IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe. V. f/j *^ u. "W 1.0 I.I ■^ 1^ III: .1! 140 2.2 2.0 L8 1.25 1.4 \b_ ^ 6" — ► % <^ n m j^ '/ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STRE'.T WEBSTER. N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques M ^ 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 n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover ti-.ie missing/ Le titre de couvorture manq-ie □ 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 D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrde 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 pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restau ration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont p:i'i 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires auppldmentaires: 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 mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaut^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary; materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or lamina«:ed/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I 7] Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary; material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, ate, have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fa9on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 — \ — .„ 1 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed hers has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quality possible .onsidericig the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with vhe filming contract specificetions. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »• (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la gAn^rositA de: Douglas Library Queon's University Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduitps avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity rvec les conditions du contrat tie fllmsge. Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est Imprim6e sont film6s en commenqant par ie premier plat et en torminant soit par la dernlAre pa^e qui comporte une empreinte d'Impresslon ou d'iilustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiim6s en commenpant par la premitire page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impresslon ou d'iilustration et en terminant par ia dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —*- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams ilSustrate the method: Les cartas, planches, tableaux, ftc, peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui cliche, il est film6 d partir de i'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants lllustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 /v ^ V- .< iT/ <.)>j< '• r 'i II. I. ■;• !i . I 'I I I ,1,:;,. I JESUITS ESTATES ACT, .'•■• I,;. D'ALTON MCCAETHI'S GREAT SPEECH a :, (..'■• II^ XHK HOXJSE O^ COIwII^ON-s". -<■ (Reprinted wi^/i i/r. McCarthy's permission.) ■i,i ■: ". 1 '-■■ ^^.iJ'-' -. .* • , r ].!;■, .^ '!.,! "'-Vi t;;-.ij .,'/ ■•.'-■. ..- ' ' 'v ■' ■V *-. . . ■; i ' -..('--. , i *'•■-' '-■■ ■- ■ . i, . . PUBLISHED BY ;^; i. V ; THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE, /v- ^ /^ ^i' 9| Adelaide Street East, '' Toronto Copies of this Speech and of the Jesuits' Estates Act may be obtained at the rate of ten cents each on application to W. Banks, Secretary, at above address. Greatly re- duced rates for quantities. .•J;i -««,H*. v^^, r.'^:" ^-^'ivV .,-v><\,^' " Firstly. — Because it endows from public funds a religious organization, thereby violating the undoubted constitutional principle of the complete separation of Church and State, and of the absolute equality of all denomi- nations before the law. " Secondly. — Because it recognizes the usurpation of a right by a foreign authority, namely. His Holiness the Pope of Rome, to claim that his consent was necessary to empower the Provincial Legislature to dispose of a portion of the public domain, and also becaut e the act is made to depend upon the will, and the appropriation of the grant thereby made as subject to the con- trol of the same authority. And V "Ttiirdly, — Because the endowment of the Society of Jesus, an alien, secret, and politico-religious body, the expulsion of which from every Chris- tian community wherein it has had a footing has been rendered necessary by its intolerant and mischievous interineddling with the functions of civil government, is fraught with danger to the civil and religious liberties of the people of Canada. And this House, therefore, prays that His Excellency will be graciously pleased to disallow the said Act." t < V reign ::, f;:THE jesuit question. D' ALTON McCARTHY'8 I .Hf ;-■ GREAT SPKECH r tf■v 7..i• ,!, IN THE DOMINION HOUSE OF COMMONS. i.iif ,' f!' Jl Mr. McCarthy. — At the cloae of the sitting last evening I rose some- what reluctantly, and only because I thought if 1 did not seize that oppor- tunity, you, Sir, would call in the members, and the opportunity of addressing the House would be lost. I thought then, aad think now, that considering the nature of the motion which is before the House, it Avould not have been unreasonable for the Government, or some member of the Government, to have defended their action in the past in allowing the Bill under discussion, and to have given those reasons to us which, perhaps, would have justified their course, and, at all events, would have enabled those who differ from them to show wherein that difference lies. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) is entitled to the thanks of this House and country for bringing this matter before Parliament. It would have been, I think, an everlasting disgrace to us if, in this, a free Parliament and free country, there would be no mem- ber found out of the 200 odd who compose this House, to give voice to the opinions of a very large body of the people who have been aroused with regard to this measure. I say when my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) gave reasons why he thought this Bill should still be disallowed, notwithstanding the action of the Government, when he assailed the action of the Government upon constitutional grounds, and when to that was added the att*" ck made by my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace),and the most elaborate attack, upon legal grounds, miide by the hon. Member for North Victoria (Mr. Barron), it does appear to me that it would have been ordinary courtesy to those hon. gentlemen, and to the House itself, that some defence should have been made from the Treasury benches. I hardly think that we can take seriously the defence which has been ofiered by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert). I do not for myself take it seriously. With regard to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby), the case is different. His remarks require attention, and from me they shall receive serious consider- ation. But, although my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Rykert) is a gentle- man of long standing in the House, he frankly told us that he prayed, as I understood him, that he never again would have to present himself before his constituents to ask for a renewal of their confidence. Mr. RYKERT.— I did not say so. *" v !Mr. McCarthy. — I must have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, and, of course, take that back. Then my hon. friend, the other gentleman to whom I have referred (Mp. Colby), who spoke so feelingly and so ably, ;-Jt*5 •^\t- li758Ii whoso voice we are always glad to listen to, whose wisdom we all recognize, is possibly a prospective Minister ; but, although that be so, I think it would still have been perhaps better if we had heard from an actual Minister, and not a prospective Minister, on a (question of this importance. It may be that before this debate closes the House will hear from the Treasury benchc h up- on this subject. Their silence so far in the discussion is, I consider, hardly giving M» fair play, fortified by the leaders, opposite, fortified by the great number of hon. gentlemen who are going to supjK^rt them in thia House, I dc lihink they should have allowed the small band here who are opposed to their action any possible advantage that could be given by the debate, and not have remained silent, but have given the reasons why the course of the Govern- ment should be sustained. However that may be, we must take the situation just as we find it, and I was not willing the discussion should close without giving the reasons why I am taking the course which I propose taking on this important matter, and in which I will have to separate myself from my political friends with whom it has been my pride and pleasure to act up to this time. The question must be considered in a two-fold aspect. It has to be considered as to its constitutionality in the narrower sense of the term, and as to its constitutionality in the wider sense of the term. If it is ultra vires the Legislature of Quebec, it ought to have been disal- lowed. If it is intra vvrea, if it is within the powers of the Legislature of that Province, then I still say it ought to have been disallowed. But the matters are so entirely separate and distinct — the one resting upon l^al con- stitutional principles of one description, and the other depending upon con- siderations of a widely different character, that I have to ask the permission of the House to deal with these matters separately and distinctly. First, it is well we should clearly understand the character of the legislation which is assailed. It will not do to ignore the past; 1 ''ill not do, as the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) did, to say it is no' lecessary to consider fine spun legal arguments, or to 'deal with the question in t^at way. All these questions have first to be considered from the legal point of view. We have a very large volume, down to the present time, of tne cases which have been disallowed, most of them because thej were beyond the power of the Pro- vincial Legislature to enact. Therefore, the first question which the Minis- ter of Justice had to report upon was whether this Act was constitutional in that sense of the term. The first question was whether it was within the powers of the Legislature of the Province. Then the other question came before himself and colleagues — a matter more of great public policy than of law — as to whether on these grounds the measure ought to have been disal- lowed. It is well to look at the Act, and although I have no doubt that all of us have read the Act and pretty well understand it, yet I will ask the House to bear with me while I give shortly a summary of what I consider to be the salient features of this most extraordinary piece of legislation. It commenced by a letter from the Premier of Quebec, in which he addressed