IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) m Wo 1,^ ,f <<» 4* »& f/i 1.0 I.I 11.25 ^1^ tM, S ^ IE " 1^ lie 1.4 i.6 V)' yw 'a. e. M ^ ^' f Photographic Sciences Corporation ^ v iV :n>' v % V ''^ ^ ^>. c^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, H.Y. MS80 (716) 572-4^03 %' <^ > ■^\^ CiHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Hi;>torical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiqLes Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy dvailable for filming. Features of this copy which may be bihiiographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es D Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde V Pages restored and/o; laminated/ Pages restauri^es et/ou pelliculees D D □ D D D D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques 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 couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 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/ II se peut que certaines pagec blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n ont pas 6t^ filmdes. D D Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages detachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition availabia/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have baen refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es <^ nouveau de fapon h obtenii la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X J 26X SOX 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are tho best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et ^e la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illust'^sted impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papiar est imprim^e sont filmds en cornmengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empi'einte d'impression on d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmds en commenqant pfir la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different rec'uction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", h symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est tiop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en pren«int le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 .■iiiniii.rinmrf«Mi«T«innTnorarj«,ig^||g; | ;^ji^y^y;tf tfT? hji 1 / m M iniiW ( fli*val SUITS* ESTATES ACT, pi 1. REPORT --Or M Mm lliUlrDiJii b hihm 1.ivi::h ','} IN ■-' ;l»- HOUSE M ' 1 '■■.' 4-ei/.^ - :'■ ' , March 27fh, '8q. .f.-Sf.»>. - R^VIF,\V OK THE WHOLE QUESTION .- <• » ,♦ ITS LLfiAl iilifi COfiSTSTU fiOSai ,#• i #" J // ITS JESUITS' ESTATES ACT. i FULL I^EPORT OK SIS JOBS TIOMPSOFS SPEECH DKl.U'KKin) IX 'IHlv- HOUSE OF COMMONS, * Wednesday, jVfareh 2jtJi, '8g. REVIEW OF THE WHOLE QUESTION, ■♦♦■ ITS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS DISCUSSED. -♦■• ^ OTTAWA : ClTIZI-.N .Jor. l'l!INTlN(; DKrAltTMKNi', JESUITS' ESTATES ACT. -♦-♦-♦- sir John Thompson aaid : Mr, Speaker, I jeel thit in addressing the House upou this (juestioa an<1 in presenting to it at thin stage of the debate, the reasons which I believe justified the Government ia advising His Excellency not to exercise the power of ilisallowance as to the Jesuits' Estates Act of Qiebec, I must aok more than the u>ual irululgence of the House.. I shall be cnni- pelled in the first place to dwell at consider- able lenj^th, on details which the Home has already heard discussed; and 1 shall have to speak under a sense of the fact that with one large portion ot the people f-f Canada nothing that I can say wdl bo satisfactory, and that with another, and I hope the greater pirtiou of the p(;oplo of Canada, no defence of the (Joverninent is necessary upon this iiuestioii. >Jevertheles8, consider- ing the arrait,'ninent which the policy of the (iovernment on this nueution has had, ci'n Bidsring the interest which the measure has ■xcited in all quarteis of Canada, it is only becoming that 1 should ask the icdulijence of the Hous'j in order that I may make a plain statement of the reasons which have induced us to give to His Iv'coellcncy the advice for which we are to be held responsible to riitjht 1 desire, before beginning a statement of the^e reasons, to take exception to a remaik which was mndo by the hon. member for iSinicoe (Mr; Mci.;ariiiy ), at the outset of his address, with leference to theposition which uiembtrs of the Uovernment occupy in this debate. The hon. gentleman, ia coniplain- idg that no member on the Treasury beaches had risen to taks part in the debate down to this Etage, spoke of it alm> at as an at of discourtesy. He seemed to think tnat the modo in which the discussion fr Mufkoka (Vlr. O'Brien), sustained by an hou. gentltnun 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 at near midnight, any armument retnained unanswered which ovUed for an amiwer from the Treasury benches. But with regard to the hon. member's complaint on the ground of dis courtesy, I have to appeal to the sense of f lirness of the House in this particular. No member on eithei side of tlie House was unaware fiom the commencement of this debate, that the main argument on which the conduct of ihe Government would be assailed, wouhi be presented ny the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Mt('arthy). I was the Miuister. who, if there be a vliffer- ence between cj)lleHgU' s as to the extent to vU'ch responsibility is shared, was primal ily responsible, and I subrriit it to the sense of fiiiruess of every member, whether, be- fore giving the r«asou8 upon which I muse stand or fall as regards the correcrnessi of the ad/ice which I pave to Hia J'^xcellency, it was not my riaht to h>!ar my accuser. The hon. gej- tieman thinks ocherwi.so, and the position he takes is this : That c curtesy to him and to the gentltmt n who wilP divide with him on thia <|uestiou to-night retjuires that his acraigntTieut of my report, his arraignment of the Government with regard toovtrysub- j-ict of thij di>*cusHiun, should have been made after my mouth was closed and I had ceased to have a rijiht to d«fend myself. If there is any fnirness or courtesy in that p>ositiou, I am willing to subn.it that I wan wrong in reserving the remaiks which I have to make until the h^n. member fiom Simcoe had been heard. Now, JN PKK,SKNTr.\0 THK CASE which 1 have to present on l)ehalf of the Goverumnnt, I n!«-y ask your attention for a few moments again to the wearisome narra- tion of the position which these lauds oc- ciipiod in the Province of (.^tuebec. Not that the matter has not been discus.-'ed in every detail, but because in almost every detail I have essentially difierent opinions from those of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and because, in some respects, the points upon which the merits of this case depend wore lost sight of by the hon. mendjer in the admirable address he m-vdo this afternoon. Why, 1 venture to say, without the slightest disrespect foi the hon. member, for whose talents no one in this House has a hipher respect than I, and I would be the last person to disparage any observations which he might address to us, J venture to say that the reason why this House ought not to ask His Excellency now to disallow tliat Act, if we hud no better reaBon, is that thf toleration on which alone a British country can be i^ovsrnf d. Now, let nie call the attention of the House to the brief starement with re- gard to the position of these estates, not for the purpose of showiut; th kt this Society in the Province of Quebec, whatever its char- acter ar d merits may have been, bad a legal title to this property, liut for the purpose of showing that tt h is not a (question which we (isn decide, but i^one which must and ought to have t>een left to that authority which' the constitution makes not only competent in dealing w ith such (juestions, but onmipsten t to ''e&l with them, 8ubj>ct only to control in so far as the rights of the whole Dominion or the policy of the I'^mpire may be involved. Now, sir, the House will remember, that long before the CitSSION 01;' CANADA TO TUK OajWN OK (JRKAT IIRITAIN, the Je^uits had laboured in the wilderness, and in the schools of Canada, and in the churches of Canada, and that, as a reward for their .nissionary /,'>al, for their talent as teachers, and for their services to this, one of the great colonies of France, that Order h»d been erected inUi an incorporated body under the most solemn acts which the Kinu: of France could pass under his hand, bad been endowed with th«se estates by the King of France and by private donors who wished to place in their hamls the means by which the work of ChtisViauity ard civiliza- tie entered by troops, and that Rafoguards should b« 5 civrn tlum from military intrufiuin: that they eliould prtserve their rightu tonoirunate to certain ouracieR and misfcions as ih«reti>- fore. Those privil^vjes, vacue and uiuio- rined by tho terms of thp artiolo, were met !