t" Would 
 he not have left outstanding the rights ot the hierarchy, who 
 contested, every inch of the way, the rights of the faihorg of 
 the society to the proceeds of the settlement ? Would he not; 
 have left outstanding still the possible claim of the autbor« 
 ity superior to them all ? I assert it, without fear, that the 
 contention will not commend itself to the good sense of tho 
 House, that that provision No. 7, which is taken such great 
 exception to, is a distinct provision against the authority of 
 the Pope and not in favor of the authority of the Pope. In 
 fact by that provision, the substance of the ai^reement was 
 this : " While I am willing to oftor to you $ 100,000, 1 am not 
 willing to be bound by my oflfer until your ma-»ter ratifies 
 your agreemer to accept it. I will not only not pay you a 
 dollar of that 8400,000 until every one of you gives mo your 
 conveyance, but until the groatost superior you have on 
 earth gives me his deed ; and until I get all that, I will not 
 asu the Legislature of Quebec to give me authority to pay 
 you a single dollar." And yet, because the Legislature of 
 Quebec demanded, before it should put that money even 
 at the disposition of the Governor in Council, that they 
 should have everybody's rights foreclosed, and that the high- 
 est authority the claimants recognised on earth should give 
 his deed also, and more, that the College of the Propaganda 
 should also give its release, and that every step down to that 
 point should be without prejudice to. the rights of the Pro- 
 vince of Quebec, we are told that this is an assertion of 
 the prerogative of a foreign potentate. I am dealing with 
 no merely legal theory upon this question. I am not devis- 
 ing any excuse for the legislation of Quebec. I say that the 
 Legislature of Quebec so understood it. It was so ex- 
 plained to them. I hold before me a statement which the 
 First Minister who introduced that Bill into the Legislature 
 mf\de to that Legislature, and upon which they passed the 
 Bill. He says : 
 
 " In tho first place we must not mistake the bearing of this declaration 
 nor forget that it was inserted as a protection," 
 
 The Legislature of Quebec passed it as a protection on the 
 statement of their First Minister. They passed that pro- 
 vision unanimously as such protection, and yet months 
 after we are to put a difforent interpretation upon what 
 their intention v^as, and to ask that His Excellency, a 
 stranger to that Legislature, a stranger to their motives, 
 should decide that that was not their true motive at all, 
 that it was not a protection but a distinct challenge of the 
 supremacy of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Mr. Mercier eaid t 
 
i! 
 
 hi 
 
 ! 
 
 i ! 
 
 ! i' 
 
 t ii 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 11 
 
 " Any seriotiB objeotioa to it, howerer slight, maj disappear, for it 
 s we, the Ministers, who instated on it, in order not to give effect 
 to the transaction, unless it was sanctioned by the religious authority, 
 in the person of the Pope And it is easy to understand why. la aII 
 important treaties made by mandatories (agents as we understand) rati- 
 fii-ation must be made by the principal, i.e., the mandator. Thus, for 
 example, take wh«t concerns me personally, what concerns Ministers,— 
 what IS it usual to state in resolutions and letters ? — that the transaction 
 will not avail unless sanctioned by the Legislature. Well, the Rev. 
 P»itherTurgeon,who was charged by the Holy See to settle this question 
 with us, is only an agent, a mandatory, an attorney. And so that there 
 may be no misunderstandingiSO that thetrausactionmay be final, so that 
 the settlement may no longer be open to diacu:)Sion by the religious au- 
 thorities, we insist that the Pope Bnall ratify the arrangement. There ifl 
 no question of having the law sanctioned by the Pope. Let us not play 
 upon words The law will be sanctioned by the Lieutenant Governor, 
 and it will take effect in the terms of the agreement. That is to say, Sir, 
 that if the Pope does not ratify the arrangement there will be neither 
 interest nor principal paid, but we shall then say to the religious au- 
 thorities : ' Vou appointed an agent to settle this question ; we came to 
 an underatanditig, and if you do not ratify tbe act of your mandatory it 
 ia your own fault, for we, the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, 
 through the constituted auth )ritio3, have done our p»rt, have kept our 
 promise.' I am pleased to believe that the iTjportance of tbe precaution 
 taken by us will be understood. But once more, if there is any serious 
 objection to that part (of the matter) it is very easy to come to an un- 
 derstanding. But in that case we mujt substitute something equivalent. 
 What shall we put? We m ict, after ail, put aomething to express that 
 the transaction will not avail till the Pope ratifies it. Well, Sir, we 
 said ' the Pope' intentionally. We did not say the Congregation of the 
 Propaganda. We did not say the Secretary of State. We said the Pope. 
 We desire that the ratification be given by the head of the church, in 
 Older that ail tho-e interested may be bound " 
 
 W^hen we know that that was the intention of the Legisla- 
 ture of the Province, when we know it from the statutes, 
 from the correspondence, and from all that we know of the 
 facts regarding these estates, and when we know it also 
 from the declaration of the First Minister of the Province 
 in which the Act was passed— an explanation which was ac- 
 cepted by both sides of the House, for be it remembered, as 
 the hon. member for Northumberland (VTr. Mitchell) said last 
 night, the Act was afterwards passed unanimously, and the 
 FirHt Minister was not asked, after his explanation, to sub- 
 stitute anything for that provision — we are now actually 
 at-ked to advise His Exoollency that all this had a different 
 and an occult meaning, and that the Legislature of Quebec 
 did not mean what the Firtft Minister of that Province said 
 it did in passing this Act. Then, in the letter of the Ist 
 May, 1888, he goes on to say : 
 
 " That the amount of the compensation fixed shall remain in the 
 possession ot the Government of the Province as a special deposit until 
 the Pope has ratified the said settlement, and made known nis wishes 
 respecting the distribution of suon amount in this country." 
 
 Before I leave this stage of the transaction, I repeat that 
 this was distinct legislation against any possible rights or 
 
SI 
 
 I 
 
 claims on the part of the Pope, aod that aoy Protestant 
 Legislature in this country — I say more — the Parliament of 
 the United Kingdom, if it had been called upon to pass a 
 statute afifecting property in regard to which there were 
 foreign claimants, high or low, would have passed a pro- 
 vision to that effect, and achieving that result. I admit 
 that the words which give otfenco to persons of various 
 other persuasions thrr .ghout Canada and make distinot 
 reference to the Pope, might not have appeared in the 
 preamble to nn Art of the United Kingdom. 1 admit that it 
 would have been in better taste, in view of the great differ- 
 ence of opinion which exists in this country on matters of 
 that kind, if that language had not appeared in the Act, 
 and if the same result had been obtained, as the First Min- 
 ister of Quebec says it might have been, in a different way ; 
 but the result, whatever may be the form of words used, is 
 a proper result, guarding all the rights of the Province until 
 everyone else had given up his claim. And, when it comes 
 to a question of disallowance, we are here to advise dis- 
 allowance or allowance, not upon the form of words, not 
 upon the question of the draftsman's taste, but according to 
 what we believe was the true meaning and intent of the Act 
 itself. Now, let me again, before I leave the subject 
 of the Act, call the attention of the House to the 
 fact that all the argument which has been made with 
 regard to the necessity for disallowance is based on objec- 
 tions to the preamble oi the Act. In the history of dis- 
 allowance in this country, in the history of the disallowance 
 of our own statutes in the mother country — and wo know 
 that scores of them were disallowed — the records will be 
 searched in vain to find one which was disallowed because 
 the preamble was not agreeable to anybody. 1 do not pre- 
 tend to dispute the statement of my hon. friend from 
 Muskoka, (Mr. O'Brien), that the preamble is a part of the 
 Act. So is the title a part of the Act, and so are the bead- 
 notes of sections ; but has anyone ever hoard of a Govern- 
 ment being asked to disallow an Act because they did not 
 like the wording of the title or of the head notes ? The 
 preamble is understood to be a part of the Act, for the pur- 
 pose of interpreting the Act, but there is nothing in this Act 
 for which interpretation is needed, and I distinguish, in 
 referring to this, the most trivial and technical objection 
 which could be taken to a statute, between those putts of 
 the preamble which assert that certain correspondence has 
 passed, such as this between the Premier and the Cardinal 
 at Eome, and those pieambles which recite certain agree- 
 ments which the statute validates. Who can doubt that 
 