His Eminence the Cardinal, who, I suppose, occupies somewhat the position of the Prime Minister of His Holiness the Pope. In that letter Mr. Mercier, having recited the history of the case says : " Under thene ciroumstances, I deem it my duty to aak Your Eminence if you see any serious objection to the Government selling the property, pending a final settlement of the question of the Jesuits' Estates." Here we have the Premier of one of our Provinces asking of His Holiness,^ or of the Secretary of the Propaganda, occupying the position to which I have referred, for permission, it being his duty, as he says so to do, to sell the property— asking him to sea if there is any serious objoctiou in the way of the Government selling the property, pending the final settlemei^t of |^p Jesuits' Estates. It is sufficientlj' startling to find such a recital in a British v: ognize, r would er, and be that tic H up- hardly great 96, I dc ■jO their Dt have )overn- taation girithout icing on rom my ;t up to It has of the e term. n disal- ature of But the gal con- )on con- *mission First, it n which the hon. consider Ul these Ve have /e been 10 Pro- Minia- tutional thin the on came than of tn disal- that all ask the isider to ion. It Idressed poeition Diercier, y BtmottS tioD 9|t.t)ie ineas^ or I have sell the way of |t of t|he British 1 I Act of Parliament, and I venture to .say it is unheard of, I venture to say that in all the legislation passed by the Parliaments of Great Britain or the Legis- latures of any of the Colonies, you will search in vain to tind any so humili- ating statement as this very first clause of the Bill presenta to you. But that does not seem to excite surprise in the power to which it was addressed, because the answer is in this form : ; < "' '•I tiMten to nc.tify you that, having laid your request before the Holy yather at the audience reMterday, Hid UolineM waa pi 'ased to grant i>ermiwioD to aell the property which belonged to the Jenait Father* before they were RuppreiiH«d, " ■ j i j. So the permission is given " uiion the expreM condition, however, " i . ■* ' i' ' ' So the condition is annexed ' ' '.>.;,• •' " that the nam to be received be deposited and left at the free diaposal of the Holy See." Thus the Province of Quebec is permitted to legislate. The first step has been gained in the settlement of this important question. The free Parlia- ment of Quebec, entrusted under the British North America Act with important powers, and representing a mixed community, a community with which the Supreme Pontiff of Rome has no power to interfere as a temporal power, asks, and the Supreme PontiiT graciously grants, permission to that Legislature, to deal with what, I think I will show to the satisfaction of every member of this House before I close, was recognized as a portion of the public domain. Mr. Mercier did not see his way to allow this condition to be imposed. It could not be at the disposal of the Holy See, but — and to my mind it is a distinction without a difference — it was to be retained as a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the Holy See. I do not know whether there is very much difference between these two provisions. It is a diflference in words, but not a difference in fact or in substance, as the sequel has shown. Practically, it has been a gift to the Holy See, and has been distributed as to His Holiness the Pope seemed best. Then, having obtained this consent, as a condition pji^cedent to the legisla- tion, we find that negotiations were entered upon, and the result of these negotiations is that the lands of the Jesuits' Estates are to be left intact. - That is another concession granted by the representative of the Holy See ; and, instead of that, compensation in money is to be made, and the claim is presented, which we find amounts to $2,000,000. As 81,000,000 of that is the property of this Dominion, I do not think we have got rid of that claim yet I do not suppose that the Province of Quebec could do more than make an arrangement in regard to that property which belonged to that province ; but, in regard to that which belongs to this Parliament or to this Dominion, I suppose, by-and-bye, we will have our First Minister asking leave — because what can be assented to by the authorities here as right in the Province of Quebec would not be wrong in regard to the property belonging to the Dominion — we may have the First Minister here asking that the portion of that property belonging to the Dominion shall be dealt with by permission of His Holiness at Rome. I find further in these documents the following : — " I deem it my duty to ask Your Eminence if you see any serious objection to the Government'* lelllng the property, pending a final settlement of the question of the Jesuits' Estates." There is no doubt at all about the meaning of this. There is no doubt about the understanding which is arrived at. Before the Government are put in full possession, and in order that they may be put in full possession of these estates, there is to be a compensation made, and, finally, the bargain is worked out, and the conditions of the bargain are, what ? The conditions are that this arrangement is to be non-effective until it receives the sanction of His Holiness of Rome. It is to be ratified— that is the tertn used — 43Ut it means practically that it might be vetoed, and to make, no doubt, thftt there was no atieiupi at conciliation or at sparing the feelings of thorn* who are known to entertain strong feelings on this subject, this matter was not submitted to His Holiness of Rome until it was brought before the Legis- lature of that Province. Whether that was by arrangement or not, I tlo not know. Whether it was paying proper respect or not to the Sovereign Pontiff to ask him to express his approval or disapproval, I do not protencfto judj:fe, but the legislation of the Province is clearly made dependent upon the act of His Holine.ss the Pope of Rome. Not only so — and then 1 nave finished my summary of the Act — but the sum of money which is granted, tho $400,000 granted which is payable out of any money of the public revenue, is to he distributed, in effect, though perhaps not in the terms of the contract^ under and with the sanction of His Holiness of Rome. Now, that is shortly the meaning of this legislation. I will have finished with the Act when I make a further observation, and I make it now, perhaps, a little out of place, but it must not be altogether lost sight of. This Act in effect does away with the purposes for which the Jesuit Estates were appropriated, and I think that is a matter of such great importance that I can only feel astonislied at the calmness with which my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colby) regards it, and the indifference with which it has been received by the rrotestant portion of the Province of Quebec, as my hon. friend has stated. This Bill puts into the /jeneral fund an amount which was granted for educational purposes. It misappropriates — I do not use the term in a technical sense, for I quite recognize the right of the Province to use the fund — but from a general standpoint it misappropriates this fund by providing that $4;00,000 may be paid thereout to a certain institution. Now, having said so much as to the Act, let me say a word or two as to the property, and that brings me to what might be a long history and a long statement, and I liope the House will not be impatient with me when I deal with this somewhat com- pMcated matter, which I will endeavor to make as plain as I can. I do not accept the theory whidn I have seen put forward in some quarters, that the Jesuits held their estates in trust for educational purposes. As far as I have been able to examine the deeds — and I have examined the statement made in the year 1824 — these estates were given to them in fee simple for all time. So far a& I can judge from the history of the body at that time, it was not an uncommon thing for the Jesuit Fathers to accumulate both lands and goods in very considerable quantities. I find that one of the accusations made against them was avarice ; one of the causes of the suppression of their order shortly after that, was the complaint made by the other orders of the Church, that they were avaricious, and that they accumulated wealth unduly in their order, notwithstanding the vow of poverty which they had taken. But however that may be, I think it is quite plain that they did hold these estates for themselves. I^ow, then, just let me trace the story of events by which this country became subject to the British Crown. We must never forget — I am afraid that some of" my friends from the Province of Quebec do some- times forget — thai this is a British country, that by the fortunes of war that event was decided, and the greater half of North America passed under the British Crown ; and that being so, effect had to be given to the laws to which the country then became subject. Now, what were thope laws ? Granting, Sir, — whicn is not quite accurate — that the Jesuits held these estates at the time of the C'onquest — I spoke before of the manner in which they held them originally — but granting they held them at that date — which would not be accurate — when we have before us the decree of the Parliament of Paris, suppressing the Jesuit Order in the year 1762, taking from ihem their land ; when we have that, it would not, I say, be strictly accurate to affirm, that at the time of the Definitive Treatj' in 1763, these Jesuit Fathers held their r- one BC who Yas not J Legis- (lo not Pontiff ) judge, ^ lO act of fininhed ted, the evenue, ontract> Hhortly when I of place, Bs away I think itjlied at regards otoatanb ^his Bill cational 9,1 sense, , from a ;400.000 10 much it brings tope the lat com- I do not that the ,s I have made in all time. .s not an id goods us made eir order Church, r in their n. But e estates y which tbrget — io some- wBiY that ider the to which ranting, es at the eld them not be of Paris, It land ; rm, that eld their I I d estates as tlioy certainly tlM aforotiino. But even if t\\^^y did, whilo adinittin'j freely that this country. New France, having then a settled law, and nassing under the British Crown as a conquered country, while I admit freely, that the British law did not, by virtue of the conquest, become the law or Now France, I do say, it is beyond all doubt, that it was in the power of the con- quering State to enact such laws as to the cori([ueriug State seemed proper, to change the civil law which then prevailed, and to introduce the common law of England. It is beyond all controversy that, the treaty having been agreed to on the 10th February, 17G3, on the October following, the King 'Jaughing matter about it, I cannot see why they should laugh about it. If the property is in the condition that' I have proved it to be, I think the con- clusion that I have stated follows from it ; and if we are a free people, if the Act of Supremacy means anything, if we are not subject to His Holiness of Rome in temporal mattei-s — I am not speaking of spiritual matters, I am speaking of the public domain of this country, I am talking about the tem- poral power, it was of that power that consent was asked to dispose of the €state'^ — and so I say it is a humiliation to us as a free people to find that one, of, the Premiers of this Dgminion has thought it necessary to obtain the Hanction of any foreign Ruthority to diHpose of this property. It i» argued t)iat the Popu iw nu lunger a foreign potentate ; I think he in. IIi» temporal power wa« never feared, it was the spiritiittl power which was struck at by the Act of Supremacy, not the temporal power of the Pope. It waH the powor he claimed to excommunicate soveroigns, to absolve peoples from their allegiance — these were what wore struck at by the Act of Supre- macy, not his guns or his men, for guns and men he never had in numhers to alarm or affect any of the groat powers of Europe. Now, Sir, am I right or am I wrong, in what I have stated ?