>y the \/ordt», "Reserved until the Kinajd pleasure be l^nowu," altKou^h the re- Hpoiise to the ^rticlo, dealing with the pro- peniea of these people, was the unequivocal one, *'(irauto3." The cnnqneting arms of lOiigUnd were used a^'kiuat the soldiers of France, but not agnlnst individuals, either rehpious or sccidar, either in I'Vauoe or in (JanaiU. Now, we go a step further, and we read the treaty of peace. The war had k'r.ao on, and the treaty was not made until ITo;?, and let me read to the House a passago from the treaty, because the terms of caj>itu- latioD are liable to be qualified by tlie final !',nd definitive treaty at the close ot the war. This provision was made by the treaty ; " His Most (.Christian Majesty cedes and guarantees to His liritannic Majpsty in full light, Canada with all its dependencies, as well as the Islatid of Capo Breton, and all other islanfls and coasts in the (Julf and liiver St. I^awreTico, and, in gueen, was i-.nacted with regard to the Province of '^'lelieo. Now, let me ask the Houae, for the purpose of considering how fa'- passion has guided and swerved the reason of some oi those who have spoken up )n this (|iie8tion, to look ac that statute, and they will find that the rights of the people of Canada and their freedom of religious worship are as fully guaranteed by the terms of the Quebec Act a<« they were by the terms of the Treaty of P^ris itself. While it is true that one of the provisions of that Act declares that the statute made in the first year of the reign of Q leen Elizabeth should apply over all the countries which then did, or thereafter should belong to the Imperial Crown of this realm, and should apply to the Province of Q'aebfc, this is subject to a limited construction, because if it is to be read in its literal sense, it was an absolute prohibition of the practice of the Roman Catholic religion in the province, an abso- lute prohibition under the penalties of high treason itself. But the Act left no sucti ambijiuity to be dealt with mere construc- tion, becisiso it i{oes on to limit the opera- tion of the statute relating to royal suprem- acy, by (leclaiing that instead of the oath of abjuration which, by the terms of the statute of Elizibeth, all people professing the (.'atholic religion were to take, not only to abjure all foreign jurisdiction in relation to temporal matters, but all foreijrn juris- diction in relation to spiritual mutters aa well, there is to bo a new form of oath and a new statutory provision for the people of the province, whereby they shall no Ioniser be bound to abjure foreign juris- diction in matters spiritual, and shall be entitled to all privileges of British subjects, And all privileges of worship taking an oath of alleciance merely, which applies only to the tempoial affairs of the reigning sovereign. Therefoie, instead of its being in any sense true that by the terms of tl»e Q tibec A.ct the restriction of the Supremacy Act were imposed upon the province 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 KXERCISK THK POWKK OF SO FOREIGS PRIKST, even in spiritual matters. .So much then for the Quebec Act of 1774, by which, I think, I have shown that there was a toleration ex- tended in regard to the Province of Quebec, which DID NOT F.XLST IN Til K and which was utterly MOTIIEH rOUNTRr, inconsistent with these old statutes, which, forsooth, ll.'> years afterwards, we are asked to advise His Excellency to apply to the Province of Quebec. Now, sir, iu 1701, ;^0 years after the conquest of Canada, the King of Great Britain issued a proclamation suppressing the t//(ler of Jesuits in the colony. As his- tory has told us, the estates which are even now in question, were looked upon with a covetous eye by Lord Amheist, who had taken an active part in directing the armies of tireat Britain. On this subject I need not go into detai's. This covetous attempt was frustrated, but suflice it to say, at this stage of the controversy, that the King of Englano, and I submit iu to the le^al sense of the House, the King of Eng- land hal no pjwer to revoke the terms of the charter of incorpo- ration which the .Insuits of Canada had re- ceived from the King of Prance. I admit that the Parliament of Great Britain could have brought in the whole body of the com- mon law, and could have applied to the colony all the penal statutes which the bigotry of that age "litht choose to invoke. But the King of Euglaud had probably no such prerogative. If the King grants a charter, the King himself, with all his power, cannot revoke it. It is only Parlia- ment who can do that, and in this instance, bv the attempt, I venture to think, of the King to suppress that Order, imd to revoke that charter, he exceeded the unthority which he possessed. But, sir, we were tolil that .'>y a royal proclamation all the common law of England was introduced into Canada. I doubt that that could be done. By the law of nations, recognized at every stage and period of English law, the laws ot a conquered country prevail until the para- mount authority of the conquering r ,try imposes new laws upon it. But the MONARCH OK A CiNQUEItlNCS COUNTRY probably c&nnot of himself change those Uw8, cannot of himself do it unflor the cou stitution of Great Britain. But it there 's :\ 'li*ubt Upon thut subject as to the general : ult T say this, that thn King of England .;culd not introduce the common law by hib proclatration in violation of the treaty which he bad made in 1763, and by the ternr-s of the treaty he had reserved all those rights whii h touch this question, even in the remotest degree. Therefore, it is idle for us to discutiS how far he might have made other branches of the common law applicable to this country. In the year IHOO the last Jesuit died, and I think that by the law of l]ngland, applicable, perhaps, as that time to thid property in Canada, on the death of the last surviving member of this corpora- tion the property escheated to the Crown ;«nd the Crown could have taken possession of it as escheated lands. Stops were taken to assert this right on the part of the Crown ; but the question had been complicated in the meantime by the fact tliat the Pope had suppressed the Company ot Jesus nearly all over the world. By the terms of that buppression and by the terms of the civil law, which, it is contended, still prevailed in the Province of Quebec, the properties, instead ot reverting to the L'rown, passed to the Ordinaries of the dioceses in which they were situated. I do uot 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 will do more. 1 will admit the hon. member for Simcoe'a contention, that the common law had in the meantime been introduced, that the CIVIL l,A\V HAD KEKN SUPERSKDEO, and that by the terms of com- mon law these estates had become escheated to the Crown. One of the ques- tions, howe\er, which has been constantly agitated ever since in the Province of Que- bec is 1»liip, that if you are to subject this property to the rigour of th? common law, yon at least ought to giv'e the benefit of that principle the common law, which declares that wheuever property of any kind has been escheated to the Crown some considera- tion should bo shown to the persons who are morally entitled to it, and regard should be liad to the use to which it was intended to be applied. By this rule of practice the escheat doea not wholly resu't as an emolu- ment to the Crown, or as an augmentation of tho revenue, but a liberal proportion is appropriated to the intention of the donors or to those who morally may be considered entitled to it. If that consideration were to prevail to any extent, the clergy, apd it m»y be the Jesuits, on the reinstatement of the order, would have some kind of moral right to compensation respecting these estates. But lot me call the attention ot the House to this fact, which I think has been kept out of view, and which cf-rtaiuly the hon. member for Viotoria (Mr. Barron) who addressed the House laat night, OVERIiOOKED IS HtS ABOUMENT, that the very brief by which these proper- ti«8 were taken possession of on the part of the Crown, when they were eventually 8ei;4ed, does not allege the right of escheat, but declares the right by which the Crown intended to claim the properties to be the right of conquest — a rie'ht which, as I have said, is nKPnniATKD by the law of nation;?, was repudiated by the Crown officers of Great Britain at the time, and which, atter all that has been said in this debate, has nut .had one word said in favour of it. That was the only title by which ( ireat Britain claimed she had a right to these estates. Now, it is true likewise that subsequent statutes vested the titlo in the Province of Canada, and ultimate'.y in dus course of law, and as the result .jf statutes, the title to those lands hecaa.o vestt d in tho Province ot Quebec. As to the conclusion which the hon. member for Simcoe drew, that the pro- vince had a good title to then, a perfici title under the law, I iiave not cue word to say ; and if this Act had come before us as legislation in recognition of a legal title, I would have felt bjund to c»ll tlie attention of my ooUeaf ues to the fact that a very great mistake had been committed, on which, perhaps, it r^.' t have been necpssary to have adviseil the Provincial Legislature to reconsider its. con- clusions. But it is ad'uitted by the Lcaisla-^ ture of Quebec that a good title existed in the province, and all that is said on the face of this Act or in the arguments in support of it, is this: That tlie.'c existed a u)oral claim to 8ome degree of campensation, little or much, which, to a greater i-r le^8 ex cent, was binding upon tho conscience of the Legislature of that province. Now, sir, the result ot the existence of that claim -the re- sult of the assertion of that moral right, whatever it may have been wortli, was that, from year to yoar, when the province went on to assert its right to those estates, and as tho province ventuied to piace piece after piece of tH" pro- perty on the market it v* us met by a protest from the united hiciarchy of Quebec, demanding that such properties should not bo sold, should not be diverted from the original charitable and religious purposes for which they were intended, and BO every stc^p by which those estates were sought to be made ueeful to the revenues of the provinoe Vvaa contested in the moot formal and solenm manner. It ia i-ecited in part of the preamble of this Act that not many yearb ago c.ie of the most val.