k 
 
 III 
 
 5' .| 
 i la 
 
 nine tenths of the agitation, and nine-tenths of the 
 trouble, in reference to this measure have arisen from 
 the fact that in March, 1888, there oflme from Home 
 a telegram stating that the Pope allowed the Govern- 
 ment to retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits' 
 estates as a special deposit, forgetting that this was 
 a part of othor nogotiations, which gave it an in- 
 offensive meaning. Yes, nine-tenths of the agitation for 
 disallowance has arisen from the fact that that telegram 
 came from Rome and that this Act asserts that such a 
 telegram did come, although within the four corners of 
 the Act there is not a word bat-ed upon that telegram ; 
 and although all the statute does is to ratify and confirm an 
 agreement between Father Turgeon and the Government of 
 Quebec — the terms of which were that$400,000 should be 
 paid as between the two litigants, and that, before any 
 money should be within the power of the Lieut?n'\nt 
 Governor of Quebec to dinpose of, the two litigants 
 should give up any claim whatsoever on the estates — I 
 assert, without fear of contradiction among people who 
 will consider this matter in a calm and business-like way, 
 that that part of the preamble, which is the only part re- 
 levant to the purposes of the Act itself, is utterly harmless, 
 entirely business-like, free frooi the slightest suspicion of 
 derogating from any right of Hor Majesty, and from the 
 slightest suspicion of infringement of the Constitution. 
 !Now, it is said, and the House will remember with what 
 gravity, and force, and eloquence it was urged upon the 
 Houne ihis afternoon, that this statute denies the supremacy 
 of the Queen. I h«/e read to you all the passages which 
 refer in the slightest degree to any person outside of Her 
 Majesty's dominions. I have stated the facts, in regard to 
 the position ot this property, the negotiations which were 
 had in regard to it, and I will leave it to the dispassionate 
 judgment of the House, or of any mau. Catholic or Protest- 
 ant, in this country, whether the Act in the slightest 
 degree, considered in the light of the surrounding circum- 
 stances, aiiects in any way the authority or the supremacy 
 of Hc»^ Majesty, spiritual or temporal. Let me ask : 
 What rights Her Majesty had in this property — as the 
 spiritual or as the temporal sovereign ? Absolutely 
 none whatever— absolutely none whatever, excepting 
 that she stood as the trustee for the Province of Quebec. 
 Her own personal rights were not affected, her 
 sovereign rights were not affected. These were no 
 part ot Her Majesty's domain, they were no part 
 <rf Her Majestj^'s revenue. If they were, under this Act, aU 
 
 
f 
 
 of the 
 len from 
 n. Home 
 Govern- 
 Jesaits' 
 his was 
 
 an in- 
 lon for 
 clogram 
 such a 
 nerfct of 
 ogram ; 
 firm an 
 ment of 
 mid bo 
 re any 
 at?nint 
 tigants 
 ates — I 
 ie who 
 ce way, 
 3art Te- 
 rmless, 
 oion of 
 3m the 
 tation. 
 h what, 
 on the 
 'emacy 
 which 
 )f Her 
 jard to 
 h were 
 jionate 
 'rotest- 
 ightest 
 iircum- 
 emacy 
 a auk : 
 IS the 
 ilutely 
 epting 
 laebeo. 
 , her 
 ire no 
 
 part 
 
 uOt, All 
 
 sold and tamed into money to-morrow, not one dollar will 
 ever pass into Her Majesty's Treasury, pablio or private, 
 not one dollar will ever be disposed of under the advioe of 
 Her Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty, with regard to 
 those lands, had no interest, either as the spiritual or the 
 temporal sovereign. Let me ask then in what particular that 
 Act derogates from the authority of Her Majesty as bead of 
 her church, or as head of any religion in the British 
 Empire ? None whatever. It is purely a question of tem* 
 por»' concern, purely of the public domain of the Province 
 of Quebec. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barron) 
 said last night that it derogated from her authority, inas- 
 much as it placed a portion of the public money in Quebec 
 at the disposal of a foreigner. It does not, I submit, place 
 the public money of the Province of Quebec at the disposal 
 of a foreigner; it sets aside a sum of money for the extin- 
 guishment of a claim upon the public property of Quebec, 
 and then calls upon those which are litigants in regard to 
 it, to abide by the decision of their arbitrator in the matter. 
 When that $400,000 Hhall have been paid from the Treasury 
 of the Province of Quebec, Her Majoety has not the slightest 
 right or interest with regard to the distribution of it. 
 In the ordinary course it would be paid to one of the 
 claimants on the property ; but as there happen to be two, 
 it is paid into the hands, or held subject to the order, of 
 the person who has to settle the disputes between them. 
 By what right can it be claimed that Her Majesty, or 
 that her Government, either in England or the Province of 
 Quebec, has a right to distribute a single dollar of that 
 money ? Surely the rights of the Crown and of the Province 
 end when the Government there is able to say : " We have 
 received the deed of all thase outstanding claims for which 
 we consent to pay the money ;" and to contend after that that 
 there is any royal or legislative right to control the sub- 
 division of the money, would be like saying that after a 
 grant of public lands had passed under the great seal, the 
 Province had a right to say who should have interest in 
 the land for all time to come. Now, I would be content if so 
 much had not been said upon this subject as to mislead the 
 judgment of hundreds of persons in this country, whose 
 judgment upon any public question is well worth having 
 — I would be content to rest the case there, and 
 to say that no right of Her Majesty either as a 
 temporal or a spiritual power, is in the least degree in- 
 volved ; but when we are taken so far afield upon the ques- 
 tion as to go back into the legislation of .SOO years ago, 
 when we are asked to apply to this question the Supremacy 
 
24 
 
 ■ ' U 
 
 Act, which could not have the slightest bearing upon it, 
 even if it be in force in the Province of Quebec, I feel 
 bound to ^oUo^ out that argument to seme extent, for the 
 purpose of showing how unreasorable the demand is that, 
 under the British North America Act, and in this day of 
 colonial rights and of self government, the federal authority 
 in Canada, should undertake to control the legisla- 
 tion of one of its Provitices, according to the coercive legis- 
 lation which used to exist in the mother country 300 yea^s 
 ago. I have reminded the House whut privileges were, 
 even as regards the Act of Supremacy, ceded to the people 
 of Quebec by the Terms of Capitulation, by the terms of the 
 treaty and by the terms of the Quebec Act. 1 have shown 
 that absolute freedom of worship was extended by the 
 Treaty of Paris and by the Quebec Act ; 1 have shown the 
 House, I think, vvbat is the meaning of the reservation as to 
 the laws ot Great Britain as regards religion. Sir, in the 
 year 17b*6, the law officers of the Crown made this state- 
 ment on their responsibility to the Government : 
 
 " Her lifajesfy's Roman Catholic subjects residing in the countrieB in 
 America ceded to Her Majesly by the Treaty of Paris are not subject, in 
 the colonies, to the incapacities, deprivation of rights and penaltioB to 
 which the Roman Oatholic cribjc^ts in the K'ngdom are subject." 
 
 The First Minister of that country. Lord North, then said 
 the same thing in debate, a. biief extract of which I will 
 road to you : 
 
 ** It has been the opinion of very many able lawyers that the best way 
 to establish the happiness of the inhabitants is to give them their own 
 laws, as far as relates to their own possessions. Their possessions were 
 marked out to them at the time of the treaty ; to give them those pos- 
 sessionf] without giving them laws to maintain those possessions would 
 not be very wise. As to the free exercise ot their religion, it likewise is 
 no more ih^n what is confirmed to them by treaty, as far as the laws of 
 Great Britain can confirm it. Now, there la no doubt that the laws of 
 Great Britain do permit the very full and free exercise of any religion 
 different from that of the Church ot England, in any of tLe colonies ; 
 therefore, I appr'^hend that we ought not to extend them to Oaiada." 
 