- -because I desire to make no mis- statement of this ((uestion. Lot us just see what the law officers of the Crown stated at that time. We know how it was done. The law officers, I believe, at that time, were Mr. Thurlow, the attorney -general, and Mr. Weddenburn, solicitor-general, both distinguished lawyers, but neither of them> perhaps, competent to give an opinion in uiatters of civil law. Sir James Marriott was skilled in civil law and in ecclesiastical law, and he wan called upon for a report — merely for a report, because the respon.sibility still rested with the law offi. ars of the Crown. Extracts of his report have been f)ublisheu, and we are more or less familiar with them, and his report estab- ished, and the law officers adopted his conclusion, that the Jesuits' Estates were at once forfeited to the Crown. That under the Treaty there was no claim for either the Jesuits or for other religious communities ; but, anxious as the Sovereign was — and, I say, if you will look back at the history of that period, no man with British blood will have cause to regret the conduct of the British authorities in those days or the manner of their disposition — the Sovereign said : " The Jesuits are beyond the pale. We cannot linten, for one moment, to their holding their estates, but the other religious communities are to be permitted to remain in possession of their estates, and they are to remain there for the purpose of enabling us to judge whether it is necessary under the treaty (afterwards, under the Statute of 1774, they were continued in their possession), in order that effect might be given to that portion of the Treaty, and that portion of the Act of Parliament, which guaranteed to the inhabitants of the conquered country their rights." I shall have to trouble the House with reference to the facts which govern the whole subsequent proceedings, and let me commence with the earliest date. On 13th August, 1763, in the instructions which were given by the Earl of Egremont to Governor Murray, we find these words : " Though the King has, in the 4th article of the Definitive Treaty, agreed to grant the ' Liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada ; ' and though His Majesty ia far from enter- taining the moBt distant thoughts of restraining his new Roman Catholic subjects from professing the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Komish Church, vet the condition expressed in the same article must always be remembered, viz. ;— ' As far as the laws of Great Britain permit :' which laws prohibit absolutely all popish hierarchy in any of the dominions belonging; to the Crown of Great Britain, and can only admit of a toleration of the exercise of that religion. This matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the Definitive Treaty. The French Ministers proposed to insert the words comme ci-devant in order that the Romish religion should continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their Government ; and they did not give up the point till they were plainly told that it would be deceiving them to admit those words, for the King had not the power to tolerate that religion in any other manner than ' as far ai the laws of Great Britain permit.' These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may arise on this subject ; but at the same time that I point out to you the neceuity of adnering to them, and of attend- ing with the ntmost vigilance to the behaviour of the Priests, the King relies on yoar acting with all proper caution and orudence.in regard to a matter of so delicate a nature as this of religion ; and that you will, as far as you can consistently with your duty in the execution of the laws and with the safety of the country, avoid everything that can give the least unneceaiary alarm or disgust tO' His Majesty's new subjects." That is the foundation of all the subsequent proceedinga We find in 176^ these instructions further given, and they are found in the.cpmr si on to the King's Receiver General, and read as follows : — " And whereas the lands of several religious societies in the said Province, particularly those- of the Society of the Jesuits, are, or will become, part of His Majesty's revenue, you are therefore I »^ VV ••'t'"" '. It!» A. Hitt ich wa4 te Pope. j)eopleB f Suuro- lutnbertt 1 1 right no mis- 5 of tho otticerH, and Mr. sither of tw. Sir i he was lity still ive been •t estab- Estates ! was no anxious i-»tory of conduct (sition — moment, ire to be ) remain ry under inued in n of the d to the govern earliest by the le ' Liberty Prom enter- prof eating condition , of Great B ))elongiiig I at religion, 'he French (ion should not give up rds, for the the laws of iHe on this i of attend- MSting with ligion : and rs and with disgust to- in 1765 si on to ilarly thoae- re therefore to •n«k*vi>r, by aartemantii to b« roada with the |i«rfiona intemtwl for the pr*aent in any of th« ■aid entatHM, t<> Ukc thf said cHtatt-ii into your uharKe. Kivinu « ■«een reproaented t<> Hia Majesty that tlie .Jemita of Canada make large remittanuea to Italy, and Dial fhey im|wr('v|>tilily dlininiMh thnir utTuctM for that |iiir|i-uiia« a vary eonNlderalde reaouron to tlie rrovince, in caau Hia Majnaty should be pleated to 'jent »he liberty of the ClathoHc religion to the inhabi- tants of (Jarada ; he will couHequentiv tfiv ' t>>j most eifeutual ordtira that hin new Roman I'atholio HubjeotH may profeas tlie wnrtihip of tneir religion according to the righta of the Roman Church aa far as the laws of Ureut liritain |>flrmit." : Now, wo all see the difficulty that at once arose. Tho laws of Great Britain at that time hardly pertnitted tho exercise of the Koman Catholic religion. The law officers of the Crown, however, decided that this was not to be treated , as a dead letter, but that full effect in every way must be given to the treaty. M The difficulty was in reconciling the exercise of tho Roman Catholic religion : with tho laws of Great Britain, which practically forbid the practice of that religion, and sr) the proposition is w.rked out. And how is it worked out? Sir James Marriott gave an opinion on this point as follows : — " Now, I consider that the laws and constitution of this Kingdom, iMTniit perfect freedom of the exercise of any religious worship in the colonies, hut not of all sorts ot doctrines, nor the mainten- ance of any foreign authority, civil or eccletiiaHtioal, which doctrines and authorities may affect the Hupremacy of the 0n)wn, or safety of your Majesty and tho realm ; for a very great ana necessary diotinctlon, as it appeals to mo, must lie taken between the profeHsion of the worship of the Homisn religion, according to the rites of it and its principles of churclt government. To u-*c the Fren word, the eulte, or foimx of worship or ritual, are totally distinct from those of its doctrines. The hrst can, may and ought, in my opinion, by good policy and justice to be tolerated, though the seb- ond cannot be tolerated. " Mr. Wedderburn, afterwards Loi-d Loughborourgh, gave an opinion on the ■ same subject. Speaking more especially in regard to the Jesuits, he said : " The establishment of the first (the Jesuits) is not only incompatible, .vith the constitution of an Kiiglish province, but with every other possible form of civil society. Uy the rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every government. * * • They are not owners of their estates but trustees for purposes dependent upon the pleasure of a foreigner, the General of their order. Three great Catholic states have, uj)on grounds of policy expelled them. It wotild be singular if the fir»t Protes- tant state in Europe Bhould protect.an establishment that ere now must have ceased in Canada had the French Government continued. • * • It is, therefore, equally just and expedient, in this in- Htance, to assert the sovereignty of the King and to declare the lauds of the Jesuits are vested in Mis -. Majesty, allowing at the same time to the Jesuits now residing in Canada liberal |)ensions out of the i, income of their estates." /j This opinion was reported by him, as one of the law officers of the Crown, V and the law officers of the Crown based upon it the foundation of what was ' afterwards embodied in regard to this subject in the Quebec Act. Then we find in the Quebec Act that while the religion of the inhabitants of the country was specially protected, that the religious communities were ex- cepted therefrom "and that they were left to be dealt with by the Crown, thereby leaving those matters just as they stood, — dependent on the con- quest, by virtue of that conquest and by virtue of the proclamation, leaving t matters exactly as they stood with regard to the religious communities, and dealt with the people of the country as distinct and separable from their re- ■ «i- ligious communities. Then let me read what was the outcome of the Quebec Act. It wa8 passed in 1774, and in 1775 express instructions are given to Guv Carleton, the Captain General and the Governor in Chief of the Province of Canada, and these arc the instructioDB : 4- .in >» i i.n m r,:-rw ^ su ,,m/!- " That the Society of JesuB be auppreued and diaiolved, and no longer be conUnned Im a Ibbdv corporate and politic, and all their rikhts, poMesgionK, and property ahall be vested in Ub, for auca purpoMS as we may hereafter think nt to direct or appoint ; bat we think fit to declare Our Royal intention to be, thk.