-.able parts of tiie properly, h log situate oppo- site the Basilic'v in t'le ("ity of Quebec, was bronfi;ht to market, and there was met by tLa B-^^kma protest of all tho hiorarc'iyof the provit'co ; iu face of that protest, casting af> it did a CLOCD i:i'ON TUK TITLE OF VHK PEOVIM'E, involviDg as it seemed to be a disout'j as to the right wi the (JLtvenimeut, and as to tlie title of the purchuaer, that property had to be withdrawn from sale. Let me assure this House again, thit in preseniing our case I am endeavouring to do so, not from my in- dividual point of view at all, but siiiiply from the point of view in which we may be asked to withhold or to give advice with rejpeci to the great power ot disallowing a provincial statute. Let me call attention then to all these dccails, and let ma ask the House to keep in inind that state of aff&iri with respect to the property itself, with re- spect to the assertioL of thir claim, good or lad; with rcBpect to the .a-^sutiou of thi^ moral rigliS, worth little or iiuioh, and to re member the diihculty of marketing tbe pro- perty in the Province of (^H'-elj^c under these circumstances If the House will bear all this ill mind, and t'ven will read with me tbe statute whion we are asked tc dimllow, I say that he proviaiona of that statute will cease to be obnoxious to any reasonable m- ,i, that they cannot C! misunderstood, and that they can havdlv be miareprcsentod even hv the most violent p.ejudice. The sale, as I have said, was forbidden. I am not diiven at all to defend thr policy of the (lovern- ment of the prot'ince as to the propriety of opening up that (piestion; as to ihe pro- priety of not inais'ing that these propertiea should be sold even if they should be sacri- ficed in the face of that formidable protest. That was for the l^egiRlature of Quebec to Hay. The ciuiolitution has charged nie wil,h no duties ami wifcli no responsibiUties hi to the ueiwht v{ any 'egal or of any moral claim which the Lei'ialaturo haa thought proper to recogrize. I may concur with gentlemen who have spokeL this aftrrtoon ih^t h was unwiae not to insist ou the strict STATl'TOHV Tiri.l'. HAHKI) l)N CONFtSCATrON, severe tlioufh it nay have uoen, but in lliis ca*o the couHtitution has not made me the judge. Ic has not made mci or my colleagues the arbiters between the two sets of opinions in the Province of (,>i]Gbeo ; it has n(.t clothed His Excellency with the power 10 step in and consider every (juestion which arises amons the people of tlie Pro- vinoe : it has vented that authority iu the Provincial Legislature^ which by a unani- iiious vot« (as pointed out by the bon. rfiem- ber for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) last night, declared that tl.b was the true and proper solution of the question. Under those circumstinces, have I any ri,ct3 ca'-rics with i' like all authority, a lib ;rty to error which must bo respected so loiij? as the legal power ia not exceeded, and the error is not nxanifeatly subversive legally or morally of the principles of tlie constitu- tion or of the gr^at objects of tbe State. As far, thertforr, as we have to consider the power of the Legi8lati;"e to recogni/,3 a moral obligation — leaving out r f Bii;ht for a moment the theological questions whiih my hon. friend from ISuncoe (Mr. MnCaithy) apd I are to join issue on, with a view to the House pasning jiHe'ineot as to which i-J the bet.er theologian, forsooth, and as to whose advice on the question of theolo4.'y His Fx- cellrucy the «!overnor-(e attention of the House to B \oiher state ot facts as rcgatds the various clai«;anla upon this property. There were the bishopt of the Province who said : " An a result of tlm buppression of the Society of ifesus in this Province wo were \c9ttd with all the estates as the Ordinariea of the various dioctaes iu v/hioh these properties were situated." tstxv, more they aaid : " We have inherited their nioral riaim, be cans J when the means were atriken from their hands of carrying on the missionary work and the work of e(hicaii>''n, wc took il up, Rud by the snciifioo of our people's labours uid treasures, we built up institu- tions of education all over this country." Tlie Society of .Tcauits had in the meantlni* b-ion iu Kt uice the oider beoiiine extii!C?: in Canada. He cited to piove that tliP decision of the t'Dkillamcnt of Pa.ri9 whit' merely de<^idid that the Jesuirs iu FtMiico were liable for the d<.bta <[ t-b«- .J.;«iiits in Para/?uay, because the PKOI'KJITIKS OF THE TWO SKTS Ol'' MEN wore lield in aolidii'ity. That decision han not the rernoteat eli'ccc upon the status of the Jesuits in Canada, who theuiSelvts were a body corpuratij uiider«rhe most sohuiin in- s''Tumont which the Kin,t; of Fr uico could givo them to mdiciite hii will in that ! 3c;ikrd. I have mentioned that the Birrhopss claimed thrti, they represented the moral liuht, whioh, as I have said be fere, the LogiMlatuto tliou^^ht was worthy of cmip.. Ration, and the Jesuits claimed it likewise. Look at this as a business matter. Look at tliie matter as ralatiug to a piece of land in the City cf tjuobec, and tell mo how under tiicfcu cirouinatauees the title was t'ver to bo cleaied vi this dispute. Obviously not oy compensating Ai^i one party and then the other, because, under those oi/ouaistuucfs, the Le|:;islature would have hid to ]!a)' twice the. value of the claim. It could be i>nly settled by getting tho twi) paitica to nrbit- rate aud to lea\e it to some peicon lo settle 1 heir mutual dispute, or by saying ; "You must oonfoim with the ctecision < f sime per- son who has authority over you both." Let nio nrgne this (juostiou throughout, 'f we can, wi'hout ieeliuK that we bel< nj< to dilfer- ent re'.ig'ous per8un?ioiis, without fteiiug that. .V religious question i.\ mixed lifi with it ai; all, and, therefore, let us leave uut fiav t act between the olainart.'j and to buul them bolh. It was only l>y a nuethcJ like that th''t they could reach a. bolution — of paying once, and only onoe, the value of thi3 moral claim. >iow, that being ao, let me see what was done iu pursuance of that method of settlement. The head of that church, 80 possessed with power to prelude the Jesuits from making any further claim, so possessed with priv/er to preclude the bishops from making any further claim, authorized in 18S<1 — and this is au important faor., as the Hiuse will see when I proceed a little wi(h the argunii'nt "aui,horized the Archbishop of (,iuobeo to act »« his attorney in tlie negotiations f>r the Hottleinent. On the 7th of May, 1887, a document appears, which haH been one ion. That letter rscitfcs, among other things, that the Holy Father, by ro- servinp to him e)f the eetticment of that questi9n, virtually had cancelled the authority, the only authority which existed in the Proviice of Qiie.beo to roirotiate with tho (fO/crnmcut. Tlio First Minister said ; "My predecessors In the Governm«nfc deo\ned it th^ir duty, in 1 ''7H, T believe, te 10 order the demolition of the college and the division of the property into bu'Wing lota, in view of an immediBto sale, wKich, how- ever, did not take place, nwin^ to certain repreaeutatfoDB trom exalted peisoungea at the time. "To avoid further difficulties, as I eup- posod, my predecessors let the matter lie, and allowed the property to be so neglected that it has become a grazing ground aud a receptacle for filth, so much so that it is openly said in Qubeo that the matter has become a public ,oandaI. "Under these circumstances, I deem it my duty to ask Your Eminence if you see any serious objections to the Governmbnt's sell- ing the property, pending a final settlement of the question of the Jesuits' estates." My hou. friend so far mi8Coucei"ed that re quest as to lepresent it to be a )ietition 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, because, by the law of the pro- vin;.e they had the power to sell it, and they had from year to year ftold portions of it, and put the proceeds m the public treasury. But in asking his consent to tho sain of tho property, they were asking that when they brought it to the mat ket asjain they should not be met by the protestti of the bishops whom he had the power to control; aud, therefore, when the f^irst Mit.ititer said • "Will you permit this property to be srrld, ponding a hnal pettlenunt of the Jesuits' estates?" — he was simply asking th.it that protest fihould no longer be madt, and that there should be a consenv to tb.e sale on Ihe part of all who iisserted any olaiiii 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; lot us all agree that it shiiU be sold, pemiing a xtttlement of the Josuita' estates. ' Surely tliat is only the ordinary transiictiou of every day life, WHRN A MAN HAS I'OSSKSHION OF REAT- KSTATE to which another sets up even an unfounded claim, he will say ; "Rather than that this property should go to waste and be a public nuisance, better that we should all consent to sell it." Vet we are told that the First Minister went to the feet of a foreign potentate to enable him to exorcise power which he ought to ha\'e f^nind jn tlio Statuses of his own province. He was t\ot deuying his legal title or power; but lie n-as simply saying : "(live me your consent, m that this olaim, whether littie or much, ahall no longer stand in tho way of a b.