 Well, Sir, let us not, in dealing with this question of supre- 
 macy, be more restrictive on the people of our own country 
 in favor of the authority of the sovereign, whom we all 
 revere and whose powers and prerogatives we all wiah to 
 maintain, than the sovereigns of Great Britain have been 
 themselves. What has been their action in respect to this 
 question of the supremacy ? Let me road to you a passage 
 in Lord Thurlow's etatemert in the debates ot 1774 : 
 
 "I stated in the beginning that it did not affect to relate to Canada; 
 but I said that the capitulation did reserve all their v*feeta, movable and 
 immovable But even if it were otherwise, is it to be supposed that the 
 tithes would accrue to the King ? The tithe is collateral to the laud, 
 QQt sunk in it. To give the right to it is giving to the aecalar body aa 
 
 ii'i 
 
 uy, 
 
» 
 
 »g upon it, 
 )eo, I feel 
 ut for the 
 d is that, 
 his day of 
 authority 
 e legisla- 
 tive legis- 
 300 yea»'8 
 68 were, 
 he people 
 ms of the 
 ve shown 
 id by the 
 lown the 
 tiou as to 
 11 r, in the 
 tiis state- 
 
 OQntries in 
 subject, in 
 enaltiee to 
 ict." 
 
 :hen said 
 I will 
 
 e best way 
 their own 
 sions were 
 those pos- 
 jas would 
 likewise is 
 he laws of 
 le laws of 
 r religion 
 colonies ; 
 iiadft." 
 
 ►f supre- 
 country 
 
 we all 
 wiah to 
 ve been 
 
 to this 
 passage 
 
 Canada ; 
 'able and 
 that the 
 he laud, 
 bodj as 
 
 well as the regular clergy all they were in possession of before. It Was 
 always in my opinion an established fact, that the clergy (i^. Oanada) 
 were entitled to tithes though they might not have use for them." 
 (Debates, 1774, page 71). 
 
 So that the people in the Provioco of Quebec, who are 
 said to-day to be under the provisions of a Supremacy Act 
 so severe, that they cannot recognise the superiority of a 
 foreign bishop, wore, in 1174, by Her Majesty's Attorney 
 General, declared to be subject to their own laws 
 so far that their clergy were entitled to collect 
 tithes from the people, although perhaps not by 
 authority of law. Wolli, seventy-six years ago, by a 
 solemn Act of State, the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
 Quebec was recognised by the <7overnor of the Province 
 under royal instructions. We are told that the Act of 
 Supremacy was in force ; and yet that man was a bishop 
 simply by the superiority of tbe first bishop of bis church. 
 He was a bishop because he had received from Rome 
 the bulls which, under the statutes of Queen Elizabeth, 
 it was high treason to bring into the country at all. That 
 was the way in which the religious restrictions of the 
 people of this country were treated upwards of seventy-five 
 years ago by the Imperial authorities ; but after the lapse 
 of three-quarters of a century we are to bo wiser and we are 
 to enforce against a great section of our free people legisla- 
 tion reserving rights to the Crown which the Crown de- 
 liberately chose to ignore seventy-six years ago. In 
 ISlt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec received 
 a mandamus, calling him as a bibhop to the Lei^islalive 
 Council of the Province. He held his seo by the will 
 and under the bull of his superior bishop, and he was called 
 by virtue of his office to bo one of the rulers of the 
 Province of Quebec. In 1839 Governor Col borne issued 
 letters patent to incorporate the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
 Quebec and all his successors, whomsoever they might bo, 
 appointed by the foreign superior and under bulls, which, 
 according to the legislation that these hen. gentleman ask 
 us to apply to Quebec today, it would be high irea&on to in- 
 troduce into the country. In 1838 a Roman Catholic 
 college was incorporated in the Province of Prince 
 Edward Island, and the question was submitted to tbe law 
 officers of the Crown fifty years ago, whether it was 
 a violation of the supremacy of the Crown. It was 
 a violation of the supremacy of the Crown fifty times 
 over if anything within this Act of Quebec is a viola- 
 tion of that supremacy. But the law officers of the 
 Crown advised that it was within the competency of the 
 local powers as they then existed, and th&t it was no dero* 
 
It 
 
 ^11 
 
 ^Hii 
 
 ijiii 
 
 gation of the Act of Supremacy, if that Act coald be held 
 to apply to that Province. Bat since that period, since the 
 period when the officers in this country charged with the 
 maintenance of the rights of the Crown began to be infin- 
 itely less restrictive than we are asked to be to-day, three- 
 quarters of a century later, what a change has taken place 
 in the colonies of British North America. We have been 
 placed upon a diflFerent footing. We have received free 
 institutions, we have received legislative powers, and by 
 the voice of our Sovereign, by the voice of Uer Parliament, 
 by the policy of Her Ministers, as expressed in every act 
 of State, it has been declared that, subject only to those 
 matters which are of Imperial concern, we shall be as 
 fully clothed with the rights of self-governing freemen in 
 every part of Canada as are the subjects in the heart 
 of England. Yet we are told now that we are under, 
 not only the restrictive legislation of 300 years ago, but 
 that no Legislature of Canada has power to repeal anj such 
 restrictive legislation, and that any restrictive legislation of 
 that kind is beyond the competency of a Provincial Legis- 
 lature. Why, we heard last night the singular statement 
 that a Provincial Legislature has only a derived or dele- 
 gated authority. 1 deny that statement as explicitly as it 
 is courteous to deny any statement made by any hon. mem- 
 ber of this House* I go further and 1 say that, within the 
 limits of its authority and sulject only to the power of dis- 
 allowance, a Provincial Leginlature is as absolute as is the 
 Imperial Parliament itself. The Imperial Parliament is not 
 restricted as to the subjects over which it can legislate, the 
 Provincial Legislatures are restricted in regard to the sub- 
 jects on which they can legislate, but in legislating upon 
 these subjects a Provincial Legislature has all the rights 
 which it IS possible for the Imperial Parliament to confer. 
 I say more : I say that a Provincial Legislature, legislat- 
 ing upon subjects which are given to it by the British 
 North America Act, has the power to repeal an Imperial 
 statute prior to the British North America Act affecting 
 those subjects. It has been ijrged upon the House these 
 two days that we had no power, and that the Ant of 28 and 
 29 Victoria, called the Colonial Enactments Act, provided 
 that no statute of a colony should have force as against an 
 Imperial statute. But after the statute of 28 and 29 
 Victoria, the British North America Act was passed, and 
 it gives us, as I have said, a division of powers between 
 the two bodies, but it gives the two bodies in legislating in 
 their respective spheres all the powers that the Imperial 
 Legislature possessed. The hoc. member for Yiotoria (Mr. 
 
d be lietd 
 since the 
 
 with the 
 
 be infill- 
 ly, three- 
 {en place 
 ave been 
 ved free 
 
 and by 
 'iiament, 
 •very act 
 to ihose 
 11 be as 
 Jem en in 
 le heart 
 e under, 
 ago, but 
 kDj such 
 lation of 
 
 Legis- 
 atement 
 or dele- 
 tly as it 
 n. mem- 
 thin the 
 ■of dis- 
 
 is the 
 it is not 
 ate, the 
 le sub- 
 r upon 
 rights 
 confer, 
 egislat- 
 British 
 operial 
 footing 
 
 these 
 28 and 
 ovided 
 inst an 
 nd 29 
 d, and 
 itween 
 ing in 
 iperial 
 »(Mr. 
 
 Barron) was misled, I think, last nighi in his reference fo 
 the British North America Act. It is true that the British 
 North America Act seems to contain in the 129th seotion 
 a reservation in that behalf; it reads : 
 
 " Except as otherwise provided by this Act all laws in force in 
 Canada, *Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the union and all courts 
 of civil and criminal jurisdiction and all legal commiseions, powers and 
 authorities and all officers, judicial, adminibtrati <re and ministerial ex- 
 isting therein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova 
 tjcotia and .Vew Brunswick respectively, as if tbe Union bad not been 
 made ; subject nevertheless (eicept wiih respect to such as are enacted 
 by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Par- 
 liament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be re- 
 Eealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Oanada or by the 
 egislature of the respective Provinces, according to the authority of 
 the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act." 
 