>t the present members of the saia Society as eBtablished at Quebec, shall be al- lowed sunicient stipends and provisions during their natural fives." Now, can it be reasonably argued, that the Estates of the Jesuits did not vest and pa3s to the Crown, and were not held by the Crown ? I have spoken of this simply as j, lawyer, I have spoken of it simply upon the grounds and with reference to the authorities which I find. I otfer no opinion of my own about it, and I simply state facts as I find them. Let me follow up a little further and see what becomes of these estates. Sir James M irriott's opinion ts again invoked, but I will not trouble the House with thin long extract. Sufficient to say that it substantially agrees with his former opinion. In a few words, just to summarize what he states, he says : .''^ ' " Ii; a few words the Society of Jssus had not and cannot have any estate in Canada legally and completely vested in then; at any time, and therefore could not and cannot transfer the same be- fore nor after the term of eighteen months so as to make a good title to purchasers, either with or without the powers or ratification of the Father G^'^nerai who, as he could not retire, so he cannot re- tain any possessions in Canada, since the timt limited for the sales of estates there agreeably to the terms of the treaty ; because he is as incapable of becoming a British subject, as he was of beirg a French subject ; nor can the individuals of the communities of the Jesuits in Canada, take or trans- fer what the Father General cannot take or transfer ; nor can they, having bat one common stock with all other communiiies of their order in every part of the globe, hold immovable possessions, to be applied for the joint beneSt uf those communities which are resident in foreign states ; and which may become the enemies of His Majesty and the government." Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). — That is the third opinion as to how the estates are confiscated. Mr. McCarthy. — it is the third opinion. It is the same report to which I have referred, or rather it is the second opinion on this special ques- tion submitted to Sir James Marriott with regard to the Jesuits properties. Now, in 1770, General Amherst, then Lord Amherst, I believe, petitioned the Crown to be compensated for the services which he had rendered the country in the conquest of Canada out of these estates ; or rather he made a petition generally, and the King ordered and directed that the General should be compensated, and compensated out of the i). We have got things down to the period in w > Quebec given to Proviiice d M ft dbdv J», for such I Our Royftl Hhall b« ftl- ) did not I have upon the offer no em. Let ktes. Sir he House reos with states, he mada legally the sam* be- ither with or be cannot re- eeably to the as of beirg a ake or trans- ammon stock OHsessions, tu 1 ; and which he estates report to jcial ques- aroperties. tioned the le country a petition should be anly state )eyond all ue extract from the y duty to ould wish ehind me >le to treat J facts we fird that bate of the re- eligion of the I to remain in y religious yQ to state 5tweon the cular body ome dowr 3 period in which the Province was gmnted a Hpecies of representative government which continued up to the union of IHiO or 1841 ; and we Hnd, if we conault his- tory, that there was a loud protest against the King appropriating this pro- perty. It was no denial of his right, but it was against the wisdom and fairness anfl justice of his handing ovar this pro|»erty to the General who had conquered the country ; the allegation being put up then, and then, so far slu I know, for the first time, that this pro})erty had been Teally given to the Jesuits for the purpose, and in trust, for education. I think. Sir, that if you will consult Mr. Gameau's History, which I believe is the history most ac- ceptable to my hon. friends from the Province of Quebec, that it will be found as early as 1800 that that matter was brought prominently before the Legis- lature, and from that time out the agitation in that Wew was kept up so briskly and so successfully that in 1830 or in 1831 the Crown ceded and granted to the Province all these Jesuits' Estates for the express purpose for which it had been asked, and that was for the purpose of education. The Province accepted the tirast, the Province dealt with it on that footing ; and if I may read the first section of the Act, chapter 41, William IV., passed in 1832, we find that by an Act of the Province it was stated : " That all monies arising out of the estates of the late Order of Jesuits which now are in or mav hereafter come into the hands of the Receiver General, shall be applied to the purposes of edu- cation exclusively." Again, in 1846, 9 Victoria, chapter 69, another legislative declaration, this time by the united Provinces, says : " That the revenue and interests arising from the real or funded property forming part of the estates of the late Order of the Jesuits and now at the disposal of the Legislature for educational pui2x>se8 in Lower Canada, shall be, and are hereby declared to b« applicable to such purposes, and to no other.' And, finally in 1856, 19 and 20 Victoria, chapter 54, the legislation on the matter says : " The estates and property of the late Ortler nf the Jesuits, whether in possession or reversion, including ail sums funded or invested, or t<> be funded or invested as forming part thereof, are hereby appropriated for the purposes of this Act and shall form & fund to be called the Lower Canada Superior Education Investment Fund." I think if there ever was a title to an estate or property recognized by legis- lative action, clear in its origin, made more certain and more definite at every stage in which we find it cropping up from time to time, it is the title to the Jesuits' Estates. When we are asking His Excellency the Governor- 1 General to disallow this Act, when we are taking upon ourselves the respon- I sibility of saying yea or nay on that question, it is impossible that we can deny to ourselves the opportunity of scrutinizing every syllable and every letter in it ; and I find here : " The Act of the Legislature, 4*', Victoria, chapter 10, notwithstanding section 5 of the said Act, and notwithstanding any other Act to the contrary, shall apply to the said estates, the proceeds may be applied also, notwithstanding any Act to the contrarj', for the above mentioned purposes, or for any other purposes approved by the Legislature." So that this special property, set apart for education in the Province of Que- bec — not the education of the majority, to whom my friend behind me pays such humble court, but for all the people of the Province of Qr.ebec, the minority as well as the majority — has been swept away by this enactment ; Although, when the Premier was taxed in Quebec the other dav with the question, his answer was by no means such ae might have been expected, but was evasive, and not, I am afraid, altogether according to the record. If ever there was legislation which we could interfere with on such grounds, it is this ; — property given by the Crown, for the express purpose of the education of the people of the province ; property which remained for that Ipurpose from the year 1831, to the year 1888 ; property which a Parliament, [elected under an excitement of race and revenge, has decided should be taken iway from the minority, as well as the majority, and dedicated to other pur- I 10 ^ '1 rwe.s and other uhoh. Well, Sir, I say — and that is my first proposition — if have satisfied this House, that this property was public domain — and, if T am not able to satisfy the House of that, I am incapable of making any statement — then the proposition with which I started is mado out, that this Act uses Her Most Gracious Majesty's name as enacting that, her own estates, or the estates she had surrendered to the Province of Quebec, foi- the purposes of education, were not hers, not the Province's. All this history of tne past is to be blotted out ; it is to be all child's j)lay ; the Crown did not own, the Crown did not get, the Crown did not take, the Crown did not grant a rod, but went through a farce, when it dedicated the property for educational purposes, at first to the Province of Quebec, and again, to the United Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. All that was humbug, non- sence, child's play ; the property was all the time vested in either the Sov- ereign Pontiff, or in the Order of Jesuits ; and, as a result, the Pope is ap- plied to as the only authority which could authorize the disposal of this property which, most people had thought, belonged to the Crown, for per- mission to dispose of it. Let me do no injustice : let me read the words again : " Under these circumstanoeH, I deem it my duty to smV. Your Eminence if you me any seriuuM objection to the Government's selling the property, pendin)^ a Hnal Hettlement of the ((uestion of the Jesuits' Estates." If the Supremacy Act is in force, and whether it is in force or not, I hold it to be, and I believe it can be established to be, a well settled principle of in ternational law, that no foreign authority or power — I care not whether it be temporal or spiritual — can be allowod lo interfere with the affairs of an- other country or another state ; and if that be the rule of international law — as I think my hon. friends, if they choase to consult the authorities, will find it to be — how much more does that principle apply to the municipal law of the country, and to the law of Queen Elizabeth, which has been handed dowr and made especially applicable to this country by the Quebec Act of 1774. Now was it possible, I say, that such an Act of Parliament should be Bubmitted to His Excellency the Governor General, upon which he was to pass by the advice of his Minister of Justice, and that the Minister of Jus- tice should report on it — how ? Why, Sir, with a dozen other bills of no more consequence than an Act incorporating a joint stock company or a railway company — no explanation, no justification, no reasons given. I regret that I have not heard the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice. 1 may do him an injustice ; but I read here, that when an appeal was made from the Evangelical Alliance or some other body in Lower Canada — those people who my hon. friend says are willing that this legislation should stand — the hon. Minister of Justice reported that this was a " fiscal matter." Sir, 1 do not understand the Queen's English if this can properly be described as a fiscal matter. But so it passed before His Excellency, and upon that His Ex- cellency has acted ; and I trust the opportunity will be afforded to His Ex- cellency to reconsider that questioii| and sec whether Her Majesty's name is thus to be trailed in the dust, is thus to be dishonored, and whether this legislation should not disappear from our Statute books, whether it be pro- vincial or