>.U! (or tho benefit of all conLcrned." He i*nU\ ; •'The Government would look on the pro- ceed* o( the sale m a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter, in accordance with the agreements to be entered into between the parties interested, with the sanction of the Holy See " Simply this, that all parties cl.iiniiog the property or any rights in respect of it shiiU agree that the property siTiU be sold and the proceeds nhall be kept inviolate, so that anybody having ANY CLAIM AGAINST Tdl", FRCVEKTV shall not be prejudiced, but shall have the same claim as before preiusely the same arrangement as any business man having property to sell would make with his adver- sary. The letter goe« on to say : " Aa it will perhaps bo nericssary, upon this matter, to c.iusuli the Legislature of our Province, which is to be convened very shortly, I respectfully Bolicit an immediate reply." Wc were told in sarcastic tones to-day that it was ahwln/e.!y iteca-mry to go to the feet of the Sovereign Poutiil, but it ndght only pc.rhapii be neceesiiry to consult tfie Legislature of the Province of (,>uebec. 1 say when we know the tacts with regard to that property, the oritlciam beoo:iK.'3 unfair. The (lovernment of tho Province had v. ready power to sell tho estates by law, and, therefore, unless it were agreed npon with the head of the church that tho property should be sold under those conditions, and an agreement were made to value this very claim, and i» put aside the funds to meet it, there was no necessity to consult tlie Lecu; l*ture at all. If tho porsonaije to whom that letter was addressed had declined the negotiations, it would not have been neces- sary to consult tho Leg'alature, liooause the I'rovinaial Governmont h»,d ull tho legal authority the Legislature could give* them. It W"8 only in the event of a coinproinise being arrived at aud the payuient of miiney beiug involved, that in v/os necessary to consult tho. LoRislatui'e. And yet this Utter has been put to the House, as if, forsooth, tho fair and true meaning of it was that it was only f<'r!inp-< necessary to consult the Ijcgislaturo, but at all events it was necessary to consult the Holy See. I«iow, the answer tv> ilvat letter was in those words : " I hasten to notify you that, having laid your request before the Koly Fathor at tlje audience ye.^tc;-day, His Holiness wai» pkaaed to /i',r'»nt peruussion to sell the property which belonffed ti tht, Jenui^. I^alheis before they were suppressed, npi n the express con dition, however, that the g\im to bo rocelvod b'. depo>tited and left a. the free disposal of the Holy S«e," The claip>ant representing this moral claim says : "I agree that you shall sell that lot 11 th the n tho t):t Hnii that inthoCityof Quebec, bnc if yo" sell ", place the turid to my credit iu order that we may know where it ia, whon we arrive at a fcatiafanrory conclusion in to wiiat sliall be done with it." The artwer of the First Minister wbs tliat he declined to accede to that, but he proposed a reasonable ulterna- tive—that the Government retain the pro- ceeds until thia disjmte should be settled. Thus what is declared to be an ahsuinption of authority on the pa>-t of the Pope, actually iu contravention of the Supremacy Act, and what weave told actually tiails the Queen's honour in the dual, in that the Pope consents to the Quebec (Jovemmcnt retain- ing the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits' estates, subject to a future settlement of the dispute. The Government of Quebec, pending *he settlemeui: of _ the claims of these" two litigants, which were to be held in suspense to be settled, not hnfore the bale of the property but af '•-erwarda, re- tained custody of this land ; and wi.en the authority representing thoae rival eUiimauts ni^reeij to this prtiposition, it is asserted, forsootl;, thtit because he uaes the word "allows," meaning evidently "consents," he has enciDached on the prerogative of the Queen. In agreeing to TUB tJOVEKNMKNT RKTAININO 'TIIK FROCKISDS of the sale of the Jesuits' Estates, lie acted simpiy aa the arbiter between the two con teaiinf^ claimants. Ho " allows " thia simply as the person who, as the head of the church to which the claimants heloni?, has, by their own choice, a lipht to give this consent ; and yet. when he consents to that, it is actually declared tiiat hr in assert- iug the prerogative of a fureign p,)tentate in derogation of the pieroijative of the Queen. 1 repeat, that when we knov/ the facts with regard to the situation of this property and with regard to the position of the two rival claimants, it ia impossible to misunderstand and almost impossible for lueenuity to mis- represent the preamble of this Act, as, un- fortunately, it has been misrepresented during the loner discussion which lias taken place, since the Act was passed, in various parti of the country. The letter of Cardinal Sitnconi, of the '27th March. 1888, contains this passage with regard to the conclusion arrived at : " AUirinatively in favour of the fathers of the Hociety of Jefsos and in accoulance with the method piescrilitd in otiier places, that is to eay, that the fathers of the 8ocioty of •lesus treat in their '>wn nan\e with the civil Goveiumont, in tiudcrstood it. It was 81 explaiuett to them. I hold before nie a statement which the First Mie'ster who introduued that Bill into the Lfgifiarure made to that Legislature, and upon wliicii they pisaed the bid. He says : "in the first place we must not mistivke the beiuiufr of this doblaratiou nor foiijet that it was imerted as B protection." The Legislature of Quebec p&ssed it as a protection on the stateniect of their First Minister. They passt-d that provision unanimously as such protection, and yet mouths aftf • WK ARK TO PUT A DIFFEREXT !> rhi.l lii t A- TION upon what their intcntivin was, and to ask thht His Excellency, a stranj^er to that L '(jislivture, a otranger to their motives, should decide that that '.vas not their true motive at all, that it vas not a protectian but a distinct challenfje of tin. euprcinaey ct Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Mr. Meicier said : "Any serious objecti.in to it, liowever sliglit, mav disappear, tor it is we, the Ministers, who insisted on it, in otder not to .oive effect t-:i the transaction unkss ft waa sanctioned by the religious aandatorie8 (agents ae we nnderstaud) ratification must bo made -by the principal, i.e., the mandator. Thus, for example, take what eoneerna me per- sonally, what concerns Ministera— v.-hat is it usual to state in resolutiona and letters ? — that the transaction will not avail unless sanctioned by the Legislature. Well, the Rev, Father Turgeon, who was charj^efl by the Holy Sec t:.- settle this question with UB, is only an agent, a mandatory, o,n attorney. And so tjiat there may be no misunderatandinp, so tliat the tiaiuaction may bo final, so that the ee'tlement m.iy no longer be op..'n to diRcussion by the religious authorities, we insist that the Pope sliall ratify the arrangement. There is no qucB- tion ot having the law sanctioned by the Pope. Lot us not play upon words. The law will bo sanctioned hy the Ijieutenant Covornjr, and it will take cilVct ia Iho terms of the ugrecnient. That is to Ray, sir, that .if the Pope docs not ratify the arrange- mout there will bo neither interest nor principal paid, but we shall then say to the reiiiiiou!! Ruthorities : '\'cu appointed an a^ent to settle this (|UOBtion; we came to an uudorstandin?, and if you do not ratify the Act of your mand*tory it is your own fault, lor we, the inhabitants f f the l^ovincc of t.hiebeo, throu,i;h Iho constituted authoiitiee, !iav»i done our part, have kept our pro iiise.' " am pleased to believe that the importance of t*^ " precaution taken by m will In; under- stood, But uuce more, if there is any 13 licrious objection to that part (of the matter) ii is vi;r^ easy to come to an Hudtrstanding. Ir.-.f, in that case we ni'jet substitute some- liiiut' equivalent. What fihtiU we put ? \\v mast, after all, pui sonicthtuK to ex- [)to .