 The hon. gentleman read it as boing a restriction by 
 the British North America Act against our repealing or 
 modifying an Imperial statute relating to any subject under 
 oar control. I do not so regard it. I regard it as contain- 
 ing neither a grant of power nor a restriction as to our 
 legislating upon Imperial statutes. But since that Act was 
 passed, in which the Imperial Parliament virtually said : 
 " We say nothing as to Imperial statutes ;" we have had 
 three distinct decisions of the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council in regard to legislation by a Province upon a 
 subject within iU control, and declaring that the Provincial 
 Legislature has power to repeal a statute of the Imperial 
 Parliament, The first is the case of Harris against Davies, 
 page 279, which wau an appeal from New South Wales, and 
 in which this was held with reference to a statute of James 
 I, which had distinct force in that colony : 
 
 " Held that the Legislature of New South ^ales had power to repeal 
 the statute of James I, which according to its true construction placed 
 an action for slander for words spoken, upon the same footing, as regards 
 costs and other matters, as an action for written slander." 
 
 The statute of James I made distinct provision as to the 
 amount of costs which the litigant' could rc30ver when he 
 only obtained a verdict for a certain amount for slander ; 
 the Legislature passed an Av.^ repugnant to that and the pro- 
 visions of the Colonial Enactment Act were cited. The 
 judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir Barnes 
 Peacock, %ho naid : 
 
 ** Their Lordshipa are of opinion tnat there are no sufficient grounds 
 for reversing the judgment of the court below. Their Lordships are of 
 opinion that the Uolonial Legislature had the powei- to repeal the statute 
 of James I if they ihoaght fit, and they are also of opinion that looking 
 at the first section of 11 /ictoria, No. 13, it was the intention of the Leg- 
 islature to place an action for words spoken, upon the same footing as 
 regards costs and other matters as an aotion for written slander." 
 
I 
 
 !'!ii 
 
 1, I ■ 
 
 
 
 ii< 
 
 '•V 
 
 ill 1 
 
 28 
 
 Mr. BAERON Have they a statute' in that colony cor- 
 responding with the British North America Act ? 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Yea. I have examined that, 
 and it conveys no larger grant of legislative powers than the 
 Britif-h North America Act does to us. If the hon. gentleman 
 will look in the same volume to the case of Powell vs. Apollo 
 Candle Company, Limited, in which the law of New South 
 Wales came up likewise, he will find that the conclusion 
 which he urged as to the Colonial Logi^lature being a mere 
 delegate of the Imperial Parliament v^as fully considered and 
 discuBsed, and princinally on reference to the case from 
 Canada of Hodge v^. The Queen. The Judicial Committee 
 said : 
 
 •' Two cases have come before this board in which the powers ol Colo- 
 nial Legialaturpg have been a good deal considered, but these cascJ are 
 of too late a date to have been known to vhe Supreme Court when their 
 judgment was delivere.l. The first was the case of Regina vs. Burah (l), 
 iu which the question was whether a section of an Indian Act conferring 
 upon the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal the power to determine whether 
 the Act, or any part of it, should be applied to a certain district, was or 
 was uot ultra viret. In the judgment of this board, given by the Lord 
 Chancellor, the legislation is declared to be intra vires, and the Lord 
 Chancellor lays down the general law in these terms : ' The Indian 
 Legislature has powers expressly limited by the Act of tho Imperial 
 Parliament which created it, and it can of course do nothing beyond the 
 limits which circumscribe these powers. But when acting within those 
 limits it is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers ot legislation 
 as l^rge, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament itself.' The same 
 doctrine has been laid down in a later case of Hodge vs. The Queen (2), 
 where the question arose whether the Legislature of Ontario had or bad 
 not the power of entruiting to a local authority — a board of commis- 
 sioners — the power of enacting regulations with respect to their Liquor 
 License Act of 1877, of creating offences for the breach of those regula- 
 tion?, and annexing penalties thereto Their lord3hips held that they 
 had that power. U was argued th<>n, as it has been argued to-day, that 
 the Local Legislature is in the nature of an ageat or delegate, and, on 
 the principle delegatus non potest delegare, the Local Legislature must 
 exercise ar. its functions itself, and can delegate or entrust none of them 
 to other persons or parties. But the judgment, after reciting that such 
 had been the conteutiun, goes on to say : ' It appears to their loruships, 
 however, that the objectioi thus raised by the appellants is founded on 
 an t'tjtire miscoDception of the true character and position of the Provin- 
 cial Legislatures. They are in no sense delegates of or acting under any 
 mandate from the Imperial Parliament. Whan the British North America 
 Act enacted that th^re should be a Legislature for Ontario, and that its 
 Legislative Assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for 
 the Province and for provincial purposes in relation to the natters ena- 
 merated in section 92, it conferred powers, not in any sens j to be exer- 
 cised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, but 
 authority as plenary and as am^ie within the limits prescribed by sec- 
 tion 92, as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its power pos- 
 sessed or could bestow, ^vithin these limits of subjects and areas the 
 Local Legislature is supreme and has the same authority as the Imperial 
 Parliament." 
 
 (1) 3 App. Cas., 889. (2) 9 App. Oaaes, 117, ! ^^ ^ . 
 
2# 
 
 colony cor- 
 
 t? 
 
 kmined that, 
 ers than the 
 . gentleman 
 11 us. Apollo 
 New South 
 ) conclusion 
 >ing a mere 
 isidered and 
 case from 
 Committee 
 
 owers of Oolo- 
 
 hese cascj are 
 
 irt when their 
 
 vs. Burhh (I), 
 
 let conferring 
 
 tuine whether 
 
 istrict, waa or 
 
 1 by the Lord 
 
 and the Lord 
 
 •The Indian 
 
 ' the Imperial 
 
 ig beyond the 
 
 r within those 
 
 aerial Parlia- 
 
 of legislation 
 
 )lf.' The same 
 
 le Queen (2), 
 
 had or bad 
 
 i of commis- 
 
 their Liquor 
 
 those regula- 
 
 5ld that they 
 
 to-day, that 
 
 ;ate, and, on 
 
 alature must 
 
 lone of them 
 
 Ig that such 
 
 iir loruships, 
 
 founded on 
 
 'the Provin- 
 
 g under any 
 
 rth America 
 
 and that its 
 
 ike laws for 
 
 natters ena- 
 
 to be exer- 
 
 iament, but 
 
 }ed by sec- 
 
 power pos- 
 
 id areas the 
 
 he Imperial 
 
 though it can be contended that this btutute 
 ■^ — roe a derogation from the restrictions of the 
 xxxjo — from the opprebsive restrictioDH of the 
 
 Well, Sir, later on we had the not forgotten caae of the 
 Queen against Riel before the Privy Council in which this 
 htate of aifairi was shown. There had been three Imperial 
 statutes passed exprossely for the roguiatiou of the tiial of 
 offeuces in Rupert's Land, now known as the North-West 
 Territories. The statutes of Cacada contained provisions 
 repugnant to those, and on the appeal to the Privy Council 
 it was decided that the Parliamenl of Canada had the 
 power to pass legislation changing thobe statutes and re- 
 pealing them if necessary. I infer irum this that in touch- 
 ing on a question of religious liberty, which is surely a 
 Civil iii,ht 01 the people of the Province, the Piovincial 
 Legislatuie is untrammelled in the exercise of its power by 
 the Imperial legislation of conturies ago. I say, therefore, 
 that, even 
 was in any 
 Supremacy 
 
 Supremacy Act — and it it should bo seriously decided that 
 the Supremacy Act prevails in British North America , 
 that we have no freedom of religion, that no man has aright 
 to dissent from the Church of England, that no man has a 
 right to exercise the Catholic religion, that no man has 
 a right to exercise submission to a superior, whether 
 that superior be the president of a conference, the moderator 
 of an assembly, or the first bishop of his church, then, I 
 suy, the first duty of this House, the first duty of every 
 Legisl.'iture in the Provinces of Canada, would be to declare 
 that we have in thi» 19th century the rights of freemen 
 and the rights of religious liberty according to our con- 
 sciences, and to say that that Act, ;^U0 years old, and 
 for 200 years and upwards ignored in the United King, 
 dom, shall not reutrict the people of these Provinces in 
 their right of belief, and freedom of worship and their 
 right under the British North America Act to have a con- 
 stitution similar in form to that which our fellow subjects 
 in the United Kingdom enjoy. Let me see how fiar tLj 
 Provinces, from time to time, in the exercise of their right 
 of self-government conferred upon them, have insisted on 
 that policy, and have insisted up(m that right with the full 
 recognition of the Impeiiul autnorities, for let it be remem- 
 bered that before 1867 our statutes had to go home and be 
 revised by the Colonial Office under the advice of the 
 Crown officers. Why, Sir, in the year 1850 the Homan 
 Catholic bishops in the Province of Upper Canada were in- 
 corporated, and their successors from time to time canonic- 
 ally appointed. ** Their successors," our friend fromSlmcoe 
 will teU us, " oh, yes, but not successoi'S recognising any 
 