federal. Well, I assail this, not merely upon that ground, I assail it upon other grounds. Iljay that either this AcJt is unconstitutional, that it it ultra vires of the Province, that it ought to have been disallowed upon that ground, because it violates a fundamental principle of this country, that all religions are free and equal before the law ; or, if that be not so as a legal proposition, then. Sir, I claim that there should have been exercised that judfgment, that discretion, that policy, which would at once stamp out in whatever province it reared its head, the attempt which has been made hert' to < not spoi ser> thai it o: Pro a CI thai mat do \ refe ver} the Norl find pnnci Hiioh ;, direct ;jx)licy ;j' prefer '^praoti v these '. iTher ||xpref ■m.. 1! . u osition — if — and, if I laking any it, that tills , her own juebec, for his history Drown did wn did not operty for ,in, to the nbug, non- )r the Sov- ope is ap- 3sal of this n, for per- the words ea any seriuUH lueBtion of the )t, I hold it ciple of in whether it fairs of an- itional law ►rities, will nicipal law 3en handed bee Act of t should be he was to iter of Jus- of no more a railway regret that 1 may do e from the lose people stand — the Sir, 1 dc jribed as a lat His Ex- to His Ex- r's name is lether this it be pro- d. I assail jnal, that it i upon that •y, that all as a legal rcised that amp out in I made here to establish a kind of State Church amongst us. Sir, is that law or Is it not ? We find that in the good old days a Protestant Church had to be de- spoiled ; and for my part, Sir, I have never regretted that the Clergy Re- serven were secularized, and I do not believe that any one who belongs to that Church can say that that measure has proved injurious to it. It placed it on a footing of equality with the other religious bodies throughout the Provinces ; and I believe that Church has grown and prospered far more as a Church, holding no legal pretence of superiority over other religious bodies, than it would have done if it had continued to hold the Clergy Reserves, no matter how much wealth they might have added to its coffers. Now, what do we find in this Bill, enacted by the United Parliament of Canada — ^an Act referring to Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and so far as I know, to this very moment, the law of the Province of Quebec ? First, we do know that the laws of the Provinces which were in force at the time of the British North America Act, remained iu force until repealed. And what do we find : " WhereoH the recognition of legal eriuality among all religious denominationB in an admitted dlsli ■" " {irinciple of colonial legislation, i^nd whereas, in the state and condition of this Province, to which ,' iiuch a ]>rinciple is peculiarly applicable, it is desirable tlie same should receive the sanction of the ^I'direct legielative authority, recognuing and declaring the same as a fundamental principle of civil J policy. Therefore the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession, without aiscrimination or preference, so long as the same be not made an excuse for acts of maliciousnesH, or a justification of 'practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the Provinces, is, by the constitution and laws of /these Provinces, allowed to all Her Majesty's subjects therein." There is a legislative declaration of what every man who lives in this icountry has always understood to be the law. Does this enactment of the Province of Quebec violate that principle ? Is the grant of S4'00,000, to be idistributed under the sanction of His Holiness of Rome, not a grant of )ublic money to a particular Church ? I am not saying whether the Church lay or may not be the correct Church : I am simply speaking of the legal Iprinciple. I ask, how is thai ? Let me give you an answer from the books of the Legislature when the Clergy Reserves were secularized. What were those Reserves ? They were lands belonging to the Crown, held in trust lor the support and maintenance of the Protestant faith, and held to apply to the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. When these lands were secularized, it was declared that the Act was for the pur- pose of sweeping away the last vestige of connection between Church and Btate. The holding of these lands by the Crown for this purpose formed a connecting link between Church and State, which Parliament stated should be swept away, which the representatives of the Province of Quebec joined Ivith those from the other Provinces in saying should be swept away. Will iny man of common sense tell me that this grant of $400,000, given, as it is given, is not a recognHion of ChUrch and State ? How is it given ? ,i, "The aforesaid arrangements, entered into between the Premier and the Verjr Reverenil Fathelr Turgeon, are hereby ratified, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorized to carry them <|rit according to their form and tenor. "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorized t• "The constitutionM have two faces, beoanse they were formed Intb' two intentions— On the one side for the trlory of Qod and the salvation of souls ; and on the other side, for the glory of the Society and its future extension. This causes the difference of opinion concerning them. Their admirers look only at the first aspect, and their detractors see only the second." Now I think that statement was one I was bound to make, because I am ot at all here as a Protestant bigot, I do not pretend to make any tatement as a Protestant. I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) speak as a Protestant. I do not speak as a Protes- tant. I speak as a representative of my constituency, entitled to discuss all subjects that are presented here, and without 9ffence, as I trust I am doing on this occasion, to the feelings of any hon. member of this House. Now, let me give a slight idea of their organization, of the vows which they take, of the obedience which their doctrine inculcates, and which they are always willing to render. I will show what is said of them in modern times, because I have been told, and I admit the fact, that it is not fair to judge y order or body of men by their history of two or three hundred years o. But I think I will be able to show that, down to a very recent period, here is in this body no change nor shadow of turning, that it is their boast that they are, and will continue, as long as they exist, to be under the same rules that the founder of the Order, now the sainted Ignatius, established for them. Now, le^, us see what is said of them by comparatively recent writers, I regret that our library does not afford a very full catalogue of works in regard to this subject, and I have been compelled to rely upon authorities writing 20 or 25 years ago. I will read such as I have, and the House will be able to judge of their pertinence to the Order at present. Mr. Ga,rnier says : "They know but one law, one faith, one morality. That law, faith, and morality, they call : authority. To a Superior they submit life and conscience. To their Order they sacrifice individual- i ity. They are neither Frenchmen, Italians, Germans nor Spanisords. They are not citizens of any ; country. Ttej^ are Jesuits only. They have but one family, one forttlme koA one end ; and all I theqe atre included in the word Community/' , Mr. LANDERKIN.— A regular Tory Order. I 16 t.f ,«,«r.' Ml. Mc'C'ARTH Y. — Very much like that : that in the only reaflon tlio hon. jLfontiuiiiaii dooH not helon/^ to them, I am afraid. 1 am now quoting from the Qimrt«rly Hemevj, and if hon. gentlemen will take the trouhlo to roatl that article, and it in a fair critit^Hm, ho far aH I am capable of judging, of tlio works of the JoHuitH and the Jesuit writintfs which were under review, 1 think they will he satiHtied. In the QaarterTy Ueview of 1874 J wan very glad to tind that the popular delusion as to the poisoning of the Pope who disgolved the Order, was exploded by the writer. Down to a very recent perioti indeed, this has been believed and even reasserted on the authority of a high and distinguished German doctor, who wrote in 1872, and stateil on what appeared to be undoubted authority that Pope dement the 'J'hirteenth nad been poisoned by what appeared to be that Order. Some hon. MEMBER8.~0h, oh ! Mr. McCarthy. — I say that a German doctor said so, and that this English authority in 1874 exploded that doctrine and showed that it did not rest on any solid foundation. 1 was very glad, and I am sure any hoa gentleman will be glad to find that that is so. But the author who dealt with the Jesuits in that impartial spirit may, perhaps, be entitled to some credence, when he depicts, as he does in the foflowing year, some doctrines held by the Order. He endeavors to establish, and in my humble judgment, he does establish, that the three principles upon which the Order is estab- lished are pro bablism, mental reservation, and that the end justifies the means. To argue tnat, would involve an inquiry foreign perhaps to this discussion. I am merely stating the conclusion at which the writer arrived, and every hon. member can form his own opinion as to whether that opinion is well or ill-founded. But, in practical matters, let us see what this Order lays down. First, as to the duties of a judge, the writer says : ,^ j„ ,^^ , ,, " We are told, also, it in b^ no means decided that a judge is bound never to aocept money gift* from H party to a nuit before him. If the gift were proffered with the view of inilueiicinK a pros- pectin judgment, contrary to justice, the jud^e should, indeed, sternly refuse acceptance ; 'but, the sentence having been already pronounced, it is a matter of controversy ' whether he may not retain what might then seem a mere offering of gratitude from one benefitM by the delivered len- tence, even when this had been contrary to justice. Decisions of this character subvert fundamental notions aH to right and wrong. Let us take the case of a person knowing all about a theft and accept- ing h\i8h-money from the guilty party. According to received ideas, the compact would be criminal. Father (rury, however, decides that, 2^>^vided the i)erBon bribed be not ex-omrw bound to give infor- mation, the bargain would be iiuite lawful, ' as without injustice he mi^ht keep silence about the thief, in deference to his entreaties * • * therefore, espari, without injustice, silence might be observed in deference to giftH given or promised.' " I need not tell the hon. gentlemen who have paid any attention to the sub- ject that Father Gury is a comparatively modern writer, that his works were published under the authority of the Propaganda, and therefore under the highest authority, and his worses are for morals, for teaching in the schools, and for the guidance of those who desire instruction of this kind. So far in regard to the judges. But there is also a law for witnesses, and the law for witnesses is even more dangerous than the law laid down for the judges. The writer says : v-Ki ■) ui'MUni,.. H. " The first point laid down is, that no obligation to make reparation can attach to any one who has given false witness from invincible ignorance, inadvertance, or delnsion, a proposition which, though not wholly free from objections, we will not canvass. But Father Gury proceeds to consider the case of one who, with the view of supplying deeds that have been lost, and of promoting the success of indisputable right (the indisputableness of such right being left to the Hubjective test of individual appreciation), either reproduces, that is, forges, or tamiMrs with a writing, a chirograph, or a deed of aokuowled^'ement ; and he concludes that, though a person acting thus, ' would, indeed, sin veniaily on the stiore of a lie, the document produceid not being the authentic one, on the strength of which judgement should rest ; and thought he might possibly incur a grave sin against charity toward himself by exposing his person to imminent peril of very severe penalties in the likely event of detection ; nevertheless he would be free from all sin against mutual justice, and would consequently stand absolved from all obligations to make restitution.' " Mr. CURRAN. — Will the hon. gentleman give the authority ? Mr. McCarthy. — I am quoting from the QiMrterly Review of 1875. Mr. DESJARDINS.