-. that the traubacnon will n<^t avail till tin i'ope ratifies it. Will, eir, we eaid 'the ]'. ih;' fntcntionally. We did not say the (. DiigreifRtiou of thfs Propaj^anda. We did not say the Secretary of Srate. We eaid tlie Pope. We disire thut the ratificatior. I) ". given to the head of the (Church, in order tUatall those interested may be bound." When we know that that was the intention of thfj Lcijislaturc of the p-ovince, when we know it from the statntep, frcm the oorres- pondencf), and f^oni all that v,i> know of the facts regarding theae estates, and when we know it also Ironi the declaration of the First Minister of the province in which the Act was pjvssed — an explanation which was aectpted by bi)th sides of the House, for be it ronieiribercd, as the hon. niembtr for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) said last uiubt, the Act was afterwaids passed unani- mously, and the First Minister was not asked, after his explanatiiai, to substitute anything lor that pr.)vi8ion — we jiiro now actually asked to advise His Kxcelleiscy that all this had A DIKKERENT AND AN O0Cni.T*NlEANINr,, auu that the' Legislature o^ Quebec did not mean what the First Minister of that pro vinco Raid it did in passing this Act. Then, in the letter of the 1st May, 1888, he goes on to say : "That the amount of compensation fixed shall (omaiu in thy possession of the Govern- ment of the province as a special dep isit until the Pope has ratified the eaid eottle- ment, and made known his wishes respect- ing the distribution of such amount in this country." iiefore I leave this stai^e cf the transaction, 1 repeat that tlus was distinct legislation against any possible rights or claims on the pait of the Popt), and that any Protestant Legislature in thilil>.e, KUKE KKOM THJi SI.KIHTKST SnsriCION of derogatitig from any ri^dit of Her Majesty, and from the alightest suspicion of infringe- ment of the constitution. Now, it is said, and the llonse will lemember with what i^ravity, and force, and eloquence it was urged upon the House this afternoon, that this statute denies tiie supieniacy of the Queen. I have read to you all the paasaijeB which refer in the slightest degree to any person outside of Her Majesty's dominions. 1 have stated the tacts, in icgard to tlio position of this property, the negotiations wh?ch were had in regard to it, and I will leive it to the dispasaiouate judgment of the House, or of any man, (yatliolic or Protestant, in this country, whether the Act in the slightest degree, considered in the light of the our- roundiug circumstances, aflocts in any v.'ay the authority or the supremacy of Her Ma- jesty, spiritual or ten;poral. hf.t me ask, what riifhts Her Majesty had in this pro- perty — as the spiritual or as the temporal sovereign 'r Absolutely none whatever — absolutely none whatever excepting that she stood as the trustee for tho Province of Qaebec. Her own personal rights ware not affected, her sovereign rights were not affected. These were no part of Her Ma- jesty's domain, they were no part of Her Majesty's revenue. If they were, under this Act, all sold ami turned into money to- morrow, not one dollar will ever pass into Her Majesty's treasury, public or private, not one dollar will ever be disposed ot under the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty, with regard to those lands, lind no interest, either as the spiritual or the tem- poral sovereign. Lot me ask then in what particular that Act derogales from the au- thority of Her Majesty as head of her Church, or as head of any lellgiou in the British Empire ? None v/hatever. IT IS l'IIKi;j,V A yUl«TION OK TEMl'OHAL CON- t'KUN, purely of the public don)aiu of the I'rovinco of Quebec. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barron) said last night that it dero- gated from her authority, inasmuch as It placed a portion of tho public money in Quebec at the disposal of a foreigner. It does not, I submit, place the public umuey of the Province of Qiiebeo at the disposal of a for- oii^ner ; it sets aside a suhi of money for the extiuguishment of a claim upon the public property of Qijebcc, and then calls upon those which ate htiirauts in regard to it, to abide by the decisioij of tlieir arbitrator in the matter. When the $400,000 shall have been paid from tiie treasury of the Pnivinoe of Q.iel)ec, Her Majesty lias not the sliuhteet right or interest with refiard to the distribu- tion of it. In the r rdinary course it wjiuld be paid to one of thi; claimants on tlie pio- party, but as thcie iiappan to be two, it is paid into the hands, or hold subject to the order of the person who Has to settle tho disputes between them, l^y what light can It l>e claimed, either that Her Majesty or her Govcrnmcni, either in England or the Province of Qaebec, has a right to distribute a dollar of that money ? Surely the rights T)f the C'cowu and of the province end when the Uovorninent there is able to say : "Wo have received the deed of all these outstand- ing claims for which we- consent to pay the money," and to conteml after that that there is any royal or legislative right to control the sub-division of the money, would ba like say log that after a grant of public lands had passed uuder the great seal, the province had a right /to say who fchould hiive interests in tbe land for all time to comef. Now, 1 would be content, if so much had not been said upon this subject as to mislead ^ho judgment ot hundieds of persons in thia country, whose judcment upon any public ijuestion is well worth having — I would be content to rest the case there, and to say that no right of Her Majesty KITIIEU AS A TEMl'ORAli OKSl'IHITUAL POWRB, i" in the least degree involved ; but when we are taken so far afield upon the i|U08tion as to go back into the legislation of 300 year#ago, when we are aski'd to apply to this (juestion the Supreuuvoy 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 follow out that argu- ment to some extent for the purpise of showing how unreasonable the demand is that under the British North America Act, aid in this >h to maintain, than the Sovoreigns of (ireat Tkitain have been theHiKelvea. WHAT ItAS HKENTOKIli At'TlUN inresnectto the tjuestson of the supremacy? Let me read to you a passage in Lord Thur- low's statement in the debates of 1774. "I staged in tlie bcfinniag that it did not afleot*t"> relate to Canada; but I said that the capitul 'ticm did reserve all their efftcta, movable and immovable. But evfn if it were otherwi.-je, is It t > be siippost.d that the tithes wonld accrue to the Knig ? The tithe is I'ollalerat to the land, nor sunk in it. To give the r'luht to i" is givhif to the secular body as well as the regular chrgy all they were in poesesBion of before. It was always iu my opinion an established fact, that the clergy (in Canada) were eutidcd to tithes though they might not have use for them. (Debates 1774, page 71)." So that the people m the Province of Que- bec, V. ho arc said to day to be u-^der the provisions of a Supremacy Act so severe tnat tney cannot recognize the superiority rf a foreign bishop, were, in 1774, by Ifer iVlajisty's Attorney-General, declared to bo subject to their own laws? ro far that their clergy were entitled to collec'; tithes from the people, although perhaps not by author- ity of law. Well, seventy -six ^ears ago, by a solemn Act of State, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec was recognized by the Governor of the Province under royal in- sti actions. We are told that the Act o Supremacy was in force; and yet that mau was a bishop simply by tlie superiority o the first Bishop of his Church. He was a bishop because lie had received from Rome the bulls which, under the statutes of Queen Elizibeth, it was high treason to bring into the country at all. That was the way iu which Uie religious restricticns of the people of this country were treated up- wards of seventy-tive years ago by the Im- pel iil authorities, but I'fter the lapse of three-quurlois of a century we are to be wiser, and wo are to enforce ag.kiust a great section of our free people legislatioij reserv- ing rights to the (.'rown which the Crown deliberately chose to ignore scenty-six , years ago. In 1817 the Rtman Cathcjlio Bishop of Quebec received a mandamus, calling him as a Bishop to the L"giHlu.tive Council of tl-.e Province. lie held this See by the will and under the bull of bis superior Bishop, and he was called by virtue of hia ollice to be one of the rulers of the Province of Quebec In 1H39 (iovornor (Jol borne issued letters patent to incorporatt; the Roman Catholic 1>ii*hop of (Quebec and all hia .sucoessors, whomsoever tliey migiit be, appointed by the foreign superior i-xd under bulla, which, according to the legislation that these hon. gentlemen E.Kk jus to apply to Quebec to-day, it would bo high treason to introduce into the country. In IS38 a Roman Catholic (College was incorporated in the Province (f Prince E iward Island, and the (juistion was submiUed to the law ofHcors cf the Crown fifty y- rial Parliament itself. The Im- perial i'ailiameut is not restricted as to the subjects over which it can legislate, the Provincial Legislatures arc rescrioted in re- gard to the .subjects on which they can legis- late, but in legislating upou thtse subjects a Provincial Lepislature has all the rights which it is possible for the Imperial Parlia- ment to confer. ] say more : I SAY Tir.VT A I'KOVIXCIAI- LK(iISl.ATl'KK, legislating upon subjects which are given to it by the British >(orth America Act, has the power to repeal an Imperial statute, ])rior to the B. N. A Act, atTecting over those subjects. It has betti urged upon the House these two days that we had no power, and that tho Act of "28 and 2!) Victoria, called the Colonial Eaactmoi.ts Act, pro- vided that no statute of a colony should liavo force as against an ItnpiMial statute. But atter the statute of '28 and '/9 Victoria the Biitinh North America Act was passed, and it gives us, as I have said, a division of pov/ers between the two bodies, but it gives tho two bodies in legisl.itint' in their respec- tive spheres all the v>')wers that the Iinpe<'iai l-.ogislatuu) possessed. The hon, member for Victoriu (Mr. Ba.vron) v.