16 
 
 authority from a foreign STrperior." Bead the statute, and 
 I wiirgive up the argument if it does not say : 
 
 " In oommanioQ with the Church of Rome." 
 Therefore, in 1850, the Legislature of Upper Canada incor- 
 porated those bishops and gave them oorporato powers, 
 on the one condition which, according to the hon. member 
 for Simooe, it is unconstitutional we should aliow in this 
 country at all, namely, that they should be in com. 
 munion with the See of JRome. In 1854, Sir, the same. thing 
 was done for all the bishops for all time to come in 
 Lower Canada ; and an Act for the division of the parishes 
 of that Province for the purposes of public worship, undor 
 the supervision of those bishops, was autho^i^ed by the 
 Province. In 1862 all the bishops of the Province of New 
 Erunswick for all time to come were incorporated. You 
 can look at the statutes of every Parliament in British 
 America, and you will find precisely the same legislation ; 
 and the main of those corporate powers is that those who 
 are to exercise them shall be bishops in communion with the 
 Church of Rome. We have heard to-night, and we heard 
 last night, about the laches of the people, who, we are told, 
 were not to be precluded, not having objociod to the 
 Jesuits' Incorporation Act of 1^0/, fro*.^- objecting to it 
 now. Perhaps not. We wer^ t.old that a jreat evil had 
 been done, that a great class r^ public sinners in .bis country 
 had been given powers of incorporation in 1887, and 
 that it was not too latu to rise in indignant protest. 
 We were told that a people does not lose its right to object 
 to provisions which are repugnant to an English statute of 
 300 years ago, which they contend and we deny, has any 
 force, or ought to have any force, in this country, iu regard 
 to people of other religious beliefs at any rate, it is perhaps 
 not too late. But they are not only a year behind the 
 time; they ^re 37 years behind the time, because 37 years 
 ago the Parliament of Canada incorporated a body of these 
 Jesuits, for the actual purpose of teaching what the 
 hon. member for North Simcoe calls their wicked tenets, 
 in the Province of Quebec. In 1852. Sir, St. Mary's College, 
 in the city of Montreal, to be taught by Jesuits, and the 
 corporators of which were Jesuits, was incorporated by the 
 Legislature of Canada; and in turning to the division list 
 on that Act, as one of my hon. colloagaes did last night, 
 he showed me th«it 29 Protestants and 27 Catholics voted 
 for it, and only 7 voted against it altogether in that whole 
 Legislature. We had, Sir, 37 years ago religious toleration 
 wliioh would have frowned down the argument which was 
 presented to this House this afternoon, if it had been clothed 
 
31 
 
 tatnte, and 
 
 lada incor- 
 
 te powers, 
 
 Q. member 
 
 >w in this 
 
 ) in com. 
 
 ame.thin^ 
 
 • oome in 
 
 le parishes 
 
 hip, under 
 
 i-ed by the 
 
 36 of N"ew 
 
 ted. You 
 
 in British 
 
 sgislation ; 
 
 those who 
 
 3 with the 
 
 we heard 
 
 e are told, 
 
 od to the 
 
 ting to it 
 
 t evil had 
 
 is country 
 
 1887, and 
 
 - protest. 
 
 to object 
 
 statute of 
 
 has any 
 
 iu regard 
 
 a perhaps 
 
 lind the 
 
 37 years 
 
 of these 
 
 hat the 
 
 I tenets, 
 
 College, 
 
 and the 
 
 by the 
 
 ision list 
 
 jt night, 
 
 08 voted 
 
 at whole 
 
 )leration 
 
 ioh was 
 
 clothed 
 
 'M 
 
 tf,. 
 
 
 in ten times the ability and forcp with which we stw it 
 paraded before the House to-day. Then, in 1868, a college 
 for the same purpose at Sault au Recollet, in the Province of 
 Quebec, was incorporated ; and I ask members on both sides 
 of this question, whether, down to a few weeks ago we 
 have ever heard any remonstrance against the powers 
 which were conferred on those bodies, or whether any 
 section of the people of this country, or any one, high or 
 low, of one denomination or another — and I speak of 
 those who have been appealing to publio opinion on this 
 question from the pulpits with the profoundest respect — has 
 ever objected to the teachings of those institutions, or 
 uttered any reproach with regard to their conduct in this 
 country, with regard to their loyalty, or with regard to >he 
 eflfects of their instruction or example on the youth of 
 this country. Again addressinqj myself to the argument 
 that it is not necessary for us in British North America to 
 be more restrictive as regards the rights and powers of the 
 Crown than the Crown has been in England, let me call 
 the attention of the House to the fact that 80 years 
 ago, in the heart of England, a magnificent institution 
 of learning was placed under the control of this same 
 order, in which they have been carrying on, every year since, 
 the education of hundreds of J^nglish youths, and that that 
 institution at Stoneyhurst has had added to it other like 
 institutions all over Enrland. Are we to say that the Act 
 of Supremacy, the keen edge of which is not to be applied 
 in Great Britain, or that the prohibitory legislation with 
 regard to the Jesuit Order, which is not to be applied in 
 Great Britain, must be applied to one section of the people 
 in British North America, and applied under our federal 
 system by the arbitrary power of disallowance with which 
 His Excellency is entrusted ? I might well reiterate, 
 but I will not do further than refer to the eloquent and 
 forcible argument which you, Sir (Mr. Colby) addressed 
 to the House last night, in which you pointed out that we 
 had lived to too late an age for any section of the people of 
 this country to be willing to live under a government by 
 which that kind of legislation would be applied. In the 
 exercise of the immense powers, limited though the range 
 of subjects may be, which are given to the Provincial 
 Legislatures, there is no Provincial Legislature in Canada, 
 which, legislating upon the subject of the civil and 
 religious liberties of its people, would consent to have 
 its powers curtailed by the Federal Government tak- 
 ing from the wall a rusty weapon which had hung idly 
 there for 200 years. I will spare the patience of the 
 House and not do what I intended to do, namely, 
 
Bi 
 
 ii'',i 
 
 
 w 
 
 ill 
 I'i 
 
 ill 
 
 iii 
 
 I, hi 
 -II 
 
 
 qaote legislation still in force with regard to all Her 
 Majesty's domain, but a dead letter for scores of years — 
 legislation which, if it were in force would put one-third of 
 the people of this city into prison to- morrow, for the offence 
 
 f heresy, the offeucj of non-couformity, the oflfeooe of not 
 taking the sacrament, or for daring to profess the belief of 
 Unitarians, some of theHe statutes being still actually nnre- 
 pealod. But what is the ue^e? The greatest writer on the 
 subject of criminal law which the century has produced, Sir 
 Kitzjaraes Stephens, has put the story well in two para- 
 graphs, and his authority upon it will not be denied ; the 
 acceptability of his sentiments with regard to the United 
 Kingdom will not be questioned ; and he says this: 
 
 " For 200 years GovernmeDt has been carried on-—" 
 
 And he is speaking of government in the United Kingdom— 
 
 —"without prejudice to diflferences of opinion which in previous times 
 were regarded as altogether fundamental." 
 