— Who is the writer ? *i! HB'UfflWlN'^ I ^1 ^H ^KmstmBT 1 tlio lion, biii^ from lo U) roa iicing a proa- tance ; ' but, r he mav not lelivered sen- fundamental t and aooept- b« criminal. t<) give infor- ice about the nee miglit be the sub- his works ore under ing in the this kind. esaes, and vn for the h to any one a proposition y prooeedfi to ioBt, and of left to the Eupeni with a ugh a person Bed not being ight possibly peril of very from all sin JDB to make of 1875. 1?» Mr. McCarthy.— I cannot tell. Mr. CURRAN. — Has the hon. gentleman consulted Father Oury in the original ? Mr. McCarthy. — I leave that for the hon. gentleman to do. I do not suppose a writer in a great magazine like the Quarterly Review mis- represents Father («ury ; if the hon. gentleman thinks so, I rather imagine he will find himself mistaken. If he will take the trouble to read the article, which was not written in a spirit of hostility but rather of inquiry for the truth, I shall be glad. I nave now done with that part of the •ubject. But I think there are people in this country, the fair sex, who ought to be protected. It seems there is a rule, a law for them also, and that breach of promise is not an improper act in certain events and in certain cases. The writer says : " In the matter of plighted troth we learn from Ouiy ' that he who has sworn it to a girl, ricli •nd healthy * * is nut boimd by his oath should she happen to have become poor or fallen into bad health. Again we are informed that a probable opinior, countenanced bv St. Liguori, would •Unw an engagement to be broken off if a ' fat inheritance ' ^iiould accrue, seriously mmiifying the utatus as to fortune of either party, and the case is t^^us illustrated : ' Edmund has betrotbeU him ■elf tu IleluD, a. girl of the same station and fortunt vs his own. As hi> was on the very point of celebrating his wedding, he acquired a fat inheritance from a deceased uncln. Wherefore, he repudiates Helen, tliat he may marry another with a fortune to match. It seems that Edmund should not be disturbed for thin. Jiltin^^ is no infre(iuent practice, but it is striking to find it justified in a handbook uf morals, whenever ' faith could be kept only by the surrender of a big advantage which wotild be tantKmjunt to great loss.' " That is a comfortable doctrine for one side, but rather uncomfortable for the other. .'>... •ki ii!.»Kr'>t i-i-n"* -; • -1. i. » u<.' •ir^r '•0! I Mr. MITCHELL.— Tt is hard on the girls. Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, as my hon. friend says, it is hard on the girls. I will pass over tht, next extract in consideration for the galleries. If this is anything like a proper statement of the moral teaching of the Order, I hardly think it is one that ought not to be bonussed, to use a familiar term, by any of our Local Legislatures. But what as regards the history of this Order ? Is it disputed as an historical fact that they are responsible for the expulsion of the Huguenots ? I trow not ,■, ^ '•.' * '■•: > Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec).— It is disputed. Mr. McCarthy. — l am astonished to learn it ; 1 thought it would not be disputed. Is it doubted that they counselled and brought about the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Is it doubted that they were responsible for the causing of the Thirty Years' War ? Is it seriously open to question that they had much to do with causing the Franco-German War ? Of course, those hon. gentlemen who will not believe anything against the Jesuits will not believe that, but there is weighty evidence to show that they were concerned in precipitating that war, which, as we all know, occurred in comparatively modern times. Mr. BERGERON.— In whose interest ? Mr. McCarthy. — in the interest of the order and body to which they belong, in the interest of the church, of which they are the light horse, the 'Cossacks, the advanced guard. Now, I suppose Cardinal Manning's state- ment with regard to them will not be denied to be, at all events, an authentic 'istatement ; and Cardinal Manning, in his book of sermons published by 'Duffy of Paternoster Row, at page 187, says, writing of the Jesuit Order : " That it embodies the character of its founder, that the same energy, perseverance and -•ndurance, it is his own presence still prolonged, the same perpetuated order, even in the spirit and manner of its working, fixed, uniform and changeless." ._That is within the life of the distinguished prelate who speaks of them as being the same as they were 300 years ago. Mr. BERGERON.— We do not deny that Mr. McCarthy.— No person will deny th^t Then, it is useless to lontinue the argument, it is useless to make citations; but I do think lb that their expulsion from France in 1880 would bo of Interest to ray hon. friends, and that it would not have been altogether treated an of no con- sequence. It is strictly true that France is now a Republic, enjoying a free (iovemment, but it is perfectly clear that the JeHuitfl wore expelled, and the j^'entleman who had charge of the educational department in Franco put forward those grounds for the reason for their expulsion. If I citufrom past history I will be told, " Oh, the Order may have been changed," and if I cito from modem days I dare say that there will l)e some other answer, but I do say this, and I think we ought all to be willing to accept it, that everybody else cannot always have been in the v rung, and the Jesuits always in the right. They have been expelled from every country time and time again. ^' ' Mr. BEROKRON. — But they are back again, ^■nvt'tt] i. j-v ; . 'jif; Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, they arc back ajj^ain. 'i > >' )• 'J. f*' Mr. AMYOT. — They were not expelled from Russia. ' " " Mr. McCarthy. — They were, and I will give the hon. gentleman the date of their expulsion. Having been expelled from Russia and Prussia they found a harbor of refuge in that country after being suppressed by the Sovereign Pontiff, and, having lived there under the protection of that Gov- ernment, the education and training of those whom they brought up were found incompatible, as they were found elsewhere and must always be found, according to their teachings, incompatible with any Government or any organized condition of society. These are the reasons which made not only the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia necessary, but also brought about, as we find, the putting an end to " the concordat" which, up to a certain time, had existed between the Court of St. Petersburg and the Sovereign Pontiff at Rome. I will refer to what M. Ferry said, in introduc- ing this measure in France for the expulsion of the Jesuits, and I am not going to read it all, but just one or two particulars, because I do not care to deal with what may be termed even remotely the religious aspect of the question. I want to treat this simply from the position of state, whether, as a matter of statesmanship, as a matter of policy, it was proper tu have permitted this Act to remain in force, or whether it is not proper and right that this Acl should still be vetoed. The measure in the French Chamber, as explained, is chiefly directed against the Jesuits on the ground that "they are the enemies of the state, that their teachings are in opposition to the principles of government, and would suppress all freedom of education." Many other reasons were given against the Jesuits by M. Ferry, and the following among the rest. He quoted the decree of the Parliament of 1826 which recites : (..mv" ■ -■' ■■ " ■ . v , —i.^ ■ . > — ^ «' " That the edicts by whicH'the Jesuiti had beeh baninlied and dfMAlved, were founded upon the recognized incompatibility of their principles with the independence of every Government." Mr. BERGERON. — What are you reading from ? Mr. McCarthy. — I am reading from the published report of the debates that took place in Paris at the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits. Mr. MULOCK.