-aa misled, I think, last night in his reterence to tho British North Arnerica Act. It is true that tho Biitiah North America Act seems to contain in the 129th section a reservation in that behalf. It reads : "Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in C'andda, Nova Scotia and New BiunswioU at the union, t;nd all courts of civil and criminal jurisdi tiou, an legislation by a province upon a .subject within its control, and declaring that tne Provincial Legis- lature has power to repeal u statute of the Imperial Parliament. Tho iirst in the ca-'-e of He lis against Davies, pa^e 279, which was an appeal fio'n New South Wales, and in which th's was held with rjference to a stitute of James I , which had distinct for(!e in that colony : " Held that the Legislature ot New South Wales had power to repeal tho statute of J mes I, which, according to itw true con- sttuctiou, placed an action for slander for woi\h spoken, up m the 3ame tooting aa re- f;anU costs ap>(l other matters, as an action for written slander." The Statute (d Jaine.s I. made distinct pro- vision as to the amount of costs which the litigant could recover when he only ob- tained A VKUPICT FOR A CKKTAIN AMOUNT FOK Sr-ANUJ4K, the Legislature passed an Act repugnart to that and the provisions of the C(donLvl iMiactUient Act w7 years ago, religious toleration which would have frownt^d down the aigument which was presented to this House this afternoon, if it had been clothed in ten timea the ability and force with which we saw it paraded before the House to day. Then, in 1868, a college for the same pur- pose at Sault au Recollet, in tho Province of Quebec, was inof)r|)orated ; and I atk mem- bers on both tides of this ipiealion, whether, down to a few weeks ago, we have ever heard any remonstrance against tlie powers which wt-'re conferred on those bodies, or whether any section of the people < f this country, or any one, hiich or low, of one de- nomination or another- and I speak oi those who have been appealing to public opiniim on this question from tho puloira with tho profi/undest respect— haa ever objected to the teachings of those institutions, or ut- tered ANY RliPROAfll WITH REOARU TO THKIll OONDUC-r in this country, with regard to th^ir loyalty or with regaid to the ttFccts of their inst motion of example on the youth of this cotHtry. Again addressing mytelf to tho areument that it is not necessary for us in British North America to be more restric. 19 tjve as rpfitarda the right* and powers of the Crown thau tbeC'rowu has been in Knglar ', let nie call the attention of the Houee to the fact that SO years ago, in the heart of Eng- land, a inagnifiuent iositution of loarniut( wai placed under the < ntrol of this eamt order, in which they ha >; been carrying on, every year aiuce, •.; o education of hnudreda of Euirlish youths, and that that ir.atitutiou at Stoneyhurst haa had institutiors ail over J']ni{laud. Arc we to say that the Act of .Supreniacy, the keen edi»o of which i« not to be applied in Great Britain, or that the prohibitory legiHlation with regard to the Jesuit Order, which is not to be applied in Great Britain must be applied co one section of the people in liritifch North America, and applied under our f?)deral system by the arbitrary power of diaallowaiice with which His Excellency is intrusted ? I might well reiterate, but I will not do further than refer to the eloquent and forcible argumrnt which you, tir, Mr. Colby, addreased to the Houae last niijht, in which you poiottd 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 (iov- t rnment by which that kind of legislation would be applied. In the exerciae of the immense poweis, limited though the range of subjects may be, which are eiven to the I'rovincial Leeisli^tures, there is no Pro- vincial Legislature in Canada, which, legis- lating upon the subject of the civil and re- ligious liberties of ita people, would consent to have its powers curtailed by the Federal Government taking from the wall a rusty weapon which had hunp idly there for two hundred years. 1 will spare the patience ot the House and not do whao I intended to do, namely, quote legislation still in force with regard to all Her Majesty's domain, hut a dead letter for scores of years — legisla- tion which, if it were in force, would put one-third of the people of this city into prison to morrow, for the oflence of heresy. THE OFFEJS'CE OF NON-CONFORMITY, the ortVnce of not taking the sacrament, or for daring to profess the belief of Unitaiians, some of these statutes being still actually unropealed. But what is the use ? The greatest writer on the subject of criminal law which the century has produced. Sir Kitzjamcs Stephens, has pub the story well iu two paragraphs, and his authority upon it will not bo denied ; the acceptability of Ilia sentiments with, retrard to the United Kingdom will not be questioned ; and he says this • "For two hundred years Government haa been carried on " And he is iy the criminal law, and were considered as funda- mental, we are, in this country, to look still at THE OLD FDNDAMFNTAL DIFFERENCKS and curtail our liberties by the strong arm of the federal authority; and in the e.xercihe of federal power, we are to curtail the rights of our Legislature to infringe upon, impugn, or make any enactment lepagnant to this lecislation which haa been buried under the weight ot public opinion for upwards of cwo centuries. Well, I forgot to say, and I will digress from my argument for a moment to mention it, that, in 'sTl, by a statute of the Province of Quebec, there was an Act passed incorporating the whold Society of Jesus in the Province. The order was pre- oiselj' the same society, which was incorporated by the Act of 18S7, and the only dilFerence ia the dilTerence of legislative provisions as to the method of working their incorporation. From 1871 to 1.SS7, no word of objection was raised in any part of the country to that incorporation, as to ita constitutionality or effect, but because in 188!t we did not advise disallowance of aii Ac^ of precisely the same kind, we are to fall under the censure of this House. I have referred to the statement of Sir FitK- james Stephen as to the value of this legisla- tion to England, and I will cite 'another passage which, for its terseness and ita force, is worthy the attention of hon. gentlemen. He said, referring to the lesrislation againsi the .fesuits in the year of (Jeorge IV. : "These powers, I believe, have been con sidered, ever since they were passed, as an absolutely dead letter." Lacer on he says as to ecclesiastical legislation : "Our ancestors v/alked in darkness, and we have solved the 20 problem, which was t'<» hard tor them, bj' recognifcinir liberty of conecieoca us a priu- ciple ot uuiversal ap£)lication." Be/ore I i lose my argument, 1 mus: addrejis myself tor a niornent to a vi; w which was pal torwurd by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. AicCarthy) as regards the tftVot of the statute oil the fund for l.itjlitr «ducati"n iu the Provirco ot ^Jlucbec. lie i)Ut forward as a reason why this Act should l)o disallowed, if no other retujon existed, that i"; was a breach of trust, and that it misapplied, or, to use his own words, misappropriated the property which it related to 1 tliink the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. LaDgelier) was was quite rif;ht iu ohallengiog him to read any part of the Act which austuioed his argument, and the House onserved that he di.i not respond to the challenge. Let me remind the House at the outset that, 10 regard to the sale of the property, the statute (jives the province no greater power than it bad bufaie. It is a statute as its titlo implies, for the eettlemeut ot the Jesuit claims. Hut che Province of Quebec before that, had, under its existing le^ialation, ample power of salo, and the Act makes uo ■uroviaion ditl'erent from that which 'did exist as to what is to be done with the property or the money. Ont would suppose, listening to the arRuinent of the hon. member for •Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), although he did not state it in so many words, TiiKRK \V.\.S A I'liOVI.SION IN THK ACT which declared that that trust should no lou6;er apply to the property, that it might go into the consolidated revenue and be dis- posed ot as the Government pleased. Not so. Tno Inat clause of the Act provides that when these properties are sold, they are to be subject to the dis'position of the Legis- lature. Are we to infer, and to advise dis- allowano on the ground of that inference, that the Legislature ot the province is going to betray its trust with regard to any property, when it has never made that declaration or never sought power to de^iert the trust ? 