 For the last 2u0 years in England, I venture to say, 
 government could not ha^e been carried on if it bad 
 not been by practically ignoring legislation which pre- 
 viously was levelled at differences of opinion which were 
 considered altogether fundamental. At that time a man 
 who did not conform to the religion of his neighbors and 
 the religion of the law was put out of the pale of the law 
 altogether and treated as a public criminal. A great body 
 of that legislation has never been repealed to this day; a 
 great body of it is just as much in force in the Daminion of 
 Canada against our freedom of opinion, against our freedom 
 of worship, as the statutes which have been invoked yes- 
 terday and to-day; and yet when we read this lesson 
 that for 200 years it has only been posaible to carry on 
 government in England by ignoring those differences of 
 opinion which used to be aimed at by the criminal law and 
 were considered as fundamental, we are, in this country, 
 to look still at the old fundamental differences and curtail 
 our liberties by the strong arm of the federal authority ; and, 
 in the exercise of federal power, we are to curtail the rights 
 of our Legislatures to infringe upon, impugn, or make 
 any enactnfent repugnant to this legislation which 
 has been buried under the weight of public opi- 
 nion for upwards of two centuried. Well, I forgot to 
 say, and I will digress from my argument for a moment to 
 mention it, that, in 187 1, by a statute of the Province of 
 Quebec, there was an Act passed incorporating the whole 
 Society of Jesus in the Province. The order was precisely 
 the same society which was incorporated by the Act of 1887, 
 and the only difference is the difference of legislative provi- 
 sions as to the method of working their incorporation. From 
 
) all Her 
 
 of years^ 
 le-third of 
 he ofPenoe 
 Dce of not 
 e belief of 
 ally unre- 
 ter 00 the 
 duced, Sir 
 -WO para- 
 lied ; the 
 le United 
 
 ngdom — 
 ious times 
 
 to say, 
 ' it had 
 lich pre- 
 ich were 
 ) a man 
 bors and 
 
 the law 
 eat body 
 i day; a 
 linion of 
 freedom 
 ked yes- 
 I lesson 
 sarry on 
 inoes of 
 law and 
 lountry, 
 
 curtail 
 y ; and, 
 e rights 
 r make 
 
 which 
 c opi- 
 •got to 
 aent to 
 mce of 
 
 whole 
 ecisely 
 f 1887, 
 
 provi- 
 
 From 
 
 1871 to 1887, no word of objection wajl raised in any part of 
 the country to that incorporation, as to its constitutionality 
 or effect, but because m 1889 we did not advise disallowance 
 of an Act of precisely the same kind, we are to fall under 
 the cersure of this House. I have referred to the statement 
 of Sir Fitzjames Stephens as to the value of this legislation 
 to England, and I will cite another passage which, for its 
 terseness and its force, is worthy the attention of hon. 
 gentlemen. He says, reiforring to the legislation against 
 the Jesuits in the year of George IV : 
 
 " These powers, I believe, have been consiiered, ever since they were 
 passed, as an absolutely dead letter." 
 
 Later on, he says, as to ecclesiastical legislation : 
 
 "Our ancestors walked in darkness, and we have solved the problem, 
 which was too har<^ for them, by recognising liberty of conscience as s 
 principle of universal application." 
 
 Before I clo^e my argument, I must address myself for a 
 moment to a view which was put forward by the hon. 
 member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) as regards the effect 
 of the statut*^ on the fund f jr higher edudation in the Pro- 
 vince of Quebec. He put forward as a reason why this A.ct 
 should be disallowed, if no other reason existed, that it was 
 a breach of trust, and that it misapplied, or, to use his 
 own words, misappropriated the property which it 
 related to. I think the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. 
 Langelier) was quite right in challenging him to read 
 any part of the Act which sustained his argument, and 
 the House observed that he did ,ot respond to the challenge* 
 Let me remind the House at the outset that, in regard to 
 the sale of the property, the statute gives the Province no 
 greater power than it had before. It is a statute as its title 
 implies, for the settlement of the Jesuit claims. But the Pro- 
 vince of Quebec before that, had, under its existing legisla- 
 tion, ample power of sale, and the Act makes no provision 
 different from that which did exist as to what is to be 
 done with the property or the money. One would suppose, 
 listening to the argument of the hon. member for Simcoe 
 (Mr. McCarthy) although he did not state it in so 
 many words, there was a provision in the Act which 
 declared that that trust should no longer apply to 
 the property, that it might go into the consolidated 
 revenue and be disposed of as the Government pleased. Not 
 80. The last clause of the Act provides that when these 
 properties are sold, they are to be subject to the disposition 
 of the Legislature. Are we to infer and to advise disallow- 
 ance on the ground of that inffirence, that the Legislature of 
 the Province is going to betray its trust with regard to any 
 property, when it has never made that declaration or never 
 3t 
 
wm 
 
 
 hi'.,'. 
 
 sought power to desert the trust ? I will tell the House 
 what is the absolute fact on this point : That the minority 
 in the Provinoe of Qaebeo, that those interested in higher 
 eduoation, that those interested in any way in the ezeoution 
 of the trust, have not suffered one whit or jot by the passage 
 of the Act. The fact has been that the revenue from those 
 estates has been paid from year to year into the consolidated 
 revenue fund and not into the fund for higher education. 
 The fact is likewise that the proceeds of lar^o portions of 
 that propert}'^ which have already been sold have, from 
 year to year, been placed to the credit of the consolidated 
 revenue, and spent tor the general purposes of the Proviooe. 
 From year to year, the Provincial Legislature, not out of 
 tho revenues of the Jesuits' estates or the proceeds of the 
 JesuitB* estates, which were too small for that purpose, but 
 out of its consolidated revenue, has made ample provision 
 for the higher education of the Province ; and after 
 tho argument made this afternoon about the way in which 
 the minority would be prejudiced, and the supineness of the 
 minority in submitting, as it was said they would be willing 
 to submit, to this legislation, and the breach of trust, which 
 was apparent on the Act itself, in the diversion of the only 
 fund that exists for the higher education of the Province, 
 the House will be surprised to learn that from year to 
 year — I speak in general terms — the allowance in the 
 Province of Quebec for the higher education made out of 
 the consolidated revenue fund has been, on an average, more 
 than three times the annual proceeds of the Jesuits' estates. 
 Not a single school, high or low, in the Province of Quebec, 
 has been sustained from those estates so far, because the 
 fund was utterly insufficient. Ample provision was made 
 out of the consolidated revenue fund, and yet we are told 
 that when these estates disappear and go into the market, 
 they go free from any trust, and that neither the majority 
 nor the minority will have any security lor higher educa- 
 tion in the Province. It is sufficient for me to have shown 
 the House that the Act purports to do nothing of the kind, 
 that it sanctions nothing of the kind; but I think the argu- 
 ment has irresistible force when I show that these properties 
 have not been considered a securityfor these purposes at all. 
 The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. IVIcCarthy; challenged 
 the propriety of my report upon this Act, when, after 
 favoring the House with his long and interesting 
 theological discourse, and after having excited to some 
 extent the feelings and sympathy of the House, he de- 
 clared that I had presented that statute to His Excellency 
 as of no more importance than the eleven others accom- 
 panying it, which 1 had recommended should be left to 
 
he AoQM 
 
 minority 
 in higher 
 exeoatioD 
 le passage 
 rom those 
 Qsolidated 
 aduoation. 
 Ttions of 
 ive, from 
 isolidated 
 Proviooe. 
 ►t oat of 
 Is of the 
 •pose, bat 
 provision 
 ad after 
 in which 
 )8s of the 
 >e willing 
 at, which 
 the only 
 Province, 
 year to 
 ) in the 
 le out of 
 ge, more 
 estates. 
 Qaebec, 
 |>usc the 
 as made 
 are told 
 market, 
 najority 
 edaca- 
 Q shown 
 be kind, 
 le argu- 
 operties 
 !s at all. 
 lienged 
 I, after 
 jresting 
 o some 
 he de- 
 el lenoy 
 accom- 
 left to 
 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
 their operation. Now, upon the importance or nnimpor- 
 tanoe of the statutes it is not noceHsary for me to advise 
 His Excellency, but I take the responsibility of having 
 advised His Excellency that that Act was no less within 
 the powers of the Legislature of Quebec than the other 
 eleven which accompanied it. A:id when I have reminded 
 the hon. gentleman that it is not a question of trust, that 
 there is no diversion of trust by the authority of that Act, 
 and that these estates have not been the source from 
 which higher education has been supported, I think he will 
 be almost inclined to agree with me that I was right after 
 all in saying this was a fiscal matter within the control of 
 the Province. But this is not the first time, although it 
 is the first time this excitement has been raised with regard 
 to it, that this society, who have been spoken of so severely 
 in this debate, have been dealt with by tne Province of Que- 
 bec. I have in my possession a list extending back over 
 fifteen years of appropriations in the Supply Bills made 
 by the Legislature of Quebec to support the higher education 
 carried on by this society within that Province, and, 
 according to the statement we have heard this afternoon, all 
 that has b'^en unconstitutional, and every one of these Supply 
 Bills ought to have been disallowed, because, forsooth, they 
 were ignoring the distinction between Church and State. 
 I think it is rather late to treat this question as anything 
 other than a fiscal question, and that thedilference between 
 the Supply Bills in all those fiiteen years, and the Act 
 which is now being discussed is simply a question of de- 
 gree and of amount. The principle of supporting the higher 
 education carried on by that society in that Provioce has 
 been recognised, as 1 have said, every year in the Supply 
 Bill, and, yet, for the first time, because this is a larger sum 
 which is being dealt with, and larger because it deuls with 
 the rights or claims of that society to lands, we are asked to 
 assert a principle which we wore never asked before to assert 
 in regard to them. Now, I desire to call the atvention of the 
 House for a moment to two other branches of the argument 
 which were presented to it this afternoon. We were told 
 that there was a restriction in the Act fts regards the 
 expenditure of the ^60,000, but that there was no restric- 
 tion as regards the expenditure of the $400,000. The $bO,- 
 ' 000 has been appropriated to a body which had no claim, 
 legally or morally, and had never asserted any as regards 
 the title to the Jesuits' estates. They have claimed to be 
 interested in the appropriations which are made from time 
 to time for higher educaticn, and rightly so, and those 
 claims have always been considered. I am not pre- 
 |>ared to eay, whether the proportion allotted to them in 
 