— What report is it ? Mr. McCarthy. — it is a condensation of the report of the debates. M. Ferry then goes on to say, from the statement of the Archbishop of Paris, Mg. Darboy : "That the JeRiiits were neither subjoct to the jurisdiction of the Dioceianf, nor obedient to tke laws of the State." ,.; j, „>. j; ,,, „, ^i., And further : ' " That the State is, in t.emporal matters, lubordinate to the Churofa, and baa only the authority which an inferior tribunal pi ssesses, for confirminir the aentence of the luperior ; that in queHtiona of marriage, burial, institutionn for charitable purposes, liberty of conscience, and questions of the moral law, the spiritual power may intervene to correct or annul the civil laws. Further, M. Ferry quoted from some passages from public works, showing: 19 ray hon. f no con- ing a free 1, and the 'ance put from past J if I cito , but I do very body yH in the Q again. leman the um'itL they 3d by the that Oov- b up were ilways be •nment or made not o brought li, up to a ^ and the introduc- I am not o not care ect of the whether, sr to have and riglit Chamber, hat "they ion to the ducation." and the ht of 1826 detl upon the nt." ►rt of the 10 Jesuits. e debates, bishop of >erka tlittinot- lly taught th« divine riglit of kingii, aud advocated the trarryinir on <>( rellKioui wan. Thev attacked Itnu Rovohiti.'M, :>iid Klorilicd t)it« revocation of the Kdiot of Nantea ; they cahiuiinatitd Iseoker ami [I'urgoi ; they rejected the pHiifi|>ie of thn national •overeignty, and they tauifht that Franre waa l>Mt«n in the late war hetiaiue the ha were condeuiord, ftnd thf Htierty ofthe preaa waa aaaerte time of their expulsion from France, in 1762. when was asked of them to change their mode of carrying on operations, and rhen the answer was : " We must continue to be as we are or cease to ex- ^t." I say that when those things are considered ; this evidence of a state- lent made by the Pontiti" with full knowledge of all the circumstances it is ipoHsible to displace ; there is no way of getting rid of that evidence. It mnot be impugned by the members of the church of which the Pontitf re- jiTcd to was a distinguished ornament. It cannot be impugned by any mdid person, because the character of Pope Clement was of the very liigh- st order and ho stood conspicuously above his compeers. Now, a list was [ven — and, therefore, I need not repent it — of the expulsion of the Jesuitf- )m various countries. It is not to be lost sight of that they were expelled )m Germany in 1872. They had been admitted into Prussia by Frederick [. and why were they expelled ? It seems to me that the reason for their fpulsion is particularly applicable to our position here, for there was in mt country a mixed community of Protestants and Catholics. The Jesuits ^ere admitted to that country, the corporation having been dissolved and ley having been sent about their business by a decree to which I have re- rred, and having obtained a foothold in Prussia, what was the result? It me read : "But in North Germany they became very powerful, owing: to the footing Frederick II. had given 1 in Pruaaia, AHpecially in the Rhine Provincea ; knd gradually moulding the yo«uger generation eir own expulsion. " ' Now, Sir, I have done with the extracts which I propose to make upon iiiat subject, and I come to the more important part of the subject under con- g&deration. It may be that all I have urged is true, and that yet if this lljlatter — I am arguing it now, of course, upon that theory — was in the llgislative competence of the Province, it ought still to remain as law. I wl venture, Sir, to ask the House seriously to consider the position in which we stand. The worship of what is called local autonomy, which some gen- tlemen have become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, with great evil ijl the Dominion. Our allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The ration into Provinces, the right of local self-government which we possess not to make us less citdzens of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious the promotion of the welfare of the Dominion ; and it is no argument to IQ say that V)ecauae n certain piece o' lo^iHlation in within the power of a Local Parliament, thun-fore tho legiulatio.t in not to be dixturbod. Ky the same Act of Parliament, by whicti power i« conferred upon the Local Legislature, tho duty and power — because where there in power there is a cornwpondin^ duty — are cant upon the Qovornor*in-Councii to revise and review the act^ of the legislative btMlieH. 'Dio LogislaturcH are not to be at lilierty to run in different directions, to promote in one Province one nationality and one church, and in another iVovince another nationality xnd another church, oi in any other way to run counter, because such courses must inevitably brinj^' about the dinsolution of Confederation. It is not becau.se a Province is kept in chock, it is not because its legislation is vetoed, that there m danger to out flystem. We can impose no law upon a Province ; it is merely a negativ*> {)ower which the central Government posaesaes — a power to prevent evil awM, in the sense which I speak, in the wider tield of the Dominion, viewer(li i St r of a Local le name Act ilature, ih«' Ttwponciini; iw tlio acti y to run in ,y and on*' church, oi ia\)\y brin^r incu iH kopt uiger to out a negativ«> rovent evil ion, vieweil ently, wiao- x^ercised by from We«t le principle mce or di»- I contidenc«! ity for this ) 8aieguar spent there, although 1 do not know low that is to bo seen to. I tiiid no machinery for ascertaining how the loney is to be expended ; but, assuming that the money is to i)e sp»'nt there in good faith, it only strengthens the Onler for incursions beyon«l the )rdor. We know that some of its members — some of the very same gen- |l(>inen, I believe, who have lieen incorporated — do sometimes visit the Pro- vince of Ontario. It is idle, therelon;, to say that you can establish suoh In Order as that , and that it is not a matter of common concern to tl>e astof theOominion. "■*•'• '■ "•*^- "»h •',„•.. -^ -, u.»,,^..^ *-. - M r. AM YOT.-- Do you objeci to them T Mr. McCarthy. — I decidedly object to them, or I would not be stand- ig here. Mr. REROERON.— They are Eriti.sh subjects. ', • —' ' *• ' -;■ Mr. McCARTHY.^Yes, I believe in this country they are ;' Init, as I |avo already pointed out, the whole body, numbering perhaps 20,000 men, incorporated by this little Bill of the Province of Quebec. The very rords of the Bill are,; " All who now are or may be of that Order." I have [card it said, Oh, you nie too late. Where were you when the Incorpora- |on Act was under consideration ? Why did you not raise your voice tnen? 'hy did not the Protestants then strike at the root of the evil ? I do nat pnow, though I am pretty familiar with what is called the doctrine of itoppel, that any such doctrine can be applied to a people. I am not iware that the laches of a Govemmont 1 have supported, or that the laches )f lion, gentlemen on either side, are to prevent the people from objecting, lyen if it be too late to object to the Act of Incorporation, to the Act of Endowment, honored by the official seal of the Legislature of the Province kf Quebec. In ray judgment the Act of Incorporation amounted to very Utle. The Jesuit body claimed to be incorporated before, an/ they did not [retcnd to get incorj)oration except for the purpose of holding lands in the Trovince. They claimed to be incorporated under the revival of the Order the Pope in 1814, and the only object of their incorporation by the Act Fas to enable them to hold real estate, which is a matter not particularly )nceming the rest of the Dominion. What does strike me, what has roused le people of the Province from which I have the honor to come, as they Lve never been aroused in my time, is that one of the Provinces has lought fit to recognize by its legislation and its grant of public money, the ^rdor which they have been brought up to oppose, their experience of l^hich in later years has strengthened their early training in that respect. it the work of politicians ? I think in that it is unique in itc character. believe on no platform, in no place, has the voice of any pub^lic ;nan in the Vovince been raised in promoting this agitation. It had come from the Bople. It is promoted, not by trie so called professiontil politician or any wlitician, but by the people. By the people it U supj^rted, by the people il is maintained, and by the people it is bound to succeed, be it sooner or later. This is not going to end the coixtroversy. The controve»^y, as it is i|iid, has come to stay. The principle which the Bill involves, and which lis measure has drawn attention to, is perhaps the ooa which excites na- irally the n-eatest indignation, and has (itilled forth the greatest iagitation. is impossible to Ixslieve that the men who are at the bottom of this agi- I 22 tation are moved by any particular purpose, or particular view, or particu- lar aggrandizement I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Kykert) denounce these men. They were, he said, mere ministers. Principal Caven^ a teacher of the Presbyterian body, a man with whom 1 have not the honor of personal acquaintance, a man who, so far as I know, in politics differs from me, but a man who, so far as I have heard, is entitled to the respect of every citizen where he lives and is known. Dr. Stafford, who ministered in this city for many years — men of that description are not thus lightly to be spoken of and sneored at because they have stej ped out from the oidinary walk of their calling, and gone on the platform to up-' hold what they believe to be the lights of the citizens. I submit instead of that being a subject of sreering, insteeul of its being a subjeet which would call for the condemnation of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Rykert), it in the best tribute to their sincerity. This spontaneous exhibition on the = part of the people is genuine and heartfelt, because it is really intended and really meant. Now, these are the reasons why the Government should disallow this measure. I have but one other, which I spoke of before, and it is the question of religious equality. I listened with rapt attention to the — will I call it plaintive — appeal made by my hon. friend behind me. There is no censure, he said, which you c»n make upon this occasion, which will not fall with ten-fold forca upon the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec. Nothing that you can say here can remedy tne laches j which the Protestant minority displayed in not opposing the majority. I am not here to explain the cause of these laches. I do think we need not , go very far for the reason, and I dare say before this debate closes we will i learn it ; and I call upon hon. members who represent the Protestant con- stituencies in Quebec, to tell us whether they accept the doctrine of my hon. friend behind me. I ask the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Scriver), I - call on the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Fisher), I call on the hon. member | for Argenteuil (Mr. Wilson) to let us in Ontario understand whether there f is the turtle dove peacefulness existing between the Protestant minority ^ and the Catholic majority in the Province of Quebec which the hon. mem- ber for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) depicted last night. I call on them to state whether there is nothing but billing and cooing between these separate and distinctive parts into which that Province is divided. My hon, friend's language would seem to imply Ihat. The Protestants enjoyed e/ery Pro- testant liberty — really they were allowed to manage their own little Pro- testant affairs as if there were no majority at all. They were in no way | thwarted, interfered with, or troubled by this majority, but the instances he '' cited to us of this spirit of toleration on the part of the majority were, to I can my mind, unfortunate and unhappy. Mr. Joly was one. He was, I believe, l^"'*- the leader ot the Liberal party, as my hon. friend has