1 will tell the Houro what is the absolute fact ou this point : That the minority in the I'ro vince of (^nel>eo, that those intorestcd in higher education; that those interested in any way in the execution of the trust, have not suffered one whic or jot by the passage of the A3t. The fact has been that the re- venue from thofce cstaKs has been paid from year to year into the cocsilulated revenue fund and not into the fund for higher education. The faot is likewise that the proceeds of largo portions of that property which have already been sold have, from year to year, been placed to the credit of the consolidated revenue, and spent for the general purposes ot the province. From year to year the PiovinciJ Legislature, not out of rilK KtVKM'KS OF THK ,J tSl'ITs' KSTATtS or the proceeds of the Jesuits estatfs, which were too sm ill for that puroise, but out ot its consolidated revenue, has made ample provision for the high"!r education crf the province; and after the argument made this afcernooii aoout the way in which the joinority would be pre judiced, and the eupinenesa of the minority in submitting, as it was paid, indi- cated they would be willing to submit, to this lecislation, and the brench rf trust, which was apparent on the Act itself, in the diversion of the only fund that exists tor the higher education of the Provimo, the House will be sui prised to learn that from year to year — I speak in general terms — the allow ftuce in tlie Province of Quebec for the higher education made out cf the condoli- dated revenue fund has been on an averaae more than three times the annual proceeds of the Jesuits' estates. Not a single school, high or bnv in the Province of t^uebec, has tieen sustained from those estates so tar, be- cause the fund was utterly insufficient. Ample provision was made out of the con- solidattjd revenue fund, and yet we are told that when theee estates disappear and go into tlie market, they go fiee from any trust, and that neither the majority nor the miuoriry will have any 8i;curity for higher education in the province. It is fuificient for me to have shown the Hoose that the Act purports to do nothing of the Kind, that it sanctions nothing of the kind ; but I thins the argument \vm irresisMble force when I show tkiat theso properties have not been considered a security for ttiese pur- poses at all. The hon. member for tSimcoe (Mr McCarthy) challenged tlie propriety of my report upon this Act, when, after favour- ing the House with his long and interesting theological di.'icourae, and after havip!/ ex- cited to some extent the feelings and sym pathy of the Honse, he declared that I had presented that statute to His Excellency as of uo more importance than the eleven otners accompanying it, which 1 had re.3ommended choukl be left to their operation. Now, upon TIIK I.MrOUTASCB OR UNLMPOKTANfE OK TUB STATUTES it is not necessary for me to advise His Ex- cellency, but 1 take the responsibility of having aiivised His Excellency that that Act was uo h'ss within the powers of the Legisla- ture of (Jnebec than the other eleven which accompanied it. And when I have rennnded the hou. gentleman that it is not a question of trust, that there is no diversion of trust by the authority of that Act, and. 'hat these estates have not been the source from which 21 re, not ATliS states, but ication [11 men t way pre liigher education haa bfien suppoited, I think he will bo alnioRt inclined to Agree vitti me that T was right attcr 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 haa been raised with regard to it, that this society, who have been spoken of so severely iu this debate, have been dealt with by the Province of Qaebec. I have in my possession a list extending back over fifteen yec»ru 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, ui;- cording to the statement we have heard this afttruoon, all that has been unconstitu- tional, and every one of thtse Supply bills ought to have been disallowed, because, for- sooth, they were igooiine the distinction be tween Church and St*te. I think TT IS KATnER I.ATK to treat this question as anytliing other than a fiscal question, and that the difference be- twe«n the Supply IJiUs in all those fiiteeu years, and the Act which is now being dis- cussed is simply a (juestion of decree aud of amount. The principle of supporting the higher education carried on by that society in that province has been recognized, as I have said, every yoir in the Supply Bill, and yet, for the first time, because this is a larger sum which is being dealt with, v.nd larger because it deals with the rights or claims ol that T.ociety to lands, we are asked to assert a principle which wc were never asked before to assert in regard to them. Now, I desire to call the attention of the House lor 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 as regards the expenditure of the $G0,- 000, but that ttiere was no restriction as regards the expenditure of the f 400,000. The $60,000 has been appropriated to a body which had no claim legally or morally, and had never asserted any aa regards the title to the Jesuits' es- tates. They have OIAIMEU Til HE XNTERESTKl) IX THE AITRU- TRIATIONS ^¥hich are maile from time to time tor higher •ducatiou, and rightly so, aiul those claims have alxyays been considered. I am not prepared' to say whether (he proportioa allotted to them in this Act is right or not. That is a question up'^o which the hon. member for Is orth Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), if he had a seat in the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, might have addressed the House with great force, but for as here to discasB the appropriation of money, and the proportion in which it is appropriated by a province would be as absurd es for us to take the Supply Bill ot the province every year, and enter into a dis- cussion of its difierent appropriations. The reason why, aa I presume, the restriction has been imposed iu regard to the $()0,000, and not in regard to the §400,000, is that the !g()0.(H)0 is voted for educational purposes purely and simply, and. while the S400,(K)0 has every prospect of being so applied, be- cause 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 to 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 North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), but one to whicli I must advert, that the grant of money to this corporation was a church endowment which violated the prin- ciples of the separation of Church and State in this country. I ji-ws by at this moment the position which any church occupies in this country. I do not intend to discuss hew far, in any portion of the country, any church may be considered a« now 'Established : hut I do say that it passes the power cf ingenuity to show tiial the grant of money to a corporation of teacheis and preachers is the endowment of a church in Canada. It is true that a church may be in part a so- ciety of preachers and teachers, but this so ciety is not a church, and in tiie most illogical way in which a fallacy oould be put on paper, THIS KESOLUTIOS ASKS THK HOUSE TO ("OME TO THE CONCLUSION that, because a society incorporated undt'r a statute of the province and employed in preachiug and tciachinp the tenets of a cer- tain religion receives a grant of money, that is the endowment of a cliurch within the province. I venture to say that there is no one in this country who knows the facts upon which that resolution is based 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 may hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that this is no more the endowment of a church, and that it is no more an interference with the separation of Church and State in this country than would be the endowment of a hospital, or an orphanage or an asylum which was under the ci»re of a religious or- ganization. We all cherish the principle that there should be no church control over the State iu any part of this country, but my hon. friend proposes something worse than that control. He proposes that w^ ohall step into the domain ot a Proviuniai Legislature, and shall say that no Provincial legislature shall have the power to vote any money to any institution if it partakes of a reiivious character. It may profess any other kind of principle. It may profess any objectionable principle, and it is lawful to 22 endow it, 1 ut, if it profeiaes the Christian character, it ie, forsooth, uaconstitutioual to allow Buch aK Act to go intg, operation. I listened tr« the remarks which the hon. mcnberforSimcoefMr. McCarthy) addressed to the House on th« third branch of his argument, as to the ohjeclionable teaching" of thia society with some sur^-Mse, though I do not intend to night to challenge his ample liberty to ditl'er from me as to the coi rectness and propriety of those observations. I hope that, in ih's diccuanioi', he and those who will vote with him will not prove them- selves ANV LKSS KKIEKDS OK UKI.HilOr.. LIHEHTY than they have professed to be in the past, but I aHSume- -I think I have a right to assume — that, when the case of the gentle- men who are opposed to the allo'vance of this Act is placed in the hands of an hon. member who is so »^''e antt so skilled in s.'gumeat as he, ',e are not to be con- demned for not asking His Excel- lency iC disallow ♦his .