3« 
 
 ibis Act is right or not. That is a question upon which 
 the hon. member lor ^orth Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), if he 
 baa a boat in the LcgiHlature oi the Province ot Quebec, 
 might have addressed the House with great force, but for 
 QH nero to discuss the appropriation ot money, and the pro- 
 portions in which it is appropriated by a Province would be 
 as absurd as for us to take the Supply Bill of the Province 
 every year, and enter into a discussion of its different ap- 
 propriations. The reason why, as I presume, the restric- 
 tion has been imposed in regard to the 3^^,000, and not in 
 regard to the 940U,UUU, is that the $6U,0UU is voted for 
 eaucationai purposes purely and simply, and, whi'.o the 
 94UU,0U0 has every prot peel of being so applied, because it 
 is voted to a body whose business it is to teach, still it is 
 paid to them iu extinction of a claim which they had made 
 10 a part of the public domain of the Province. But we were 
 told, and this is almost the last argument used by my hon. 
 friend from Morth JSimooe (Mr. McUarthy),but one to which I 
 must advert, that the grant of money to this, corporation 
 was u church endowment which violated the principles of 
 the separation of Church and State iu this country. 1 pass 
 by at this momenta the position which any church occupies 
 iu tuis country. I do not intend to discuss how, far, in any 
 portion of the country, any church may be considered as 
 now eutabiicihei; but 1 do say that it passes the power of 
 iugenuity to show that the grant of money to a corporation 
 ot teachers urid preachers is the endowment of a church in 
 Cunaua. it la true that a church may be in part a society of 
 pi eachers and teachert^, but this society is not a church, 
 and in ttie most illogical way in which a fallacy could be 
 put on paper, this reoolution asks the House to come to the 
 conclusion tUat, because a society iucorporatud under a 
 statute of the Province aud employed in preaching and 
 teaching the tenets of a ceriain religion receives a grant of 
 money, that is the endowment of a chur(5h within the Pro- 
 Y.nce. 1 venture to say mat there is no one in this country, 
 who iinowB the facts upon which that resolution is oased, 
 and who reads that resolution, but must be surprised that it 
 should receive the support, as it has done, of able and 
 intelligent men in this House. Let me say to my hon. 
 friend irom Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that this is no more the 
 endowment of a church, and that it is no more an inter- 
 ference with the separation of Church and State in this 
 country than would be the endowment of a hospital or an 
 orphanage or an auylum which was under the care of a 
 religious organisation. We all cherish the principle that 
 there should be no Church control over the State in any 
 part of Uiis ooantry, but my hon. friend proposes something 
 
>t 
 
 »on which 
 >y), if he 
 Quebec, 
 oe, but lor 
 id the pro- 
 would be 
 Province 
 Serent ap- 
 le restric- 
 iiod Dot in 
 voled lor 
 svhi'.d the 
 because it 
 still it is 
 had made 
 It we were 
 ' my hon. 
 10 which 1 
 >rporation 
 noiples of 
 ^ 1 pass 
 occupies 
 ir, in any 
 iidered as 
 power of 
 rporation 
 3hurch in 
 society of 
 k church, 
 couia be 
 ne to the 
 under a 
 liicg and 
 grant of 
 the Pro- 
 country, 
 is Dased, 
 sd that it 
 ibJe and 
 my hon. 
 EUore the 
 Q inter- 
 > in this 
 al or an 
 are of a 
 pie that 
 in any 
 mething 
 
 37 
 
 worse than that control. He proposes that we ehall step into 
 the domain of a Provincial Legislature, and shall say that no 
 Provincial Legislature shall have the power to vote any 
 money to any institution ii it purtakos of a religious 
 character. It may profess any other kiiad of principlu. it 
 may profess any objectionable principle, and it is lawful to 
 endow it, but, if it professes the Uhrislian character, it is, 
 foruooth, anconstituliunal to allow such an Act to go into 
 operation. 1 listened to u.o remarks which the hou. 
 member for Simcoe (Mr. M.c(/arthy) address«)d to the House 
 0.-. the third branch cf his argument, as to the objectionable 
 teachings of this society with some surprise, though i do 
 not intend to-night to challenge his ample liberty to differ 
 from me as to the correctness and propriety of thosr 
 observations. 1 hoped that, in this discussion, he and 
 those who will vote with him will not prove them- 
 selves any less friends of religious liberty than they 
 have professed to be in the past, but I assume — I 
 think 1 have a right to assume — that, when the case of the 
 gentlemen who are opposed to the allowance of this Act is 
 placed in the hands ol an hon. member who is so able and 
 so skilled in argument as he, we are not to be condemned 
 for not a':king His Excellency to disallow this Act, unless 
 the reasons which he urged with such great force this 
 afternoon aie rea:jons which I could use iu addressing His 
 Excellency on the subject, fSurely I have a right to assume 
 that the hon. gentleman has puL forward the best case he 
 could, and 1 am not to be condemned unless 1 could avail 
 myself of his reasons in asking His Excellency to disallow 
 the Act. If 1 could picture myself going to His Exoeilenoy 
 and asking for the disallowance of this Act, for the reasons 
 which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) presented in the 
 latter part of his address, 1 would imagine myself just ht 
 to be expelled from His ExcelleLcy's presence as quickly 
 as possible. What would be the reasons which 1 iiihould 
 urge V I am not finding iault now with the strictiil-es that 
 the hon. gentleman made in regaid to the society, but, 
 forsooth, I am to go to His Excellency and ask him 
 to disallow this Act because, in the year lfi74, a Quarterly 
 Beview published an article denouncing the Jesuit Sucieiy and 
 its teachings. Am I not right in taking the argument and 
 the evidence which he produces to-day as the argument 
 and the evidence which I should produce to His Excellency ? 
 If 1 were to go to His Excellency and say thav the Quarterly 
 EevieWf published in lb74, denou.nced in l:inguage as strong 
 as could be the tenets and teachings of these people. His 
 Excellency might ask me a number of perplexing questions, 
 one of whioh was levelled at the hon. member tor 2(orth 
 