stated, but has my feient hon. friend forgotten modern history ? Has he forgotten that Mr. Jolj'^ was deposed from his position, or resigned, because of the impossibity of acting with the majority. Has he forgotten that Mr. Joly actually resigned his seat, and that jpractically he was driven out of public life ? Mr. LAURlER. — He was always opposed to the minority. Mr. McOAR-HY. — Well, so much the worse for that minority, I say that minority has no reason to plume itself upon Mr. Joly's successor. Those who opposed him in former times must certainly now look back with regret. ; , Mr. MITCHELL. — ^You mear Chapleau, Ross and the others. You can- not mean Mercier also. Mr. McCarthy. — I do not mean you, and that ought to be quite suiii- 28 ', or particu- r for Lincoln '6 ministers, rith whom 1 r as I know, d, is entitled Dr. Staffcrd, )tion are not I stejpedout form to up- lit instead of i^hich would Elykert), it is tion on the lly intended ment should i before, and pt attention I behind me. asion, which )rity of the ly the laches majority. I we need not loses we will (testant con- eof myhon. r. Scriver), I ton. member whether there mt minority hon. mem- lem to stake separate and lion, friend's 1 p /ery Pro- X little Pro- e in no way instances he )rity were, to as, I believe, but has my \fr. Jolj'^ was ty of acting resigned his ority, I say 's succesmor. k back with s. You can- )e quite sufli- ell), nor do I even mean his orfi^an, the Herald. Another example cited was the Pro- testant paper, the Witness. The Witness had never said anythinjf. I do not know how that may be. But is it true that the Witness was excom- municated and remains still under the ban of the Church ? Is it not true that the people ©f a certain religion caimot buy the Witness newspaper, un- der the pains and penalties that may follow thereon ? That did not seem a very happy way of manifesting the toleration of the majority of the Province of Quebec. At last my hon. friend's argument ( ulminated — will he pardon the word — in what appeared to me the acme of absurdity, when he said the "rotestants recognized no right in the Jesuits of a legal kind. The Protest- nts disclaim that there is any moral claim. The Protestants were opposed o the introduction of the name of His Holiness the Pope as — did he use the ord pestiferous ? Or what was the word almost as strong — a bitter pill for hem to swallow. But they did not do anything. The act took away from hem their education fund. By one short clause it is declared that the edu- tion fund hitherto belonging to Protestants and Cathoiics alike shall be- ome a part of the general revenue of the country, and that out of the gen- ral revenue of the country the $60,000 might be. paid to the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec ; and not one word was raised against his Act of spoliation. Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec).— Where is that to be Inund? ■>• .--■ ' Mr. McCarthy. — in the latter part of the Act, if tho hon. gentleman ill read it. ....... . Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec).— I have not seen it. • ' ':■>.' ' Mr. McCarthy. — I cannot make the hon. gentleman read it. And ere is not one word from the Protestant minority. It is easy to understand ow they get on, as they say, if they submit to ail that injustice without a ord of remonstrance. It is easy to understand how happy they can be if e Protestant minority are willing simply to take what they can get, a seat ere occupied by my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colby), with a seat in e other House given to the representative of the majority. My hon. friend Us us that no Protestant can be elected in the Provinse if the majority osa If the Protestants come here from that Province only to carry out e behests of the other side, they are a deception. We do not realize their osition, because we understand that they are representing the minority, but appears that they are truly the representatives of the majority, and we e told that, if this cry is raised, if this body is assailed, if we venture to ise our voices in this Parliament we are going to rt^ise such a cry that the rrotestant representatives from the Province of Quebec will lose their seats. I cannot believe that it is possible. I cannot believe that my hon. friend is ll^hu in thinking so ; but even at that expense, even at the loss of my hon. 'lend from this House, which, together with that of other members, would a calamity to the country, though I cannot believe that that would be the suit of a fair, full, frank and calm discussion of the subject, although it is \e which trenches upon feelings which are guarded most sensitively, still at would have to be borne. For these reasons, I venture to think, it will t be found that my hon. friend's statements are ftrrect. As he made the itement, my eye caught the report in the newspaper thet petitions were ting signed in the city of Montreal, that already 3,000 names L id been tained to those petitions, and that more were coming in — ^petitions to the Qoyemor-General, calling upon him to disallow this measure. Does this look W if the Protestants of the Province of Quebec were desirous, and willing, j|pd anxious that this legislation should remain unchanged ; or does it not ^'em that if the Protestant minority in that I^rovince were given reason- le encouragement, that they would get justice— and n^ more than justice m. 24 w h are they entitled to, and no more than justice I hope they will ever ask for — from the Parliament of this country — that then they would be up and do- ing, to take their part in the Lcnslature ; but in the Legislature of that Province, composed as it is now, tney cannot expect it. There was no Pro- testant representative in the Cabinet of that Province until recently, and, when one was chosen, he had to be elected in spite of the Protestant min- ority. I can understand that, if there were a fighting man in the House like the hon. member who leads tUB Third party here, there might be a chance of obtaining something like justice, but men with that skill and ability, with parliamentary knowledge to back it, are not to be found every day, and we are not to judge the Protestant representatives of the Province of Quebec on that high standard. We were told that the Herald had not said anything about this iniquitous scheme, though the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mitchell) said that if he had been there he would not have approved of it. I have not heard anyone approve of it. It has gone without defence. The hon. gen- tleman from Stanstead (Mr. Colby) does not approve of it. Perhaps my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr Rykert) does approve of it, in his great desire to have perfect religious liberty, and not to drive the French out of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) candidly told us that he would not have ap- proved of it. Then, what muzzled the great organ of public opinion ? Was it because it was the organ of the Government ? At one time that was the organ of the Protestants of the Province of Quebec. i .>iA Mr. MITCHELL — I wUl tell the hon. gentleman, if he wishes to know Mr. McCARTHY.^I will let the hon. gentleman tell me when I get through. Perhaps then you will allow me to ask you' a question or two. ! ■ Mr. MITCHELL. — I will give you perfect liberty, iw wi« lorr a^ • Mr. McCarthy. — I think we are encouraged to pereeverein the course we have pursued, and the course we have taken, by the ebullition of popular feeling which we now see is aroused and is manifesting itself in the Province of Quebec. It cannot now be said that it is only the members from Ontario who have raised this cry, and who are seeking for this disallowance. Mr. MITCHELL.— That is all it is. Mr. McCarthy. — ^Then the petitions are very extraordinary, and I can hardly accept the contradiction of my hon. friend in the face of these peti- i tions. I cannot do better than close in the language of Principal Caven. I i adopt every word which that distinguished gentleman uttered the other even- ! ing in reference to the question of disallowance. Speaking on this question, he says: i.^Vl rfwi " He was quite willing to admit that within their own SaXtm VLi^* the antouomy of the Pro- vinces ought to be respected. Under the Act of Federation certain subjects were designated as be- longing to the Dominion, and certain subjects were named as within the jurisdiction of the several Provinces, aud while he had never committed himself to the principle, as a uidi^eTt!al pHnciple, tiiat the central authority could not revise the Acts of the Provinces that were fHtbin tlieir own limits ; | while he distirotly desired not to be committed to that principle ; while he d^hold that as a general j thing it was a safe and wise principle, as long as the Province has kept fairly and definitely within its own limits, even though its action is not the wisest action, that tne central authority snonld be very careful about revising it — he believed that occasions did arise when i^ was not simply permitted to the central authonty. out that it was the bounden duty of the central authority to revise pro- vincial legislation, legislation lyiag distinctly within the limits of the Provinces. He aupposed on most subjects he would be regax^ed as thinking wit', the Liberal party, but if tije Idberal party had even taken ground in opposition to thnt he must beg to be excused from foilowfilig the Liberal party. He supposed that was a Dold thing for a man who was neither lawyer nor poUtioian to say, but was | prepared to take the |[round that the Jesuits' Estates Act was not within the limits of the Province of Quebec. So far as it dealt with education it was within those limits, so far as it dealt with monev it was within those limits^ bat he thought he could show tliat it was mmced b^ featores vriliich took it out of those limits, and made it a matter that the Dominion ought to d«al with." 4;^*' ;h Dalton McCarthy's i*ply to Sir Jtfhn Thompson's speeeh will be added j to the second edition, Which will be ready in a few days. ^er ask for up and do- ire of that 'OH no Pro- ently, and, 3st&nt min- the House be a chance .bility, with ay, and we Quebec on d anything tchell) said I have not le hjn. gen- aps my hon. at desire to of Canada, ot have ap- lion ? Was iat was the les to know. | when I get n or two. n the course Q of popular he Province rom Ontario ance. ry, and I can these peti-i 1,1 Caven. I i other even- tiis question, >my of the Pro- Usignattd m be- 1 of the several il principle, that leir own limits ; hat as a general lefinitelT within , tiority should be Imply permitted S' to revise pto- e HUpposed on I dberal party had | lie Liberal party. I to say, but was of the Province lealt with monev Aires which took vrill be added 1