\ct unless the reasons wnich he urged with such great force this afternoon are rta-jons which 1 c',uld use in addressing His I'.xceUcnoy on the subject Surely I have a right to assume that the hon. gentleman has put forward the best case he could, and I am not to be coji- demned unless 1 could avail myself of his reason^ in asking His Excellency to disallow the Act. It I could picture myself going to His Excellency and afcUin^' for the disallow- ance of tliia Act for the reasons which thn hon. genthnian iMr. McCarthy) presf-ntcd in the latter part of hia addrets, I woulrl imagine mynelf just ht to be expelled fiom His Excellency's pre- sence as (juicklv as possible. What would be the reasi-ns which I shoukl urge ? I am not finding fault now '.viih the strictures that the hon. gentleman made in regard to the society ; but, forB<^oth, I am to go to His I'.xcellenoy and ask liim to di«allow this Act because, in the vear 187t, a (^)rAin'i:HLi Rt- viKW published an article aenouncing '^e Jesuit Society and its teachings. AM I iNOT KT(;iIT IN' TAKlN(t THE AllOUMENT ANMJ TKK EVIDKNCE which he produces to-day as thd argument and the evidence which 1 should produce to Hie EvceKency? If lam to go to Hia Excellency and say that the Qpak- TKKi.Y Ui;v]Kw published in 1S74, denounced in language as stront as could hr the tenets and teachiags of these people. His Excellency ndght Kal% r.e a number of perplexiug (lucstions, one of which wan veiled at the hon. member for North Simooe this afternoon without much profit to him. Let me supp mi that His Ex- c-^llcn'v asked me "Mr. Ministor of JCle- f'f't trr tnan tale the auii^ver of the hoa. member for SiiUcoe — my answer would have to he : I really do not know who is tne author; hut, T/our Excelhucy. I am sure that nothing would be published in the KEVtEW which would not stand ciiticism. ' I am af rajd that His Excellency might not be satisfied with the answer, and that he might put me anoth^T rather mere pnz:-.ling ii"eation : Mr. Minister of Justice, are you aware ihat these able and elc(juent bur anonymous publications in that Review have been refuted time and again until the s'anders hav? been worn theadbare ? I would ask my hon Irieml from Simcoe what I should Answer to that queatiou ? Mr. Mc(yarthy — Refuted where .' Sir John Thompson— I would like to ask him, has he ever read the answers to them ? 1 would lil''^ to ask him, has he ever sought the answers to them ? IJecause these are fiuestions which His 1*/Kcellency n.ay ask me 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 voluminous that I shall have to give him a catalogue of them; but in order to be pre- cise, and .NUT TO ilE .SU.^VEOTElJ OK EVADIN(i THK QUESTION, I will tell him that in an EngUsh publication called the M(^ntii, etep by stop, as ) y one of these articles came out. the anhwer and the refutation came out, and that in tlie opinion of a creat many pnople these men were able to refute the attackti triumphantly. [ am nottopas8Judgm*ntasto whether they were euccesbful or otherwise, 1 have ijo right to speuk my own opinions here, I am speaking for those with whom I am acritig in concert. His Excollenav might ask me whether, having read these urticlfs, what conclusion T had come to as to the balance of arguments pro and (!on. U he did so, I should be unable to find, in the course of thatiadminible tnree houts interesting theological discuaaion which we had today, a single him, as to my reply, and having read the attack in the Hh\ iew and the re fliew which were made, es I have done, should have to tell His Kx'oUency that unless we were to be guided by the opinion of a partisan on one side or the other, the best thing he could do would bo to leave it cither to his own conscience or to that con- science which the constitution has provided for dealing with the subject — the conscience of the Legislature of the prcpvince which had t> deal with it. Jf His Excellency wore to ask mo, "Sir, in advising disallowance on the authority of the i,^ aii;kkiv Rr vj!;\v" -which I am afralti to the (Jnlonial OlHco would not be aouod authority would not be a «iati»factory t!on Hhitutional authoi ity -"have you verified the (j lotations lor yourself?' I aek thti lion, ni^iidwr for Simtoe «hat I ihould an- 23 finer then ? What anawsr could he give to the House if I asked him now, whether ho has verified a single one of those quotationc — and I tell him that on che verity of the ([uotations half the controversy has turned. I tell him that it is claimed by ^hose who have undertaken — I do not say they have gufct.^ded — to refute them, that the tenets whii'h they are accused of teaching, they h*ve not taupht ; that the passapes putjfor- wiird as proofs were problerns — doubtlul cises, casts to diatinsuish between that which is ihe sin, which ihe confessor has to deul with, and that which, though aeainat public nioralti or public propriety, the con- fessor has not to deal wicli. In dealintr with casuistry, and when dealing with moral theology, some ot the old writers (juoted have suggested dilKoulties, and problems and questions, and have given advice to iheii- confussors upon sucli suhjecte • but they have not put forward the tenets as to he taupht to the youth of the country. I might bo to!i by His Eyoellency that I might find in the studies of my own pro- fession a similar cate ; that I might find the leading writers in my owu profession, eminent men, stating that things which \\K RHCOONIZK KKOM DAY TO DAY AS MIDEOCS WKONOSj are not offences against the criminal law o the country — some of them I could nun e, but which it would be .ilmost indecent to r.ame in a n.ixed assembly. Ai\d, sir, it coulJ be said ot these writer'? who declared that euch was the law, tliat these thinys, however abominable they may be, however contrary to public moraU, are not agaii.at the law — could it be said that these eminent writers like .Sir Fit>',).imrs Stephen and others are ttachiitg that such things are lawful aud oucht to be done in the country, and aie putting them before the youth of tho country as things that are right ? Is there not a broad dis t!n<;tion between the two ideas ? If the hon, member for North Simcoe had read the answers whicli have been made to the pub- lications which ho quoted, he would not have dared, an he in an honourable man, t(. have preaonted totho Ucuie the argument that he made this afternoon, witiiout, at least, presenting the other side of it. II- I WERE TO ADViaK HIS EXOELLRNCY TO KISALUIVV THIS ixn.l, Haoauie of the objeotionable teachings ot this body. His Kxoollem y might fairly say to ma: "The f/jgielature of the United Prov; uoeti of Canada, '.\1 years ago, erected the Society into p, corporation to hold lauds and to teach the youth of the country. Now, in looking over that S7 years of re- cord, i:an you point me t.n one of t lO teachers or ono of the taurf!)t who has bet n dif'.oyal to his country. Has ftnyone been able to say : This or tlit.'- Father has tau,{ht me immorality, thia or that man is guilty of immorality in his teachiaj, this or thai tenet was obj sctionable ? ^Vhat reply should I have to pive him ? Well, sir, if His Excellency went on and reminded me that the rules and constitutions of that order have beon published for 45 years, and that before giving him advice of that kind I ought to bo able to put my hand upon ttie patsaees of the rules and con- stitutions of that order which are objection- able on the gtounds of public policy, I am afraid I should be unable to do so to an ex- tent to ju*tiify the disallawance of this Act, and I am afraid I should not fiod in the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe much comfort in that respect. If I weie to advise His I'^vcellency to disallow the Act on ;he cround of -the expulsion of the Hugue- uota, the Rt vocation of the E lict of N.intes, the Franco dermaL war, the ex- lulHion from France in 1818, the expuhion from other countries, I am afraid HIS KXCKtJ.ENCY MKiHT TEl.r, ME that all the statements of fact were dis- puted, and that ho luight read me a lesson in ancient and modern history ot which one of the do(tuctio(is would be thnt in some of these countries, to say that the court was opposed to the .lesuits, or to say ttiat the court wac op posed to the Protestant reformeib, was no discredit to either the Protestant reform- ers or to the Jesuits, I do not think, sir, that I need dwell on that branch of the sub- ject any longer. I think tnat whenever we touch these delicate and difiicult questions which aie in any way conn»-cted with the sentiments of religion, or of race, or of^sdu cation, there are two principles which it.is absolutely uecoseiuy to maintain, for tlie sake of the living together of the diflerent membci'S of this confederation, for the sake of the preservation of the Federal powrr, for the sake of tho good- will, and kindly charity ot all our people towards each other, and for tiio sake of the pros- pects of making a nation, as wo oan only do by living in harmony and ignoring those difTerencee which used to be considered fundamental, these two principles surely must prevail, that as repards theological questions the State must have nothing to do with them, and that as reaaida the con- trol which the Federal power can exercise over Provincial Legislatures in matters touching the freedom of its people, the religion of its people, the appropriations of its people or the sentiments of its pc iple, no section of this country, whether it be the great IVovinco of (Quebec or the hund)lc8t and smal'i ^t province of this cou?itry, can be governed on thcfashioDs of three hundred years ajo.