11/ ',.■ 
 
 88 
 
 i i i! ll'VJi 
 
 Simooe this afternoon without much profit to him. Let me 
 Buppoee that His Excellency asked me : " Mr. Minister of Jus- 
 tice, who is the author ? " My answer would have to be 
 — surely I cannot do better than take the answer of the hon. 
 member for Sim -oe— my answer would have to be : " I really 
 do not know who is the aather; but, your JSxcellency, lam 
 sure that nothing would be published in the Review 
 which would not stand criticism." 1 am afraid that His Bx- 
 eellenoy might not be satisfied with that answer, and that 
 he might put me another rather more puzzling question : 
 '* Mr. Minister of Justice, are you aware that these able and 
 eloquent, but anonymous, publications in that Beview 
 have been refuted time acd again until the slanders have 
 been worn threadbare ? " I would ask my hon. friend from 
 Simcoe what I should answer to that question ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Refuted where ? 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I would like to ask him, has 
 he over read the answers to them ? I would like to ask 
 him, has he ever sought the answers to them ? Because these 
 are questions which His Excellency may ask mo when I go 
 to him with this advice. The hon. member asks me, where? 
 Well, I tell him, in the first place, in publications so volumi- 
 nous that I shall have to give him a catalogue of them ; but 
 in order to be precise, and not to be suspected of evading 
 the question, I will tell him that in an Snglish pnblioation 
 called the Month, step by step, as every one of these articles 
 came out, the answer and the refutation came out, and that 
 in the opinion of a great many people, these men were 
 able (:o refute the articles triumphantly. I am not to pass 
 judgment as to whether they were successful or otherwise, 
 1 have no right to speak my own opinions here, I am 
 speaking for those with whom I am acting in concert. His 
 Excellency might ask me whether having read these articles 
 what conclusion I had come to as to the balance of 
 arguments pro and con. If he did so, I should be unable to 
 find, in the course of that admirable three hours interesting 
 theological discussion which we had to day, a single hint as 
 to my reply, and having read the attack in the Beview, and 
 the replies which were made, answer as 1 have done. 
 I should have to tell His Excellency that uiless he were 
 to be guided by the opinion of a partisan on one side or the 
 other, the best thing he could do would be to leave it either 
 to his own conscience or to that conscience which the Consti- 
 tution has provided for dealing with the subject — the con- 
 science of the Legislature of the Province which had to deal 
 with it. If His Excellency were to ask me : " Sir, in advising 
 disallowance on the authority of the Quarterly Beview," — 
 wbicli X am afraid to the Colonial Ofiice would not be a 
 
t> Let me 
 ster of Jus- 
 have to be 
 3f the hon. 
 : "I really 
 incy, lam 
 e Eeview 
 U His Bx- 
 
 aod that 
 qnestion : 
 
 able and 
 tt Review 
 era have 
 lend from 
 
 him, has 
 ^e to ask 
 use these 
 'hen I go 
 , where ? 
 ) voiumi- 
 lem ; but 
 ' evading 
 blioatioD 
 ) articles 
 md that 
 ^n were 
 b to pass 
 herwise, 
 
 am 
 
 9, I 
 
 rt. His 
 articles 
 ance of 
 aable to 
 cresting 
 hint as 
 lew, and 
 ) done, 
 e wei*e 
 3 or the 
 b either 
 Consti- 
 16 con- 
 to deal 
 i vising 
 iew" — 
 »t be a 
 
 sound antliority, would aot be a satisfy ctory constitutional 
 authority — " have you verified the quotations for your- 
 self ?" I ask the hon. member for Simooe what I should 
 answer then ? What answer could he gjive to the House 
 if I asked him now, whether ho has verified a single one of 
 those quotations — and I tell him that on the verity of the 
 quotations half the controversy has turned. I tell him 
 that it is olaimed by those who h: 7e undertaken — I do not 
 say they have succeeded -to refute them, that the tenets 
 which they are accused of teaching, they have not taught ; 
 that the passages put forward as proofs were problems — 
 doubtful cases, cases to distinguish between that which is 
 the sin, which the confessor has to deal with, and that which, 
 though against public morals or public propriety, the con- 
 fessor has not to deal with. Ixx dealing with casuistry, and 
 when dealing with moral theology, some of tiie old writers 
 quoted have suggested difflcaitie«, and problems, and 
 questions, and have given advice to confessors upon 
 such subjects; but they have not put forward the tenets 
 as to bo taught to the youth of the country. I might be 
 told by His Excellency that I might find in the studies of 
 my own profession a similar caje; that I might find the 
 liiading writers in my own profession, eminent men, stating 
 that things which we recognise from day to day as hideous 
 wrongs, are not offences against the criminal law of the 
 country — some of them I could name, but which it would 
 be almost indecent to name in a mixed assembly. And, Sir, 
 oould it be said of these writers who declared that such was 
 the law, that these things, however abominable they may 
 be, however contrary to public morals, are not against the 
 law — could it be said that these eminent writers like Sir 
 Pitzjames Stephen and others are teaching thac suoh 
 things are lawful and ought to be done in the country, and 
 are patting them before the youth of the country as things 
 that are right ? Is there not a broad distinction between the 
 two ideas? If the hon. member for North Simcoe had read 
 the answers which have been made to the publications, which 
 he quoted he would not have dared, as he is an honorable 
 man, to have presented to the House the argument that 
 he made this afternoon, without, at least, presenting the 
 c-uer side of it. If I were to advise His Excellency 
 to disallow this Bill because of the objectionable teachings 
 of this body. His l^jxcellency might fairly say to me : " The 
 Legislature of the united Provinces of Cmada, 37 ye^^rs 
 ago, erected tbe society into a corporation to hold landri 
 and to teach the youth of the country. Now, in looking 
 over that 37 years of record, can you point me to one 
 of the teachers or one of the taught who has been 
 
40 
 
 disloyal to his country ? Has anyone been able to 
 say : " This or that father has taught me immorality, 
 this or that man is guilty of immorality in his teaching, 
 this or that tenet was objectionable ? " What reply should 
 I have to give him ? Well, Sir, if His Excellency went on 
 and reminded me that the rules and constitutions of that 
 order have been published for 46 years, and that before 
 giving him advice of that kind I ought to be able to put my 
 band upon the pas^aeres of the rules and constitutions of 
 that order which are objectionable on the grounds of public 
 policy. I am afraid I should be unable to do so to an extent 
 to justify the disallowance of this Act, and I am afraid I 
 should not find in the epeechof the hon. member for Si mooe 
 much comfort in that respect. If I were to advise His 
 Excellency to disallow the Act on the ground of the expul- 
 sion of the Huguenots, the Eevoeation of the Edict of 
 Nantes, the Franco-German war, the expulsion from Prance 
 in 1818, the expulsion from other countries, I am afraid 
 His Excellency might tell me that all ^be statements of fact 
 were disputed, and that he mi A* ' me a lesson in 
 ancient and modern history of which one of the deductions 
 could be that in some of these countries, to say that 
 the court was opposed to the Jesuits, or to say 
 that the court was opposed to the Protestant reformers, was 
 no discredit to either the Protestant reformers or to the 
 Jesuits. I do not think, Sir, that I need dwell on that branch 
 of the subject any longer. I think that whenever 
 we touch these delicate and difficult questions which 
 are in any way connected with the sentiments of 
 religion, or of race, or of education, there are two 
 principles which it is absolutely necessary to maintain, for 
 the sake of the living together of the different members of 
 this Confederation, for the sake of the prese'' ; { ion of the 
 federal power, for the sake of the good-v. , '> ' -^ J kindly 
 charity of all our people towards each othc 7, ' for the 
 sake of the prospects of making a nation, as wo » only do 
 by living in harmony and ignoring those difference.^ which 
 used to be considered fundamental— these two principles 
 surely must prevail, that as regardc theological questions 
 the Slate must have nothing to do with them, and that as 
 regards the control which the federal power can exercise 
 over Provincial Legislatures in matters touching the free- 
 dom of its people, the religion of its people, the appropria- 
 tions of its people or the sentiments of its j^eople, no section 
 of this country, whether it be the great Province of Quebec 
 or the humblest and smallest Province of ihis country, can 
 be governed on the fashion of 300 years ago. 
 
 ;^' 
 
 '/. 
 
 f 
 
 -SJ. 
 
 ▲. BmoAii, SaperinteHdent of Printing. 
 
able to 
 norality, 
 ^eaohiDg, 
 Y should 
 went on 
 i of that 
 t before 
 ) put my 
 ntions of 
 o{ public 
 n extent 
 
 afraid I 
 r Siraooe 
 rise His 
 16 expul- 
 Ediot of 
 a France 
 n afraid 
 ts of fact 
 QSBon in 
 iductions 
 jay that 
 
 to say 
 Lcrs, was 
 
 to the 
 t branch 
 henever 
 i which 
 ents of 
 are two 
 tain, for 
 nbers of 
 a of the 
 i kindly 
 ^or the 
 
 only do 
 J.^ which 
 rinoiples 
 [uestions 
 i that as 
 exercise 
 the free- 
 )propria- 
 ) section 
 f Quebec 
 itry, can 
 
 ■7 
 
 ') ;